Video: O’Reilly and Megyn Kelly yell at each other over atheism; Update: Atheist sign stolen from Capitol; Update: Sign found
posted at 1:17 pm on December 5, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Surprise fireworks as FNC’s most combative anchor tries to explain the First Amendment to its most combative commentator. Good luck, Megyn!
My knowledge of FA jurisprudence is rusty, but isn’t the crucial distinction between the atheism case and O’Reilly’s MLK/KKK hypothetical the fact that one of them touches on religion and the other doesn’t? The Establishment Clause prevents the state from endorsing religion over no religion, but there’s nothing in the Free Speech Clause preventing it from endorsing one non-religious viewpoint over another. The fact that MLK Day is a federal holiday doesn’t mean we have to have Klan Day, for example. (Although good luck applying that reasoning to Christmas.) In other words, whereas the religion clauses set a certain baseline which the state in theory can’t diminish or exceed for any group, the baseline set by the FSC operates only as a floor, not a ceiling. Everyone has a right to protest on public grounds, no one has a right to have an exhibit devoted to their own little pet cause installed in the rotunda of the state Capitol. Or so I understand it. Exit question: If Kelly’s so worried about the state dictating which viewpoints are and aren’t appropriate, why does she seem okay-ish with the “fighting words” doctrine, which lets it criminalize certain types of speech that make people really, really angry? If atheists hold a rally and Christians show up to chant that they’re going to burn in hell, are those “fighting words”? They are in my neighborhood, bro! (But wouldn’t be in court.)
Link: 
Update: Tolerance.
The sign, which celebrated the winter solstice, had some residents and Christian organizations calling atheists Scrooges because they said it was attacking the celebration of Jesus Christ’s birth…
The incident will not stifle the group’s message, Gaylor said, adding that a temporary sign with the same message would be placed in the building’s Rotunda. Gaylor said a note would be attached saying, “Thou shalt not steal.”
“I guess they don’t follow their own commandments,” Gaylor said. “There’s nothing out there with the atheist point of view, and now there is such a firestorm that we have the audacity to exist. And then [whoever took the sign] stifles our speech.”
Update: The sign’s resurfaced at a radio station in Seattle after someone showed up and dropped it off. Smells like an inside job:
State Patrol Sgt. Ted DeHart said the billboard was still on display Thursday evening when the Capitol rotunda building was shut down.
“We have troopers responding to the scene to actually take a look around,” he said.
DeHart said there would be no way someone not authorized to be inside could get in the building after it’s closed at 6 p.m.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
The courts, judges, ‘case law’, or laws themselves have no authority to create such powers. The Constitution is the supreme law of our land. There is no power of ‘prior restraint’ encoded within its words.
LimeyGeek on December 5, 2008 at 3:14 PM
For Muslims, anything other than “Islam is a religion of peace” is considered fighting words.
It’s always a mistake, in just about any context, to lump in Muslims with Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists etc, when you’re trying to make a point about just about anything. There are fundamentalist Muslims, and then there are the rest of us.
CarolynM on December 5, 2008 at 3:16 PM
Hitchens’ “answer” to the Prager challenge has an inherent weakness. He equates all religions the same. I didn’t say that the city was Belfast, Bombay, Bethlehem, Beirut, or Baghdad — these are places that are either gripped by sectarian fighting that is sometimes broadly defined by religious affiliation though the fighting itself has nothing to do with religion or they are places that are not Christian. I did not suggest that all religions are equal because I don’t happen to believe that they are. I believe that we should look to the philosophical underpining of a religion. I am a Christian because I believe the philosophical underpining of Christianity is inherently good.
You still didn’t answer the Prager challenge because you can’t. Sure, you would call AAA and sure you might keep your gun handly, but which group would you feel better having approach you — A or B? You know the answer.
ramrocks on December 5, 2008 at 3:16 PM
And I was NEVER arguing for OR against whether they had a right to do that.
