Atheists can be assholes too sometimes

ironingbored

Does anyone else think this is madness?:

http://americanhumanist.org/news/details/2014-03-roadside-cross-in-lake-elsinore-ca-must-be-removed-s

I understand that the AHA does a lot of good work in highlighting the continuous encroachment of religion in the public sphere in the US but this just seems petty and lacking all common sense.

Cabaal

To be honest if its state land it comes under state law,
Nobody is stopping anyone putting up a plaque to mark the site of the accident...just not a religious symbol.

Its either all or nothing for this type of stuff,

You seem to think that allowing the cross is no big deal, well if you allow the cross then why not allow the 10 commandments outside state buildings...sure its no big deal.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/08/11/florida-court-fights-to-preserve-ten-commandments-display/

Of course if you try put up a non christian monument next to such things...people get awful upset and protest against it http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/06/nj_group_unveils_first_public_atheist_monument_outside_fla_courthouse.html

To keep the peace and to not put one faith above another its best to not allow any religious symbols on state land,

lazygal

Can humanist be assholes too?

Gelio

Hmmm I'm not sure. While I do see what you are saying with the all or nothing idea I certainly wouldn't personally be requesting it to be removed. My attitude with religion is if it doesn't break my leg or pick my pocket I have no problem with it (yes i realise that is Jefferson.)

It is a symbol to let people know someone has passed away there. I know if I was driving by, a cross would be the symbol that I would most associate with death so even as a road safety warning it would probably be most effective to me as a cross. The idea of a cross being a striking warning/death symbol is an idea that quite appeals to me. You have to remember that the cross was a symbol of death before christianity, so I would have no problem with taking advantage of its popularization through religion if it makes a good warning sign.

Simply put, I wouldn't mind have a completely secular cross at a spot on a road if I died there as a warning to future motorists. However I would not appreciate a cross being put at my grave as that could only have religious connotations.

smacl

lazygal wrote: »

Can humanist be assholes too?

Probably, but they'd never admit it. Holier than thou without even being holy in the first place. Who'da thunk it.

Let's face it, we get assholes in all walks of life, and IMHO, the do gooder class of asshole is every bit as annoying as the patently evil kind.

Cabaal

Gelio wrote: »

Hmmm I'm not sure. While I do see what you are saying with the all or nothing idea I certainly wouldn't personally be requesting it to be removed. My attitude with religion is if it doesn't break my leg or pick my pocket I have no problem with it (yes i realise that is Jefferson.)

For the most part Catholic ethos schools don't directly affect people in this country unless they have kids, guess they are ok if you don't have kids then eh?

The idea of a cross being a striking warning/death symbol is an idea that quite appeals to me.

Not everyone see's a cross as a symbol of death and warning,

-If you want to mark the site of a death or accident then use a plaque
-If you want to warn people about a dangerous junction/turn etc then put up a sign
-If they want to use a cross as a grave marker then go ahead, but then nobody is buried at the accident site.

In this case they choose to put up a religious symbol on state land which is against the rules,

bluefinger

this kind of stuff just oxygen to the siege mentality of the religious right. strategic fail imo.

Gelio

Cabaal wrote: »

For the most part Catholic ethos schools don't directly affect people in this country unless they have kids, guess they are ok if you don't have kids then eh?




Not everyone see's a cross as a symbol of death and warning,

-If you want to mark the site of a death or accident then use a plaque
-If you want to warn people about a dangerous junction/turn etc then put up a sign
-If they want to use a cross as a grave marker then go ahead, but then nobody is buried at the accident site.

In this case they choose to put up a religious symbol on state land which is against the rules,

Of course I don't mean it literally. But even if it was to be taken literally yes bringing up children in ignorance will affect society and thus me in the future.

Not everybody see's any symbol as whatever it is intended for but a majority of Americans could make that connection.

Not necessarily a sign for a dangerous point but a reminder that someone has died at that point. I know I appreciate the odd reminder that I am driving a hugely dangerous machine that regularly causes deaths when people forget that. A plaque is fine but it really just doesn't stand out as much that is the only reason I would be happy to see a cross used in this situation.

