Public Atheist Monument Across from 10 Commandments

reply to post by Annee

Actually, NO it is not an emotional topic.

It's about a legal court decision. Involving separation of church and state in a secular government.

It's an emotional topic because the reason church and government have become separated is over emotional issues largely concerning legal approaches. Abundance of faith and lack of faith. These are emotional ideas. And believe it or not, everything involves emotion. Every topic on this forum is an emotional topic. Unless you're a robot. Then I gotta wonder if you're from the future to kill one of us.

Either way, it's beside the point. Individual rights should not be squashed once an individual resumes or initiates activity as a component of a "royal" entity or any subsidiaries.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity

Is the American Atheists group intending to kill religion?

What part of separation of church and state in a secular government are you not understanding?

I have often wondered if most people realize it, but a true Atheist can't really even curse very well.
If they have no God, how, and to where, can they damn anyone?
I would also like to know how many Atheists act better toward their fellow man than do many Christains.

I was recently doing some home improvements and every contractor I spoke with was quick to tell me how they were in church every Sunday and always treated people with a "fine Christian manner". This was all well and good but when it came time to get the jobs done, they were always tied up with other things or took two days to make a 10 minute trip for materials. I have since decide for my next projects, I will advertise for an Atheist contractor.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Annee

 

Actually, NO it is not an emotional topic.

It's about a legal court decision. Involving separation of church and state in a secular government.

It's an emotional topic because the reason church and government have become separated is over emotional issues largely concerning legal approaches. Abundance of faith and lack of faith. These are emotional ideas. And believe it or not, everything involves emotion. Every topic on this forum is an emotional topic. Unless you're a robot. Then I gotta wonder if you're from the future to kill one of us.

Either way, it's beside the point. Individual rights should not be squashed once an individual resumes or initiates activity as a component of a "royal" entity or any subsidiaries.

It's about control.

reply to post by Annee

What part of separation of church and state in a secular government are you not understanding?

What part of individual rights are you not understanding? If I step inside of Secretary of State, am I not allowed to talk about "God"? If I work there, am I forbidden from praying aloud? If I happen to hold a desk job at the local DHS, should I be reprimanded for having a little Jesus figurine on my desk?

reply to post by Annee

It's about control.

Over what? And why does it need to be controlled?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

I said it before and will again as a floridian that has Hindu neighbors. The placement of a secular religious monument with laws on public property that also happens to be in front of a courthouse is reprehensible to say the least. For a country to claim freedom of and from religion that claims a separation of church and state is the same as claiming all men are equal except in the case of slaves.

I would describe it as parallel lines. Eventually, in order to both preserve liberty and control, the lines become warped until they either diverge or converge. When that happens...religion will either become chained, or destroyed.

I won't even consider the possibility that religion might trump government and steal the crown.

You should because there are groups out there who have an agenda to do just that. Perhaps my Hindu neighbors should voice there concerns but not at a courthouse that has a secular religouse monument stating a law that there will be no other gods before him.

Fair trial there for those who are not of that faith? I think not they practically advertise it on the court steps.

Originally posted by teamcommander
I have often wondered if most people realize it, but a true Atheist can't really even curse very well.

If they have no God, how, and to where, can they damn anyone?

I use "gaud" "gaud awful" --- like gaudy.

I would also like to know how many Atheists act better toward their fellow man than do many Christains.

"Your petitioners are atheists, and they define their lifestyle as follows. An atheist loves himself and his fellow man instead of a god. An atheist accepts that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth – for all men together to enjoy. An atheist accepts that he can get no help through prayer, but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and to enjoy it. An atheist accepts that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help lead to a life of fulfillment." atheists.org...

When I finally accepted I was atheist, it was like a huge weight lifted off me. I, right then and there, was fully 100% responsible for myself, my actions, my contribution to humanity. Everything became right now! I wasn't earning my rewards to go to Heaven. There was no "go to guy" forgiving me for whatever stupid thing I did. It was all ME.

I would never hire someone who let their personal beliefs get in the way of their job.

reply to post by Grimpachi

Fair trial there for those who are not of that faith? I think not they practically advertise it on the court steps.

