Tis the season...deja vu anyone?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by alphabassettgrrl

OK so no gov't funding; that helps. It's still public property, though, so I still have some issues with religious anything there.

I don't. If it's public space provided for public use, the public is free to do as the public pleases. As long as it's not my tax dollars paying to put up a manger, I'm fine with it.

[Sir Dillon]

Originally Posted by alphabassettgrrl

Yeah, I wish they had done it more... tastefully, tactfully, not quite sure what I want, but a blunt "religion is stupid" probably won't win points with anybody.

Yet again, another subjective interpretation.

Sorry...but the word "stupid" is not stated or implied (directly or indirectly) in the display's statement.

OK so no gov't funding; that helps. It's still public property, though, so I still have some issues with religious anything there.

Agreed in the sense that I would rather have nothing private on public property; nevertheless, goulish is right. Public is public and as I have argued, it's the right of both sides to display something on public property.

I'm hoping for some elegance, or such in future displays. There are ways to promote human reason and rationality without being crude and nasty.

Again...making genralized statements stating there are no gods, devils, etc. is NOT "crude and nasty" (a subjective interpretation)


S.D.

[Betty]

Originally Posted by Sir Dillon

Yet again, another subjective interpretation.

Again...making genralized statements stating there are no gods, devils, etc. is NOT "crude and nasty" (a subjective interpretation)

So does the question then become - so what if it is crude and nasty? And if that's a problem and means "something" should be done about it, what? And who decides when it crosses the line.

I hear where you're coming from Sir Dillon - but I must agree with the rest that the message feels a bit harsh. But then that's just how I feel about it. I wouldn't call it hate speech. But it's not going to win any friends. Although I must admit I did go look up the group that's behind it and spend some time on their website so maybe I'm wrong about that.

I've been in situations where I felt compelled to pretend to pray because of what it was - the other side of the family - the work party at christmas... I would rather that didn't happen. It somehow feels like a score for my side. That's not quite the right sentiment - but hopefully you get where I'm coming from.

[Morrigoon]

Originally Posted by alphabassettgrrl

OK so no gov't funding; that helps. It's still public property, though, so I still have some issues with religious anything there.

But a lack of display at holiday time... could be interpreted as supporting the atheist viewpoint. So in that sense, it's better to allow all expression than none, because by default, that's atheist expression.

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

But a lack of display at holiday time... could be interpreted as supporting the atheist viewpoint. So in that sense, it's better to allow all expression than none, because by default, that's atheist expression.

That I don't buy - I think atheism is an opinion and position not just the lack thereof

[alphabassettgrrl]

I can't see it being respectful to religion. Yes, "tasteful" is a subjective statement but religion or lack thereof is a subjective matter. Neither side can prove anything- either that god exists or does not exist. We can state that a good life can be lived without religion, and point to examples, but there are examples of good people of faith as well so I'm still not sure that gets us anywhere.

I like the idea of an atheist display, just not this implementation.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

First of all, I am not using religion as a weapon. Again, like others in this thread, you have no idea what my personal beliefs are.

Originally Posted by GD

It's a positive "we're good people" message, not a petty, "you're bad people". The sign was clearly the latter.

Originally Posted by Mr. Sir

Truth hurt?

Just because you've apologized for this statement (which - to me - seems like a greatly personal one towards people who practice a religion) doesn't mean it disappears. You lobbed it out there, and I'm surprised you're taking such offense at people taking such offense at it.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Dude, whoa whoa whoa! You might want to get to know people here before you start smashing all the china.


You said you have made no hasty generalizations. Here is one that you made.

Originally Posted by Sir Dillon

Human beings are violent...and over the past 2,000 years religion has been used as a justification for heinous acts of violence between various races, ethnicities, and/or religious denominations.

Obscuring this FACT by criticizing my forward comment to such realities will NOT change this FACT of human history, past or present.

It is also a FACT that science has been used as a justification for heinous acts of violence, and a FACT that religion has been used to bring charity and goodwill to people.

Religion has been both good and bad, science has been both good and bad. I'm surprised that I have to point out these FACTS to you, since you use big words, and I figure you'd be familiar with, say, Mother Teresa, communist Russia, and Adolf Hitler.

Godwin, hellz yeah.

[Sir Dillon]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

Dude, whoa whoa whoa! You might want to get to know people here before you start smashing all the china.

Sorry, but that quote was not a hasty generalization but a statement of fact. Of which I can cite an infnite number of historical facts to substantiate.

It is also a FACT that science has been used as a justification for heinous acts of violence...

Yes, but more often with purpose rather than self-serving agendad the likes seen by centuries of religious violence.

...and a FACT that religion has been used to bring charity and goodwill to people.

The bad always outweighs the good, figuratively or factually (in the case of religion, factually).

Religion has been both good and bad, science has been both good and bad.

Yes, but religion far is worse in the totality of its existence and effect upon humanity.

I'm surprised that I have to point out these FACTS to you, since you use big words, and I figure you'd be familiar with, say, Mother Teresa, communist Russia, and Adolf Hitler.

Godwin, hellz yeah.

Yes, I am familiar with those examples and plenty more. Yet, I am less familiar with anyone noteworthy who has actually done some real good, under the guise of religion, that did not cost anyone their fortune or life.

S.D.

[Sir Dillon]

Originally Posted by LSPoorEeyorick

First of all, I am not using religion as a weapon. Again, like others in this thread, you have no idea what my personal beliefs are.

And I've never claimed to know what your (or any other) personal beliefs are on the subject.

Just because you've apologized for this statement (which - to me - seems like a greatly personal one towards people who practice a religion) doesn't mean it disappears. You lobbed it out there, and I'm surprised you're taking such offense at people taking such offense at it.

To the contrary, I'm taking no offense at all as I never interject emotion into my arguments.

Forgive me for tooting my own horn, but I like to think of myself as an intellectual...not an emotive knee-jerk reactive individual who speaks before they think (which, as the Dixie Chicks learned, is akin to shooting without aiming).

I argue the logic, the meaning of words and how they used in the context given; not from personal emotions.

Declaring that...everyone within the forum will know exactly where I am coming from and how I argue/debate/discuss from here on out.

In other words, I don't beat around the bush nor will I coddle another's emotive fallacious arguments.

Respectfully,

S.D.