Public Atheist Monument Across from 10 Commandments

reply to post by AfterInfinity


I couldn't disagree with you more. This was a struggle over the difference between freedom of religion and freedom of speech, as well as a challenge to the concept of separation of church and state.

I applaud the American Atheists for expressing their concerns for what appeared to them to be a misuse of government, in that the government okayed the erection of a private religious monument on public property. Using the non biased, non religious affiliate of the US legal system, the two opposing groups found common ground by agreeing to erect an additional expression of their own, through the erection of a 2nd monument.

Precedent set, now other groups are also welcome to do the same.

reply to post by windword


Then why didn't the government demand that the monument be removed? Lemme have a crack at that question:

"Hell yeah, freedom of religion and speech! Hey, get that damn monument off our lawn you Jesus freaks!"

...yeah. That's quite an impressive statement coming from the government. All around, I support the possibility of everyone growing the f*** up and getting over their differences. How about you learn from each other instead of degrading one another? Maybe if you spent more time taking opportunities to make a positive change, you wouldn't feel the need to be negative about differences in opinion and tact.

Not you personally, Windword. But these moments bring me a feeling of exasperation so powerful that my hand just itches to slap myself across the face if only to provide a distraction. Ugh.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


The 10 Commandments isn't even a Christian monument, per say, it's Jewish.

This is a Christian monument that's been a controversy in my neck of the woods for some 20+ years.

Is this "breaking news"? No, it's not. In fact, for many, this is simply the redundant, exhausted, futile, and proverbial "beating of the dead horse." Most are familiar by now with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' latest ruling. Essentially, the court ruled that the presence of the Mt. Soledad Cross is "an uncostitutional sign of government favoring religion."

www.examiner.com...

The "arguments" set forth by those who want the cross removed are many, and they are firmly rooted in their interpretation of the U. S. Constitution, as well as the California Constitution.

Opponents of the cross have been persistent, well-funded, and relentless. They're not going away.

The difference here is that the Brandon County, 10 Commandments controversy was mediated to settlement. The Mt Soledad Cross was not!

The American Civil Liberties Union proposed ways to resolve the situation:
The cross may be dismantled.
The cross may be sold to a third party and physically transferred off the public land. An Episcopal church, located within a few hundred feet from the present location of the cross, has agreed to place it on its property.

The government may hold an auction and sell the parcel of the land with the cross to the highest bidder.
However, the government is not allowed to give any preference to those buyers who are interested in preserving the cross. An auction such as this was the subject of Proposition K in 2004, which failed 40% to 59%. Defenders of the cross saw all these options as unacceptable and were determined to find a way to leave the cross intact in its present location.

In February 2012, the Liberty Institute, a nonprofit conservative Christian legal group, filed an appeal of the 2011 ruling that found the cross to be unconstitutional. On March 14, the U.S. Solicitor General joined the appeal.[45]
The Supreme Court denied certiorari to hear the case on June 25, 2012.[46] This means the 9th Circuit Court ruling stands, and the issue is likely to return to federal court for resolution.
en.wikipedia.org...

This issue is still in the courts!

reply to post by windword


I'm interested in knowing what the general response would be had that cross been a giant horse or something instead. It seems that it's the message being sent that people have a problem with. Why is that?

I think the biggest mistake was expecting the citizens to be mature about this. Had no one made a fuss, the courts wouldn't have cared. They have bigger issues to deal with as it is. A pithy monument is the least of their concerns.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity

They have bigger issues to deal with as it is. A pithy monument is the least of their concerns.

Eye of the beholder..

Since 1963, American Atheists has been the premier organization fighting for the civil liberties of atheists and the total, absolute separation of government and religion.

reply to post by Annee


I feel that government representatives should be able to enjoy their religions both in and outside of their respective offices. Obviously, they should leave their bias at the door when it comes to making legal decisions, but I don't see how the freedom of religious should be negated the moment you step on government ground.

