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 ...
I'm curious, why do you feel the need to make this personal by using gratuitous insults? The most obvious reason would be to compensate for the inadequacy of your arguments, but perhaps it's simply in your character to do so.
It should be removed since it is on state property and expresses an opinion, unless it is the opinion of the state. (That's what liberals believe, so lets be "fair")
I take it then that you're in favor of removing all displays of the 10 Commandments from state property? The only way you could not be at this point would be to argue that the Ritual Decalogue is, in fact, the opinion of our current government. Is this, in fact, the case?
Personally, i would just pour some lighter fluid on it and claim artistic expression.
Personally, you're advocating the criminal destruction of private property because you're don't like the opinion expressed on it. Frankly, I think you're just venting. You're not going to actually commit such an act, but saying you would makes you feel good. If you actually do this (or a similar crime) please get back to this thread after your arrest and I'll retract my statement. Until then, you're all talk and no action.
By the way, you still haven't answered my question. Allow me to repeat it for your convenience:
What am I going to "get in the end" for expressing my opinion that someone shouldn't be allowed to burn someone else's property just because they don't like the opinion expressed on it?
(1) the text on that sign in Illinois?
For convenience, there's the text:
"At the time of the winter solstice, let reason prevail.
While I'm all in favor of reason, I see no need to highlight the fact that it's the winter solstice.
There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world.
While this is my operating assumption, I can't prove it. This is the distinction between positive atheism, which asserts that no God(s) exist, and negative atheism (my position), which is simply the lack of belief in such God(s).
Religion is just myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.
I agree that religion is myth and superstition, but not that it always hardens hearts and enslaves minds. Sometimes it does just the opposite. Humans are strange animals...
(2) the people who agree with the text?
I think that people who agree with the text are positive atheists who have a chip on their shoulder regarding religion. Really, what more could be inferred?
Who, he?
Burning the Atheist blasphemy should not inhibit the Nativity scene in any way. The Nativity represents true religion while the Atheist statement is falsehood and error. Error has no rights.
But it is most certainly true that Government has no place in dictating which is “true religion” and which is “blasphemy”. Because if it does, it won’t choose the way we want it to.
Christianity comes out way ahead when matched against the ignorant words of the Atheist. It doesn’t need to be defended by destroying the sign, or silencing the critics. That is for lesser, false religions.
:-)
I see no reason why atheist expression should not be allowed alongside other religions (because that’s what it is).
Its called slang ya DOPE!
Deliberately misspelling (assuming that was your intent rather than a simple error on your part) the word "lesser" as "lessor" is an example of cacography, not slang...and a rather maladroit one, at that.
I can't help but notice that you still haven't answered my question. Allow me to repeat it for your convenience. Again.
What am I going to "get in the end" for expressing my opinion that someone shouldn't be allowed to burn someone else's property just because they don't like the opinion expressed on it?
Too much for what ya have upstairs?
If you can’t figure it out then you must be fairly low on the intelligence level.
Its called slang ya DOPE!
Still haven't got the brains to figure it out.
With the advent the scum that call themselves atheists
the guy that should have pissed on the display claimed artistic expression and then burned it
If you don't like it go screw yourself
Wow. Is this an example of Christian love in action? If so, you can keep it.
One thing i am certain of is that guys like will utter, “Please God” at that moment of death. YA see fellow i have died 3 times already and been brought back through mechanical means and i know what is beyond this life. If i were you i would start to believe.
http://skepdic.com/nde.html
If i were you i would start to believe.
Believe...what, exactly? Hinduism? Christianity? Islam? The Force?
Nature is pure war, with every man against another. Fear of death is the only way to keep peace; so now man is only civilized by the restraint of violence against him for transgressions upon his neighbor.
So long as there is someone willing to pay, there will always be someone willing to collect... The issue for most has now become who holds the collection plate in their temples for the god of communism or the gods of their false religions.
Morality and all of its associated ideals are rooted entirely in a presupposition some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior.
And since so many men falsely believe they are divine just because their weenies come from heaven, they also think this gives them some sort of God given right to arbitrarily destroy the lives of others.
It was Moses who first introduced the idea that our rights do not come from an earthly monarch. Our whole system of justice is based on the laws of Moses, something the lawyers have worked very hard to destroy.
Try getting anyone to admit this, especially in the courts or in the various self-serving sectarian cults we commonly call churches...
Martin Luther should have also posted his letter on the doors of the courthouse.
I agree with a good deal of your post, including this part.
As for the distinction between negative and positive atheism, one of my critiques of that Heinlein quotation is the use of "religionist." At least out of context, it can easily be taken to mean only those who adhere to what is conventionally considered a "religion." My experiences with Positive Atheists have shown me some remarkably tenacious (though annoying) examples of faith.
(My biggest reaction to the quotation is my skepticism that any intelligent person engaging with our world actually lives in the "cold light of reason" anyway as opposed to the "warmth" of faith, but I'll probably post more about this reaction later.)
Imagine a sign that begins, "In this season of Muharram [or Ramadan, or whatever lines up at the time], let truth prevail. There is no real god known within Islam as 'Allah,' and Muhammad really wasn't a prophet...."
Posting it next to a mosque would obviously be an horrible, deplorable example of religious bigotry and intolerance--if a Christian did it.
OK, perhaps you're thinking of reprisals; perhaps the Muslim world has a reputation for a conflicted relationship with other people. Next, then, imagine a vaguely similar sign posted next to a synagogue on the High Holy Days. You probably have a hard time conceiving of such a posting, even though Judaism, as a religion, presumably also "hardens hearts and enslaves minds."
But enough realization, for now, that groups that post signs like that have more going on below the surface than they profess.
Let's pretend for a moment that groups like that treated all religions equally. There is a sign like that next to the menorah as well, and someone stands next to the mosque door handing out leaflets with this message of inclusivity and dialogue.
Well, people who declaim "intolerance" and those horrible "exclusive beliefs" on the part of conventional religions probably shouldn't make loud polemics and ridicule their stock in trade.
Maybe they should reconsider even simple proclamations that All Other Beliefs About God Are Wrong. Remember, those religious people who claim that all other beliefs about God are wrong have "hardened hearts," but atheists who claim that all other beliefs about God are wrong have nice soft hearts or something.
And maybe there's a reason for the apparent double standard, but I've never been able to think of it.
Even if I were more intellectually disposed towards mainstream proselytizing atheism, the heart of the movement is filled with too many inconsistencies for me to affiliate myself publicly and proudly with it. (I notice this point especially as zealous Missionary Atheists happily pounce on anything smacking of religious hypocrisy or contradiction.)
Me: Hi.
You: Hi. I'm a Christian.
Me: That's nice. I'm an atheist.
You: You're the scum of the Earth. Burn in Hell, heretic!
At this point, I back off slowly, trying not to make eye contact...
Another Heinlein quote is relevant here:
"There is no conclusive evidence of life after death. But there is no evidence of any sort against it. Soon enough you will know. So why fret about it?"
I think he would have agreed with you about Positive Atheists.
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.