Was this really necessary?

[Skeptic]

Some people here are, apparently militant atheists, who thinks no concern for others' feelings or beliefs should interfere with what THEY knows to be the TRUTH. That is known, as Yiddish, as being a nudnick -- a nudge, a know-it-all who keeps annoying people.

Still, at least now I know what a militant atheist is. While annoying, it is still significantly better than a militant Muslims or a militant Christian...

 

[DC]

Some people here are, apparently militant atheists, who thinks no concern for others' feelings or beliefs should interfere with what THEY knows to be the TRUTH. That is known, as Yiddish, as being a nudnick -- a nudge, a know-it-all who keeps annoying people.

Still, at least now I know what a militant atheist is. While annoying, it is still significantly better than a militant Muslims or a militant Christian...

but we are worse than millitant jews and millitant budhists?

 

[FattyCatty]

I'm not sure I understand your point. The second part (no heaven) is plain honesty and the first part (worm food) is bluntness that doesn't appear to have any counterpart in the situation we're talking about.

Your assertion of "no heaven" is opinion, not fact. How does that make it "honesty?"

I think the suggestion that you weren't responding to anyone in the thread is patently absurd. If you weren't responding to anyone in the thread, then why did you write something in the thread?

Giving an opinion on the issue, perhaps?

Did you just click randomly on a thread, not read it, write a rant and then, by happy coincidence, discover that the rant you'd posted fitted the thread you'd picked. If that's the case I recon you might want to apply for the million dollars.

If you fail to see how your posting in the thread is responding to someone in the thread then I'm afraid I just can't help you at all.

I think you mistake who needs help understanding.

Please note that personal or close tragedy, while very sad, doesn't give you any special leave to depart from the rules of logic and continuity. Indeed, the clear emotional attachment you have to the issue is clearly clouding your judgement. Maybe you should try to leave that behind while having a logical discussion? I didn't tell you how to feel, I merely noted that you seemed to believe that many people on the thread were misinterpreting you and that this was perhaps due to your being somewhat less than calm. I suggested calming down. It still seems like it might be a good idea, if I'm honest, even if only for your blood pressure.

Yet you and some others were misinterpreting him. So his calmness or lack thereof has no relevance to what occurred. Also, your post is very condescending in tone, hardly likely to induce calmness or reduce the blood pressure of the person it addresses. So I am inclined to think your motive is the opposite of defusing the situation.

I didn't say it was good for me, good for atheists in general or even that the objective was in their own enlightened self interest. Just that it's an objective they seem to have.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...-regarding-potential-seven-in-heaven-lawsuit/



Apparently it's a great way of recruiting more Dicks

LOL. Like to like.

Then why did you write it here?

Again, to address the issue. Why do you have such a hard time with that concept?

 

[Skeptic]

but we are worse than millitant jews and millitant budhists?

 

[OMGturt1es]

Bad idea. Will not help our public image.

 

[dtugg]

I think it is extremely obvious that triforcharity was talking about the stupid militant athiests who are wasting their time and making the rest of us look bad by association. But then again, I have good reading comprehension skills. I can't say how it looks to people who lack such skills.

 

[Gaspode]

Keep it civil from now on. Address the topic of the thread and not each other. There will be no further warnings.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Gaspode

 

[caniswalensis]

To get back on topic, I really do not see the point of suing over this sign. I do see some potential for harm to atheists in suing though.

Here are the salient facts as I see them:

• The seven people are beloved heroes to their families, friends & nation.
• The group name 'Seven in Heaven' has been long established as a way of referring to the group collectively, not one that was invented simply to put on a sign.
• The naming of the street is a memorial to the group, it is a well deserved honor, condsidering the nature of their deaths.
• You can't fit the names of seven individuals on a street sign.

I just do not see this as an official endorsement of religion.

So to take a thing that was done innocently, to honor these beloved heroes, and to try to make a political point over it would seem to be unwise in the extreme. I do not think the suit will sucede, but it will tarnish the image of atheists everywhere, and make us look unappreciative of the selfless service & sacrifice of these men.

Don't we get enough of a bad rap from our religious fellow Americans with out engaging in litigation that will ultimately be seen as mean-spirited?

I personally want this sign to stay. I want these people to be remembered for what they did. I do not feel the least bit threatened by the fact tht they have been called the 'Seven in Heaven' for years and that was the name chosen for the sign. It seems appropriate to me.

