Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

rug

(82,333 posts)
Tue Jul 31, 2012, 04:38 PM Jul 2012

A tale of two logos: Atheist group targeting Wyoming goes after Ohio city over cross

Published: Tuesday, July 31, 2012, 2:25 PM Updated: Tuesday, July 31, 2012, 2:46 PM
By Garret Ellison | gellison@mlive.com

STEUBENVILLE, OHIO — An eastern Ohio town with a cross on its logo is standing its ground for the moment against the threat of legal action from the same Wisconsin atheist group taking a similar issue with the city seal in Wyoming.

Reporter David Gossett of The Herald Star newspaper in the Upper Ohio Valley reports that city leaders in Steubenville are holding off a prior decision to change the city logo after several attorneys offered the city free legal representation.

Both Wyoming and Steubenville have been targeted recently by the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) of Madison, Wis., which is demanding each city alter its respective logo to remove small depictions of a Christian cross.

The foundation faxed a letter to Wyoming Mayor Jack Poll on July 20 demanding the city change its “unconstitutional” logo, arguing that the addition of the church silhouette on a city insignia violates the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2012/07/a_tale_of_two_city_logos_athei.html

I wonder what they're doing for Alexander Aan.

34 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
A tale of two logos: Atheist group targeting Wyoming goes after Ohio city over cross (Original Post) rug Jul 2012 OP
"Jews, don't you come around here." The coded message from the past by displaying the cross dballance Jul 2012 #1
I've never heard that before. I that is so, why haven't Jewish groups protested this cbayer Jul 2012 #3
And gays. Plantaganet Aug 2012 #25
What's the RCC doing for Alexander Aan. Goblinmonger Jul 2012 #2
How does that answer my question? rug Aug 2012 #7
No, it points out that you were deflecting. Goblinmonger Aug 2012 #24
Here's an activity for those of you that aren't atheists Goblinmonger Jul 2012 #4
GAAAAH! My IQ just dropped fifteen points reading the comments there. backscatter712 Jul 2012 #5
That's Fox News. They say worse about Obama. rug Aug 2012 #8
Would you dismiss hateful comments about any other minority group as blithely, rug? trotsky Aug 2012 #9
That is an obnoxious, and false, equivalence. rug Aug 2012 #10
So yeah, your hatred and contempt is reserved solely for atheists. trotsky Aug 2012 #11
You assume, again. rug Aug 2012 #12
Bullshit about what, rug? trotsky Aug 2012 #13
Hardly. rug Aug 2012 #14
So anti-atheist hatred that appears on a Fox website can't be used to demonstrate... trotsky Aug 2012 #15
It can in the sense that a bioposy of a suppurating sore shows disease. rug Aug 2012 #16
Just calling it as I see it. trotsky Aug 2012 #17
Feel free to do so. rug Aug 2012 #18
Rounds are over, it appears. trotsky Aug 2012 #19
As I told your friend, whose motto you've adopted, rug Aug 2012 #20
Are you calling me a bigot? n/t trotsky Aug 2012 #21
Go ahead. Give a non-bigoted meaning to that phrase. rug Aug 2012 #22
Boxing. trotsky Aug 2012 #23
Ah, you were referring to puglistics. rug Aug 2012 #26
It's not heard in psychiatric wards either. It would be arrogant to dismiss anyone in such a way, cbayer Aug 2012 #27
So, are you calling me a bigot? trotsky Aug 2012 #28
It's widely used in forensics (as in debate, not criminal science) tournaments Rob H. Aug 2012 #29
It was described by a frequent poster here as something he learned while cbayer Aug 2012 #30
And that's their business. I'm not using it that way here. trotsky Aug 2012 #31
here`s the laws and rulings.... madrchsod Jul 2012 #6
City fathers of Steubenville bow to civil rights request............ dimbear Aug 2012 #32
Thanks for the follow up. These cases have been really interesting. cbayer Aug 2012 #33
I don't see the FFRF announcing that. rug Aug 2012 #34
 

dballance

(5,756 posts)
1. "Jews, don't you come around here." The coded message from the past by displaying the cross
Tue Jul 31, 2012, 05:31 PM
Jul 2012

Someone correct me if I'm wrong. But as I understand it during our not too distant past towns displayed crosses in the town squares, on town seals, and in literature about the town as a coded message to Jews: "STAY AWAY."

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
3. I've never heard that before. I that is so, why haven't Jewish groups protested this
Tue Jul 31, 2012, 05:37 PM
Jul 2012

or brought lawsuits? Or have they?

 

Goblinmonger

(22,340 posts)
24. No, it points out that you were deflecting.
Wed Aug 1, 2012, 11:08 AM
Aug 2012

Rather than deal with the issue of the logo of a US city, you bring up something else.

