Athiests terrified by crosses.

[PostmodernProph]

Does the Christian Persecution Complex have an expiration date? (Jon Stewart)

the atheist's one hasn't........

Lame. lol

has any Christian ever filed a lawsuit trying to enjoin an atheist from saying God doesn't exist on public property?.......

 

[Derideo_Te]

the atheist's one hasn't........

It has only been the rise of the Tea Party that has knocked Atheists from the #1 position as the most hated group in America so I guess that is something positive that the TP has managed to do.

10 Myths Many Religious People Hold About Atheists, Debunked | Alternet

You know I love you DT, but that is absolutely absurd. Nobody hates Atheists just because they're Atheist. There is push back when Atheists mock or ridicule or falsely accuse or spew hatred toward people of faith and they descend en masse to do just that on most religious themed threads. People will resent it when an Atheist so disrespects the faith of others that a crucifix immersed in urine is depicted as art.

And yes, it is highly resented and can trigger very negative feelings when Atheists get their shorts in a wad over something as innocuous as a piece of 9/11 debris that looks like a cross and is seen as such by people of faith or a symbol of the contribtion of religion to the history of an area. Or when Atheists presume that religion has no part of American history and demand that it not be acknowledged.

On the other hand the Tea Party promotes fiscal responsibility, the self-governance that America was founded to be, and pushes back against out-of-control government that continues to steam roller over our liberties, choices, options, and opportunities and consume more and more of our resources. That isn't something to hate. That is something everybody, conservative and liberal, Atheist, Christian, Muslim, and Jew, should embrace.

It isn't absurd at all, Foxy. Atheists have always been the pariahs of society. In fact they still are;

A poll taken during election season last year found that only 54 percent of Americans would vote for a "well-qualified" atheist presidential candidate. While this was the highest total since Gallup began asking the question in 1958, atheism proved the biggest negative influence on a hypothetical candidate's viability, with fewer respondents saying they would be willing to vote for an atheist than either a gay or a Muslim candidate. Another survey taken in 2012 found that 50 percent of Americans believe atheism is "threatening" to them.

Here Are All The Atheists In Congress

The previous article debunked a lot of the myths surrounding atheists and this one points out that when it comes to representation the 20% of the population that is unaffiliated with any religion does not have a corresponding number of elected representatives who classify themselves as unaffiliated. Out of 535 at the federal level there should be over 100. Instead you will be hard pressed to find 3 who are willing to admit to being unaffiliated, let alone being atheists.

So there is a stigma that is associated with being an atheist. It is a handicap if you want to run for public office. That should not be the case but the math doesn't lie.

Since that poll ran the Tea Party was regained some ground politically and atheists are again the #1 most hated group in America. Since this topic is not about the TP I am just going to mention that while the goals and principles that you just outlined are noble and worthy the people who are being elected to represent them are not measuring up well against them. This isn't just my opinion. It is shared by the population as a whole. Yes, I too would prefer that it was otherwise. However the reality is that the elected TP members of Congress are not acquitting themselves well when it comes to winning the hearts and minds of the population as a whole.

And yes, the same argument can be leveled against Atheists except that they don't have a political agenda. They are not seeking to reform the nation. They are simply standing up for individual 1st Amendment rights. The military burial grounds contain headstones of all faiths and for the Atheists there is this symbol;

Millions of Atheists quietly go about their lives, some serving and dying, just like everyone else. They don't any "vitriolic hatred" of Christianity at all. All they ask is they be treated equally. If one religious symbol is going to be erected at the 9/11 memorial then all should be there too because it wasn't only Christians who died that day.

The individual right to equality when it comes to religion is something that all Christians should be upholding for Atheists because if the Atheists are deprived of that right then Christians won't have any right to it either.

 

[Foxfyre]

It has only been the rise of the Tea Party that has knocked Atheists from the #1 position as the most hated group in America so I guess that is something positive that the TP has managed to do.

