• 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!

Atheist messages displace CA park nativity scenes

samsmart said:
It's no different than what would have happened if 3 slots were given to churches and the atheist groups got 2 slots instead.

Don't really see where the oppression is here.

EDIT: Oops. Misread that.

Atheists got all but a few.

Well, even so, it's not their fault if they went by the system. Even so, no oppression here.
Click to expand...

It probably wouldn't have been such a big deal if they had used up all of those slots instead of deliberately using only 3 and leaving the rest empty on purpose.
 
X Factor said:
Sam, we may actually agree on something here.
Click to expand...

That may be the case.

But I don't see why only religious organizations should get to speak out during the holiday seasons. I see nothing wrong with atheist groups doing this.
 
Kal'Stang said:
It probably wouldn't have been such a big deal if they had used up all of those slots instead of deliberately using only 3 and leaving the rest empty on purpose.
Click to expand...

Why not? They won them according to the system and can use them however they wish so long as it doesn't break the rules or the laws. Not putting up a display doesn't break any of the rules or laws.
 
Redress said:
I suspect they see it as countering the negative impact of religion. Again, it's not what I would do, but I don't cry about people placing nativity scenes or whatever other message they want.
Click to expand...

It seems to me if they want to counter the 'negative impact' of religion, a better campaign would be something like 'what would the God you claim exists think of how you're acting' (or something like that), not making the affirmative claim that Jesus is a myth.

samsmart said:
That may be the case.

But I don't see why only religious organizations should get to speak out during the holiday seasons. I see nothing wrong with atheist groups doing this.
Click to expand...

I don't either and it doesn't have even the slightest impact on my religious beliefs. I'm more pointing out that atheism is a belief in itself, as the pic in the OP shows.
 
Last edited:
samsmart said:
Why not? They won them according to the system and can use them however they wish so long as it doesn't break the rules or the laws. Not putting up a display doesn't break any of the rules or laws.
Click to expand...

By leaving them empty on purpose and not even giving it to another group since they are not going to use them it is showing that they are purposely trying to push out religion. Why not give up the spaces to someone else if they're not going to use em? It doesn't have to be a religious group. Could be to the local Safeway for all I care. But they are not. They are purposely keeping them empty in order to push out religion.

And I have never argued that what they are doing is against the rules or laws or the 1st amendment. That has never been my point.
 
An empty cage makes the statement that there's nothing there. Which is their point.
 
Manc Skipper said:
An empty cage makes the statement that there's nothing there. Which is their point.
Click to expand...

I doubt very seriously that message is going to be received by anyone just walking by. They're going to walk by and see an empty cage and dismiss it. Or at most wonder why its empty. 90% of the people going by those signs are probably not even going to know that those empty spaces are connected to the 3 athiest signs. The other 10% are probably the ones involved in the whole affair and/or are discussing it like us.
 
digsbe said:
For not claiming to have any faith these dicks sure do want to spread their beliefs around and oppress the beliefs of others.
Click to expand...

Thorgasm said:
How are they oppressing the beliefs of others? Did they rig the lottery?
Click to expand...

It must be some kind of conspiracy! No, better yet: It's persecution! Break out the Roman colosseums..

280px-The_Christian_Martyrs_Last_Prayer.jpg


:2razz:
 
Kal'Stang said:
And they did win 9 slots each didn't they? That equals 18 does it not? And are you denying the fact that combined they only used up 3 of the 18 slots?

BTW, I may believe in God, but I am against organized religion (I've said this before on this forum, a few times I believe). So I could care less if Christians got it or the Athiests or the Muslims. What I do care about and have talked about quite a bit in this thread is the deliberate attempt by one group to push out another group. If the situation here was exactly reversed I would be hollering about it.
Click to expand...

What they did not do is apply for 18 slots, which is what you claimed. They applied to be considered for slots. When they won, they where able to choose how many, up to 9, they could get. Now, if a christian group had won and claimed those slots, would you be crying?
 
X Factor said:
It seems to me if they want to counter the 'negative impact' of religion, a better campaign would be something like 'what would the God you claim exists think of how you're acting' (or something like that), not making
Click to expand...

No one has claimed it was an effective campaign. Again, we see the difference in attitudes here. A drawing was held, people where able to do what they wanted with the slots they won. I would accept any outcome. Christians however are upset that the result did not go their way. One of us is completely consistent. Guess who it is.
 
Redress said:
What they did not do is apply for 18 slots, which is what you claimed. They applied to be considered for slots.
Click to expand...

Same thing and you know it.

Redress said:
When they won, they where able to choose how many, up to 9, they could get.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that they did 1 drawing, which ever name they pulled out that person got to choose how many they could use? Sorry, the facts don't support that. I posted a link previously that showed that they had to have held multiple drawings. One for each slot.

Redress said:
Now, if a christian group had won and claimed those slots, would you be crying?
Click to expand...

I have already stated that if this situation was exactly reversed I would still be hollering. Again, I don't care that it was Christians that this happened to. I am against organized religion. How many times must I state this?

