DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> ?s about atheism but were afraid to ask
Pages:   ...
Showing posts 951 - 973 of 973, (reverse)
AuthorThread
06/10/2011 05:16:43 PM · #951
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Makes me wonder: would the bricks have been planted without a problem if the *citations* had not been there? I mean, if I want to tell people to love one another, surely that's not objectionable? So the issue is not the message, but the source? Sounds pretty discriminatory to me...


I would probably agree with you if the biblical references were part of a group of references across multiple religious and non-religious sources. Want to pick out a bunch of bland admonitions from the Bible, the Koran, the Diamond and Heart Sutras, the Tao Te Ching, the Book of Shadows, Homer, Plato's Discourses, A Critique of Practical Reason, the Leviathan, etc. and arrange them in a nice collage - sure, why not.

But if what we are talking about is explicit and exclusive biblical references on government property, then yes, there is a discriminatory effect, just not in the way you are seeing it. Further, let's not pretend that the likely motive from the "parents" was anything other than deliberate proselytization, which is improper in any governmental forum.
06/10/2011 05:18:52 PM · #952
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

I believe (pun intended) that "God," singular and capitalized, denotes the Christian God specifically ... to suggest that "tell everyone about God's power" could as easily refer to Allah or Buddha or Odin or Zeus is either silly or blasphemous.


I donno....


Even taking your point, it remains at minimum a promotion of belief over non-belief, which is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion under the First Amendment.
06/10/2011 05:23:43 PM · #953
This is all bullshit. It would be unconstitutional to say, "we're only going to have Christian bricks and we don't want any Quran references." That is endorsing one particular religion. If all views are able to be expressed, there is no reason that an expression cannot be explicitly religious.

My daughter sang, "Jesus, Lamb of God, worthy is your name" at her kindergarten public school talent show. (There were many tears in the audience. She rocked!) There was no problem with this and there were a number of other religious songs as well including a Sikh dance. No state sponsored religion does not equal no religion.

Message edited by author 2011-06-10 17:24:31.
06/10/2011 05:44:07 PM · #954
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

It would be unconstitutional to say, "we're only going to have Christian bricks and we don't want any Quran references." That is endorsing one particular religion. If all competing views are able to be actually included, there is no reason that an expression cannot be explicitly religious expressions cannot also be included.


There, FTFY.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

My daughter sang, "Jesus, Lamb of God, worthy is your name" at her kindergarten public school talent show. (There were many tears in the audience. She rocked!) There was no problem with this and there were a number of other religious songs as well including a Sikh dance. No state sponsored religion does not equal no religion.


Individual expressions of religion are not a problem. I don't see anything wrong with the talent show - the kids decide what they want to do and the acts at such an event can't really be seen as any sort of endorsement of the content of the acts on the part of the school.

There is nothing unconstitutional about true individual expressions of religion. I also would have no problem with a comparative religion or Bible/Koran as literature class. But we aren't talking about individual expressions of religion, we are talking about literally embedding explicit Bible quotes, some overtly proselytizing, into the architecture of a public school.

Your "all views are able to be expressed" is a canard used by those who hold the same religious view of the majority, who are comfortable that, given this imbalance, their own particular views are the likely ones to be represented in an "open" forum.

Message edited by author 2011-06-10 17:49:43.
06/10/2011 05:54:37 PM · #955
I'm pretty sure the SCOTUS disagrees with you SP. All views do not NEED to be included, just that one view is not endorsed over another. What was the decision about that odd statue that the little fringe religion wanted to include in that park? I'm blanking on the particulars.
06/10/2011 05:56:36 PM · #956
We better get out there and start patching up or otherwise obliterating the messages on half the old-school public buildings in America. And I'm looking at an illegal twenty-dollar bill right now; "In God We Trust" — it's scandalous!

R.
06/10/2011 06:40:54 PM · #957
Just to be clear on my position. It is decidedly unconstitutional to have the ten commandments displayed on the side of the school as a policy of the school. That has been ruled to amount to state sponsored religion. It is very different in this case when you open up and invite expression from the public. You cannot exclude religious expression just because it is religious. That has been supported by court rulings in other instances.

My guess is the school will lose this lawsuit. It would be interesting to keep tabs on it but somehow these things always get lost in the woodwork.