Here is a sample of the type of backlash this suit will inspire:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-atheist-uproar/2011/06/23/AGV21NhH_blog.html

I have to say that even as an athiest, these NYC atheist's sound insufferably arrogant in the article. Whether that is true, or the journalist carefully chose quotes from them to give that impression, these atheists are hurting our side more than any street sign wit the word heaven on it ever could.

Even if we win, we lose.

Regards, Canis

 

[tsig]

I think it's pretty uncalled for and I'm very much an atheist.

This is the exact sort of thing that makes us look like angry little trolls trying to take religion away from people. You don't win hearts and minds by insisting that brave men who gave their lives can't be remembered in the way they probably would have wanted to.
I'd feel differently if the seven happened to be atheists. They died giving their lives for others. Odds are pretty good that they were religious believers of some stripe. We don't need to take that away from them or the people they left behind.

This is such a minor mix of government and religion that it's completely pointless to fight it. The only thing accomplished is that atheists look downright nasty.

They're not trying to win hearts and minds but trying to see the constitution is enforced. How minor does the violation have to be till we ignore it?

 

[tsig]

And you STILL have yet to even come CLOSE to understanding my post.

I was not addressing ANYONE in this thread, or any posters who may come to this board. I was commenting strictly on the NYC Athiests.

Please do try to follow along, and understand what I have explained to you already. If something I said causes you confusion, please feel free to ask for clarification.

Then why not take your rant to where the NYC atheists are?

 

[Complexity]

It would be wrong of me to choose to disregard any violation of the Constitution.

That some may find this to be a small lapse for a good cause is intellectually unworthy and irrelevant.

I fight for the complete separation between church and state because it is the right thing to do, not to win a popularity contest or to be an accommodationist.

State support and toleration of the street sign is wrong, regardless of who pays for it or how insignificant some would have us believe it is.

 

[tsig]

To get back on topic, I really do not see the point of suing over this sign. I do see some potential for harm to atheists in suing though.

Here are the salient facts as I see them:

• The seven people are beloved heroes to their families, friends & nation.
• The group name 'Seven in Heaven' has been long established as a way of referring to the group collectively, not one that was invented simply to put on a sign.
• The naming of the street is a memorial to the group, it is a well deserved honor, condsidering the nature of their deaths.
• You can't fit the names of seven individuals on a street sign.

I just do not see this as an official endorsement of religion.

So to take a thing that was done innocently, to honor these beloved heroes, and to try to make a political point over it would seem to be unwise in the extreme. I do not think the suit will sucede, but it will tarnish the image of atheists everywhere, and make us look unappreciative of the selfless service & sacrifice of these men.

Don't we get enough of a bad rap from our religious fellow Americans with out engaging in litigation that will ultimately be seen as mean-spirited?

I personally want this sign to stay. I want these people to be remembered for what they did. I do not feel the least bit threatened by the fact tht they have been called the 'Seven in Heaven' for years and that was the name chosen for the sign. It seems appropriate to me.

Here is a sample of the type of backlash this suit will inspire:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-atheist-uproar/2011/06/23/AGV21NhH_blog.html

I have to say that even as an athiest, these NYC atheist's sound insufferably arrogant in the article. Whether that is true, or the journalist carefully chose quotes from them to give that impression, these atheists are hurting our side more than any street sign wit the word heaven on it ever could.

Even if we win, we lose.

Regards, Canis

Have any theists ever done anything you disprove of?

 

[DC]

wasn't it the same group that also made the billboards claiming "religions are fake and you know it" ?

 

[caniswalensis]

Have any theists ever done anything you disprove of?

Yes, of course.

I am able to look at things objectively, and see that theists are as individual as atheists, however.

I do not harbor a hatred in my heart of every religious person simply because religion is involved in some nefarious deeds. I see past the specious logic that religion is some sort of especially bad thing by it's nature. The truth is that humans by nature can be pretty crummy, and that crummyness can be seen in every human endeavor to some extent. Religion, like every other human endevor, is affected by human nature. It is about as crummy as anything else we do. I do not see a real need for religion in the world, but the fact is that it is here and probably here to stay for a good long while yet. Might as well accept it and try to figure out how to live with it.

Even if you disagree with my thinking and the reasons I gave in the post of mine you quoted, It must at least be acknowledged that I have my reasons for my opinion on this and it is not due to some sort of blanket approval of theists.

