Atheists offended by teddy bears...

[lord of the mark]

1. I find it interesting that Europeans who are atheists, and in some cases members of officially and militantly atheist political parties, dont quite "get" the issue.

Without judging the legal question one way or the other, to my way of thinking this is less about the Americans being mad, or having extermist atheists - this more about the American mindset in relation to law and the Constitution - we are, I think a more legalistic society than the states of Europe - certainly than the civil law states of the continent, and to some extent even than Great Britian. We are attached to our common law rights to a day in court, as the fundamental way to achieve justice, in a way Europeans are not. While this sometimes leads to laughable litigation, its difficult to say that the European approach of using bureaucratic means to achieve social justice has proven superior.

In addition, we ( or many of us) are very attached to the notion of SEPERATION of church and state. While dear to athiests, perhaps, this doctrine is not at all inconsistent with a VERY religious society. It is less the product of European style anti-clericalism than with the politics of very religious dissenting protestants taken to their logical extreme. The US, with its "wall of seperation" is a far more religious (and yes, Christian) society than the states of Europe with all their crosses.
This is NOT entirely coincidence, as noted as far back as the time of Alexis De Toqueville and Karl Marx.

2. Wouldnt doves and multilateralists be more hostile to teddy bears, seeing as theyre named after Teddy Roosevelt

[Imran Siddiqui]

These atheists are dumbasses, pure and simple.

[SlowwHand]

Damned right. Atheists SUCK. Dumb bastards. Jackasses.
Ne'er-do-wells, as Lefty would say.

[MrFun]

Nah -- they're just so insecure with themselves, that they have to launch screaming attacks against religious people.

Too bad those extreme atheists don't spend their time working out their own personal problems, instead of conjuring up non-issues like this.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


That's cuz they're too buzy vandalizing Jewish cemetaries and sending their kids off to boot camp because they're afraid they might be Satan worshipers.

So who's vandalizing the Jewish cemetaries in Europe?

[Spiffor]

LOTM:
The only arguable point of the Atheists mentioned in the opening post (and I suppose that's the point you refer to when you're talking about legalism) is the fact that local communities pay for the maintenance of these memorials. ndeed, in such case it's somehow about the separation between church and State.
However, if these communities don't discriminate between memorials according to a religious basis, it doesn't strike me as a matter of separation bw Church and State.

It seems to me that the atheists' position is less legalist than simply hostile to religious displays. As far as it looks, the State hasn't built these religious symbols, and as such I don't really get the ruckus about it. Save maybe that these extreme atheists would like to live in a society where they never get to see a cross?

[Dis]

distractions help keep people awake while driving. I am dismayed that so many people fall asleep while driving. Why can't people stay awake? I can't even fall asleep while in an upright position.

Maybe these roadside memorials will serve as a clue how dangerous the roads are, and will remind people to drive carefully.

[SlowwHand]

"I can't even fall asleep while in an upright position."


Well, ok then Grampa.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor
LOTM:
The only arguable point of the Atheists mentioned in the opening post (and I suppose that's the point you refer to when you're talking about legalism) is the fact that local communities pay for the maintenance of these memorials. ndeed, in such case it's somehow about the separation between church and State.
However, if these communities don't discriminate between memorials according to a religious basis, it doesn't strike me as a matter of separation bw Church and State.

It seems to me that the atheists' position is less legalist than simply hostile to religious displays. As far as it looks, the State hasn't built these religious symbols, and as such I don't really get the ruckus about it. Save maybe that these extreme atheists would like to live in a society where they never get to see a cross?

There are folks here in the US who want to put up creches, crosses and other religious symbols in front of city halls, in court houses, etc as a way of expressing that the America IS Christian. Atheists, most Jews, and many Christians who affirm a wall of seperation between church and state oppose this. The Wall of seperation doctrine (which not all accept as a proper interpretation of the "no establishment of religion clause in the 1st amendment) means just that - NO state support for religion, NOT equal treatment of all religions.

