• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Atheists take aim at Christmas

CaptainCourtesy said:
Just show the professor my post and this thread. If he does not acquiesce, tell him to join DP and I will ban him as retaliation for his insolent and totally absurd behavior. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

The 10% was probably where he couldn't show that he could grasp the nuance between contrived outrage resulting in 'riots' and legitimate outrage resulting in same.

They don't just hand out 100% in college, usually. Generally it takes a good amount of ability for subtle thought.
 
The most single dumbest debate is creation. "It" happened, get over it.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Just show the professor my post and this thread. If he does not acquiesce, tell him to join DP and I will ban him as retaliation for his insolent and totally absurd behavior. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...
Actually, I graduated already, but I'm glad this one came up because I've been meaning to go have a convo with that professor for a while, he was a great person to debate with and hell of a nice guy.
 
TheNextEra said:
Not at all, if you consider those fighting words than anyone saying homosexuality is a sin should also be considered fighting words and immediately arrested for inciting a riot correct?

Take your pick.

Also I have stated Christianity is a fairy tale, therefore I have insulted a religion. According to you those are fighting words, go ahead and try to have me arrested, thus proving your point wrong.
Click to expand...

Tell you what, though. Saying Christianity is a fairy tale could be considered baiting, here at DP. So watch yourself.
 
TheNextEra said:
Not at all, if you consider those fighting words than anyone saying homosexuality is a sin should also be considered fighting words and immediately arrested for inciting a riot correct?
Click to expand...
If a fight insues because of the message then yes, the person who said it may be charged with issuance of fighting words, it also breaks down to time, place, and manner. If the time is during a gay celebration, the place is the celebration, and the manner is construed as violent, hateful, or inciteful then the chances the speech will be protected are less than if a straight man joked with his gay friend on the street corner.

Take your pick.
Click to expand...
Don't have to, the standard is already there.

Also I have stated Christianity is a fairy tale, therefore I have insulted a religion. According to you those are fighting words, go ahead and try to have me arrested, thus proving your point wrong.
Click to expand...
Time, Place, Manner. If I told the police officer that you attacking my religion in front of my church or congregation, or it's celebratory symbols was offending me and you were about to get hurt, you could well be escorted away or jailed.
Click to expand...
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Tell you what, though. Saying Christianity is a fairy tale could be considered baiting, here at DP. So watch yourself.
Click to expand...

By the same regards is saying Islam is a religion of violence considered the same? There are many Muslim bashing threads here as well. Just sayin.
 
Dezaad said:
The 10% was probably where he couldn't show that he could grasp the nuance between contrived outrage resulting in 'riots' and legitimate outrage resulting in same.
Click to expand...
Nah, forgetfulness, it was something I had down pat and froze up on.

They don't just hand out 100% in college, usually. Generally it takes a good amount of ability for subtle thought.
Click to expand...
Really depended on the class at my Alma Mater, but the one we're talking about required alot more brain power than most.
Click to expand...
 
TheNextEra said:
By the same regards is saying Islam is a religion of violence considered the same? There are many Muslim bashing threads here as well. Just sayin.
Click to expand...

Depends on how far it goes, similar to some of the comments about Christianity. I've warned posters for both. I've also warned people for bashing atheists. Depends on degree.
 
TheNextEra said:
By the same regards is saying Islam is a religion of violence considered the same?
Click to expand...
It really would depend on the sect of Islam, which tenets they follow, and if you have the facts to back it up or not, truth is a defense to any first amendment question.
There are many Muslim bashing threads here as well. Just sayin.
Click to expand...
I don't participate in them however because it is just as bad to me as christian bashing, I have quite a few Muslim and Hindu friends and they are terrific people.
Click to expand...
 
TheNextEra said:
It does when said people refuse to put any other religious symbols on government property. So shall we have something from ALL religions?
Click to expand...

I have no issue with allowing, say, 1 square centimeter per documented practitioner of a given religion, as recorded by the US Census burro, if you are arguing for fair representation.

TheNextEra said:
]So which situation is easier to make sure the 1st is not violated?

#1. Include all religions and put symbols from every religion on government property or.
#2. Don't put any religious symbols up thus not supporting one over another?

Anything other then those 2 would be a violation of the 1st.
Click to expand...

Symbols do not violate the fist amendment. Not at all. Not when they accurately represent the population of that religion, not when they disproportionately represent the population, not ever.