Or are they advertising their support for freedom of religion? You don't know their intentions in allowing that monument to be placed. Perhaps the two parties had different intentions that appear to be the same. That's why you investigate instead of assuming that they are biased Jesus freaks who would sooner see a sinner die than give them a crust of bread.

Also: there's an atheist monument present as well. That rather belies "religious advertisement".

reply to post by Annee

I would never hire someone who let their personal beliefs get in the way of their job.

Would you even give them a chance? It's all in the perception - making decisions based on your personal preferences before you even find out if they're qualified. I feel your perceptions might prove as great a stumbling block as any beliefs you may come across.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


My stance has always been that neither should be there. I believe in seperation of church and state I thought I made that clear.

Whatever the ten commandment monument may be in your eyes it is certainly a religouse monument open to interpretation all which are religouse in nature and against the ideology of seperation.

reply to post by windword


OH OH! Here we go again!


ffrf.org...

Under a new school board policy, and in briefs to the court, Kountze ISD made clear that the banners are under district control and are "government speech." The district also expressed that it would like to see the religious banners continue to be displayed.

A misguided decision by a state judge in Texas, permitting public school cheerleaders to exhibit Christian bible verses and messages during high school football games, makes Christianity the official school religion in Kountze, Texas.

So contends the Freedom From Religion Foundation, whose letter in September 2012 challenging the religious banners set off the legal controversy in the Kountze Independent School District."

I agree with this:

"Proselytizing messages by cheerleaders representing the school, wearing the school uniform, at the official start of a public school football game, inevitably carry the appearance of school endorsement and favoritism, turning Christians into insiders and non-Christians and nonbelievers into outsiders.

Here comes another lengthy and expensive law suit!

reply to post by windword


Yep!

The cheerleader decision is very wrong.

reply to post by windword


I see proof that people are idiots. That message lends strength and purpose to certain players of the game. If I put up a banner of a scantily clad woman in a lewd position with a message saying "Play hard!", would I be proselytizing for adult materials? Or maybe I would just get flamed for degrading women.

One banner makes a religion the official spiritual practice of a school. One banner intended to encourage and motivate religious football players is suddenly "proselytizing" because some people don't like the message. I want all the Islamics, Buddhists, and Taoists to make banners now and represent their various followers on the football teams all across America.

On the other hand: no freedom of religious expression? Fine. No more graphic tees. No more school mascots. No more logos, no more art, no more anything. After all, who knows what might be construed as what message? I don't know how many ways I can say this. This is oppression. Those cheerleaders have done nothing wrong except encourage their football players. If it were a Muslim banner, I would say the same thing. There is nothing wrong with that banner. It's on sheer principle that people are throwing a fit. If they had the option, they would kill off religion entirely. Since they are not given that option, they are getting as close as they can to it.

All I see here is immaturity.

reply to post by Annee


See my above post.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

f I step inside of Secretary of State, am I not allowed to talk about "God"?

Not in any sort of capacity that encourages policy and decisions based on your personal religious beliefs. You can thank God for your success or whatever else, but you better damn well not use God as a means of advancing an agenda.

If I work there, am I forbidden from praying aloud?

What part of the Secretary Of State's job includes praying? Pray on your own time, not the tax payers.

If I happen to hold a desk job at the local DHS, should I be reprimanded for having a little Jesus figurine on my desk?

As long as you don't complain about the Budha statue, or the Satan one for that matter.

~Tenth

reply to post by tothetenthpower

Not in any sort of capacity that encourages policy and decisions based on your personal religious beliefs. You can thank God for your success or whatever else, but you better damn well not use God as a means of advancing an agenda.

Whoever said anything about advancing agendas?

What part of the Secretary Of State's job includes praying? Pray on your own time, not the tax payers.