I was simply stating that such signs are very illuminating toward understanding what is going on in our society and a reason for Christians be take seriously what is going on.
Religious_Zealot on December 5, 2008 at 3:17 PM
True, but the same is also true of Christmas at one time.
Why not? And really, that should be the answer anytime someone wants a large celebration.
Yes, but didn’t he say this when talking to a Gentile he ultimately helped? I remember her remark being something like, wanting the scraps from the table.
Esthier on December 5, 2008 at 3:17 PM
I think there are 2 things stopping them from doing that.
Fear and common sense.
cjs1943 on December 5, 2008 at 3:17 PM
Technically true, but the fact that you have to get “permission” to show a “Christmas” display in the court house (and that that’s passed legal challenges) shows there is such a de facto power.
Skywise on December 5, 2008 at 3:18 PM
WE KNOW THIS.
The point is that it has no relevance in this discussion, because we’re talking about religious expression.
So I just wonder why it was brought up in this discussion. We’re not talking about the publication of troop movements or nuclear secrets, etc.
Good Lt on December 5, 2008 at 3:18 PM
.
Lordy.
Okay, lets try this: grand jury proceeding involve secret testimony. Legislatures have passed laws forbidding the dissemination of those proceedings. Those laws have been signed into law and have been upheld by the courts.
If I try to publish/disseminate that testimony and the government learns about it, I would be arrested beforehand.
I notice that you no longer argue that the government may not dictate what we say.
Of course they can; with limits.
SteveMG on December 5, 2008 at 3:18 PM
I think, as you can see by these threads, that Christians DO take it seriously. What would you suggest, then, that they do about it?
Good Lt on December 5, 2008 at 3:20 PM
I’m wondering why our government buildings are allowed to be used as a stage for any of this nonsense.
LimeyGeek on December 5, 2008 at 3:22 PM
Anyone of those groups. Rev. Wright’s followers might be loopy leftists but I don’t believe they would harm you. In fact, they would probably help you just as the Baptist/Catholic/Mormon bible study group would.
ramrocks on December 5, 2008 at 3:23 PM
I have been responding to another poster’s claims that speech may not be limited. You do recognize, I hope, that people respond to more than just one other poster? That they may be responding to several posters making different argument?
I also want to remind you that you said that prior restraint was unconstitutional.
That is not true.
Second this is not about “religious expression”. It’s whether the government has the power/right to limit the speech of one group because those views are unpopular. Since any limits would not be “content neutral”, they don’t have that power.
SteveMG on December 5, 2008 at 3:24 PM
Now you’re talking like a libertarian :-)
Be careful – you may be labeled as a Godless heathen for suggesting that our public buildings should not be in the business of promoting one faith over another.
Good Lt on December 5, 2008 at 3:24 PM
O’Reilly is such an ass.
Wade on December 5, 2008 at 3:24 PM
Actually, I was debating a person who wasn’t taking it seriously (called it ’silly’).
As far what to do – I think the first step is not just to dismiss it or to cave in to political correctness.
After that it’s a contextual decision (based on what particularly is going on).
Religious_Zealot on December 5, 2008 at 3:25 PM
Yes, protection of secrets is constitutional. The government has the authority to regulate who gets ‘into the loop’ and how they must handle that information.
Once I have stated my position, why would I reiterate?
Of course they can’t, but as long as people like you obey, they will continue to do so.
LimeyGeek on December 5, 2008 at 3:26 PM
This is true. Amended – in the most extreme circumstances, where many other laws may be superseded, it is not unconstitutional.
Apologies, then. I kept seeing you making the prior restraint argument, and just wondered why you seemed so intent on hammering it home here in a thread about religious expression (which this issue is about).
Yes, and the views, in addition, are religious views, which gives them even greater and explicit FA protection.
Good Lt on December 5, 2008 at 3:27 PM
Where do I find the authorization for prior restraint in the Constitution?
