Group objects to Hawkins sign offering welcome from Jesus

[TexasTowelie]

HAWKINS, TEXAS -- An anti-religion group has contacted an East Texas city council, objecting to a religious-themed sign at the edge of the city.

According to our news partner KETK, the Freedom From Religion Foundation objected on grounds the sign welcoming visitors to Hawkins is an unconstitutional religious display on government property. The organization states in a letter sent to the Hawkins City Council by Staff Attorney Sam Grover, their purpose is to "protect the constitutional separation between state and church."

The sign in question reads, "Jesus Welcomes You to Hawkins" and is located on East Front Street.

The group was first made aware of the sign by a local resident, according to the organization.

Read more: http://www.news-journal.com/news/2015/jun/09/group-objects-hawkins-sign-offering-welcome-jesus/ (Longview News-Journal)

Cross-posted in the Texas Group.

[cbayer]

1. The FFRF is not an "anti-religion" group and the sign is not "religious themed",

it is blatant in your face religion.

I stand with the FFRF and hope they get the sign taken down. If a local church wants to display it on their property, that's their right, but the city is violating the first amendment.

[Yorktown]

2. "Freedom from religion" is not an anti religious statement?

OK, then.

Happy to count you as a new atheist.

[cbayer]

3. Not at all. They are an organization that is dedicated to enforcement of the 1st amendment,

particularly issues of separation of church and state.

Many members of the organizations and supporters are religious.

Calling them "anti religious" is inflammatory bias on the part of the news organizations.

[Yorktown]

4. I was focusing on the name of the organization

When a group calls itself "Freedom from religion",

don't you think the name itself communicates strong reservation vs religion?

Would you expect someone deeply religious to aspire to be free from religion?

[cbayer]

5. "Freedom from Religion" is, of course, taken directly from the 1st amendment.

The 1st amendment was not written to be anti-relgious. Quite the opposite in fact.

The group does not seek to have deeply religious people aspire to be free from religion. The group seeks to enforce the separation clause of the 1st amendment.

They are not anti-religious. The news organization distorted their mission, most likely on purpose.

[Yorktown]

7. The first amendment was obviously antireligious

Any true believer would not stand for the separation of Church and State.

When the RCC had power over the European kingdoms, it pressed to impose its faith through the kings.

Today, Saudi Arabia, ISIS, Iran, Sudan are showing what true faith is: the non-toleration of secularism.

Luckily, most of the Founding Fathers were proto atheists.

[cbayer]

9. The first amendment stands strongly for the rights of individuals

to practice their religion without interference from the state.

It is not anti-relgious in any way and was in response to a history of state controlled religion which prohibited people from practicing whatever religion they wanted.

The examples you give are exactly why the 1st amendment is important and secularism is the law of the land.

The founding fathers in their wisdom recognized both the need to be free to and free from when it came to religion. That is the basis of the separation clause and both religious and non-religious people generally support that.

[Yorktown]

11. Actually, IMHO, the Founding Fathers made a big mistake

They assumed all religions were good, and that all should be equally tolerated.

This to avoid the horrors of the 30 years war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years'_War

But is it wise to tolerate dangerous religions? The Maya cult? Islam the ISIS way?

[cbayer]

13. I think they did this brilliantly.

There are laws in place to protect people from dangerous organizations, but until found to be dangerous, I agree with them that all religions should be equally tolerated and the rights of individuals to practice those religions should be protected.

It is much more dangerous to have the state define which religions may or may not be practiced.

[Yorktown]

17. Unless the religious TEXTS themselves preach hatred

Back to the literalismm that you refuse to see, much less understand.

ISIS is a group of faithful. They are faithful to the letter of the Quran. Must that letter be allowed unchecked?

Nice believers in the different religions voluntarily discard large portions of the original 'holy' texts.

[cbayer]

19. Tsk, tsk. Making it personal is a big white flag.

I'm interested in staying on the topic here, and this post has strayed very far from that.

[Yorktown]

20. Nothing personal. I attack your views, not you.

You posited, once and for all, that all religions contain some truth, and have all some claim to validity.

I disagree, saying the two main religions (Xstianty and Islam) are nonsense. With a large dose of latent violence.

Hope this helps.

[cbayer]

23. I do not believe that all religions contain some truth and have some claim to validity.

I do believe that people's right to practice the religion of their choice should be protected.

I also believe that you have the right to consider them nonsense and should never be forced to practice any religion.

That's the first amendment and that is what this discussion is about.

And, BTW, saying someone refuses to see something, much less understand it is an attack on them, not their views.

Hope that helps.

[Warren Stupidity]

25. "people's right to practice the religion of their choice should be protected."

unconditionally?

And you have frequently asserted that belief and non-belief are equally valid positions, that, for example, believing and not believing in fairies are equivalently valid positions.

[Yorktown]

29. You write two perfectly contradictory statements

In (1), you state:

I do believe that people's right to practice the religion of their choice should be protected.

In (2), you state:

I do not believe that all religions contain some truth and have some claim to validity.

These two statement cannot be reconciled.

Let's start where we agree: (2) not all religions "contain some truth and have some claim to validity"
Example: the death cult in Indiana Jones II.

That's where your affirmation (1) gets destroyed:
you do NOT believe in the people's right to practice the death cult in Indiana Jones II.

And yet, you cannot prove the death cult in Indiana Jones II is not a religion.
Anymore than you can prove the shape of Islam advocated by ISIS is not a religion.

To put it differently: prove to me that the ISIS brand of Islam is not religious.

Good luck.

[cbayer]

32. There is nothing contradictory about those statements at all.

I do not believe that all foods are good for you.

I believe that people should be able to eat whatever they want.

I think some articles of clothing are hideous.

I believe that people should be able to wear whatever they want.

I do not see any validity in most republican positions.

I believe that people should be able to vote however they want.

Now, where we may see things on the same level is when someones food or clothing choices harm someone else. For example if they involved human sacrifice.

Or if someone's beliefs cause harm to others, then that is not acceptable.

So certainly there are aspects of many religious and non-religious belief systems that cause harm, and people should be prevented and prohibited from causing harm to others.

Again, what we are discussing is the right for citizens to practice the religion of their choice. There are clearly limits to that when it comes to the impact that might have on the rights of others.

Why do you keep waving at me?

[Yorktown]

34. Your two statements are perfectly contradictory. I repeat and confirm.

Last edited Fri Jun 12, 2015, 11:19 AM - Edit history (1)

The reason you cannot see it is because you disregard TEXTS (which you admitted not having read)

You want to believe religious beliefs are based on a warm community of loving individuals.

That is omitting the fact the community (in-group) can be built on a doctrine of hating others (out-group)

Back to the contradiction of your statements:

(1) I do believe that people's right to practice the religion of their choice should be protected.

(2)I do not believe that all religions contain some truth and have some claim to validity.

You cannot prove that the Indiana Jones II death cult is not a religion. Or ISIS version of Islam is not a religion.
Based on your (2), the Indiania Jones II death cult or the ISIS version of Islam therefore 'have some claim to validity'.

In short, you want to reason with feelings vs logic. Won't work.
ISIS or the Indiana Jones II death cult kill warm fuzzy feelings.

[cbayer]

37. I am not at all interested in proving that the Indiana Jones II death cult is not a religion

or that ISIS is not a religion.

Without any other information about them, I think it is anyone's right to practice either of those things. That doesn't mean I think they have some claim to validity. I'm not even sure what that means. And it doesn't mean that I won't object if those practicing them cause harm to others.

You continue to tell me what I believe or want to believe, and you are incorrect.

You seem to have a great deal of fondness for the FSM. I believe that your right to follow that belief system should be protected. That doesn't mean I think it has an iota of truth or validity. What I think about it doesn't matter, as long as you don't harm others in your practice of it.

