Public Atheist Monument Across from 10 Commandments

reply to post by boncho

You also accuse atheism now of mirroring religious organizations, but I don't see it. Definitely possible but nowhere near the level religion has attained.

Why would they need to politicize an organization to hand out pamphlets on "atheism"?

Any "ism" is an ideal. Communism, capitalism, fascism etc. When it's an ideal that concerns itself only with religion—Jainism, Sufism, Buddhism,etc—and sells itself as an 'ism', makes t-shirts, billboards, Darwin fishes, political groups to put up monuments, holds meeting, has faith only in a certain literature and resorts to outright dogmatism—you better believe it is a religion.

Where does one write "atheist" on the census? It is not a job title; it is not a position in a certain tax bracket; it is not a race; it is a position strictly within the realm of religion.

Atheism amounts to a stance on God. It has no other ideal to sell. No other reason to politicize. Yet Atheists, under the banner of "Atheism", are out there selling it, doing the exact same things as religion for whatever reason.

I understand what you're saying, but in my mind, all signs point to atheism being a religion.

reply to post by SaturnFX

Religion -requires- a deity

Buddhism. Confucianism. Taoism.

I don't care if they have a monument or not .... but I'm kinda confused about it.
I thought atheists weren't into monuments or statues and that kind of thing??
Color me wrong I guess ....

reply to post by windword

American Atheists is a non-profit organization in the United States dedicated to defending the civil liberties of atheists and advocating for the complete separation of church and state.[1] It provides speakers for colleges, universities, clubs and the news media. It also publishes books and the quarterly American Atheist Magazine, currently edited by Pamela Whissel.

It doesn't promote irreligion. It promotes atheism, pure and simple.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


There is a need to form an organisation to protect the civil rights of atheists. They are still discriminated against in several states, being barred from testifying in a court of law to being refused entry to public office.

Promoting the rights of individuals who deny a deity is not promoting a religion. Atheism is the absence of belief in a deity. Many groups organize, but are not religions.

reply to post by windword


Cool monument. Reading what they put on it made me chuckle.

A monument of a big middle finger facing the Ten Commandments could have accomplished the same thing IMO and would have been more to the point but this works.

reply to post by Grimpachi


HAHA! I think the "middle finger" might have been their first design. However:

The county's free speech forum guidelines say monuments must commemorate "people, events and ideas which played a significant role in the development, origins or foundations of United States of America or Florida law, or Bradford County," cannot be permanent and cannot be "libelous, pornographic or obscene." Sexton said the atheists' planned monument met the requirements.

reply to post by windword

There is a need to form an organisation to protect the civil rights of atheists. They are still discriminated against in several states, being barred from testifying in a court of law to being refused entry to public office.

Promoting the rights of individuals who deny a deity is not promoting a religion. Atheism is the absence of belief in a deity. Many groups organize, but are not religions.

What civil rights do the atheists lack that all other citizens possess?

Woops. Too early I must've read right over your post.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


Here's another atheist organization working to promote equality for atheists:

American Humanist Association Advocating; progressive values and equality for humanists, atheists, and freethinkers

These inconsistencies are listed on their website:

Arkansas, Article 19, Section 1: No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.

Maryland, Article 37: That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.

Mississippi, Article 14, Section 265: No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.

North Carolina, Article 6, Section 8 The following persons shall be disqualified for office: Any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.

South Carolina, Article 17, Section 4: No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.

Tennessee, Article 9, Section 2: No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.

Texas, Article 1, Section 4: No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.

reply to post by windword


Interesting turn of events Windword and thank you for posting. I personally think that all people within the area served by a courthouse or main gathering place for the community at large should have the opportunity to be represented by a monument of their choosing. I am not a fan of group think of any kind however and I am not a supporter of this group in particular. The group I refer to of course are the American Atheists. That's the rub isn't it. Atheists have no play book per se and I think the name of the group itself insinuates a group think mentality that many apply to all atheists. There is a big difference between a member of American Atheists and an American Atheist.

Speaking of the Monument itself, as an artist I personally would not support such an argumentative stance, instead I would have tried to focus on a more open and timeless message. That of course is my personal view and look forward to the day when all humans are seen as individuals and that deeds, not group affiliations are honored and respected.

