Public Atheist Monument Across from 10 Commandments

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by windword

 

No one is trying to stop this group, the "Men's Christian Fellowship", from expressing their beliefs or putting up billboards or monuments. They just need to do so on private property, not public property. Public property is owned by the people, ie the government, and the government doesn't endorse or promote any religion.

The 10 Commandments are a religious document that declares it is God's final word. It isn't.

Would you say the same if an atheist monument or billboard were placed on public ground? Is this really about legal red tape, or your personal feelings towards religion?

There is an atheist monument being put on public property, for the very first time EVER in the USA! That's what this thread is about.

What is it about the atheist's monument that YOU find so offensive?

reply to post by windword

There is an atheist monument being put on public property, for the very first time EVER in the USA! That's what this thread is about.

What is it about the atheist's monument that YOU find so offensive?

If you read all of my posts in this thread, you will find that I have quite clearly stated my support for both monuments. I am questioning your distaste for the Christian monument, since you don't seem to care about the atheist one.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by windword

 

But the 10 Commandments in public schools or in courtrooms is a step too far. IMO

But we can teach the tenets of almost every other religion, right? I mean, Hinduism and Nordic and Aztec and Greek and Roman religions are all taught, right? We have no problem mentioning Zeus or Odin or Loki or Quetzlcoatl or Shiva, right? So what's wrong with including Christianity in the cultural curriculum?

My history classes included parts of Christianity especially during the roman times. I do not remember being taught to worshiper Zues or how to practice Hinduism so I do not see your point nor do I think it is valid.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by windword

 

But the 10 Commandments in public schools or in courtrooms is a step too far. IMO

But we can teach the tenets of almost every other religion, right? I mean, Hinduism and Nordic and Aztec and Greek and Roman religions are all taught, right? We have no problem mentioning Zeus or Odin or Loki or Quetzlcoatl or Shiva, right? So what's wrong with including Christianity in the cultural curriculum?

It is! Where is your source that Christianity is excluded from any class curriculum in world religion? If there is a class on Greek Mythology, do you think that the Bible is being excluded?

Most of World History in high school, as I remember it, was Christian inclusive. But the classes didn't teach Christianity as a truth.

reply to post by Grimpachi

My history classes included parts of Christianity especially during the roman times. I do not remember being taught to worshipers or how to practice Hinduism so I do not see your point nor do I think it is valid.

If you read the post I was responding to, you should see quite clearly how my post was relevant. And I don't care if you think my point is valid, I'm still making it. I don't see how including the word "God" in the pledge of allegiance or being able to discuss "God" in schools is offensive when they are required to take classes that teach about Zeus and Odin and Quetzlcoatl and Osiris and Anubis and the like, all of which are deities. There's at least five different religions taught as part of cultural education, and they don't include Christianity except in private schools. The public schools in my area certainly don't. And even something so simple as including a god in the pledge of allegiance, when it's the flag we are addressing, raises hackles.

It seems rather unbalanced.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by windword

 

There is an atheist monument being put on public property, for the very first time EVER in the USA! That's what this thread is about.

What is it about the atheist's monument that YOU find so offensive?

If you read all of my posts in this thread, you will find that I have quite clearly stated my support for both monuments. I am questioning your distaste for the Christian monument, since you don't seem to care about the atheist one.

Yet, even though my opinion is posted throughout this thread as well, including in the OP, you keep asking me about my "feelings."

I wouldn't care who's religion was pandering to public officials to get their doctrine displayed on public property or disseminated in schools or plastered on courtroom walls. I would still be offended and want to see it taken down, not because of the sentiment, but because it's placement appears to be an endorsement of a government supported religion. I don't understand why you refuse to see that.

The fact that I have been outspoken, in this and many other threads, about the immoral character of the god of the Old Testament, and the evil that is evident from honoring a blood thirsty, murderous, god, that just happens to be glorified in the 10 Commandments, that's what irks you!

reply to post by AfterInfinity

I don't see the monument featuring the 10 commandments "trying" to do anything except honor a religion that a significant percentage of our nation follows and the rest certainly recognize and acknowledge.

So it honors Christianity on public property.

then I don't see why they can't erect a monument in the spirit of their beliefs.

I do.

A number of local parks here have statues and plaques and monuments honoring the fallen soldiers of almost every war our nation has been a part of.

So they Honor those who fought for the country and were in respect part of the government and they are doing so on government property. Government statues of government employees in government affairs that seems like those would be compatible.

Clearly, the monument hasn't changed any policies or directly influenced legislation and educational curriculum. Any influence is happening with or without that monument in existence.

Have you watched the movie Revisionaries?

And this is justification for removing or demeaning the Christian monument?

I do not find it demeaning in the slightest but that is a matter of opinion. Is your opinion more important than mine should all opinions be considered? If I said I find the monument to the 10 commandments as offensive should that be considered as well?

Just because you disagree doesn't mean you should destroy something.

The article said they tried to have them remove it from public property can you show us where they wanted it destroyed?

Do you think you might just be using a bit too much hyperbole when talking about this?

reply to post by Grimpachi

So it honors Christianity on public property.

Sounds like insecurity to me.

I do.

Again, insecurity.

So they Honor those who fought for the country and were in respect part of the government and they are doing so on government property. Government statues of government employees in government affairs that seems like those would be compatible.

And atheism is too?

Have you watched the movie Revisionaries?

Nope. And I'm sure it's dramatized anyway.

I do not find it demeaning in the slightest but that is a matter of opinion. Is your opinion more important than mine should all opinions be considered? If I said I find the monument to the 10 commandments as offensive should that be considered as well?

You are certainly allowed to express that opinion. But I wouldn't think it a very good reason to protest the monument considering Christians don't appreciate the atheist one - which you've so far neglected to protest as well.

