For the first time in America (USA), a government building is going to honour an atheist monument. It is a courthouse that already has the ten commandments as a monument but will now allow an atheist bench to be put in its compound as well, This was as a result of an atheist group suing the government for allowing religious symbols in a government house. The compromise was that they would allow all symbols rather than remove the ten commandments.



[img]http://politix.topix.com/img/SQND9RR9RRPO8KOA-rszw514[/img]



Fox News discusses the atheist bench (Father Morris, Tucker Carlson and the rest of Fox n Friends)



On Fox News, Tucker Carlson first claims that atheism is a "specie of religion" and it is hypocritical for atheists to have their symbol in the courthouse when they are against having religious symbols.

Then, Father Morris claims that the the 10 commandments were at the courthouse because truth and jsutice are gotten from religious revelation. Father Morris said that the atheist bench is disrespectful and it is a protest against christianity

At the end, Tucker Carlson says that "the atheist monument will be a magnet for graffiti". Then Father Morris replies "I hope not". Then, Tucker Carlson says "I do".

==========================================================================
My opinion

This clearly highlights the persecution complex and victim syndrome that many christians suffer from. They know that America is a secular government and that they have been bullying the public by having religious symbols in the courthouse. They know that separation of church and state demands that religion should be removed from government, yet they still complain. Instead of accepting that atheists have every right to have their symbols, they claim that atheists are persecuting them.


Furthermore, there is this lie claiming that atheism is a religion. Atheism is not a religion and they atheist monument is that of a particular atheist group who want equality. Atheism has no symbols to be exact.


Source; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/03/tucker-carlson-atheist-monument-graffiti_n_3380958.html

Okay. So the American government is sued for allowing a religious monument but a monument espousing an atheistic philosophy is acceptable. Methinks someone wants to smuggle his/her worldview into the system.

Correction: Atheism has been symbolized with the scarlet A, an atom (as seen on the bench picture) and a pink unicorn.

Uyi Iredia: Okay. So the American government is sued for allowing a religious monument but a monument espousing an atheistic philosophy is acceptable. Methinks someone wants to smuggle his/her worldview into the system.

Correction: Atheism has been symbolized with the scarlet A, an atom (as seen on the bench picture) and a pink unicorn.

Read the full article from the source. You will understand that the atheist group wanted the 10 commandments to be removed. An offer to keep it and also add an atheist monument was given and they took it.

3 things you are ignorant
-The primary goal was a separation of church and state. Upholding the law
-Atheism is not a religion. Neither is there a symbol for atheism. What symbol did Stalin use?
-Your 10 commandments was breaking the law on the courthouse compound

wiegraf: They shouldn't peddle to either interest imo, impossible as that may sound. They should have gotten rid of the 10 commandments, end of. Lady Justice is (supposedly) blind for good reason.

Oh, and silly faux news. Entertaining $hit, but not sure why they call it 'news'.

The atheist group had to compromise. They could have won the court case but would have spent more money fighting it. This doesnt mean that the future generation cant still sue

Logicboy03:



The atheist group had to compromise. They could have won the court case but would have spent more money fighting it. This doesnt mean that the future generation cant still sue

Yeah, they're simply being practical. Not judging them per say, but it still disgusts me that the commandments (or anything similar) are there. They really shouldn't be.

They should just get rid of the ten commandments and end this silly farce.

Religion and government are a deadly combination that should never be allowed to mix. Just because some ignorant American Christians have failed to understand this despite their founding fathers basically spelling it out for them doesn't mean that better informed people shouldn't take action to stop their country from going to the dogs.

Anybody who thinks he has "won" because his government supports his religion is a mɵrɵn. You people need to read up on the history of Europe during the dark ages and stop supporting this nonsense.

wiegraf:

Yeah, they're simply being practical. Not judging them per say, but it still disgusts me that the commandments (or anything similar) are there. They really shouldn't be.

You are not the only one bro, It pains me as well!



Can you imagine the azzhole reverent father claiming that the atheist bench is disrespectful? The hypocrisy and arrogance! The reverend father is too arrogant to realise that his 10 commandments in the courthouse is disrespectful to the millions of non-christian taxpayers whose taxes pay to keep the courthouse in session

Evil Brain: They should just get rid of the ten commandments and end this silly farce.