See, here's what I'm trying to say: I see a difference between the royal identity and the individual identity. The individual identity does not cease when working as a component of the royal identity. As such, individual rights should still apply even when in "royal mode". It appears to me that the American Atheists are insistent upon such rights being nullified while in "royal mode" for fear that such representatives lack the scruples necessary to keep themselves in check while handling legal business.

I'm not sure that this is entirely...er, necessary. It could be one of those situations where you push too hard out of fear, and in retaliation, your fear becomes realized where, had you demonstrated trust in the motivations and scruples of your fellows, that might not have happened. They may be pushing so hard that they give the religious politicians a reason to turn around and say, "You know what? We tried to play nice. But screw you, we're going to do it our way now."

It's a very fine line, and one has to take care not to push the wrong buttons for the wrong reasons. This can happen all too easily, especially when you are blinded by concern for an imagined threat. And yes, I will suggest that this could be an imagined threat: the government knows what it is supposed to do, and it appears to be making gradual headway where religion is concerned. It's always going to be an up and down journey, so pushing the accelerator is only going to amplify those bumps.

I'd love to talk to one of those American Atheists and find out exactly what they are so afraid of.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity

I'd love to talk to one of those American Atheists and find out exactly what they are so afraid of.

I fully support separation of church and state. I also fully support no religion in a working environment.

What one believes and does on their personal time is their right. I choose where I go and who I hang with so that I am not subjected to that which I do not want to be subjected to.

There is a church of some kind on almost every corner. There is zero need to place religious symbols elsewhere.

The purpose of placing religious symbols is to influence a specific belief.

If you want to communicate with the American Atheists, here is their website: atheists.org...

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
I don't see how the freedom of religious should be negated the moment you step on government ground.

Because government is for ALL THE PEOPLE. Not just god believers.

I was raised (assimilated) into god belief, Christian. I am 67 and was Christian (or so I thought) up until about 10 years ago. When I realized I lack belief in any god, I also realized it really never made any sense to me, and I was just going through the motions of a socially and culturally accepted indoctrination.

My personal atheist philosophy is not that you live and die, and that's the end of it. Because I had OBEs and other paranormal (for lack of a better word) experiences since birth, I know there's more going on.

Anyway, I've watched the evolution of the legal atheist separation of church and state movement in my own timeline. I've witnessed how Christianity (primarily) was strongly influencing the courts and government.

It (religion in government) is NOT a minor issue. It is a major issue. Any god symbol on government property is an attempt to sway thought to that belief.

In the case of the subject of this thread, a compromise was reached, however it was not what the atheists originally asked for. We'll see how that works out. Will Muslims and Bhuddists, etc. request representation too? They all should.

Originally posted by Beavers

Originally posted by Phoenix267
reply to post by sinthia

 

Atheism is not a religion. It is a lack of belief in a deity. There is no belief or religion involved in atheist. An individual person chooses to identify as an atheist. There is no conversion or anything of that nature.

It's not a religion, but it's still a faith based on a belief that there isn't a god or afterlife.

The wonderful irony of atheism.

Now they need their own monuments to re-affirm their faith.

What next, churches?

An Atheist here in the UK has already brought up his belief that there should be Atheist Churches! he feels it would give Atheists the same level of community!

Originally posted by WilsonWilson

An Atheist here in the UK has already brought up his belief that there should be Atheist Churches! he feels it would give Atheists the same level of community!

I am aware of that. And I believe it was the media reporter that referred to it as a church. Partly (if memory serves) because the building they rented was once used as a church.

There are many like minded groups who rent places to gather.

There is a group that calls themselves an Atheist Church (not sure where they are located). But, it's a joke basically. More like a Monty Python church.

There are some atheists who do think an organized atheist 'church' would be a good idea. But, most don't, and the hard core are against any type of organized gathering.

reply to post by Annee


I always thought the Humanist society was the Atheists "church".

