Posted on 12/24/2009 7:49:55 AM PST by Former Fetus
A conservative activist and Illinois comptroller candidate was escorted from the Illinois State Capitol building Wednesday when he tried to remove a sign put up by an atheist group.
William J. Kelly announced Tuesday that he planned to take down the sign put up by the Freedom from Religion Foundation, and on Wednesday, he tried to make good on his plan.
But Kelly said when he turned the sign around so it was face down, state Capitol police were quick to escort him away.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbs2chicago.com ...
Ha!
He would be well within his right to remove a sign if it were displayed on his own property, but it wasn’t. Either all religions are allowed to place religious displays on tax-payer-owned property, or none are. No religion can be given special permission.
Or do you think Christians are exempt from respecting other people’s rights?
Based on some of the comments in this and other threads, a significant number of posters on this forum think the answer to that question is "yes".
"But Kelly said he believes the problem is not only the verbiage of the sign, but also its proximity to the Christmas tree.
"The fact that sign was immediately in front of the tree, I found that to be disturbing because any family and any child would run up to that tree with a smile on their face, and they would immediately see that sign," Kelly said. "
ALSO -- the sign is not promoting a "religion" or "non-religion", it is ATTACKING all religions.
"The sign reads: "At the time of the winter solstice, let reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is just myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."
Hateful anti-religions signs are OK and are protected by the government, but angels are immediately removed from Christmas trees, so as “not to offend”.
What’s wrong with this picture?
California Official Orders Removal of Christmas Angel After Complaint
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2413797/posts
“There’s no place for angels atop Christmas trees, according to one California man who successfully lobbied for the removal of religious symbols at county buildings after spotting a yuletide decoration last week.
Stars and other religious emblems were ordered removed from Christmas trees in all government buildings in Sonoma County on Monday following a complaint by Irv Sutley, a disabled 65-year-old Marine veteran who said the symbols were “extremely offensive” and part of the “cult” of Christianity.
Sutley said he filed the complaint with acting County Administrator Chris Thomas on Dec. 18 after noticing an angel atop a six-foot tree in the lobby of the county recorder’s office. Sutley, a lifelong atheist and chairman of the county’s Peace and Freedom Party, said he visited the office last week for his re-election bid next June.”
So the Atheist establishment of Atheist Theocratic rule is ok with the ACLU?
Pee on it and ask for an NEA grant.
The same restriction on our government establishing a state religion forbids our government from restricting (or denouncing the validity of) other faiths.
I’ve listened to FFR radio show on Air Amerika. They sound giddy when they do something like this. Think they do it just to *iss people off.
I want to ask them one day, how does it hurt you? You don’t believe, that’s OK, why do you have be jerks about it?
This should make Tiger happy — a lawbreaker. And I LIKE IT!
We might have a conservative leader here!
Kelly’s blog:
http://williamjkelly.wordpress.com
"We atheists believe that the nativity scene is mocking humanity," by suggesting that those who do not believe in Jesus will go to hell, Barker said. "But notice that we are not defacing or stealing nativity scenes because we disagree with their speech."
BS! The sign they put up IS defacing the Christmas display. That is its purpose. That is the atheist's intent. Anyone with two working brain cells and a grain of honesty would say so.
This isn't a freedom of speech issue. The atheists have no day of their own so they have to piggyback on someone else's to get attention. That is abusive in nature.
What they are saying isn't a protest, which they would have a right to get a permit for and be subject to the regulations regarding protests, it is a slander, that they have enlisted the support of the Illinois government to perpetrate, placed directly in the Christmas display.
In what other situation are protests allowed to be a part of the object of protest? When a group protests a parade, for instance, they may be present on the parade route but they are not part of the parade. I think the Illinois government willfully set aside its own rule of law to assist in an intentional slander. Lawsuits, firings and impeachments are in order.
It is a clear demonstration of the impotence and irrelevancy of the atheist position though. Without religion they have no message at all. They have no specific days of the year to highlight because meaninglessness can't be meaningfully attached to a meaningful concept. That would only underscore 'absurdity' which is not a meaningless concept.
Citing the winter solstice is just another parasitical act. The winter solstice is an astronomical event and astronomy is the science of the study of the physicality of the universe. Astronomy no more denies the existence of God and the spiritual realm of things than it confirms it. Associating astronomy with atheism is another complete absurdity. It's like using a picture of a banana as the international symbol for nuclear energy.
If the atheists involved in this wanted to portray their position accurately they should celebrate on National Mental Health Day. Their logo should be something like a "cutter," those unfortunate people with OCD who compulsively cut themselves. Their motto should be "I don't believe me so why should I believe you?" to reflect their view that nothing matters, nothing exists and no one knows anything because there isn't anything.
But all of those things have some meaning so they would be absurdities too. Truly, if these activist atheists had any authenticity they would never say or do anything in support of their POV. Not to themselves, not to each other and certainly not to 'outsiders' because that is a direct contradiction of their position. To them it ought to be antithetical to even think of what their position is.
Being an atheist with the message that “religion is bunk and God does not exist” is not a religion on a par with actual real religions.
If the above is “religious expression” then anyone can write up anything in the world and call it “religious expression”.
“Religion” means belief in the (a) Deity, not any BS nonsense spew anyone can come up with.
I find it highly silly that some of you are lecturing people about respect in support of a sign that is intended for nothing but attack. Unlike the Christmas Tree, the menorah or even a Festivus pole, it exists only to deride, not to promote anything.
Not respect, or in support of, but in acknowledgement of our Constitution, which protects what we love, and what we hate, alike.
It’s not respect for a sign, it’s respect for rights under the rule of law. I respect the right of free speech. Does that mean I support everything a person may have a conversation about? Nope.
Why are athiests celebrating the winter solstice?
I would hope you are being sarcastic. If not then you only deserve what you get in the end!
What am I going to "get in the end" for expressing my opinion that someone shouldn't be allowed to burn someone else's property just because they don't like the opinion expressed on it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.