Religion and government are a deadly combination that should never be allowed to mix. Just because some ignorant American Christians have failed to understand this despite their founding fathers basically spelling it out for them doesn't mean that better informed people shouldn't take action to stop their country from going to the dogs.

Anybody who thinks he has "won" because his government supports his religion is a mɵrɵn. You people need to read up on the history of Europe during the dark ages and supporting this nonsense.

Gbam

Logicboy03:
Read the full article from the source. You will understand that the atheist group wanted the 10 commandments to be removed. An offer to keep it and also add an atheist monument was given and they took it.

They should have refused it. They wanted a religious monument removed and they accept the erection of an irreligious monument, that REEKS of hypocrisy.

Logicboy03: 3 things you are ignorant
-The primary goal was a separation of church and state. Upholding the law
-Atheism is not a religion. Neither is there a symbol for atheism. What symbol did Stalin use?
-Your 10 commandments was breaking the law on the courthouse compound

I wasn't ignorant. What you should know is:

- Seperation of state was made specifically to prevent government from being headed by religious institutions (and hence under religious codes). Terming religious erection of statutes is a stretching of its legal precedents.
- I didn't say Atheism Is A Religion. Not here. I listed well-known atheist symbols. Google them or go to richarddawkins.net to see the scarlet A symbol. It is used by atheists.
- Point 3 is debatable especially since we know how ambiguous laws can be.

Logicboy03:
The reverend father is too arrogant to realise that his 10 commandments in the courthouse is disrespectful to the millions of non-christian taxpayers whose taxes pay to keep the courthouse in session

Yet despite the number of non-Christian taxpayer it is only atheists that presumably challenge it. If other non-Christians do protest, that is IF, we hardly get to hear it. Now have the other non-Christian taxpayers come out to say it is distespectful ? Isn't erecting an atheist bench direspectful and hypocritical given the context ?

Uyi Iredia:

They should have refused it. They wanted a religious monument removed and they accept the erection of an irreligious monument, that REEKS of hypocrisy.

Do you know what we call an irreligous monument? A MONUMENT There is no such thing as an irreligious monument.There is no hypocrisy here. One is a religious symbol, the other isnt. Secondly, it was a compromise and not their initial plan.

That being said, I agree with you. I also prefer them to have removed the 10 commandments and leave the court room without symbols. However, when you have spent thousands on litigation, then you have the right to tell them how to proceed with the arbitration. They chose a compromise after spending money. They have every right to.

Uyi Iredia:
I wasn't ignorant. What you should know is:

- Seperation of state was made specifically to prevent government from being headed by religious institutions (and hence under religious codes). Terming religious erection of statutes is a stretching of its legal precedents.
- I didn't say Atheism Is A Religion. Not here. I listed well-known atheist symbols. Google them or go to richarddawkins.net to see the scarlet A symbol. It is used by atheists.
- Point 3 is debatable especially since we know how ambiguous laws can be.

1) Look, the origin of a law does not determine the practicality and use of a law. Did you know that being a separate legal entity was meant for slavery and corporations then saw the use of such legal status? The law is very simple. Separation of church and state. No religion in government. It is not a stretch. You are not a lawyer and so dont say what you dont know


2) A symbol used by some atheists is not a symbol for all atheists. Sorry. China and Japan have one of the largest percentages of atheists- do you think most of them identify with the scarlet letter "A". Does the word "atheism" start with "A" in Japanese?


3) The law is as clear as daylight. If the christians and the govt were so right, explain why they gave a compromise? They had support from the majority and so much resources/funds at their disposal compared to the atheists, why did they buckle under pressure to give a compromise?

Uyi Iredia:

Yet despite the number of non-Christian taxpayer it is only atheists that presumably challenge it. If other non-Christians do protest, that is IF, we hardly get to hear it. Now have the other non-Christian taxpayers come out to say it is distespectful ? Isn't erecting an atheist bench direspectful and hypocritical given the context ?

