atheists going too far?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iris lily

it's not that big of a deal,

---

Exactly my point.

From the beginning.

Out of curiosity, just to see how "big of a deal" this was, I searched NewsBank for all 69 covered New York state news sources for mention of this topic. I came up with one. Just one. That's how overblown this whole thing is. Here is the article. Note not a single mention of atheists anywhere....

================================================== ============

STREET HONOR FOR 9/11 RED HOOK 7

New York Post (NY) - Sunday, June 12, 2011

Author: Joe Walker and Cynthia R. Fagen

Families of the seven Red Hook firefighters killed on 9/11 gathered outside their Brooklyn firehouse yesterday for the renaming of Richard Street as Seven in Heaven Way .

Aidan McShane, a West Islip, LI, high-school junior whose dad, Terrence, was among those killed from Ladder Co. 101/Engine Co. 202, did the honors.

"I love seeing these guys because they remind me of my dad," he said as some 50 firefighters stood at attention in front of the "Raiders" firehouse.

Lt. Joe Gullickson and firefighters Pat Byrne, Brian Cannizzaro, Sal Colobro, Tom Kennedy and Joe Maffeo were also lost that day.

Here is an argument for strict separation of church and state...from an entirely different point of view.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/0...ner/?hpt=hp_c1

Quote:

---

Although there certainly are diverse viewpoints among individual Mennonites today, we continue to advocate for the strict separation of church and state. Most Mennonite churches do not have flags inside them, and many Mennonites are uncomfortable with the ritual embedded in the singing of the national anthem.

That’s because we recognize only one Christian nation, the church, the holy nation that is bound together by a living faith in Jesus rather than by man-made, blood-soaked borders.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by catherine

Here is an argument for strict separation of church and state...from an entirely different point of view.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/0...ner/?hpt=hp_c1

---

YES! This has been what I have been trying to say all along - that irregardless of what "I" believe, it's important to recognize and support the beliefs of others even if I don't like it. And because we can't worship in just one way in a public setting like a school without infringing on the beliefs of others, it's important to keep religion out of government - and government out of religion. So, unlike Storyteller, I feel this IS a very important topic. Like most people here - and probably most of the protesting Atheists - I really could care less about the actual name of the street sign. But it's what that the street sign represents that is important - like seperation of church and state, freedom to protest, etc... - that they were protesting about, not really the name.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartana

YES! This has been what I have been trying to say all along - that irregardless of what "I" believe, it's important to recognize and support the beliefs of others even if I don't like it. And because we can't worship in just one way in a public setting like a school without infringing on the beliefs of others, it's important to keep religion out of government - and government out of religion. So, unlike Storyteller, I feel this IS a very important topic. Like most people here - and probably most of the protesting Atheists - I really could care less about the actual name of the street sign. But it's what that the street sign represents that is important - like seperation of church and state, freedom to protest, etc... - that they were protesting about, not really the name.

---

There is no requirement to separate religion from government, only that there can be no state sponsored or sanctioned religion. Allowing a religious display or event on public property is not a violation as long as all religions are given the same consideration.

I agree that this is a very important topic because it allows a dialog which can help dispel mis-conceptions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alan

There is no requirement to separate religion from government, only that there can be no state sponsored or sanctioned religion. Allowing a religious display or event on public property is not a violation as long as all religions are given the same consideration.

---

I completely agree with that interpretation...so far. One curious point it brings up is representation at these public events and places. Does this interpretation mean that, say Rastafarians should expect to be represented at the same level as Christians in the US? Several thousand people having the same consideration as a few hundred million? Or does it get pro-rated based on followers? The practical aspect is probably that there would likely not be a lot of Rastafarian valedictorians wanting to quote the Kebra Nagast outside the very few areas in this country where that group of people tends to live, but what if there was? Sounds a little odd, I know, but I'm curious to work through that one because I don't know the answer.

It's simple, if a Rastafarian valedictorian wants to quote the Kebra Nagast, let her/him. If I am a Christian, it does me no harm to hear someone express their different faith. I'm not sure why a secular humanist or atheist would be offended by someone else's expression of faith, regardless of the venue.

I'm good with that, Alan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alan

It's simple, if a Rastafarian valedictorian wants to quote the Kebra Nagast, let her/him. If I am a Christian, it does me no harm to hear someone express their different faith. I'm not sure why a secular humanist or atheist would be offended by someone else's expression of faith, regardless of the venue.

---

It's not that they/we are offended. Actually the ones who get offended are the good little Christians who get their knickers in a twist when anyone else wants to express their faith. Remember the 'ground zero mosque'? Which actually wasn't at ground zero or a mosque. Remember when it was rumored that a Muslim member of congress was going to be sworn in on the Koran? The biggest stink came from those champions of free speech/religion, the Christians.
That's the offensive part. It's the slippery slope of religion. It's used now as a litmus test for public office. At least for republicans. And where all politicians used to keep quiet about their religious life, it's used now openly to 'bash' people with. Think about how often President Obama's detractors mention (falsely) that he is a Muslim. It's said with disdain, along with his full name (just in case you didn't get it the first time) as an indictment. It's not atheist saying this. It's the Christians throwing red meat to the low information voters.

You and I both know that if a valedictorian were to read a prayer from the Koran, the ones up in arms wouldn't be the atheist. It would be the parents of all the little christian kids who would protest, withdraw their kids from school then appear Monday morning on Fox and Friends to be the persecuted christian du jour.

Personally I have no problem with religious displays in the park, as long as the Druids are allowed to dance at midnight, or whatever they do, in the same park.

Frankly, for all you who say there isn't an issue, I'd just love for a Rastafarian or Muslim valedictorian to say a prayer from their book. Then we can see if there is an issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peggy

It's not that they/we are offended. Actually the ones who get offended are the good little Christians who get their knickers in a twist when anyone else wants to express their faith. Remember the 'ground zero mosque'? Which actually wasn't at ground zero or a mosque. Remember when it was rumored that a Muslim member of congress was going to be sworn in on the Koran? The biggest stink came from those champions of free speech/religion, the Christians.
That's the offensive part. It's the slippery slope of religion. It's used now as a litmus test for public office. At least for republicans. And where all politicians used to keep quiet about their religious life, it's used now openly to 'bash' people with. Think about how often President Obama's detractors mention (falsely) that he is a Muslim. It's said with disdain, along with his full name (just in case you didn't get it the first time) as an indictment. It's not atheist saying this. It's the Christians throwing red meat to the low information voters.

You and I both know that if a valedictorian were to read a prayer from the Koran, the ones up in arms wouldn't be the atheist. It would be the parents of all the little christian kids who would protest, withdraw their kids from school then appear Monday morning on Fox and Friends to be the persecuted christian du jour.

Personally I have no problem with religious displays in the park, as long as the Druids are allowed to dance at midnight, or whatever they do, in the same park.

Frankly, for all you who say there isn't an issue, I'd just love for a Rastafarian or Muslim valedictorian to say a prayer from their book. Then we can see if there is an issue.

---

Peggy, I think we're talking about two different things. One is whether or not government should be restricting free expressions of religious faith in the public square; Two is whether or not people who may be offended should expect the government to protect them from offense.

My take on both is NO. What do you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peggy

...

You and I both know that if a valedictorian were to read a prayer from the Koran, the ones up in arms wouldn't be the atheist...

---

Oh I don't know peggy, this athiest might raise a stink for the entertainment value of it. Having grown tired a long time ago of Christian bashing, I think some representation of the other side just keeps things--balanced? Lively? Pig poking?