LimeyGeek on December 5, 2008 at 3:27 PM
If we allow one religious expression in public, we have to allow all of them. That’s what the Establishment Clause is all about.
If we don’t want to see the church of satanism display some dissected animal with a pentagram next to the Nativity scene, then we should not allow any of it on government property.
ramrocks on December 5, 2008 at 3:28 PM
Exactamee.
Good Lt on December 5, 2008 at 3:30 PM
And I want a display for my Church of the Shlong too
LimeyGeek on December 5, 2008 at 3:30 PM
I thought I was the only one!
:-)
Good Lt on December 5, 2008 at 3:31 PM
3:20 to 3:45 that’s when I realized that I was in love with Megyn Kelly.
DFCtomm on December 5, 2008 at 3:31 PM
Remove the Nativity display NOW before this happens!
*ramrocks shudders in horror*
ramrocks on December 5, 2008 at 3:32 PM
You said earlier that the “state may not dictate what people say and where they say it.”
But now you acknowledge that the state may prevent people who handle secrets from disseminating (e.g, speaking about) that material.
Which is it?
SteveMG on December 5, 2008 at 3:32 PM
Hmmmmm…
Skywise on December 5, 2008 at 3:33 PM
uh yeah sure…but to believe in evolution you MUST believe that life evolved without God…somehow molecules became self-replicating, and somehow life happened…this takes a great deal of faith..spare me the ‘rationality’ part…it ain’t there.
right4life on December 5, 2008 at 3:35 PM
It’s not nonsense to recognize Christmas. It’s part of our Judeo-Christian society and our cultural heritage. There is value to having a connection to our traditions. These are the things which we pass on to our children and which connect them to America’s history, a history we should all want to share as Americans.
This is a greater good, leads to a stronger more united country, than catering to every little multiculti grievance group until, like Europe, we are a dying secular state.
I know, it’s a little melodramatic, but there is value to a shared American tradition and some of that tradition, like it or not, includes Christian symbols or have their basis in Christian institutions.
CarolynM on December 5, 2008 at 3:35 PM
Sorry, you can’t yell FIRE! in a crowded theater or other venue when there isn’t a fire.
cjs1943 on December 5, 2008 at 3:38 PM
There’s no “hmmmm” about it. He’s not flip flopping. The discussion of the creepy satanism display was in reference to what we allow on government property. The Establishment Clause of our Constitution does not allow government to discriminate between religions. If we don’t want to see such repulsive religions displayed next to a symbol of the faith shared by most Americans, then we should not set up religious displays on government property.
That is not limiting the right of churches to display Nativity scenes on their property. And it’s not limiting speech.
ramrocks on December 5, 2008 at 3:39 PM
Yup. I don’t like the sign, but she’s absolutely right, and O’Reilly is his typical, bloviating, belligerent self.
I say replace him with her. The anger would be properly dosed out to the right targets.
MadisonConservative on December 5, 2008 at 3:41 PM
The intent is confrontational and thus meets the “fighting words” threshold IMHO. Placement, timing and wording together mark the message not as free speech, but as a metaphorical slap in the face of Christians.
.
But it’s ok because everyone does it these days.
BrideOfRove on December 5, 2008 at 3:42 PM
Yes, because that poses a clear, present, and imminent danger to others by doing so. An atheist sign doesn’t. It’s insulting and I don’t like it, but it’s not hurting anything but some people’s feelings.
Imagine if the sign were listing atrocities carried out by terrorists in the name of Islam. You’d defend it. Perspective.
MadisonConservative on December 5, 2008 at 3:42 PM
Why does it always have to be one or the other? Why does the method of man’s creation have such importance to religion, when all that should matter is that man came to exist. Science should be concerned with the how and religion should be concerned with the why.
The bible says god created man from dust, and science says man evolved from mud. I really don’t see much difference in the end. If you believe that God is all powerful, then you have to believe that a myriad of paths to creation were available to him.
