Atheists' 'hate' sign blasted in lawsuit

[Della]

Well, I am conflicted. I am a part of a religious minority. So, I understand if other religious minorities feel that the majority has special favors. Likewise, as the above poster argued, it could start out as mere hostility to religion and then become outright persecution of religion.

It’s important that we let religious minorities express their views while also allowing for all religions to freely practice. Moderation is the key.

Absolutely. My point is no group should be allowed to express contempt for another on a state building. It sends the message to many that the state is sanctioning that opinion. Something the writers and signers of the US Constitution were trying to avoid.

 

[AntiTheist]

Absolutely. My point is no group should be allowed to express contempt for another on a state building. It sends the message to many that the state is sanctioning that opinion. Something the writers and signers of the US Constitution were trying to avoid.

It sounds like the state is sanctioning anything that’s put on a state building. And that is precisely why we should not put up any religious or anti-religious signs of any kind on state property.

If you say that religious people can put up a sign, you are opening the door for other groups to put up signs that say things you don’t like. Better to leave signs off this buildings.

 

[Della]

It sounds like the state is sanctioning anything that’s put on a state building. And that is precisely why we should not put up any religious or anti-religious signs of any kind on state property.

If you say that religious people can put up a sign, you are opening the door for other groups to put up signs that say things you don’t like. Better to leave signs off this buildings.

I agree. There should be no signs on state buildings that favor any one group over another.

I would add, though, that certain monuments, frescoes, paintings, etc. that depict religious life as practiced in American law/life are quite another thing. They are history that should not be negated in an attempt to pretend they didn’t/don’t have an influence on our government and culture. I don’t believe in that sort of draconian approach to being “fair”.

 

[Chiral]

"The sign, posted by the Freedom from Religion Foundation, said:

At the time of the winter solstice, let reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is just a myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."

I don’t see it as a ‘hate’ sign, per se. To me, its more of an opinion about religions, and nothing less than expression of those opinions. The merits of the statement can be argued and debated, but, just because the statement may offend some, doesn’t make it ‘hate speech’.

NOT “hate speech”? Are you kidding me? This is a statement of exclusion and derision, deliberately directed at particular groups of people, in fact at all people not of the particular faith of the “Freedom of Religion Foundation”! The only NON-derisive sentence is the first, regarding reason which (as can be debated on this forum) is more a founding part of Judeo-Christian faiths than it is atheism in any guise.

Read it again.

This is equivalent to s sign that reads “All blacks are thieves and murderers”, “Juden sind Untermenchen”, “Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Pagans, etc. are inferior human beings”…

How is that NOT “hate speech”?
The religious signs I come across most are things like, “Jesus loves you,” “Do not kill,” “Love one another,” “Help the needy,”…

How are such signs in any way similar to this kind of persecution? Are you constantly seeing signs posted (other than on churches) that say “Non-Christians burn in HELL!!!” or “Atheists are imbeciles”, or even “Atheism breeds hatred and contempt” ???

Have these “Freedom of Religion” folks nothing positive to offer, nothing in defense of religious freedom? This sign is directly, explicitly, indeed obviously (to all people of reason) CONTRARY to religious freedom…
Not that that is surprising. sigh

 

[RobbyS]

Read more here: wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=123565

Sauce for the goose…

 

[RobbyS]

I understand. Do whatever you feel is right. You have every right to it.

All I’m saying is, the 1st Amendment protects the rights of all points of view to be allowed to be expressed in the public square, not just the most popular. Else, we might as well abolish the 1st Amendment. I don’t think anyone really wants that…(unless they are Nazis or the Taliban).

Tone matters. This sign is loud, brassy and off-key.

 

[RobbyS]

"The sign, posted by the Freedom from Religion Foundation, said:

At the time of the winter solstice, let reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is just a myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."

NOT “hate speech”? Are you kidding me? This is a statement of exclusion and derision, deliberately directed at particular groups of people, in fact at all people not of the particular faith of the “Freedom of Religion Foundation”! The only NON-derisive sentence is the first, regarding reason which (as can be debated on this forum) is more a founding part of Judeo-Christian faiths than it is atheism in any guise.

Read it again.

