|
|
|
|
|
| Missing atheist sign found in Washington state. . .
Posted: 12/13/2008 10:37:09 PM | Hey, guys. Had to go back through to get my bearings, but I've noticed that I'm continuing to see a breakdown in communication. Probably my bust, so I'll try to clarify some.
With regard to the one issue, we appear to be arguing two different sides of the same agreement. For the record (as though it's necessary), no, there's no reference to or direct relevance of Hell to a Nativity. I agree, as I have agreed all along, that the individual quoted as ascribing that particular message to the display was in error.
That being said, my own opinion of the gentleman is ameliorated by an understanding that folks generally tend to react, not to what a specific message actually overtly says, but to what they themselves interpret it to say. And, I'm willing to concede that, for a number of those whose beliefs are opposed to the overall Christian message of sin, redemption, etc., a symbol of a part of the religion's belief might constitute a symbol of the whole of that belief (as clearly as possible: to include the concept of hell).
None of this means I at all agree with that viewpoint, but I do see and am willing to posit that others have the capacity to see the man's apparent interpretive conflation of the one religious message (the birth of Jesus) with something entirely different (the religious doctrine of hell).
Honestly, it all seems a bit moot, since, while it's one vocal spokesperson's justification, there's little indication, if any, that that line of thinking was at all involved in the planning and execution of posting the actual sign.
There is no "hell" in the Nativity message. It is created by those who want it to be there IMHO. Essentially, no argument.
As for the other, I'm still unclear on the point at issue, but I'll see what I've got.
I do confess that I may have misinterpreted, but this
They don't have to make their expression directly next to someone elses. What they do could be compared to me covering their sign everytime I see it. strikes me as conflating a nearby statement of a distinct and opposing message with an actual instance of suppression, as actually occured with the removal of the atheist plaque*.
To begin with, the Nativity was erected, according to the article, at a government building. In civic terms, this means that the location of it was essentially "neutral ground" where anyone can express and promote their viewpoint. It is for this very reason that the atheist sign, worded perhaps foolishly though it was, was protected as an exercise of free speech. As was the Nativity. However, the concept of "alongside", as quoted in the article, could easily be as overblown as the charge of "criticizing Christianity". We have no indication of the exact amount of space between the two displays.
With regard, then, to freedom of speech and expression, it is vital to recognise that, unless the expression or message is directly suppressed, disallowed, or removed, no violation of that freedom has occurred. Merely disagreeing with speech, even right next door, is not suppression, disallowance or removal.
To view it as such, in my opinion, partakes of the same mindset I just pointed out: that tendency some folks might have to interpret a single instance of a viewpoint with reference to indirectly related viewpoints that might be taken as offensive.
To conclude, then:
Sure, I will tell you that as soon as you tell me how covering the sign and writing over it that "Athiests go to hell with Adoplh Hitler" would negate the sign and violates the right to have expressed the sentiment in the sign. Freedom of speech is breached when the "sign" (I assume, the atheists' plaque) is covered. Regardless of what message is written over it, the initial message is being suppressed, yes?
I wasn't going to do this, but this illustrates my point so well. Sadly, I fear it will get messy (and probably be taken as offensive). My apologies to the poster quoted.
The history of Western civilization shows us that most social and moral progress has been brought about by persons free from religion. (Emphasis added.) Taken alone, this statement seems a simple and rather innocuous viewpoint, at least to me, but hopefully others see it as well, yes? Certainly, it needn't be taken as of the same calibre as the ending line of the plaque in the article.
I think that statements like this, from the Purposes of the FFRF, clearly show they think that religion is an impediment to social and moral progress. . . One step removed, and already the subjective interpretation --the assignation of thought or intent-- is evident.
. . . and is close to saying that "religion is the greatest evil in the world". . . And, the radical departure from the initial message. Who among us will not agree that the statement "the vast majority of successful explorers in the Western world were not sun-worshipers" does not equate to saying "sun-worship is the greatest ever impediment to exploration"?
which has been said by many, and there was even a thread started on this site by people of this view. Aside from this being an appeal to popularity, I really only included it because I didn't want the rest entirely out of context.
Hopefully, however, it's been amply demonstrated the ease with which anyone can take a message, filter it through their own impressions and interpret it to mean something more in keeping with whatever they may expect to hear from someone of a given viewpoint, all the while failing to realise that the end result is just a children's game of "Telephone" away from the original message.
Clearly, it is inflammatory, and can only have the purpose to insult and denigrate the characters of religious persons. Unfortunately, what is less clear, but ought to be moreso, I feel, is that it is taken as inflamatory, when the original message only says good things about people "free from religion."
