Public Atheist Monument Across from 10 Commandments

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Governments don't have pride. People have pride. Governments don't have religions, people do, unless we're talking about theocracies........

People are free to express their religion freely, whether that means wearing a cross around your neck or preaching on a street corner. US Government may not apply any religious test to its citizens or enforce a religion on its citizens. The US government must not show any special favoritism to any religion.

That is the spirit of "separation of church and state".

reply to post by windword

Governments don't have pride. People have pride. Governments don't have religions, people do, unless we're talking about theocracies........

So once you hold a government position, you stop being a person? Governments are comprised of people. Without people, there are no governments.

People are free to express their religion freely, whether that means wearing a cross around your neck or preaching on a street corner. US Government may not apply any religious test to its citizens or enforce a religion on its citizens. The US government must not show any special favoritism to any religion.

What if a government building appeals to its superiors and is given the green light to put up a religious monument if a unanimous decision is made to do so? That is to say, what if everyone in a government establishment votes for it? Why not make a circle of monuments devoted to each religion? Would that not be a touching gesture of support for all cultures? What better way than to say, "Hey, we honor and respect your religion and your culture! Come on in!"

The only thing wrong with these monuments is how people choose to interpret them. Perhaps that is more of a personal problem than anything else. After all, freedom of religion and freedom of speech come out to exactly these two monuments. What are we to say about ourselves when we cannot sit in the same room with a different opinion? I think the greatest display of character is allowing the monuments to sit side by side in a complementary gesture. They are each the best of a world, and together, they can form the basis for an even greater lifestyle than either offers alone.

Originally posted by Pixiefyre
The official Church of Satan does not believe in any deities such as the Judeo-Christian God, or Devil. They consider themselves atheists, placing primary importance upon the individual, thus you are your own God. Satan is a symbol of ones pride, individuality and liberty, it is an external expression of one's Highest Potential, they tion.

The Church of Satan has nothing to do with Satan or atheists.

It was created for sexual freedom..

If you believe in Satan, you are not an atheist.

There were atheist members.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by windword

 

Governments don't have pride. People have pride. Governments don't have religions, people do, unless we're talking about theocracies........

So once you hold a government position, you stop being a person? Governments are comprised of people. Without people, there are no governments.

No more than any person that works as a server for Applebee's stops being a person when they clock in for their shift. People are hired to do governmental jobs. It isn't the government's job to promote religion, any more than it's a server at Applebee's job to preach to you.

People are free to express their religion freely, whether that means wearing a cross around your neck or preaching on a street corner. US Government may not apply any religious test to its citizens or enforce a religion on its citizens. The US government must not show any special favoritism to any religion.

What if a government building appeals to its superiors and is given the green light to put up a religious monument if a unanimous decision is made to do so? That is to say, what if everyone in a government establishment votes for it? Why not make a circle of monuments devoted to each religion? Would that not be a touching gesture of support for all cultures? What better way than to say, "Hey, we honor and respect your religion and your culture! Come on in!"

A building isn't a person and doesn't have superiors. In this case, the American Atheist were protesting a monument that was put up by a Christian group, that promoted Christian values, with the permission of the government officials.

Christians have a mandate from their God to disseminate their religion through conversion. The American Atheists want to counter their influence. Any other group can do the same thing.

reply to post by windword

No more than any person that works as a server for Applebee's stops being a person when they clock in for their shift. People are hired to do governmental jobs. It isn't the government's job to promote religion, any more than it's a server at Applebee's job to preach to you.

So the customers are allowed to discuss their various religions while eating at Applebee's, but the waitress or waiter serving them isn't allowed to contribute to the discussion? From what you're saying, it sounds like the individual components of any government establishment lose their constitutional rights from the moment they clock in to the moment they clock out. No freedom of speech or religion whatsoever. It's a constitutional dead zone, except for those constitutional tenets which specifically concern protocol regarding their relationship with their customers and fellow employees.

So freedom of religion and speech ends as soon as you both represent the government and step on government territory - which is ironic, considering that's the same government that established freedom of religion and speech to begin with.

A building isn't a person and doesn't have superiors. In this case, the American Atheist were protesting a monument that was put up by a Christian group, that promoted Christian values, with the permission of the government officials.

And in the end, they were both allowed to be recognized. I still fail to see the problem.

Christians have a mandate from their God to disseminate their religion through conversion. The American Atheists want to counter their influence. Any other group can do the same thing.

And if necessary, they can petition to add their monuments to the growing collection. Personally, I would love to see a ring of monuments dedicated to all of the religions of the world - right in Washington D.C., where everyone can see them. Something like a museum of religious equality. A gesture that we recognize and respect all opinions, perspectives, and backgrounds. After all, isn't that one of the things that distinguishes America?

reply to post by Annee

The Church of Satan has nothing to do with Satan or atheists.

It was created for sexual freedom..

If you believe in Satan, you are not an atheist.

There were atheist members.

In other words, opportunists looking for excitement...or something along those lines.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

And if necessary, they can petition to add their monuments to the growing collection. Personally, I would love to see a ring of monuments dedicated to all of the religions of the world - right in Washington D.C., where everyone can see them. Something like a museum of religious equality. A gesture that we recognize and respect all opinions, perspectives, and backgrounds. After all, isn't that one of the things that distinguishes America?

Wise words. All religions or none. The only way AA can justify their hypocrisy—to raise a religion-orientated monument despite their "cause" for separation of church and state—is to advocate that all religions should do the same in a show of solidarity.

I personally find religion interesting, and there is no such secular religious museum I can go to to learn about religion as a whole that I know of. I could probably spend hours in there.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Workers in America do not loose their freedom of speech in the employment arena. But an employer is free to fire them for being unprofessional or violating the rules that each employer sets up.

For example, an employer may compel an employee to say certain things, like "Would you like a glass of wine with that?" But an employee may be fired for refusing to offer wine or for telling that customer that they're going to hell for ordering it."

A student has the right to wear a T-shirt with some religious motto, but the school has the right to send that student home for disruption.

However freedom of speech and freedom of religion are two different issues.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

Wise words. All religions or none. The only way AA can justify their hypocrisy—to raise a religion-orientated monument despite their "cause" for separation of church and state—is to advocate that all religions should do the same in a show of solidarity.

I personally find religion interesting, and there is no such secular religious museum I can go to to learn about religion as a whole that I know of. I could probably spend hours in there.

Exactly.

reply to post by windword

However freedom of speech and freedom of religion are two different issues.

They really aren't. Freedom of religion without freedom of speech is the right to practice religion in the privacy of your own home or a specially designed establishment. Freedom of speech without freedom of religion is the right to express whatever you want as long as it isn't harmful or religious. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion is the right to wear a cross, publicly discuss your god, and carry a Bible on your way to school or work. It's the right to pray before you eat in the cafeteria, its the right to read scripture during recess, and it's the right to count beads on your rosary whenever you feel the desire, whether you're in a bathroom, on a bus, or standing in the middle of a crowded mall.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Right. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are intertwined. Phrases like "Shut up and go away" isn't just a slam to one group, it's a slam to all of them, religious or not.

reply to post by windword


This isn't the thread for discussing that.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


So don't discuss it.

Just an observation of a mindset that has to do with freedom of speech as it relates to freedom of religion, not freedom FROM religion.

reply to post by windword

So don't discuss it.

Just an observation of a mindset that has to do with freedom of speech as it relates to freedom of religion, not freedom FROM religion.

Then I'm afraid I fail to see your point. Are you now protesting the presence of an atheist monument? I have already explained my opinions regarding religious monuments. I have also addressed various points you have raised, although these are now scattered throughout the thread. For the purpose of succinctness, perhaps you should compile and summarize your arguments so that I may address them in a likewise fashion.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by windword

 

However freedom of speech and freedom of religion are two different issues.