I'm just trying to think practically. I thinks many people would respond more to a cross and thus I would hope it would save more lives. Simple as.

seamus

As petty as it seems, it's in the overlooking of "small" things that bigger things may come along behind it.

The point in the article is not any opposition to a memorial. It's opposition to the a US government body erecting religious iconography on public land.

In the US, these "minor" issues are seen as quite important to resist because christianity has been continually forced into government policy since the 1950s and been used to deny people rights and change the fundamental constitutional rights given to people. There's a different mentality in the US around rights and the government, it's much more adversarial, so even small things like this are seen as important.

Petty? Sure. Being an asshole? I don't think so. They're not objecting to a memorial.

Standman

There's an 11km stretch of road in Sligo that has 29 crosses dotted along the roadside, apparently one for each death. It seems to get the message across fairly well, but I wonder how effective it is in preventing accidents? It would be hard to argue against it if it actually does make people drive safer.

Cabaal

Standman wrote: »

There's an 11km stretch of road in Sligo that has 29 crosses dotted along the roadside, apparently one for each death. It seems to get the message across fairly well, but I wonder how effective it is in preventing accidents? It would be hard to argue against it if it actually does make people drive safer.

29 crosses?
Doesn't sound like its gotten any message across to get people to drive safer by sounds of it though,
Perhaps there's a critical mass needed before people will finally get the message....maybe 50 crosses?

In all seriousness though, the people who lost people would be better off putting their time and money that they spent on those crosses trying to get road improvements done.,

robindch

Cabaal wrote: »

Doesn't sound like its gotten any message across to get people to drive safer by sounds of it though, perhaps there's a critical mass needed before people will finally get the message....maybe 50 crosses?

Would hate to think that drivers get distracted looking at all the crosses...

Standman

Cabaal wrote: »

29 crosses? Thats nuts
Doesn't sound like its gotten any message across, perhaps there's a critical mass needed before further people are killed....maybe 50 crosses?

Well they were all erected at the same time a couple of years ago as far as I know, and there's been one death since.

Here's a picture of one section of it:

expectationlost

Atheists sue over 9/11 cross http://www.timeslive.co.za/thetimes/2014/03/10/atheists-sue-over-911-cross
i say include it aslong as it not the focal point of the museum

eyescreamcone

Standman wrote: »

There's an 11km stretch of road in Sligo that has 29 crosses dotted along the roadside, apparently one for each death. It seems to get the message across fairly well, but I wonder how effective it is in preventing accidents? It would be hard to argue against it if it actually does make people drive safer.

When is god going to start saving people on this stretch of road?
Is he not paying attention?

Cabaal

expectationlost wrote: »

Atheists sue over 9/11 cross http://www.timeslive.co.za/thetimes/2014/03/10/atheists-sue-over-911-cross
i say include it aslong as it not the focal point of the museum

I'm thinking the people who want the christian cross would be quick enough to protest against the many Muslim victims of the 9/11 attacks if they wanted a item erected to represent them

recedite

Gelio wrote: »

You have to remember that the cross was a symbol of death before christianity......

Simply put, I wouldn't mind have a completely secular cross at a spot on a road if I died there as a warning to future motorists. However I would not appreciate a cross being put at my grave as that could only have religious connotations.

What's a "completely secular cross" and why do you think a cross only takes on religious meaning when you move it into a graveyard?

When did you last see a cross on a Muslim grave, or a Jewish grave etc etc...
This just shows how completely brainwashed people can get by their own local religion. They think its symbols and values are universally accepted around the world. They are not.

The ancient Greek symbol Tau was a symbol for life, and then the Egyptians had the similar Ankh, also like a cross with a handy loop on top for attaching a string to hang it around your neck. Again a symbol for life. Not death. These symbols were vaguely cross shaped.

Greeks had Theta as a symbol for death, also adapted by L Ron Hubbard for this thetan souls. Greeks also had Omega for "the end". These were nothing like a cross.

Before crucifixions, who used the cross as a symbol for death? Anyone?

