Jughead? That you?
nope, can’t even read any more of this. GEEPERS has gone well past “funny” to just sad, if he takes **Kobal2’s **rhetorical excesses as the true "atheist agenda’ while ignoring all other reasonable explanations for why this school was legally required to remove that banner.
Poor you.
I wouldn’t outlaw religion, personally. I like freedom. Although I would hope that it would eventually become seen as a nonsense woo belief, along the lines of astrology or mystic healing foot massage.
More like intelligence and rationality don’t like vapid, incoherent, nonsense. 
Ah, maybe we are getting somewhere! The difference is, a private building or billboard is yours to do with as you please.
A public building is owned by the populace at large, and thus can’t advocate for a religion or even religion in general. Get it?
Sure it does. On private land it is the free expression of a citizen. On public land it is an endorsement of the message by the government.
At one time most Americans thought you should be able to own black people. Most people don’t dictate what is constitutional.
Homosexuals exist. If you don’t like that, I don’t see what you can do about it.
I expected this would be your response based on his choice of words, but perhaps you should finish reading to the end of the paragraph. It does say something that when 20 atheists say they don’t hate Christianity and one says (conditionally) that he does, you respond only to the one. And again- Constitutionally, this is irrelevant.
From a Constitutional standpoint it makes a great deal of difference. One is speech by individuals and is protected from government interference in most circumstances, and the other is speech that can be attributed to the government and can infringe on the free religious practices of citizens by establishing a state religious belief.
Nobody has been “awarded” (or rewarded or whatever you meant) or berated here. There’s nothing inherently moral about the words “our heavenly father.” The rest of the message is moral, but those words make it a Christian prayer. Without them, it’s the same moral message, and students who read it can add a mental “our heavenly father, amen” if they want to.
I think gays can only wish Christians would ignore them instead of what they have actually done for many years- condemn them, ostracize them, call them sinful, and try to prevent them from getting legal recognition for marriages and stop them from having families. What’s happened lately is that society’s treatment of gays has improved and society is starting to listen when gays complain about this kind of treatment. Religious people can also continue to shut gays out of their congregations and condemn themselves to a reputation of bigotry and irrelevance if they want. But they can’t use public money and facilities to do it, and if they rent a house from a university, they have to follow the policies of their landlord.
So the shoe is on the other foot and you don’t like it. How ironic.
As far as exposure to the message, it seems that many saw the message and did not take it to heart as evidenced by the threats of violence over it’s removal. The influence of teachings at home and church far outweighed that of the banner. Why are you not concerned of the danger to Christianity from that kind of evil thinking that is seen as a face of that faith?
No.. You were wrong. You have persistently claimed that all atheists held those views. That you can find a few atheists with those opinions is hardly surprising, considering the hatred that they have experienced at the hands of some Christians, but your claim that all atheists hold those views, a claim that you have repeated ad nauseam, is simply wrong.
Your inability has been made quite clear to us over many months. The difference is that things placed on public buildings require that the taxes provided by people who do not share those beliefs are taken and used to support those beliefs. (Don’t try to pull the “it was donated” line regarding the sign from the OP. A school maintenance worker put it up while being paid by local taxes and every time they painted the building, another tax-paid worker had to remove it and re-hang it.)
No. Christians have exercised their power to persecute gays for many years, preventing them from serving in the military, firing them from jobs, forbidding them from adopting children, evicting them from housing, etc.
It is supreme irony that you consider those abuses of civil rights to be “ignoring gays” while you consider the removal of a trite sign from a school wall to be “persecution.”
Poor baby. 
What is that “homosexual message”? Treat all people with courtesy and respect without worrying who their sexual partners might be? How awful!
If you were really worried about evil messages, you should be protesting the excess of heterosexual messages in the media, not worrying about a few gays being treated equally.
If the poster wasn’t speaking for all atheists, why didn’t someone correct him? No one seemed to have any problem with his extremely hostile rhetoric towards religion.
So what? My tax payer money goes to support anti-Christian actions like abortion.
I could deal without the condescending tone, but I won’t stoop to that level here. Did you even read my OP? I merely claimed that it was an example of Christians rights between taken away in favor of the atheist, and it is part of the slippery slope that will eventually lead to Christianity being banned.
BTW, Christians are certainly persecuted horribly in foreign countries for their belief in Jesus Christ. Gays serving in the military pales in comparison.
The message is that Christians must go against the clear teachings in the Bible, or we are being a bigot.
Again, for the umpteenth time…there is no such thing as “Christian rights.” None whatsoever.
What difference would it make? No matter what atheists say and no matter how many of them say they don’t hate religion, you insist they do. Denying it has made no difference whatsoever in your rhetoric, so you’ve proved there is no value in attempting to convince you otherwise.
Snort.
Not relevant either. We’re discussing U.S. law.
It seems you will go to any length to avoid admitting this, but your interpretation of Christianity is not universal. But regardless, you are free to practice your religion the way you want to in your home or your church. You’re not entitled to support from any private entity that disagrees with your views, and you’re not entitled to unrestricted use of government funds or facilities. None of this restricts your ability to practice your religion. It does mean that not everybody wants to support your religious practices, but then again, they don’t have to support them because the Constitution grants freedom of religious practices to everybody, and it does not award public or private support to any religion.
How so?
Which clear teachings are those? The one that says it is incumbent upon you to judge others?