10 Myths Many Religious People Hold About Atheists, Debunked | Alternet

You know I love you DT, but that is absolutely absurd. Nobody hates Atheists just because they're Atheist. There is push back when Atheists mock or ridicule or falsely accuse or spew hatred toward people of faith and they descend en masse to do just that on most religious themed threads. People will resent it when an Atheist so disrespects the faith of others that a crucifix immersed in urine is depicted as art.

And yes, it is highly resented and can trigger very negative feelings when Atheists get their shorts in a wad over something as innocuous as a piece of 9/11 debris that looks like a cross and is seen as such by people of faith or a symbol of the contribtion of religion to the history of an area. Or when Atheists presume that religion has no part of American history and demand that it not be acknowledged.

On the other hand the Tea Party promotes fiscal responsibility, the self-governance that America was founded to be, and pushes back against out-of-control government that continues to steam roller over our liberties, choices, options, and opportunities and consume more and more of our resources. That isn't something to hate. That is something everybody, conservative and liberal, Atheist, Christian, Muslim, and Jew, should embrace.

It isn't absurd at all, Foxy. Atheists have always been the pariahs of society. In fact they still are;

A poll taken during election season last year found that only 54 percent of Americans would vote for a "well-qualified" atheist presidential candidate. While this was the highest total since Gallup began asking the question in 1958, atheism proved the biggest negative influence on a hypothetical candidate's viability, with fewer respondents saying they would be willing to vote for an atheist than either a gay or a Muslim candidate. Another survey taken in 2012 found that 50 percent of Americans believe atheism is "threatening" to them.

Here Are All The Atheists In Congress

The previous article debunked a lot of the myths surrounding atheists and this one points out that when it comes to representation the 20% of the population that is unaffiliated with any religion does not have a corresponding number of elected representatives who classify themselves as unaffiliated. Out of 535 at the federal level there should be over 100. Instead you will be hard pressed to find 3 who are willing to admit to being unaffiliated, let alone being atheists.

So there is a stigma that is associated with being an atheist. It is a handicap if you want to run for public office. That should not be the case but the math doesn't lie.

Since that poll ran the Tea Party was regained some ground politically and atheists are again the #1 most hated group in America. Since this topic is not about the TP I am just going to mention that while the goals and principles that you just outlined are noble and worthy the people who are being elected to represent them are not measuring up well against them. This isn't just my opinion. It is shared by the population as a whole. Yes, I too would prefer that it was otherwise. However the reality is that the elected TP members of Congress are not acquitting themselves well when it comes to winning the hearts and minds of the population as a whole.

And yes, the same argument can be leveled against Atheists except that they don't have a political agenda. They are not seeking to reform the nation. They are simply standing up for individual 1st Amendment rights. The military burial grounds contain headstones of all faiths and for the Atheists there is this symbol;

Millions of Atheists quietly go about their lives, some serving and dying, just like everyone else. They don't any "vitriolic hatred" of Christianity at all. All they ask is they be treated equally. If one religious symbol is going to be erected at the 9/11 memorial then all should be there too because it wasn't only Christians who died that day.

The individual right to equality when it comes to religion is something that all Christians should be upholding for Atheists because if the Atheists are deprived of that right then Christians won't have any right to it either.

Why would a Christian vote for a person who they believe would take away the rights of people of faith or interpret the Constitution in a way that would accomplish that? I would not vote for a white separatist or a Muslim who promote Sharia Law or an enviromentalist running on a 100% 'green energy' platform for the same reason, even if I liked such people. I do not require anybody be a Christian to qualify for public office or my vote, and I would not hesitate to vote for an atheist who promoted a live and let live attitude. I would not vote for one who thinks nothing religious, even of a historical nature, belongs on public property, and would even forbid the display of crosses on the graves of Christians in national cemetaries..

And that certainly does not mean I HATE Atheists or even dislike them or disapprove of them. I like you. I wouldn't vote for you for public office, however, if you intended to remove all religious history from the public venue.

