Christian Mob Protest Atheist Sign

[2QT2BSTR8]

Source: godbegone.blogspot.com

Around 500 christian protesters turned up at at the capitol steps in Washington last Sunday to protest against the holiday sign erected by Wisconsin's Freedom From Religion Foundation in which religion was described as "myth and superstition".

Rev. Kenneth Hutcherson, the pastor of Antioch Bible Church in Redmond must surely be awarded with the most hypocritical quote of the day award when he said "just because you must represent everyone in the state doesn't mean that you put up with intolerance from the people that you represent".

Now here is a little quiz for you. I want you to identify which of the following two positions best describes "intolerance".
1 - You can have your signs and we can have ours, or.
2 - only signs which support my position should be displayed in a building funded by all tax payers and all minorities should be prevented from having signs.

Rev. Ken apparently wasn't the only imbecile present at the rally. State Rep. Jim Dunn, a Vancouver Republican come a close second with his quote; "It is time to chase out of the house of God all the unbelievers and evildoers". And which "house of god" would that be jimmy boy? The capitol building? Read the constitution, dick head.

Read more: http://godbegone.blogspot.com/2008/12/christian-mob-protest-atheist-sign.html

[Sultana]

1. .

Of all the things wrong in this country they are worried about a freaking sign. :wtf:

Oh, I almost forgot...

:popcorn:

[BrklynLiberal]

2. "Believe as I do or die"

This type of person would have fit in perfectly during the Crusades and the Inquisition...

Fanatics. You can't live with 'em, and you can't shoot 'em. - CHEERS 1982

[davidinalameda]

17. didn't the Soviets and the Chinese and the Cubans and other officially atheist regimes

kill and persecute people of faith?

but those regimes weren't "really" atheist huh?

[girl gone mad]

22. And which of those killed in the name of atheism?

[davidinalameda]

121. I'd say all of them since they were all officially atheist governments

and they persecuted people of faith-killing them, torturing them, etc

[Prophet 451]

24. oh boy

In my day job, I work for Beliefnet.com so I've seen that gambit about 15,672,512 times. Now, while I'm not an athiest:
1) None of those regimes killed people to advance athieism, they killed them for not loving teh state enough.
2) If Christians get to disown Fred Phelps and his thinkalikes, athiests get to disown Stalin and his thinkalikes.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

31. I'm replying so I can get easy access to your post from my journal.

1) None of those regimes killed people to advance atheism, they killed them for not loving teh state enough.
2) If Christians get to disown Fred Phelps and his thinkalikes, atheists get to disown Stalin and his thinkalikes.

Short, sweet and to the point. :thumbsup:

[PVnRT]

33. FAIL

[GoneOffShore]

37. Double Epic Fail

[Deep13]

46. "...but those regimes weren't "really" atheist huh?"

Not really. In fact, this is a wholly dishonest argument when one considers the facts.

Stalin use a communist dogma that was religious in every sense except that the ultimate authority was Marxism rather than god. That may have beent he exception that proved the rule. The lack of a divine overlord with the power to punish after death may have contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Stalinism is not a rational conclusion based on free inquiry. One has to assume that without hundreds of years of oppression at the hands of church-supported Tsarism, the Russian public would not have been so docile in the face of communist oppression.

China is not an atheist state. The Confusionist philosophy of China holds that the rulers of China are allowed to rule so long as they maintain the mandate of heaven. Even if the regime is secular, they hold power on supernatural authority. Nevertheless, like the Soviets, Chinese governance also relies on a communist dogma what is based ultimately on irrationality.

No one is arguing that dogma in any form ever does much good. Certainly, one does not need to be religious to do evil things, although it helps. When we speak of atheism, we mean skeptical atheism. That is to say an atheism that that relies on rational and critical consideration of the evidence. No society has ever suffered for being too reasonable.

[EstimatedProphet]

68. Speaking as a religious person, that line is a load of crap.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

134. Wow I have heard this exact same horseshit meme from rabid right wingers

Good job!

[Taverner]

136. Yeah I know, I've been noticing a lot of weird RW talking points as of late

[Taverner]

135. Chinese yes, Soviets and Cubans no

Sure, you couldn't get a job and if you did it would be low paying

But they didn't outright kill them - not even under Stalin

They came up with other reasons, like being an agent of the counterrevolution

[geckosfeet]

21. Or, believe as I do and die (of natural causes) anyway.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[laconicsax]

4. Sadly, I find that this line is again appropriate:

One small freethought sign in the immense state of Washington is such a threat to insecure religious egos that it must be censored?

The answer of course is yes. These are the same people who whine about how bad it is that the Koran demands jihad against all non-Muslims.

The important thing to remember is that, despite being about 75% of the US population, Christians are a persecuted minority that are routinely prevented from practicing their religion.

If you take God out of the pledge, you're restricting their right to worship.
If you allow for other religious displays in public places, you're restricting their right to worship.
If you allow non-religious messages to exist, you're restricting their right to worship.

After all, separation of Church and State means that government buildings shouldn't be owned and operated by churches and vice-versa.

:grr:

[northofdenali]

23. Oppressed. War on Christmas, Easter, et al -

[Deep13]

47. I guess we have a unique duty to STFU.

:(

[8 track mind]

5. jeeeze....

Where's the holy hand grenade of Antioch when you need it......
:sarcasm:

what a bunch of gullible rotters....

[awoke_in_2003]

93. Sorry...

the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch is not to be used in the war on christmas. We are saving it for the upcoming War on Easter :)

[shadowknows69]

6. Until JC comes back and says "Yep, it was true"

Then it is all myths and superstitions. Hate to break it to you.

