Tis the season...deja vu anyone?

[Sir Dillon]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

This point bears repeating. Religion didn't invent horrors,

So the inquisition, malleus maleficarum, crusades, etc. were not motivated/initiated (i.e. premised upon) religion?

nor are the religious the sole practitioners of them, but those that do create horrors do all seem to share a certain affinity for one particular concept.........I'm right and you're not.

Agreed

[Sir Dillon]

Originally Posted by flippyshark

Sir Dillon,

That reply doesn't appear to be addressing the issue (the right for the sign to be there as opposed to the merits of its content), and it's confusing in the bargain. Again, please clarify.

Sorry for the confusion.

Just as much as religious people read the Bible in ways (not what it actually says, but what they want it to say) that to suit their own ends; they also read into the Constitution the same way.

As referenced in the OP, Lars and his caller claimed the 1st Amendment (reading into it what they want it to say, not what it actually does) supported the religious display but not the atheist display. Then claiming it was hate speech and was tantamount to being agents of the government in proliferating that particular belief, they concluded it was an unconstitutional display.

That position is a special pleading fallacy. Holding others to their rules while not holding themselves equally accountable.

The "I'm right...you're wrong" mentality previously mentioned by one of your cohorts.

Anyhow...

Thanks for the response.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Sir Dillon

No deal.

Because so many question it, its message not conforming to what some cosider their version of "good taste," and that it was equal space (which happened to be next to the tree/nativity scene) was used to remove via the court of public opinion; and that opinion used the first (questioning it) in substantiating the second (having it removed on allegations that it was hate speech and amounted to being illegal).

Thank you for the response.

So our only option is to agree with the message no matter what it says? We are not allowed to express our opinion that it is a poorly chosen choice of message simply because some people might use that to justify something that you don't agree with?

Originally Posted by Sir Dillon

The "I'm right...you're wrong" mentality previously mentioned by one of your cohorts.

No one here has "cohorts". We are all quite capable of speaking for ourselves, and do so.

[Sir Dillon]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

My, we have been a busy board today, haven't we?


Pru, thanks for your sentiment but we are all interconnected via friendships through this board, and when someone pisses us off we generally feel free to address the issue without worrying about upsetting others. SD is a big boy and can handle himself, but I do wish that a little settling-in time had taken place before the flame retardant clothing became necessary. SD, these are good people and you really should get to know everyone better (and let them get to know you) before hitting light speed. Everyone else- SD is very cool as well, and I really do think this thread has turned into a wrong foot sort of thing.

I'm going to go drink now.

Agreed.

Sorry my passion for a good debate/discussion on topic was mistaken for...I don't know, whatever it was mistaken for.

I'll be taking a large step backwards...back into the hole in the oak; sitting, waiting, watching, and listening.

On that note...thanks to all who participated.

S.D.

PS. Goulish..."Cohorts" was meant as one of the members of this group of companions...since clearly this is a tightly knitted group.

[flippyshark]

Originally Posted by Sir Dillon

Sorry for the confusion.

Just as much as religious people read the Bible in ways (not what it actually says, but what they want it to say) that to suit their own ends; they also read into the Constitution the same way.

As referenced in the OP, Lars and his caller claimed the 1st Amendment (reading into it what they want it to say, not what it actually does) supported the religious display but not the atheist display. Then claiming it was hate speech and was tantamount to being agents of the government in proliferating that particular belief, they concluded it was an unconstitutional display.

That position is a special pleading fallacy. Holding others to their rules while not holding themselves equally accountable.

Edited to add - Oh, or maybe it's a good time to let the conversation rest.

The "I'm right...you're wrong" mentality previously mentioned by one of your cohorts.

Anyhow...

Thanks for the response.

I wholeheartedly agree with everything in this response. However, and correct me if I'm wrong, your replies to some of the previous posts gave the impression you felt those posts were guilty of the same fallacy. I suspect this is incorrect.

I'm happy that greater clarity is making its way into the discussion, but I'll be away the rest of the day. Look forward to seeing where this is heading a few hours from now.

