ybnormal

I am all for a sign DEFENDING nontheists in the capital, but this one is offensive.

And why are they being forced into DEFENDING themselves in the first place? Why gloss over the other half of this issue? You acknowledge that they have already been ATTACKED. What do you feel they have done to deserve attacks that require such defending? Are you not suggesting that they should just turn the other cheek to a self-identified enemy who openly states their intention to eliminate nontheists?

Can you specify any clear gains that nontheists have made using such tactics? If not, why do you espouse a worn out strategy that has clearly failed? The only so-called gains I've witnessed have been from counterATTACKS inside courtrooms. And I suggest there is virtually nothing that xians find more "offensive", to use your word, than our much-hated court system and the evil ACLU, both of which were accused of causing 9/11.

These folks don't need signs to be "offended". They are already "offended" by the very existence of nontheists... you admit this when you say, I am all for a sign DEFENDING nontheists.


This is throwing shots out at anyone who is not an atheist (including agnostics, pantheists, and deists!). Although I don't think the sign should have been stolen, it projects a nasty proselytizing image of atheists.

Proselytizing?

But is it the truth? Do you personally believe the content of the sign? If you don't, then you have a different argument for your silencing plea... if you do, then your argument is simply, "It's too much honesty, and nontheists should be silenced."


If you are saying it should have stayed there, then you're with the "religionists" in your OPPOSITION of religious freedom.

This is a good example of my, "way too many folks have been properly conditioned to believe that their honest, free-speech opinions are intolerant to the intolerant."

It is irrational thinking, IMO, as another form of blaming the victim.

Please identify any wording in the sign which you feel is in OPPOSITION of religious freedom.

I see no wording there that clamors for any restrictions on anyone's religious freedom. I only see the "opposition", FINALLY, exercising their own right of religious freedom. All I see is someone stating the exact opposite of what I hear from xians every single day of my life... this is what I thought a 'public debate' was all about.

I suggest that at most, the sign is just too honest for some folk's sensibilities.


Though the stealing of the sign prompts me to do something nasty as vengeance.

Now that's a good sign.

Anti-Creedance Front

My only opposition to the sign is that it's in the capital. I stand by the right to religious freedom, whether it be the Ten Commandments in the court rooms, or a sign condemning gods in our state capitol. I agree with the sign (except for maybe NO GODS), but it shouldn't be in the public forum, as no religiously related article should be. We're not the Taliban, and we're not Madalyn Murray O'Hair.

atheist_in_foxhole

The only reason why FFRF put the sign up was because the governor refused to remove various signs and displays about Jebus. He even issued several proclamations that mentioned Jebus, gawd, faith, and the "Christ child."

If he (or whoever the heck is governor these days) quit pulling stunts like that then I am sure that FFRF would remove the "no gods" sign.

[ December 21, 2002: Message edited by: atheist_in_foxhole ]</p>

Shadowy Man

atheist_in_foxhole:


I think it was even more of a problem than that. I believe that the Christmas decorations/ceremonies were being funded by the state.

Dr Rick

No more so than saying "racism is myth and superstition" is intolerance.

Rick

atheist_in_foxhole

If it's intolerant or "mean" to speak the truth, then I am PROUDLY intolerant.

openeyes

I don't think the sign shows intolerance. It's strongly worded, but speaks truths, and maybe it's getting time to be more forthright and public with our views. As others have pointed out, the sign was there to counterbalance religious displays and sentiments.

AbbyNormal

Of course, this is probably exactly what the Christian thinks when he/she puts up a sign declaring "No Jesus, no peace". From his/her perspective, they're just spreading the Truth(tm) and what's wrong with that?

I am a bit on the fence on this one. It is no worse than driving down the highway and seeing a billboard that asks "Got Jesus?"...so why not respond in kind. On the other hand, it is the in-your-face proselytizing of the theist that turns many off. It's the stuff that gives the evangelist such a bad image. I don't want freethinkers to come across as just another extremist group that is intolerant of everyone else.
Errr....this is what I get for always being so wishy-washy!

Regards,
AbbyNormal

atheist_in_foxhole

But I don't favor government support for atheism. The xian, on the other hand, favors government support for xianity.

That's the difference.

[ December 21, 2002: Message edited by: atheist_in_foxhole ]</p>

Bree

[interruption]

Holy shite, look at all the people from Wisconsin.

Why aren't we having a party?

[/interuption]