You are chosing to ignore my last post and that's suspect.
 
TheNextEra said:
Not at all, if you consider those fighting words than anyone saying homosexuality is a sin should also be considered fighting words and immediately arrested for inciting a riot correct?

Take your pick.

Also I have stated Christianity is a fairy tale, therefore I have insulted a religion. According to you those are fighting words, go ahead and try to have me arrested, thus proving your point wrong.
Click to expand...
You're under arrest in the name of the law. Reach fror the sky. :mrgreen:
 
Jerry said:
I have no issue with allowing, say, 1 square centimeter per documented practitioner of a given religion, as recorded by the US Census burro, if you are arguing for fair representation.
Click to expand...

Ah, of course! Squelch the minority religions.
 
I have no issue with allowing, say, 1 square centimeter per documented practitioner of a given religion, as recorded by the US Census burro, if you are arguing for fair representation.
Click to expand...

The census burro?

:wassat1:


Look, everybody! It's a bird, it's a plane, it's, it's... the Census Burro!
-----> :rwbdonkey


Look, here's me killing the Census Burro! ----> :beatdeadhorse
 
1069 said:
The census burro?

:wassat1:


Look, everybody! It's a bird, it's a plane, it's, it's... the Census Burro!
-----> :rwbdonkey


Look, here's me killing the Census Burro! ----> :beatdeadhorse
Click to expand...

See my sig :2wave:
 
Marilyn Monroe said:
The deal with religious stuff on public property can be debated. It's not creating a national religion, this hasn't happened in this country in over 200 years. Religious expression is still free. The Christmas holidays rake in a lot of dough for retailers, and spin off into many areas, so it's good for the economy to a healthy degree. The atheists need to come up with something that delivers money into the coffers if they are so smart, or just sit back and let the Christians fall all over themselves, what's the big deal? I think it's a lot of nothing about nothing.

The Christians are putting a little babe in a manger with Mary, and Joseph, a couple cows, and a lamb. Who knows if these people even existed. Let them have their fun for crissakes and quit making a mountain out of a molehill is my philosophy.

Also, people are pretty smart, and they can figure stuff out on their own most of the time. This is just hatred and vengefulness. Doesn't speak well of atheists. Why waste so much time going to court? Really silly!:(
Click to expand...
If it's all so petty and meaningless then why do xians insist on it?

People are not smart for the most part, due mostly to lack of education and/or decent education.

Religious people have places, lots of them, to put their symbols on. Their nativity scenes can be scaled to be as large or as small as they deem appropriate in those places and they don't even have to pay taxes for those places, it's free for them. So why do they insist on having them on property I help pay for? And let's not kid ourselves about the establishment of religion shall we? I think we all know what's been going on in our country for more than 200 years and it's the toning down of that practice that's making xians scream and cry.
 
LaMidRighter said:
First of all, the first logical fallacy in this is the absolutism of the first amendment, the SCOTUS has already ruled that certain speech is NOT protected, like fighting words, incitement to riot, obscenity, libel, and defamation, you are taking an absolutist stance. Secondly, attacking people's core beliefs right next to a symbol of their core beliefs can be seen as an attack(fighting words) and if said people who felt attacked decided to riot, the onus would most likely be on those who started it, that is, the people who put an atheist slogan right next to a manger scene(incitement to riot), so, it could be seen by those who felt attacked and law enforcement as unprotected speech under the correct circumstances. Third, why attack people in that manner, anyone who believes in decency could make the call you are questioning, who are YOU to judge people's opinions?
Click to expand...
So putting a nativity scene on the lawn of my courthouse isn't attacking my core beliefs?

It was in horrendous taste and the people who put it up should be ashamed of themselves.
Click to expand...
Are you talking about the xians who are determined to have their religious displays on government (ie. mine) property? I wonder how far away the nearest church is to that piece of public property?
Click to expand...
 
Jerry said:
The one's bringing the lawsuits are the one's who are rude. No symbol affected you in any way. No symbol established a national religion or gave and existing religion municipal power, so no symbol ever violated the 1st amendment.

And no, acknowledgment does not violate the 1st amendment, only establishment does. No again, the presence of a symbol does not establish a single thing. Acknowledgment is merely a cultural vestige and nothing more.
Click to expand...
I disagree, by allowing religious symbols to be placed on public property the government is saying we support this religion above others. The government would have to allow every religion to put up their symbols too and then of course what if someone's religious scene obscured another's? The simple solution is to not allow ANY religious symbols on public property. How can you deny this simple statement of reason?
 