They really aren't. Freedom of religion without freedom of speech is the right to practice religion in the privacy of your own home or a specially designed establishment. Freedom of speech without freedom of religion is the right to express whatever you want as long as it isn't harmful or religious. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion is the right to wear a cross, publicly discuss your god, and carry a Bible on your way to school or work. It's the right to pray before you eat in the cafeteria, its the right to read scripture during recess, and it's the right to count beads on your rosary whenever you feel the desire, whether you're in a bathroom, on a bus, or standing in the middle of a crowded mall.

Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are two different things, yet they are intertwined. An employer can limit your freedom of speech, based on your job description, but he can't fire you, or say "Shup up and go away" based on your religious beliefs.

reply to post by windword

Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are two different things, yet they are intertwined. An employer can limit your freedom of speech, based on your job description, but he can't fire you, or say "Shup up and go away" based on your religious beliefs.

If I am correct in surmising your attempts to wheedle in that particular choice of words stems from a contention with Neformore's sentiments as expressed on the ATS radio show, I would advise that you take it up with him. I can't speak for him, nor am I willing to.

In regard to the actual topic, employees are protected from religious discrimination. This doesn't stop their employers from coming up with some cockamamie excuse to fire them, but in such a case, then religious discrimination isn't any more special than sexual harassment or racism. Do you wish to start a campaign against racial, sexual, or even economic discrimination or influence in government?

reply to post by AfterInfinity


My choice of words stems from a mindset that I see, all to often, that reflects an attempt to silence unwanted speech. Just as the American Atheists attempted (unsuccessfully) to silence the religious groups that erected the 10 Commandments, any attempt to silence one group in favor of another group is unconstitutional. The judged ruled that they couldn't do that, and that they (the atheists) should be afforded the same right of expression.

Freedom of speech is guaranteed, but not without consequences. An employer can fire an individual for for saying any number of things, but not for the belief that motivated the words (Freedom of religion). They are not the same rights, but they are intertwined.

That's what we were talking about right? You posed the question: "Do government workers have the right to display their religious beliefs in a government building?" Government employees have the right to practice their religion as long as it doesn't interfere with their job descriptions and as long as they don't use their position to promote one religion over an other.

Some jobs may forbid the wearing of a cross about the neck, (freedom of expression) as a safety hazard, or because it violated a certain dress code that the employer has the right to enforce. Freedom of speech has legal limitation and or consequences.

reply to post by windword


And this is pertinent in what way? Sorry, long winded discussion with constant distractions and breaks tend to make me lose track of what's being discussed and why.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by windword

 

And this is pertinent in what way? Sorry, long winded discussion with constant distractions and breaks tend to make me lose track of what's being discussed and why.

I'm trying to stay on topic. My replies are pertinent to what you asked and stated here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

and the resulting conversation that ensued of freedom of speech/expression vs freedom of religion.

reply to post by windword


My entire argument, starting from those points linked in your post, is that neither monuments pose a threat to legislation. Such a protest is a weak excuse for preventing the public from expressing pride in that which gives it the strength to go on in a world that seems increasingly hopeless. Each monument represents something that gives us an ideal to strive towards. One represents a spiritual basis for peaceful coexistence and a direction to look for meaning when everything seems meaningless. The other reminds us not to forget this life in our pursuit of the next. I can respect that. I really can.

And in the end, even if they were to dump a giant pile of religious monuments recognizing every belief system currently practices in the world, I don't think any of them would affect legislation. To be perfectly honest, I'm a little disappointed. Without a doubt, something inspiring could easily have been taken from each of those monuments. If handled correctly, these monuments could have changed lives. They could have been a symbol for something we could be instead of something we've chosen to be. But instead, we've chosen to use these monuments as ammunition in one of the most meaningless wars that have ever been fought in this world.

That's what I've been driving at. All of this political nonsense is just symptoms of a deeper issue that I just described above. And it saddens me that a marvelous opportunity has been wasted on short-sighted agendas. Such a shame.