To demand that the government not display a piece of debris that was important to so many and is part of the 9/11 history is the kind of Atheism that I do see as hateful, repressive, and wrong. And anybody who claims that it makes them physically ill just to see it should see a doctor. Or a psychiatrist.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You know I love you DT, but that is absolutely absurd. Nobody hates Atheists just because they're Atheist. There is push back when Atheists mock or ridicule or falsely accuse or spew hatred toward people of faith and they descend en masse to do just that on most religious themed threads. People will resent it when an Atheist so disrespects the faith of others that a crucifix immersed in urine is depicted as art.

And yes, it is highly resented and can trigger very negative feelings when Atheists get their shorts in a wad over something as innocuous as a piece of 9/11 debris that looks like a cross and is seen as such by people of faith or a symbol of the contribtion of religion to the history of an area. Or when Atheists presume that religion has no part of American history and demand that it not be acknowledged.

On the other hand the Tea Party promotes fiscal responsibility, the self-governance that America was founded to be, and pushes back against out-of-control government that continues to steam roller over our liberties, choices, options, and opportunities and consume more and more of our resources. That isn't something to hate. That is something everybody, conservative and liberal, Atheist, Christian, Muslim, and Jew, should embrace.

It isn't absurd at all, Foxy. Atheists have always been the pariahs of society. In fact they still are;

A poll taken during election season last year found that only 54 percent of Americans would vote for a "well-qualified" atheist presidential candidate. While this was the highest total since Gallup began asking the question in 1958, atheism proved the biggest negative influence on a hypothetical candidate's viability, with fewer respondents saying they would be willing to vote for an atheist than either a gay or a Muslim candidate. Another survey taken in 2012 found that 50 percent of Americans believe atheism is "threatening" to them.

Here Are All The Atheists In Congress

The previous article debunked a lot of the myths surrounding atheists and this one points out that when it comes to representation the 20% of the population that is unaffiliated with any religion does not have a corresponding number of elected representatives who classify themselves as unaffiliated. Out of 535 at the federal level there should be over 100. Instead you will be hard pressed to find 3 who are willing to admit to being unaffiliated, let alone being atheists.

So there is a stigma that is associated with being an atheist. It is a handicap if you want to run for public office. That should not be the case but the math doesn't lie.

Since that poll ran the Tea Party was regained some ground politically and atheists are again the #1 most hated group in America. Since this topic is not about the TP I am just going to mention that while the goals and principles that you just outlined are noble and worthy the people who are being elected to represent them are not measuring up well against them. This isn't just my opinion. It is shared by the population as a whole. Yes, I too would prefer that it was otherwise. However the reality is that the elected TP members of Congress are not acquitting themselves well when it comes to winning the hearts and minds of the population as a whole.

And yes, the same argument can be leveled against Atheists except that they don't have a political agenda. They are not seeking to reform the nation. They are simply standing up for individual 1st Amendment rights. The military burial grounds contain headstones of all faiths and for the Atheists there is this symbol;

Millions of Atheists quietly go about their lives, some serving and dying, just like everyone else. They don't any "vitriolic hatred" of Christianity at all. All they ask is they be treated equally. If one religious symbol is going to be erected at the 9/11 memorial then all should be there too because it wasn't only Christians who died that day.

The individual right to equality when it comes to religion is something that all Christians should be upholding for Atheists because if the Atheists are deprived of that right then Christians won't have any right to it either.

Why would a Christian vote for a person who they believe would take away the rights of people of faith or interpret the Constitution in a way that would accomplish that? I would not vote for a white separatist or a Muslim who promote Sharia Law or an enviromentalist running on a 100% 'green energy' platform for the same reason, even if I liked such people. I do not require anybody be a Christian to qualify for public office or my vote, and I would not hesitate to vote for an atheist who promoted a live and let live attitude. I would not vote for one who thinks nothing religious, even of a historical nature, belongs on public property, and would even forbid the display of crosses on the graves of Christians in national cemetaries..

And that certainly does not mean I HATE Atheists or even dislike them or disapprove of them. I like you. I wouldn't vote for you for public office, however, if you intended to remove all religious history from the public venue.