Jerry said:
Symbols do not violate the fist amendment. Not at all. Not when they accurately represent the population of that religion, not when they disproportionately represent the population, not ever.
Click to expand...

Are you joking Jerry? To put up a Nativity scene, or any other Christian symbol, on every or any courthouse lawn is absolutely the state respecting an establishment of religion.

Even if this country were 100% Christian that would still be true, your appeal to the population is a blatant logical fallacy here. The constitution says what it says no matter how many Christians there are.

I have no issue with allowing, say, 1 square centimeter per documented practitioner of a given religion, as recorded by the US Census burro, if you are arguing for fair representation.
Click to expand...

That is awful Jerry, I can think of several issues with that. Primarily that there I doubt most pubic institutions have 3 million square meters to offer up for religious purposes.

Secondly, The nature of the universe cannot be determined by popular vote, and such a measure would simply reward the larger faiths and punish the smaller ones. Surely you understand that the separation of Church and State is also about protecting the Church right? Do you really want to bully those faiths of fewer following? What if your particular kind of Christianity isn't the majority?
 
Last edited:
1069 said:
My, they look smug.
Here's hoping the next four years wipe those smirks off their faces.
Click to expand...
There are many religious people in this country on both sides, what's your point?
 
Slippery Slope said:
If it's all so petty and meaningless then why do xians insist on it?

People are not smart for the most part, due mostly to lack of education and/or decent education.
Click to expand...
Education doesn't make one smart, it makes them educated, big difference. I know a lot of smart high school graduates who are more useful to society than many of my fellow alums.

Religious people have places, lots of them, to put their symbols on. Their nativity scenes can be scaled to be as large or as small as they deem appropriate in those places and they don't even have to pay taxes for those places, it's free for them.
Click to expand...
If the community funded it it isn't free, their taxes paid for it.
So why do they insist on having them on property I help pay for?
Click to expand...
So find enough representation for your beliefs
And let's not kid ourselves about the establishment of religion shall we? I think we all know what's been going on in our country for more than 200 years and it's the toning down of that practice that's making xians scream and cry.
Click to expand...
We have a freedom OF not FROM religion, the establishment clause is simply there to insure that you don't go to prison for not being of a certain belief, not to be confused with your "right" to not have to see religious symbols you disagree with, if you don't like the sybol that the community paid for you are free to turn your head, why would you as a minority opinion want to go against the will of the majority in a community for something they have a right to.
Click to expand...
 
Slippery Slope said:
LaMidRighter said:
So putting a nativity scene on the lawn of my courthouse isn't attacking my core beliefs?
Click to expand...
Not unless they say something inflamatory along with it, is your core belief so shaky that someone else's representation of their beliefs makes you uncomfortable? I could see if the nativity scene was placed next to an athiest or scientology sign that was there first, but the case we are discussing is the exact opposite.


Are you talking about the xians who are determined to have their religious displays on government (ie. mine) property?
Click to expand...
Government of the people, not government of the person, government property isn't "yours" but the majority of people happen to be christian, so it is represented as such, I don't even care about the sign that was put up in this story, it was the time, place, and manner which are disgusting.
I wonder how far away the nearest church is to that piece of public property?
Click to expand...
That doesn't matter to the discussion.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Slippery Slope said:
I disagree, by allowing religious symbols to be placed on public property the government is saying we support this religion above others.
Click to expand...
No, they aren't, they are representing the people of that faith, in no way are you compelled by the government to believe that or look at the symbol.
The government would have to allow every religion to put up their symbols too and then of course what if someone's religious scene obscured another's?
Click to expand...
Time, place, manner, if all symbols had to be included they may be included with RESPECT to each other.
The simple solution is to not allow ANY religious symbols on public property. How can you deny this simple statement of reason?
Click to expand...
Because it isn't reasonable, the fact is that if the majority of the community are barred their religious expression then the first as it was written has been violated.
Click to expand...
 
LaMidRighter said:
Not unless they say something inflamatory along with it, is your core belief so shaky that someone else's representation of their beliefs makes you uncomfortable? I could see if the nativity scene was placed next to an athiest or scientology sign that was there first, but the case we are discussing is the exact opposite.
Click to expand...

Yet it is the Christians who are up in arms... :2wave:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom