Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Disappeared in a puff of logic · 10-08-2002, 05:59 PM

Interesting article at <a href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/134550649_tilewars08e.html" target="_blank">http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/134550649_tilewars08e.html</a>

Quote:

What began as a benign fund-raising effort � selling engraved paving tiles � was abandoned by the Friends of the Redmond Library last month after it spiraled out of control, despite the hundreds of blank tiles that remain to be sold.

Anti-religious messages, including one that begins "God Kills Babies," appeared adjacent to pro-Christian messages such as "God Can Change Life."

<...>

Redmond residents Nancy and Michael Herring are appalled that their six-inch by six-inch memorial to Michael's deceased father, Vietnam veteran Gen. Bernard Herring, appears next to the "God Kills Babies" message. The Herrings say they have been unable to show the memorial to Bernard's widow because they are concerned that she would find the adjacent message too disturbing. "Who wants to visualize murdered babies?" said Nancy Herring.

[Edited for spelling]

[ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: Areteist ]

Buffman · 10-08-2002, 08:51 PM

"However, if Christians (or any other religious folks) decide to shove their religion down my throat, and if the government facilitates their efforts, then I'm going to play ball, too. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em," Barry wrote.

Good tactic!

"Unfortunately, it turned into a real goofy deal," Ptacek said last week. "The last thing in the world we wanted to do was offend anyone. We never anticipated this sort of thing."

Then don't permit religious, or anti-religious, sentiments on public property.

"Obviously, some people have taken that to the extreme," said Ptacek, who like others, bought his own tile.

What is Mr. Ptacek's definition of "extreme?"

Nancy Herring said she has liberal views and believes that freedom of speech helps make America great � she just doesn't think a civic building is an appropriate place for potentially offensive comments.

And who gets to decide what is offensive and unoffensive? (Is the only free speech that which offends no one?) That is the primary reason for C-SS. Each individual should be able to express their religious, or non-religious, conscience without government restrictions/controls. There is only one way that has proven successful...separate religious beliefs and government support from the public market place.

Writer@Large · 10-09-2002, 03:35 AM

Actually, the line that chaffs me the wrong way is ...

Quote:

But the controversy kept gathering steam. Word of the "God Kills" message and Barry's article spread through Internet sites. The nonprofit Friends became inundated with requests from around the country by people seeking to buy vulgar inscriptions.

Emphasis mine. That a priori assumption that these tiles are vulgar is, to me, more offensive than anything else. Apparently the truth is offensive. I wonder if, should they impose some "anti-vulgarity" rules, if just the "God Kills" tile, or if ALL FOUR of the "offending" tiles would be removed. And would religious tiles go with them? [Of course not ... they're not "vulgar".]

--W@L

Shadowy Man · 10-09-2002, 08:34 AM

I could see how "God Kills" might be offensive, but he does give a reference (1 Samuel 15:3) and that reference does say that God ordered the death of "children and infants".

galiel · 10-09-2002, 09:32 AM

As I said in the other thread on this issue, talking about whether or not Barry's tiles (or the theist's tiles, for that matter) are offensive misses the point entirely.

It's a public library. PUBLIC.

The issue isn't the tone, it is implied endorsement of religion by a publicly funded facility. And a library, of all places!

Members of the atheist public, who pay taxes that support the library like everyone else, should not be subjected to statements about God's virtue every time they want to borrow a book during "Banned Book Week".

The library is lucky there were not much worse things put on tiles, since they were too stupid to set up community standards (as the lawyers they consulted explained, they *are* allowed to set standards. The original excuse that they couldn't was just a typical dodge to justify religious insensitivity.) What if there were a libelous statement about another town citizen on one of the tiles, or an obscene or pornographic one? The town could have faced crushing litigation that would probably have closed the library for lack of funds.

Of all places to bemoan the excesses of free speech, it is a bit ironic that to criticize Barry for exercising the same rights as the theists did at a PUBLIC library.

[ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: galiel ]

Disappeared in a puff of logic · 10-09-2002, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by galiel:
As I said in the other thread on this issue, talking about whether or not Barry's tiles (or the theist's tiles, for that matter) are offensive misses the point entirely.