[awoke_in_2003]

94. Yeah, but who will have time to listen...

[DesertFlower]

7. what happened to freedom of religion?

[AtheistCrusader]

8. ~$57 million dollars in property taxes forefeit by the state to religious institutions

for over 9,000 parcels of land statewide, and these @#$$%$#@@ers need to stick a nativity scene in my State Capitol Building? Get the $%^& out. Go worship your myths on your private property that the state taxes me to subsidize anyway.

I used to avoid crowds like the FFRF, having just been an agnostic, and even now, I suppose I still am basically an agnostic, because I am open to the possibility of proof, but damn it, I'm getting really angry at this crap. GET OUT OF MY GOVERNMENT. OUT YOU DEVILS, OUT!



The Westburo Baptist Church is on it's way to join in the festivities, so you can be sure there will be no repeat of this drama next year.

[norepubsin08]

18. Good for you

I live in Tacoma and am an active member in a Christian Church (very liberal and open to the GLBT community) but I can not stand all these "Christian" idiots trying to shove their point of view on everybody with my tax dollars.

[Festivito]

9. What if the tables were turned?

What if the Atheists came in with a sign saying there is no need to believe in a god and posted the saying I saw earlier, I forget what it is, it certainly sounded pleasant and thoughtful. In other words, nothing against any other religion.

The Christians on the other hand come in not with a benign display celebrating their beliefs but with statements about the myth of atheism as there are in the tired old expression no atheists in fox holes, and basically parallel all the negative things the FFRF atheists write and currently post in the capitol about other religions, only this time turning the tables, its the christians posting with attacks directly against the atheists.

Am I to guess that you would not be upset, that you would not congregate to protest the direct attacks against your belief that there need be no belief in god.

And, could you possibly say you would not protest that and yet there would appear what did in reality happen -- as a protest -- the poster that still attacks religious beliefs.

If yes, you would protest, can you relate to how they feel about the attack from FFRF?

[AtheistCrusader]

10. There is no way in hell I would drive all the way down to Olympia on a work day

With the roads iced up, in miserable weather, to get all grumpy about some people that believe in whatever. There are way more important things to be worrying about.

The FFRF's move, if I interpret it correctly, was exactly to create a firestorm of opinion. That sign was deliberately provocative. If that wasn't enough, it's attracted the attention of groups like the Westburo Baptist Church, the people who protest at gay and soldier funerals, with some of the most hateful filth you've ever seen. They are in the approval process for a display. If it is rejected, there will be a lawsuit.

One way or another, the State is either going to give equal time to all denominations (and non-denominations), or they are going to scrap this frankly wasteful tradition. I don't care that the scene was paid for by some group, one way or another, it's costing the state money. It's in a place it should not be. It needs to go. ALL of these displays need to go.

[Festivito]

11. What would hell be to an atheist?

Just wondering at the usage. Oh well. On to bigger badder things.

Yes, FFRF did want to create a firestorm, moreso, they did go to the trouble of protesting, and you say, you would not. I guess some will and some won't.

Thanks for the answer, but you leave one to wonder if you would come to protest if it weren't for iced up roads and miserable weather.

[AtheistCrusader]

14. ...

It was an intentional stab at humor with a popular figure of speech.


Would I go to protest on a workday, in nice weather? No. Weekend, hitch a ride or something, sure, i'd protest the improper insertion of a religious icon in a Government building. Sure. It doesn't belong there. Its presence is offensive. It needs to go. FFRF has chosen a course of action far more likely to shitcan it, than a simple protest.

[Festivito]

26. Ahhh. I get it now. Cute. Still how would you feel?

Do you feel? I really wonder. You respond in all action.

I'm glad you're willing to stand for what you believe, and have fun with it.

[Prophet 451]

25. hell for an athiest

Probably something like a tent revival.

[Festivito]

27. Probably. /nt

[NoPasaran]

30. More like being stuck on an elevator

Listening to that "Little Drummer Boy" song.

[awoke_in_2003]

95. I believe...

that has been made illegal by the Geneva Conventions :)

[NoPasaran]

109. Well, it IS Hell, after all

If it wasn't unpleasant, what would be the point?

[TankLV]

13. WTF?!?! Sarah Palin - is that you?

[Festivito]

28. Hopefully that's not your best shot. /nt

[norepubsin08]

19. Fucking whiny Christo-facists!

When you have the vast majority on your side it's easy to make a statement like that..it's by sticking your neck out that you make a real statement. How as a Christian if I were to put a sign on the Capitol lawn: "I apologize on behalf of all Christians for our intolerance towards others during the crusades, our arrogance during the Reformation, our turning a blind eye to the Holocaust and for more recently acting like bullies towards anybody who doesn't hold my view point"

[Festivito]

29. This thread exists to whine about Fucking whiny Christo-facists.

How dare they be upset about our attacking them on public property.

If I have this right, only atheists have a right to be upset, and that is whenever someone else shows themselves in public.

Answering questions with questions. It seems to make a slow process.

[mondo joe]

38. Sounds like every fucking day. What do you mean "if"? NT

[Festivito]

72. Can you name a place and time where this has happened?

Where a display was put in public by Christians that directly attacked other religions as false. I think you've just knee-jerked a response and really have no such occurrences in mind.

Further though, I would not mind if we did have public forums for discussion of religion. But, then I like the idea that we should have public time and space for displays of religions, including non-religions such as soft-atheism, hard-atheism, agnosticism, spinozaism, and on.

I don't like the idea that when someone has a display forum, that some opportunists come in and start acting like it is a discussion forum or a debate forum or a fight forum.

