Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I preach about that which I actually believe in. I do not get up in the pulpit on an average Sunday just to try to tear down others under the guise of "reason".
You pass along propaganda for your cause.
There's no difference. Except you get paid for it.
So here is a clear case of an atheist distributing his propaganda on public government property.
Looks like you failed to read and comprehend the article. It said he intended to offer philosophical discussions. A free exchange of ideas is not "distributing propaganda".
But if atheists are going to demand that Christians can not have any display of faith on public property then they should lose the right to distribute their material. It's either all or nothing.
Except atheism isn't a religion. Hence, there's no problem with having an atheist run a "reason station" on state property.
But if atheists are going to demand that Christians can not have any display of faith on public property then they should lose the right to distribute their material. It's either all or nothing.
Atheists demandng that Christians not have any display of faith on public property?
Beat the stuffing out of that strawman, Jeff...
Are you even aware of the article you cite? It states that Christians were allowed to distribute religious materials in City Hall without question, while atheists had to go to court in order to distribute non-religious materials. And somehow, you come out of this with whining umbrage against atheists?
Instead of complaining about atheists, who in this instance were initially unlawfully prohibited from exercising their First Amendment rights, you might admonish officials to not actively discriminate against them. That is, if you actually cared about the rights of the side that was victimized by the government in the very article you brought to our attention.
I preach about that which I actually believe in. I do not get up in the pulpit on an average Sunday just to try to tear down others under the guise of "reason".
So, that is your average Sunday. That means there are other kinds of Sunday? The Sundays where you do engage in tearing down others is allowed as long as you use the bible?
There's no difference. Except you get paid for it.
Again...you don't see me standing up and decrying the idiocy of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I don't believe in it..but I don't go around spouting off about it not existing.
This sort of example shows us that atheism is more than simply not believing...but it's rather a believe that God does not exist.
Except atheism isn't a religion. Hence, there's no problem with having an atheist run a "reason station" on state property.
Really, so why are there now atheist churches? The reality is you do subscribe to an ideology that is hostile to Christianity. Your god is science. You have faith that there is no life after death when such a position has never been proven.
So if Christians can't have a prayer station then atheists can not try to influence people on government property with their ideology.
Atheists demandng that Christians not have any display of faith on public property?
Beat the stuffing out of that strawman, Jeff...
Are you even aware of the article you cite? It states that Christians were allowed to distribute religious materials in City Hall without question, while atheists had to go to court in order to distribute non-religious materials. And somehow, you come out of this with whining umbrage against atheists?
Instead of complaining about atheists, who in this instance were initially unlawfully prohibited from exercising their First Amendment rights, you might admonish officials to not actively discriminate against them. That is, if you actually cared about the rights of the side that was victimized by the government in the very article you brought to our attention.
Did you even read my OP? I said I was fine with the decision. I just find it hypocritical that atheists are throwing such a big fit over something as simple as a cross memorial yet they have no problem at all setting up a reason station on public property even if it offends most people.
I suspect you wouldn't have any problem with this atheist being allowed his reason station regardless.
I would not support his reason station if the religious group had not been allowed to set up the prayer station.
I'd prefer it if these kinds of things would stay off of government property, since the government must represent everyone, regardless of their religion or lack thereof.
I would not support his reason station if the religious group had not been allowed to set up the prayer station.
I'd prefer it if these kinds of things would stay off of government property, since the government must represent everyone, regardless of their religion or lack thereof.
That's my position also.
As far as I know, the general principle is that all religion is prohibited in the public square, or in the alternative, all must have equal access.
I am not sure why the legal action here wasn't to halt the access of the one religion rather than asking for equal access. Not being a lawyer, I don't know how those decisions play out in practice.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.