Atheists Unbless Highway in FL.

[Roadtoad]

Yes, of course. I'm not familiar with you or your views. Are you implying that Christians are protected by the Constitution but Atheists aren't?

I'm saying both of us are, and should anyone try to trump up charges against an atheist, they have Constitutional rights, and the right to redress. Anyone stupid enough to file fraudulent charges against an atheist would quickly find themselves on the wrong end of a lawsuit.

This would not happen quickly; nothing in law does. But it would happen, and it would bear the weight of precedent as well as law. Someone would get seriously hurt.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

It has absolutely nothing to do with 'hiding views'. Going out of your way to 'unbless' a highway is not an illustration of views - it's a protest of OTHER PEOPLE'S views.

That's total nonsense. Of course we can protest other peoples views. They have bigoted views and we're entitled to say so. And not saying so would be hiding our views.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

You don't have to have permission, from anyone, to bless a highway.

That's true. Except. Except when you are blessing that highway in the name of your Gov't position. Then, it's a direct violation of separation of Church and State.

Much in the same way that active military members give up some of their rights to freedom of speech, so too do elected and non-elected Gov't employees.

As for whether this is worth the fight...the question becomes then "which battles do we fight? Only the big ones?" If the answer to that is "yes", then expect that all the battles will be big ones. I, personally, would prefer that we fought so many small battles that there weren't even big battles to fight because they never got that far. (in the same way that there are fewer major infractions in locations where LEO are more active in stopping minor infractions)

 

[RemieV]

That's true. Except. Except when you are blessing that highway in the name of your Gov't position. Then, it's a direct violation of separation of Church and State.

Much in the same way that active military members give up some of their rights to freedom of speech, so too do elected and non-elected Gov't employees.

As for whether this is worth the fight...the question becomes then "which battles do we fight? Only the big ones?" If the answer to that is "yes", then expect that all the battles will be big ones. I, personally, would prefer that we fought so many small battles that there weren't even big battles to fight because they never got that far. (in the same way that there are fewer major infractions in locations where LEO are more active in stopping minor infractions)

What? No government officials were present for the blessing of the highway.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

What? No government officials were present for the blessing of the highway.

Yes, that's true. But the Gov't officials allowed their likenesses to be used to promote the group that did the blessing. So, basically, yeah, nothing's different about whether it's a battle that should be fought.

 

[RemieV]

Yes, that's true. But the Gov't officials allowed their likenesses to be used to promote the group that did the blessing. So, basically, yeah, nothing's different about whether it's a battle that should be fought.

IANAL, but it is my understanding that they couldn't have stopped the group if they tried. Government officials are public figures. If you take a photo of them, you are allowed to use it without permission.

 

[JeanFromBNA]

That's total nonsense. Of course we can protest other peoples views. They have bigoted views and we're entitled to say so. And not saying so would be hiding our views.

Just because I think that something is stupid and pointless doesn't mean that I have an obligation to say so or I'm hiding my point of view.

Many Christians (certainly fundamentalist people of all faiths) think that atheists are going to hell. And we atheists think that their beliefs are superstitious at best, and some of us think that believers are stupid or worse. Does that make us bigoted and intolerant, or is that not possible because we're right?

I don't think that pulling stunts like that contributes to respect for atheists.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Many Christians (certainly fundamentalist people of all faiths) think that atheists are going to hell. And we atheists think that their beliefs are superstitious at best, and some of us think that believers are stupid or worse. Does that make us bigoted and intolerant, or is that not possible because we're right?

Atheists can cross the line in to bigotry and I would definitely say an atheist was well past the line of bigotry if they were calling for exiling or jailing theists.

I don't think that pulling stunts like that contributes to respect for atheists.

You're entitled to your opinion of course, but is there any evidence that this "stunt" lost atheists any respect from any quarter where they were likely to have it.

If the OP link is representative of the mainstream reporting on this I'd have to say this "stunt" was a nearly perfect success. The CBS affiliate wrote an article that devoted exactly one sentence to the theatrical stunt of unblessing the articles and then went on for the rest of article with substantive points. And I think it's pretty likely no one would have heard of any of this if it weren't for the theatrical stunt. The stunt and subsequent reporting of the stunt also seems to have caused the officials to clarify their relation (or lack thereof) to the PUP activities and positions.

 

[RemieV]

Atheists can cross the line in to bigotry and I would definitely say an atheist was well past the line of bigotry if they were calling for exiling or jailing theists.

You're entitled to your opinion of course, but is there any evidence that this "stunt" lost atheists any respect from any quarter where they were likely to have it.

...

This thread is evidence.

 

[Jekyll's Guest]

This thread is evidence.

Oh the humanity!!!

 

[triforcharity]

They actually arrested her three times.

Once when she signed a request for documents 'esquire' (implying that she was a practicing lawyer when she was not) [federal fraud], a second time when she tried to drive children who were playing basketball away from her home by opening up a window and making loud sex noises [federal lewd behavior], a third time when they conducted a search of her house based on the other two and found drugs [unknown what amount].

By all appearances, this is not a person who is being targeted for being an atheist. This is a person who is doing stupid crap and expecting not to get in trouble for it at every single turn.