 

Goblinmonger

(22,340 posts)
4. Here's an activity for those of you that aren't atheists
Tue Jul 31, 2012, 05:46 PM
Jul 2012

Go here
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/town-forced-to-remove-cross-from-logo.html
And read the replies. THIS is what many atheists have to live with on a daily basis. Perhaps a little understanding for our viewpoint may come from this. Probably not, but it's worth a try.

backscatter712

(26,355 posts)
5. GAAAAH! My IQ just dropped fifteen points reading the comments there.
Tue Jul 31, 2012, 05:49 PM
Jul 2012

Once again, I'm convinced that Idiocracy is a documentary.

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
9. Would you dismiss hateful comments about any other minority group as blithely, rug?
Wed Aug 1, 2012, 07:09 AM
Aug 2012

What if it were homosexuals? Jews? Muslims?

Or do you reserve your snark and nastiness only for atheists, cuz we're so special?

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
10. That is an obnoxious, and false, equivalence.
Wed Aug 1, 2012, 07:17 AM
Aug 2012

A minority based on an intellectual, and often transient, conclusion, is far from a minority based on sexual orientation, ethnicity or race.

And it's still Fox.

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
11. So yeah, your hatred and contempt is reserved solely for atheists.
Wed Aug 1, 2012, 07:18 AM
Aug 2012

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
12. You assume, again.
Wed Aug 1, 2012, 07:20 AM
Aug 2012

You equate not buying bullshit with hatred. The jury is still out on contempt.

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
14. Hardly.
Wed Aug 1, 2012, 07:25 AM
Aug 2012

This particular bullshit, as opposed to the general bullshit, is that the comments section of Fox News is illustrative of the particular persecution of atheists.

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
15. So anti-atheist hatred that appears on a Fox website can't be used to demonstrate...
Wed Aug 1, 2012, 07:36 AM
Aug 2012

that anti-atheist hatred exists.

Got it. Thanks for your continued shitting on atheists, rug. You provide a valuable community service.

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
16. It can in the sense that a bioposy of a suppurating sore shows disease.
Wed Aug 1, 2012, 07:42 AM
Aug 2012

It would be foolish to then describe the human body as a mass of disease. Extrapolation can be tricky, depending on the sample.

And I again commend you on the heightened tome your last sentence brings.

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
17. Just calling it as I see it.
Wed Aug 1, 2012, 07:48 AM
Aug 2012

Which I know is why you reserve particular snappiness for me.

You analogy fails poorly - no one has ever said that EVERYONE hates atheists or that we are discriminated against "no differently" than blacks or homosexuals. Only that anti-atheist discrimination exists and is real. Your continued refusal to accept this basic fact is just another way you enjoy slapping atheists in the face and why you get back exactly what you give.

Maybe someday you'll learn and start acting more "Christian."

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
20. As I told your friend, whose motto you've adopted,
Wed Aug 1, 2012, 07:57 AM
Aug 2012

that is a bigoted remark against anyone who has a mental illness.

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
26. Ah, you were referring to puglistics.
Wed Aug 1, 2012, 01:08 PM
Aug 2012

Excepte that phrase is rarely heard outside hospital wards, psychiatric wards to be specific, and never in a boxing ring.

I repeat: That's a bigoted statement. Own it or disavow it.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
27. It's not heard in psychiatric wards either. It would be arrogant to dismiss anyone in such a way,
Wed Aug 1, 2012, 01:13 PM
Aug 2012

particularly a psychiatric patient.

I also object to it's use here.

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
28. So, are you calling me a bigot?
Wed Aug 1, 2012, 01:28 PM
Aug 2012

Do a Google search on the phrase. Tell me what you find to be the most common uses of it.

Then come back here tell me what you think I am. You're trying to squelch debate because you've lost again, and I'm not letting you play that game.

Rob H.

(5,340 posts)
29. It's widely used in forensics (as in debate, not criminal science) tournaments
Wed Aug 1, 2012, 01:29 PM
Aug 2012

I've always assumed that's what people mean when they use it here.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
30. It was described by a frequent poster here as something he learned while
Wed Aug 1, 2012, 01:32 PM
Aug 2012

working in a psych unit. He has said that once it becomes clear who is the psych patient, rounds are over.

While it may be used differently elsewhere, he is the one who introduced it and defined it here.

It's offensive.

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
31. And that's their business. I'm not using it that way here.
Wed Aug 1, 2012, 01:50 PM
Aug 2012

And to attempt to silence someone by implying they ARE using it in an offensive way is dishonest and disrespectful.

Take me at my word, and I'll do the same for you.

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
34. I don't see the FFRF announcing that.
Thu Aug 2, 2012, 11:21 PM
Aug 2012

This is their most recent press release:

http://ffrf.org/news/releases/ffrf-cautions-steubenville-not-to-be-duped-by-religious-right-offers/

This is the story a day earlier:

Steubenville puts logo change on hold

http://www.cantonrep.com/newsnow/x521646526/Steubenville-puts-logo-change-on-hold

Is the Christian Post reporting the earlier decision, to change the logo, which was put on hold? I don't see FFRF failing to announce this.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»A tale of two logos: Athe...