Atheists can be assholes too sometimes

Gordon · 13-03-2014 08:39AM

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. 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.

How about the other type of cross? The X. Quite appropriate for showing where someone has died...

recedite · 13-03-2014 11:36AM

smacl wrote: »

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?

I take your point, and it is a good point. At the same time, a lot goes on that is not privately funded. Take your Father Ted example, Dermot Morgan went to RTE with the idea first, where it was rejected due to the fear of and/or oversight by Iona types. Nevertheless, he was welcomed by the privately funded Channel 4. Whether he ever tried publicly funded BBC, I don't know.
So just because the State might not fund something, that is not the same as the state banning it.

Gelio · 13-03-2014 11:52AM

Gordon wrote: »

How about the other type of cross? The X. Quite appropriate for showing where someone has died...

Yeah that would be a pretty good suggestion.

If I saw a bunch of X's along the road I would expect it to have the same effect on my driving.

smacl · 13-03-2014 01:10PM

recedite wrote: »

I take your point, and it is a good point. At the same time, a lot goes on that is not privately funded. Take your Father Ted example, Dermot Morgan went to RTE with the idea first, where it was rejected due to the fear of and/or oversight by Iona types. Nevertheless, he was welcomed by the privately funded Channel 4. Whether he ever tried publicly funded BBC, I don't know.
So just because the State might not fund something, that is not the same as the state banning it.

True, although RTE still paid for the privilege of being allowed to air it using public money. Given the already conservative nature of many of our public servants, I for one would be loathe to give them further excuses that would help them avoid taking risky decisions. In many ways it is a disgrace that the program wasn't locally funded and produced, and serves to highlight the small minded, conservative, risk adverse attitude that so often prevails among decision makers in our public sector*.

While slightly Machiavellian, I suspect trying to exclude religious expression from publicly funded arts or social projects would do more damage than good. Screams to the gallery of "Help, help, we're being repressed" from the Iona type zealots on one hand, and discouraging progressive expression in the arts on the other.

(*yes, the self same people who manage to bankrupt the entire country at the same time and plunge us into the depths of recession)

J C · 13-03-2014 11:22PM

smacl wrote: »

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.

Secularism isn't immune from the vices of religion ... and it can also share in its virtues.

Zealots can be found on all sides ... and the challenge is for us all to love and respect one another.

I know many Atheists who are deeply thoughtful people who have come to their worldview after considerable deliberation and study ... and there are also many Christians who have done this and reached the opposite conclusion.

We share a common Humanity ... and we can all learn from each other with respect ... or learn nothing from each other, in disrespect.

Cabaal · 14-03-2014 03:24PM

smacl wrote: »

True, although RTE still paid for the privilege of being allowed to air it using public money.

Only after it became some popular they were kinda forced into buying it to show it,

When they did show it they also had a debate on the late late show about it,

Silly stuff really, considering Ireland had Life Of Brian banned until (I think) 1993 its not all that surprising though

H3aler · 14-03-2014 03:35PM

secularism is very good-- but some people who claim to be securalist-- they are intolrent against religions-- secularsim is name of tolrance -- There are many fake secularist around who don't know abc of secularism-- Secularsim is name of mercy and tolrance-- These fake secuarlists show secularism evil and radical --

PopePalpatine · 14-03-2014 03:45PM

Religion does itself no favours in that case when those religions continue to stick their tentacles where they're not wanted.

smacl · 14-03-2014 03:56PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Religion does itself no favours in that case when those religions continue to stick their tentacles where they're not wanted.

Nor when they get all offended after they come away with bruised tentacles as a result. As the actress said to the Bishop, there's some places where you really shouldn't stick your tentacles

old hippy · 14-03-2014 05:26PM

H3aler wrote: »

secularism is very good-- but some people who claim to be securalist-- they are intolrent against religions-- secularsim is name of tolrance -- There are many fake secularist around who don't know abc of secularism-- Secularsim is name of mercy and tolrance-- These fake secuarlists show secularism evil and radical --

Could you give us some examples of the fake secularists?

