Tis the season...deja vu anyone?

[alphabassettgrrl]

Originally Posted by Moonliner

The sign was made to piss people off and grab a few headlines. That's it.

I would be a much better statement if, like I said previously, it had a some charm and personality, some colorful lights perhaps or a fluffy bunny.

Ooh, a bunny!

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

It says, "Religion is a myth that makes people worse."
...
And personally, it's religion's focus on "you're a bad person" messages that I find most distasteful, so I don't particularly love the same being used to supposedly argue a a point against them.

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. I'm no fan of organized religion, but this is maybe a bit much.

Originally Posted by Sir Dillon

The Governor of Washington State was merely allowing equal access to the Capitol to the atheist display as it did the religious display.

There is NO government funding involved.

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

[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.

[Sir Dillon]

Originally Posted by Betty

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.

Exactly!!!

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.

Feelings are not a basis of an objective argument.

While I may be passionate about the subject, as self-confessed, I still argue objectively regarding the legal, religious, and philosophical merits of it.

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.

I do, and I apprecaite the candor.

Thank you.

S.D.

[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

[Sir Dillon]

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

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.

Originally Posted by Originally Posted by Morrigoon:

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

"That I don't buy - I think 'religious dogma' is an opinion and position not just the lack thereof."

S.D.