To demand that the government not display a piece of debris that was important to so many and is part of the 9/11 history is the kind of Atheism that I do see as hateful, repressive, and wrong. And anybody who claims that it makes them physically ill just to see it should see a doctor. Or a psychiatrist.

No one is advocating taking away the rights of people of faith. The Constitution is quite clear when it comes to saying that everyone has equal rights when it comes to religion and that includes those with none at all.

The 9/11 Memorial is a matter of equal rights. It is either all or none. To only display the symbol of a single religion violates the Establishment clause.

When it comes to what is and isn't appropriate as far as what is deemed to be "religious history" is concerned that is probably more a matter of context than anything else. There are place names (like St Paul, MN) which have obvious religious connotations. It isn't a violation of the Constitution, in my opinion, if the city is governed in a secular manner. However, if the city government were to use the name to promote Christianity then it would be a violation. So context matters when evaluating these claims. If there has been a pattern of behavior that indicates that the religious symbolism has infringed individual rights then there is a justification for doing something about it. Without that justification there is no reason to alter something of historical significance in my opinion.

 

[gallantwarrior]

There was some atheist group complaining about the cross at the 9/11 memorial because seeing it gave them 'headaches.'

It seems like just about every day another story crops up about atheists attacking another place where they found a cross. The one that set me off this morning was where a woman had put up a cross at the location where her son was killed in an auto accident. I don't know about where you live, but such "memorials" are frequently erected at such roadside locations. This group of atheists had their tender feelings mortally wounded because some woman wanted to honor her dead son and her cross was on a public right-of-way. C'mon, really?
While they may argue that their 1st Amendment rights under the establishment clause, the phrasing is quite open to debate due to differences in interpretation.
The 1st "Prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances." You could just as easily argue the second portion saying the the "free exercise of religion" is being impeded by their demands that any religious symbol they find offensive be expunged from public view.
I will continue to ask, if atheists recognize no god(s), why are they so offended by some symbol that should have no meaning for them to the point of trampling on someone else's Constitutional rights, if needs be to satisfy their vitriolic hatred of such displays?

There are such memorials all over the roads, Gal.

I have never ever heard of anyone complaining about them. Never -- not once! (And I live in one of the "UNChurched counties in the USA!)

Look, amigo, hate atheists to your hearts content. That is your right.

But making silly crap up like atheists have a phobia about crosses just make we believers (that would be you AND me, kid) look like bloody idiots.

When atheists demand that religious symbols come down from public venues, their motive has nothing to do with fear of crosses, and everything to do with fear of theocracies.

And I JOIN them in fearing theocratic governments. I LIKE MY religion and will not tolerate government deciding which religion it approves of.

I do this BECAUSE I am a believer, lad, and I want to keep the freaking government out of my religion.

Two questions; why do you assume I hate atheists? And why do you assume I profess any religious preferences?

If you have read this entire thread, you would know that it is specifically an incident where atheists, represented by their mouthpiece organization, demanded the removal of a roadside memorial erected by a mother for her son who died in a vehicle accident at that location that set me off.

Once again, for the record (I've clearly stated my positions in other posts), I am agnostic. I try to be respectful of other's beliefs and find it puzzling that some just cannot seem to be able to give the respect they demand others give them.
The rabidly outrageous actions of some, not all, but some self-proclaimed atheists begs the question, what do they fear? Such relations would tend to result from hatred or fear.

 

[Foxfyre]

It isn't absurd at all, Foxy. Atheists have always been the pariahs of society. In fact they still are;



Here Are All The Atheists In Congress

The previous article debunked a lot of the myths surrounding atheists and this one points out that when it comes to representation the 20% of the population that is unaffiliated with any religion does not have a corresponding number of elected representatives who classify themselves as unaffiliated. Out of 535 at the federal level there should be over 100. Instead you will be hard pressed to find 3 who are willing to admit to being unaffiliated, let alone being atheists.

So there is a stigma that is associated with being an atheist. It is a handicap if you want to run for public office. That should not be the case but the math doesn't lie.