EDIT: a little Bear pointed out an obvious typo error... :)

Message edited by author 2011-06-10 19:03:20.
06/10/2011 06:42:42 PM · #958
Seems school officials just shut down the fund raiser.

Fundraiser Ended Over Bible Verses

"...the school accepted hundreds of other paver messages, including those quoting Mahatma Gandhi and other inspirational figures."

"Christians should be allowed to express themselves on public school campuses just like everyone else."
06/10/2011 06:46:36 PM · #959
What would also have been interesting is what would have happened if someone wanted to write, "F*** the police!" (don't ask me why they would...)

The SCOTUS have ruled that kids don't have that right to vulgar messages on T-shirts, but these would be adult parents writing the messages. Do those people who think that there shouldn't be religious bricks think, "oh wait, that's the person's first amendment right!"?
06/10/2011 06:59:20 PM · #960
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

What would also have been interesting is what would have happened if someone wanted to write, "F*** the police!" (don't ask me why they would...)

Personally, I never thought that sign made sense -- officers should have to get out and find it on their own like everyone else ... ;-)

I don't get some of the SCOTUS rulings myself -- for strict constructionists they seem unable to understand the concept of "no law abridging ..."

I don't think people have the right to be protected by the government from being offended. I draw the line on free speech to that which directly endangers others; yelling "fire" in a theater, incitement to riot, certain forms of hate speech. But the individual words, while they may be ugly or offensive, should not be illegal, or else it would be a crime to mail a dictionary.
06/10/2011 11:41:39 PM · #961
Originally posted by GeneralE:

...it would be a crime to mail a dictionary.


The crime occurs when they give you the bill for shipping... :O)

Ray
06/11/2011 01:41:56 PM · #962
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

We better get out there and start patching up or otherwise obliterating the messages on half the old-school public buildings in America. And I'm looking at an illegal twenty-dollar bill right now; "In God We Trust" — it's scandalous!


Yes, it is.
06/11/2011 01:49:20 PM · #963
If you're selling bricks, and everyone and anyone can buy one to support the project, and can write whatever they want, then they should be allowed to write Bible or Koran verses and not violate the separation of church and state. Just like schools should be able to host Bible study (or Koran study) groups after school, along with the chess club, the glee club, and the Wiccan after-school group (as long as they don't blow up the school with one of their potions, of course!)

Freedom of speech and freedom of religion can have/be very fine lines. There's that hate Baptist group, for example.

You don't have to like it, but you do have to admit it is probably better than many of the alternatives.

08/09/2011 06:08:52 PM · #964
Any atheists around here ever read Warrant and Proper Function by Alvin Plantinga? If so, what were your thoughts?
08/09/2011 06:25:42 PM · #965
... and some could read this passage which apparently have appeared in many books:

"...If I ask why you believe any particular matter of fact, which you relate, you must tell me some reason; and this reason will be some other fact, connected with it. But as you cannot proceed after this manner, in infinitum, you must at last terminate in some fact, which is present to your memory or sense; or must allow that your belief is entirely without foundation.

Neither side of the argument can hold that theirs is the TRUTH, they can only speculate.

Ray

Message edited by author 2011-08-09 18:26:49.
08/09/2011 06:42:12 PM · #966
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Any atheists around here ever read Warrant and Proper Function by Alvin Plantinga? If so, what were your thoughts?


I'm actually going to start God, Freedom and Evil after I'm done with my George R.R. Martin novel. Plantinga does not qualify as "light beach reading"...

Actually, now that I think about it, neither does Martin.

Message edited by author 2011-08-09 18:43:02.
08/28/2011 01:03:16 AM · #967
Wow, it must really cheese some of you guys off when politicians (and people in general) say "God bless America" or hear the pledge of allegiance with the words "One nation under God". Probably irritates the life out of you to have to ride past a church.

Until I read this thread I had no idea how inconsiderate Christians have been to those who have no faith. The mere mention of the Christian God in a context that assumes agreement of his existence (as one Christian would talking to another) is like throwing salt in an open wound for an atheist. Why should I expect that they would squirm with the haughtiness of their own well reasoned arguments and then hold them back when given such provocation and the relative anonymity of the internet.