There are, of course, plenty of prejudiced and bigoted statements in holy texts - not just the Bible, although that’s certainly included. That’s not surprising since they were written and compiled thousands of years ago and they reflect the views of the societies that created them. Again, that’s not relevant to the fact that it’s Constitutional to believe in those religions or practice them with very few limits (granting exceptions for harming other people). But it’s relevant in that society’s views have evolved over time. Some people no longer want to endorse those kinds of prejudices. They’ve decided they are wrong or bad for business, for example. So a private college might not want to allow you to use its houses or buildings if you’re going to discriminate in certain ways. You know what? They’re allowed to do that. You have a right to practice your religion, and they have a right to restrict access to their facilities as they see fit. If you don’t like that, the easy solution is not to use those facilities. Certainly the government is not going to compel them to let you use them because that would infringe on their rights. And the government has also adopted various anti-discrimination policies over the years (again, because that’s how society has evolved) and if you want to use government facilities, you have to abide by those. If you don’t like those policies, you simply don’t have to use government land. You don’t have a Constitutional right to use federal or state property in practicing your religion. The notion is absurd.
You have the right to practice your religion without the government getting involved. You don’t have the right to take someone’s land or property to practice your religion. You can agree to use someone else’s land or property, and they can impose conditions on that agreement. You can take or leave the terms, but you can’t dictate them unilaterally. And everybody is free to comment on your religious practices as they see fit, including calling those practices bigoted. You have a right to those beliefs, but you do not have a right to be protected from criticism. There is no such right.
Of course, this has already been explained dozens of times in this thread.
This is the crucial point, and the one that you’ve been missing since you started posting here.
The people who set up this country’s federal government had this crazy idea that religious strife was harmful to the functioning of the government, and to the liberties of the people, so took pains to create one that would be open to people of all beliefs. They put in wording that prevented the government’s endorsing of anyone’s religious ideas. Later, these same restrictions on the government (and restrictions on the government are increases in the liberties of its citizens) were applied to the states.
Your religious freedom is protected by restricting what kinds of things the government can do.
Your religious freedom is also protected by letting you do whatever you want with your property.
See? It’s really not that hard.
He voiced a personal opinion that did not even really appear to be an expression of opinion for “all” atheists. Why should anyone “correct” a private opinion?
Really? I am not aware of any recent changes that permit government funding of abortion. (President Obama freed up some funding for Planned Parenthood for activities that do not include direct funding for abortion, not actual funds for abortions.)
Besides which, of course, it is not all Christians who oppose abortion. Abortion is opposed by many Christians, but it is an error to claim that abortion is an “anti-Christian action.”
Youy have worked hard to earn the condescension that you now receive. You have spouted errors that you refuse to correct, demonstrated an incredibvle ignorance of science, made claims about what “atheists” think that do not apply to all (or even many) atheists, made unsubstantiated claims that any Christian who did not believe the exact same theology that you believe, (a theology that was invented in the 19th century), is not “really” a Christian, and continued on at great length in multiple threads posting nonsense that promotes ignorance. In light of that, you should be pleased to receive a little condescension in place of the utter dismissive scorn that you have so earnestly sought.
Sorry. You don’t get to determine which is worse: a few Christians persecuted in an unnamed foreign country or the suppression of rights of hundreds of thousands of people by your country by your fellow believers. That is not your call.
Piffle. No one is forcing you to marry someone of your own sex. You are simply being asked to stop imposing your beliefs on people who do not share them. Claiming that it is bigotry to avoid harming other people is nothing more than silly semantics. If you actually let homosexuals alone, that would be quite sufficient to follow the bible and remain free of accusations of bigotry.
Thanks! I did not know that.
Do you throw away all your money in digust? After all, it says “IN GOD WE TRUST”. No, you probably just ignore it. Why couldn’t this student do the same? Yet, she destroyed a moral message and a historical artifact. Way to go, atheists!
Again, I point out that the banner does not establish Christianity as the official religion of the school. The people who set up our country certainly did not write the Constitution to cater to the minority of people who believe there is no God. Blue laws would not exist if that was the case.
GEEPERS,
Just out of curiosity, would you have an issue if the opening phrase on the banner was “Hail, All-Father”?
It’s no secret that atheism thrives in the academic environment, and non-Christian universities are becoming increasing hostile to people of faith. It’s one thing to establish rules against discrimination. It’s quite another to EXEMPT other organizations from the rules, but enforce them against Christian ones. Apparently, this is what is happening at Vanderbilt:
*Rep. Blackburn pointed out that Vanderbilt exempts fraternities and sororities from its “all comers” policy based on Title IX. Using similar criteria, she points out that religious student groups could be exempted from the non-discrimination policy under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which allows religious groups to use faith as a criteria for who they hire.
Rep. Diane Black – who also signed the letter - did not hold back in criticizing Vanderbilt. “By exempting Greek organizations but refusing to exempt religious organizations it appears that religious discrimination is the aim of this policy," she said in a written statement. "As a private institution Vanderbilt is not exempt from the Constitution, and I encourage them to rethink this misguided policy.”*
Of course, I’m sure you have no problem with that. It’s fine and dandy to limit the freedoms of Christians, but not apply the same rules to other groups, right?
Then why do you bother to keep explaining it? It’s obvious that I’m not going to agree with your typical rhetoric. Every word you post here is biased against Christians. Nope, you’ll continue to pound this topic into oblivion. You already posted twice before I even had a chance to respond.
I have a better question: why did judges agree with her that it was a violation of the Constitutional ban on establishment of religion? My guess is it’s because the body of legal practice and the evidence said it actually was such a violation.
Nothing was destroyed, and a banner that has been hanging in a school for a few decades is not a “historical artifact.” The banner has a good message (however empty those kinds of things are), but that message is still expressed as a Christian prayer.
On the other hand it is written as a Christian prayer. I realize you would like this question to be decided on different grounds so that maybe only a message like “this public school is officially Christian” would be banned, but that’s not how it works.
But they did write it to protect the rights views of religious and political minorities. Atheists are one of many such groups.
I don’t recall any blue laws in the Constitution. Can you point one out to me?