DFCtomm on December 5, 2008 at 3:42 PM
Yes you are. Lesse… Atheists who say we shouldn’t allow ANY religious message in government buildings because it’s better than showing them all including evvvil ones.
Why would atheists want that?
Skywise on December 5, 2008 at 3:45 PM
Yes, this is true. But, at least these people are celebrating something positive (I believe) and not attacking christianity like some others under the guise of freedom of speech.
cjs1943 on December 5, 2008 at 3:45 PM
I second the motion. All those in favor…
Esthier on December 5, 2008 at 3:45 PM
If that sign were put up, the ACLU would be suing the person who put it up to get it taken down, and the press would be calling it “hate speech”.
Not saying that the sign should have been stolen. It should have been left up. But “perspective” goes both ways.
wearyman on December 5, 2008 at 3:46 PM
You can tell that I am behind in reading all of the posts. Oh well, Merry Christmas!
cjs1943 on December 5, 2008 at 3:46 PM
I agree with you 100%, and I really hope this thread won’t descend into another back and forth about evolution. That issue has grown really tiresome.
ramrocks on December 5, 2008 at 3:47 PM
That’s a good point but I don’t like the fact that public schools treats Kwaanza as a legitimate part of the holiday season i.e. Kwaanza songs at the school concerts etc.
CarolynM on December 5, 2008 at 3:48 PM
bwahaha!
Y-not on December 5, 2008 at 3:49 PM
And all of that would be wrong and I would be fighting it.
Just because others have double standards about these things doesn’t mean we should.
MadisonConservative on December 5, 2008 at 3:52 PM
yeah, I commented on that about a page back.
I suspect that one of the Atheists took it down themselves to generate controversy. Why else would it end up at a Radio Station of all places?
Alternately, it could have been a guard, but what guard would jeopardize such a lucrative position like that? (Capitol guards are VERY well paid.)
wearyman on December 5, 2008 at 3:52 PM
Consider the logistics. A list of Islamic atrocities…we would need a 4 story tall billboard.
CarolynM on December 5, 2008 at 3:53 PM
What’s the HMMM for?
either the government endorses/OKs everybody’s religious expression – which can, as we’ve seen in modern society – be broadly defined to the point of absurdity – or it endorses and favors none of them.
It’s called consistency.I’m fine with it either way, as long as its consistently and evenly applied.
Are you?
Good Lt on December 5, 2008 at 3:53 PM
Hmmmmm….
J/K
:-)
Good Lt on December 5, 2008 at 3:54 PM
I think it all comes back to intent. What is the apparent intent of placing a sign such as this during this particular season? it seems, from the content of the sign, that the intent is to upset, enrage, and generally cause an uproar to get press and make Christians look bad.
Look at how the sign has now been found. Dropped off by an anonymous person at a RADIO STATION? Who does that? if someone (say, a guard) had actually stolen the sign, they would have tried to get rid of it. Instead, it shows up at a radio station that has been making hay about the sign all week.
It’s as though the whole thing is a planned PR stunt.
wearyman on December 5, 2008 at 3:55 PM
the point is either way it takes faith. to say that atheism is ‘rational’ and religion is not is ludicrious.
right4life on December 5, 2008 at 3:55 PM
Carolyn, you explained right there why the government should stay out of the whole thing. How can it discriminate against one religion?
As a Christian I agree with you about the Judeo-Chrisitian influence in our nation’s history and the positive effect it has had in our founding, but the fact remains that in a pluraistic secular democracy such as our own, the government is better off not getting involved in which religious display is legit and which is not. I don’t like multi-culti nonsense either, which is why I think the government should stay out of it altogether. The only thing we need to unite us as Americans is the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. We all agree to it and we are all Americans.
I remember something George Will said as he was interviewed in Ken Burns’ great PBS documentary on Thomas Jefferson. He said the no other people in the world can so clearly define themselves as Americans can. We have documents that we agree upon. We can say, “I am an American because this is what I belive and swear by.”