I didn't realize there was another thread related to this issue. Could you please point me to it?

Thanks.

galiel · 10-09-2002, 04:26 PM

<a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=44&t=001732" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=44&t=001732</a>

joedad · 10-10-2002, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Writer@Large:
That a priori assumption that these tiles are vulgar is, to me, more offensive than anything else. Apparently the truth is offensive. I wonder if, should they impose some "anti-vulgarity" rules, if just the "God Kills" tile, or if ALL FOUR of the "offending" tiles would be removed. And would religious tiles go with them? [Of course not ... they're not "vulgar".]

It would cost a bit more but direct quotes would probably be more effective than summary statements.

Quote:

1. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces.--Psalms 2:9

2. There went up a smoke out of his nostrils, and fire out of his mouth.--Psalms 18:8

3. He teacheth my hands to war.--Psalms 18:34

4. Break their teeth, O God, in their mouth.--Psalms 58:6

5. The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked..--Psalms 58:10

6. That thy foot may be dipped in the blood of thine enemies, and the tongue of thy dogs in the same.--Psalms 68:23

7. Let their eyes be darkened, that they see not; and make their loins continually to shake.--Psalms 69:23

8. Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places.--Psalms 109:10

9. To him that smote Egypt in their firstborn: for his mercy endureth for ever.--Psalms 136:10

10. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.--Psalms 137:9

<a href="http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ps/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ps/index.html</a>

joe

10-09-2002, 09:32 AM	#5
galiel Banned Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Eastern Massachusetts Posts: 1,677	As I said in the other thread on this issue, talking about whether or not Barry's tiles (or the theist's tiles, for that matter) are offensive misses the point entirely. It's a public library. PUBLIC. The issue isn't the tone, it is implied endorsement of religion by a publicly funded facility. And a library, of all places! Members of the atheist public, who pay taxes that support the library like everyone else, should not be subjected to statements about God's virtue every time they want to borrow a book during "Banned Book Week". The library is lucky there were not much worse things put on tiles, since they were too stupid to set up community standards (as the lawyers they consulted explained, they are allowed to set standards. The original excuse that they couldn't was just a typical dodge to justify religious insensitivity.) What if there were a libelous statement about another town citizen on one of the tiles, or an obscene or pornographic one? The town could have faced crushing litigation that would probably have closed the library for lack of funds. Of all places to bemoan the excesses of free speech, it is a bit ironic that to criticize Barry for exercising the same rights as the theists did at a PUBLIC library. [ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: galiel ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-08-2002, 08:51 PM	#2
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	"However, if Christians (or any other religious folks) decide to shove their religion down my throat, and if the government facilitates their efforts, then I'm going to play ball, too. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em," Barry wrote. Good tactic! "Unfortunately, it turned into a real goofy deal," Ptacek said last week. "The last thing in the world we wanted to do was offend anyone. We never anticipated this sort of thing." Then don't permit religious, or anti-religious, sentiments on public property. "Obviously, some people have taken that to the extreme," said Ptacek, who like others, bought his own tile. What is Mr. Ptacek's definition of "extreme?" Nancy Herring said she has liberal views and believes that freedom of speech helps make America great � she just doesn't think a civic building is an appropriate place for potentially offensive comments. And who gets to decide what is offensive and unoffensive? (Is the only free speech that which offends no one?) That is the primary reason for C-SS. Each individual should be able to express their religious, or non-religious, conscience without government restrictions/controls. There is only one way that has proven successful...separate religious beliefs and government support from the public market place.

10-09-2002, 08:34 AM	#4
Shadowy Man Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: A Shadowy Planet Posts: 7,585	I could see how "God Kills" might be offensive, but he does give a reference (1 Samuel 15:3) and that reference does say that God ordered the death of "children and infants".

10-09-2002, 04:26 PM	#7
galiel Banned Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Eastern Massachusetts Posts: 1,677	<a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=44&t=001732" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=44&t=001732</a>

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.