Atheists offended by teddy bears...

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MrFun
But I still disagree.

If you ever agreed with me, I'd have to seriously consider whether or not I was correct.

[Elok]

Originally posted by orange
If people can legally put memorials on the roadside, than anything else should be legal, including a burning cross or a statue of Buddha. You can have it all ways or no way, take your pick.

If a statue of Buddha is somehow commemorative of a dead person, or is otherwise there for a reason, sure. But burning crosses are traditionally symbols used to intimidate black people or their white sympathizers and therefore qualify as hate crimes, not as a peaceful expression of personal opinion. Plus they're a fire hazard. Common sense and discretion always apply in enforcement of the law.

You can argue that permits should be required in any case, and I'd say that's a legitimate point, but beyond that...eh. There's such a thing as applying the right argument for the wrong reasons, and I think what's getting you two steamed here isn't really the violation of proper regulatory procedures.

[Kuciwalker]

chegitz - why do you care? Does it harm you? Are they forcing you to become religious? If you are so weak-willed that a few crosses on the side of the road memorializing someone who died in a car accident are enough to change your mind about religion... The thing about these things is that they are allowed because they are a memorial. The religious part of them is ignored, so there is no endorsement of religion. Whether or not you can put it up is NOT determined by religion.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


If you ever agreed with me, I'd have to seriously consider whether or not I was correct.

Aaaawwww . . . . . your trolling hurts my feelings.



NOT

[orange]

Originally posted by Elok
If a statue of Buddha is somehow commemorative of a dead person, or is otherwise there for a reason, sure.

It doesn't matter if it is or isn't. And besides that, who decides that a teddy bear is indicative of a dead person while a buddha isn't?

But burning crosses are traditionally symbols used to intimidate black people or their white sympathizers and therefore qualify as hate crimes, not as a peaceful expression of personal opinion.

What something represents is in the eye of the beholder.

Plus they're a fire hazard. Common sense and discretion always apply in enforcement of the law.

You're dodging the issue...

You can argue that permits should be required in any case, and I'd say that's a legitimate point, but beyond that...eh.

Then the permits would have to allow for anything and everything since it is PUBLIC land.

There's such a thing as applying the right argument for the wrong reasons, and I think what's getting you two steamed here isn't really the violation of proper regulatory procedures.

Not at all. I personally don't care, but I don't like the double standard. The law is the law, and the article makes a valid point.

[Kuciwalker]

Not at all. I personally don't care, but I don't like the double standard. The law is the law, and the article makes a valid point.

There IS no double standard. Religion is not a factor in the decision whether or not to allow the memorial - the fact that it is a memorial to a person who died in a car accident there is.

[orange]

They can make a memorial on their own property, not public property.

[Kuciwalker]

So you say. However, since the right to make a memorial isn't being restricted to only certain groups, there isn't a double standard.

[orange]

so I can erect a memorial on any public property using whatever medium I want? Excellent!

[Kuciwalker]

No, that's not it. For one thing, we are talking about memorials to someone who died right there. Another, they are not where someone would be walking, and not in the middle of a city. For another, it obviously can't be something hateful (some sort of slur).

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by skywalker
chegitz - why do you care? Does it harm you?

Yes.

[Dr Strangelove]

The idea behind allowing people to put memorials at the side of the road is to remind drivers that people get killed by automobile accidents. They remind drivers to take a little more care when they're driving. The memorials are a sort of public service. If you come to a place where there are a bunch of memorials you know that you better stay alert. It just so happens that in the US memorials tend to consist of crosses. The people who put them up aren't really advertising religion, they're putting up a symbol that most people can easily recognize as meaning that someone died at that spot. Putting up flowers works pretty well too, but putting up a sign wouldn't, because drivers might not have time to read the sign.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Yes.

Yeah -- the evil religious people are hiding in your closet at night ready to jump out at you and shout, "BOO!"

[chequita guevara]

I am gonna strap you down to a Jacksonville street next to a memorial (yours!) if you keep this up. We'll see how long you keep that smart mouth of yours. That's assuming a car doesn't kill you before the sun or red ants.

[Velociryx]

I agree that public property isn't a dumping ground to be used for "whatever" by whomever decides to make use of it, but that's not the crux of these guys arguments.

They're saying that the roadside shrines are: a) A hazard, and b) Offensive.

To the first part...yep, they prolly are a hazard, and to combat that particular hazard, we should put it in perspective, by estimating the total number OF roadside shrines, then stacking that number up next to the total number of loud, obnoxious billboards, trees, flowers, and other "distractions" along our public roads, and deal with them in the order of their severity.

Doing so, I think we will find that roadside shrines fall somewhat low on the list.

To the second part, there are LOTS of things that are offensive. Don't look. Simple.

To the argument about un-authorized uses of public land: That's a valid argument. Again, let's stack it up next to the other problems we face as a society and give dealing with it a proportion of resources equal to the relative size of the problem. Probably, it won't get a lot of funding or support, and it shouldn't, until we deal with some of our more pressing problems. It's just not that big a deal.

-=Vel=-
$0.02