Originally posted by WilsonWilson
reply to post by Annee

 

I always thought the Humanist society was the Atheists "church".

Humanism and atheism are not exactly the same thing. Atheism has only one meaning " lack of belief in a god".

What an individual atheist believes is his personal philosophy. Which can coincide with other non god beliefs.

What is humanism? atheism.about.com...

reply to post by Annee

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
I don't see how the freedom of religious should be negated the moment you step on government ground.

Because government is for ALL THE PEOPLE. Not just god believers.

And that's why there's both a Christian monument and an atheist monument on government ground. Because government is for all the people.

Anyway, I've watched the evolution of the legal atheist separation of church and state movement in my own timeline. I've witnessed how Christianity (primarily) was strongly influencing the courts and government.

It (religion in government) is NOT a minor issue. It is a major issue. Any god symbol on government property is an attempt to sway thought to that belief.

Are you suggesting the American public, not to mention our government, is so weak minded that a simple monument will change our stance on any given subject?

In the case of the subject of this thread, a compromise was reached, however it was not what the atheists originally asked for. We'll see how that works out. Will Muslims and Bhuddists, etc. request representation too? They all should.

I agree.

reply to post by Annee

I fully support separation of church and state. I also fully support no religion in a working environment.

Why? What happened to freedom of speech? Once again, when "royal mode" is activated, all personal rights go out the window. We are no longer safe in discussing alternative opinions because heaven forbid if someone should react in an immature manner and bring negative attention to the business.

Maybe instead of banning religion in work places, people should grow up. It's no different from Republican vs Democrat, and yet that is not a taboo subject, is it? Nor is wearing a donkey or elephant on your sleeve or putting up a sign on public property.

What one believes and does on their personal time is their right. I choose where I go and who I hang with so that I am not subjected to that which I do not want to be subjected to.

I believe a little friction is good for the blade. Keeps the edge nice and sharp, reminds it of why it is there.

There is a church of some kind on almost every corner. There is zero need to place religious symbols elsewhere.

And yet they continue to make more McDonald's and Burger King's. Are you sure this isn't to do with your personal bias in the issue? It seems you are less than objective in your considerations.

The purpose of placing religious symbols is to influence a specific belief.

We choose whether to be influenced. In appeasing your own insecurities, you would squash the liberties and happiness of others? Again, you have no faith in the minds and wills of your fellow humans.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
What happened to freedom of speech?

That is the same argument some are trying to use to defend the baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding.

If you can't understand the difference between personal and government property. That's your problem.

Or personal god belief infringing on a secular government.

God is not a part of a secular government. It's that simple.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity

We choose whether to be influenced. In appeasing your own insecurities, you would squash the liberties and happiness of others? Again, you have no faith in the minds and wills of your fellow humans.

Insecurities? Where'd you pull that from? If there is anything I'm not, it's insecure. Seems to me only an insecure person would throw that into a debate. You are resorting to an emotional position.

I personally do not agree with the compromise of keeping the 10 Commandments and adding an atheist counterpart. That is not what the American Atheists asked for.

However, that is what the arbitrators came up with.

Should the atheists have turned it down? Should David have declined a slingshot when facing Goliath?

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.

reply to post by Annee

Insecurities? Where'd you pull that from? If there is anything I'm not, it's insecure. Seems to me only an insecure person would throw that into a debate. You are resorting to an emotional position.

It's an emotional topic. Generally, those who attempt to oppress an activity are afraid of that activity for some reason. I am addressing that fear.

I personally do not agree with the compromise of keeping the 10 Commandments and adding an atheist counterpart. That is not what the American Atheists asked for.

That's what they got. Let's make the best of it, eh?

However, that is what the arbitrators came up with.

Should the atheists have turned it down? Should David have declined a slingshot when facing Goliath?

Is the American Atheists group intending to kill religion?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity

It's an emotional topic. Generally, those who attempt to oppress an activity are afraid of that activity for some reason. I am addressing that fear.

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.

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.