This is equivalent to s sign that reads “All blacks are thieves and murderers”, “Juden sind Untermenchen”, “Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Pagans, etc. are inferior human beings”…

How is that NOT “hate speech”?
The religious signs I come across most are things like, “Jesus loves you,” “Do not kill,” “Love one another,” “Help the needy,”…

How are such signs in any way similar to this kind of persecution? Are you constantly seeing signs posted (other than on churches) that say “Non-Christians burn in HELL!!!” or “Atheists are imbeciles”, or even “Atheism breeds hatred and contempt” ???

Have these “Freedom of Religion” folks nothing positive to offer, nothing in defense of religious freedom? This sign is directly, explicitly, indeed obviously (to all people of reason) CONTRARY to religious freedom…
Not that that is surprising. sigh

Amen!

 

[Mr_Skeptic]

"The sign, posted by the Freedom from Religion Foundation, said:

At the time of the winter solstice, let reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is just a myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."

NOT “hate speech”? Are you kidding me? This is a statement of exclusion and derision, deliberately directed at particular groups of people, in fact at all people not of the particular faith of the “Freedom of Religion Foundation”! The only NON-derisive sentence is the first, regarding reason which (as can be debated on this forum) is more a founding part of Judeo-Christian faiths than it is atheism in any guise.

Read it again.

This is equivalent to s sign that reads “All blacks are thieves and murderers”, “Juden sind Untermenchen”, “Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Pagans, etc. are inferior human beings”…

How is that NOT “hate speech”?
The religious signs I come across most are things like, “Jesus loves you,” “Do not kill,” “Love one another,” “Help the needy,”…

How are such signs in any way similar to this kind of persecution? Are you constantly seeing signs posted (other than on churches) that say “Non-Christians burn in HELL!!!” or “Atheists are imbeciles”, or even “Atheism breeds hatred and contempt” ???

Have these “Freedom of Religion” folks nothing positive to offer, nothing in defense of religious freedom? This sign is directly, explicitly, indeed obviously (to all people of reason) CONTRARY to religious freedom…
Not that that is surprising. sigh

Sorry to get you all worked up.

How do you feel about “Allah is the one true God, and Mohammad was His Prophet” being displayed in public buildings?

 

[Mr_Skeptic]

Tone matters. This sign is loud, brassy and off-key.

That’s subjective. I just see it as a matter of statement. Nothing more. I think a lot of what’s at play here is peoples’ own projections.

 

[Chiral]

Sorry to get you all worked up.

How do you feel about “Allah is the one true God, and Mohammad was His Prophet” being displayed in public buildings?

No worries, I’m not that worked up, just surprised by the lack of reason presented in your defense of the sign.

I’m fine with the Islam-statement, so long as it is part of a longer codification of secular-related laws that are historically significant with regard to what the building stands for (e.g. the Ten Commandments in a Justice building in the USA). Or it could appear on a coin in an Islam-founded nation - Great, no problem. If the sign said, “Death to Infidels”, I would object and hope you would as well. If it said only, “Death to Christians”, any believer in religious freedom must object, for that constitutes religious persecution.

Similarly, if the sign on the public building read only “I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other gods beside me” it may be considered persecutory.

“Let reason prevail” would be acceptable anywhere, IMHO.
“Let justice be done though the world perish” is a little more fanatical, but still acceptable, IMHO.
“Religion should be abolished” is UNacceptable, and you should agree since the tenets of atheism can reasonably be construed as “religious”…

 

[Mr_Skeptic]

I’m fine with the Islam-statement, so long as it is part of a longer codification of secular-related laws that are historically significant with regard to what the building stands for (e.g. the Ten Commandments in a Justice building in the USA). Or it could appear on a coin in an Islam-founded nation - Great, no problem. If the sign said, “Death to Infidels”, I would object and hope you would as well. If it said only, “Death to Christians”, any believer in religious freedom must object, for that constitutes religious persecution.

And, if the sign in question said “Death to Christians”, or, “Death to Theists”, I’d be inclined to agree. But, it doesn’t. All it does is express a viewpoint. All the rest is being cold read.

“Religion should be abolished” is UNacceptable,

The sign is question did not say “Religion should be abolished”.

and you should agree since the tenets of atheism can reasonably be construed as “religious”…

I never knew there were tenets of atheism. Maybe I should be going to those weekly, atheist indoctrination meetings, and keep up.

