"Freedom of Religion"--A one sided issue?

[BlueStreak]

This afternoon I was talking to friend of mine who lives in the Clearwater area of Florida. He told me of a local billboard and the message it contains.

Now, to give a little backround, for years now the local "Big" churches have been renting billboard space and freely exhibiting their religious, social and political views. People complained, the churches fought, and largely won.
In many places the messages remain.

Recently an Atheist organization rented ONE billboard. It contains no images, and no political, or social references. It simply says in plain text, "Don't believe in God? You're not alone.", with the name of the organization in the lower right hand corner. According to my friend, the shit has hit the fan.
The same churches that fought to protect their own signs have filed lawsuits and petitioned the local politicians in a plea to force the Atheists to remove their message.

To me, this is obvious hypocracy at the least. It demonstrates the willingness of organized religion to marginalize and destroy opposing viewpoints.

I would think that "freedom of religion" should protect Christian and Atheist alike.

What do you say?

Dave

[d-ray657]

I suppose I'm just not creative enough to fathom what type of lawsuit anyone could file because of that sign. But I'm just one of those left-wing lunatics who actually believes that the first amendment protects the ability of Americans to think, believe, and speak according to each person's conscience. Is what the churches are doing there what the tea party really wants?

I've said it once or twice here, that the only appropriate response to speech with which one disagrees is more effective speech. Unfortunately for the churches, the overreaction to the sign made it a much more effective message than if they had just left it alone. Another effective means of counter-speech would have been to put up a billboard that said they are praying for the guy who posted the atheist message - showed that they understood what the Gospels said about turning the other cheek. As it is, they have instead painted religion as vindictive and narrow-minded. If the local politicians pander to this crowd and take action against the billboard, they will cost the good citizens and tax=payers a bundle in attorneys fees. But at least they might get Sarah Palin to pay them a visit.

Regards,

D-Ray

[merrylander]

For those close to the District you may have seen the Catholic Churches threat to the DC council regarding same sex marriage.

Maybe the Framers should have also said "freedom from religion".

[piece-itpete]

When you say 'people complained', do you mean sued? I think it's crazy both ways but turnabout is fair play.

The Catholic churches in DC, that's entertaining politics imo, far better than court. There's an article about it today:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...src=newsletter

Pete

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Unfortunately for the churches, the overreaction to the sign made it a much more effective message than if they had just left it alone.

I tend to agree.

Gotta say though, if you're so insecure about your faith that you need to post it on a billboard, you probably don't need to be running a church. I went to Catholic schools. Can't quote the bible, but have heard it all enough to look up the odd quote from time to time. This seems an appropriate occasion.

"Matthew 6:6

But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

When you say 'people complained', do you mean sued? I think it's crazy both ways but turnabout is fair play.

The Catholic churches in DC, that's entertaining politics imo, far better than court. There's an article about it today:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...src=newsletter

Pete

"Protested" would have been a better choice of words.

The Catholic Church thing is whacko.
Does the article not say the new law would PROHIBIT the city from forcing the church to perform same-sex marriages? Why would they have a problem with that, if they are opposed to said marriages? Or am I not reading it right?

Dave

[spasmo55]

Tried the same crap on ad space on public buses in Des Moines, Atheists won the battle as they should have and their ads are back on the buses.

The precedent for freedom has been set for this issue, Thank God

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

The Catholic Church thing is whacko.
Does the article not say the new law would PROHIBIT the city from forcing the church to perform same-sex marriages? Why would they have a problem with that, if they are opposed to said marriages? Or am I not reading it right?

Dave

I guess you didn't read far enough into the article. The Catholic church is, among other things, an employer. As such, the new law would prohibit the Church from discriminating against gays and lesbians in employment or deny health coverage to the same sex partners of Church employees.

John

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by Boreas

I guess you didn't read far enough into the article. The Catholic church is, among other things, an employer. As such, the new law would prohibit the Church from discriminating against gays and lesbians in employment or deny health coverage to the same sex partners of Church employees.

Interesting. Then again, the church (I am Catholic, btw) is also against adultry. I don't suppose they'd do well in court denying benefits for someone who cheated on their wife.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Boreas

I guess you didn't read far enough into the article. The Catholic church is, among other things, an employer. As such, the new law would prohibit the Church from discriminating against gays and lesbians in employment or deny health coverage to the same sex partners of Church employees.

John

Ah, right you are. And said discrimination would be wrong, IMHO.

Dave