Public Atheist Monument Across from 10 Commandments

Originally posted by MrInquisitive

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.

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.

Did you bother to read the narrative of this issue? The Atheists sued to remove a 10 Commandments monument that is on public property in front of a court house. The judge ruled that rather than force the removal of the Judeo-Christian propaganda monolith, that the Atheists could out up their on stony monument in counterpose. You seem to be suggesting that the Atheists are being ridiculous or even hypocritical for using what redress they have been afforded by the court in this matter. Why not allow the free dissemination of various philospohies in the market place of ideas. What would be ridiculous and unConstitutional would be for the Judeo-Christian monument to only be allowed, and all other religions and philosophies be banned from similar monument making. Of course, the judge set a precedent here; Satanists and The Peyote Way Church of God should be allowed to build monuments to their religions/cults as well in public places, otherwise the government is discriminating against certain religions, thereby establishing what can be considered to be state-endorsed ones, which is unConstitutional.

What about a religion that condones adultery, murder, rape, theft, lying, non-belief in any divine entity, telling your mom and dad to off, ignore holy days, mock God's name?

Should the Government condone a "religion" that believes and condones immoral and illegal behaviour?

Because the more I think about it, the specific atheist group mentioned in the OP are more like anarchists.

Originally posted by GeisterFahrer

What about a religion that condones adultery, murder, rape, theft, lying, non-belief in any divine entity, telling your mom and dad to

off, ignore holy days, mock God's name?

Should the Government condone a "religion" that believes and condones immoral and illegal behaviour?

Because the more I think about it, the specific atheist group mentioned in the OP are more like anarchists.

This is one of the quotes planned for the Athiest's monument:

An atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty banished, war eliminated." – American Atheists founder Madalyn Murray O'Hair

In exactly what universe does that equate to "condones adultery, murder, rape, theft, lying, non-belief in any divine entity, telling your mom and dad to off, ignore holy days, mock God's name"?

reply to post by MrInquisitive

You seem to be suggesting that the Atheists are being ridiculous or even hypocritical for using what redress they have been afforded by the court in this matter.

I am.

From the article:

"We'd rather there be no monuments at all, but if they are allowed to have the Ten Commandments, we will have our own," said Ken Loukinen, the director of regional operations for American Atheists who designed the monument.

Same logic: "We'd rather there be no pollution at all, but if they're allowed to litter, we will too."

Loukinen, the organization's regional operations director, said American Atheists resorted to putting up its own monument only after trying to get the original display removed...

Same logic: "American Atheists resorted to promoting its own religion only after trying to get the original religion removed..."

From the dictionary:

hypocrisy |hiˈpäkrisē|
noun ( pl. hypocrisies )
the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense

ridiculous |riˈdikyələs|
adjective
deserving or inviting derision or mockery; absurd: when you realize how ridiculous these scenarios are, you will have to laugh.

Rather than have one idealogical statue, we have two. Both reference the bible; both reference religion; both telling us what we should believe.

"An atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty banished, war eliminated."
– American Atheists founder Madalyn Murray O'Hair

Congratulations. It's a big win for all of us.

reply to post by GeisterFahrer

What about a religion that condones adultery, murder, rape, theft, lying, non-belief in any divine entity, telling your mom and dad to off, ignore holy days, mock God's name? Should the Government condone a "religion" that believes and condones immoral and illegal behaviour?

This tired argument again?! The only morality that exists is the morality of the Bible? Everything else is "anarchy? Gee good thing we have the 10 Commandments in front of a court house! Otherwise everyone would go crazy and start killing and stealing and having sex with their neighbor's wives!


Because the more I think about it, the specific atheist group mentioned in the OP are more like anarchists.


The fact that this group initially went to the legal system to address their grievance,then came to a resolution through mediation, contradicts your anarchists theory.

Rebelling against religious indoctrination in public schools, courthouses, doctors' offices and legislation is a far cry from anarchy.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


Are the Democratic Party and the Republican Party also religions? They put out their belief "Platforms" across from one another's?

The American Atheists have a cause, not a religion.

reply to post by windword

The American Atheists have a cause, not a religion.

Twist it any way you want. Whatever works for you.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by windword

 

The American Atheists have a cause, not a religion.

Twist it any way you want. Whatever works for you.

Back at ya, and vise versa

There are groups of people that seem to be really threatened at the idea of atheists organizing. It isn't as if by calling that organizational movement a religion is going to stop it.