Penny

Honestly, I don't think there should be any religious or non-religious monuments, but I am glad that atheist groups are getting their message out to combat the stranglehold that christians have on so much of this country.

reply to post by windword


Yeah your right those darn rules and tastes get in the way of the message sometimes but with a little contemplation most people get the gist of it.

I just watched the movie Revisionaries and I am still a little worked up about it. I really feel sorry for kids today because the religious right has seriously put them at a disadvantage in the world by denying them a good education. There is a reason for separation of church and state and it is a good reason however the imbeciles have no problem finding a flock to follow their lead in this country. The worst part is that they actually believe they are doing a good thing by mixing their religion with government. They are not bad people just stupid people.

reply to post by pennylemon

Speaking of the Monument itself, as an artist I personally would not support such an argumentative stance, instead I would have tried to focus on a more open and timeless message. That of course is my personal view and look forward to the day when all humans are seen as individuals and that deeds, not group affiliations are honored and respected.

Yeah. I can appreciate that stance, and you certainly are not alone, and are in good company in your thinking. I do, though, appreciate the opportunity for rebuttal, that the monument represents.

Originally posted by windword

I do, though, appreciate the opportunity for rebuttal, that the monument represents.

I can see where you're coming from as we are still in this stage of the debate. I do look forward to a time beyond this when we can get past the tit for tat and seek the needle in the haystack that binds us all. If we continue to argue over which team gets the win we are still playing the same game aren't we.

This is a good thing....

Unless of course one cannot read and/or COMPREHEND what it is that the Constitution says.

Or unless someone is all hazed over with religious beliefs and somehow feels insulted by someone having the RIGHT to express their views.

Of course it would be a problem in Florida, I lived there for 8 years and never ran into so many ignorant zealots in my life as there.

reply to post by windword


I like this too. But I don't think it's a compromise. Rather it's exactly how it should be: Free expression of religion, representing and embracing all faiths, and therefore all citizens. This is what the judicial branch and all branches of our government should be doing. Where freedom OF religion fosters respect, courtesy and friendship among the people, freedom FROM religion incites suspicion, fear, and division.

With all due respect to those who disagree, I do include atheism as a religion for these purposes, because no one can prove there is no deity, so it is still a belief.

MichaelPMaccabee - I empathize. I know the feeling (and sometimes the horror!) of being represented by default with people who may or may not represent me. I often find myself cringing at the sentiments expressed by some who claim to share my faith. I suppose many if not most people have found themselves in a similar position.

reply to post by windword


What has always struck me about the people who insist upon setting up graven images to the 10 Commandments, is their sheer lack of recognizing the irony.

For engraved upon the graven image are the words:

"Thou shalt not make graven images"

reply to post by windword

An atheist strives for involvement in life ............... He wants disease conquered, poverty banished, war eliminated."

So what exactly does that make government because this is the opposite of what all government stand for?

Perhaps government is its own religion?

reply to post by Akragon


Well, government certainly pretends to want to banish disease, poverty and hunger, but as it is now, that just hypocritical hyperbole.

Government has hallowed halls, judges us and offers limited forgiveness through contrition, fines, fees and taxes. It has dogmatic rules and some worship manipulative governmental leaders and their supporters.

In many ways, it's hated, rejected and blamed, just as God is. I guess in away, government can be seen as a replacement to religion.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by windword

 

This seems ridiculous—Sue people for putting up religious monuments but then put up your own religious monument.

If you can't beat them, join them. Since America has no state religion and the Christian religion is being represented in a public space, it follows that any and all religions which wish to be represented in a public space should be allowed to do so. This Atheist association should absolutely be regarded as a religion since it is a group based on a particular set of beliefs regarding a deity or deities, i.e. the belief that no deity exists.

The American Atheists are a religious organization seeking to put up a religious monument in honor of their "church" in a public place. They too should be sued. This group promotes and provides information on "atheism", as if their position on God was any different from any other position on God. Pure double-standards and religiosity is what I see here.

I agree except on two points: firstly, that they should be sued. Let them erect their monuments as long as any other religion is afforded the same privilege. If Muslims want to put up a statue of Muhammad (lol), let them. If Atheist want to put up a thought provoking bench, by all means. Hell, you have a Pagan-Egyptian Obelisk decorating the National Mall, but you never hear anyone complaining about that...well, besides all the Illuminati theorists. This covers my other point of disagreement as well, on double standards. As long as every religion is fairly represented, such a double standard doesn't exist.