The article said they tried to have them remove it from public property can you show us where they wanted it destroyed?

Do you think you might just be using a bit too much hyperbole when talking about this?

Destroyed, removed, hidden. Basically, they wanted it more obscured. Had it been anything else, no one would have cared.

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by windword

 

No one is trying to stop this group, the "Men's Christian Fellowship", from expressing their beliefs or putting up billboards or monuments. They just need to do so on private property, not public property. Public property is owned by the people, ie the government, and the government doesn't endorse or promote any religion.

The 10 Commandments are a religious document that declares it is God's final word. It isn't.

Would you say the same if an atheist monument or billboard were placed on public ground? Is this really about legal red tape, or your personal feelings towards religion?

There is an atheist monument being put on public property, for the very first time EVER in the USA! That's what this thread is about.

What is it about the atheist's monument that YOU find so offensive?

perhaps that the atheist group that erected this monument tried to remove another group's right to free speech?

I mean, that was what I found to be offensive. I don't really care about the monument, it was the intent behind erecting the monument.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Basically, they wanted it more obscured. Had it been anything else, no one would have cared.

If it had been an except from the Qu'ran, there would have been protesters. If it had been a Pizza Hut menu, there would have been protesters.

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by GeisterFahrer

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by windword

 

So you're saying that whomever erected that Christian monument had no right to do so?

That is exactly what the sentiment is behind the attempt to remove it.

Atheists are not about intellectual freedom, they are about "think the way we do, we don't like you guys".

It is hate under a different guise is all.

No one is trying to stop this group, the "Men's Christian Fellowship", from expressing their beliefs or putting up billboards or monuments. They just need to do so on private property, not public property. Public property is owned by the people, ie the government, and the government doesn't endorse or promote any religion.

The 10 Commandments are a religious document that declares it is God's final word. It isn't.

yeah, those pesky Jim Crow laws were like that

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Sounds like insecurity to me.

Ad Hominem are always made from a point of weakness.

Not insecure I just respect the constitution and separation of church and state but you are welcome to your opinion and voicing it as the constitution protects that as well.

And atheism is too?

I am not even sure what you mean by this.

Nope. And I'm sure it's dramatized anyway.

I don’t think so but your opinion may be valid too bad you do not have any examples to base it off of but that would require you to actually know what was in the movie.

You are certainly allowed to express that opinion. But I wouldn't think it a very good reason to protest the monument considering Christians don't appreciate the atheist one - which you've so far neglected to protest as well.

Actually I haven’t protested either one unless you count my opinion on this thread which if this is your idea of protesting…… things have seriously declined.

Destroyed, removed, hidden. Basically, they wanted it more obscured. Had it been anything else, no one would have cared.

The words you are looking for are removed from public property if you want to be factual and not dramatize things. Oh I disagree if it was something else I think most people would take whatever it was on its merits.

Anyway I will check in later to see if there are any comments of value worth addressing otherwise I got things to do.

reply to post by GeisterFahrer

perhaps that the atheist group that erected this monument tried to remove another group's right to free speech?

This isn't a "free speech" issue. Never was. It's a "separation of church and state" issue.

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by windword

 

But the 10 Commandments in public schools or in courtrooms is a step too far. IMO

But we can teach the tenets of almost every other religion, right? I mean, Hinduism and Nordic and Aztec and Greek and Roman religions are all taught, right? We have no problem mentioning Zeus or Odin or Loki or Quetzlcoatl or Shiva, right? So what's wrong with including Christianity in the cultural curriculum?

It is! Where is your source that Christianity is excluded from any class curriculum in world religion? If there is a class on Greek Mythology, do you think that the Bible is being excluded?

Most of World History in high school, as I remember it, was Christian inclusive. But the classes didn't teach Christianity as a truth.

Exactly, because that is the atheist POV that is being taught as truth.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by GeisterFahrer

 

perhaps that the atheist group that erected this monument tried to remove another group's right to free speech?

This isn't a "free speech" issue. Never was. It's a "separation of church and state" issue.

We already discussed this remember? It is a free speech issue. There is no separation clause in the US Constitution. A Governor that decides to pray is exercising his right to free speech, he is not endorsing a religion, he is practicing his. requiring everyone to pray with him is an endorsement - asking people who wish to join him is not an endorsement.

reply to post by GeisterFahrer


It arguable, that when a religion's doctrine is displayed on government property, on the authority of government officials, that that monument is a governmental endorsement of said religion.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by GeisterFahrer

 

It arguable, that when a religion's doctrine is displayed on government property, on the authority of government officials, that that monument is a governmental endorsement of said religion.

edit on 6-6-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)

There is no government requirement for you to accept the doctrine. However ... in public schools ... is it a requirement to ... oh, never mind.

Should children start introducing themselves as recruits?

reply to post by GeisterFahrer

Exactly, because that is the atheist POV that is being taught as truth.

That is just not true. Show me the public school curriculum that teaches children that there is no evidence of a god.

Originally posted by GeisterFahrer

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by GeisterFahrer

 

It arguable, that when a religion's doctrine is displayed on government property, on the authority of government officials, that that monument is a governmental endorsement of said religion.

There is no government requirement for you to accept the doctrine. However ... in public schools ... is it a requirement to ... oh, never mind.

Should children start introducing themselves as recruits?

edit on 6-6-2013 by GeisterFahrer because: (no reason given)

I have no idea what you're talking about. If you care to restate, perhaps I can respond.

However, it appears like we're experience Christian meltdown in this thread. Christian brain bits all over my computer screen!

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by GeisterFahrer

 

Exactly, because that is the atheist POV that is being taught as truth.

That is just not true. Show me the public school curriculum that teaches children that there is no evidence of a god.

have you taken a Zoology course? perhaps discussed abiogenesis?