They feel they have a reason, nay a responsibility to intercede. They then use their obviously adept ability to debate effectively to repudiate this person. They really let them know in no uncertain terms that any religiosity will not be tolerated here at dpc. It will be ridiculed.

Their point of contention is that no one can prove the existence of God. Congratulations.. you will never lose the argument but you will never know God. Who do you think Jesus was? He is the only 'proof' that will be given. Either you believe in the Son or you do not. My advice (which will be roundly rebuked i'm sure) is to keep an open mind. Good luck.
08/28/2011 01:51:37 AM · #968
Originally posted by dponlyme:

Wow, it must really cheese some of you guys off when politicians (and people in general) say "God bless America" or hear the pledge of allegiance with the words "One nation under God". Probably irritates the life out of you to have to ride past a church.

Until I read this thread I had no idea how inconsiderate Christians have been to those who have no faith.... My advice (which will be roundly rebuked i'm sure) is to keep an open mind. Good luck.


Shouldn't that work both ways? Funny, in all of my life I've never once run into a non-believer who tried to vet me to see if I could be trusted. This is in stark contrast to my experience with believers. Just the other day I had a meeting with a client who turned out to be religious. Before the meeting he starts out by asking me if I had a family and then it quickly turns religious. What church do I attend? I've never given him one hint that I'm religious. He just assumes it. When I say I don't attend church it only encourages him to ask more questions which ends with him trying to give me information about finding Jesus. This is not an uncommon occurance. So yes it is irriating. It would be nice if more religious people (at least down south) would have an open mind.

As for others saying God bless America and such, it doesn't bother me. Being forced to adhere to those beliefs as a means of "fitting in" does.

Message edited by author 2011-08-28 02:00:06.
08/28/2011 11:03:39 AM · #969
Originally posted by dponlyme:



Until I read this thread I had no idea how inconsiderate Christians have been to those who have no faith.... My advice (which will be roundly rebuked i'm sure) is to keep an open mind. Good luck.


...You might "keep an open mind", look closely at your specific environment and you might find that "some" Christians are indeed inconsiderate of anything and everything that falls outside of their specific realm.

That sir, in all probability, is a lot closer to the truth than anything a lot of Christians would readily admit.

Ray

Message edited by author 2011-08-28 16:53:25.
08/28/2011 07:05:10 PM · #970
Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by dponlyme:



Until I read this thread I had no idea how inconsiderate Christians have been to those who have no faith.... My advice (which will be roundly rebuked i'm sure) is to keep an open mind. Good luck.


...You might "keep an open mind", look closely at your specific environment and you might find that "some" Christians are indeed inconsiderate of anything and everything that falls outside of their specific realm.

That sir, in all probability, is a lot closer to the truth than anything a lot of Christians would readily admit.

Ray


Honestly I feel that people in general are often inconsiderate of others and there is enough blame to go around on both sides.
08/29/2011 06:24:04 AM · #971
Anyone need a laugh?

Galileo-got-it-wrong-Catholics

OMG!
08/29/2011 02:43:00 PM · #972
Originally posted by keegbow:

Anyone need a laugh?

Galileo-got-it-wrong-Catholics

OMG!

Hey, there's one part of what the guy has to say that I completely agree with:
Originally posted by Linked Article:


Robert Sungenis, the leader of a movement urging scientists to reconsider their opinion, said ....

"False information leads to false ideas, and false ideas lead to illicit and immoral actions ..." Mr Sungenis told The Tribune.

Unfortunately, one of the primary sources for "false information" is also the world's most popular book ... :-(

Message edited by author 2011-08-29 14:45:36.
08/29/2011 07:21:54 PM · #973
Originally posted by GeneralE:


Hey, there's one part of what the guy has to say that I completely agree with:
Originally posted by Linked Article:


Robert Sungenis, the leader of a movement urging scientists to reconsider their opinion, said ....

"False information leads to false ideas, and false ideas lead to illicit and immoral actions ..." Mr Sungenis told The Tribune.

Unfortunately, one of the primary sources for "false information" is also the world's most popular book ... :-(


Ah but you see GeneralE, it is only false if you don't have faith. :O)

Ray
Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 06:43:05 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 06:43:05 PM EDT.