Since that poll ran the Tea Party was regained some ground politically and atheists are again the #1 most hated group in America. Since this topic is not about the TP I am just going to mention that while the goals and principles that you just outlined are noble and worthy the people who are being elected to represent them are not measuring up well against them. This isn't just my opinion. It is shared by the population as a whole. Yes, I too would prefer that it was otherwise. However the reality is that the elected TP members of Congress are not acquitting themselves well when it comes to winning the hearts and minds of the population as a whole.

And yes, the same argument can be leveled against Atheists except that they don't have a political agenda. They are not seeking to reform the nation. They are simply standing up for individual 1st Amendment rights. The military burial grounds contain headstones of all faiths and for the Atheists there is this symbol;

Millions of Atheists quietly go about their lives, some serving and dying, just like everyone else. They don't any "vitriolic hatred" of Christianity at all. All they ask is they be treated equally. If one religious symbol is going to be erected at the 9/11 memorial then all should be there too because it wasn't only Christians who died that day.

The individual right to equality when it comes to religion is something that all Christians should be upholding for Atheists because if the Atheists are deprived of that right then Christians won't have any right to it either.

Why would a Christian vote for a person who they believe would take away the rights of people of faith or interpret the Constitution in a way that would accomplish that? I would not vote for a white separatist or a Muslim who promote Sharia Law or an enviromentalist running on a 100% 'green energy' platform for the same reason, even if I liked such people. I do not require anybody be a Christian to qualify for public office or my vote, and I would not hesitate to vote for an atheist who promoted a live and let live attitude. I would not vote for one who thinks nothing religious, even of a historical nature, belongs on public property, and would even forbid the display of crosses on the graves of Christians in national cemetaries..

And that certainly does not mean I HATE Atheists or even dislike them or disapprove of them. I like you. I wouldn't vote for you for public office, however, if you intended to remove all religious history from the public venue.

To demand that the government not display a piece of debris that was important to so many and is part of the 9/11 history is the kind of Atheism that I do see as hateful, repressive, and wrong. And anybody who claims that it makes them physically ill just to see it should see a doctor. Or a psychiatrist.

No one is advocating taking away the rights of people of faith. The Constitution is quite clear when it comes to saying that everyone has equal rights when it comes to religion and that includes those with none at all.

The 9/11 Memorial is a matter of equal rights. It is either all or none. To only display the symbol of a single religion violates the Establishment clause.

When it comes to what is and isn't appropriate as far as what is deemed to be "religious history" is concerned that is probably more a matter of context than anything else. There are place names (like St Paul, MN) which have obvious religious connotations. It isn't a violation of the Constitution, in my opinion, if the city is governed in a secular manner. However, if the city government were to use the name to promote Christianity then it would be a violation. So context matters when evaluating these claims. If there has been a pattern of behavior that indicates that the religious symbolism has infringed individual rights then there is a justification for doing something about it. Without that justification there is no reason to alter something of historical significance in my opinion.

It is a piece of debris for crying out loud!!! If something Atheists liked and had been a symbol of encouragement of hope and encouragement to them had surfaced amidst the carnage of 9/11, it would also be appropriate to display that in the memorial museum. Do you know of any such thing that was forbidden?

Can you point to the churches that were the center of communal life that the Atheists built? To the hospitals, universities, and schools they established? To the influence they have had in the development of an area? We can point to countless such contributions to our history and society made by people of faith. To exclude that from our history would be absurd. And if you can point to any such contributions made by Atheists, that too should be noted.

To include in history what is history is not an establishment of religion in any form whatsoever.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Why would a Christian vote for a person who they believe would take away the rights of people of faith or interpret the Constitution in a way that would accomplish that? I would not vote for a white separatist or a Muslim who promote Sharia Law or an enviromentalist running on a 100% 'green energy' platform for the same reason, even if I liked such people. I do not require anybody be a Christian to qualify for public office or my vote, and I would not hesitate to vote for an atheist who promoted a live and let live attitude. I would not vote for one who thinks nothing religious, even of a historical nature, belongs on public property, and would even forbid the display of crosses on the graves of Christians in national cemetaries..