[Yorktown]

41. Yes, I noted that: you have no interest for truth

You want to believe any belief is OK as long as it makes believers feel good.

From that standpoint, you refuse to say if the Indiana Jones II death cult or ISIS are faith mandated.

Because it would shatter your core belief that all religions are good at their core. A core belief without proof.

[cbayer]

44. Once again, when you are floundering you make it personal.

I'm glad that I took the opportunity to talk to you this morning, but I'm going to move along.

Feel free to make a last comment about my lack of interest in truth, what I want to believe and what my core beliefs are.

My turn to wave.

[Yorktown]

45. Nothing personal: you're just stuck with the holes in your logic.

(1) I do believe that people's right to practice the religion of their choice should be protected.

(2)I do not believe that all religions contain some truth and have some claim to validity.

are two statements of yours which are logically irreconcilable.

IF (as you assert in -2-), not all religions contain some truth (and, for example, are harmful)

THEN people's right to practice the religion of their choice (-1-) should NOT be protected.


Pure logic.

And a nice wave to you.

Because I'm nice.

[Lordquinton]

60. So you believe some religions do contain truth and validity

How do you judge what is and isn't a valid religion?

And nice distractions by accusing someone of making it personal to avoid answering their questions.

Like i keep saying calling out problematic behavior is not a personal attack.

[Warren Stupidity]

15. Err, no, not unless you have a different text than the usual one.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

There is no "freedom from religion" clause in the text. So I know words, to you, mean anything you decide they mean, but when you use the words "taken directly from the text" you really have to have those exact words in the text. Otherwise what you said is simply false.

[AlbertCat]

49. Otherwise what you said is simply false.

With "other ways of knowing" anything goes!

obviously.

[Rob H.]

55. Looks like the United States Constitution

can be added to the list of foundational documents cbayer has never read.

[AtheistCrusader]

27. That's not what it says. Careful with those double quotes.

[Warren Stupidity]

21. "Many members of the organizations and supporters are religious"

"The Foundation works as an umbrella for those who are free from religion".
http://ffrf.org/about

You cannot be both religious and free from religion. Well I take that back. You probably think you can, but in reality those are mutually exclusive.

[Panich52]

53. "new atheist" as in militant anti-religion? Nope

FFRF is no more anti-religion thsn Americans United and Micky Weinstein's MRFF. The only goal of each is keeping gov't from endorsing any religious group, as the Constitution states.

Not all those are even atheist in origin. AU is headed by Rev Barry Lynn.

The sign is blatant gov endorsement and an affront to all those who honor this country's founding principles.

[cbayer]

54. Well said

The anti-religion statement was an attempt to slur them.

[Leontius]

61. The Constitution makes no mention of government endorsing any religious group.

[Warren Stupidity]

62. FFRF Promotes nontheism.

Won’t you join FFRF in our critical work to promote nontheism and defend the constitutional separation between religion and government?

The Foundation works as an umbrella for those who are free from religion and are committed to the cherished principle of separation of state and church.
http://ffrf.org/about

[Yorktown]

8. Besides, your statement "The FFRF is not an "anti-religion" group" is demonstrably wrong

the Freedom from Religion Foundation is an explicitly atheist organization.


Atheism = no god = no religion

[cbayer]

10. Nontheism and atheism are not the same thing,

and the FFRF's promotion of non-theism is one of their missions. Nontheism can cover a wide range of positions including agnosticism, ignosticism, ietsism, skepticism, pantheism and atheism. The FFRF provides a voice for non-believers and works to enforce separation.

They are not anti-theist or anti-relgion at all. They do a great job and have support from both religious and non-relgiious individuals and groups.

Separation of state and church benefits both the non-religious and the religious.

[Yorktown]

12. Words, words, words

agnosticism, ignosticism, ietsism, skepticism, pantheism and atheism

all are words to say no to the existing religions.

And, as usual, you do not want to admit the main religions (Xstianity, Islam) say in essence: my way or the highway.