If you think the entirety of the time spent in any government office is spent doing exactly what they are paid to be doing, you are sadly mistaken. They are just as human and just as prone to letting off steam as anyone else. Even if they're still in the office. On government ground. During work hours. A quick prayer in the coffee room during break hurts no one. I wouldn't do it because I don't pray, but I won't begrudge someone who does.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity

One banner makes a religion the official spiritual practice of a school. One banner intended to encourage and motivate religious football players is suddenly "proselytizing" because some people don't like the message. I want all the Islamics, Buddhists, and Taoists to make banners now and represent their various followers on the football teams all across America.

All I see here is immaturity.

Separation of church and state. It is a public school. That means it falls under government separation of church and state. We are a secular government.

I doubt it encourages and motivates: Muslims, Jews, Pagans, Buddhists, Taoists, Atheists, and other non-Christians.

And since we are a secular government and this is a government school -- NO we do not need banners from other beliefs. We need none.

The judge obviously let his own personal belief cloud his judgement. He should be removed.

reply to post by Annee

Separation of church and state. It is a public school. That means it falls under government separation of church and state. We are a secular government.

I feel like this whole 'secular government' deal might evolve into one of those use-nukes-to-kill-a-cockroach situations. The more we treat religion as a threat to our legislation, the further we go to ensure it does not happen, and the less liberties religious groups will have. A lot of what they are legally not allowed to do is nothing more than covering bases and not technically necessary, except the atheists and affiliated organizations would throw a fit if we were to give the religious factions a single inch.

What threat does religion pose to our government at this time that such stringent measures are necessary?

I doubt it encourages and motivates: Muslims, Jews, Pagans, Buddhists, Taoists, Atheists, and other non-Christians.

It would, if they were allowed to have their own banners.

And since we are a secular government and this is a government school -- NO we do not need banners from other beliefs. We need none.

Then remove all the religions from the history class. I don't want to hear about a single book mentioning any sort of god. Take every Greek, Egyptian, Norse, Aztec, African, Chinese and Celtic book making any mention of any faith system and chuck them. Remove them from the premises. They concern mythology, which is considered religion. They have no place on government ground or in a government establishment. Clear it all out.

The judge obviously let his own personal belief cloud his judgement. He should be removed.

As should every Christian politician who potentially invites a spiritual influence in legislation, correct? Why are we even stopping at this? Take it ALL out. Ban religion completely. Who knows who might influence the government? A monument can do it. A banner can do it. A prayer causes an uproar when a dozen soldiers dying in Iraq doesn't even raise an eyebrow.

Times like this really prove the Joker's point.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity

As should every Christian politician who potentially invites a spiritual influence in legislation, correct?

Atheists Condemn Arizona State Representative’s Prayer ‘Do-Over’ After Secular Invocation Posted on: May 24, 2013 Cranford, NJ—American Atheists announced Friday that it has demanded an apology on behalf of all non-Christians for disparaging remarks made by Arizona state Representative Steve Smith on Wednesday. Smith’s remarks were in response to the secular invocation offered by state Representative Juan Mendez on Tuesday in the state House of Representatives. Smith, a conservative Christian, opened Wednesday’s House session with not one, but two prayers, the second in “repentance” of the secular invocation offered the day before by Mendez. Smith invited the other lawmakers present to join him; about half of the sixty did. Smith said, “When there is at time set aside to pray …, if you are a nonbeliever, don’t ask for time to pray.”

“Opening the legislative sessions with prayer is disenfranchising to anyone who is not Christian as demonstrated by Representative Mendez’ attempt to balance this outdated practice with a secular alternative,” said President David Silverman. “But for Representative Smith to say that a fellow lawmaker’s secular choice requires ‘repentance’ is reprehensible. His statement excluding nonbelievers is one of the most un-American remarks I have ever heard from a public servant and is a perfect example of why there should not be any prayer sponsored by government. Representative Smith should be ashamed. He owes Representative Mendez an apology. He owes non-Christians an apology. He owes the American people an apology.” “For Smith to suggest that Mendez’s expression of Humanist beliefs requires our government to pray for repentance is really awful and insulting. I’m incredibly disappointed,” said Seráh Blain, Executive Director of the Secular Coalition of Arizona. news.atheists.org... mands-lawmaker-apologize-to-all-non-christians/