And that certainly does not mean I HATE Atheists or even dislike them or disapprove of them. I like you. I wouldn't vote for you for public office, however, if you intended to remove all religious history from the public venue.

To demand that the government not display a piece of debris that was important to so many and is part of the 9/11 history is the kind of Atheism that I do see as hateful, repressive, and wrong. And anybody who claims that it makes them physically ill just to see it should see a doctor. Or a psychiatrist.

No one is advocating taking away the rights of people of faith. The Constitution is quite clear when it comes to saying that everyone has equal rights when it comes to religion and that includes those with none at all.

The 9/11 Memorial is a matter of equal rights. It is either all or none. To only display the symbol of a single religion violates the Establishment clause.

When it comes to what is and isn't appropriate as far as what is deemed to be "religious history" is concerned that is probably more a matter of context than anything else. There are place names (like St Paul, MN) which have obvious religious connotations. It isn't a violation of the Constitution, in my opinion, if the city is governed in a secular manner. However, if the city government were to use the name to promote Christianity then it would be a violation. So context matters when evaluating these claims. If there has been a pattern of behavior that indicates that the religious symbolism has infringed individual rights then there is a justification for doing something about it. Without that justification there is no reason to alter something of historical significance in my opinion.

It is a piece of debris for crying out loud!!! If something Atheists liked and had been a symbol of encouragement of hope and encouragement to them had surfaced amidst the carnage of 9/11, it would also be appropriate to display that in the memorial museum. Do you know of any such thing that was forbidden?

Can you point to the churches that were the center of communal life that the Atheists built? To the hospitals, universities, and schools they established? To the influence they have had in the development of an area? We can point to countless such contributions to our history and society made by people of faith. To exclude that from our history would be absurd. And if you can point to any such contributions made by Atheists, that too should be noted.

To include in history what is history is not an establishment of religion in any form whatsoever.

Andrew Carnegie established libraries, schools and universities all over this nation.
Clarence Darrow for the Scopes Monkey trial.
Linus Pauling won Nobel prizes for both Science and Peace.
Francis Crick and James D. Watson won Nobel prizes for the discovery of the molecular structure of DNA.
Warren Buffet who has allocated 83% of his fortune to the Bill and Melinda Gates philanthropic foundation.
Steve Wozniak the co-founder of the Apple personal computer.
Thomas Edison one of the most prolific inventors of all time.
Mark Twain who wrote some of America's most famous literature.
Susan B. Anthony who fought for the right of women to vote.

That list barely scratches the surface of Atheists who have made major contributions to our way of life.

 

[Foxfyre]

No one is advocating taking away the rights of people of faith. The Constitution is quite clear when it comes to saying that everyone has equal rights when it comes to religion and that includes those with none at all.

The 9/11 Memorial is a matter of equal rights. It is either all or none. To only display the symbol of a single religion violates the Establishment clause.

When it comes to what is and isn't appropriate as far as what is deemed to be "religious history" is concerned that is probably more a matter of context than anything else. There are place names (like St Paul, MN) which have obvious religious connotations. It isn't a violation of the Constitution, in my opinion, if the city is governed in a secular manner. However, if the city government were to use the name to promote Christianity then it would be a violation. So context matters when evaluating these claims. If there has been a pattern of behavior that indicates that the religious symbolism has infringed individual rights then there is a justification for doing something about it. Without that justification there is no reason to alter something of historical significance in my opinion.

It is a piece of debris for crying out loud!!! If something Atheists liked and had been a symbol of encouragement of hope and encouragement to them had surfaced amidst the carnage of 9/11, it would also be appropriate to display that in the memorial museum. Do you know of any such thing that was forbidden?

Can you point to the churches that were the center of communal life that the Atheists built? To the hospitals, universities, and schools they established? To the influence they have had in the development of an area? We can point to countless such contributions to our history and society made by people of faith. To exclude that from our history would be absurd. And if you can point to any such contributions made by Atheists, that too should be noted.