 

[Chiral]

And, if the sign in question said “Death to Christians”, or, “Death to Theists”, I’d be inclined to agree. But, it doesn’t. All it does is express a viewpoint. All the rest is being cold read.

The sign is question did not say “Religion should be abolished”.

I never knew there were tenets of atheism. Maybe I should be going to those weekly, atheist indoctrination meetings, and keep up.

“There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is just a myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.”

The first 2 sentences are a clear statement of belief, a religious tenet, part of a creed, a creed specifically arranged to counter that of others. It is the same as “There is no God but Allah”.
The 3rd sentence is also a statement of belief, but it is additionally a direct attack on all other creeds. It is just a “viewpoint” the same as the sentence “Juden sind Untermenchen” or “Africans are less human” or “Muslims deserve no rights”. It is a clear statement of hatred and derision, with words chosen to eliminate any possible obfuscation.
“Religion… hardens hearts and enslaves minds”, reasonably translated “religion is bad and must not be tolerated”, for what reasonable person would tolerate slavery of the mind?
If the sign weren’t a statement of personal belief (lacking empirical evidence) directed at people, it could be compared to anti-tobacco signs, “Smoking kills” or the like. Such signs breed intolerance of smoking, but again at least they have empirical evidence to back it up.
How 'bout the sign, “Atheism breeds hatred and contempt”? It is in a similar vein, but is amusingly supported by this sign. No, not amusing at all.

 

[Mr_Skeptic]

To me, religion does harden hearts and enslave minds. That’s my opinion. However, you have every right to believe as you do. I have no desire to take that away from you. There’s a huge difference between disagreement/dissent, and seeking to destroy. I hope people can make the distinction and not blur the lines.

 

[AntiTheist]

Tone matters. This sign is loud, brassy and off-key.

Well, I think that was the point, actually. If people are going to go around putting up religious signs on state buildings, they’re opening the door to signs that they might not like. Personally, I can’t wait for a Satanist group to put up the sign “All hail to Satan, Lord of the Earth!”

Far better to keep religious signs out of state buildings entirely.

Chiral:

This is equivalent to s sign that reads “All blacks are thieves and murderers”, “Juden sind Untermenchen”, “Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Pagans, etc. are inferior human beings”…

This is utterly ridiculous. The sign makes no comment on individuals who hold these beliefs.

“Religion should be abolished” is UNacceptable, and you should agree since the tenets of atheism can reasonably be construed as “religious”…

In the first place, it’s quite obvious to anyone with average reading skills that the sign does not even come close to suggesting that religion should be “abolished.”

In the second place, as Mr. Skeptic points out, there are no “tenets of atheism,” atheism being the lack of a belief and thus also lacking tenets. A lot of atheists share similar opinions on some subjects, though. For example, a lot of atheists think religion is bad for people, and that’s the idea that this sign expresses. But there are also atheists who think religion is a good thing or who even wish that they themselves could believe in it.

What we’re talking about in this thread are statements made by one specific atheist group. They don’t speak for all atheists or express “tenets of atheism.”

 

[Chiral]

To me, religion does harden hearts and enslave minds. That’s my opinion. However, you have every right to believe as you do. I have no desire to take that away from you. There’s a huge difference between disagreement/dissent, and seeking to destroy. I hope people can make the distinction and not blur the lines.

I understand that that is a tenet of your belief system, just as NAZI’s believe(d) Jews are sub-human. You have a right to such prejudices.
The disconnect is where you are prejudiced against religion but pretend not to be, at the same time. That is irrational… as is religiously decrying religion You believe that religion hurts people… but you also believe that is okay?? No. You believe it must be stopped.

You are correct, there is a big difference between disagreement and direct-attack, but you have not found it, and neither had the posters.
You are welcome to your opinion, and I will defend your freedom of religion so far as it does not harm others. But when you begin proclaiming your prejudices against others aloud or on posters in public facilities in a nation where freedom is espoused, your actions are inappropriate and illicit. For the sake of your own integrity, you should either not defend such actions or come clean about your own designs.

 

[Mr_Skeptic]

I understand that that is a tenet of your belief system

Again, I must have missed those meetings.