Look at all the diverse people on this thread alone — none of us believe the same things, but all of us are Americans and all of us would fight for our Constitution.
ramrocks on December 5, 2008 at 3:57 PM
Here’s a little ditty for all you enablers and appeasers:
Bleeder, Bleeder
Bleading heart fool,
I’ve got a little puzzle for you
If you love the ACLU
Then you are a Communist, too!
yubley on December 5, 2008 at 3:59 PM
I will agree that atheism has evolved into a belief system, and since it’s difficult to prove a negative, then atheism is more difficult to prove than religion. God could just decide to appear, and I believe that the Bible states that some day he will.
DFCtomm on December 5, 2008 at 4:00 PM
Doesn’t matter. Still protected speech.
I would also add that, when you think about it, “There is no god” is just the opposite of “there is a god”. Two identical, unprovable beliefs. Each statement will piss off some of the people who believe otherwise.
It may be cliche, but I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll fight to the death for your right to say it.
MadisonConservative on December 5, 2008 at 4:01 PM
I wish that were cliche.
Esthier on December 5, 2008 at 4:08 PM
Has atheism ever been recognized by the government as a religion? E.g., they have tax exemption and other rights that non-religions don’t have?
It seems to me that labeling atheism a religion, de jure, isn’t correct.
Again: de jure vs. de facto (and that’s being charitable with de facto; but hey! it’s the holidays).
SteveMG on December 5, 2008 at 4:09 PM
And that cliche makes you an American, just like me. That’s why this a great country.
We’re a great country because grinch-like jerks like those atheists can place a snotty plaque next to a Nativity scene without anyone getting killed over it. And we’re a great country because devout Catholics like me can say, “let ‘em keep their kooky sign there” and blowhard talk show hosts like O’Reilly can scream on tv about it, and smart lawyers like Megyn Kelly can respectfully disagree and scream back at him, and bloggers and internet surfers like everyone at HotAir can b*tch back and forth over it on the internet, and we’re all safe and free.
That’s why I say, God Bless America! (Even if you don’t believe in him!)
ramrocks on December 5, 2008 at 4:10 PM
Since when does a religion have to be recognized by the government as a religion in order to actually be one? If the US government ceases to exist, will religion also cease to exist?
MadisonConservative on December 5, 2008 at 4:11 PM
To say that you can’t prove God exists is functionally the same as saying he doesn’t exist. Better yet (and I think we’ve been on this merry-go-round before), Russel’s Teapot.
RightOFLeft on December 5, 2008 at 4:35 PM
For legal purposes there has to be some standard. No? If two people get together and decide to make up a religion, should they then get legal protection and privileges (tax exemption, et cetera) for their “religion”?
Sure, I can say I belong to the religion of “Steve” and whether the government of the US exists or not I have that ability. But if I decide not to pay taxes, the government may not look upon my religion too kindly.
We’re discussing here the legal rights of the atheists. Do they have the same religious rights as the Catholic Church?
SteveMG on December 5, 2008 at 4:38 PM
AYE.
JeffinOrlando on December 5, 2008 at 4:44 PM
When have Muslims used a Capitol building for religious purposes?
RightOFLeft on December 5, 2008 at 4:49 PM
It’s no more confrontational than a cross is to an atheist, Jew or Muslim should be perceived by their respective groups.
You’re only as offended as you want to be. If you allow one religious demonstration of faith or celebration, you must allow any other. This includes those put forth by Satanists, Druids, Hare Krishnas, etc.
Christians need to accept the fact that we do not have a birthright to being represented by our government.
I don’t remember reading about a Christmas tree in the Bible. Get over it…it’s an ornament.
***
@CarolynM
Point me to the national tale of a Christmas story. The closest we get is the winter at Valley Forge. Tradition is no reason to violate our constitutional standards. Breaking tradition is just as important.