Your posture of "all believers seek goodness" just doesn't match the facts.

And a true Xtian or muslim is taught that non-theists are doomed. The ideologies are mutually exclusive.

[cbayer]

14. In an earlier post, you appeared to equate atheism with being anti-religion.

Besides, your statement "The FFRF is not an "anti-religion" group" is demonstrably wrong

the Freedom from Religion Foundation is an explicitly atheist organization.

Is that your belief?

[Yorktown]

16. I have no beliefs.

I only accept demonstrable facts and change when earlier theories are amended.

As for "atheism with being anti-religion", that's words games.
Depending on how you define 'atheism', 'anti' and 'religion', we can spend hours agreeing or disgreeing.

But in practical terms, as Pew says by 2100 1/3rd of the people will be Xstians, 1/3rd muslims,
I would say the idea of atheism (no or strong doubt of a god) flies in the face of either Xstendom or Islam.

Anti-religion does not mean to be against people holding religious beliefs.
It means an opposition of ideologies, where one must be right or wrong.

An intellectual position which is diametrically different from yours.

[cbayer]

18. Atheism is distinct from being anti-relgious.

While some may hold both positions, others do not at all.

Atheism has a simple definition. -a means without, not against, in this case. Some atheists would strongly object to the term being defined as being against religions.

Are you anti-religious as well as atheistic?

The discussion is about the FFRF being labeled as anti-religious. I have not seen a single thing what would substantiate that. They are supportive of secularism, enforcement of the first amendment and non-theism.

As far as groups defending secularism, I think they do an outstanding job. The news source which labeled them anti-religious was seeking to discredit them.

[Yorktown]

22. Again, you overlook what I wrote earlier (words, words, words)

It all depends what you call 'anti'religious.

If by 'anti', you mean on attack mode, yes, atheists as a whole are not 'anti'religious.

If by 'anti', you mean offering a distinctly opposing version to the religious worldview, atheism is 'anti'religious.

Again, you refuse to see that ideologies as posited by religions are black and white: with us or against us.

It's religions which define the intellectual debate in confrontational terms.

[cbayer]

24. Many atheists are not at all anti-relgious.

The FFRF is not anti-relgious.

Having a different worldview is not anti-religious.

Are you both atheistic and anti-relgious? If so, that might explain why it is difficult to see the differences.

[Warren Stupidity]

26. yes they are.

[Yorktown]

31. Again, back to the same problem: you do not start from foundational ideology/scripture

You want to see the good (non religious) morality in all beliefs, and ascribe it to religions.

Sorry, that's the basic flaw of your meta-reasoning.

Religions have strong doctrines which demand from all to believe in their ideologies.

Your disregard for that fact makes it difficult to show you why atheism is antireligious by the own choosing of religions.

[cbayer]

33. Again, you have completely strayed off the topic and, in addition,

have taken it upon yourself to tell me what I think and what I disregard.

Your position that atheism is anti-religious is without merit and that is why it is difficult for you to show me that it is correct.

You might be an atheist who is anti-religion. I'm a non-theist who is very much not anti-religious.

The FFRF is not anti-religion.

[Yorktown]

36. Again, I'm on topic, and you refuse to acknowledge it

Discussion is rather fruitless if people do not even wish to acknowledge their respective standpoints.

You have made it repeatedly clear you want to see the good in all religions.
This calls for totally disregarding the passages of the 'holy' texts which are viciously violent and intolerant.
(do you wish me to re-post the ugly passages of the Torah/NT/Quran?)

Anyway, lets just stick to your latest claim:

Your position that atheism is anti-religious is without merit and that is why it is difficult for you to show me that it is correct.

I have already written twice that we could play on words till the cows come home (atheism/anti/religion), BUT
when atheism says there is no proof of any god, it goes against (anti, in Latin) the religious claim of a god.

So, yes, in the literal sense, atheism is anti-religious by definition.

