Christians attempt to silence non-religious messages at Christmas

[Gunny]

Atheists take aim at Christmas - CNN.com

What really interests me about this is the way that Christians, who've won the war to have a nativity placed on the state capitol's grounds, are fighting to SILENCE atheist messages.

Interesting. "Free speech, but only for me."

Free speech but only for me applies as much or more to atheists as it does Christians. Who fired the first shot? When you stick your ass out there, don't start whining when someone puts a load of buckshot in it.

 

[KittenKoder]

Free speech but only for me applies as much or more to atheists as it does Christians. Who fired the first shot? When you stick your ass out there, don't start whining when someone puts a load of buckshot in it.

A good point, however I have yet to see atheists get any laws passed, it's the stores themselves choosing to follow what they asked, so the fault lies more on the businesses and leaders than the atheists directly. Most I know don't care either way.

 

[Steerpike]

Sorry, but atheists are not entitled to any special privileges. That is not "Christian intolerance," that's an elementary principle of Constitutional law.

Maybe you can explain this assertion as it relates to the article being discussed.

A principle of Constitutional law would be that once the government makes available a space for public displays or messages, it cannot censor the content placed there based solely on political or religious content.

The article demonstrates that both sides of the debate are happy to invoke the Constitution when it suits them because they are seeking protection, but also just as happy to disregard it entirely when someone they don't like is seeking protection.

 

[YWN666]

Here's the thing about freedom of speech that people just don't get most of the time. While it allows you to say good things about anything it ALSO allows you to say bad things about anything so long as they are clearly stated as belief/opinion (same thing in my book) or they can be proven accurate. However even then, hateful things are still protected under freedom of speech, otherwise every KKK march in the US would be canceled, but they still go on in many places (they do pick areas they are less likely to get shot). One town had a great solution to such an event, they held their own (non-hating) event on the opposite side of town. That is the totality of freedom of speech, BOTH sides of anything can be heard, the only time it is against the law is if they cause harm to the person physically or financially.

Exactly. We have to pay a price for having the freedom of speech and that price is having to allow speech that we don't necessarily agree with.

 

[Black Lance]

Maybe you can explain this assertion as it relates to the article being discussed.

A principle of Constitutional law would be that once the government makes available a space for public displays or messages, it cannot censor the content placed there based solely on political or religious content.

The article demonstrates that both sides of the debate are happy to invoke the Constitution when it suits them because they are seeking protection, but also just as happy to disregard it entirely when someone they don't like is seeking protection.

I'll keep it simple: Neither freedom of speech nor freedom of religion creates a right to have the government post your hate speech on its premises, and as stated previously atheists do not have any special privileges. Therefore, the plaque, which is focused on hate speech about religion rather than promoting a positive idea or value of atheism, should not be allowed on government property.

 

[Black Lance]

We're talking about THIS country where we have a Constitution that protects ALL citizens.

Correct, which is why the plaque needs to be removed. No religious group could get away with something like this, and therefore atheists should not be allowed to do so either.

Perhaps the sign could have been worded in a less provocative manner but that is what some atheists believe and that is freedom of speech. You have the right to express your disapproval of it, too.

Again, the freedom of speech clause of the first amendment does not recognize a right to have hate speech represented on government property.

Atheists are not getting any special priveleges. The sign expressed what many atheists believe. Christian intolerance is the fact that many christians don't want to share the display with anyone else. If you don't want to hear what others believe, then vote to disallow ANY religious displays.

I disagree. If atheists cannot express their beliefs without expressing hate that is their problem, but it does not and should not affect Constitutional rights enjoyed by the rest of us.

 

[Steerpike]

I'll keep it simple: Neither freedom of speech nor freedom of religion creates a right to have the government post your hate speech on its premises, and as stated previously atheists do not have any special privileges. Therefore, the plaque, which is focused on hate speech about religion rather than promoting a positive idea or value of atheism, should not be allowed on government property.

Characterizing something as 'hate speech' is a refuge of someone who doesn't have an argument. You usually see this sort of thing from the left.

Once the government opens something up to public display, they are restricted in their ability to regulate based on religious and political viewpoint. Moving beyond that is just a way of rationalizing censorship of speech you don't like.

 

[KittenKoder]

I'll keep it simple: Neither freedom of speech nor freedom of religion creates a right to have the government post your hate speech on its premises, and as stated previously atheists do not have any special privileges. Therefore, the plaque, which is focused on hate speech about religion rather than promoting a positive idea or value of atheism, should not be allowed on government property.

You every seen an anti-abortion march? How about a KKK march? Perhaps maybe a Black Panther one? Hell, go to a sports game. That's ALL hatred, and it's STILL protected, get it? What they did may have been hateful it was no different, it's no different than anti-gay marches that still occur in many areas. There are anti-Jewish marches to. The one thing that's wrong is that you don't care about those one bit, but an anti-whatever-you-are is suddenly wrong, but it's still legal and a valid form of freedom of speech.