[mondo joe]

119. Try any 10 commandments display in any school or any court. NT

[Festivito]

125. You are correct. Not what I was looking for.

But, if this is what offends you, that 1st commandment, then fine.

I feel sadness for you.

[mondo joe]

127. The only sadness here is the obnoxious theocrats, and their enablers. NT

[Festivito]

130. How very very wrong. /nt

[SidDithers]

41. Can you give more detail about the "myth of atheism" please...nt

Sid

[Festivito]

70. Oh, you're a silly one, aren't you.

I suppose atheism has some historical information that shows the Bible as questionable. Historical evidence being just that, historical, means it does not prove anything, no matter how fervently held it may be--unless it's held by both sides. If that fervently held truth is denied by the other side that denial also denies the fervently held idea, and sometimes that hurts.

They called my idea a myth. Waaaahhhh.

I hope as a nation that respects the right to choose and practice religion, that we can get past the idea that someone else does not believe as we do, and does not practice as we do.

[awoke_in_2003]

96. Does the Bible...

have any historical information that shows that it is, indeed, unquestionable?

[Festivito]

97. Nothing is unquestionable. /nt

[JackRiddler]

50. Excellent question!

The answer is painfully obvious. Absolutely no one would show up to your hypothetical protest against a Christian sign attempting rational arguments against atheism.

This example shows us once again the utter fallacy of drawing a parallel between organized fanatics who demand universal allegiance to their hearsay accounts of fictional characters like Christ, and the application of reasonable skepticism to such faith-based assertions.

[Festivito]

69. How do you justify saying they would not, seeing that they did?

And, I'm not talking rational arguments, I'm talking curt name calling.

"That is a myth." ...without the supporting arguments.

When you go on to talk about the example, do you mean the hypothetical as an example, or the original FFRF poster? It can work both ways.

Once again, I noted that if your answer was no, how do you relate that to the actual happening actually having happened?

[JackRiddler]

98. You need to go argue this out with yourself for a while...

Or get an editor to fix up your writing until it makes sense. (Try using clear and specific referrents as your sentence subjects. You're welcome.)

[Festivito]

105. Perhaps if you'd give an inkling of where you became lost.

Was it the first sentence? Do you need me to elaborate upon it?

Glad to help.

[TankLV]

12. There are just no words for this to do it justice...except: FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, anyone?!?!

he's totally ignorant of the hypocrisy and irony in his statement

[Trajan]

15. Posting stories from your blog ....

Is not LBN ...

[Sultana]

20. LOL

I wondered about that....

[Richard Steele]

16. A wise man once said: "A firm blow above the eye might do that shithead some good".

I miss that wise old bastard more and more with every passing year.

[Orsino]

32. Proof the system works.

Well, sort of, anyway. The bright spot in this story is that our laws and courts keep would-be ayatollahs bloviating over signs, rather than amusing themselves with stonings.

But a public condemnation of religion was guaranteed to draw a crowd of protesters. I think I can be forgiven for suspecting that this might have been its only purpose. Don't the protesters get a little credit for keeping it peaceful?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

34. The Reverend Is Right. I Hope He Gives Them Hell!

What a bunch of immature morons that FFR foundation has. Bunch of intolerant assholes.

[GoneOffShore]

39. Did you forget the sarcasm thingie or are you just being your usual self?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

42. Couldn't Be More Serious. They're A Bunch Of Ignorant Scumbags.

I have no respect for such intolerance and stupidity. They are a disgraceful group.

[SidDithers]

43. Usual self...nt

Sid

[Deep13]

49. AGAIN, we have no duty to shut up.

Your argument is not only offensive in its own right, but dishonest. You have no qualms about intolerance being shown to those who are not believers. We get bombarded with faith messages all the time. One lousy sign of disagreement and suddenly we are the ones being immature.

FFR put that up because it disagrees with the religious message of Christmas. And because what the sign says happens to be factually true. In my view, messages that are accurate are morally superior to those founded on lies. I hold rationality as dearly as Christians hold their myths. Your ignorant remark assumes we don't, that we are just a bunch of trouble-making children and that people have a right to be shielded from dissenting ideas. You are wrong on each count. We are depriving others of their rights or sending people to hell for disagreement. We simply want to use our own rights because we hold rationality as dearly as Christians hold their imagined salvation.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

51. Fuck FFR. And I Will ALWAYS Speak Out Against The Intolerant.

They are pieces of antagonizing shit whose sole purpose is to antagonize and provoke those who choose to believe in a religion. They deserve zero respect and are intolerant closed minded jackasses. I hope they lose every fight.

[Deep13]

52. Wow, when did you learn you could read minds?

What an insane, dogmatic rant! I guess we have to be dehumanized as pieces of shit in order for you not to have any respect for us. It is the only way you can discount our reality-based arguments. You will excuse us, I hope, if we do not come quietly to the stake.

Their sole purpose is survival and the survival of rationality and secular democracy in this country. Your assumption that this is some stunt makes you willfully ignorant of the facts. I can see why you value religious delusion. It fits in perfectly to your abhorance of objective fact.

I suppose my doctor is close minded for not prescribing blood-letting. Speaking only for myself, I have long considered Christianity and have wasted many hours trying to square its circle of irrationality. It is not close minded to conclude something has failed when it has failed.