[cbayer]

38. Since I don't want to see the good in all religions, it is rather impossible that

I have made that repeatedly clear.

I see both good and bad when it comes to religion. I promote the good and fight back against the bad. Many, if not most, of the articles I post here highlight the bad in religion.

Ok, if you want to say that atheism is against the claims of a god, I guess that would be a reasonable compromise. Being against or rejecting the concept is different than being against religion.

In the literal sense, atheism means only one simple thing - the lack of a belief in a god. It really has nothing to do with one's position on religion at all.

[Yorktown]

42. Again, you're making a perfectly contradictory statement

(a) atheism means only one simple thing - the lack of a belief in a god.
(b) It really has nothing to do with one's position on religion at all.

Pure logic:

• Religions state there is/are (a) god(s)

• Atheism says: no, there is/are no god(s)

Can you see why these statements are opposing/contradictory?

[LostOne4Ever]

57. "atheism means only one simple thing - the lack of a belief in a god"

Thank you!

I been arguing that position* since I first started posting on this board

As for the FFRF, I think of them as a pro-secular organization.


*Though, it has to be said that the word lack implies that one is missing something they normally should have. That is why more recently I been trying to word it without the word "lack" myself.

[rock]

46. +1 On ALL your posts below.

[cbayer]

50. Well, thanks a lot rock.

I don't usually get that kind of feedback, so it's greatly appreciated.

[rock]

51. My pleasure

I enjoy your work.

[Yorktown]

6. I changed just one letter in the original photo

and it makes one world of difference:

[xfundy]

28. Now it makes sense.

Though if they had a Vegas-sized "Jesus the gardener" waving it would make it even better.

[Yorktown]

30. a Vegas-sized "Jesus the gardener" waving??

Are you mad?
















I can't code animated gifs.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

56. This?

[LostOne4Ever]

59. If only. If only (nt)

[Shadowflash]

35. That's the joy of having an imaginary friend

You can tell everybody he said whatever you want.

[cbayer]

39. Except in this case, you really can't.

[Shadowflash]

40. Except

They did.

[cbayer]

43. It's not going to last. The FFRF will have that thing down in a jiffy.

My guess is that they will relocate it to church property.

[trotsky]

47. It's fascinating to watch the various stances you take.

But the fact that you have absolutely no awareness of how your stances are completely contradictory is what's troubling.

[AlbertCat]

48. The colors alone are enough to complain about EWWWW....

It looks like some sports team.

Is this the Jesus that mows all their lawns or the one that owns the Latin Grocery?


Besides, Jesus may welcome everybody, but do the rest of the town folk welcome everybody?

[LostOne4Ever]

58. ^THIS

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]For the love of your god Hawkins, find someone with a bit of artistic taste![/font]

[unblock]

52. except people who are blue-yellow colorblind?

[struggle4progress]

63. Hawkins mayor says 'Jesus' sign has nothing to do with religion

Posted: Jun 09, 2015 7:31 PM EDT
Updated: Jun 09, 2015 7:54 PM EDT
By Julia Jenaé
... Hawkins mayor Will Rogers said the city doesn't have the money to battle FFRF in court, but he thinks it is a fight the city would win ... The sign has been standing since 2011 after Rogers first asked city council for permission to erect the sign before he became mayor. "High school students at the shop built the sign, area churches, residents, businesses all got together as a community effort to put the sign up" ... Rogers said .. it's not about religion ...
http://www.kltv.com/story/29280454/hawkins-mayor-says-jesus-sign-has-nothing-to-do-with-religion

“Jesus Welcomes You to Hawkins" sign draws attention from Freedom From Religion Foundation
Posted: Jun 09, 2015 12:23 PM EDT
Updated: Jun 09, 2015 2:00 PM EDT
... The Mayor said the sign was approved by the City Council four years ago ... “The sign was a community project,” Mayor Rogers said. “The City Council unanimously approved the sign and the Hawkins ISD shop class built the sign. Many private donors helped to pay for the sign.” Mayor Rogers believes the City Council will address the letter at an upcoming meeting ...
http://www.cbs19.tv/story/29276287/jesus-welcomes-you-to-hawkins-sign-draws-attention-from-freedom-from-religion-foundation

I don't think this sort of display belongs on public property. And I'm glad if the sign didn't involve public monies.

