Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
Well, the Very Good thing would be if the State and the Church Separated COMPLETELY.
The Church should never have a thinking of it's own in a Political Matter as Religion isn't even supposed to be there.
The Church mustn't be allowed to Teach the Fairy-Tales of Earth being Born 6.000 Years Ago or Earth being Populated from Adam and Eve, especially in Schools. Unless they tell people that that isn't True and explain it in some way.
Religious Freedom would be if Religion didn't Dictate a Individuals life in it's way but rather teach it's teachings while allowing the Person to continue the Life he wants.
I come from Albania, our Country during it's Communism Era was the First Atheist Country in the World and when the Downfall of the Communist Regime came, Religion flourished and if you'd see nowadays people practice it in every Work Branch from it's influence. I mean just saying that "God is True" to them is completely True and saying anything that contradicts their "God" makes them Angry or Unhappy and sometimes Violent.
M. V. Reeves - "the State ought neither to sponsor a religion, nor to neither physically nor legally obligate its subjects to adhere to a religion"
Then perhaps the state shouldn't be paying for the construction of structures (sponsoring) then allowing people to use them to push a religious message. nb4redefinesponsor
To which buildings do you refer? Were they funded by a federal, state, or city government directly? Was there a declared intent for the use of the building(s) as religious in nature?
M. V. Reeves - "To which buildings do you refer? Were they funded by a federal, state, or city government directly?"
Nyarlathotep - "sports stadiums are typically paid for by tax dollars"
Typically the are funded locally. That means we have government sponsored facilities being used to distribute a religious messages. You told us "the State ought neither to sponsor a religion"; so can we safely assume you are now against this kind of stuff?
I noticed that you ignored my third question. If a government were to purchase land made public to access, and a privately funded parade promoting equal rights for the LGBT community begins in the park, do you posit that this implies that the government 'sponsors' the parade?
M. V. Reeves - "If a government were to purchase land made public to access, and a privately funded parade promoting equal rights for the LGBT community begins in the park, do you posit that this implies that the government 'sponsors' the parade?"
Yes, perhaps inadvertently (unless there is a permit), but yeah.
-------------------
I ignored your 3rd question because I don't understand it. Declared intent? Is there a form for that?
You have accepted as valid the definitive syllogism for 'to sponsor,' I.
I. If a privately funded event occurs on public land purchased by the government, then the government is said to "sponsor" the event.
You can see the biggest problem with your assertion below:
I. Let a group of terrorists privately fund a massacre in a public park purchased by the government.
II. If a privately funded event occurs on public land purchased by the government, then the government is said to sponsor the event.
III. A massacre is a type of event.
IV. A park is a type of land.
V. Therefore, by III. and IV., I. may be generalized as follows: a privately funded event occurs on land purchased by the government.
VI. Therefore, by II. and V., the government sponsored the massacre.
I doubt that you convince many other of the same definition. Don't you?
Nyarlathotep:
Since we're discussing matters of legislature, I find that legal definitions or agreed variations upon them to be most suitable for this debate. I think you will find that you will better understand legal sponsorships of various kinds by using sites such as the one posted as a link below to browse.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/search/?q=sponsor
You will find similar definitions across the web.
I agree with all 6 statements. I would just add the word "inadvertent" to sponsor.
/e
you can bet your bottom dollar if they did it on my property, I'd be considered a sponsor and be in big trouble.
I can live with that answer. Most of our antics on this thread are invalid now, though, as we have been arguing the same terms with different definitions -- namely, of 'sponsor.' Do you want to go back, or should we just let it be?
M. V. Reeves - "same terms with different definitions -- namely, of 'sponsor.'"
I warned you!
Nyarlathotep - "nb4redefinesponsor"
You did. More, you warned us. One of us would have had to define it anyway, and reconciling the variations would have been a pain.
Let me be blunt. When I posted "nb4redefinesponsor" I was making a prediction you would do mental gymnastics with the word sponsor until you felt you had created enough wiggle room so you wouldn't have to retract your statement, a 2nd time. And from my view point, that seems to have come to pass.
It's good of you to push through to the bitter end. Very well. On grounds of my non-committance to argument, I redact the challenged proposition on the terms as they have since been defined.
As long as I don't have to believe, I don't care if our money says, "In God we trust", or "In Odin we trust", or "In Satan we trust". As long as it spends and I don't have to believe it, I don't care what it says.
I thoroughly appreciate your pragmatic viewpoint.
Well maybe you don't care that the government spends tax dollars to inscribe religious messages on legal tender, but some of us do.
Ultimately, something is going to fill that space on the bill, whether its purely decorative, or worded.
Sure, and since it is on the public dime (oh an accidental pun!), that space shouldn't contain religious messages.
I can commit the fallacy ignoratio elenchi, too! Since it's on the public dime (oh, an accidental pun!), that space ought not be disqualified from containing messages of any nature not considered profane nor graphic.
Nyarlathotep - "So now we get to see how serious you are about the separation of church and state."
I think that has come to pass as well.
Are you committing the fallacy ad hominem in noting this, or are you being spiteful, rather than actually explaining your claims like is expected?
I was pointing out that I was justified in my skepticism of your initial bold endorsement of the separation of church and state.
Also your use of the phrase ad hominem here is disturbing since no argument was being refuted, and no attack on your person was given. But you probably already know all that, which makes it even more disturbing.
ac333f96823e74083a76baaec13938ed
You deserve an apology for beyond what has been said, so I hereby offer one. You've been here for a long time, so you are well accustomed to the way things are run, but I have been here for less than a week, so I ask that you have patience with me as I adjust. I am glad that you took the time to make a clarifying response without sarcastic remark. I also want to ask why you posted the string, "ac333f96823e74083a76baaec13938ed".
It is a hash of what I predicted you would say, I was wrong.
LoL, nice touch. Couldn't decrypt that md5 hash...
The Pragmatic - "Couldn't decrypt that md5 hash"
lol sorry; yeah, not likely to be brute forced or appear in a table:
n4bredefineadhom/personalattack => ac333f96823e74083a76baaec13938ed
I believe we can say this has drawn to its conclusion, yes? Or is there another pressing matter on the subject about which we can discuss?
P.S: One that does not include the word "Sponser" or its synonyms.
Never looked at it this way before, but it does seem like a government sanctioned religion is presiding over us, when our currency does state 'In God we trust.' I was an atheist, but now I'm back to Christianity, but suppose I was of a different belief system, or remained an atheist? It is wrong for a government to subliminally or overtly pursuade people to following a particular religion. Not that scores of people are going to convert over the currency system but, it's still apparent. Not to mention, it seems rather odd to print such a statement on currency. lol
http://time.com/4179685/in-god-we-trust-currency-history/
“Today even ardent separationists seem to agree with retired Supreme Court Justice William Brennan, who wrote in 1983 that slogans such as ‘In God We Trust’ have ‘lost any true religious significance.'”
So the simple act of printing things on your government's money can make the phrase insignificant, as the struggle to get it removed continues.
http://www.allabouthistory.org/in-god-we-trust.htm
It seems only fitting that a country that is warring with itself use a god in its defense.
Pages