It won't be as easy to dismiss, discriminate against and shame atheists into silence once there are main stream atheist organizations, active and accepted in society.

reply to post by windword


Is their cause to do the same as the church? If so, they are succeeding.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


Is the Democratic/Repubican Party's cause the same as "the church's", if so, they are succeeding too.

reply to post by windword

There are groups of people that seem to be really threatened at the idea of atheists organizing. It isn't as if by calling that organizational movement a religion is going to stop it.

That's because it has happened before.

state atheism

reply to post by windword

Is the Democratic/Repubican Party's cause the same as "the church's", if so, they are succeeding too.

Democratic/Republican. Atheist/Christian.

I agree, both factions are similar.

Originally posted by GeisterFahrer

What about a religion that condones adultery, murder, rape, theft, lying, non-belief in any divine entity, telling your mom and dad to

off, ignore holy days, mock God's name?

Should the Government condone a "religion" that believes and condones immoral and illegal behaviour?

Because the more I think about it, the specific atheist group mentioned in the OP are more like anarchists.

Since posting the comment to which you replied, I read somewhere that there are stipulations on public monuments in the laws of most states, which preclude rude, crude, lewd and socially unacceptable/illegal behavior and philosophies; thus monuments honoring or espousing nasty behavior like the examples you cite wouldn't cut it. However there is the Native American Peyote Church, which is legal, so they should warrant a monument if they feel like putting one up. As for Satanists, some claim Satan is the Prince of Peace, and that the nasty deity who is beguiling humans is actually the Big G/Y/A (God/Yahweh/Allah), and that the Pope is the Anti-Christ (some good Protestants do feel this way about the Pope). Clearly human-sacrifice practicing Satanists would have a hard time justifying a public monument by current state laws. Of course one could argue that such laws violate the First Amendment; as people get very fundamental in their expansive views of the Second Amendment, it seems reasonable that people can be just as extreme in their defense of an expansive interpretation of the First Amendment.

In any case, it does seem like the Cult of the Flying Spaghetti God should be able to put up a monument to the Spicy and Tomatoey One, if they chose to do so. Spaghetti is almost as American as apple pie. And one person's deity is another person's silly invisible sky god.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by MrInquisitive

 

You seem to be suggesting that the Atheists are being ridiculous or even hypocritical for using what redress they have been afforded by the court in this matter.

I am.

From the article:

"We'd rather there be no monuments at all, but if they are allowed to have the Ten Commandments, we will have our own," said Ken Loukinen, the director of regional operations for American Atheists who designed the monument.

Same logic: "We'd rather there be no pollution at all, but if they're allowed to litter, we will too."

Loukinen, the organization's regional operations director, said American Atheists resorted to putting up its own monument only after trying to get the original display removed...

Same logic: "American Atheists resorted to promoting its own religion only after trying to get the original religion removed..."

From the dictionary:

hypocrisy |hiˈpäkrisē|
noun ( pl. hypocrisies )
the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense

ridiculous |riˈdikyələs|
adjective
deserving or inviting derision or mockery; absurd: when you realize how ridiculous these scenarios are, you will have to laugh.

Rather than have one idealogical statue, we have two. Both reference the bible; both reference religion; both telling us what we should believe.

"An atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty banished, war eliminated."
– American Atheists founder Madalyn Murray O'Hair

Congratulations. It's a big win for all of us.

If the Judeo-Christians are gonna get to promote their beliefs in public, then I am all for the Atheists being able to counter them with their own. Perhaps if the Atheists' monument annoys the good Christian folk enough, there can be a philosophical detente' in which both sides agree to remove their public monuments to their beliefs. Or perhaps the good citizens of a state will get fed up with the proliferation of all such monuments and ban them all. In any case, I see no reason whatsoever that the Atheists should go away silently in the night as the ATS Live Crew would like them to do.

The bottom line here is that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. This wasn't the Atheist's choice, but the choice the civil courts gave them. They have every right to take the legal remedy provided to them, and under the circumstances it is the best way they have to fight the promotion and promulgation of perfidious monotheistic cult beliefs.

You might consider the Atheist's plan to be ridiculous. If standing up for one's beliefs and fighting the beliefs of others being pushed on the public at large is ridiculous, then they are being terribly ridiculous. Clearly they are not being hypocritical because they are countering the promulgation of beliefs they believe are false. By your standards, an Atheist should never discuss theological matters in an attempt to enlighten others because that would somehow be hypocritical. Your idea of being a good Atheist is for Atheist to shut up and go away -- kinda like the Nazi idea of a good German Jew. Not going to happen.

We're here, gods we don't fear -- get used to it.

reply to post by MrInquisitive

Perhaps if the Atheists' monument annoys the good Christian folk enough, there can be a philosophical detente' in which both sides agree to remove their public monuments to their beliefs.