You can try to make this about me personally if you wish, but that is a cheap shot and it does not hold water. Really, I see this sort of personal attack all the time in these forums, and it is a disgrace to the name of the JREF. A skeptic and critical thinker should know better than to use such shoddy logic.

Regards, Canis

 

[caniswalensis]

It would be wrong of me to choose to disregard any violation of the Constitution.

That some may find this to be a small lapse for a good cause is intellectually unworthy and irrelevant.

I fight for the complete separation between church and state because it is the right thing to do, not to win a popularity contest or to be an accommodationist.

State support and toleration of the street sign is wrong, regardless of who pays for it or how insignificant some would have us believe it is.

I do not completely disagree, and I respect you for standing up for your principles.

I am starting to wonder if this sign does represent a true endorsement of religion, though. Does the mere mention of a religious concept ipso facto signify endorsement? I am not sure if what I am saying here is valid or not. I would love to hear what someone with more knowledge of constitution law would say about it.

 

[TragicMonkey]

So, they named part of a street with a really long and jokey-sounding rhyming name? Yeah, that'll take. You can put however many signs up you like, people aren't going to call it anything other than "Richards Street", no matter what their feelings about religion are. Gods are fickle, politics is worse, but human nature doesn't change. Street names are meant to be short and not be changed.

 

[triforcharity]

It would be wrong of me to choose to disregard any violation of the Constitution.

That some may find this to be a small lapse for a good cause is intellectually unworthy and irrelevant.

I fight for the complete separation between church and state because it is the right thing to do, not to win a popularity contest or to be an accommodationist.

State support and toleration of the street sign is wrong, regardless of who pays for it or how insignificant some would have us believe it is.

So, are you going to be filing suit against all the counties that have cities named after gods? You seem to have ignored that.

How about filing suit to have "God" taken off all US money?

Seems like there are MUCH more important things to go after, than a silly sign.

Oh, how about Hell Michigan?

 

[Complexity]

So, are you going to be filing suit against all the counties that have cities named after gods? You seem to have ignored that.

We'll start with those that pick religious names today and are silly enough to have people post in favor of doing so on JREF.

How about filing suit to have "God" taken off all US money?

Been there, done that. I've supported that effort for some time.

With some better planning, I'm going to support a suit to prevent the transport and raising of the "National Christmas Tree" in Washington DC.

Seems like there are MUCH more important things to go after, than a silly sign.

Then, once again, you are wrong. If we don't keep you guys from encroaching on our rights in the small things, it will be too late when you start in on the big things.

Think of it like a leaking boat. I want to bail out and plug gaps from the beginning, while you (who are hoping the boat goes down with all aboard) is urging me to wait until the water really starts coming in.

We've got the ACLU and some other great lawyers; you've got Fred Phelps and his clan.

Oh, how about Hell Michigan?

What about Hell? Heaven is imaginary - I made it up for suckers. Hell is real - you're in it right now.

Satan

 

[caniswalensis]

I would definately support taking "In God We Trust off" Off of U.S. currancy. That will be a heckuva fight though. It such an effort were to become feasable, I could see some serious hatred, even violence being stirred up by it. it would not be easy to watch, but I would still liketo see that motto gone.

Even more, I would love to have 'under God' taken out of the pledge of allegience. This one thing, more than anything else, makes me feel alienated and excluded. I love our country and it's constitution. I am a very patriotic American. It hurts me to not be able to recite the pledge in it's entirety.

Those are two law suits I could really get behind.

Complexity, I don't think I would support blocking the national chrismas tree. I love christmas as much as I love America. You should try to look past all the phony commercialized religious overtones that people put on it, and find the true meaning of Christmas; Getting gifts and over-eating.

Regards, Canis

 

[Complexity]

Complexity, I don't think I would support blocking the national chrismas tree. I love christmas as much as I love America. You should try to look past all the phony commercialized religious overtones that people put on it, and find the true meaning of Christmas; Getting gifts and over-eating.

Regards, Canis

Whatever feelings I may personally have about xmas (and those would be some fond ones from childhood and nothing memorable since then) can not be relevant to whether to fight the erection of a 'National Christmas Tree' by the government and having a lighting ceremony by the president of the country. That is simply wrong.

Fortunately, I buy myself the best presents. Being on Atkins, the eating part is not something I want to dwell on right now.