J C · 14-03-2014 07:18PM

smacl wrote: »

Nor when they get all offended after they come away with bruised tentacles as a result. As the actress said to the Bishop, there's some places where you really shouldn't stick your tentacles

What places are you talking about?

smacl · 14-03-2014 07:28PM

J C wrote: »

What places are you talking about?

As an atheist, I'd say just about any place

J C · 14-03-2014 10:30PM

smacl wrote: »

As an atheist, I'd say just about any place

... as a liberal Christian (and a liberal secularist) I'd say that people of faith and none should be able to appropriately express themselves anywhere.;)

kylith · 15-03-2014 01:44AM

J C wrote: »

... as a liberal Christian (and a liberal secularist) I'd say that people of faith and none should be able to appropriately express themselves anywhere.;)

The bible would disagree there, though. I'm sure it says not to be one of those people who prays in public to flaunt how righteous one is.

J C · 15-03-2014 10:18PM

kylith wrote: »

The bible would disagree there, though. I'm sure it says not to be one of those people who prays in public to flaunt how righteous one is.

That would be true ... but I'm not talking about looking for acclaimation ... it is more likely the 'reward' would be derision!!!:)

17-03-2014 12:58AM

Kudos to the American Humanist Association, who have managed to sort out this "serious constitutional violation" by having the offending items removed......

.....and replaced with six crosses.

Anyway, we've added to the number of people feeling offended and victimised. That's good, isn't it?

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Lake-Elsinore-Atheists-Group-Demands-Cross-Removal-American-Humanist-Association-Devaney-Memorial-Religion-Church-State-248741091.html

recedite · 17-03-2014 11:48AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Kudos to the American Humanist Association, who have managed to sort out this "serious constitutional violation" by having the offending items removed...........and replaced with six crosses.

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Lake-Elsinore-Atheists-Group-Demands-Cross-Removal-American-Humanist-Association-Devaney-Memorial-Religion-Church-State-248741091.html

You can see on the video that the original cross was a substantial piece of engineering, with its own foundation, which was obviously "built to last".
The replacements are just some offcuts of timber thrown together and stuck in the ground. If she had put up some sort of temporary personal tribute on the public land in the first place (a small wooden cross or a bouquet of flowers) then I doubt there would have been any objection.

J C · 17-03-2014 07:53PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Kudos to the American Humanist Association, who have managed to sort out this "serious constitutional violation" by having the offending items removed......

.....and replaced with six crosses.

Anyway, we've added to the number of people feeling offended and victimised. That's good, isn't it?

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Lake-Elsinore-Atheists-Group-Demands-Cross-Removal-American-Humanist-Association-Devaney-Memorial-Religion-Church-State-248741091.html

It's what is known as 'shooting oneself in the foot' ... something that Humanists don't have a monopoly on ... but they do have a shareholding!!

This poor lady has tragically lost her son ... and if she were a Humanist, I'd equally have no problem with her erecting a tasteful memorial to remember her son and act as a salutory warning to everybody, to hopefully reduce such accidents.

These things aren't 'zero-sum' situations ... everyone can win ... unless somebody decides that they want nobody to.

J C · 17-03-2014 08:11PM

recedite wrote: »

You can see on the video that the original cross was a substantial piece of engineering, with its own foundation, which was obviously "built to last".

... in an otherwise apparently 'barren' landscape ... that could do with something to add interest to it.

recedite wrote: »

The replacements are just some offcuts of timber thrown together and stuck in the ground. If she had put up some sort of temporary personal tribute on the public land in the first place (a small wooden cross or a bouquet of flowers) then I doubt there would have been any objection.

Maybe ... maybe not.
Either way, it shouldn't come down to an 'us versus them' scenario ... in a truly pluralist society ... doubly so, on such a tragic and deeply personal issue.

Gordon · 17-03-2014 08:56PM

Was the positioning of the cross against the constitution of the United States?

J C · 17-03-2014 09:22PM

Gordon wrote: »

Was the positioning of the cross against the constitution of the United States?

The US Constitution guarantees freedom of religion ... and if this is now being interpreted as freedom from religion, then an amendment may be required to 'clear the air'.

