Re: Atheists signs blocked in NY

**WhippetGrappler** · 03-11-2012, 09:43 PM

Originally Posted by Spider

There is a world of difference between what people believe (none of my business and I could care less) and what they do on public, taxpayer owned property. Whether or not one is offended by a Michigan flag, we can all agree that Michigan exists. The beliefs represented by a cross are a matter of faith, not fact, and a faith not shared by all of the owners of the public property.

Spider,

There is proof that Jesus did exist and that he did die on the cross. Maybe if there was an empty tomb I think would qualify as having everyone believing in the Faith that I do.

**kr1963** · 03-12-2012, 03:10 AM

The cross & tomb thing I think is arguable. However the teachings of the new testament does exist. The argument there is how to interpret them. But I digress.

I think this country was founded on a very good premise: freedom of religion. Or not.

I have been in some Christian churches the past few years where the pastors have ripped on other religions. I point out the Constitution to them. hey don't like to hear that. I point out that jesus won't do that. They contradict me. The point being is that I am fine with them or atheists having their beliefs but when they start to tell me that I am wrong for not thinking how they do, that's crossing the line.

**Spider** · 03-12-2012, 07:55 AM

Originally Posted by WhippetGrappler

Spider,
There is proof that Jesus did exist and that he did die on the cross. Maybe if there was an empty tomb I think would qualify as having everyone believing in the Faith that I do.

I have no doubt that Jesus existed and died on the cross. I believe that that is a historical fact. The matters of Jesus's divinity, resurrection, being the son of God, however, are matters of faith which one may choose to believe or not. Correct me if I am wrong, but the sign of the cross represents these latter beliefs, not simply the fact that Jesus existed. As such, it is a religious icon which doesn't belong on public properety, in my opinion.

**UGLY** · 03-12-2012, 09:20 AM

I will take it a step further. If you believe that no public property should be used to observe a religious holiday or to promote one then I would say that public employees should not receive paid or unpaid vacation for those religious holiday's. They should be made to work, just like any other day.

I have had this conversation with Spider before and I believe that like many other people who do not share my belief that his reasons are logical and rational and it is what makes sense to him. We disagree on many of the finer points but I certainly respect his view point. I might be wrong Spider but weren't you raised in a religious home, I thought I heard you had something like that before. If you did or did not it, I find it interesting how many people who were raised in a certain way (me in a non-christian home) wind up believing the opposite of what they were taught when they were young.

**UGLY** · 03-12-2012, 09:23 AM

Here is another question how do you guys feel about pro or anti religious propaganda being displayed on public transportation when it is paid for as an advertisement.

**Spider** · 03-12-2012, 10:51 AM

Originally Posted by UGLY

I will take it a step further. If you believe that no public property should be used to observe a religious holiday or to promote one then I would say that public employees should not receive paid or unpaid vacation for those religious holiday's. They should be made to work, just like any other day.

I don't think that this naturally follows. While the State must not endorse and religion over any other (must remian religiously neutral), it may still respect the beliefs of its employees and allow them to take time off for their religious holidays. Whether these are paid days off, counted against sick or vacation time, or unpaid will depend on their negotiated contract. My choice would be to allow them to choose between taking paid sick or vacation time, or taking unpaid days off.

Originally Posted by UGLY

I have had this conversation with Spider before and I believe that like many other people who do not share my belief that his reasons are logical and rational and it is what makes sense to him. We disagree on many of the finer points but I certainly respect his view point. I might be wrong Spider but weren't you raised in a religious home, I thought I heard you had something like that before. If you did or did not it, I find it interesting how many people who were raised in a certain way (me in a non-christian home) wind up believing the opposite of what they were taught when they were young.

I was raised in a reform (the least strict) Jewish home. I was Bar-Mitzvahed and confirmed. All during my religious education, I noticed inconsistencies which made me doubt what I was being taught. As I grew older, I continued to observe the rituals of Judaism, partly because my wife wanted to, and we raised my daughter in the Jewish tradition. Some people think that I turned away from religion when my wife died, but this is not true. There were aspects of that event which confirmed my doubts, but my shift to atheism was a long, slow evolution that began in childhood. I would like to think that as people grow older and wiser, they begin to question things that they were taught to accept on faith and start to think for themselves, but I will admit that I know many religious people whose intelligence I respect and whose faith is genuine.

Originally Posted by UGLY

Here is another question how do you guys feel about pro or anti religious propaganda being displayed on public transportation when it is paid for as an advertisement.

An advertisement informing people about a particular church or event is okay with me, but an ad which proclaims the truth of one religion over others is not. The former is information, the latter is propaganda.

**ODH** · 03-12-2012, 11:10 AM

Originally Posted by quinn14

Now you got me curious. What would you consider an act of God?

I think he would have to appear before me...
Maybe in terms that make sense to you, it would take the same amount of proof for me to believe in God that it would take you to drop your Christian beliefs and switch to say Hinduism.

**UGLY** · 03-12-2012, 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by Spider

I don't think that this naturally follows. While the State must not endorse and religion over any other (must remian religiously neutral), it may still respect the beliefs of its employees and allow them to take time off for their religious holidays. Whether these are paid days off, counted against sick or vacation time, or unpaid will depend on their negotiated contract. My choice would be to allow them to choose between taking paid sick or vacation time, or taking unpaid days off.

I was raised in a reform (the least strict) Jewish home. I was Bar-Mitzvahed and confirmed. All during my religious education, I noticed inconsistencies which made me doubt what I was being taught. As I grew older, I continued to observe the rituals of Judaism, partly because my wife wanted to, and we raised my daughter in the Jewish tradition. Some people think that I turned away from religion when my wife died, but this is not true. There were aspects of that event which confirmed my doubts, but my shift to atheism was a long, slow evolution that began in childhood. I would like to think that as people grow older and wiser, they begin to question things that they were taught to accept on faith and start to think for themselves, but I will admit that I know many religious people whose intelligence I respect and whose faith is genuine.

An advertisement informing people about a particular church or event is okay with me, but an ad which proclaims the truth of one religion over others is not. The former is information, the latter is propaganda.

Spider I agre with you, have people who want that day off use their personal vacation or sick time or unpaid leave. The government should ot shut down in observance of religious holidays, if you hold that the government should not endorse a religion or religions.

As far as the public transit, I feel that anyone has the right to buy advertising, it is up to the company who has to air or display the content of the advertisement if the content is appropriate. Both sides should be allowed to propagandize their beliefs on paid advertisements whether or not tehy are on public facilities or not if the gov. finds them acceptable.

**Spider** · 03-12-2012, 05:33 PM

Originally Posted by UGLY

As far as the public transit, I feel that anyone has the right to buy advertising, it is up to the company who has to air or display the content of the advertisement if the content is appropriate. Both sides should be allowed to propagandize their beliefs on paid advertisements whether or not tehy are on public facilities or not if the gov. finds them acceptable.

My reply was how I'd like it to be, not how things are. This is not an easy question because freedom of speech often trumps good taste, and advertising media like public transit may only care about the dollars and not the content. Extreme cases like an ad for the KKK would probably be nixed, but "Accept Jesus As Your Savior" or "God Is a Myth Just Like Santa Claus" might get by.

Thread Tools

Display