The best disinfectant for stupid ideas is transparency.

ergo: Dino

Rob lives his word via SAB.

Why would it be unconstitutional to not allow it? I think in this case the message should be relevant to Christmas

That’s not the test. Ya can’t ban atheist messages in a public forum like that.

And I think if, say, Deerborn MI banned anti-Muslim speech, you’d show a renewed appreciation for government not being able to prevent criticism of particular religions.

follow-up question: christians in washington’s capitol, good or bad?

Sure, it’s not nice. But still unconstitutional not to allow it.

As a fundamental Baptist, I actually like these signs. While I certainly don’t agree with them in toto, they open up the question of “who are you to say what is good?” That is, on what authority do atheists tell me to be good for goodness’ sake?

Or more specifically, on whose authority? It opens up a great question for those who are willing to consider it.

“Martin Luther King Jr. was a myth, did not exist and his myth hardens hearts and enslaves mines”…Really?

Ridiculous!!

Free Speech allows this sign, it isn’t saying anything about Christianity in particular but all religion in the plural.

did my quote get all hosed? Oh well.

I am not against the sign at all. I don;t think it matters how people arrive at doing what is right, just that they do what is right. Sadly, if you value human life, I don’t know how anyone, Christian or not, can support abortion. Rob believes in doing what is right just for the sake of it being right, hence how an athiest can arrive at being pro-life.

but giving atheists space to respectfully communicate their beliefs

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

Does that sound respectful to you Rob? Because if I’m not mistaken it would mean that those who believe in God (not necessarily just religious folks) are hard-hearted, closed-minded, robots. Sorry Jefferson, that includes you too.

As a society it is important that we all acknowledge and employ good moral sense which is what I take from “be good for goodness sakes”. To me, that’s cool. We all should be able to agree with that message to society in general. The last part is somewhat offensive and could have been left out. I think including it only turns people off and causes some to ignore the whole thing altogether. Whatever good was in it is lost.

I don’t mind the signs as much as I regret the inability of so many to discern between belief in the existence of God and religion. The two are distinguishable and necessarily so if we are ever going to rid ourselves of this unnecessary tension.

It seems simple, if you are going to put Christmas displays on public property at Christmas time, they should be relevant to the season. I don’t know that Whoopi in a Santa suit qualifies. That said all persuasions must be allowed to do so, not just Christians.

Specifically, they’re saying that they really don’t know what goodness is if they do so.

Good point. Turning the spirit and content of Christmas political and in an offensive manner doesn’t speak well of the “goodness” of those doing so.

Megyn’s argument was dead-on as far as First Amendment doctrine goes. She said it best when she said that no matter how distasteful the final outcome, short of well established exceptions (incitement to violence) we do not give government the discretion to stifle speech.

I’m impressed with how well she held her ground. O’Reilly was making a purely emotional argument.

The real point isn’t the posting of the sign by any particular group. The meat of the matter is the timing. If they chose to put up the sign at Ramadan or Halloween, no one would care or even notice. It is only noticed since it is Christmas. The fellow who placed the sign is an embittered “ex-evangelist” (his words) who is trying to spite those he now disagrees with. Incidently, it was his and his mother’s idea. Seems he’s a bit of a “momma’s” boy to boot. Ther are two people in their whole organization. I’m in Seattle and have casually followed this.

There is no place for any religious signs or anything else religious on government or public property. This country’s government is not suppose to promote one religion above another, it is the law. Religion is the most divisive factor in the world, even more than national boundaries. This is just a minor example. They have their churches and homes to decorate with their religious articles, why should they have use of public property over other religions, are we going to put up religious articles of every religion practiced in this country, or is the Christian religion more important than ones only practiced by a few thousand in this country. This country was founded just on that principle, that we have religious freedom, or in my case not to practice or believe at all, and that the government will not promote any one religion. And that a religion that is practiced by a few thousand has the same rights as one practiced by millions.

icanhearyou:

This public statement of atheistic faith (“There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven, no hell.”) is provocative and even interesting given that there is no proof for them than for any other faith.

But it goes too far when it attacks them with another unproven and unprovable statement that “Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.”

Think of it this way: The crass statement from the atheists (though I must admit that I didn’t find it all that nasty) may do more to drive people to the religious side of this argument than banning the atheists from the public space in the first place.

Banning the atheists makes the religious look mean spirited and intolerant. Allowing the contrast may well look the atheists look that way.

Like Justin said: It should be a marketplace of ideas. Don’t be afraid of competition. If your ideas are better, they’ll win.