You're attempt to spin things is getting old.
 
Redress said:
No one has claimed it was an effective campaign. Again, we see the difference in attitudes here. A drawing was held, people where able to do what they wanted with the slots they won. I would accept any outcome. Christians however are upset that the result did not go their way. One of us is completely consistent. Guess who it is.
Click to expand...

Bold part: Yes, there is a definate difference in attitudes here.

Underlined part: Has anyone here disputed this fact?

Red part: Accepting the outcome of a drawing is one thing, accepting the dickish moves is quite another. Would you accept it and stayed silent if someone came along and were dicks to you on purpose? Or would you have something to say about it? Mind you, they have the right to be dicks to you...1st amendment and all.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Bold part: Yes, there is a definate difference in attitudes here.

Underlined part: Has anyone here disputed this fact?

Red part: Accepting the outcome of a drawing is one thing, accepting the dickish moves is quite another. Would you accept it and stayed silent if someone came along and were dicks to you on purpose? Or would you have something to say about it? Mind you, they have the right to be dicks to you...1st amendment and all.
Click to expand...

So you don't like free speech. Good luck changing the constitution.
 
Wessexman said:
You missed the point. I was making was mocking the atheist position you mentioned. I assumed you are an atheist and it is your position? Perhaps I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think his point went way over your head. He used sense instead of a thesaurus to find an impressive word, which works much better.
 
Redress said:
Actually, I think his point went way over your head. He used sense instead of a thesaurus to find an impressive word, which works much better.
Click to expand...
Your point must be way over my head or under it, I can't make any sense of it.

Can you tell me where I would find Parmenides in a thesaurus? Seeing, of course, as he was a person. If you are going to make stupid comments, at least try and give them some basic sense. You'd have done better if you had just stuck to sticking your tongue out and making a silly face or posting youtube videos. Alas that is the level of your wit Redress, know it and stick to it and it will serve you well.
 
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
Your point must be way over my head or under it, I can't make any sense of it.

Can you tell me where I would find Parmenides in a thesaurus? Seeing, of course, as he was a person. If you are going to make stupid comments, at least try and give them some basic sense. You'd have done better if you had just stuck to sticking your tongue out and making a silly face or posting youtube videos. Alas that is the level of your wit Redress, know it and stick to it and it will serve you well.
Click to expand...

I think he ran out of things to say. He can't even tell me where I "apparently" advocated against free speech. Nevermind that he never answered my question from post #312.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I think he ran out of things to say. He can't even tell me where I "apparently" advocated against free speech. Nevermind that he never answered my question from post #312.
Click to expand...

Random drawing. Fair to every one. Your group does not win. Lost it's monopoly. Crying that other groups get to put out there message. It's pretty clear.
 
Redress said:
Random drawing. Fair to every one. Your group does not win. Lost it's monopoly. Crying that other groups get to put out there message. It's pretty clear.
Click to expand...

Yep, you definitely ran out of things to say. You sound like a broken record.
 
Couple of questions here for people accusing the christians of being hurt for losing a monopoly.
1) If a group of christians decided to invade an atheist convention with large posters saying "all heathens rot in hell", "you're all unworthy", and then started to treat the attendees as if they are stupid and their beliefs are invalid and ridiculous what would you feel? I want you to remember that this would be targeting the atheist belief during their time, much like what these sub-human pricks did in this case.
2) If said convention meets every year and does the same thing in the same location, but the christians ponied up more money to insure that doesn't get to happen just to "prove a point", what would you feel? I want you to remember, traditions mean things to people, and holidays are off limits to decent human beings. Read into that what you will.
3) If other christians excused the above two and said "well, they're just pissed because we offered our view and they just wanted to keep their monopoly" what would be your response? I want you to remember, I would take up for the people displaced from their time and attack the people targeting them. But if it happens in the future I may decide not to do that since your side decided to condone what is being done here.
 
evanescence said:
He summed it up perfectly. For example: try actually disputing anything in that post.
Click to expand...

Since when is voiceing a legitimate complaint considered "crying"? Should we start using that arguement everytime someone posts in the Bias in the Media fora? The US Partisan Politics and Political Platforms fora? How about the Abortion fora every time someone "crys" about Roe vs Wade?

Woudl Redress being "crying" if someone came up and started being dicks to em just because of an ideological difference? Or would Redress have a valid complaint? In post 312 I asked Redress directly this...

Kal'Stang said:
Bold part: Yes, there is a definate difference in attitudes here.

Underlined part: Has anyone here disputed this fact?

Red part: Accepting the outcome of a drawing is one thing, accepting the dickish moves is quite another. Would you accept it and stayed silent if someone came along and were dicks to you on purpose? Or would you have something to say about it? Mind you, they have the right to be dicks to you...1st amendment and all.
Click to expand...

Redress chose to respond by saying....

Redress said:
So you don't like free speech. Good luck changing the constitution.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you can answer it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom