In Utah, as posted earlier, Amnerican Atheists is part of a lawsuit to remove blatantly illegal 12′ crosses on the side of the road. Agree or disagree with that if you will, but don’t lie!Recently, certain questionably ethical news outlets have asserted that American Atheists is also trying to get the crosses on graves at Arlington National Cemetary removed as well. This is NOT TRUE. We have made no such statements, no press releases, and have made no effort in regard to Arlington, and WILL NOT DO SO.Crosses on the graves at Arlington (or any other cemetery) obviously pertain to the people who ARE buried under the stones. Christians get crosses, Jews get stars, Muslims get Crescents, and yes Atheists get Atheist symbols. No preference is given, and there is no inference of government endorsement of one religion, even though it’s a public cemetery.In Utah, we are talking about 12′ steel crosses ONLY, where there is no body, where there is no grave, and where there is no cemetery. It’s just an excuse to put up a great big cross in full view, with full knowledge that it’s illegal.Another thing we’re getting is that crosses are not Christian symbols rather universal symbols of mourning. Puh-lease! If you go to a Jewish cemetery, do you see crosses? Muslim cemeteries? Do church parishioners get on their knees in front of a universal symbol of mourning, or a uniquely Christian Icon? To thine own self be true!The death of a hero is not a reason to break the law, nor is it an excuse. We FULLY SUPPORT the idea of memorials commemorating heroes, but obelisks, plaques, or flower gardens would do the same thing without breaking the law — so why the religious symbols? Why only one brand of symbol? Why claim that a giant cross isn’t religious, when we all clearly know that’s not true?And why distract the people with bogus reports about Arlington? Hmmm????
I’m afraid I’m not very smart about the issues presented here. Guess I’m not very smart in general. So be it, but I do have an opinion. What a suprise!
I have been an athiest all my life. As a young man I couldn’t define it as such but it is what I was. My beloved mother was a staunch Roman Catholic. I say was only because she is dead, not “converted.” She was a staunch Roman Catholic UNTIL the church changed from Latin to English. I don’t think she ever went back to church again! I asked her why and she said that it just isn’t the same church anymore. I told her that she didn’t understand a word they said during the latin mass and she agreed but it still wasn’t the same church.
Form over substance? Of course. I know many people, even non-catholics, who go to midnight mass on Christmas because the “….Cathoilics put on a good show!” Is anyone there listening or has the pomp and circumstance taken over?
I hope we, the athiest, don’t fall into this pit. We really do need to pick our fights better. School prayer, the pledge and taxation are pretty tough nuts to crack and will take the efforts of all. The man, and I apologize for not remembering his name, who brought the pledge problem to national attention is a prime example. His character was destroyed by the conservative press and was never defended by the “liberal” press. He was humiliated and the athiests only defended him in a very weak manner. Even the “liberal” press seldom defended him as they fear the religios backlash. The result? Nothing. Nada. Zilch!
Either we believe in what we say on here or this is just an intellectual excercise, an excercise in futility, and the believers in the tooth fairy, Sanata Clause and a supernatural being they can’t even begin to prove even existed, are going to win. They are winning now and we should be very wary about the future for our country. They are powerful now but if they ever get total power, like the Muslims in Iran, then we will go the way of the European Jew. Christianity has a very short history or peace and tolerance.
Comment from: udonman [Member]
Now that’s funny. Read the original press release. The writer makes the point non-believers are being opressed.
Why not just answer the question.
Have any family members joined the suit?
r4d,
I agree that this is going to cause big time backlash, but gently is right, give an inch & they’ll take a mile. Just look at the state of the US right now, religious zealot fervor is a high, societal advandements (equal rights, tolerance, medical innovation) are looked upon as immoral.
It may stem from the fact that Joe Q. Sixpack has an 8th grade level education, and can’t think for himself to grasp the concepts at hand. How can the atheist community grow, when the only thing we can offer to the average robot is intellectual honesty? The grass is much greener on the other side, and to top it off, you don’t have to think about it!
The problem I have discussing atheism with others is that aside from pointing out the “negative” aspects of religion (atrocities, contradictions, lack of logic, etc.), it doesn’t leave much left to offer people. Very few are going to jump the fence on that premise (I didn’t blindly choose atheism, b/c I thought it was “right”), for example how many of us here thought of ourselves as free-thinkers first, and that atheism was the most logical conclusion we could reach? Most people are not willing to put that kind of time in, when they already have the “answer”.
Thoughts anyone?
Quote: Hmmm….most interesting. Just went there, yep, gone.
Posted twice. Once on the Arlington thread, once on the FCC thread. All gone.
If you didn’t delete them, anyone else have admin privs?End Quote
The only thing I can figure is that it wants you to have a login with the site. I may have set that variable just so if someone is outright offensive I can ban them from the site.
When I say I don’t want to be offensive to you guys I’m not saying that I won’t state how I feel or how it conflicts with what you’re saying or you believe. Being offensive to me is outright using profanity or verbally attacking someone because of their beliefs.
It happens both by athiests and those who claim to be Christains where they offer verbal attacks and make fun of the others beliefs. That is offensive.
Back to the issue of this blog. The first post said “It’s just an excuse to put up a great big cross in full view”. We as Christians don’t just put crosses up without meaning just to spite someone. That’s like saying you guys are fighting the Utah issue just because you don’t like crosses.
Comment from: mxracer652 [Member]
Even though the entire post is rather elitist, this portion is somewhat accurate.
In every battle timing is everytihng.
With the climate in America today and with the recent victories over Christmas, whoever came up with filing this lawsuit now has made a huge miscalculation IMO.
With the 9th circus court stating “One Nation under God” unconstitutional and with the 4th circuit ruling it is a patriotic statement, all of these cases are headed to the Supreme Court which means the myth of “Seperation” will be visited again.
There is a very good chance past rulings will actually be weakened.
Bad timing. Very, very bad timing.
Karen wrote”If alex or another gay atheist member were using the handle, I wouldn’t find it offensive, merely curious. But since it seems to be being used in a derogatory way, it IS offensive. The post that accompanied it was also offensive.”
Thanks Karen but it really doesn’t bother me. It just shows that the “Christian love” that Hey-Zeus was always talking about is alive and well. As a one legged gay atheist living in the South I have developed a rather thick skin and it takes a lot more than the juvenile rants of some ignorant xian to offend me.
BTW LDSboy, do you honestly think that we are going to take any of your postings seriously? I mean you belive that an angel appeared to some guy in upstate NY and gave him magical golden tablets that no one else ever saw and which only he could decipher. These tablets then state that Native Americans were a lost tribe of Israel and that Jesus flew over to America after he came back to life…ARE YOU FREAKING JOKING? among the loony religious beliefs out there the LDS Church is one of the most laughable and easily dismissed.
Alex.
Well, earlier in this post I commented that we should pick our battles and weigh backlash against what we, as atheists, hope to gain from the battle (in the courtroom of course). I was asked to elaborate on that, and so I shall.
Now, in this instance, I’m wondering if this lawsuit was filed for any particular family in the cemetary or just because a few of us had a problem with it sitting there. If someone feels as if they are being wronged by this cross(es?) then by all means they should be taken down as they are illegal. However, if there is no one more closely associated with taking the crosses down than people who pass by, I don’t really care if they stay up or not.
We need to go after issues that really and truly affect people. Saying the pledge using the words “under god”,or “in god we trust” on our money, and discrimination against people based on the fact that they are atheist. Sure there’s a lot thats going on thats illegal, or are eye sores for us atheists, but we need to pick our fights, gauge what we can win versus what we lose in the PR department. We can’t make it any more popular to hate us than it already is.
Ah, a quick edit to the above post. I didn’t have my glasses on and missed the fact that these crosses are on the side of a road and not in/on/near? a cemetary. Thus, disregard most of my middle paragraph.
Other questions.
Who owns the land beside the road? Is there any religious significance to that land?
I really don’t know, I’m still not sure that I care. I’d like to see them taken down, yes, but I still don’t think its worth it. Focus on the important fights. The ones where people are being hurt or are forced to use words that are christian when they are not.
PHreedm…
When you go to church on Sunday, do you boast about your encouters with atheists on this site?
Just wondering.
mxracer652:
There are plenty of college educated individuals in this country who still think atheists worship satan and want to ban the bible. A lot of this is product of the RR noise machine. We need to build our own noise machine instead of cheerfully handing ammunition to theirs. Marketing is everything in this country. Until our side figures this out we will continue to lose ground.
Which is why I so often toy with the idea of adopting the ‘Humanist” moniker. For now though, in this climate at least, ‘atheist’ is the stronger and more effective word for me. It says to the theist, “That’s right, I went there! I’m just as strong in my convictions as you are.”
Phreedm:
Said the raven to the crow…
Seeker just alluded to it, but I’m just going to come out and say it. Your arrogant boastfulness makes it really hard to take you seriously in any way. It also helps to perpetuate the stereotype that Right Wing Republicans are myopic, cocky assholes who believe themselves incapable of error and are convinced their side is predestined to rule over this country and dissenting voices be damned (or jailed.) I for one am getting really sick of your shit. You’re obviously not here to open a dialog or to learn about another point of view. Your only here to pick a fight. Do you think Jesus would be proud?