The disconnect is where you are prejudiced against religion but pretend not to be, at the same time.

Who is doing the pretending? It’s not me. Is it you? Also, who among you is not prejudiced against atheists and non-believers? Be honest.

You believe that religion hurts people… but you also believe that is okay??

Not quite.

I feel that it is your right to believe what you believe. I disagree with what you believe, but that doesn’t mean I wish to stop you from believing.

No. You believe it must be stopped.

See above, and, stop assigning motives to me.

You are correct, there is a big difference between disagreement and direct-attack, but you have not found it, and neither had the posters.

The line gets quite blurred, especially when personal feelings get hurt. And, that will vary from person to person. Some people are not phased by any such thing. Others seem eager to take offense at every opportunity.

But when you begin proclaiming your prejudices against others aloud or on posters in public facilities in a nation where freedom is espoused, your actions are inappropriate and illicit.

IOW - dissent is not welcomed?

For the sake of your own integrity, you should either not defend such actions or come clean about your own designs.

“Come clean about my own designs”?

Cue the Perry Mason music. The witness is about to confess! du-du-daaaaaa!

 

[AntiTheist]

You believe that religion hurts people… but you also believe that is okay?? No. You believe it must be stopped.

Well, I think this is the fundamental point here. The sign in question points out that religion is a bunch of myths that harden hearts and enslave minds. From where I sit, this is awfully close to being a fact, not just an opinion, but we can leave that for another thread.

The sign makes no comment on people who believe in religion, and it says nothing about eliminating religion.

There is a world of difference between saying that X is bad for people and saying that X needs to be stopped. For example, I think that alcohol is bad for people – and in fact it is demonstrably bad for people – but I would never dream of “stopping” alcohol or making it illegal. Would I be happy if less people drank? Sure, but I don’t have some dogmatic belief that it needs to be “stopped” or that we should outlaw alcohol or that all alcohol should go.

I believe strongly that people have the right to put whatever they want in their bodies; I also have the opinion that alcohol is a bad thing to put in your body, and I’d be happy to make that opinion known in public.

Similarly, a person can recognize that religion is generally a bad thing for humanity – and be quite happy if less people were religious – and still never dream of “stopping” or outlawing religion.

There is similarly a world of difference between pointing out that an idea has no basis in reality and saying that the people who hold this idea are “subhuman.” People who believe that a rabbit’s foot brings good luck are holding an idea that has no basis in reality; but no one would seriously argue that believers in the rabbit foot are “subhuman” in any way. It is possible to criticize ideas without criticizing the people who hold those ideas.

You strike me as someone who cannot help but conflate things – criticisms of ideas with criticisms of people; pointing out of harms with a desire to eliminate. This tendency to conflate separate things is a sign of sloppy thinking, and if I were you, I would resolve to analyze issues more carefully in the future.

 

[Chiral]

Again, I must have missed those meetings.

Meetings are not a requisite for religious tenets.

Who is doing the pretending? It’s not me. Is it you? Also, who among you is not prejudiced against atheists and non-believers? Be honest.

I hold no prejudice towards atheists, nor towards Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, other Christians, Pagans, etc. I consider it “wrong” to show prejudice against anyone because of their specific religion, unless that religion explicitly or implicitly promotes certain things toward which I stand in opposition: e.g. hatred, violence, moral irresponsibility or amorality (relativism/subjectivism), slavery, rejection of history, rejection of freewill, rejection of objective truth, and especially irrationality (which ties into all preceding).

That list is WAY off-topic, but you asked me to be honest. You probably stand against many of the same things, but you probably also think “religion” is responsible for all of them, eh?

I feel that it is your right to believe what you believe. I disagree with what you believe, but that doesn’t mean I wish to stop you from believing

I also believe it is your right to believe whatever you wish. But when you start putting that faith into public action, deliberately attacking the beliefs of others, make sure you choose an appropriate forum. Note that it is not the “Freedom of Religion Foundation” being sued, it is the state of Illinois who, by allowing this anti-theist posting in their capital building, sanctioned an attack on the religious freedom of its citizens.

Dissent is welcome, as is nudity, screaming, shouting… but in an appropriate forum. Get what I mean?

