62 posts / 0 new
Last post
ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
Nothing is all-inclusive in a

Nothing can be all-inclusive in a diverse society. The job of the government is to protect everyone's diversity. These atheists want to get rid of everyone diversity.

You can't say public means all inclusive, and then proceed to exclude religion.

CyberLN's picture
I disagree, John. By allowing

I disagree, John. By allowing the symbol of one religion on public grounds, the government is indeed practicing exclusion.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
Hopefully you can at least

Hopefully you can at least see the paradox of your statement.

CyberLN's picture
I think we may have each used

I think we may have each used the word exclusion differently. IMO, to support one religion over all others and none is to favor and thus exclude portions of the population. Since there are thousands of theist and atheist flavors, to attempt placing a symbol of each on that piece of public land is, well, just silly. Therefore, again IMO, any memorials on public land in the U.S. should be neutral in respect to a/theism.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
Then your fight should be the

Then your fight should be the inclusion of other religions, if you were to find a case where they are being excluded. I don't think they need to place the symbol of every religion in every park an street. However, let the people who live in those streets, and visit those parks, get permission, and decide what they want. In this particular instance you had the people of this community in favor of the monument; and an outside atheist group, that are not part of the community, coming in to protest.

CyberLN's picture
A couple of remarks /

A couple of remarks / questions...

You instructed that my “fight should include inclusions of other religions.” Well, I’m not fighting, I’m offering an opinion called for in your OP. Additionally, that which you view as a “should” is not what I view as one.

How do you know the make up of the folks who live in those streets and visit those parks? And should the majority rule in this case...say 100 Muslims want one thing and a Jain wants another?

You also said that an outside atheist group, not part of the community, is coming in to protest. How big is the community? Where are it’s borders?

Do you know for certain that someone two blocks away from it did not call this organization for help in this symbol’s removal?

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
Those questions are answered

Those questions are answered in the article.

CyberLN's picture
Not all of them.

Not all of them.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
Enough to where you can see

Enough to where you can see why I made those statements.

CyberLN's picture
Nope. I don’t see it. Are

Nope. I don’t see it. Are you willing to answer the questions I posed?

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
Actually I change my answer.

Actually I change my answer. I'm reading the 4th Circuits opinion:

"Appellants Steven Lowe, Fred Edwords, and Bishop McNeill are non-Christian residents of Prince George's County who have faced multiple instances of UNWELCOME CONTACT with the Cross. Specifically, as residents they have each regularly ENCOUNTERED the Cross while driving in the area, believe the display of the Cross amounts to governmental affiliation with Christianity, are OFFENDED.... and wish to have NO FURTHER CONTACT with it."

LOL you would think the Cross is out there stalking and raping these gentlemen, and they're asking for a restraining order.

Sheldon's picture
"I don't think they need to

"I don't think they need to place the symbol of every religion in every park an street. "

Quelle suprprise, no exclusion here, nothing to see, keep moving. I'll bet you are genuinely missing the irony here as well.

Sheldon's picture
"You can't say public means

"You can't say public means all inclusive, and then proceed to exclude religion."

So you'd have no problem with satanists setting up a shrine there to worship the devil then?

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
Satanists are just militant

Satanists are just militant atheists that likewise want to purge the world of religion. Are they even classified as a religion?

Sheldon's picture
Atheists by definition don't

Atheists by definition don't believe in Satan, but who cares if you can't read a dictionary, The fact is you have made the asinine claim that this act was inclusive, not exclusive, but when pressed you spit venom at the suggestion others of different "RELIGIOUS" beliefs should be allowed the same rights of expression. I'd normally find it odd that someone couldn't see the contradiction, but I'm getting a feel for how your religious zealotry produces blind bias and prejudice that distorts your reasoning.

"Are they even classified as a religion?"

Look it up, you can google the definition of religion, it's easy. I encourage you to do this more often, especially after your hilarious claim that Satanists are atheists.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
Nope, I'll gladly defend

Nope, I'll gladly defend someone else's religion.


Attach Image/Video?: 

Sheldon's picture
"John 6IX Breezy

"John 6IX Breezy
Nope, I'll gladly defend someone else's religion."

So you WOULD be ok with satanists raising an alter to the devil there as well then? Only that was not the impression you gave earlier?

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
I gave no impression earlier.

I gave no impression earlier. I said Satanists are atheists, asked you if they're even classified as a religion. They already do raise monuments, but they do so with purpose of being controversial, in order to get schools and governments to remove religion.

I can't defend the group that is doing the very thing I'm against in this OP.

Sheldon's picture
"I gave no impression earlier

"I gave no impression earlier."

You certainly did, you may not have realised it or intended to but that's a moot point. So you have no problem with religious expression, as long as it is not one that offends your personal sensibilities or belief, and you see you no contradiction there with your stance for expression of religious freedom, this is the crux of the problem with your thought process here that others are trying to make you understand

"They already do raise monuments, but they do so with purpose of being controversial, in order to get schools and governments to remove religion."

I'm not that au fait with satanists or their motives and beliefs, but clearly my question assumed genuine belief and there seems little doubt that people do hold such beliefs. So either it is a right protected by your constitution, or it is not, as is so often the case with religious apologists you seem to want to both have your cake and eat it. Though given you claimed not to care in an earlier post this outburst seems oddly incongruous.