... people should carefully pick their fights (if they fight at all) ... and legally challenging a poor lady who has tragically lost her son and wishes to remind people of him and how he died, isn't a fight that I'd pick TBH.

... but that's just me ... and I'm 'a lover and not a fighter', anyway.

Gordon · 17-03-2014 10:06PM

So they have ruled that it is against the constitution?

J C · 17-03-2014 10:16PM

Gordon wrote: »

So they have ruled that it is against the constitution?

OK ... so it's against the constitution for a grieving mother to erect a memorial to remember her dead son ...

Constituitions change ... and this sounds like something deserving of change.

I'd like to prove the OP wrong ... but I don't know what you guys are trying to prove???

Gordon · 17-03-2014 10:22PM

So it is against the constitution?

It either is, or isn't, or is being challenged in the courts; sounds like it's against the constitution.

As far as I recall, the US constitution isn't something that you can choose to pick what you believe and what rules you follow; unlike the christian bible where people are told not to wear certain materials and not eat certain food, but they do anyway - ignoring what their book tells them of their facts and of what to do with their lives. But I guess I could be wrong, I'm pretty sure you can challenge the constitution and change it, which is also like the bible I guess, because context seems to be a goal post changer

J C · 17-03-2014 10:55PM

Gordon wrote: »

So it is against the constitution?

It either is, or isn't, or is being challenged in the courts; sounds like it's against the constitution.

As far as I recall, the US constitution isn't something that you can choose to pick what you believe and what rules you follow; unlike the christian bible where people are told not to wear certain materials and not eat certain food, but they do anyway - ignoring what their book tells them of their facts and of what to do with their lives. But I guess I could be wrong, I'm pretty sure you can challenge the constitution and change it, which is also like the bible I guess, because context seems to be a goal post changer

Whatever about the Constitution, it won't play well in the 'Court of Public Opinion' to be dragging a grieving mother through the courts to prove some arcane point of controversial law.

Do you really think that this has added anything positive to the Humanist cause?

Gordon · 17-03-2014 11:20PM

J C wrote: »

Whatever about the Constitution

Yeah, whatever about the rules that were decided by lots of people, whatever.

, it won't play well in the 'Court of Public Opinion' to be dragging a grieving mother through the courts to prove some arcane point of controversial law.

Do you really think that this has added anything positive to the Humanist cause?

I'm not part of some 'humanist cause', I don't know what their rules and regulations and their cause is in detail, so not much point in me answering your question. Do you really think that Americans shouldn't respect their constitution?

J C · 17-03-2014 11:30PM

Gordon wrote: »

Yeah, whatever about the rules that were decided by lots of people, whatever.

I'm not part of some 'humanist cause', I don't know what their rules and regulations and their cause is in detail, so not much point in me answering your question. Do you really think that Americans shouldn't respect their constitution?

Americans should respect it ... but they also can change it.

Do you support the particular case taken against this grieving mother?

Gordon · 17-03-2014 11:38PM

Yet she isn't fighting it, as it is unconstitutional and unlikely to change, I can only surmise.

What Americans do with their constitution is not something that affects me, so the support or not of their constitution, or against their constitution, is not something for me to partake in.

J C · 17-03-2014 11:46PM

Gordon wrote: »

Yet she isn't fighting it, as it is unconstitutional and unlikely to change, I can only surmise.

What Americans do with their constitution is not something that affects me, so the support or not of their constitution, or against their constitution, is not something for me to partake in.

Fair enough.

Does everybody else on the A & A think that legally forcing a mother to remove a monument to her dead son is justified by some kind of Humanist 'principle'?

... and is this what 'tolerance of diversity' actually means, as far as you are all concerned?

Gordon · 17-03-2014 11:52PM

J C wrote: »

So you do support it.
Fair enough.

Intriguing.. For a lover, not a fighter, you seem to be putting many words in my mouth. I find people only do that when they feel they have to win a point in a conversational battle, and use that tactic as a last word effect, to insinuate that they won. I, on the other hand, was not battling, but asking questions to get some logical clarity.

Atheists can be assholes too sometimes

Comments