Mother Removes Cross Memorial After Dispute With Atheist Rights Group

[rug]

Ann Marie Devaney placed the cross near where her son was struck and killed. She plans to remove it after demands from a resident who complained it violates the Constitution

By Jonathan Lloyd, Jacob Rascon and Tony Shin | Thursday, Mar 6, 2014 | Updated 9:40 PM PST

A long-running dispute involving the mother of a Southern California man who was killed as he crossed a street and an atheist rights group appeared to head to a conclusion Thursday with the planned removal of roadside crosses she placed in his memory.

The removal comes after an organization that promotes the rights of atheists and other nonreligious people called the cross on city-owned property a "serious constitutional violation" in a letter to city council of Lake Elsinore, a western Riverside County community.

"It's like I'm losing my son again, pretty much," said Ann Marie Devaney, through tears, as she removed two crosses. "It hurts when you lose a child."

But just as she removed the crosses, a group of people put up six more.

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Lake-Elsinore-Atheists-Group-Demands-Cross-Removal-American-Humanist-Association-Devaney-Memorial-Religion-Church-State-248741091.html

Video at link.

[zazen]

1. yeah, you let one mother grieve and before you know it, theocracy

[MellowDem]

15. No, you bow to religious privilege...

And you get towns that are run like mini-theocracies.

The cross was there for two years. People don't have the right to keep permanent memorials on public land anywhere. So why would she? Oh yeah. Christian privilege.

[amuse bouche]

69. Great point

Couldn't agree more

[Dorian Gray]

88. I hear what you are saying

HOWEVER, a little boy died on our street this year. He was hit by a car. There is a memorial in the park here. (Prospect Park) One woman tried to take the memorial down saying that we've already grieved too long. People pounced on her, and put it back up.

Why shouldn't people keep placing object there in memorial of the little boy? They're not kept there with city money. And if someone wanted to put a Star of David in memorial to him, why would that be problematic to anybody?

I truly don't understand why people object to this. I would never object to a makeshift memorial placed by family and friends.

[MellowDem]

97. There's some practical reasons to do so..

It's the reason the government doesn't allow public property to be a used permanently, for whatever purpose, by private individuals for their own reasons.

And there is the ethical side, which is that these memorials are taken down everywhere after a while, so why give someone special treatment? After two years time the mom still has to have a memorial on public property to grieve? I think the mom has some grieving issues, giving into her demands won't help anyone.

Unless outrage and offense, no matter how misplaced, is enough to get special treat,net? That's what the Christian Right has thrived on for years. A persecution complex held by the privileged.

[Dorian Gray]

99. I guess it's whether we're giving the person special treatment

I've seen these little memorials up for years and years and years. If the parent or friends keep up with the upkeep, I've never seen a city take them down. Perhaps some do have restrictions. I don't know. But I don't see the difference if religious or non-religious objects are in these little memorials if they are kept up by the family.

I just don't see the special treatment (in this case).

[Shadowflash]

2. Really?

As an Atheist I'm saddened by this. The mother should be allowed to mark her sons passing how she likes. It's not hurting anyone.

[Stargazer09]

3. Agreed

I don't have to be religious to respect the needs of others to grieve.

[mike_c]

4. I'm ambivalent....

I agree with your sentiment, but on the other hand, being surrounded by religious symbolism pisses me off. She can hang all the crosses she wants in her home. Why should others be subjected to her religiosity in their daily lives?

[MellowDem]

16. It's on public property...

No one is allowed to install permanent personal memorials on public land. Unless you use a certain torture device, then you get a pass apparently.

[Cofitachequi]

26. agreed.

"COEXIST" means just that.

[No Vested Interest]

5. There are many ways to honor the memory of her son. It doesn't have to be a cross

in a public right of way.
I am a religious person myself, and feel sorrow for this mother in her loss.
I hope she can find another positive way to get through her grief.

[hrmjustin]

6. Wow!

[amuse bouche]

72. 'Wow' indeed

She has gotten away with her religious hocus pocus on public land for 2 years

Clearly, she needs professional help dealing with her grief. Time for her to deal with reality and give up on the magical thinking.

[hrmjustin]

74. Well we disagree.

[amuse bouche]

75. Disagree about what?

Separation of church and state?

Sorry, that is never up for discussion. If you disagree about that, you should move to a Theocracy for true happiness. Iran may be more your style

[hrmjustin]

76. Magical thinking.

[amuse bouche]

79. ya..right

[hrmjustin]

82. As I said we disagree.

[Dorian Gray]

89. hocus pocus

yep. I like to be just that dismissive about objects that might give someone comfort in their perpetual mourning.

[amuse bouche]

91. Too bad

she didn't teach her kid to look both ways...but hey..make believe is important now

[Dorian Gray]

94. Winning hearts and minds

everywhere....

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-is-everyone-on-the-internet-so-angry/

[amuse bouche]

95. Just the truth

Too bad it's so hated by fools

[Dorian Gray]

98. Amuse Bouche

I am truly sorry about whatever you experienced in life that made you think that being flip and hurtful on a message board is more important than finding empathy for a parent that lost her child.

[rug]

96. "people should seek out actual human beings to converse with"

[SecularMotion]

7. I have no problem with crosses as memorials as long as they are not permanent installations.

The memorial has been on public property for almost 2 years, it's time to take it down.