To include in history what is history is not an establishment of religion in any form whatsoever.

Andrew Carnegie established libraries, schools and universities all over this nation.
Clarence Darrow for the Scopes Monkey trial.
Linus Pauling won Nobel prizes for both Science and Peace.
Francis Crick and James D. Watson won Nobel prizes for the discovery of the molecular structure of DNA.
Warren Buffet who has allocated 83% of his fortune to the Bill and Melinda Gates philanthropic foundation.
Steve Wozniak the co-founder of the Apple personal computer.
Thomas Edison one of the most prolific inventors of all time.
Mark Twain who wrote some of America's most famous literature.
Susan B. Anthony who fought for the right of women to vote.

That list barely scratches the surface of Atheists who have made major contributions to our way of life.

And, assuming all are Atheists, did they do so as Atheists or Atheist organizations? Or as ordinary people? I don't recall that a single one of these has been excluded from our common history and several are symbolized or quoted or otherwise memoralized on libaries and on other public forums all over the country. And I can't recall a single Christian or Christian organization or the ACLU objecting to that.

 

[Derideo_Te]

It is a piece of debris for crying out loud!!! If something Atheists liked and had been a symbol of encouragement of hope and encouragement to them had surfaced amidst the carnage of 9/11, it would also be appropriate to display that in the memorial museum. Do you know of any such thing that was forbidden?

Can you point to the churches that were the center of communal life that the Atheists built? To the hospitals, universities, and schools they established? To the influence they have had in the development of an area? We can point to countless such contributions to our history and society made by people of faith. To exclude that from our history would be absurd. And if you can point to any such contributions made by Atheists, that too should be noted.

To include in history what is history is not an establishment of religion in any form whatsoever.

Andrew Carnegie established libraries, schools and universities all over this nation.
Clarence Darrow for the Scopes Monkey trial.
Linus Pauling won Nobel prizes for both Science and Peace.
Francis Crick and James D. Watson won Nobel prizes for the discovery of the molecular structure of DNA.
Warren Buffet who has allocated 83% of his fortune to the Bill and Melinda Gates philanthropic foundation.
Steve Wozniak the co-founder of the Apple personal computer.
Thomas Edison one of the most prolific inventors of all time.
Mark Twain who wrote some of America's most famous literature.
Susan B. Anthony who fought for the right of women to vote.

That list barely scratches the surface of Atheists who have made major contributions to our way of life.

And, assuming all are Atheists, did they do so as Atheists or Atheist organizations? Or as ordinary people? I don't recall that a single one of these has been excluded from our common history and several are symbolized or quoted or otherwise memoralized on libaries and on other public forums all over the country. And I can't recall a single Christian or Christian organization or the ACLU objecting to that.

Can you point to where it has been noted that these contributions were made by Atheists as opposed to contributions that were made by religions? Because I am willing to bet that 80% of the nation has no idea that any of those people are/were Atheists. So it hasn't been noted in our common history that they were Atheists. Perhaps this explains why Atheists are still regarded with such disdain by so many. They don't have the power of a religious organization behind them promoting their accomplishments.

 

[Foxfyre]

Andrew Carnegie established libraries, schools and universities all over this nation.
Clarence Darrow for the Scopes Monkey trial.
Linus Pauling won Nobel prizes for both Science and Peace.
Francis Crick and James D. Watson won Nobel prizes for the discovery of the molecular structure of DNA.
Warren Buffet who has allocated 83% of his fortune to the Bill and Melinda Gates philanthropic foundation.
Steve Wozniak the co-founder of the Apple personal computer.
Thomas Edison one of the most prolific inventors of all time.
Mark Twain who wrote some of America's most famous literature.
Susan B. Anthony who fought for the right of women to vote.

That list barely scratches the surface of Atheists who have made major contributions to our way of life.