Oh and for the record, I thoroughly support Newdow’s efforts. E Pluribus Unum!
Unfortunately, you can bet this tidbit will pop up elsewhere to bolster the “War on Christianity” in this country. Just like David Barton’s fabricated quotes of the Founding Fathers we’re going to have to debunk more lies and hopefully loud enough so that people will notice.
Phred,
It is bad timing, for the future of the US, to let dogma and politics put it’s citizens behind other countries in the world. Remember your wanting a better return on investment in education? How about a better return on investment on the quality of life in this country? Since you have a paranoia of the US losing it’s dominancy, hopefully you can appreciate this.
I think a lot of it is mental abuse by theist parents. You get that shit pounded into your head repeatedly at a young age, it’s hard to think anything different. Then the RR keeps the ball rolling. I’ve known many people who have been indoctrinated into one mindset or another in their youth, and refuse to think differently.
R4D,
I don?t think that they’re trying to prove active coercion by the state. I think they?re simply trying to send the message to the state that people are taking notice of their actions and have violated the law (whether it was intentional or not) and they will be called on it. If they win this case I guarantee you that other states will take note when any issue concerning religious monuments comes before them in the future. If somebody sees the monuments at the side of the road in one state and says, ?well isn?t that a good idea?, they automatically assume that it?s legal and given enough time the roads/highways of other states start looking the same way, then before you know it the entire country turns into a continuous religious billboard proclaiming a Christian nation to all. I know it?s not that drastic yet but given enough time anything can happen. That?s my take on it anyway.
blockquote>
As much as I’d like to help circle the wagons and present a united front, my gut feeling is that this is yet another strategic blunder for AA.
That may be, but once you commit there can be no backing down.
I agree with that, but I don?t know the whole story behind why AA decided to take on this particular issue. I?m sure it would take considerable funding to take on the bigger and broader issues and none of us are privy to info on the financial status of AA or exactly why they take on the cases they do. It might seem like a small potatoes case but none the less I think they are in the right and I support them on it. Someone asked me onetime: How do you eat an elephant? Answer: One bite at a time.
Gently,
Gently they may be winning now but the crack in the armor is spreading. They are feeling the pain or you wouldn?t have all the crowing about Christmas, pledge of allegiance, intelligent design, etc. I would like to think as Seeker said that the influence is wide spread but paper thin but I think it may be a little thicker. Cardboard if you will.
Phreedm,
Well, pleased to meet you GENERAL PHREEDM. I think you should volunteer your services to lead the troops over in Iraq since your such a brilliant strategist.
Pasta:
Then they can’t win, especially in Utah. Active coercion is the yardstick by which EC violation is determined. I’m sure Darrow could confirm if he’s listening.
Just calling it as I see it, you know?
Darrow–
Your shorthand is cute, but I just don’t like axian for atheist. If x = Christ, and xian = Christian, then axian would = not Christian. I prefer a-theist – not a theist. I know, it’s picky and literal – that’s just the teacher in me!
cdubuallas & ldyerwallace–
Welcome! Hope you like it here!
Blueflame & others–
I say we DON’T pick our battles! I say we fight ALL of them. Some battles will be worth more time, effort, and money than others, but we need to fight them all. We need to do our part locally, and turn to American Atheists (or other organizations) when it comes to bigger issues.
I apologize for what I said yesterday. It was rude and I am sorry. To Idyerwallace and your husband I am truly sorry. Please accept my apologies.
To Darrow why don’t protestants consider LDS people christian? Our religon focuses on christ and his life.
To alexgator1 Actually 3 others saw the golden plates that Joseph Smith found buried in a hill. 8 others felt the plates. There testimonies are found in the Book of Mormon.
The ‘Three Witnesses,’ Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris and David Whitmer, all described their encounter with the fabled golden plates as a ‘miraculous vision’ induced through frantic praying and plenty of facilitated suggestion from Joseph Smith himself. By their own admission, they didn’t ’see’ it in a physical sense. They were not allowed to.
As for the other eight, the story is a little less straight forward. What we do know for sure is that it did not happen in the manner described by popular church doctrine. Each of the eight ‘witnessed’ this book at different times, and only three claim to have actually handled the BOM. There are several stories that JS had a prop that he carried around in a sack. There’s another story where JS had gathered his followers to see the plates and forced them to pray frantically through the night in order to be deemed worthy. When it came time to reveal the treasure, his followers confessed that they could only see an empty box. At this he chided and admonished them for not having the required faith.