Should Roadside Memorials Be Banned?

Summer is underway, and Americans are once again hitting the road, heading for vacation destinations, taking weekend trips to the beach or shuttling their children to and from camp. If you drive anywhere these days — and not just in the summer — you’ve see them, roadside memorials with crosses and flowers to honor the victim of a car accident. And they’re not limited to roads and highways. On city street corners, candles, photos and stuffed animals can be found paying tribute to a victim of violence.

These homemade shrines, however, are not without controversy. Why do people feel a need to build them? Are they a distraction or a warning? Should restrictions be placed on them?

http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/should-roadside-memorials-be-banned/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

[WolverineDG]

8. roadside memorials

why freak out over a roadside memorial? as long as it's not over the top & apt to cause a public safety hazard (& living in South Texas, let me tell you, I've seen more than a few), leave it alone. It's sad to see them, but they also serve as reminders to be careful while driving.

[okasha]

20. If I remember correctly,

there was an attempt to get rid of the nichos some years ago. Obviously, it didn't work.

[WolverineDG]

21. They allow small displays

If they get too big, the State can clean them up, leaving only what is allowed.

[Fumesucker]

9. Wait until a Wiccan puts up a pentacle as a memorial in Texas

It would be trashed within hours..

[Leontius]

12. Is that a good reason not to do or allow it?

[Fumesucker]

14. Just pointing out the hypocrisy of those who want "religious freedom"

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

28. Displaying hypocrisy by inventing an imaginary scenario

If that actually had happened, you would have a point. As it is, you have nothing.

[EvilAL]

84. yeah, 'cause similar shit never happens..

http://www.koco.com/news/oklahomanews/around-oklahoma/wiccan-holiday-display-removed-from-elementary-school/23573872

'I’m glad they took it down because I don't believe in witchcraft," said Everett Barker, the grandfather of a former student. "That's more or less the devil worship."

[Trajan]

104. sheesh ... what nonsense ...

He DOES have something ... a hypothetical scenario

Are you denying the existence of hypothetical thinking?

Your assertion is absurd ....

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

109. No, I said, quite simply and clearly

That a hypothetical scenario demonstrates nothing.

Let us assume that the cup of coffee on my desk rises of its own accord. This shows that gravity is not universal. Or does it?

The most one can say from a hypothetical situation is that that if the situation arises, such-and-such may happen.

[Trajan]

110. You said that, but that doesn't make it true

To say you are deluded means I'm just being nice to you ....

Nothing is nothing ... a hypothetical situation is, at minimum, an a priori proposition ... whatever it might be, it is NOT 'nothing' ...

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

111. I am sorry that you are unable to read simple declarative sentences

I said that a hypothetical scenario DEMONSTRATES nothing. That if all he has is a hypothetical scenario, he has nothing to prove his case.

[EvilAL]

112. Jesus defied gravity a couple of times

Is that hypothetical or proof that gravity is not universal?

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

113. Are you really that silly

Or are you just pretending to be?

[EvilAL]

114. Are you really that serious

or are you just pretending?

A hypothetical scenario demonstrates nothing.
You used your coffee cup defying gravity as an example of that. I used Jesus. Silly me.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

115. Yes, silly you

Your "argument" only makes sense if you concede, a priori, that God cannot perform miracles.

I have noticed that atheists seem to be unable to make actual arguments in favor of atheism. That is because, while atheists refuse to admit it, saying "God does not exist" is just as much an act of faith as saying "God does exist".

[EvilAL]

125. Oh ya, miracles.

I forgot about those. Those little glimpses into God's real work. If the best way God could prove he exists was by making someone defy gravity, heal sick people, get tortured, die and get resurrected 2000 years ago, then requiring 'faith' after that because he's done, it's pretty obvious he doesn't exist. Unless you want to count the crying statues and virgin Mary hardwood floors as modern day miracles and that's his new way of telling us.

Saying it takes faith to not believe in something that other people believe really makes no sense at all. Really. It doesn't.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

129. That's the standard atheist comeback

"Saying it takes faith to not believe in something that other people believe really makes no sense at all. Really. It doesn't."

Actually, it makes perfect sense. YOU just don't want to admit that saying "God does not exist" is every bit as much an act of faith as saying "there is a God". If you say there is not because you have evidence, then let's see that evidence. Otherwise, please be honest and admit the truth -- your atheism is faith-driven.

[EvilAL]

130. Atheism always existed,

it's only after religions started that there had to be a separate word for not believing. Really, it isn't faith driven, at all. In fact I have a hard time to even begin to comprehend how you would think that not believing in something requires 'faith'. It took me some time to reach my conclusions regarding 'faith'. How can I lose faith in god and then say it's because of the faith of not believing in god. Ridiculous. Maybe it makes sense to you because you have convinced yourself of it.. Always trying to lump atheists as a religion or faith, so I guess I can go post over in the interfaith group now...

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

131. As I have said at least three timese

It is every much an act of faith to say "God does not exist" as it is to say "God does exist". There is no actual evidence for either belief, they are both things taken on faith.

I don't know why you refuse to address that point.