So, your foolish objection is that it is atheists that are challenging the law? You sidestep he fact that your christians friends are being disrespectful by breaking the law and putting their religious symbol with the use of taxpayer's money (millions of whom arent christians)

What if it is a result of atheist being the more outspoken on religious intolerance and atheist being the more intelligent set of people when it comes to religion. No matter how you spin it, the atheists are the good guys here.


Lastly, an atheist sign is a secular sign not a religious one. And the atheists are not being disrespectful with their bench monument. The govt and christians wanted only a christian symbol which was illegalm exclusionary and disrespectful.

To claim that the atheists here are being hypocritical and disrespectful is quite ignorant of the precedents set here;

-Equality of all (dis)beliefs. Hence all religions can now petition for a right to place their monuments in that courthouse and not just only atheist monuments. The atheists wanted to remove all religious symbols but went withat a compromise.

Atheism will soon be the fastest growing religion.

Segeggs: Atheism will soon be the fastest growing religion.

Is theism a religion?

musKeeto:
Is theism a religion?

which of the theism?

Segeggs: which of the theism?

Logicboy03:
So, your foolish objection is that it is atheists that are challenging the law? You sidestep he fact that your christians friends are being disrespectful by breaking the law and putting their religious symbol with the use of taxpayer's money (millions of whom arent christians)

What if it is a result of atheist being the more outspoken on religious intolerance and atheist being the more intelligent set of people when it comes to religion. No matter how you spin it, the atheists are the good guys here.


Lastly, an atheist sign is a secular sign not a religious one. And the atheists are not being disrespectful with their bench monument. The govt and christians wanted only a christian symbol which was illegalm exclusionary and disrespectful.

To claim that the atheists here are being hypocritical and disrespectful is quite ignorant of the precedents set here;

-Equality of all (dis)beliefs. Hence all religions can now petition for a right to place their monuments in that courthouse and not just only atheist monuments. The atheists wanted to remove all religious symbols but went withat a compromise.

The seperation of church and state doesn't preclude religious symbols from being erected in government buildings. In fact, that's stretching what the law says. Here's the first amendment to the said principle:

The first amendment to the US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" The two parts, known as the "establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause" respectively, form the textual basis for the Supreme Court's interpretations of the "separation of church and state" doctrine.

By building a religious monument goverment hasn't made a law establishing or hindering the free exercise of any religion. As a matter of fact, government is free to use any religious symbol in its premises under the law. Atheists (particularly the ones suing for removal of such monuments) constitute a small fraction of taxpayers - so the argument that their money shouldn't indirectly support religious monuments in government buildings falls flat on its head. Now making what is a clear compromise amounts to hypocrisy because it CLEARLY shows that atheists would not mind atheistic monuments (like the bench) being made yet they disallow Christian momuments in particular.

Uyi Iredia:

The seperation of church and state doesn't preclude religious symbols from being erected in government buildings. In fact, that's stretching what the law says. Here's the first amendment to the said principle:



By building a religious monument goverment hasn't made a law establishing or hindering the free exercise of any religion. As a matter of fact, government is free to use any religious symbol in its premises under the law. Atheists (particularly the ones suing for removal of such monuments) constitute a small fraction of taxpayers - so the argument that their money shouldn't indirectly support religious monuments in government buildings falls flat on its head. Now making what is a clear compromise amounts to hypocrisy because it CLEARLY shows that atheists would not mind atheistic monuments (like the bench) being made yet they disallow Christian momuments in particular.

lol....if you are so right, why are atheists winning the lawsuits against christmas displays and christian monuments?

Having christian laws on a govt court building is respecting a particular religion. The government is also secular.

Logicboy03:

Do you know what we call an irreligous monument? A MONUMENT There is no such thing as an irreligious monument.There is no hypocrisy here. One is a religious symbol, the other isnt. Secondly, it was a compromise and not their initial plan.

So what ? They are both monuments. One uses the symbol of an atheist group.

Logicboy03:
That being said, I agree with you. I also prefer them to have removed the 10 commandments and leave the court room without symbols. However, when you have spent thousands on litigation, then you have the right to tell them how to proceed with the arbitration. They chose a compromise after spending money. They have every right to.

Yeah ! Just that they're being hypocritical.