"I can't defend the group that is doing the very thing I'm against in this OP."

Satanists and atheists are different groups. They're only synonymous in your biased worldview. This is is at the heart of your inability to understand constitutional violations by theists, and what the consequences of those violations are.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
I'm glad you said the point

I'm glad you said the point is moot. Normally when someone tells you you've misunderstood, honesty requires that you drop the assertion.

Secondly I'm not the type of person that gets offended. To be clear, I am protestant. I reject the Catholic Church's use of graven images of saints, angels, and crucifixes. The cross means nothing to me, in fact I believe it violates the commandment to make no graven images, particularly because people often use it to worship.

My thread here is a defense of a group I disagree with. I also posted a description where Satanists themselves say they are atheists. I also explained why I would be opposed to them.

So what are you talking about?

Sheldon's picture
"So what are you talking

"So what are you talking about?"

I asked you two questions, they were simple enough. You seem unwilling to give a candid answer. You are claiming to be fine with defending the religion of others but when questioned you give the impression this only applies to religious beliefs that fall into your subjective preconceived notions of what are religious beliefs. I chose my example carefully to illustrate a point, and you have made that point for me repeatedly.

"My thread here is a defense of a group I disagree with."

That's tenuous, as they're Christians as are you, So your theological differences aside and within the context of this thread you do not appear to disagree with them. Though your reticence seems to suggest you would not extend this courtesy to someone whose beliefs you really are at odds with, like my example of satanists for instance. It goes without saying my question was intended to mean genuine satanist and not the straw man non-sequitur examples you have introduced for the purpose of evading a candid answer to my question. You should be grateful your constitution protects the rights of individuals to hold whatever religious beliefs they want, or none at all.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
Your talking to yourself at

You're talking to yourself at this point. Because what I'm saying seems to be going over your head.

Sheldon's picture
"You're talking to yourself

"You're talking to yourself at this point."

This seems to be the case when people try to engage with you, and especially when they ask you questions, which you seem to have an aversion to answering.

"A federal appeals court on Wednesday declared unconstitutional a towering cross-shaped monument that has marked a major intersection in Prince George’s County for 90 years.

In a 2-1 ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit said the 40-foot-tall memorial maintained with thousands of dollars in public funds “has the primary effect of endorsing religion and excessively entangles the government in religion.”

I found nothing to disagree with here:

"In response to the 4th Circuit ruling on Wednesday, the humanist association’s executive director, Roy Speckhardt said, “government war memorials should respect all veterans, not just those from one religious group.”

Why does a war memorial require any religious symbol, let alone an imposing 40 ft state funded and maintained monument to one particular religion? I wish the UK had a secular constitution to protect it's citizens from unwanted religious interference. Instead we gift a position of privilege to one religion, and gift it's adherents unchallenged places in the house of Lords. It's quite a scam the CofE has going to be fair. I'd welcome the UK becoming a republic to be honest, you have no idea how lucky you are you have such laws.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
What do I gain from aversion?

What do I gain from aversion? Do I get a trophy or something?

Sheldon's picture
"If it's public land then

"If it's public land then does not the public reserved the right to decide?"

Are atheists not members of the public then? Or do you not care about the constitutional rights of the individual?

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
Unconstitutional.. hopefully


"Unconstitutional".. hopefully you can substantiate your statement?

Because the Constitution says the following: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

1. Congress has not made any laws respecting an establishment of religion. And if they have, surely you can point me to that law.

2. However, this atheist group is wanting to prohibit the free exercise of religion. Thus, their petition is unconstitutional.

mykcob4's picture
You know better than that

You know better than that John.
1) Putting up a religious symbol IS ESTABLISHING A RELIGION! The SCOTUS has ruled that way forever or at least until Scalia and his unconstitutional fellows got to the court.
2) It isn't denying "free exercise of religion" to prohibit any religious group from trying to lord over the general public.

Why do christians think that preventing them from violating individual rights is a violation of theirs?

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
Putting up a giant Buddha on

Putting up a giant Buddha on a park is not a violation of my rights. It doesn't force me into Buddhism. It doesn't affect me and my life in the least.

You need to stretch definitions to their breaking point to claim that a cross has suddenly established a religion. Look at the history of Europe in case you forgot what an established religion looks like.

mykcob4's picture
Horseshit John. You are lying

Horseshit John. You are lying your ass off, and doing it just to troll in a different way than you were before. You know precisely why putting a religious symbol on public land is a clear violation of the Constitution. You are just trying to be an ass. I suspect that you are fed up with losing every argument about religion on this forum. If you had ground or facts on your side, maybe you'd feel differently. The truth is that religion has always tried and mostly gotten away with violating the rights of the individual. As long as that abuse is christian, I'm sure that you are all for it. Fuck christian intrusion and FUCK anyone that supports it.

BTW it isn't a monument! And shame on you for calling atheist the same as ISIL and NAZIs. That is just not correct in any way shape or form. Atheists are not trying to suppress freedom, we are trying to protect it. ISIL and NAZIs suppressed individual rights.

Sky Pilot's picture
John 6IX Breezy,

John 6IX Breezy,

There's a 72 foot tall mother of Buddha statue in Sugar Land, Texas. It's not on public land but you can see it from the highway.
Three Texas Giants – Giant Statues of Southern Texas – Less Beaten Paths Travel Blog


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

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.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.