[EvilAL]

133. I am not saying

God does not exist. I am saying I don't believe in God(s). Can you see the difference between those 2 similar statements?

Edit: and even though I could say God does not exist, it would not require faith to do so. The only reason that the word 'faith' exists is because it is believing in something that there is a lack of evidence of. I don't have faith that there isn't a gremlin under my bed. I just don't believe there is.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

134. Ah, you are waffling

Sorry, I thought you were an actual atheist, not an agnostic.

[EvilAL]

135. lol.

Keep labeling me if it makes you happy.
Belief and faith aren't the same word. You like to amalgamate the two, but there ain't no miracles with language. Words mean what they mean. So you can call me whatever you want, just don't say I have faith in something I don't think exists. It makes no sense.. at all. You haven't shown me how it requires 'faith' to NOT think something exists. Just because a lot of people have faith in something, it doesn't mean that people that don't have that faith have faith that your faith is false. It's assuming you are right automatically, and that it would require faith to go against your faith. It makes no sense... at all....

[LiberalAndProud]

136. Atheism is not an act of faith.

If a person evaluates available evidence and comes to the conclusion that it is more likely than not that there is no God, then that is not a matter of faith. I am open to evidence of the existence of God, as is any self-respecting atheist, if you don't ask me to consider a beautiful sunset, the return of Spring or a prayerful coincidence as proof.

I have been, at different times, both a person who believed in a loving, benevolent supreme being and a self-described atheist. Speaking from my own experience, absence of faith is not the same thing as presence of faith. I don't think you're aware of how dismissive you're being of my experience because you can only view this from the prism of your own faithfulness.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

137. For at least the fourth time

Saying "God does not exist" is just as much an act of faith as saying "God does exist".

You apparently confuse agnosticism -- which seems to be the stance you are pushing -- with atheism.

Let's drop this. It is clear that you are either unwilling or unable to understand me.

[EvilAL]

138. I understand you,

you don't understand the meanings of the words belief non-belief and faith. If you think that belief, non-belief and faith are the same thing, or require the same components to exist, then I don't know what else I can tell you. It is not an act of faith to exclaim that something doesn't exist. Faith is a BELIEF in something. You need belief to have faith. If you DO NOT believe, it does not require faith, really, it doesn't. If a person were to say "There is no God" that doesn't require faith. Faith that someone else's faith is wrong? That's what you are saying..
I don't know where you got the idea that these 3 things (belief, faith, non-belief) are the same thing, but if someone taught you that I hope you can get your money back.

[cbayer]

139. Let me ask you a question.

Is there a difference between these two statements?

I do not believe in a god.

I believe that there is no god.

If so, what do you see as the difference?

[EvilAL]

140. Neither one is an act of faith.

One statement is claiming something, one is not. It doesn't mean that the claim is correct, perhaps an opinion, but not faith.

[cbayer]

143. But that wasn't my question. Do they say the same thing?

[EvilAL]

147. You asked if there was a difference.

[EvilAL]

141. and the more I think about it

saying "I believe there is no" doesn't really make sense. It is not the proper structure for explaining something.

[cbayer]

144. But that is the standard definition for atheism

Disbelief or lack of belief.

[EvilAL]

146. It's the wording.

"I do not believe in" makes sense.
"I believe there is no" doesn't make sense
"I do not believe in no" doesn't make sense

[cbayer]

148. Isn't it all just silly semantics?

Either professing belief in or disbelief in something requires you to define it somehow. And if that "something" really defies definition and if there is not proof either of it's existence or lack or existence, it all just gets silly after a while.

Which is why I think we should just live and let live.

Faith? Is that a bad word? We all have faith in something, why turn it into a pejorative?

Atheists are not better than agnostics are no better than believers are not better than all the shades of grey in between. Let's celebrate our diversity instead of trying to beat each other about the head with it.

[EvilAL]

149. It is

To a certain extent. People say things that do not really mean what they say. Like 'i don't have no money'. Would really mean 'i have money', but everyone takes it has you don't have.. It's bad grammar. Then when you get people saying 'i believe there is no god' it assumes a belief where the intent of the statement is disbelief, then it can be twisted into saying it takes faith to believe in no god. It's just easier to say 'i don't believe' since the 2 sentences are relaying the same message. Just the way it is said leads to these disagreements, which is why I try to avoid saying 'I believe there is no....'
I disagree with a lot of things said around here, and once in a while I'll chime in. I have absolutely nothing against anyone in regsrds to their personal feelings about any topic, it's just once in a while I feel the need to point something out that bugs me. Saying it requires faith to not believe in something just happened to stick out to me..

[pinto]

142. One says I do not believe. One says I believe. Both seem to be about belief in some way.

(aside) I wish there was a way to discuss things religious or spiritual without a believe/not believe format. I realize that's the standard format - I believe in god, I don't believe in god. But it seems limiting.

Maybe we could frame it in a broader sense. In a simpler sense. i.e. What does it mean to me? What does it mean to you?

And, my particular interest - what does it mean in national, state or local politics? There's the crux of the issue, imo. (pun intended)

[cbayer]

145. I also struggle with the current nomenclature.

While the concepts of believer/non-believer once worked, I don't think they do anymore. There are too many flavors and people who don't identify as others, but something else entirely.

