Public Atheist Monument Across from 10 Commandments

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


A baby, in my opinion, is a bad example. A baby has no critical thinking skill in order to make a decision on a supposition.

I think atheism is more like this:

Religious person: God is a supreme being that watches over us and decides who is going to be rewarded and who will be damned, based on this book, which is HIS holy "word".

Atheist person: Sorry. That is something I don't believe.

Relgious person: Who do you believe God is?

Atheist person: I don't believe a God exists.

reply to post by windword


That's practicing atheism. Atheism, in and of itself, is a condition that can be ascribed to almost anyone or anything. This object represents the atheist mindset, or that person demonstrates atheist opinions. And then there's the people who actively exhibit their belief in the nonexistence of any higher power.

reply to post by windword


Very good windword. I like your example:

A baby, in my opinion, is a bad example. A baby has no critical thinking skill in order to make a decision on a supposition.

I think atheism is more like this:

Religious person: God is a supreme being that watches over us and decides who is going to be rewarded and who will be damned, based on this book, which is HIS holy "word".

Atheist person: Sorry. That is something I don't believe.

Relgious person: Who do you believe God is?

Atheist person: I don't believe a God exists.

I agree. A baby is definitely bad example, but a logically necessary one if we apply the "lack of belief" definition. With this definition anyone who doesn't mention that they believe in a god is an atheist—agnostics, those incapable of talking because of severe mental incapacity, babies, Buddhists, or people who haven't even considered the idea of a god—all are atheists. This is a fair assertion, and true by its logical form, but renders the word atheist as completely irrelevant. Ask a baby straight up if it believes in deities or not and you'll get your answer. Babies don't argue for atheism. They are beyond atheism. They know nothing of deities, religion etc. But who knows, maybe babies are instead believers?

No, to be able to have an opinion on a matter—in this case deities—one must first know what the matter is. If I am to deny the Gods, I must know what Gods are.

Of course the topic of atheism isn't irrelevant, as this very thread, and the discourse of Atheism vs Theism, shows that it is a heated topic. This is because there is a dogma about it, a proposed metaphysics taken on faith, an "ism", an idea behind the word that people live by and work off of—"God does not exist". This idea is what is being sold here under the banner of atheism. It is no different than the idea "God does exist" sold by theistic religions, it's an idea, an "ism", a proposed metaphysic taken on faith. There's a group think at work here, and we see it every time someone religiously defends that banner, as if it described a part of their core being. It describes nothing of the sort.

The label atheist is irrelevant, once a derogatory term, once used against those the church considered godless, immoral, impious, incredulous. A word invented by the very religious authorities that atheists claim to be without. It shows how far removed from the church an atheist can get.

Look, I'm as godless, impious, incredulous as they come, and I have no time for any religious morality, superstitions, or authoritative metaphysical opinions, but the reason I am irreligious is because I am offended by the politicization, dogmatism, fundamentalism, the propagation of one opinion over another through rhetoric, salesmanship and branding, and the condemnation that arises from it—not because I off-hand disagree with what someone believes in. This religious behaviour, the only tangible aspect of religion, its effect, is manifesting in atheism.

Only time will tell.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

This religious behaviour, the only tangible aspect of religion, its effect, is manifesting in atheism.

So you think atheism, in its drive to achieve the upper hand, is beginning to resort to the very same behavior it despises?

Originally posted by windword

Best to go to the source for the unbiased truth.

Yes. I use American Atheists as my source.

They seem to be the most current in information and activism.

Lets be clear what their activism is. #1-absolute separation of church and state. #2-similar to the gay rights movement. Support (by various means billboards etc) to come out of the closet and be recognized socially and publicly. There are a couple elected atheist politicians.

American Atheists represent themselves. They are not the only atheist or humanism spokes person/group.

reply to post by Annee

There are a couple elected atheist politicians.

What a shame that that is something to be celebrated as unique. But, then again, how many Sikhs, Hindi or Muslims are in an elected office around the country. Not many.

reply to post by windword


I prefer election based on meritocracy, not religiosity. Being atheist is entirely irrelevant.

Religious propaganda of any kind doesn't have any place on publicly owned property of any kind.

Having said that, I don't mean to say that no religious sentiment should ever appear. The 10 Commandments is a great achievement in the development of civilization, and is not unique to one group of nomadic desert dwellers. All peoples, all over the world have very similar concepts as basic foundation of their society. "Thou shalt not murder" is clearly a universal idea, common to every society on the planet. So the 10 Commandments has a place in a public display of mankind's achievements, right next to the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, the Code of Hammurabi, and other examples from perhaps China or India or other places that I don't have at my fingertips to quote.

However, placing such a monument for the express purpose of extolling its virtues as the particular foundation of one sect, Christianity, and therefore as the foundation of 'our Christian nation' is wrong headed.

The placement of a counter monument from the Atheists is a very poor substitute for simply following the sentiments expressed in the Constitution that the Government shall not favor one religion over any other.

That said, this is the quote I'd like to see on the Athiest's monument:

"Whenever... preachers, instead of a lesson in religion, put [their congregation] off with a discourse on the Copernican system, on chemical affinities, on the construction of government, or the characters or conduct of those administering it, it is a breach of contract, depriving their audience of the kind of service for which they are salaried, and giving them, instead of it, what they did not want, or, if wanted, would rather seek from better sources in that particular art of science." --Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815. ME 14:281

See? Thomas Jefferson made the separation argument. There is no separation clause in the US Constitution. The 1st amendment applies to "religious propaganda". The propaganda of atheists also applies.