And we have no duty to be tolerant of demonstrably wrong ideas. Especially when it means shutting up about our own ideas in the process. I suppose you would be tolerant of racism, of geocentrism and of witch hunts. Christian theology explicitly supposts all three of those ideas. Religion is not another kind of rationality anymore than a military dictatorship is another kind of democracy. Would that your passion for tolerance be extended to a passion for the truth.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

53. FFR Is Nothing More Than An Ignorant, Intolerant, Closed Minded, Immature And Needlessly Provocative

organization that deserves no respect. Their signs accomplish nothing and the sole purpose is to incite those who choose to be religious. The signs are a mark of bigoted intolerance created by pieces of shit. I hope the group goes through hell.

In addition, the mere fact that you classify those who choose to believe in religion as delusional speaks volumes as to your own character and intolerance. You may choose to not believe and that is your right; much as it is their to choose to believe. Neither side can prove their case which is why anyone should be free to choose whatever they want to believe or not believe in, and not face ridicule or attack for it. It's a classic to each their own.

Those who choose to believe have no right to call you delusional for choosing not to, nor do you have a right to label them as such for choosing to. Shame on you for your closed mindedness and intolerance.

[Fumesucker]

56. I believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn

The proof of His power is that he can be both invisible and pink at the same time.

My belief is perfectly rational. :eyes:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

57. Wrong.

Your belief is intentionally far fetched, ridiculous and spiteful.

[Fumesucker]

58. No more farfetched than three, three, three gods in one..

The Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

59. Nor More Farfetched Than Thinking The Entire Universe Just Appeared Out Of Nowhere On Its Own.

:crazy:

[Fumesucker]

60. If every single thing requires a creator..

Then who or what created the creator of our universe?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

61. Don't Know, Don't Care.

All I know is that we don't have the firm answers one way or another, as to whether there is or isn't a god or how all things came to be. That's why an open mind and tolerance of what others choose to believe or not believe is a necessity and something agreed upon by any true intellectual.

[Fumesucker]

66. Your words, verbatim..

"That's why an open mind and tolerance of what others choose to believe or not believe is a necessity and something agreed upon by any true intellectual."

"Your belief is intentionally far fetched, ridiculous and spiteful."

Where's that open minded tolerance for the beliefs of others?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

67. "Your belief is intentionally far fetched, ridiculous and spiteful."

Read that part again. Therein lies your answer.

:dunce:

[Fumesucker]

71. I can understand why you would put on a dunce hat..

Given the way you trip over your own arguments.

And how is my belief "spiteful"?

Ridiculous and farfetched I can agree on, just like all religions.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

77. It Is Spiteful Because It Is An Intentionally Far-Fetched And Made Up Belief Created Merely To Mock.

It isn't something you truly believe.

And it is not me acting the part of a dunce, sir, considering your feigned naivety as it relates to the quote. :hi:

[Fumesucker]

80. All religious beliefs are made up..

And Christianity is particularly so in that they had committees to determine what was going to be in the Bible.

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

The First Council of Nicaea was held in Nicaea in Bithynia (present-day İznik in Turkey) and convoked by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in 325 AD. It is believed to have been the First Ecumenical council of the Christian Church by the Assyrian Church of the East, the Oriental Orthodox, the Eastern Orthodox, the Roman Catholics, the Old Catholics, and a number of other Western Christian groups. Most significantly, it resulted in the first uniform Christian doctrine, called the Nicene Creed. With the creation of the creed, a precedent was established for subsequent general (ecumenical) councils of Bishops' (Synods) to create statements of belief and canons of doctrinal orthodoxy— the intent being to define unity of beliefs for the whole of Christendom. From Koine Greek oikoumenikos, "ecumenical" literally means worldwide but generally is assumed to be limited to the Roman Empire, as in Augustus' claim to be ruler of the oikoumene/world; the earliest extant uses of the term for a council are Eusebius' Life of Constantine 3.6<1> around 338 "σύνοδον οἰκουμενικὴν συνεκρότει" (he convoked an Ecumenical council), Athanasius' Ad Afros Epistola Synodica in 369<2>, and the Letter in 382 to Pope Damasus I and the Latin bishops from the First Council of Constantinople<3>.

The purpose of the council was to resolve disagreements arising from within the Church of Alexandria over the nature of Jesus in relationship to the Father; in particular, whether Jesus was of the same substance as God the Father or merely of similar substance. St. Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius took the first position; the popular presbyter Arius, from whom the term Arian controversy comes, took the second. The council decided against the Arians overwhelmingly (of the estimated 250–318 attendees, all but two voted against Arius<1>).

Another result of the council was an agreement on when to celebrate the Resurrection, the most important feast of the ecclesiastical calendar. The council decided in favour of celebrating the resurrection on the first Sunday after the first full moon following the vernal equinox, independently of the Hebrew Calendar (see also Quartodecimanism and Easter controversy). It authorized the Bishop of Alexandria (presumably using the Alexandrian calendar) to announce annually the exact date to his fellow bishops.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

82. Beliefs By Definition Are Not Fact, Or They Would Be Knowledge. Therefore, All Beliefs Are Opinion.

That does not, however, make those beliefs nonfactual. It just makes them not yet proven.

And what you referenced was merely a coming together of agreement as to which already held beliefs should be the ones to go forward with in unity.

Furthermore, 'religious beliefs' also does not mean believing everything in the bible literally, though you seem to be under this ignorant notion that it somehow does.

No one knows for certain whether god does or doesn't exist, and if so in what form or under what intentions or rules. That is why it is a necessity to maintain an open mind as it relates to religion and the concept of the existence of some form of god, while practicing tolerance and not belittling those who share different views. In this case, FFR is completely violating that code and should be ashamed of themselves, except for the fact that they are a bunch of trouble making intolerant ignoramuses who are doing what they are doing with purposeful intent to incite and enrage, so their recognition of being worthy of shame is likely not going to be something their small minds will discover.

[Fumesucker]

88. So you have no way of proving my beliefs are non factual..

Despite the insult you wrote earlier.

Thanks for admitting that.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

91. Sure I Do. It's Called Common Friggin Sense.

Have you heard of it?

Do you expect anybody here with even a modicum of intellect or common sense to be convinced you believe in what you stated for even a second? There is nothing more readily available to society to acknowledge fact than mere obviousness. :hi:

[GoneOffShore]

120. "Common Sense"

Meh.

[Fumesucker]

124. So you do understand my point, thanks for admitting it..

Common sense is what lets me know religions, all religions, are bullshit.

For some odd reason you can see this with *my* religion but not with say, Mormonism.

[Deep13]

62. Here "provocative" = exposing them to a different opinion.

That is the whole point of democracy--free and open discussion. People have no right to have their ideas go unchallenged. I'm not talking about tearing down religious buildings or objects. I'm not talking about any kind of censorship as you are. All we want is to be heard. Obviously, we can never hope to preserve a secular government and a rational society if people believe they owe more to god than they do to the Constitution. The only way to get people to think more and believe less is to change their minds. So I don't see why this is "unnecessarily" provokative. We have limited resources (unlike tax exempt churches which tell people how to vote on pain of eternal torment) and need to take opportunities for expression when they come. Let's face it, not everyone is going to read a book-length critical argument.

Please demonstrate that religious views deserve a special right to be respected without justification when no other kind of opinion or idea enjoys that defence. If I concede that religious beliefs are reasonable and valid, I am being "unfaithful" to my own beliefs. You would not ask a Jew to affirm the divinity of Jesus, yet you expect me to recognize that divinity is a legitimate concept when it is not. Are Jews who insist on putting a Menorah next to the nativity or Christmas tree being intolerant or needlessly provocative. The only actual bigotry exhibited here is by you. I am not suggesting any curtailing of freedom of religion or freedom of speech by religious people. Nevertheless, you insist we stop expressing ours.

Ultimately, it is a social convention that arose to avoid uncomfortable conclusions in response to uncomfortable answers because religious views really are indefensible. If your response to criticism is "shut up" one has to wonder why you are so afraid of critical examination in the first place. Fortunately, I have and intend to use the legal right of freedom of speech regardless of what your opinion is.

Sorry, PC does not overturn known facts. I DO have a right to label it as delusional if it is so. A delusion is a persistant belief contrary to known facts. I am not implying any psychiatric disorder. I know for a fact that not every animal lives within walking distance of Noah's house. I know for a fact the universe is not geocentric. I know for a fact that offering ones daughters to a mob to be raped is wrong, just like I know that allowing Isaac to live after insisting he be sacrificed is not mercy. I know that evolution as we see it cannot happen with divine intervention. What is more, however, I know that people are not born evil and even if we were, murdering an innocent man makes us more evil, not less so. And I know that the moral message of Jesus is NOT original, revolutionary for its time or even all that compelling compared to other ethical systems then in existence. And I know believing in divine mandate does not make a bad idea good.


So curse all you want. We skeptics had a right to speak out and we do not need your approval to do so. The next time some church stands in the way of some needed form of social progress, just remember, you are part of the problem.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

64. FFR Is Nothing More Than An Ignorant, Intolerant, Closed Minded, Immature And Needlessly Provocative

organization that deserves no respect. Their signs accomplish nothing and the sole purpose is to incite those who choose to be religious. The signs are a mark of bigoted intolerance created by pieces of shit. I hope the group goes through hell.

In addition, the mere fact that you classify those who choose to believe in religion as delusional speaks volumes as to your own character and intolerance. You may choose to not believe and that is your right; much as it is their to choose to believe. Neither side can prove their case which is why anyone should be free to choose whatever they want to believe or not believe in, and not face ridicule or attack for it. It's a classic to each their own.

Those who choose to believe have no right to call you delusional for choosing not to, nor do you have a right to label them as such for choosing to. Shame on you for your closed mindedness and intolerance.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

76. Truth Hurts Ya That Much Huh? Thanks For The Laugh!

:rofl:

:hi:

[ieoeja]

84. Just responding to insults with insults.

You'd think the mod who deleted "Fuck You, Asshole" would also delete "Ignorant, Intolerant, Closed Minded, Immature".

Actually, I expect this entire sub-thread *will* be deleted at some point.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

89. My Comments Were Towards An External Organization.

Your comments were directed towards a DU member. Big difference kid. :hi:

[ieoeja]

92. Well, in that case ...

Fuck those Christians who think Atheists are ignorant, intolerant, closed minded, and immature just for demanding equal time for their beliefs in the public forum.

Except you, of course. I only want to tell off members of that external religion who happen to hold the same opinion as you.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

100. Ignorance On Display.

First of all, I'm not a christian. :think:

Second of all, no one called atheists ignorant, intolerant, closed minded nor immature. I, for one, would NEVER say such a thing.

What was being referenced was an extremist group of intolerant individuals who set out to incite and provoke for reasons no deeper than immature spite. They may be atheists, but they do not DEFINE atheists. They are fringe closed minded morons. To equate them with atheism or atheists in general is just plain short sighted and wildly inaccurate.

[Goblinmonger]

141. Oh, No, you would NEVER say such a thing

Your ad hom attacks are MUCH more veiled than that. My goodness, you wouldn't actually want to come out and say what you think because someone who would hypothetically do that might look like an even bigger asshole than someone who just made hypothetical veiled attacks (notice I am NOT calling out a specific DUer but commenting about a fictional, hypothetical one).

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

144. Of Course I Would Never Say Such A Thing. I'm Firmly Against Intolerance And Bigotry And It Would

be highly ignorant for me to call atheists such things. Atheists are regular good hearted people like anyone else and I would never be so closed minded and moronic to lump them all together into a singular group like so many here do as it relates to other things.

So again, like I mentioned in my most recent reply, your perception is fatally flawed.

[Goblinmonger]

152. Hey folks, he'll be here all year.

Try the veal. Don't forget to tip your servers.

[Deep13]

99. Two points, even though you say nothing new here.

First, it is neither bigoted nor intolerant. Bigoted means it is the result of prejudice--making assumptions about someone without really knowing. The veracity of the claims of the Christian religion have been thoroughly explored. To put is mildly, those claims have a rather limited validity. This is judgment after knowing the facts.

Likewise, it is not intolerant. First let me put to bed the idea that tolerating people--reluctantly suffering their presence--is not a lofty aim. Acceptance is what we should be aiming for. Nothing I have argued and nothing that FFR is arguing is contrary to the idea that differences among people should be accepted. We are talking about ideas, not people. I can disagree with the Kosher diet and still respect Jews as people. You seem to be assuming that a challenge to ones ideas are the same as an ad hominem attack on the person. It is not. Religion is not like race, gender, ethnicity or orientation because it is a learned way of thinking and not part of a person's being. One can change his or her mind about religion--I did--in a way that is not possible with skin color, for example. That is an example. The point is that ideas are never integral to ones status as a person despite the fact that some truly bigotted people try to make it so. (Select the religious pogrom of your choice as an example).

That FFR sign simply states an opinion and contains no ad hominem attacks on any person. People may choose to be offended by the disagreement if they want, but the message itself is neither intolerant nor bigotted.

The second point is that you are attacking the messanger. You have not claimed that anything the sign says or anything I have argued is either factually or logically wrong. Instead, your whole argument is an ad hominem attack aimed at denigrating and even dehumanizing those who disagree.

I suspect what this is really about is that we seek to turn people from the LORD. I understand your position and your need to cling to your religion for hope and emotional support during difficult times. I was the same way when I suffered a loss and back-slide into religious thinking. It is only human to seek familiar comforts when suffering. Eventually my greiving subsided and I had to recognize my ecclesiastical attachment for what it was, a temporary crutch. Well, you know the metaphore--a crutch helps us walk, but prevents us from running. So, I do understand.

[Gwendolyn]

148. It's the act of powerless, childish people.

The school voucher program and faith-based initiatives will bring us closer to the dominionists' dream than any celebration of anyone's religion ever will.

Yet this group uses donation money to ignore the possibility of actually educating people on how dangerous those initiatives are, in favor of attacking the festivals of religious people. How stupid. And they sure as hell don't speak for me.

[Deep13]

151. I agree with the first adjective.

Frankly, this would not have been my first choice as a line in the sand either. It does not seem to be calculated for any positive effect. I suspect it may have been conceived in the same school of thought as "silence = death" or "we're here, we're queer, get used to it." It may also be an effort to seem less scary to people. But I'm just guessing there. The ONLY reason the sign is offensive is because it is assumed that one does not openly disagree without someone else's stated religion, especially if it is Christianity. Itcan be seen as an effort to join the festivities. At some point (and this example probably isn't it) skeptics have to move the argument from one of policy on specific matters and attack the root of the problem: the irrational belief that fuels the bad policy in the first place. We can't do that if we are unwilling to rock the boat. Right now the theocrats are on track to take over. All we need is for Justice Stevens to have a bad day and Scalia will have a majority. If nothing is allowed to change, we lose.

[Goblinmonger]

87. Do you hate the ACLU, too?

Your reactions to this topic make you come across as a caricature; you know that, right?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

90. The ACLU Puts Up Billboards Like That? Who Knew!

:crazy:

[Goblinmonger]

107. No, but the ACLU

supports the same actions and enforcement of constitutional rights that the FFRF does.

:crazy: :crazy:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

114. It's Not Their Enforcement Of Constitutional Rights That's The Problem Here.

Now you're just changing the subject to something completely different than the action being discussed in the OP and others like it.

[Goblinmonger]

131. How am I possibly changing the subject?

You hate what the FFRF is doing.
I asked if you hate the ACLU, too.
You said the ACLU doesn't have anything to do with this type of sign.
I said that they have and do support these actions.

If you are going to toss venom toward the FFRF, then you need to toss some at the ACLU. I'm just asking if you hate the ACLU yet. And this display is ALL ABOUT constitutional rights. If you don't get that, then you probably need to take a step back.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

137. Get Back To Me When The ACLU Pays For Billboards That Say Such Things.

:think:

[Goblinmonger]

138. What that's just a silly standard.

How about you get back to me when the Catholic Church creates anti-matter? (get it, it's not what they do)

I can get back to you when the ACLU defends those (which is what they actually do, by the way, defending people in court) that put up the billboards, ok?

I'm getting back to you because they do, and have, defended those people.

Don't be so deliberately obtuse.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

139. Once Again, You've Completely Missed The Point.

I have never stated they didn't have the constitutional right to do such, and like the ACLU I totally defend their legal right to voice their opinion. But just because they CAN, doesn't mean they're not a bunch of moronic, ignorant, intolerant and bigoted piece of shit assholes for doing so. Can you draw the distinction between the two concepts? Thus far you have failed to do so; but there is definitely a significant distinction. Hopefully you can grasp it this time.