Now obviously the folks who put up crosses on stated owned highway right of way where theyve lost a loved one are NOT trying to make a religious political point. The question is legally how do you allow one person to put up a cross on a state owned highway right of way, and not allow someone else to put one up in front of city hall?

"Save maybe that these extreme atheists would like to live in a society where they never get to see a cross? "

No one in the US expects to not see a cross in SOCIETY- where many (not all) of us do NOT want to see a cross (OR a hanukkah menorah, or any other religious symbol) is on the property of the state. Thats a distinction we take quite seriously over here. And not only by the anti-religious among us. As a religious (but not Orthodox) Jew, it is quite striking to me how the identification to the state with Orthodox Judaism has corrupted Orthodox Judaism in Israel, and brought all of Judaism into disrepute among Israelis. Similarly my knowledge of European history leads me to see the strong anticlericalism present in much of Europe directly to the firm alliance traditional between church and state prior to the 20th c. I think the US takes religion as seriously as it does precisely because weve kept religion unentangled with the state. While we (Americans!) can all disagree on the extent of it, I think the general principle of seperation is not an anti-religious one, but a PRO-religious one.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor
LOTM:
The only arguable point of the Atheists mentioned in the opening post (and I suppose that's the point you refer to when you're talking about legalism) is the fact that local communities pay for the maintenance of these memorials. ndeed, in such case it's somehow about the separation between church and State.
However, if these communities don't discriminate between memorials according to a religious basis, it doesn't strike me as a matter of separation bw Church and State.

It seems to me that the atheists' position is less legalist than simply hostile to religious displays. As far as it looks, the State hasn't built these religious symbols, and as such I don't really get the ruckus about it. Save maybe that these extreme atheists would like to live in a society where they never get to see a cross?

Its about placement on state property:

"But these are up all over the place. They're shrines set up on public property everywhere and people really don't have the right to do that."

"They get to be extreme. They get to be more than just, let's place a bouquet of flowers where there was an accident," Johnson said. "These become permanent memorials...and it becomes a mission for these people to advertise where no one else can advertise. It's become less about the original situation and more about putting up an advertisement and that's the problem."



I would note in this context that somewhere in ISTR Maryland (or was it Delaware? Or New Jersey?) along Interstate 95, one of the busiest highways in the US, there is a giant statue of the Virgin Mary, "our lady of the highways" placed by IIRC, the order of Francis De Sales. Whats different about that, you may ask? Its ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. Which is sacred, you understand .


Now I suppose if you look forward to a society in which there IS NO private property, you might think that people who want to keep religious symbols off state property are people who want a religion free society. That, I think, is the source of confusion.

[Jamski]

Hey Jamski, you want to troll a Christian, I don't mind being the target. It's rough trying to quit smoking.

But you're one of the nice ones Ben, I'd feel embarressed, like swearing at a kid for being too short or something. Any of the nasty Christians up for a fight?

-Jam

[Japher]

Them 4-pane windows need to be banned too, they resemble a cross to closely!!!

[Jamski]

Teaching the bLIEble in school ought to be banned for a start.

-Jam

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Japher
Them 4-pane windows need to be banned too, they resemble a cross to closely!!!

[Ben Kenobi]

The US, with its "wall of seperation" is a far more religious (and yes, Christian) society than the states of Europe with all their crosses.

Aah, but that's missing the point, LoTM.

The actual amendment merely prevents the state from setting up an established religion as in Britain or France. The so-called wall of seperation does allow for the free-exercise of any religion.

Now, I see what you mean by the crosses in the state legislature, but what would you do with a plaque that says "God is my right," as we have in our BC Supreme Court?

I see nothing wrong with the legislature acknowledging that Christians made the laws of the US, and to have God as their source of inspiration.

Where I do have a problem is if the law would treat you differently than from any other citizen of the US.