Posted on 12/24/2009 7:49:55 AM PST by Former Fetus
A conservative activist and Illinois comptroller candidate was escorted from the Illinois State Capitol building Wednesday when he tried to remove a sign put up by an atheist group.
William J. Kelly announced Tuesday that he planned to take down the sign put up by the Freedom from Religion Foundation, and on Wednesday, he tried to make good on his plan.
But Kelly said when he turned the sign around so it was face down, state Capitol police were quick to escort him away.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbs2chicago.com ...
Your statement in this post is at odds with your statements in others, including your petty “baby Jesus” post. You’ve been saying the lack of a direct mention in the Constitution means we’re not a Christian nation, but now you’re talking about the lack of a state church meaning we aren’t a Christian nation.
There is a vast difference between saying “We are a Christian nation, but we will not have a state church or religious tests” and saying “We will have a state church which you must join or risk being persecuted.” The fact that they didn’t say the second doesn’t mean they didn’t say the first.
No I'm not. They just didn't want to be a Methodist or Quaker nation. I said they were virtually all Christians.
your petty “baby Jesus” post.
It's not petty...it's a direct reference...besides, it's appropriate since it's Christmas. Nicen up.
Did you find it or not?
Didn't look. As I recall there's no overt reference to the Almighty in the Constitution.
You sound just like the Liberal Activists who read crap into the Constitution that just isn’t there.
Well, you'll never find it that way.
As I recall there's no overt reference to the Almighty in the Constitution.
Yes there is, and it's a direct reference to Christ.
If you consider the public square “government”, government has no business with any religious symbols either.
If however you consider the public square “the people”, then you allow the people their freedom of speech, so long as the speech is not incendiary.
And if it is incendiary, you handle it through the process, not by having a legislator sneak in and tear it down.
A mob could have shown up and torn the sign down. I know that sounds counter-intuitive, but inciting mob violence would have proven that the sign was incendiary.
I’m quite the opposite, since my interpretation is guided by original intent, not personal preference or the stupid idea of a “Living Constitution.”
Ah, that’s right, the Year of Our Lord.
OK, sorry for the friendly fire. Merry Christmas.
Do you understand how stupid we would look to past generations, when we write stuff like what you've written here, when we act like the idea that atheist Christophobes insulting people isn't admirable is the same as putting government in charge of free speech? Good grief. Moreover, I will repeat that there is a clear difference between the government opening the floor to any religion to promote their message and opening the floor to a message that is specifically designed to denigrate the others. One is pluralistic and neutral, the other is de facto hostility.
And if it is incendiary, you handle it through the process, not by having a legislator sneak in and tear it down.
I never endorsed it, I said it's silly to talk about respect when you have the state welcoming a sign that responds to symbols of peace and humor with unfounded attacks.
...never minding that atheists have also murdered more people than all the religions in history.
There is nothing more asinine or hypocritical than atheists carping about the evils of religion. While there may be such evils, the evils carried out by atheists in the "Atheist Century" (the 20th) surpass them all.
Very Nice!
A candy cane and lots of goodwill towards Mr Silverback. It was a pleasure bantering with you.
Merry Christmas and a Joyeous New Year to everyone.
Rocklobster.
You voluntarily came to a religion site and expected adults?
Your name is now on the purge list.
In modern jurispudence, that is unacceptable. Sure, it's nice to think back to the olden days where schools actually taught bible lessons, where Christianity was part of most governments, and where there was no question about putting a nativity, or the 10 commandments, or allowing prayer in, public places.
But you deal with the world we live in, not the one we wish we still had. A legislator tearing down a sign he doesn't like is a fast pass to banning all displays next year.
I will repeat that there is a clear difference between the government opening the floor to any religion to promote their message and opening the floor to a message that is specifically designed to denigrate the others. One is pluralistic and neutral
I think you underestimate the message of the Nativity for those who refuse to believe God has control over their lives. People were stoned for expressing their own belief in Jesus's birth and saving death. It may make no sense that people who don't believe in God would be upset about the "foolishness" of others who do, but in reality all men are created in the image of God, and at some level I believe they understand where they fit into the natural order.
So the Nativity, far from being a pluralistic, neutral message of love for all, is to the atheist a reminder that his belief in the supremacy of man is faulty, that his denouncement of God is his death sentence, and that his rejection of this Baby lying in a manger is his ticket to eternal torment.
We read the history of Jesus sending his disciples out into the world to preach what to us is a loving, inclusive message -- God loved the world so much that he sent his ownly Begotten Son. But Jesus noted that his disciples would be rejected by many, and that they should shake the dust off their feet and move on.
On the other hand, Jesus said "Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake".
The hateful message of the Atheist, next to what we see as the inviting message of the nativity, could well be the thing that brings some to Christ, and away from their ignorant disregard for the truth of the existance of God.
“If we allow religious iconography on public lands, then it has to be open to all. Freedom of speech is tough, but we are a free country. Either let everyone put something up, or no one put something up, we don’t have a state religion in America.”
___________
Amen
It is an adamant religious belief that denounce all other belief systems. It is a religion.
Based on many statements by atheists on internet forums, most atheists do believe themselves to be at least functionally omniscient.
True!
Any ideology can be used to enslave minds. He just has a thing against religion.
Personally, i would just pour some lighter fluid on it and claim artistic expression.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.