Political leaders are allowed to be Christians. They are allowed to practice their faith. Just as the Christians were allowed to anoint the highway, so were atheists allowed to unbless it. Did anyone try to stop them? No. Because there was nothing illegal about what they were doing.

Now, if you are against laws regarding fraud, lewd behavior, or drug possession - fight THOSE. Really, my feeling is that she was arrested repeatedly for being a huge pain in the ass - not for being an atheist. I see zero evidence to the contrary.

I remember this.

Minor correction though. Polk is not a town, it's a county.
County leadership acting in their official position, support any religious or anti-religious agency. However, acting on their own accord, perfectly ok.

But yes, that woman was a huge pain in the ass. Numerous times.

 

[triforcharity]

nevermind.

 

[triforcharity]

Yes, that's true. But the Gov't officials allowed their likenesses to be used to promote the group that did the blessing. So, basically, yeah, nothing's different about whether it's a battle that should be fought.

So, you're saying that as a government official, they cannot voice their opinion and support of a religion?

Bull ****. That would be in DIRECT violation of their rights.

However, if they said that the county or whatever government division they worked for, supported any religion officially, that would be a violation.

 

[Jarlaxle]

she tried to drive children who were playing basketball away from her home by opening up a window and making loud sex noises

Really?!

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Jekyll's Guest]

Did any of those charges stick?

Because either she's a genuinely insane person, being victimized by tinpot local law enforcement with an axe to grind, or some mixture of the two.

My memory is hazy, but I seem to recall the local Sheriff/Chief Of Police seeming personally motivated in making her life a misery?

 

[Aridas]

How embarrassing. Hard enough being an atheist as it is; do we really have to publicly pull stunts conceived of with the intelligence of a grade school kid? Makes me freakin' sick.

That depends. If it was an act of public service, "cleansing the land and cleaning up the country," so to speak, I fully support it. If it's... "unblessing," I just go "Wot?"

Seriously, if you don't believe in blessings in the first place, how can you unbless something?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Can you three explain why you think this was a stupid protest?

And are you aware the the group that originally blessed the road, not only blessed the road but called for the incarceration or exile of atheists from the county? That they have unexplained connections to the town leadership? That an atheist was arrested twice under suspicious circumstances that suggest the town leadership might actually be acting on the groups demand?

1. I'm not a big fan of responding to stupid political theater with more stupid political theater.
2. I'm not a big fan of responding to people being dicks by being a dick.
3. As far as I'm concerned those who did the "blessing" did nothing so there was nothing to be undone.
4. If there are legal shennigans going on, then I'd say the correct course of actions is to hire a lawyer.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

1. I'm not a big fan of responding to stupid political theater with more stupid political theater.
2. I'm not a big fan of responding to people being dicks by being a dick.
3. As far as I'm concerned those who did the "blessing" did nothing so there was nothing to be undone.
4. If there are legal shennigans going on, then I'd say the correct course of actions is to hire a lawyer.

1. Well, I don't think humanists should hide and political theatre gets publicity.
2. How were the humanists dicks?? The mainstream articles I've seen describe their "unblesing" as light hearted and tongue in cheek. And the humanists didn't call for the incarceration or exile of any segment of society.
3. Right, fine for you, but somehow I don't think the whole world sees it the same way you do.
4. Sure, but why not other forms of protest too?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

1. Well, I don't think humanists should hide and political theatre gets publicity.

Good for you. Whereever did I say "humanists" should "hide" and if you support stupid political theater in response to stupid political theater - I guess that means all atheists (or humanists if you prefer) don't share the same opinion when it comes to stupid political theater just as all religious people don't share the same opinion when it comes to stupid political theater.

2. How were the humanists dicks?? The mainstream articles I've seen describe their "unblesing" as light hearted and tongue in cheek.

Yes. They didn't piss on the graves of veterans who had a cross on their or as their headstone. So what? It was a dick move. If someone does X as a what they perseive to be a benign and positive action is to symbalically wash it away by doing Y? That's a dick move even if done in a "light hearted and tongue in cheek" way.

And the humanists didn't call for the incarceration or exile of any segment of society.

You keep repeating this like a mantra, but it doesn't change the fact that you think the proper response by atheists to a dick move by Christians is to be dicks in return. Some of us atheists - and sorry, I'm not a humanist, I'm an atheist - reject that strategy.

3. Right, fine for you, but somehow I don't think the whole world sees it the same way you do.

Awesome. Ironically the majority of the "whole world" is more likely to see such a stunt as a dick move and agree with me, but if you want to play the ad populum card feel free. Getting back to what I said above though, great. The fact that we disagree is just more proof that not every group, be they misguided evangelical Christians, crazed Shiite Muslims, disinterested Taoists or atheists all have the same opinion on every subject or, in this case, every act of political theater.

4. Sure, but why not other forms of protest too?

See my 1 and 2 in my earlier post. One can make a point without hurting one's cause.

 

[JeanFromBNA]

I'll grant you that it got a lot of publicity.

But it's hard to argue that atheists just want people to make decisions and act with reason when an atheist response is an unreasonable action.