Does the first atheist monument take us forward or backward?

1. 84

   M. T. Dremerposted 10 years ago

   Does the first atheist monument take us forward or backward?
   
   The first atheist monument was constructed on government land in Florida. It was done as a compromise when courts refused to remove a reproduction of the ten commandments. As an atheist, seeing the monument is encouraging; the more recognized we are, the less demonized we will be (hopefully). But the monument technically didn't solve the problem. Our government is supposed to show no preference for religion, but now it's just showing a preference for two (though atheism isn't technically a religion). Do you think this event is taking atheists (and the U.S.) forward or backward?

   replyreport
2. 60

   Josakposted 10 years ago

   Backwards, neither should exist on public land. Our government in all aspects should be religiously neutral "a wall of separation" those who disagree do so only so long as it's just their faith that is promoted, start suggesting we should have Koran quotes everywhere and the tune changes quickly.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      CalebSparksposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Actually, the government is not to ESTABLISH a religion...as in a State Church. "Congress shall make no LAW respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

      replyreport
   2. 60

      Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Wall of separation doctrine as accepted and shown by the Supreme Court from the letters of the writer.

      replyreport
   3. 57

      taburkettposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      political falsity appears as metaphors like "wall of separation" routinely quoted when speaking of the first amendment. however, the government has yet to prove that this metaphor is exactly the phrase that defines "Congress shall make no law..."

      replyreport
   4. 60

      Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Nope the phrase has been proved repeatedly, there are several Supreme Court cases doing so. As per the constitution SCOTUS is the final interpreter of the constitution. Therefore the wall of separation doctrine is the only proven reading of the law.

      replyreport
   5. 57

      taburkettposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Everyone wishes to depict the phrase within a prior court case to render their meaning for a current event. But, many cases have also determined that the "wall of separation" is not valid for artifacts or monuments. It's not global. For this case ?

      replyreport
3. 38

   ChristinSposted 10 years ago

   As an atheist I can see both sides. On one hand, what's good for the goose. Religious people want to put their monuments on public land, well then the non-religious should get to do the same.
   
   I prefer that NO monuments be used. You can't open up the doors to one belief system and not all the others. There are plenty of churches, temples, synagogues etc. that everyone is free to go to if they choose. You can also worship in your home, why the need for religious displays on government property?

   replyreport
   1. 57

      taburkettposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      You must believe that everyone should quit using all forms of money, credit, and financial institution forms since many depict some form of monument support for some form of belief system. The USA society is a freedom and peace loving land.

      replyreport
   2. 38

      ChristinSposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      God was added to currency during the 50's it wasn't always there and I'd be perfectly fine with it being removed

      replyreport
   3. 40

      Borsiaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I would add that the references to god were added illegally without proper hearings. It should be take off. None of my financial forms, save money which is printed at the command of a non-American Corp, have any such references.

      replyreport
   4. 57

      taburkettposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      IN God we trust was first used in 1964 on USA coins. It was added to paper currency in 1957 after it was selected as the USA motto in 1956. The statement has nothing to do with any law creating a religion. But the radicals like to make chaos. Truth.

      replyreport
   5. 60

      Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      In God we trust is a perfect example of constitutional violation. Having "In God we trust" on our currency makes a mockery of the founding father's desire for: "a wall of separation between church and state" as Jefferson wanted and wrote.

      replyreport
   6. 57

      taburkettposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      In God we trust is not a religion. it is a national motto. History has shown that citizens trust those who trust God. That has nothing to do with establishment of religion. But it does have everything to do with TRUST.  TRUTH.

      replyreport
   7. 60

      Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I didn't say it was a religion I said it violates the wall of separation doctrine and thus makes a mockery of what the founding fathers wrote that they wanted.

      replyreport
   8. 38

      ChristinSposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Agreed Josak. ta you are a very angry person who seems to think anyone who doesn't agree with you is a "radical" get a grip.

      replyreport
   9. 71

      getitriteposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      @taburkett,  For someone who claims to love freedom and peace so much, it seems that you actually hate freedom so much that you refuse to even enjoy the freedom to think for yourselves, and prefer to give that freedom up.  Maybe its fear that u love.

      replyreport
   10. 57

       taburkettposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       In God we trust is not a law to establish religion. it does not represent anything against the Constitution. Radicals have taken action to discriminate against the Constitution. They state that reference to God is an establishment of religion.

       replyreport
   11. 60

       Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       It has nothing to do with the establishment of a religion, it's a violation of wall of separation doctrine do you not understand?

       replyreport
   12. 57

       taburkettposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Josak -  I understand that "wall of separation" has nothing to do with the First Amendment. Because it does not define the First Amendment. Many have attempted to imply that it does. none have been able to convince the Congress to change the wording

       replyreport
   13. 60

       Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Not true. The supreme court has confirmed the wall of separation doctrine repeatedly.

       replyreport
4. 40

   Borsiaposted 10 years ago

   If we are supposed to smile and wave at all of the religious symbols and bric a brac then all beliefs, or non-beliefs, should be given equal space and time.
   Like others here I would rather see none of this.
   I am atheist but I don't need a monument to tell me that. Nor do I have any desire to tell others how to believe.
   If we are going to post something why not post the most common 10 actual laws of society and leave the religious BS out of it.

   replyreport
   1. 57

      taburkettposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      All those who seek equal space are permitted. 
      To provide a better activity, the government should not own any property.
      This would eliminate all problems with government property with monuments.

      replyreport
   2. 40

      Borsiaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I would not be happy with public property being transferred to private hands or to any entity not publicly controlled.

      replyreport
   3. 57

      taburkettposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      there is little need for government property that discriminates against the citizen. by removing all government property, all discrimination on that property by the government would be eliminated. this would then provide the equality radicals seek.

      replyreport
5. 57

   taburkettposted 10 years ago

   The ruling by the judge in this Florida case was appropriate based on the Constitution of the USA and Florida.  Any other insinuated purpose is simply an attempt to circumvent the truth.  Therefore, it neither takes us forward or backward because it makes no difference to those who have chosen their respective paths.  Additionally, it should not affect any who do not traverse the grounds where it may have been placed.
   The government made no law permitting it or rejecting it.
   The government made no law to establish a religion.
   In fact, the government correctly permitted the citizens to provide for themselves these monuments.
   Placing a plaque, picture, or any artifact provided by the citizens of this nation on government property is not a law made to establish religion.
   But many disruptive citizens choose to insinuate that it is such so that they can generate radical chaos within the nation. When someone utilizes this tactic, they attempt to destroy the freedom loving, peaceful society of the nation. 
   Those who generate such chaos never take responsibility for the detrimental outcome when the society suffers from those corrupt efforts.
   The USA is the greatest nation in the world because the government is the people.
   The USA suffers today because many of its citizens have lost touch with this reality.
   The USA will continue to suffer as long as any group is permitted to discriminate against another group by calling for the government to refuse the desires of its citizens - the true power of the nation.
   The founding fathers understood this truth, and so generated a protective Constitution that when used properly refutes the power of some to rule over others.
   The government is not empowered to show favoritism.  It is empowered to deny favoritism to one group over the other.
   The sooner the citizens of the USA get back to this truth - the better.

   replyreport