The Race Card on December 5, 2008 at 4:50 PM
Nice contradiction dork. If tradition is no reason, then your argument that breaking tradition is important kinda falls flat.
Wake up!
The Race Card on December 5, 2008 at 4:51 PM
You mean first amendment rights to believe what they want without government censorship or persecution?
YES. How is that unclear?
MadisonConservative on December 5, 2008 at 4:54 PM
What the f*ck is so scary about mosques? Anybody ever been to one? They’re not scary…at all. I know a Samoan Pentecostal church that would probably frighten more of you wusses than the average mosque. I’ve been to Christian services that were so staid and sleep-inducing that I was afraid God wouldn’t recognize them as worshippers.
The Race Card on December 5, 2008 at 4:54 PM
I disagree, most of the historical barbarity of Christianity has been largely downplayed, excused and distorted since this is a christian majority country. Your analogy is a false dichotomy. Might as well say Flat-Earth theorists are less violent than Spherical-Earth theorists so lets all join the former camp. The fallacies in such an argument are self-evident.
I’m sure it irks Christians to know at one time their religion was largely indistinguishable from Islam today-in fact its been argued Islam was actually more civilized than Christianity once.
However, before this needlessly devolves into an atheist vs christian slugfest let me state clearly that I have a lot respect for Christians of today. Your comments here (as a group) are witty, insightful and admirable. I also commend Christians for recognizing we’re at war with Islam which most of my fellow atheists in the liberal camp still haven’t recognized and might never. I also commend Christians for their patriotism and sense of duty/honor for their country (while liberals sneer at the thought). Many in our armed services who protect us and defend our great civilization are Christian (certainly there are many atheists who serve as well).
However I believe in speaking the unvarnished truth about any religion or topic. While Christianity in my view is presently more civilized there’s nothing that says it can’t regress to the dark ages like Islam today.
Also Christianity’s archaic dogma, its bigoted views on gays, oppressive stance on women’s reproductive rights, euthanasia, stem cell research and Evolution leaves much to be desired. Fortunately we can resolve our differences through reasoning and dialog-something not possible with many adherents of Islam.
thinkagain on December 5, 2008 at 4:56 PM
Like children, they seem to want some discipline and limits set for them. Christians don’t do it, so they act out with them. Seems like simple human nature.
JiangxiDad on December 5, 2008 at 5:00 PM
JiangxiDad on December 5, 2008 at 5:02 PM
Atheism, the religion about nothing.
labrat on December 5, 2008 at 5:03 PM
yep. Quite a few times. And I don’t think Ms.Caroline was referring to the building.
JiangxiDad on December 5, 2008 at 5:03 PM
I think it’s the worship of the self, myself.
JiangxiDad on December 5, 2008 at 5:04 PM
I’ll try again.
I asked: Has the government recognized atheism as a religion? Nowhere did I ask if they had the right to their beliefs. Of course they do. I asked whether the government has officially sanctioned or recognized atheism as a religion.
If a group is legally recognized as a religion, they have certain privileges – rights, if you will – that non-religious groups do not have.
An argument made above by one poster is that this debate in Washington, in part, is a clash over religious freedom. That is, the religious freedom of the Christians to express their view versus the religious freedom of the atheists to express their view.
Since I do not believe (I could be wrong) that atheism is a legally recognized religion, then this is not an issue of the free expression/practice of religion.
It’s an issue of free speech on the part of the atheists.
Which, as I’ve said repeatedly in this thread, they have.
SteveMG on December 5, 2008 at 5:05 PM
NOT if it’s intent is to cause harm. (the old “fire” argument, inciting a riot, libel, perjury, etc.)
Personally, I think this sign was walking a fine line, but JUST this side of legal. so I agree with you on the legality, if just barely. But I still say it was INAPPROPRIATE, even if technically legal.