[Goblinmonger]

140. If an atheist on this board

said half they stuff you say about atheists about a believer, you would pop an stroke at just the thought of it.

Well, just to continue and see how much vile crap you will be allowed to get away with, could you possibly point out how anything in that sign was bigoted. If you want, you can reply to my reply to your buddy where I ask the same thing after giving the full text. Seems there was no response there for specifics either.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

143. I've Never Uttered A Single Bad Word About Atheists Nor Would. Your Perception Is Fatally Flawed.

[Arugula Latte]

122. Speak out against yourself, then.

Pot, meet kettle.

[Name removed]

147. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Nye Bevan]

35. Why do you say "mob"?

"Mob" means "unruly". Were the protesters hitting people with crucifixes or going wild? Or did you just use the word "mob" to make the protesters sound bad?

[greguganus]

40. Beat me to it. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

44. Anyone following hate preacher

Hutcherson is part of a mob. They are organized thugs, who attack my family daily, with money and words and politics. Mob is a fine choice of words for such people.
Their objective is to silence the free speech of others today, and to destroy the civil rights of my family asap. Mob is actually a nice word for such people. They should feel complimented to be called a mob. They are in fact a gang.

[Bluenorthwest]

45. No, a mob can be unruly, but that is not what mob means

One of the meanings of 'mob' is of course 'organized crime syndicate'. Hence 'the Mob'. The word also means 'disorderly group of people' and man are these folks out of order when they want to shove dogma down my throat, disorderly as can be.
No dictionary will tell you that 'mob' means unruly. Unruly means boisterous, or uncontrollable, and does not imply violence nor 'going wild'. A classroom of kindergarteners can be unruly. A head of hair. It is an adjective. Mob is a noun.
An organized group coming after the rights of others is a mob. Perhpas a controlled mob, or an unruly mob, or a rag tag mob. An organized mob. An angry mob. A celebratory mob.

[Fumesucker]

75. I thought a mob was a group of kangaroos? n/t

[SidDithers]

36. As far as I'm concerned, the Rapture can't come soon enough...

A pox on all their houses.

Sid

[nichomachus]

48. I think most of these people will experience

a rupture long before they see a rapture.

[Dukkha]

54. oh ye of little faith

so frightened by an insignificant non-threatening little sign. A sad pathetic mob who's faith is so razor thin it can not stand up the the slightest level of scrutiny.

[KittyWampus]

55. That sign wasn't "athiest" it was "anti-theist". It intentionally attacked theists rather than

express the beliefs of its own members in positive terms.

It doesn't say much about these particular anti-theists that they were unable to express their opinions without OVERTLY disparaging others.

[DonEBrook]

63. And the theists have such a stellar record of never disparaging others.

I cannot tell you, as a gay person, what a monumental relief it is to know that.

[KittyWampus]

102. Oh goodie, the "but he did it first" argument. And meanwhile, atheists are supposed to be rational

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

115. !

:applause:

[ieoeja]

74. How would you express those beliefs in postitive terms? n/t

[Bill McBlueState]

81. you're onto something

I would appreciate hearing from the more extreme religious believers on this board: "What would be a positive, acceptable message to express the belief that there are no gods?"

Because the impression I usually get from religious believers is that to say there are no gods is prima facie offensive.

[ieoeja]

83. Same here.

Furthermore, their message isn't just "there is a God", but rather they tout all the positive attributes of their God and how much better we would be believing and worshipping their God.

So that "positive" message from us would have to include all the positive attributes of there being no God and how much better everyone would be rejecting blind faith.

Bit of a trick doing that in a non-insulting manner.

[Goblinmonger]

86. DEAD FUCKING SPOT ON

To quote someone. What they want is for us to shut up. Then they will have no problem with us.

[KittyWampus]

106. Ah, no. How about just expressing what you believe without being assholes about it?

The majority of what was on the sign in question was ANTI-Religion and said nothing about what the people posting actually thought about the Universe.

It was mostly a miniature diatribe against what others believe.

[Goblinmonger]

132. Give me a break.

Let's take a look at the text of the sign and see if it actually meets your test about saying "nothing about what the people posting actually thought about the universe."

At this season of the Winter Solstice, may reason prevail.

Hmmm, sounds like a pretty clear statement about thoughts of the universe. They want a place where reason prevails. Kind of an age old emotion vs. reason debate. Look to literature, philosophy, etc for other instances of this debate.

There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world.

Wow, if that isn't a clear statement about what they think about the universe, I don't know what they would have to do to please you. But apparently saying there ARE gods, devils, angels, heaven, and hell is OK, but saying the contrary to that is just assholeishness. Interesting line in the sand you draw there. Any chance you can clarify?

Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.

My guess is this is the part you are pissed about. Which goes back to my original question: why is it OK to put up symbolism (and often text) that outright says that Jesus is the Savior of the Universe and brings peace and love to all that follow him but it isn't OK to say that that might not be true? And it clearly meets your test of saying what they actually think about the universe. They think that religion may not always be a force for good. Why can expression that says "religion is good" be acceptable and not the counter to that?

My challenge to you: Talk about what I actually posted without just resorting to ad homs.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

101. There's No Reason To Influence Others To Be Atheist To Begin With.

Other religions have valid reasons for wanting to promote a message, since they actually believe in something and do so with good intentions. Atheists have no such belief. They are entitled to not believe but there is no gain in their trying to recruit others. There's nothing to promote.