…The sign in question points out that religion is a bunch of myths that harden hearts and enslave minds. From where I sit, this is awfully close to being a fact, not just an opinion, but we can leave that for another thread.

“Points out”? That, my friend, is a religious belief, one taken on faith NOT fact. But you are correct that it is fodder for another thread.

The sign makes no comment on people who believe in religion, and it says nothing about eliminating religion.

You must be joking, yes? “Religion hardens hearts and enslaves minds” - Who’s minds? No, not a comment on people at all!
And I suppose you think a sign that says “Smoking kills” is not a call to ban smoking, eh? Just because a sentence is not written using the imperative case does not make it any less a call to action. Should “killing” be tolerated, be allowed to continue? No. Therefore, “smoking” should not be allowed to continue. You see, by ascribing something abominable (e.g. slavery of the mind) to a person, group, institution, etc., you are calling (however impotently or indirectly) for its elimination.
If you preach at someone, “Scotty is a liar,” you are deliberately (however impotently or indirectly) trying to eradicate their trust of Scotty.

You can comprehend this. It’s kindergarten stuff.

There is a world of difference between saying that X is bad for people and saying that X needs to be stopped. For example, I think that alcohol is bad for people – and in fact it is demonstrably bad for people – but I would never dream of “stopping” alcohol or making it illegal. Would I be happy if less people drank? Sure, but I don’t have some dogmatic belief that it needs to be “stopped” or that we should outlaw alcohol or that all alcohol should go.

That just makes you complacent. Ever tell someone to their face that they should stop drinking? Ever post it on a sign in a public building? Those are actions one takes to eliminate drinking. The posters of the sign were less complacent than you, that’s all. They “dreamed” that dream. It just didn’t belong in a state capitol in the USA.

There is similarly a world of difference between pointing out that an idea has no basis in reality and saying that the people who hold this idea are “subhuman.”… It is possible to criticize ideas without criticizing the people who hold those ideas.

I agree. But the sign did no “pointing out”, and, as you will find when re-reading the quote, it very much DID criticize the people. See above.

You strike me as someone who cannot help but conflate things… …is a sign of sloppy thinking, and if I were you, I would resolve to analyze issues more carefully in the future.

See above. If you were me, you wouldn’t criticize the thinking of others without being able to substantiate yourself. Like the sign said, “let reason prevail”. That’s pretty good advice, don’t you think?

 

[Mr_Skeptic]

Meetings are not a requisite for religious tenets.

Then how does one learn about their religious tenets? Further, I’m quite familiar the “Atheism is a religion” logic fallacy. Be careful what you ask for.

I consider it “wrong” to show prejudice against anyone because of their specific religion,

It goes beyond ‘showing’ prejudice. My question went to what goes on in the heart.

unless that religion explicitly or implicitly promotes certain things toward which I stand in opposition: e.g. hatred, violence, moral irresponsibility or amorality (relativism/subjectivism), slavery, rejection of history, rejection of freewill, rejection of objective truth, and especially irrationality (which ties into all preceding).

With that lengthy exclusion clause, your previous remarks are practically nullified.

You probably stand against many of the same things, but you probably also think “religion” is responsible for all of them, eh?

Wrong.

But, thanks for having the decency of asking me. Some people just assume things about others, and never bother to ask.

 

[Chiral]

Then how does one learn about their religious tenets? Further, I’m quite familiar the “Atheism is a religion” logic fallacy. Be careful what you ask for.

Fallacy? …I don’t see it… maybe the problem is different understandings of the term “religion”. My wife (an anthropologist and a pagan) also considers “atheism” a religion, but like many “catholic” persons the religious label may not apply. Anyway, I bet there are already a few hundred threads on this topic elsewhere on the forum, yes? Since it’s kinda off the OP, I’ll let you have the last word on it (if you reply), and we can let it go

It goes beyond ‘showing’ prejudice. My question went to what goes on in the heart.

I am glad. And it is what I assumed. It is how I answered.

With that lengthy exclusion clause, your previous remarks are practically nullified.

Really? Why? The exclusions deal with conscience, with moral-compass. They prejudice no people.

Wrong…
But, thanks for having the decency of asking me. Some people just assume things about others, and never bother to ask.

I am glad to be wrong. I just wanted to test the waters.