Still think the sign wasn’t stolen, and this whole thing is a stupid PR stunt.
wearyman on December 5, 2008 at 5:07 PM
Scientology didn’t have religious status until the late 1990s. Overlooking the fact that they are a cult, were they or were they not a religion for the last 50 years? You’re arguing based on a technicality that common sense delegitimizes.
MadisonConservative on December 5, 2008 at 5:09 PM
Reproductive rights?
Do you support Hitler’s lttle experiment in “reproductive rights” and evolutionary Eugenics also or do you just support the current American geniocide?
SaintOlaf on December 5, 2008 at 5:09 PM
When we have a rash of Christians being physically attacked by atheists, or have their homes firebombed by atheists, or other such things, you be sure and let me know.
Until then, you’re basing it on opinion rather than on evidence.
MadisonConservative on December 5, 2008 at 5:10 PM
Despite the token mention of the Winter Solstice the atheist plaque is clearly a repudiation of religion rather than a celebratory holiday message and should be challenged on those grounds, if any. Freedom of religion doesn’t necessarily mean granting a platform for one group to belittle and insult another on federal grounds.
wdomburg on December 5, 2008 at 5:12 PM
Maybe you’ve had your eyes closed during this whole “Prop 8″ thing in California..
SaintOlaf on December 5, 2008 at 5:13 PM
Not redefined. Hyperbole.
baldilocks on December 5, 2008 at 5:13 PM
You mean like every other religion which, fundamentally, tells everyone that, if they believe differently, they’re wrong?
And how about those religions that call people sinners? Or kuffar?
MadisonConservative on December 5, 2008 at 5:14 PM
You just described societal suicide. Bet you didn’t think you’d live to see it.
JiangxiDad on December 5, 2008 at 5:14 PM
He hasn’t, and they’re not necessarily atheists either.
Esthier on December 5, 2008 at 5:14 PM
So every one of those people are atheists, eh?
Looks like your eyes are closed.
MadisonConservative on December 5, 2008 at 5:15 PM
Sorry, it’s not a technicality since we (some of us) are discussing the law and the rights of these individuals and whether they have the religious freedom to express their views. Not whether they have the free speech right; but a religious right.
For example, if atheism is a religion does that mean the state is endorsing religion if it promotes atheism?
Again, several posters have argued that the atheists are expressing their religion with these statements. If they’re not a religion – legally – then that argument is incorrect.
They are expressing their First Amendment free speech rights.
SteveMG on December 5, 2008 at 5:16 PM
Yeah..the legions of sodomites attacking Christians and stomping on their crosses are not atheists.
i/sarc
SaintOlaf on December 5, 2008 at 5:17 PM
Before Scientology was recognized by the government as a religion, they had to pay taxes (among other items that officially-recognized religions don’t have to do).
We’re talking legal rights here; not natural rights.
SteveMG on December 5, 2008 at 5:18 PM
I don’t suppose you noticed that whole “Prop 8″ thing going on out in California? Unless you are gonna tell me that all those folks protesting out there were Baptists?
There are PLENTY of examples of militant Atheists attacking Christians. the only thing is, it’s usually done under the umbrella of some other organization (Militant Gays, Militant Greens, etc.) Most of these groups aren’t SPECIFICALLY Atheist, but the majority of their membership is, and much of the hate they display is the same on display on that sign.
Point of fact Madison, you tell people often enough and long enough that some group is “just a bunch of illogical crazies full of hate trying to force their beliefs on us all.” and eventually, people will believe it, start to hate that group, and take action on that hate.
As I said before. I think the sign was LEGAL. I don’t disagree with you there. I just think they were walking that fine line between libelous speech and free speech, and they KNEW they were doing it.
wearyman on December 5, 2008 at 5:18 PM
I don’t think you can ever lose this argument. It seems to me your reasoning is, if you allow one thing, why not another? Hard to defend. But it seems that we all have preferences which, if shared, lead to the creation of a community, and all the good that can come from that.