What the message of atheists should be is that of tolerance. Not only of tolerance towards all religions, but also of tolerance for those who choose not to subscribe to any. Their message should be one of unity and togetherness and an end to the stigma those that believe put upon them. The message can be positive in the sense of "Atheists are just as moral as those who believe" or "Don't believe in God? You're not alone" etc. But to turn it into a campaign war against religion is simply intolerant and moronic, with the only purpose being to divide and incite. It is sheer ignorance and shameful what they are doing.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

112. You're dodging the question.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=4514680

You seem to have a problem with any atheists expressing themselves, no matter how innocuous and tolerant the message.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

116. I Didn't Dodge The Question At All. In Fact, I Directly Addressed It.

That other thread's sign would be addressed by my comments as well.

[KittyWampus]

104. Again, how fucked up is it that you feel a need to state what there IS NOT, rather than what is

you've nicely illustrated how reactionary the statement made was.

[charlie]

113. "There are no WMDs"

How cheeky. What impertinence.

[KittyWampus]

103. Pretty simple: "We believe in the Human capacity for Observing the Universe and using Reason

to discern Universal Principles which can be used for the Common Good".

That pretty much covers Atheism and Humanism, doesn't it?

Without once mentioning Religion?

[ieoeja]

129. You could believe people LACK everything you just said and still be an Atheist.

Atheism is the belief that there is no God. So no, that didn't even come close.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

78. DEAD FUCKING SPOT ON!!!

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[anonymous171]

79. Regardless of the tone of the sign, the State is required to allow it.

[KittyWampus]

108. The State sure as heck isn't required to allow a sign that overtly and purposely insults others.

If Atheists want to express what they believe about the Universe, go right ahead.

The state has no responsibility in enabling a bigoted screed AGAINST other citizens.

[Goblinmonger]

110. Unless that belief is that religion

is just mythology, apparently.

Please explain how the sign was bigoted. Be specific, please.

[Goblinmonger]

85. So then Christian symbolism

which is basically saying that we should rejoice at the arrival of the Savior Jesus Christ is not theist, but "anti-atheist" (by the way, learn to spell that which you are planning to decry) because it attacks those that don't believe that JC is the savior.

What a bunch of shit. How about Christians learn that they are not the center of the universe and that, when up in a state-sponsored arena, all voices need to be allowed to be heard. Grow up.

[KittyWampus]

111. Obnoxious Theists and Anti-Theists (like yourself) both need to grow up and respect others.

Basically, you and others use the jerks in the Theist camp as an excuse to be jerks yourselves.

That is reactionary, divisive and unhelpful.

But Mooooooom, Johnny hit me first.... :eyes:

[mondo joe]

128. Sounds like your idea of being respected is that no one will say anything you disagree with. NT

[hfojvt]

142. theirs was a display that says basically "Hooray for Jesus"

True, there is typically a lot of other stuff that comes with it, but none of that is explicit in a nativity scene celebrating the event.

The atheists didn't just say "Hurray for Newton" or "Hooray for logic", or celebrate their lack of belief, they went beyond that to say "religion sucks". Not just "I don't believe X is true" but also "I believe people who believe X is true have hard hearts and enslaved minds". Considering that the Christmas season is sacred to those people, somewhat similar to a wedding, a 50th anniversary celebration, or a funeral, feeling the need to publicize your beliefs that you know will be offensive at this of all times, comes very close to being like Fred Phelps who feels the need to exercise his free speech at funerals.

[kiranon]

65. This is why there needs to be a separation of church and state.

Those who seek to put their religion in a government setting almost always want to exclude all others. Maybe they will learn from this experience that it is best to keep religion out of the public square.

[fascisthunter]

117. sounds fair to me

[Gwendolyn]

118. I'm an atheist and don't approve of fighting fire with fire.

If you find something ridiculous, why go into their ring to fight it? It's childish.

I find it stupid to attempt to change peoples' minds by making feces all over their worship items. It doesn't work and only consolidates their fear, and apprehension of others. Besides, they always make the effort to decorate the village green somehow for the winter solstice. Would we lazy atheists ever do such a thing? No,

There are plenty of more intelligent ways to spend money to educate people.

[Arugula Latte]

123. The truth hurts, eh, Christo-fascists? nt

[Mudoria]

126. Mob?

:eyes:

[Matariki]

133. The problem with the sign is that Athiests can't seem to express their belief

without ridiculing other people's beliefs. Or at least the Atheists that put up that sign.

[Fumesucker]

145. But many theists take any expression of disbelief at all as an insult..

Not to mention that the sign was deliberately provocative in order to make a point.

The point being that religious displays have no business on government property.

[TexasObserver]

146. This is a recurring theme: Theists have a right to have their beliefs honored, but atheists don't.

The person who is rational cannot speak without having this kind of angry, hostile reaction from the God warriors, but the person who worships a myth demands that others respect this delusion.

There isn't a shred of evidence Jesus was born anywhere near December 25th. It's a holiday early Christians stole from pagans, and even now, it is not about Jesus, or the lessons he taught. If the people who yell and scream about having their Christian beliefs honored had even one iota of Jesus in their game, they wouldn't be whining.

If Christians were remotely like Jesus, they wouldn't be celebrating as a religious holiday December 25th, and they damn sure wouldn't be whining about people who reject their beliefs. I wish they'd quit trying to connect their personal prejudices to Jesus, who was nothing like Christians in America today.

[Evoman]

149. Take down the atheist sign....then take down the religious bullshit. Pretty fucking simple.

The problem is that bigot religious people want to put their bullshit ideas on display and refuse other people the same right.

Take down all motherfucking signs, displays, and paraphanelia on public property and there is no fucking problem.

[SidDithers]

150. Here's the sign...

Sid

[Goblinmonger]

153. Get the torches

let's lynch the bastards.