Logicboy03:
1) Look, the origin of a law does not determine the practicality and use of a law. Did you know that being a separate legal entity was meant for slavery and corporations then saw the use of such legal status? The law is very simple. Separation of church and state. No religion in government. It is not a stretch. You are not a lawyer and so dont say what you dont know

That's a big lie. You apparently haven't read up on it. Check Wikipedia.

Logicboy03:
2) A symbol used by some atheists is not a symbol for all atheists. Sorry. China and Japan have one of the largest percentages of atheists- do you think most of them identify with the scarlet letter "A". Does the word "atheism" start with "A" in Japanese?

So what ? A group of atheists made a symbol and identify themselves with it. What does that make it ?

Logicboy03:
3) The law is as clear as daylight. If the christians and the govt were so right, explain why they gave a compromise? They had support from the majority and so much resources/funds at their disposal compared to the atheists, why did they buckle under pressure to give a compromise?

But as dark as night when it comes to interpretation. Last time I checked the Christians did not counter-suit the ACLU over the matter. It's possible they proposed the bench to make the atheists drop their case. A ploy which worked on the (hypocritical) atheists.

Logicboy03:

Do you know what we call an irreligous monument? A MONUMENT There is no such thing as an irreligious monument.There is no hypocrisy here. One is a religious symbol, the other isnt. Secondly, it was a compromise and not their initial plan.

So what ? They are both monuments. One uses the symbol of an atheist group.

Logicboy03:
That being said, I agree with you. I also prefer them to have removed the 10 commandments and leave the court room without symbols. However, when you have spent thousands on litigation, then you have the right to tell them how to proceed with the arbitration. They chose a compromise after spending money. They have every right to.

Yeah ! Just that they're being hypocritical.

Logicboy03:
1) Look, the origin of a law does not determine the practicality and use of a law. Did you know that being a separate legal entity was meant for slavery and corporations then saw the use of such legal status? The law is very simple. Separation of church and state. No religion in government. It is not a stretch. You are not a lawyer and so dont say what you dont know

That's a big lie. You apparently haven't read up on it. Check Wikipedia.

Logicboy03:
2) A symbol used by some atheists is not a symbol for all atheists. Sorry. China and Japan have one of the largest percentages of atheists- do you think most of them identify with the scarlet letter "A". Does the word "atheism" start with "A" in Japanese?

So what ? A group of atheists made a symbol and identify themselves with it. What does that make it ?

Logicboy03:
3) The law is as clear as daylight. If the christians and the govt were so right, explain why they gave a compromise? They had support from the majority and so much resources/funds at their disposal compared to the atheists, why did they buckle under pressure to give a compromise?

But as dark as night when it comes to interpretation. Last time I checked the Christians did not counter-suit the ACLU over the matter. It's possible they proposed the bench to make the atheists drop their case. A ploy which worked on the (hypocritical) atheists.

Logicboy03:



lol....if you are so right, why are atheists winning the lawsuits against christmas displays and christian monuments?

Having christian laws on a govt court building is respecting a particular religion. The government is also secular.

Gullibility of the judges as regards the issue of seperation of church and state. Having an atheist bench in a courthouse respects a particular philosophy, in this case, atheism.

Uyi Iredia:

Gullibility of the judges as regards the issue of seperation of church and state. Having an atheist bench in a courthouse respects a particular philosophy, in this case, atheism.

You know more about volution han scientists
You know more about constitutional law than judges

A real arrogant azzhole is what you are. This christian arrogance hasnt left you yet

Logicboy03:


You know more about volution han scientists
You know more about constitutional law than judges

A real arrogant azzhole is what you are. This christian arrogance hasnt left you yet

I know about evolution from scientists for and against the theory
I don't claim to know more about the law than judges. I know enough to say that laws can be stretched and interpreted in lots of ways.

Uyi Iredia:

I know about evolution from scientists for and against the theory
I don't claim to know more about the law than judges. I know enough to say that laws can be stretched and interpreted in lots of ways.

Yeah, I would like to know what respectable biologist denies evolution
Also I would like to know how removing religious symbols from government buildings is a stretch of separation of church and state

Logicboy03:


Yeah, I would like to know what respectable biologist denies evolution

Ralph Seelke (Phd. Microbiology), Chris Williams (Phd. Biochemistry). Download the list here Of course, I don't think it would convince you that the TOE is false.