It’s not hard to go down the path of highlighting our differences. They’re always there, but somewhat muted, for the common good. But if you feel they should be stressed, accept the consequences to the community we attempt to be.
Fwiw, I’m a minority in the US. I have found the country and majority culture accepting enough.
JiangxiDad on December 5, 2008 at 5:20 PM
So in the last 1770s, the first years of our country, religion was not religion unless it was recognized by the government as a religion? Or the 1800s? Tax-exempt status is now the difference between a religion and a belief? I’ll go with the dictionary for this:
I seek, in vain, to find mention of US government recognition of the religion.
MadisonConservative on December 5, 2008 at 5:21 PM
And again, I maintain that until you can provide evidence of widespread attacks on religious people by atheists, and thereby show that there is reasonable risk for such events to happen, the sign doesn’t pose harm to anyone. O’Reilly’s example holds water because there is a history of attacks on blacks based on white supremacist literature and statements.
MadisonConservative on December 5, 2008 at 5:24 PM
It’s apparently offensive to people here, and elsewhere. It makes them not want to be in the same room as the people who wrote it. What this, and other needless provocations lead to given enough time and examples is social schism and disintegration. There’s a reason we’re not supposed to go out of our way to piss off our fellow citizens.
JiangxiDad on December 5, 2008 at 5:28 PM
You’re right. Let’s start by banning anything that offends Muslims. Geert, Ayaan, Hitch, off to prison with you.
MadisonConservative on December 5, 2008 at 5:31 PM
The Christians in my town are having a public tree lighting and singing, and Santa is going to be on a firetruck handing out candy. I can’t wait to bundle up my kids and take them to see it. And my Christian neighbors buy them lovely Christmas gifts. It’s nice.
JiangxiDad on December 5, 2008 at 5:32 PM
Sorry, you’re not understanding the point. Or I’m not stating it clearly.
The topic is the type of legal rights and privileges of these individuals (the atheists). Not whether they have the right to exist. Not whether they have the right to believe whatever they want. Not whether something doesn’t exist or does exist simply because it’s recognized by the government for legal purposes.
The topic raised by some posters is whether the atheists are expressing religious beliefs.
My question is whether the government has recognized them as a religion.
If the government has recognized them as a religion, they are afforded rights that non-religions do not have.
The fact that the government has or hasn’t recognized them doesn’t mean they can’t call themselves a religion. They can call themselves Martians. Or Venusians. Or whatever.
The question is whether legally the government recognizes them as a religion.
SteveMG on December 5, 2008 at 5:33 PM
I didnt’ say ban. I said needless provocation. Do we have to stick the atheist’s credo right on the tree?
JiangxiDad on December 5, 2008 at 5:33 PM
Does that include the right to express their beliefs?
That’s the issue being argued.
Do we have to stick the tree up there? Some could make the argument that such a thing provokes atheists.
Yes, the credo is a dick move. I’m not arguing that. I’m arguing how they have less right to express their religious beliefs (the core of which is that there is no god) than others do.
We have a simple system: Everyone gets the right to their say. You don’t get a right to stop them saying it, but you have the right to present total opposition.
MadisonConservative on December 5, 2008 at 5:38 PM
Are you being deliberately obtuse or do you really fail to see a difference between a positive display of faith and a plaque full of insults? I would look just as poorly on a display reading something along the lines of:
wdomburg on December 5, 2008 at 5:39 PM
From what I can tell, my ancestors have been burned (literally) several times by people professing to be Christians. I don’t get provoked by a Christmas tree. Why do you?
Don’t get that. I just think they shouldn’t do it on top of/in opposition to the Christmas celebration
Nah, the total opposition part is a big mistake. A little opposition, voiced discreetly, would be so much better. After all, you don’t want all of us to have to break up into little ethnic and religious enclaves do you? I thought the US was past tribalism.
JiangxiDad on December 5, 2008 at 5:43 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »