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.
An atheist organization is blasting the U.S. Postal Service for its plan to honor Mother Teresa with a commemorative stamp, saying it violates postal regulations against honoring "individuals whose principal achievements are associated with religious undertakings."
I think any legitiment display is OK as long as it tasteful and does not reflect hate as its intent.
I can say, "I believe in God". That is OK. If I said, "I believe in God, and anyone one who doesn't agree with me is an idiot, and that is not OK.
While I disagree with you, I can respect your position. I disagree on three major points.
1) Who defines "tasteful" and "intent". Go to the modern day KKK website. They say something like "it's not hate, it's heritage". Would a KKK display in City Hall be defined as a tasteful display of celebrating heritage, or a hateful display celebrating ignorance and oppression? An atheist could easily view something truly intended to be innocuous as distasteful or hateful. The same holds for any person of other beliefs.
And also, people have the right to be unreasonable. If someone views a nativity scene as hateful, you might see that as unreasonable, but that doesn't change that fact that that person views it as hateful.
2) Practical: What happens when a City Hall or Court House mostly occupied by people doing their jobs is inundated by 800 tasteful requests to set up displays?
3) I believe there is a fundamental difference between the public square and public property when it comes to free speech and establishment of religion issues (the courts mostly agree with me, I'm pretty sure).
I have no problem with religious displays, religious speech, etc in the public square - as long as everyone has access to it. Not only are we guaranteed free speech rights in the public square, but by not infringing upon them you avoid the whole establishing a religion quagmire.
Set up all the nativity scenes you want in a public park. Preach as much atheism as you want in the public plaza. Broadcast the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) over our public airwaves. Send out all the Humanistic Reason pamphlets you want through our public mail system.
Keep religion out of the places where our government does it's business. There's no place for it in our city halls, courts, schools, etc.
There is a big difference between public property amd the public square. The public square includes public areas that are recognized as public forums. Sidewalks and most public parks are examples. People may speak their minds here, and the state may not enforce limits that discriminate by content. On the other hand, there is no right whatsoever even to be on public property. The state may allow it or even compel it, but there is no more right to be on public property that there is on private property. On its property or through its agency, the state may not act to endorse or favor one religion over another, or religion over non-religion. It is thus difficult to erect anything but secular holiday displays. Some states choose to designate during the holiday season a portion of public property as a public forum. Displays of a religious nature are just fine within a public forum, but you again cannot discriminate by content, which is why the Freedom from Religion Foundation has every right to post its "winter solstice" signs in public forum areas and will prevail in any court challenge to that right.
While I disagree with you, I can respect your position. I disagree on three major points.
1) Who defines "tasteful" and "intent". Go to the modern day KKK website. They say something like "it's not hate, it's heritage". Would a KKK display in City Hall be defined as a tasteful display of celebrating heritage, or a hateful display celebrating ignorance and oppression? An atheist could easily view something truly intended to be innocuous as distasteful or hateful. The same holds for any person of other beliefs.
And also, people have the right to be unreasonable. If someone views a nativity scene as hateful, you might see that as unreasonable, but that doesn't change that fact that that person views it as hateful.
2) Practical: What happens when a City Hall or Court House mostly occupied by people doing their jobs is inundated by 800 tasteful requests to set up displays?
3) I believe there is a fundamental difference between the public square and public property when it comes to free speech and establishment of religion issues (the courts mostly agree with me, I'm pretty sure).
I have no problem with religious displays, religious speech, etc in the public square - as long as everyone has access to it. Not only are we guaranteed free speech rights in the public square, but by not infringing upon them you avoid the whole establishing a religion quagmire.
Set up all the nativity scenes you want in a public park. Preach as much atheism as you want in the public plaza. Broadcast the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) over our public airwaves. Send out all the Humanistic Reason pamphlets you want through our public mail system.
Keep religion out of the places where our government does it's business. There's no place for it in our city halls, courts, schools, etc.
It's true that intent is sometimes difficult to ascertain and taste is subjective. I don't have a problem with atheists that want to celebrate the winter solstice, but I find it distasteful to attack another religion as the basis for your beliefs in your display. Their display this past holiday season would be akin to a Christian's display saying that all non-believers are going straight to hell for all eternity. JMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PurpleLove08
Seem the Illinois candidate is pandering to religious voters who are too insecure in their faith to allow atheists free speech.