[cbayer]

64. Nothing to do with religion? Really?

While it would be worse if it were funded by the city, I agree that it still doesn't have any business on public property.

[struggle4progress]

65. The whole sign thing seems to be his personal project

[cbayer]

66. And he has gotten away with it for too long.

Sad day for him, I guess.

[Act_of_Reparation]

67. That refrain is eerily familiar.

I wonder where I've read it before.

[Curmudgeoness]

68. That is one of the dumbest comments I have ever heard

from an elected official. He really thinks that he would prevail in court? Precedence in not on his side. Of course it should not be displayed on public property.

But actually, that sign did involve public money. The public school shop class built the sign, which means that public school time (money) was used. And I am sure that if anyone in that shop class had a problem with the message, they were not able to speak out about it for fear of failing the class. If a church had built the sign, and all else is true about the funding, the only problem would be that it is on public land. But they still mixed it up with government, and this is what we must stop.

[struggle4progress]

69. If I were on the bench, the display would come down; but the actual standard in practice

is somewhat dissettled, and it's possible a court might refuse the case as not involving a sufficiently material issue

Unfortunately, Dooley's dictim often applies: no matther whether th’ constitution follows th’ flag or not, th’ supreme coort follows th’ iliction returns

Public opinion seems generally relaxed; here's a recent poll on holiday displays:

... The poll, released today, found that 44% of Americans think that Christian symbols should be allowed on government property regardless of whether other religions are represented. Twenty-eight percent said that those symbols should not be allowed unless accompanied by symbols of other faiths ... Whereas, 20% said there should be no religious symbols on government property. Eight percent don't know. The poll was conducted Dec. 3-7 with 1,507 adults ...
Americans mostly OK with religious displays on public property
USA TODAY NETWORK Mary Bowerman, USA TODAY Network 2:43 p.m. EST December 15, 2014
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2014/12/15/religious-displays-government-property-pew-research/20438215/

Some cases have been decided narrowly or by drawing fine lines:

In 1984, in Lynch v. Donnelly,211 the Court found no violation of the Establishment Clause occasioned by inclusion of a Nativity scene (creche) in a city’s Christmas display; in 1989, in Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU,212 inclusion of a creche in a holiday display was found to constitute a violation. Also at issue in Allegheny County was inclusion of a menorah in a holiday display; here the Court found no violation. The setting of each display was crucial to the varying results in these cases, the determinant being whether the Court majority believed that the overall effect of the display was to emphasize the religious nature of the symbols, or whether instead the emphasis was primarily secular. Perhaps equally important for future cases, however, was the fact that the four dissenters in Allegheny County would have upheld both the creche and menorah displays under a more relaxed, deferential standard ... In Capitol Square Review Bd. v. Pinette,222 the Court distinguished privately sponsored from governmentally sponsored religious displays on public property. There the Court ruled that Ohio violated free speech rights by refusing to allow the Ku Klux Klan to display an unattended cross in a publicly owned plaza outside the Ohio Statehouse ... The Court recognized that compliance with the Establishment Clause can be a sufficiently compelling reason to justify content-based restrictions on speech, but saw no need to apply this principle when permission to display a religious symbol is granted through the same procedures, and on the same terms, required of other private groups seeking to convey non-religious messages.
http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-01/11-religious-displays-on-government-property.html

[Curmudgeoness]

70. Replace "Jesus" with "Allah"

and the same people who are supporting it now would be tearing it down. Interesting how that works.

But you are right that it is a very fine line between what has been allowed and what has not been allowed. I wish that I didn't have to continue to fight this battle.