In some ways, that's a good thing and one of the things that may help erode the divide that some seem to wish to maintain.

[kentauros]

132. However, if made properly,

it could be mistaken for a Texas star:

[LostOne4Ever]

10. After the WTC thread

I have decided to withhold judgment on these matters till I hear both sides of the story.

[rug]

11. That's always a wise course, particularly when a story concerns religion.

[goldent]

13. Somtimes I think the atheistis have agent provocateurs in their midst

and don't see it.

[MellowDem]

17. Most times I think apologists for religious privilege...

are steeped in it themselves, and don't see it.

[Jim__]

18. That was my first thought when I saw this. - n/t

[okasha]

19. The American Humanist Association

is an apparently legitimate organization.

But the next time an atheist wonders why atheists are "the least-trusted group in the US," re-reading this story of petty cruelty might give him/her a clue.

[MellowDem]

22. We're the least trusted group because of religious privilege and ignorance...

In the recent past were even more despised. It isn't because of acts like this that we are the least trusted, it's because of the privilege of the religious and their own general ignorance of their own belief systems, not to mention massive insecurity of their own beliefs, that atheists are somehow seen as amoral.

The continued apologetics of liberals and progressives for religion in the US also keeps this idea alive.

To view this as an act of petty cruelty takes the sort of privilege that is so common among the religious. Somehow, applying the law equally becomes a cruel thing to do. That is reasoning I hear on the right so very often to defend privilege of all sorts.

[Leontius]

23. No the reason is the self avowed leaders of atheisim are dicks.

[MellowDem]

24. Bullshit...

Somehow I'm guessing atheists were more despised before any "leaders of atheism" emerged. Why was that?

It's because major religions said they were at the very least going against god, and at the most serving the devil.

No, it's because the major religions are full of incredibly dickish beliefs. Like, you know, people should burn I hell eternally.

Many religious people get very angry at atheists who call the out on their intellectual dishonesty and cognitive dissonance.

All the major religions are filled with hateful, bigoted beliefs. Pointing that out used to be taboo, now all the religious can say with their diminished power in the US is that it's "dickish". Hypocrisy if you ask me. But also a desperate attempt to deflect from their delusional, hateful belief system they identify with, but don't have the balls to defend.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

29. You want to know why religious people despise atheists?

Let me give you a quote:

All the major religions are filled with hateful, bigoted beliefs. Pointing that out used to be taboo, now all the religious can say with their diminished power in the US is that it's "dickish". Hypocrisy if you ask me. But also a desperate attempt to deflect from their delusional, hateful belief system they identify with, but don't have the balls to defend.

Religious people read that and see it as an expression of atheist bigotry, pure and simple.

I have been saying for years that I can understand why someone might choose to be an atheist. What I cannot understand is why at least some atheists seem almost compelled to be nasty about it.

[MellowDem]

30. Yes, it's because religious people have massive privilege....

And see any relevant criticism of their beliefs as "bigotry" and a personal affront. It's not.

There is nothing nasty about calling out terrible ideas. That's what DU does all the time. We aren't bigots for it.

If a person identifies with a belief system that says others will burn in hell for eternity if they don't belief in the same supernatural things, guess what, they're going to be seen as identifying with a dickish belief system. Their terrible beliefs are just getting called out publicly more, which is good. Believers rarely think about the beliefs they identify with. It's why more and more people are becoming atheists, once they stop and think about what their religion really says.

Religious privilege for so long allowed a person to think others were going to hell was just fine, socially normative, etc. Now they're being confronted with their own nasty beliefs, and they don't like what they see in the mirror. Blame the religious texts their beliefs are based on. That's what I do.

[Leontius]

31. Here's a simple problem with "atheists" that dwell on burning in hell

I don't think you really embrace what it means to be an atheist you're just scared little bunnies who are afraid you're going to 'burn in hell for eternity', get over it if there is no God there is no Hell so don't be afraid.

[LostOne4Ever]

32. We dwell on it

Last edited Sun Mar 9, 2014, 09:17 PM - Edit history (1)

Because being psychologically tortured by the religious system we were born into is not FUN OR COOL!

Yes, the worry about that goes away with time. But, spending countless sleepless night trembling because of a concept beaten into our heads since we were young children is not so easy to forget and forgive. Especially when others are being subjected to the same experience.

BUT EXCUSE ME FOR NOT BEING ATHEIST ENOUGH FOR YOU. You obviously know what I think and believe better than I do myself.

[bunnies]

60. lmao!!!

Aren't you cute.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

50. It is hypocritical

To denounce "bigotry" by the religious in terms that are themselves bigoted.

I know the standard atheist response: You are just being a tone troll -- which is often a way of saying "If you don't like me being nasty, the fault is with you, not me", also known as Special Pleading.

[skepticscott]

34. Yes, I'm sure Catholics

don't like to have it pointed out that one of the beliefs of their religion is that same sex couples should not be allowed to legally marry. Yet according to you, that belief isn't bigoted, but pointing it out is bigoted and nasty. Which attitude fits in on a progressive web site?

[rug]

40. You have a knack for getting things wrong.

Politically ambitious bishops aside, the doctrinal objection is to sacramental marriage.