J C

Cabaal wrote: »

I'm thinking the people who want the christian cross would be quick enough to protest against the many Muslim victims of the 9/11 attacks if they wanted a item erected to represent them

I personally wouldn't have any problem with any religion (or none) erecting monuments/symbols based on their particular worldview ... that's what true tolerance and respect for pluralism and diversity is all about.
Banning all expressions of belief (and none) in the public sphere is the opposite IMO.
... actually, how can somebody claim to respect pluralism and diversity ... and then turn around and make a Jew remove his Kippah or a Muslim woman abandon her Hijab ... or a Christian their lapel cross ... or an Atheist his tie that says something like 'There is no God' ... or whatever else they fancy saying about their belief?
All of the above are positive statements of individual faith beliefs ... and none of them could be reasonably construed as offensive to any other faith .. so I see no problem with their display in the public sphere ... although, I have no doubt that some unreasonable people might want to ban some or all of them (on some spurious grounds or another).

oscarBravo

J C wrote: »

I personally wouldn't have any problem with any religion (or none) erecting monuments/symbols based on their particular worldview ... that's what true tolerance and respect for your neighbour is about.

So you'd be all in favour of this?

recedite

Oh, so you wouldn't mind if I put a satanist symbol on the lamp post outside your house then?

J C

oscarBravo wrote: »

So you'd be all in favour of this?

I have no problem with it ... Satan exists ... and it would be a good reminder to everyone that he does.
Specifically, I cannot see how a Christian should be offended by it. I think that once it is a positive expression of a belief (as distinct from some sectarian slogan, for example, badmouthing another belief) it would be acceptable ... and indeed it would be a requirement IMO to demonstrate true pluraism.

J C

recedite wrote: »

Oh, so you wouldn't mind if I put a satanist symbol on the lamp post outside your house then?

... no problem, as long as I can put a cross on the next lamp post (if lamp posts are to be a vehicle for public faith proclaimations) ... which mightn't be the best idea IMO.

recedite

J C wrote: »

(if lamp posts are to be a vehicle for public faith proclaimations) ... which mightn't be the best idea IMO.

Well then you can see how putting religious symbols on public property quickly becomes a public nuisance.

J C

recedite wrote: »

Well then you can see how putting religious symbols on public property quickly becomes a public nuisance.

Any uncontrolled or offensive material can become a public nuisance ... but so also can offensive public speech ... but this is no excuse to remove freedom of speech (within the constraints of slander and hate-speech).
... and public nuisance is no excuse to ban reasonable and un-offensive faith expressions in the public sphere ... because it wouldn't actually be a public nuisance, in the first place.

shruikan2553

If everyone involved was a confirmed Christian then Im not too against it. But if there was 1 atheist and 1 muslim we would hear complaints of wasting money on 2 monuments for an atheist and a muslim and why cant they just be on the cross, christian country etc etc. So nothing religious suits everyone.

J C

shruikan2553 wrote: »

If everyone involved was a confirmed Christian then Im not too against it. But if there was 1 atheist and 1 muslim we would hear complaints of wasting money on 2 monuments for an atheist and a muslim and why cant they just be on the cross, christian country etc etc. So nothing religious suits everyone.

There is a reasonable and a practical limit to such things ... for example, if the Christians in the above scenario wanted to fill a public park with hundreds of crosses for no reason other than they were 99.99% of the population, that would be equally unreasonable.
All extremes are usually wrong ... and wishing to litter the place with crosses would be just as unreasonable and banning all crosses (or any other faith expression) from the public sphere.

eyescreamcone

Who's going to decide what is un-offensive or not?...

...If they are all offensive to somebody.

That's why it is always best to keep state and church separate.

When will the religionists get it???

endacl

Assholes can be assholes. Doesn't really matter whether they believe in fairy tales or not.

J C

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Who's going to decide what is un-offensive or not?...

...If they are all offensive to somebody.

That's why it is always best to keep state and church separate.

When will the religionists get it???

Its all part of being truly pluralist.

There is an obvious inherent hypocracy in claiming to be a pluralist ... and then not allowing a plurality of public faith expression.

J C

endacl wrote: »

Assholes can be assholes. Doesn't really matter whether they believe in fairy tales or not.

Quite true.:)

Gelio

recedite wrote: »

What's a "completely secular cross" and why do you think a cross only takes on religious meaning when you move it into a graveyard?

When did you last see a cross on a Muslim grave, or a Jewish grave etc etc...
This just shows how completely brainwashed people can get by their own local religion. They think its symbols and values are universally accepted around the world. They are not.

The ancient Greek symbol Tau was a symbol for life, and then the Egyptians had the similar Ankh, also like a cross with a handy loop on top for attaching a string to hang it around your neck. Again a symbol for life. Not death. These symbols were vaguely cross shaped.

Greeks had Theta as a symbol for death, also adapted by L Ron Hubbard for this thetan souls. Greeks also had Omega for "the end". These were nothing like a cross.

Before crucifixions, who used the cross as a symbol for death? Anyone?

By a secular cross I just meant not having jesus nailed to the front of it.

I never said around the world but let's take Ireland for example. If any Irish person drove down that road with 29 crosses they would understand that it meant 29 people had died there. This wouldn't be such a bad thing IMO. I can see the point of view that it is black and white and if we allow some grey then the whole issue can escalate into grey but this is one battle that I wouldn't pick. Crosses on the side of the road, in my opinion, do some good so I won't be the one out campaigning against them.

Just as a side note, there are plenty of symbols we have adopted from religions other than Christianity in the past. If I was to find a useful symbol popularized by religion I would have no problem taking it and using it for secular purposes.

eyescreamcone

J C wrote: »

Its all part of being truly pluralist.

There is an obvious inherent hypocracy in claiming to be a pluralist ... and then not allowing a plurality of public faith expression.

Fancy talk for trying to mix state and church!

Always always keep state and church separate.

I'm 100% behind the us version of this.
No prayers in state schools etc
But freedom to get your religion kicks in your own time.

expectationlost

i got the impression that government officials here and elsewhere weren't keen on these crosses being put up either, for other reasons distraction, making them look bad etc

Brian Shanahan

Cabaal wrote: »

Of course if you try put up a non christian monument next to such things...people get awful upset and protest against it http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/06/nj_group_unveils_first_public_atheist_monument_outside_fla_courthouse.html

Reading that article, this quote:

"We reject outsiders coming to Florida — especially from outside what we refer to as the Bible Belt — and trying to remake us in their own image," said Michael Tubbs, state chairman of the Florida League of the South. "We do feel like it's a stick in the eye to the Christian people of Florida to have these outsiders come down here with their money and their leadership and promote their outside values here."

reminds me of the fellow from GTA:VC that wanted to dig a ditch through the northern part of Florida to stop all them dem' Yenkees from coming into his state, John F. Hickory.

Brian Shanahan

bluefinger wrote: »

this kind of stuff just oxygen to the siege mentality of the religious right. strategic fail imo.

Well it's either put it up to them or bow down and acquiese when they start gassing you at this stage.

Brian Shanahan

Cabaal wrote: »

I'm thinking the people who want the christian cross would be quick enough to protest against the many Muslim victims of the 9/11 attacks if they wanted a item erected to represent them

They were probably the ones who were threatening violence against all US muslims back when a group of muslims wanted to build a new mosque two miles away from the WTC, because it "desecrated the memory of those who died".

J C

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Reading that article, this quote:

Originally Posted by Cabaal
Of course if you try put up a non christian monument next to such things...people get awful upset and protest against it http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/201...ourthouse.html


Brian Shanahan
reminds me of the fellow from GTA:VC that wanted to dig a ditch through the northern part of Florida to stop all them dem' Yenkees from coming into his state, John F. Hickory.

... it reminds me of the Atheist Communists who actually built a wall across Eastern Europe to try to keep people from fleeing their bankrupt and deeply oppressive society!!!:eek:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Wall

... and like I have already said, all fair-minded Christians, including myself, have no problem with other faiths (and none) erecting monuments to their beliefs ... that is the mark of true tolerance and pluralism.

... and I know that many fair-minded Atheists also share my tolerance for true Pluralism.

BTW I welcome the fact that the Atheists (in Cabaals link above) have been allowed to erect a monument as a counter-point to the Ten Commandments ... more tolerance (and loving respect) on all sides, makes for a culturally diverse and enriched society.

... and liberal Atheism has a proud record of contribution to the progress of Mankind across all areas of Human endeavour ... something that many of the posts (and practically all of the threads) on this forum don't do adequate justice to IMO.
I am proud to number many decent, distinguished Atheists amongst my friends.

J C

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

They were probably the ones who were threatening violence against all US muslims back when a group of muslims wanted to build a new mosque two miles away from the WTC, because it "desecrated the memory of those who died".

... or not ...

Quote Wikipedia:-
"opponents of the Park51 project have said that establishing a mosque so close to Ground Zero would be offensive since the hijackers in the September 11, 2001 attacks were Islamic terrorists. Supporters have pointed out that some victims and victims' families are in favor of the Park51 project and that some victims were also Muslims. Prominent supporters and opponents of the project can be found among the families of the 9/11 victims, the American and worldwide Muslim communities.

Sounds like the issue isn't as 'black and white' as you would like us to believe it to be.

You get liberals and pluralists (and the opposite) in every faith (and none).

J C

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Well it's either put it up to them or bow down and acquiese when they start gassing you at this stage.

Nobody is talking about gassing anybody ... and if or when they do ... the law should be strictly applied to such people.

jank

If one sees a cross on the side of the road 99.9999% of people are a) not offended and b) do not instantly want to join the priesthood c) understand that it is there as a road side memorial to someone who has died.

Remember this issue?
http://www.examiner.com/article/ohio-holocaust-memorial-unique-as-artist-libeskind-statehouse-site-stir-passion

Those threatening legal action ran away with its tails between its legs after all its bluster.

To live in a tolerant liberal society means that you are tolerant of other peoples believes even though it may offended you sometimes. Freedom of Religion does not mean freedom from religion in the sense that you have some right to not to see religious symbols in the public sphere. I don't think the state however should be using tax payers money to pay for these crosses though.

recedite

J C wrote: »

Its all part of being truly pluralist.

There is an obvious inherent hypocracy in claiming to be a pluralist ... and then not allowing a plurality of public faith expression.

I've no problem with pluralism and public expression of (private) faith.
Its when they try to mark public property with their private faith that I get annoyed.
Have you ever seen a dog out on a walk? He pisses on various public trees and lamp posts along the way, just to make it seem like he owns the entire route. Then when the next dog comes along, that dog does the same thing, covering over the scent of the first dog. This is what religious people are really at, whenever they try to get their symbols displayed on public property.

Gelio wrote: »

By a secular cross I just meant not having jesus nailed to the front of it....

I never said around the world but let's take Ireland for example. If any Irish person drove down that road with 29 crosses they would understand that it meant 29 people had died there.

A cross is still a christian symbol, with or without the corpse on it. Why do you think the crusaders wore tunics with huge crosses displayed on them, over their armour, when they went off to slaughter the muslim heretics. Most of the older European flags are still based on some style of cross for the same reason. Those with the republican tricolor are supposed to have embraced secularism.

But if you want to see a symbol of death at the side of the public road, why not use the corpse itself, and just leave out the cross?

Or a row of skulls mounted on sticks.... you can't beat that :pac:

J C

recedite wrote: »

I've no problem with pluralism and public expression of (private) faith.
Its when they try to mark public property with their private faith that I get annoyed.

... so you do have a problem with the public expression of faith. The public expression of faith (or none) has to logically be done on public property ... otherwise it wouldn't be public, in the first place.

recedite wrote: »

Have you ever seen a dog out on a walk? He pisses on various public trees and lamp posts along the way, just to make it seem like he owns the entire route. Then when the next dog comes along, that dog does the same thing, covering over the scent of the first dog. This is what religious people are really at, whenever they try to get their symbols displayed on public property.

This frankly insulting comparison between public faith expression and dogs urinating is further proof that you aren't a pluraist at all ... just an Atheist wishing to remove all faith expression from society.

The pluralist public expresssion of faiths (and none) isn't some kind of territorial marking, like you suggest ... its society making space for various forms of public religious expression, the way society makes space for various forms of public artistic expression.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

Its when they try to mark public property with their private faith that I get annoyed.

Can't say that it would bother me, and from a secularist perspective in Ireland, I think there are more important fights to take. Depends on the scale, and as Jank pointed out, the funding. The papal cross used to seriously annoy me in this regard, but someone sticking up a road side memorial for someone they lost in a car crash really wouldn't. Given we have public graveyards, there's also something of a precedent for allowing religious symbols noting a death on public grounds. Flamboyant publicly funded religious symbols are something very different in my opinion.

But if you want to see a symbol of death at the side of the public road, why not use the corpse itself, and just leave out the cross?

Or a row of skulls mounted on sticks.... you can't beat that :pac:

Yep. It would be interesting how tolerant people would be of say a kali statue on the roadside rather than the usual humdrum Christian stuff. Something like this would add a bit of colour to any neighbourhood.



Or for a life long Steven King fan, how about a nice Carrie hand coming out of the soil beside the headstone? Why do I think they wouldn't allow it in a public grave yard? Me, I'd love it, but I suspect religious people talking about pluralism are much more about take than give in this regard.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

... so you do have a problem with the public expression of faith. The public expression of faith (or none) has to logically be done on public property ... otherwise it wouldn't be public, in the first place.

Are you saying that churches/mosques/temples are not public displays of faith?

eyescreamcone

I have a problem with religious displays on public property.

Pray in your church or at home.

Public property should be free from religion as should all state funded schools and hospitals.

Why, when you have the opportunity to put up crosses etc at home or in your church, do you feel the need to do likewise in the public domain??

The comparison with the dog marking his territory is spot on!!!

recedite

J C wrote: »

... so you do have a problem with the public expression of faith. The public expression of faith (or none) has to logically be done on public property ...

Just to clarify the difference; if you go for a walk into a park wearing a cross around your neck, that is a public expression of your faith. No problem there. If you remove the cross and attach it onto some piece of public property, that is a different thing. I will feel free to remove it.
You can say its "an art installation", but I'll still bin it.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

Just to clarify the difference; if you go for a walk into a park wearing a cross around your neck, that is a public expression of your faith. No problem there. If you remove the cross and attach it onto some piece of public property, that is a different thing. I will feel free to remove it.
You can say its "an art installation", but I'll still bin it.

Only issue with this is that there are many existing religious symbols in public places that would be construed as important cultural and/or historical artefacts. Would you tear down the Celtic high cross at Monasterboice for example, or level Fore Abbey? How about the rather fantastic sheela na gigs scattered around the countryside rather graphically celebrating fertility in best pagan tradition? Which public places do you exclude? Museums, art galleries, parks, heritage sites?

I think we should be careful of what we allow and disallow in terms of public monuments, pubic art, etc... and am not generally in favour of censorship unless people are liable to get harmed. Causing offence to a minority isn't enough in my book.

oscarBravo

I don't think anyone's arguing that historical religious symbols should be removed from public property; the argument is that a secular society shouldn't be placing new religious symbols on public property.

smacl

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't think anyone's arguing that historical religious symbols should be removed from public property; the argument is that a secular society shouldn't be placing new religious symbols on public property.

It is still censorship on the basis of a relatively small number of people taking offence. Allowing censorship on that basis leads to banning anything which would offend anyone, and on that basis would lead to a rather dull society. I'm all for diversity, which means occasionally getting an ice cream I don't much like rather than having vanilla as the only option. YMMV.

oscarBravo

smacl wrote: »

It is still censorship on the basis of a relatively small number of people taking offence.

It's not censorship; it's secularism. Censorship would mean not allowing the display of religious symbols on private property, which is not what we're talking about.

Allowing censorship on that basis leads to banning anything which would offend anyone, and on that basis would lead to a rather dull society.

Leaving aside the slippery slope logical fallacy, it's not about offence. I'm not offended by crucifixes, as long as they're not financed or supported by the secular state.

I'm all for diversity, which means occasionally getting an ice cream I don't much like rather than having vanilla as the only option. YMMV.

Nobody's arguing against diversity.

smacl

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not offended by crucifixes, as long as they're not financed or supported by the secular state.

But the implication of what you're saying that any new publicly funded artwork cannot include any substantial religious references. In my opinion, that amounts to significant censorship.

I'm not offended by crucifixes full stop. I'm deeply offended by a Catholic hierarchy trying to peddle its mumbo jumbo to our primary school children as a desperate attempt to preserve itself going forward, but it is a bit of a jump to get from there to finding all and any religious symbolism offensive.