Sometimes a minority voice must be loudly and publicly intolerant of an unacceptable status quo in order to bring wider attention to and force a conversation about a perceived inequity or an injustice imposed upon them by the majority. Sometimes the refusal to move quietly and obediently to the back of the bus is required to force a conversation some people would rather not have.
In this instance, it would appear the conversation being forced is about the perception many people have that the government favours some of its citizens over others - and if one holds the words "that all men are created equal" to be self evident, and the idea worthy, then to permit even the appearance of such favouritism to go unchallenged would seem to me to be unacceptable. Just gotta say I particularly liked this viewpoint. Oh, that one day "pushing the envelope" wouldn't need to be done for folks to receive a fair hearing or fair treatment.
You got to be Ignornant to put a sign up beside a nativity scence debasing someone elses concepts...its not different than the Nazis painting slogans on Jewish graves.
Whos right and whose wrong is of no concern if it doesn't involve you! . . . Of course, I wouldn't like to compare a sign next to a Nativity with maliciously vandalising the graves of one's slaughtered victims. Needless to say, I agree with the second statement, as well. Of course, who's to say whom a given issue involves?
*Note that, absent any speculation as to motive, removal of the plaque still counts as suppression if the end result was that it should not be read. | |
|
| Missing atheist sign found in Washington state. . .
Posted: 12/13/2008 10:47:17 PM | Freedom of speech is breached when the "sign" (I assume, the atheists' plaque) is covered. Regardless of what message is written over it, the initial message is being suppressed, yes?
.
No. Your view is as incorrect as it is common. Freedom of speech is a pre-emptive right. Suppression after the fact is legal. Arrest after the fact is legal. You may not repress speech before it occurs. You may not prevent types of speech. People can be arrested for what they have said, not what they are likely to say. If one's form of self-expression is considered legal to place an inflammatory message next to a Nativity, then another's to place another inflammatory message next to that one (or covering it up) would be considered just as legal. | |
|
| Missing atheist sign found in Washington state. . .
Posted: 12/14/2008 8:44:58 AM | | Freedom of speech is one thing, but it should be projected with a sense of truth in it...we speculate when we deal with religous beliefs or Athiest beliefs...posting signs on nativity seens is no different that placing the Star of David on jewish buisness during Hitlers time....Whats the difference.....the thing is that we have a responsibility when we use Freedom of Speech...because if we continue to bark off the same shit constantly whose going to listen....therefore Freedom of Speech means nothing if no one is listening....there are other ways and forum to spread you idea but to insult a custom or tradition that people hold dear to them is not the way....it just creates more confrontations....I am not a religious person....I am a spiritual person...religion to me is a buisness...and none of my buisness...I do my thing..you do your...with respect... | |
|
| Missing atheist sign found in Washington state. . .
Posted: 12/14/2008 1:06:03 PM | stonestongue said: As far as I can tell, everyone has the right to say what is on their minds. There is no reason a sign should be vandalized for having a message on it that isn't spreading hate. I agree with you on the first statement. The second? Why not a sign spreading hate? And who gets to decide whether a sign spreads hate or not? And what is "hate"? If a church sign proclaims "Homosexuality is a SIN!" I would find it objectionable and unnecessarily rude and boorish. But is it "hate"? Some of my homosexual friends would say so. The courts say not. The sign is rude and inflammatory, but protected. What about a sign proclaiming "Christians are hate-filled and delusional. Their children are being brainwashed. Caring adults should force the State to remove children from Christian parents to stop the abuse of these minors!" Is that "hate"? How about a sign that says, "Atheists are godless and immoral. Their children are being brainwashed. Caring adults should force the State to remove children from Atheist parents to stop the abuse of these minors!" Is that "hate"? You see, one man's "hate" is another man's "protest". Or even another man's "truth".
Freedom of Speech/Expression guarantees the right to voice your* mind. However, it really isn't a 100% guarantee blanket 'right'. It does have certain restrictions. For example, you can think, opine, discuss "the government is wicked" and even point out why you think so without a shred of proof, evidence, or anything that would bring a reasonable and intelligent person to the same conclusion. If you take that one stage further and get together with like-minded people (protected by the Right to Free Association, the Right to Gather), you can all speak collectively and voice your concerns and what you want done about it (The Right to Redress). But take it to the stage where you plan to attack a government symbol such as a building or person, and you have moved into the area where those 'rights' are restricted, the area of criminal conspiracy or criminal action. Is that an abuse of your right to Free Speech, Expression, Association, or Redress? The courts would say no. What do you think?