[Curmudgeoness]

44. Despise? That's a little extreme.

And it is not very Christian-like.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

49. "Despise" was MellowDem's word n/t

[mr blur]

67. You show, repeatedly, that you have absolutely no idea what bigotry actually is,

Despite the fact that you love to talk about it so much. Ironically, you constantly give helpful examples of it. You might be dangerous if you weren't so funny.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

33. That's the most disenguous pile of horseshit I've seen on DU in a long time

Replace "atheism" with "feminism", "blacks", "gays", or some other minority, and think about how that would look.

[LostOne4Ever]

35. Too bad the jury wouldnt hide it

3-3

On Sun Mar 9, 2014, 12:13 PM you sent an alert on the following post:

No the reason is the self avowed leaders of atheisim are dicks.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=116023

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

YOUR COMMENTS

While I get that this is a sensitive issue, this is the definition of rude, insensitive and over the top. He is creating an over generalization smearing all leaders of various organization representing atheists and doing so in an a manner to anger as many nonbelievers as possible. If you replaced atheist with any other group would you let this stand? I beg you, please try and see this from both sides and see that he could have expressed his/her frustration in a better way that was liberal and inclusive instead of rude and inflammatory.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Sun Mar 9, 2014, 12:28 PM, and voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Voting to hide for the use of the word dick. If it was strictly based on the alerter's message, I would not have voted to hide because I agree that the leaders of both religious endeavors and the leaders of organizations representing atheists are jerks that are using the people. However, "dick" is over the line. I highly applaud those who bring the leeches on both sides of the battle out into the open. If it was replaced with any other group, I would have hidden over the word "dick," not for the sentiment. Thank you.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: There are a lot of insensitive remarks made on this board, and some name calling. I do not want to judge the criticism involving religion, or the lack of it, differently than any other post that involves name calling and does not get hidden. Also, that term is a universal insult, any group or category can have a few of them.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Poster is not calling any DUer names.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Does not seem OTT for this discussion in this forum.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you.

If I made the same post it would be hidden 6-0.

[cbayer]

38. I am not surprised that it was left standing.

It's important to note that this kind of thing goes both ways.

Just in the past week there have been multiple posts stating that all religious people have psychiatric illnesses and just today one that said all believers of the major religions are bigots.

While this post attacks a group vaguely defined as leaders within atheism, those people are not members here and no members were attacked.

OTOH, the other posts that attack all people of faith, and they are very frequent, do attack members here.

If both sides would stop with the ugliness, things would get better all the way around, but some seem to have a vested interest in making this an ongoing fight in which they must vanquish the other side.

That's really unfortunate, as I think members here have more in common than they do differences.

I think if you posted something equally ugly about religious leaders, it would be left standing and by a much wider margin. I can say that with certainty because it happens very frequently.

And honestly, I think "rallying the troops" around this just feeds the fire and am sorry to see that it has happened.

[skepticscott]

47. Just stop it, cbayer…it's really disgusting

Just in the past week there have been multiple posts stating that all religious people have psychiatric illnesses

That's blatantly false and you know perfectly well it's false. I defy you to show us "multiple posts" in the past week that have stated that.

What does it say about you that you can only advance your agenda by making things up?

[LostOne4Ever]

51. I try to call them when I see them

Last edited Mon Mar 10, 2014, 09:49 AM - Edit history (1)

And I try to be as understanding and as objective as I can both in alerts and when im on a jury. I did not go into those particular threads because they seemed like flame-bait and there was little I could add to the discussion and little value I could have discerned.

So I can't say anything one way or the other on those posts. I don't know the context. Did they say every single believer is a nut case? If so, then those posts need to be reported. Or did they say something along the lines of this particular case is an example of insanity or this particular case fits this particular definition?

Someone asked me once in this forum If I thought all believers were delusional. I told them it depends. If by delusional they meant crazy, then no. If they meant the definition of delusional as believing in something that isn't so AND it turns out their beliefs are not true....well then that is an accurate statement. But if it turns out they are correct, then it is incorrect.

This thread, on the other hand, seemed like a sensitive issue (i mentioned as much in my alert) and one that I was hoping to find more information on, or have some sort of light drawn upon. Throw in that it seems similar to the WTC thread where the motives of the AA were twisted and the fact they were offering to pay for the plaque completely excluded and I was hoping to find something of value here.

That said, if the poster had phrased his statement different I would have let it slide. I did not alert on his other post talking about hell for that reason. I just found that post particularly prejudiced making a sweeping generalization and insulting in reply to a post that (whether you agree with the poster or not) level headed and calm. The context was not there.

Maybe saying 6-0 is an exaggeration, but I still feel that had this post been made about "the leaders" of any race or other religious faction it would have been hidden. There seems to be a few groups that don't get the same benefit of doubt that other groups get when it comes to juries.

Feminist and atheists being two that stand out in my mind after the last few weeks. Really feels like being a pinata this week.

[cbayer]

53. The issue, though, is how people only see what they want and miss it when the same thing is coming

from their "side".

Shall we alert the post below here that says exactly the same thing and test your hypothesis on this? I would but I think I would run the serious risk of losing my alert privileges for whatever time, because I think the jury would vote 0-6 and keep it.

