Atheists can be assholes too sometimes

eyescreamcone · 11-03-2014 10:21AM

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 · 11-03-2014 11:08AM

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 · 11-03-2014 12:42PM

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 · 11-03-2014 12:47PM

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 · 11-03-2014 12:50PM

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 · 11-03-2014 08:51PM

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 · 11-03-2014 08:56PM

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 · 11-03-2014 09:06PM

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 · 11-03-2014 11:26PM

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 · 12-03-2014 12:00AM

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 · 12-03-2014 12:59AM

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 · 12-03-2014 08:54AM

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 · 12-03-2014 09:40AM

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 · 12-03-2014 09:42AM

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 · 12-03-2014 10:15AM

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 · 12-03-2014 11:46AM

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 · 12-03-2014 12:02PM

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 · 12-03-2014 12:11PM

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 · 12-03-2014 12:29PM

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 · 12-03-2014 12:53PM

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.

oscarBravo · 12-03-2014 12:57PM

smacl wrote: »

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.

What I'm saying is that a secular state shouldn't be endowing religious iconography. If you believe that a secular state should be paying for the promotion of religion, you'll have to square that circle for me.

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.

I've already explained that I don't find religious symbolism offensive; what I find offensive is any religion being promoted or endorsed by a secular state.

old hippy · 12-03-2014 02:02PM

J C wrote: »

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.

Satan exists? Really?

recedite · 12-03-2014 03:14PM

smacl wrote: »

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?

Any monasteries that are looked after by the State/OPW were formerly private property. At the time these various religious items were made, they were owned by religious orders etc...
So there is a difference between the State keeping an obsolete religious item of historical and/or artistic merit in a glass box, and commissioning a new one.
Similarly the State looks after a number of large houses, country mansions, and demesnes which were donated to the State, but it is not in the business of building new ones.

In the unlikely event that everyone abandoned organised religion tomorrow, the State would have to decide which church buildings to demolish, and which ones to preserve. Some churches and cathedrals have merit, some do not.

smacl · 12-03-2014 04:17PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you believe that a secular state should be paying for the promotion of religion, you'll have to square that circle for me.

I believe that the state should be promoting the arts as it already does, with numerous new commissions each year. This ranges from the likes of sculpture for major infrastructural projects such as roads, to funding recitals etc... To say that none of this can contain any religious iconography, content or references is clearly a form of censorship. It is also worth considering that something which references religion does not necessarily mean that it promotes religion, and could actually be doing the opposite. No more Father Ted in your vision of a secular Utopia.

I don't think the state should promote religion, as in building any more shrines, whether that's churches, papal crosses, or roadside BVMs. I also don't believe they should censor what can be included in publicly funded and displayed art, which should stand or fall on its own individual merit.

eyescreamcone · 12-03-2014 04:23PM

Give us examples of what you think is appropriate

oscarBravo · 12-03-2014 04:50PM

smacl wrote: »

I don't think the state should promote religion, as in building any more shrines, whether that's churches, papal crosses, or roadside BVMs.

That's all I've been saying.

I also don't believe they should censor what can be included in publicly funded and displayed art, which should stand or fall on its own individual merit.

Sure: as long as the publicly funded and displayed art doesn't have the promotion of a particular religious worldview as its aim.

smacl · 12-03-2014 05:02PM

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Give us examples of what you think is appropriate

How about funding a recital of Handel's Messiah in an open public venue, which clearly was originally intended to promote religion? How about Carmina Burana or Dante's Inferno, both of which have extensive religious content but are largely satirical.

Would you object to publicly funding artists such as Dorothy Cross, who occasionally references religion in her work, including crucifixes?

If you look in any major art gallery, you will always find a certain amount of religious content, both old and new. This is because it is a facet of life that art comments on, both positively and negatively.

smacl · 12-03-2014 05:16PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's all I've been saying. Sure: as long as the publicly funded and displayed art doesn't have the promotion of a particular religious worldview as its aim.

What if the art could be interpreted as attacking a particular religious worldview? Difficult to have one without the other, and I for one would rather have neither than both.

recedite · 12-03-2014 08:58PM

smacl wrote: »

What if the art could be interpreted as attacking a particular religious worldview?

Then it should not be publicly funded.

smacl · 13-03-2014 08:04AM

recedite wrote: »

Then it should not be publicly funded.

The problem there is what you risk losing in the process, as you are effectively giving significant leverage to the zealots to block what they find disagreeable. For example, if legislation had been in place that prohibited use of public funds for any work construed as attacking religion, do you think Father Ted would ever have made it our screens? Given the ability to apply pressure, nit picking zeal, and small mindedness displayed by the likes of the Iona institute in recent times, I'd very much doubt it.

Perhaps my notion of secularism is more liberal than many others, but restricting funds available to the arts based on the content they can or cannot produce represents unhealthy censorship in my book. It simply encourages zealous repression from all sides.

Perhaps it makes sense to replace asshole with zealot in the thread title?

tl;dr Art should be allowed to be critical.

Atheists can be assholes too sometimes

Comments