It's plainly obvious that you're resorting to the "If he can do it so can I" tactic of most children (and American religions). This isn't a rational course of action, by the way.

Here, I'll define hypocrisy once again:

hypocrisy |hiˈpäkrisē|
noun ( pl. hypocrisies )
the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.

You might consider the Atheist's plan to be ridiculous. If standing up for one's beliefs and fighting the beliefs of others being pushed on the public at large is ridiculous, then they are being terribly ridiculous. Clearly they are not being hypocritical because they are countering the promulgation of beliefs they believe are false. By your standards, an Atheist should never discuss theological matters in an attempt to enlighten others because that would somehow be hypocritical.

Their plan? I see no plan. I think the statue and hypocrisy is ridiculous.

"If standing up for one's beliefs and fighting the beliefs of others being pushed on the public at large is ridiculous, then they are being terribly ridiculous." Your sarcasm doesn't save you on this one; you realize the "Atheists" (capitalized now? It really is becoming a religion), are fighting for "the beliefs of others being pushed on the public at large", by pushing their beliefs on the public at large?

I shouldn't have to do this but, it seems that you too are guilty:

hypocrisy |hiˈpäkrisē|
noun ( pl. hypocrisies )
the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.

Your idea of being a good Atheist is for Atheist to shut up and go away -- kinda like the Nazi idea of a good German Jew. Not going to happen.

Reductio ad Hitlerum. Yes, it's an actual fallacy. It works especially well for those struggling to find rational arguments. "Let's make him look like a nazi!"

Actually my idea of a good atheist is an honest and rational one. There's very few around it seems.

We're here, gods we don't fear -- get used to it.

Do you find it important to tell people you don't fear something that doesn't exist?

A good number of atheists and agnostics have posted, in this thread, and in another related thread, their opinions of opposition to the erection of the monument. Among their arguments is the hubris of this group attempting to define what "an atheist" thinks, believes and wants. These posters have wanted to make it clear that this group "American Atheist" doesn't speak for them.

Indeed, this group is a 501c non-profit, donation and membership driven. They have a clear mission statement and have set out to recruit and represent their membership.

I'm not a member of this group and I'm not an atheist, but I do support their mission. I posted this thread, not to convert people to atheism or to tell people that their religion is invalid, but to open dialogue for a movement I support and think is timely and relevant to society today.


All your comments and opinions are appreciated and I want to thank everyone for contributing to this thread! This is what ATS is for and all about! Carry on!

Originally posted by windword

A good number of atheists and agnostics have posted, in this thread, and in another related thread, their opinions of opposition to the erection of the monument. Among their arguments is the hubris of this group attempting to define what "an atheist" thinks, believes and wants. These posters have wanted to make it clear that this group "American Atheist" doesn't speak for them.

Indeed, this group is a 501c non-profit, donation and membership driven. They have a clear mission statement and have set out to recruit and represent their membership.

Yes. It certainly helps to actually read their mission statement.

Just a side note of interest. Their logo is exclusively theirs. It does have free use (unaltered) -- but does not represent all atheists.

I also suggest knowing the real meaning of agnostic. It doesn't mean -- there might be a god, but I don't know. It simply means: "God can not be proven or disproven". To me the statement "I'm not atheist I'm agnostic" is a bit ridiculous.

reply to post by Annee

Yes. It certainly helps to actually read their mission statement.

Right! Just for good measure!

American Atheists fights to protect the absolute separation of religion from government and raise the profile of atheism in the public discourse.

Since 1963, American Atheists has been taking the principled and uncompromising position that our government should give no special treatment or preference to religious belief. Through lawsuits, innovative public relations campaigns, and education, we are working to normalize atheism and allow more and more people to set aside religious belief and superstition.
atheists.org...

reply to post by windword


There are so many misconceptions regarding atheism. I support an organization that provides actual fact. AND has a specific mission of separation of church and state -- and support awareness for equality.

I know there are some hard core atheist who feel organizing atheists discredits them -- and skirts to close to organized religion.

I think that kind of thinking is ridiculous, childish, and fear based.

reply to post by windword

I'm not a member of this group and I'm not an atheist, but I do support their mission. I posted this thread, not to convert people to atheism or to tell people that their religion is invalid, but to open dialogue for a movement I support and think is timely and relevant to society today.

This kind of honesty I appreciate. I think you are correct to say this kind of action will produce open dialogue, discourse both for and against the "movement". Of course I think it only relevant to American society, as Europe and others have gone through this hundreds of years ago; nonetheless, it is necessary to at least talk about, criticize and weigh the pros and cons of such movements and the prevailing status quo it seeks to dethrone. Not only that, but the historical actions of past movements should be noted.

Good thread/