And, assuming all are Atheists, did they do so as Atheists or Atheist organizations? Or as ordinary people? I don't recall that a single one of these has been excluded from our common history and several are symbolized or quoted or otherwise memoralized on libaries and on other public forums all over the country. And I can't recall a single Christian or Christian organization or the ACLU objecting to that.

Can you point to where it has been noted that these contributions were made by Atheists as opposed to contributions that were made by religions? Because I am willing to bet that 80% of the nation has no idea that any of those people are/were Atheists. So it hasn't been noted in our common history that they were Atheists. Perhaps this explains why Atheists are still regarded with such disdain by so many. They don't have the power of a religious organization behind them promoting their accomplishments.

You're really dodging the issue. The fact is that is WAS organizations specifically identified as faith-based organizations that built those hospitals, universities, schools, etc. Why should recognition of that be denied those organizations or why should that be excluded from American history? Very very rarely was it one person stepping up to take the credit. There are also notable Christians--thousands of them--that can be and/or are included in the annals of history for their individual contributions to society too, but that don't blow that trumpet unless they are asked any more than Atheists usually advertise their atheism.

The point is that religion is a huge component of our American culture, and a few narrow minded, hateful atheists should not continue to object to that being included in our common history and culture. We don't require you to believe. It should not bother you in the least that we do.

 

[Derideo_Te]

And, assuming all are Atheists, did they do so as Atheists or Atheist organizations? Or as ordinary people? I don't recall that a single one of these has been excluded from our common history and several are symbolized or quoted or otherwise memoralized on libaries and on other public forums all over the country. And I can't recall a single Christian or Christian organization or the ACLU objecting to that.

Can you point to where it has been noted that these contributions were made by Atheists as opposed to contributions that were made by religions? Because I am willing to bet that 80% of the nation has no idea that any of those people are/were Atheists. So it hasn't been noted in our common history that they were Atheists. Perhaps this explains why Atheists are still regarded with such disdain by so many. They don't have the power of a religious organization behind them promoting their accomplishments.

You're really dodging the issue. The fact is that is WAS organizations specifically identified as faith-based organizations that built those hospitals, universities, schools, etc. Why should recognition of that be denied those organizations or why should that be excluded from American history? Very very rarely was it one person stepping up to take the credit. There are also notable Christians--thousands of them--that can be and/or are included in the annals of history for their individual contributions to society too, but that don't blow that trumpet unless they are asked any more than Atheists usually advertise their atheism.

The point is that religion is a huge component of our American culture, and a few narrow minded, hateful atheists should not continue to object to that being included in our common history and culture. We don't require you to believe. It should not bother you in the least that we do.

Who is objecting to that being included in our common history? The issues are over current matters such as recognizing that people of all faiths died on 9/11.

 

[Foxfyre]

Can you point to where it has been noted that these contributions were made by Atheists as opposed to contributions that were made by religions? Because I am willing to bet that 80% of the nation has no idea that any of those people are/were Atheists. So it hasn't been noted in our common history that they were Atheists. Perhaps this explains why Atheists are still regarded with such disdain by so many. They don't have the power of a religious organization behind them promoting their accomplishments.

You're really dodging the issue. The fact is that is WAS organizations specifically identified as faith-based organizations that built those hospitals, universities, schools, etc. Why should recognition of that be denied those organizations or why should that be excluded from American history? Very very rarely was it one person stepping up to take the credit. There are also notable Christians--thousands of them--that can be and/or are included in the annals of history for their individual contributions to society too, but that don't blow that trumpet unless they are asked any more than Atheists usually advertise their atheism.

The point is that religion is a huge component of our American culture, and a few narrow minded, hateful atheists should not continue to object to that being included in our common history and culture. We don't require you to believe. It should not bother you in the least that we do.

Who is objecting to that being included in our common history? The issues are over current matters such as recognizing that people of all faiths died on 9/11.

Well if the people of all the non-Christian faiths found something meaningful/inspiring/encouraging in the 9/11 debris, they would have every right to ask that it be exhibited too. And I can guarantee you that Christians would not object to that.