Another example, you have the right to think Christianity is delusional and Christians are ignorant fools and liars, idiots and incompetents, hateful and a pox on the planet. You can even say so by any and all means available to you. But if you say so in front of a church or even in a parking lot full of people who become angry and incensed by your words, you may find your speech/expression restricted by laws governing the public peace, incitement, and so on.
All that said, these rights are paramount and should only be restricted on reasonable and legal grounds by a properly constituted and legal Court operating under full public scrutiny. Rights are absolute in their existence, but not in their operation, but the legal system has an absolute responsibility to protect them and only allow the minimum of restrictions based upon publicly stated grounds that have been scrutinized very carefully and are open to challenge.
I said: I think the American Humanist Association's bus ad ("Why believe in a God? Just be good for goodness sake.") is a good example of getting an alternate message across without being confrontational and intolerant. They promote their view without attacking another view.
stonestongue said: Oddly enough, I'm with Rom Opt on this one. Thank you. Though I don't think it 'odd'. I think we have some Common Ground. Yes? 
pappy009: I don't see the placement of a sign with an alternate and conflicting view, even if clearly motivated by a desire to create confrontation and be rude and boorish, as no different that neo-Nazis defacing Jewish graves. I think the one is rude and boorish, the other vandalism and hateful. It's a matter of the degree of the "anti" activity.
gottalight said: o. Your view is as incorrect as it is common. Freedom of speech is a pre-emptive right. Suppression after the fact is legal. Arrest after the fact is legal. You may not repress speech before it occurs. You may not prevent types of speech. People can be arrested for what they have said, not what they are likely to say. If one's form of self-expression is considered legal to place an inflammatory message next to a Nativity, then another's to place another inflammatory message next to that one (or covering it up) would be considered just as legal. I disagree. Suppression "after the fact", especially if known, can easily be "suppression before the fact". If I KNOW that a public statement by me that "Black have as much a right to vote as whites" will give the local KKK an excuse to murder my family, burn my house down, and I KNOW the local sheriff won't do a thing to protect me, then I am very likely to not exercise my right to free speech/expression. Of course, if I can involve another with sufficient power to force the sheriff to protect me I may yet be able to exercise my right.
Further, suppression, as such, is not "legal". Certain publicly and judicially scrutinized restrictions are "legal" (and open to legal challenge). Arrest may be a result of speech/expression, but that does not make the arrest "legal".
As for the matter under discussion, placing an inflammatory message next to a Nativity scene on public grounds may be rude and boorish, but this sign is fully protected by the Constitutional right of freedom of speech/expression. Removing it or covering it is an illegal act of suppression of that right. It cannot be justified on any legal, moral, or social grounds. Asking the owner of the sign to remove it out of simple good taste and manners is about all that is available to those who don't want to see the sign. I disagree with the sign, the reasons presented for the erection of the sign, and the motives of Barker, but I recognize his right to be free to express himself and for that expression to be protected.
* you(r) used in the general and universal sense throughout. | |
|
| Missing atheist sign found in Washington state. . .
Posted: 12/15/2008 7:45:31 AM | --pappy009: I don't see the placement of a sign with an alternate and conflicting view, even if clearly motivated by a desire to create confrontation and be rude and boorish, as no different that neo-Nazis defacing Jewish graves. I think the one is rude and boorish, the other vandalism and hateful. It's a matter of the degree of the "anti" activity.--
True enough...
--It's a matter of the degree of the "anti" activity--
Everything has a starting point, there is no Honour in defacing what others hold dear to them...even if its an illusion...its not my right to interfere. Where does this end. My point is "Who and at what mentality are those who are wittnessing this event". We are not all at the same level. Young people without an opinion may feel its right to put that sign on your property if you have a nativity scene on your front lawn. Or take it to another level and destroy the nativity. It all has a starting point. What makes our countries fantastic is the idea that you can live the life you want and be the person you want to be. Lets face it, there are hundreds of religions in our countries, does it matter if you believe in those religions or not. I can understand the Athiest view, our media is saturated with Religious hucksters who use Christianity for the buck. It is sickening. But that does not represent the true Faith...then we generalize and combine all of that to represent it as the whole...I think the athiest have a great arguement.....but it must be represented in an Honourable fashion or no one is going understand and take it seriously....thats why TV evangelist look like money greedy jerks...send $20 and the Lord with take you into consideration....no honour...G-d don't need help or money. Where does it end between the Left and Right the believers the non-believers and so on...what is the need for a confrontation when in yourself, you will still be the person you are. Freewill comes with responsiblity and an understanding that others have the same rights....its just a tradition....Don't sweat over the small stuff... conduct yourself with Honour...thats all anyone can ask... | |
|
|
|
Home
login