Believe and you will believe.
r4d,
Your story sounds very similar to the “emperor’s new clothes”. I tend to think of this when faced with the “personal relationship” stuff. Everyone claims to posess it, but noone can actually see it.
Still I giggle at the Believe and you wil Believe logo. I think I want it for my car.
HeatheNZ,
Yeah Joseph Smith is really a fascinating character. I whole heartily recommend reading the history of the LDS church if you’re interested in how these sorts of things get started. Fawn M. Brodie’s “No Man Knows My History – The Life of Joseph Smith” will blow your mind. It reads like an adventure story, and it also presents an intriguing picture of the early nineteenth century cultural/political landscape and mindset.
That will be $29.95 please.
just kidding.
i ran across a something that may be of interest. it seems that our collective problems as atheists are how to have comraderie and information exchange with each other and appeal to those that require “comfort” for their souls.
what do you fellow atheists think about a society along the lines below:
[ The Society to Promote a Lasting Belief in Our Fellow Man ]
The goal of this society shall be to foster a climate of belief in oneself and fellow man to effect:
> a lasting environment of mutual understanding and support for one another
> treatment of others with dignity and respect
> introspective search for strength
> extrospective search for truth and answers
> open-mindedness to new discovery and the beliefs of others
> promotion of rational/logical understanding and use of the power of history and science in a non-confrontational manner for the betterment of all mankind
> individual peace of mind and serenity through knowledge
> a dignified and positive approach to death so that the breadth of one?s life experiences on earth are encouraged and enhanced
> tolerance of the feelings of those of faith to set an example to be emulated rather than scorned
> the freedom to be one?s own master in space and time without fear or prohibitions from imaginary demons or gods that suppress our imaginations and dreams
does this sound like something that any of you could consider as viable and possibly being a part of?
flanonblvr –
Sounds like a cross between Paul Kurtz’s ‘Eupraxsophy’ and the Unitarian Universalists.
I’m still down with the Humanist Manifesto III.
http://www.americanhumanist.org/3/HumandItsAspirations.htm
r4d,
I’m a little confused on what you mean by “active coercion”. I don’t think I’ve ever heard the term before, seems like a pretty extreme term. I took it to mean that the state was actively trying to impose or force christianity onto it’s citizens. Maybe I’m way off base here.
pasta,
Actually, I may need to retract a few of my statements.
I just got off the phone with my sister who’s graduating from law school (Hastings) this spring. Constitutional and advocacy law is her focus and she’s won several moot cases on atheist issues.
She seems to think that AA may actually have a pretty good case here, but it really all comes down to the justices’ discretion.
There is a coercion test, but there is also an endorsement test, and it is the endorsement test that the AA lawyers are probably pursuing. She also said that it doesn’t matter at all whether or not these things are funded by tax dollars. The only question is whether the crosses represent a religious endorsement by a state institution. Here is where the law starts to get really vague. There really isn’t much precedent for what represents active endorsement. Hence the tactic of claiming that the crosses are ‘international symbols of mourning.’ That’s actually an effective argument in the eyes of many Supreme Court justices, as it has been determined in several similar cases that these kinds of symbols, as well as phrases like ‘under God,’ are so prevalent in our culture that they are somehow rendered meaningless and therefore can not be seen as either coercion or endorsement.
I have a lot to think about.
And I have a headache.
R4D
Makes sense to me. Didn?t mean to give you a headache over it. I?m curious as to how it will turn out. Time will tell.
To LDSboy:
Thanks for the apology, we both gratefully accept and apologize in return. There’s nothing wrong with spirited disagreement so in the future we can all try to bring more repsect to the table. Thanks.
To rainbow4dinosaurs:
Actually the 3 witnesses did see the plates physically. In their testimony it says they beheld it with their eyes and saw the engravings which were upon the plates. They saw the plates and knew they were real. They were witnesses to this great book tell the world its true.
LDSboy,
That’s what it says in the beginning of the BOM. Try reading what Crowdery and Harris actually said instead of blindly relying on what Joseph Smith said they said. Try reading the history surrounding it. And I do mean HISTORY, as in a critical analysis of past events, not the unverifiable apologetic drivel and pseudoscientific nonsense that FARMS puts out.
Endowment Claim
Kimball told the wife that she The poor woman felt very badly, for this man was the father of her children, and she felt that her …
Law Lemon Mass
and have repeated pennsylvania lemon law law lemon ma, law lemon mass ” Bad Credit Loan Refinance Mas…
Massachusetts Lemon Law
9 /PRNewswire/ The winter is an ideal time to purchase a car, according to Lemon Law Attorney Craig Owings Mills, MD 21117 410 356 8…