Logicboy03:
Also I would like to know how removing religious symbols from government buildings is a stretch of separation of church and state

The seperation of church and state is based on the First Amendment. It debars government from establishing or hindering religious bodies. I'm taking the law literally and considering its contextual origin. Building religious monuments IS NOT establishing a religion, ergo, invoking seperation of C & S is a stretch.

Of course, my points may be lost on you.

Uyi Iredia:

Ralph Seelke (Phd. Microbiology), Chris Williams (Phd. Biochemistry). Download the list here Of course, I don't think it would convince you that the TOE is false.

Yawn
Just a simple check on your useless list would have saved you embarrassment.

Responses
The Scientific Dissent From Darwinism document has been widely criticized on several different grounds. First, similar to previous lists produced by other creationists, the professional expertise of those listed is not always apparent and is alleged to be deficient.[35] Also, the professional affiliations and credentials that are claimed for some of the signatories has been questioned. Finally, there appear to be a few who appear on the list who are not firmly committed to the agenda advanced by the Discovery Institute, and who have been misled into signing or who have changed their minds. Russell D. Renka, a political scientist, said that the Discovery Institute presented the list in an appeal to authority to support its anti-evolution viewpoint.[36]
A paper from a think tank, the Center for Inquiry said that Dissent From Darwinism is one of the Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns to discredit evolution and bolster claims that intelligent design is scientifically valid by creating the impression that evolution lacks broad scientific support.[1]
In November 2001, the National Center for Science Education stated that the then current version of the document appeared "to be very artfully phrased" to represent a diverse range of opinions, set in a context which gives it a misleading spin to confuse the public.[11]

Expertise relevance
The listed affiliations and areas of expertise of the signatories have also been criticized,[1][12] with many signatories coming from wholly unrelated fields of academia, such as aviation and engineering, computer science and meteorology.[37]
In addition, the list was signed by only about 0.01% of scientists in the relevant fields. According to the National Science Foundation, there were approximately 955,300 biological scientists in the United States in 1999.[38] Only about 1/4 of the approximately 700 Darwin Dissenters in 2007 are biologists, according to Kenneth Chang of the New York Times.[12] Approximately 40% of the Darwin Dissenters are not identified as residing in the United States, so in 2007, there were about 105 US biologists among the Darwin Dissenters, representing about 0.01% of the total number of US biologists that existed in 1999. The theory of evolution is overwhelmingly accepted throughout the scientific community.[21] Professor Brian Alters of McGill University, an expert in the creation-evolution controversy, is quoted in an article published by the NIH as stating that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution".[22]
The list has been criticized by many organizations and publications for lacking any true experts in the relevant fields of research, primarily biology. Critics have noted that of the 105 "scientists" listed on the original 2001 petition, fewer than 20% were biologists, with few of the remainder having the necessary expertise to contribute meaningfully to a discussion of the role of natural selection in evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism#Responses




Your list is useless

Uyi Iredia:
The seperation of church and state is based on the First Amendment. It debars government from establishing or hindering religious bodies. I'm taking the law literally and considering its contextual origin. Building religious monuments IS NOT establishing a religion, ergo, invoking seperation of C & S is a stretch.

Of course, my points may be lost on you.

You clearly didnt study law. I did.

1) Laws are not just literal- they are also based on precedence, subject to interpretation and practicality

Let's take this statement literally

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.." (first Ammendment)

So infact, only a congress is limited by the law- a governor of a state can actually use his powers (powers to make certain bye-laws) to "establish a religion".

The point is that laws can not be entirrely literal. The justice system would have failed.


2) The separation of church and state is a principle far more extensive than the establishment clause. It means what it means literally- a separation of church and state- a distance of the government from religion. Furthermore, your ignorance led you to ignore other principles/concepts eg secularism, disestablishment, religious pluarity etc

3) What is establishing a religion?

The Establishment Clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another. The first approach is called the "separation" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferential" or "accommodation" interpretation. The accommodation interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.

What do you think the government is doing when having christian commandments in its court buildings? Is that not saying that christianity is respected by the govt?