There is a very long thread here right now in which many members make the case that all believers have a psychiatric illness. Despite strong, coherent and very compelling arguments asking them to reconsider that position, they maintain it. Some of it is truly ugly stuff.

The distinction has clearly been made between the casual use of psychiatric terms and actually taking the position that believers are psychiatrically ill. There are those that are clearly and repeatedly saying the second. Now, imagine if someone took that position about non-believers?

I agree that there are some groups don't get treated the same by juries, but I would make the very strong case that both believers and non-believers fit that category. Many see what goes on here as a cage fight and thing the two groups deserve each other. I would take great issue with anyone who said that non-believers were treated worse than believers here because it is just not the case.

There is more than enough shit throwing to go around and often those who feel most victimized are the same ones who victimize others. That is not true of you, though, as you are always civil and treat others with a great deal of respect.

Perhaps that is why you found the response particularly distressing, but I think his explosion (for which he has apologized to some degree) was really not aimed at you but at those who post here who really are ugly and abusive towards believers in general.

[LostOne4Ever]

56. The problem with that

Is the post you are talking about is a response to the post I alerted on. Again context. The post I alerted on was a response to a calm post with no insult in it. Many jurors will check and see that said poster is replying to that post.

If we were going to run an experiment, a better way to check the hypothesis would be for you to pick a similar thread, lets say the WTC thread and make a post about how that issue will cause atheists to get bad publicity and only further our bad perception and then I would reply:

No the reason is the self avowed leaders of Christianity are dicks

Then have you alert on me and have you post the results to see if I get my first ever hide or not. That way the context is the same.

That said if I saw someone make such a claim I would either alert on it or call them on it depending on the severity. I have done so in the past.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=77374
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=78420
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=84340

But maybe you are right and im being overly sensitive. Im still incensed over the WTC thread (GD version) where the original poster omitted the whole thing about the motives of the AA and their offer to pay and refuses to even acknowledge that aspect of the story.

I think Ill take a short break from DU and work on my Japanese for a day or so. As always, a pleasure talking to you my friend.

さようならそれまで。

[cbayer]

58. Ooohhh!! Japanese. I am truly impressed.

I am working on Spanish, which is probably the easiest language in the world for an english speaker to learn.

It's slow, but I never thought I would be able to learn another language and it is, indeed, happening.

Have fun and don't worry about things not worth worrying about. You are a great DU member and I look forward to your return.

[cbayer]

39. And what about post #37? is that the 2nd biggest pile of horseshit?

This goes both ways every day and those responsible make DU suck.

It is by no means a one way street.


(LOL, had to edit because I cited one of my own posts )

[rug]

41. You haven't been posting much in here lately.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

48. I'm having some personal issues that take up a lot of the free time I used to spend on DU

[Arugula Latte]

37. Oh, they pale in comparison to the leaders of religions.

Small potatoes.

You want to see ginormous dicks? Look at the poohbahs of all the major paternalistic monotheisms.

[rug]

42. The only difference is they have much fewer followers.

Most nonbelievers are not stupid.

[Leontius]

46. Point taken and I agree. The statement does cut both ways.

I was wrong to not include a modifier like some or many or a few of the 'loudest leaders'.

[Dawson Leery]

27. +1

[yeoman6987]

52. Sad story

Selfish people today for sure. However, the woman needs to get some help. Two years and still very much in morning. I hope she finds peace in these difficult days. Ripping her heart out is cruel.

[cbayer]

55. Losing a child is the most horrific thing that can happen to a person.

It is not abnormal or unusual to grieve for a very, very long time, including the rest of a persons life.

[Mariana]

25. It was there for two years.

Isn't that long enough? It's no great surprise that one of the residents eventually got sick of looking at it every day. I wouldn't want one on my street for ever and ever.

[cbayer]

36. They would get all apoplectic in Mexico,

where there are literally thousands of religious markings for people that have died on the road.

I wonder if they would think that a memorial that used atheist symbols would be a violation as well?

[rug]

43. It's the American Humanist Association. I wonder if the Mexican Humanist Association cares.

First world privilege.

[cbayer]

45. I would bet that they would not.

There is lots of religion here, but there don't' seem to be these kinds of disputes.

While I have great regard for the organizations that fight for valid separation issues in the US, incidents like this make me cringe.

It's a long, long way from prohibiting endorsement of religion by the state to letting a grieving mother set up a cross in memory of her son.

If it's perceived as hostile, it's because it probably is. And it does absolutely nothing to promote understanding and acceptance of atheism in this country.

[TreasonousBastard]

54. Ordinarily, I'd be fully on her side but that cross...

was big! Did anyone just talk to her and ask if she could have a smaller one? I'm still mostly on her side, though, and suspect the local Humanist Assn. was itching for a fight and this was the only one they had available.

I see memorials to victims of traffic accidents all the time. Usually it's ribbons and flowers, but sometimes a cross or crechy thing. I haven't asked, but I suspect Jewish and other families don't consider a symbol necessary, prefer to avoid fallout, or just don't do such memorials. At any rate, I haven't heard of any controversy around here. So far. And there doesn't seem to be any time limit on them.

The important thing to me is that these people who put up memorials are grieving, and they will grieve for a long time. I've seen some set up by classmates of students killed by drunk or reckless drivers. What better use is there for public land than to have memorials to these victims? But to be picky over a symbol? If there is a symbol, it is the family's choice and, if anything, the state should bug out unless it's extraordinarily distasteful.