Edited to add - Or perhaps this is a good time to let the discussion rest. Happy hedons to all until later.

[bewitched]

Originally Posted by Sir Dillon

No deal.

Because so many question it, its message not conforming to what some cosider their version of "good taste," and that it was equal space (which happened to be next to the tree/nativity scene) was used to remove via the court of public opinion; and that opinion used the first (questioning it) in substantiating the second (having it removed on allegations that it was hate speech and amounted to being illegal).

Thank you for the response.

I was going to respond to quite a few of your statements but I will restrict myself. And for the record (not that it matters), I am an Atheist.

I think most Christians would be offended every bit as much by a religious "message" if it contained an inherently negative connotation...let alone had little to do with the holiday season, as it were. For instance, I am confident you could expect an outcry from a large group of Christians if any one religious group chose an "End of Days" Christmas display instead of a nativity. Commonsensically, one is more patently offensive than the other, legalities notwithstanding. And I think this is the fundamental point most here are making. As Alex said early on, "specifically targeting a Christmas display for a counter-display is a dick move." By choosing the display they did, they intentionally courted controversy, end of discussion. If their motive had been anything other, they would have tailored it to be less offensive. They knew (or had to have known) they were being offensive; if not, they are a particular group of Atheists with which I would not be associated since I prefer to surround myself with people a few steps above booger-eating moron.

Further, just a semantic point that is really bothering me...

You stated, "There is no atheist domga...i.e. a doctine presented without proof."

You are applying only a very narrow definition of dogma, i.e. religious dogma. Since Atheism is an absence or rejection of the existence of a God/Gods, it is therefore an absence or rejection of religion. Hence, when EM referred to "Atheist dogma" he could only have been referring to dogma being defined as, "That which is held as an opinion; a tenet; a doctrine." [Webster's] Certainly, Atheism is a set of opinions...I would also argue that it encompasses both tenets and doctrines although I concede that the existence of the two could be objectively disputed.

Your statement, "Atheist have nothing but proof (at least far more than religious folk do) to substantiate their viewpoint" notwithstanding, I, as an Atheist have no more proof of the absence of God than a religious person has proof of the existence of God. To argue otherwise is to rely on the same fallacious arguements you have accused religious people of relying on.

[Betty]

I, for one, have found this thread very entertaining. There's nothing wrong with discussions and debates and disagreeing and having to clarify things one has said.

And I think SD that you'll find that although everyone here seems to genuninally like each other, for the most part, it's one of the most open to differing viewpoints without getting nasty message boards I've been a part of.

[bewitched]

Originally Posted by Sir Dillon

PS. Goulish..."Cohorts" was meant as one of the members of this group of companions...since clearly this is a tightly knitted group.

Just a clarification...

I don't think that because we might agree that we are, in and of ourselves, "cohorts" in the way you are applying it. I, for one, am only tangentally related to most of the group (both by distance and by the limited time of my participation thus far). I hope most here enjoy my participation but my participation is not necessarily predicated on that.

You could perhaps argue that we are cohorts in that many of us here have similar views on many subjects, something that attracted me (and I suspect others) to this site. That being said, I have found that alternative viewpoints are readily accepted-- though vigorously debated which may have lead to you view that the responses here are a result of the "tight knittedness" of the group as a whole. That aside, I really don't think anyone here has disputed the "rights" of an Atheist group to have a display. We are merely pointing out the "assholiness" of the content.

[CoasterMatt]

I'm not an Atheist.

I don't mind an 'opposing viewpoint' setup, but this is kind of like somebody standing next to the Santa Claus setup at the mall and yelling at the kids "HE'S A FRAUD! THERE'S NO SANTA CLAUS!" and then wondering why the parents are upset.

[bewitched]

Originally Posted by CoasterMatt

I'm not an Atheist.

I don't mind an 'opposing viewpoint' setup, but this is kind of like somebody standing next to the Santa Claus setup at the mall and yelling at the kids "HE'S A FRAUD! THERE'S NO SANTA CLAUS!" and then wondering why the parents are upset beat the holy crap out of him.

It needed fixing.


eta: Ooooo, look! I have 500 posts.