How do you feel about "atheist" propaganda in the public square?

atheists "beliefs" are irrelevant, except for social control

Why they need to be so needy about things when they are just smart animals is beyond me

Originally posted by GeisterFahrer
See? Thomas Jefferson made the separation argument. There is no separation clause in the US Constitution.

There are TWO clauses in the Constitution dealing with separation of Church and State.

Article VI forbids Religious interference in Government by declaring that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

The 1st Amendment forbids Government interference in Religion by declaring that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

Jefferson did not make "the separation argument" that is embedded in the Constitution. He was in Paris and had nothing to do with writing the Constitution. He did, however, agree with "the separation argument" and later characterized the combined effect of the two clauses as "a wall of separation".

The 1st amendment applies to "religious propaganda".

This assertion sounds like you are saying that it 'only' applies to "religious propaganda". It applies to anything about the Government favoring one religion over another. Allowing propaganda from one sect or another is only one way of favoring a sect and all forms are forbidden.

As I said, I would argue that displaying the 10 Commandments in an educational setting setting out the evolution of human ethics and legal systems would not be propaganda. Allowing the 10 Commandments to be placed by a religious organization for the purposes of religious instruction is most definitely propaganda and is forbidden by the Constitution.

reply to post by rnaa


I don't think the monuments can be classified as propaganda any more than the Liberty Bell. They are statements, not vendors. If I get a tattoo if Batman's symbol across my face, does that make me a billlboard for that franchise?

Originally posted by rnaa

Originally posted by GeisterFahrer
See? Thomas Jefferson made the separation argument. There is no separation clause in the US Constitution.

There are TWO clauses in the Constitution dealing with separation of Church and State.

Article VI forbids Religious interference in Government by declaring that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

The 1st Amendment forbids Government interference in Religion by declaring that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

Jefferson did not make "the separation argument" that is embedded in the Constitution. He was in Paris and had nothing to do with writing the Constitution. He did, however, agree with "the separation argument" and later characterized the combined effect of the two clauses as "a wall of separation".

The 1st amendment applies to "religious propaganda".

This assertion sounds like you are saying that it 'only' applies to "religious propaganda". It applies to anything about the Government favoring one religion over another. Allowing propaganda from one sect or another is only one way of favoring a sect and all forms are forbidden.

As I said, I would argue that displaying the 10 Commandments in an educational setting setting out the evolution of human ethics and legal systems would not be propaganda. Allowing the 10 Commandments to be placed by a religious organization for the purposes of religious instruction is most definitely propaganda and is forbidden by the Constitution.

You are taking it out of context (article VI is not a "separation" clause)

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

In other words, A judge to be sworn in does not need to prove they can walk on water.

reply to post by GeisterFahrer


Of course not. Who wants a duck for a judge? Sorry, Monty Python reference.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by GeisterFahrer

 

Of course not. Who wants a duck for a judge?

Sorry, Monty Python reference.

That was funny

Originally posted by GeisterFahrer
You are taking it out of context (article VI is not a "separation" clause)

No, I'm not (yes it is).

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.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
I don't care if they have a monument or not .... but I'm kinda confused about it.
I thought atheists weren't into monuments or statues and that kind of thing??

Color me wrong I guess ....

OK, you're wrong. Atheism is not about non-belief in monuments and/or statues. If anything. certain Christian sects are against iconoclasm/statuary -- although you wouldn't know it these days. Ever hear of the Iconoclastic Controversy? It had nothing to do with Atheists and everything to do with Christians.

What Atheists don't believe in is a God or gods (A-theism: without theism or belief in deities), and they are very much against religions pushing their beliefs on the public and in public places. That is why this lawsuit came about. If Atheists were against statues or monuments, they'd be filing lawsuits against Mt. Rushmore, the Statue of Liberty and the Lincoln Memorial.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by windword

 

A monument of a big middle finger facing the Ten Commandments could have accomplished the same thing IMO and would have been more to the point but this works.

I think many Christians and Jews give the Ten Commandments the finger every day by their actions and the actions of their governments that they support, and by the cultural things they prize and create. "Thou shall not kill"? What happened with that one, huh? "Thou shall not commit adultery"? Puh-LEEZE!.

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." What about pictures and statues of Jesus? I thought he is in heaven at the very least and in Christian sects that believe Jesus is part of the Trinity, he is God as well. What about all those fish symbols on Christians' bumper stickers? What about pictures of whales in Sunday School books about the story of Jonah? And don't even get me started about all the images of the Devil and angels in art -- or the worst offense of all -- the notorious Sistine Chapel ceiling image by Michelangelo; I do believe that is God's arm the blasphemous artist painted.

"Thou shall not steal." Well that's exactly what this nation that was supposedly founded under Christian ideals did: it stole it from the Native Americans, and then the colonists stole it from the English Crown. That's high larceny of the most egregious sort. The same goes for Israel.

Nope, Atheists don't need to give the Ten Commandments the Finger. Professors of the Ten Commandments do it day in and day out 24/7/365/1000.

reply to post by MrInquisitive


Well what you said is true just consider my post you quoted as paraphrasing your sentiments.