[Mariana]

57. There are places in every city and town

that are specifically set aside for people to erect memorials to the dead, and where said memorials may remain permanently. They're called cemeteries.

[TreasonousBastard]

59. But they still put them on the roads...

would you want to stop all of them?

No more ribbons on trees? No more hearts or little pots of flowers?

Not just these memorials, but expressions of all sorts of public beliefs and emotions have been allowed on the commons for centuries-- should we now ban all of them?

[Mariana]

62. I don't mind them being there for a limited period of time.

None of them should remain there forever. As I said, there's already a place for permanent monuments.

[TreasonousBastard]

63. Well, few of them are forever.

[cbayer]

61. Just anecdote, but here in Mexico there are literally thousands of these on the roads.

They are generally maintained for what looks like forever. Some of them are extremely simple while others are very ornate.

I find them fascinating but also a constant reminder of how important it is to drive carefully and watch out for what is going on.

At any rate, I don't think they cause any harm.

[Mariana]

64. I don't think they do any harm either

but I still wouldn't want one on my street forever. Where I live they all get destroyed with the first serious snowfall, when the plows come through and pile tons of heavy wet snow on them. They usually aren't replaced in the spring.

I really do feel for this woman, but I think she needs psychiatric help. If she really thinks having to take down a roadside monument after having it there for two years is "like losing her son again", there's something very wrong.

[cbayer]

65. I would be very reluctant to comment on her state of mind and whether she needs

psychiatric help. Losing a hold is unimaginable and two years is nothing in the scheme of things. We don't know what this memorial meant to her or how it might have been helping her get through this unimaginable tragedy.

[okasha]

66. To the best of my knowledge,

only one roadside shrine has ever been removed by order of a Mexican governmental entity. It was in honor of la santisima muerte (Most Holy Death) and was bulldozed because it was strongly connected to the Zetas and had become a focal point of gang violence.

[cbayer]

68. It's probably been done, but they would make a wonderful photo-study.

They are, of course, often on very dangerous curves in the road. But this doesn't stop people from parking their cars there while they bring some fresh flowers or cut away some overgrowth.

Makes one very cautious.

[amuse bouche]

70. I cheer every time

religious BS is removed from the world.

[rug]

71. I bet you can't wait for the day when all crosses are removed from veterans' cemeteries.

[amuse bouche]

73. When is 'that day' scheduled and why did you single out Vets?

[rug]

77. That day is "every time religious BS is removed from the world."

Do you approve of crosses on government property?

You really should consider the implications of your snark.

[amuse bouche]

78. "You really should consider the implications of your snark."

Not snark.


No doubt about it....Magical thinking = Mental Illness

[rug]

80. And you have failed to answer the question.

Not that I blame you.

[amuse bouche]

81. No you failed

And I blame the brainwashing. Clearly you can't help it

[rug]

83. Uh- huh. Still no answer.

Simply lame insults.

Shall we have an insult contest and see who comes out ahead?

Although an answer to the question generated by your post would be far wiser and more rational.

[amuse bouche]

85. No, I just don't get your question

There are at least 6 dead and buried Vets in my family, including my dad and husband

Why are you only concerned about Vets and crosses? For some reason, their graves are less important or more important than other graves in your unhinged mind. Pathetic

[rug]

87. Do you consider the crosses on their graves to be "religious bs" that should be removed?

[amuse bouche]

90. The right thing to do would be to stop wasting our natural resources

Stop all the archaic, moronic rituals. The the land now wasted on cemeteries used to feed the poor. The materials wasted on caskets, used to house the homeless. The shameful amount of water and fuel thrown away on mowing cemeteries, should be conserved

Bodies should be cremated/ recycled

[rug]

92. Is that a yes or a no?

[EvilAL]

86. We have a lot of crosses and memorial stuff on the highways here

from vehicle accidents involving other vehicles or moose. They usually stay as long as people upkeep them or else they'll deteriorate over time..

[YarnAddict]

93. Where did we ever get the idea

that we have a right to not be offended? This isn't harming anyone, and if it helps this woman grieve, there is nothing wrong with it.

[Niceguy1]

127. i agree...

around here oddly enough the complaints about crosses on public right often backfire and people get permission from the property owners and them just on the other side of the property line from the public right of way .sometimes even bigger than the ones they had to take down and in plain sight of all who drive by.

[get the red out]

101. Roadside memorials

I wish roadside memorials hadn't become so prevalent to begin with.

[KatyaR]

102. Oh, for dog's sake....

I'm not crazy about religion, but let the family have that memorial, it doesn't hurt anybody.

We have lots of those around here. If nothing else, you reflect on your mortality every time you pass one.

There are some things that just aren't worth fighting over.

[Trajan]

103. I consider myself to be a hard core atheist

Yet, I can find no umbrage when a family member places a cross at a location where a family member has died ...

I see little memorials on the side of the road quite often ... it makes me think of the awfulness of loss ... never do I think I need to stop the car and rip out the crosses ....

I am guessing this is public land ... Yet I doubt it is a governmental promotion of religion ...