 

[KittenKoder]

Correct, which is why the plaque needs to be removed. No religious group could get away with something like this, and therefore atheists should not be allowed to do so either.



Again, the freedom of speech clause of the first amendment does not recognize a right to have hate speech represented on government property.



I disagree. If atheists cannot express their beliefs without expressing hate that is their problem, but it does not and should not affect Constitutional rights enjoyed by the rest of us.

Nativity scenes are religious as well. So are the Ten Commandments idols, which christians pitched the biggest fit over having removed from a courthouse of all places.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'll keep it simple: Neither freedom of speech nor freedom of religion creates a right to have the government post your hate speech on its premises, and as stated previously atheists do not have any special privileges. Therefore, the plaque, which is focused on hate speech about religion rather than promoting a positive idea or value of atheism, should not be allowed on government property.

I would describe what was written on the plaque as hate speech.

 

[Missourian]

I agree with Philips...the sign makes atheists look like a bunch of hate filled idiots. Just like the gays invading churches, this display has totally backfired, once again, making the religious into the victims and shows the atheists to the world as the intolerant bigots that they are. Jewish, Christian and Islamic believers couldn't buy the kind of positive public relations they are receiving from this atheist display.

Thanks and keep up the good work.

 

[KittenKoder]

*rae* It's convenient to forget all the hangings, car bombings, clinic burnings, lunching of blacks, etc. when you want to make the other side look bad.

 

[Againsheila]

Okay, I feel it's important once more to go over the history of this. Last year, Olympia put up their normal holiday tree AND a menorah. A Christian man sued for the right to put up a nativity. This year, the people who put up the menorah last year didn't do it, but the guy who put up the nativity still did. Then the organization called "Freedom From Religion" sent a sign to be placed near the nativity. The sign states: At this season of the WINTER SOLSTICE may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but a myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.

People called them on the hate speech in their last sentence and they had the nerve to claim that a nativity is hate speech.

I see nothing hateful in a nativity, I see nothing hateful in a menorah, I see nothing hateful until that last sentense of their sign. THAT is the part that should not be allowed.

Sorry I broke my word again, I really gotta stay out of these threads.

 

[Father Time]

Okay, I feel it's important once more to go over the history of this. Last year, Olympia put up their normal holiday tree AND a menorah. A Christian man sued for the right to put up a nativity. This year, the people who put up the menorah last year didn't do it, but the guy who put up the nativity still did. Then the organization called "Freedom From Religion" sent a sign to be placed near the nativity. The sign states: At this season of the WINTER SOLSTICE may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but a myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.

People called them on the hate speech in their last sentence and they had the nerve to claim that a nativity is hate speech.

I see nothing hateful in a nativity, I see nothing hateful in a menorah, I see nothing hateful until that last sentense of their sign. THAT is the part that should not be allowed.

Sorry I broke my word again, I really gotta stay out of these threads.

How is that hate speech? Pompous perhaps but I fail to see it being hateful.

 

[KittenKoder]

Okay, I feel it's important once more to go over the history of this. Last year, Olympia put up their normal holiday tree AND a menorah. A Christian man sued for the right to put up a nativity. This year, the people who put up the menorah last year didn't do it, but the guy who put up the nativity still did. Then the organization called "Freedom From Religion" sent a sign to be placed near the nativity. The sign states: At this season of the WINTER SOLSTICE may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but a myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.

People called them on the hate speech in their last sentence and they had the nerve to claim that a nativity is hate speech.

I see nothing hateful in a nativity, I see nothing hateful in a menorah, I see nothing hateful until that last sentense of their sign. THAT is the part that should not be allowed.

Sorry I broke my word again, I really gotta stay out of these threads.

Actually it's always a welcome sight to see things get back on topic. Again, their claim is still valid, the last sentence. Though it is opinion, it is still protected whether we agree or not.

 

[Father Time]

I agree with Philips...the sign makes atheists look like a bunch of hate filled idiots. Just like the gays invading churches, this display has totally backfired, once again, making the religious into the victims and shows the atheists to the world as the intolerant bigots that they are. Jewish, Christian and Islamic believers couldn't buy the kind of positive public relations they are receiving from this atheist display.

Thanks and keep up the good work.

Calling an entire religion bigoted is up there in the peak of irony.

 

[Amanda]

One town had a great solution to such an event, they held their own (non-hating) event on the opposite side of town.

I think you got the key to the Christian point of view with that sentence, especially the last part.

 

[Missourian]

*rae* It's convenient to forget all the hangings, car bombings, clinic burnings, lunching of blacks, etc. when you want to make the other side look bad.

I can only hope they consider adding the above to their display next year.

 

[del]

Calling an entire religion bigoted is up there in the peak of irony.

yep, just below calling atheism a religion.
nice work

 

[Father Time]

yep, just below calling atheism a religion.
nice work

Why must you split hairs?

Fine, calling a very large group of people defined by some very loose belief bigoted is irony then.

And if you still want to split hairs further, there's no way in hell he's been able to meet the majority of atheists so to call them all bigoted is ironic (and very very stupid).