Wouldn't the best thing be to stop allowing these sort of displays on the capitol?
Actually there was overwhelming distaste for the atheist's display, and this is a very liberal state. The local news covered it ad nauseum, and even many atheists were on record stating that the display was extremely distasteful and offensive. If their sole purpose was to exercise their rights to freedom of speech then they succeeded in doing so. If they attempted to sway anyone's opinions, I think they failed.
The athiests's sign had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with mocking the christmas tree, the menorah, etc. It shouldn't have been allowed in a state building.
I'm glad the Christians are fighting back against these athiest hate groups. Always beware the tyranny of minority groups like athiests who are trying to look bigger than they really are.
There is a big difference between public property amd the public square. The public square includes public areas that are recognized as public forums. Sidewalks and most public parks are examples. People may speak their minds here, and the state may not enforce limits that discriminate by content. On the other hand, there is no right whatsoever even to be on public property. The state may allow it or even compel it, but there is no more right to be on public property that there is on private property. On its property or through its agency, the state may not act to endorse or favor one religion over another, or religion over non-religion. It is thus difficult to erect anything but secular holiday displays. Some states choose to designate during the holiday season a portion of public property as a public forum. Displays of a religious nature are just fine within a public forum, but you again cannot discriminate by content, which is why the Freedom from Religion Foundation has every right to post its "winter solstice" signs in public forum areas and will prevail in any court challenge to that right.
While I disagree with you, I can respect your position. I disagree on three major points.
1) Who defines "tasteful" and "intent". Go to the modern day KKK website. They say something like "it's not hate, it's heritage". Would a KKK display in City Hall be defined as a tasteful display of celebrating heritage, or a hateful display celebrating ignorance and oppression? An atheist could easily view something truly intended to be innocuous as distasteful or hateful. The same holds for any person of other beliefs.
And also, people have the right to be unreasonable. If someone views a nativity scene as hateful, you might see that as unreasonable, but that doesn't change that fact that that person views it as hateful.
2) Practical: What happens when a City Hall or Court House mostly occupied by people doing their jobs is inundated by 800 tasteful requests to set up displays?
3) I believe there is a fundamental difference between the public square and public property when it comes to free speech and establishment of religion issues (the courts mostly agree with me, I'm pretty sure).
I have no problem with religious displays, religious speech, etc in the public square - as long as everyone has access to it. Not only are we guaranteed free speech rights in the public square, but by not infringing upon them you avoid the whole establishing a religion quagmire.
Set up all the nativity scenes you want in a public park. Preach as much atheism as you want in the public plaza. Broadcast the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) over our public airwaves. Send out all the Humanistic Reason pamphlets you want through our public mail system.
Keep religion out of the places where our government does it's business. There's no place for it in our city halls, courts, schools, etc.
1. Iv'e heard the phrase, "What would a reasonable person think" in legal things. The powers that be in charge of a site have the power to decide. If you disagree, you can go to court.
2. Catagorize the requests. determine how many displays can be accomadated. Have a lottery from each catagory.
3. I don't think the courts would agree with you.
I don't think our Forefathers would agree on you belief on public buildings.
(I do believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion.)
Our country is filled with references of a supreme being in both print and inscribed on public buildings.
What is it when a atheist does not like a donated ten commandments chiseled rock and wants it removed because they have to drive by it and dont like the look of it!
Which has nothing to do with the OP. The conniving politician in the OP doesn't want equal access. He's hunky-dory with Christian signs on publicly owned grounds, but specifically targets a sign that he disagrees with.
Quote:
This will level out the the playing field with these types of actions! Dont like it to bad the Christians are tired of being complacent!
Please don't try to play cute. Christianity enjoys a privileged position. And some Christians, at least, are not looking for equality, they're pissed that their preferential treatment is coming to an end.
Quote:
The Hate from the atheists is amazing they are nothing but big bullies using the law to spread their hate. I often wonder what is so wrong with their lives that they go after those who they despise is it because they are happy?
Re-read the OP. Who is "using the law" again?
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.
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.