Lame

[Starboard Tack]

105. I couldn't agree more.

The insensitivity is astounding. When atheists form groups, it seems many become more fascistic than the institutions they decry. To me, being an atheist simply means not believing in a deity, an almighty creator of the universe. It doesn't mean attacking their rituals and pissing on their beliefs.
Here in Mexico, you can see one of these memorials every few hundred yards on highways throughout the country. I find nothing threatening about it. The country may still be predominantly Catholic, but it is not a theocracy. How did American atheists become so petty?

[rug]

106. The anonymity of the internet.

[Starboard Tack]

107. You may have a point there

It's hard to believe that some of those who post here could be that nasty in the real world. Maybe the anonymity gives them permission to explore their darker side.

[rug]

108. It also has the advantage of using Ignore when your ass is getting whipped.

I don't think you or I have anyone on Ignore. Go figure.

[el_bryanto]

116. A thought experiment - an Atheist Mother

If an atheist mother wanted to put up a sign at the site of her sons death expressing her feelings about religion and the loss of her son, what would the response be? Well it's possible that the town itself would take the sign down (on the grounds of creating a disturbance) but even if they didn't, in almost any community isn't there likely to be at least one person who would be so offended by the sign they would destroy it? I mean fundamentalists are every where.

I have to admit my initial reaction was that so long as everybody can put up the sign they like, there's no reason this woman's cross should be taken down. But the truth is that Atheists probably couldn't (Muslims might well have a hard time as well) - de facto if not de jure. So they probably shouldn't allow them on public land at all.

Bryant

[cbayer]

117. What do you mean by "her thoughts about religion"?

If she used it as an opportunity to just state that she and her son were atheists and because of this she believes he has ceased to exist anywhere, I don't think that would be such a problem. And if it were, I think her right to do that is something I would fight to support.

If she used it as an opportunity to express negative thoughts about others beliefs, I could see that as offensive.

So, I don't think everyone should be able to put up any sign they like, but I think signs of grief that include religious or non-religious symbols should be allowed.

[el_bryanto]

118. A few points

The fact that you wouldn't tear it down is besides the point; I wouldn't either. But someone in almost any community would. That's what I mean by de facto. Legally they might have a right to put it up within that community, but it wouldn't stay up.

Secondly - a cross encompasses many meanings - it's a symbol. So while to you it might mean one thing, to me something else, to the mother something else.

Bryant

[cbayer]

119. I'm not sure why religion would need to be mentioned at all in such a memorial.

If she is simply an atheist, why would religion even come up (unless her son was killed for his lack or belief or something).

And if there is no mention of religion, why would anyone feel compelled to remove it? Do you think they would expect some religious symbol and be offended by the lack of it?

A cross in this case is a personal symbol. When christians are buried or memorialized, it is often noted with a cross. How does this mean something else or intrude on anyone else's rights to exercise their own religious beliefs or lack of beliefs?

[el_bryanto]

120. This may be part of religious privilege

If a cross is put up everybody knows what i means; as far as I know there aren't any atheist symbols that everybody would interpret immediately. So if you wanted to put up something that symbolized your atheism it would have to have words to explain what it is. And people would likely find those words offensive. And some fundamentalist would do something about their offense.

Bryant

[cbayer]

121. Sure, everyone knows that it means that a christian died.

Being christian may be part of one's identity. If someone considers atheism a part of their identity, they have the right to express that and there are symbols available.

Have you seen the counter-christian fish magnets on the back of cars? I think pretty much everyone knows what that symbolizes. There are probably half a dozen avatars on DU that symbolize atheism. I haven't looked but I would guess there might be more than symbolize christianity.

I again ask how this would be offensive, unless it was used as an opportunity to attack others.

[el_bryanto]

122. Offensive to you or offensive to a fundamentalist? a tea-partier?

If someone put up something expressing their commitment to Islam in a public space where everybody could see it - do you think it would be left alone? What about the rainbow triangle? Would that be left alone?

In my community I doubt it would be.

Bryant

[cbayer]

123. But I don't think we solve that problem by taking down other symbols.

I think we advocate for people to be able to display symbols representing their causes or identities as long as they do not use them to attack others.

The issue of state sponsored religion is different. Saying a prayer before a city council meeting or having a cross in your town square violates the 1st amendment, imo.

Displaying a symbol in a memorial to a specific person does not and we should fight for the rights of Muslims and GLBT people to do that in the cases you describe.

Would they be left alone…. possibly not. Could the people destroying them be held accountable? I think so.

[goldent]

124. If she put up a memorial with

flowers, maybe the name of the child, etc, just like a Christian one but with no cross, I'd be surprised if anyone would bother it. I see roadside memorials occasionally, and I can't remember if they always have a cross.

I can't see why she would post her feelings about religion on it. If she did, there is a greater chance someone might vandalize it - it would depend on what exactly it was. This can happen in the real world, but that is not justification for taking other memorials down.

[Drale]

126. I never understood that action of putting a cross where someone died

you already are going to be reminded of the incident every time you pass that area, do you really need something to help you remember more?

[hrmjustin]

128. To make a memorial. I understand your pov but some might feel it helps them.

I am not sure if it does help but they might think so. Also some just do it because it has become somewhat of a tradition to do this.