Exactly.
Atheists don't have a religious symbol because atheism is a lack of religion, not a religion. The only thing which unites atheists is that they believe there is no god.
Patriotism is the closest thing you can get to a secular religion, so the flag also makes sense there. Even if they don't subscribe to patriotism, the state troopers probably did, and it would make sense to use a flag as a tribute to a fallen public servant.
I am now known as Flyboy.But my point is that you're asking them to do the same thing. They can't do the same thing because of what they are.
I suppose if American Atheists developed a symbol for "This is the symbol American Atheists use to honor the fallen" and used that, that would work.
edited 17th Sep '11 10:27:18 PM by TheyCallMeTomu
I'm asking them to memorialize the dead in a way that doesn't cheapen their death by using it as a political point.
Do they need a religious symbol for that? No. They could use the flag. Or they could make one up. I don't care. So long as they aren't being jackasses about it and leveraging the deaths of others as tools for their political ends.
I am now known as Flyboy.Pretty much everything short of an "all dressed up and nowhere to go" epitaph is going to just seem like a generic secular memorial.
What I don't understand is why you seem to actually have a problem with the latter.
That too. Once more, Christians aren't using memorial crosses to push any point other than "dude died, be respectful". Why do you need to do so?
edited 17th Sep '11 10:30:54 PM by Pykrete
![]()
![]()
Not all atheists would necessarily want to use that, though. A flag could work; personally, I don't see why they don't allow people to choose what they would prefer before they die, or, if that's not going to happen, allow the family of the deceased to choose the symbol.
edited 17th Sep '11 10:30:54 PM by tropetown
Exactly.
I would say it goes "personal wishes > family wishes > faith-holder's wishes."
So, if the guy didn't leave a will and the family doesn't want a cross put up, I'd give deference to them...
I am now known as Flyboy.USAF, the point is, they shouldn't have to not make a political point. Whether religions are trying to or not, when they're using public property to make a memorial using a religious symbol to honor the dead, they're making a political point. You're basically saying that AA can't do the exact same thing, because when they do it, it's cheapening their deaths, but when religion does it, that's just culture.
Correction: when they do it explicitly. Most churches are doing it implicitly, at best.
Could I stop them from editorializing it? No. But I certainly wouldn't approve, just like I wouldn't approve if the Christians (or Jews or Muslims or Hindus or Buddhists or whoever) were doing it...
I am now known as Flyboy.@Pykrete And what if they are? You don't know that they're not. Now, personally I don't think they are in this case, however, we still don't know this. You are assuming this because well, to you Christian equals good person and atheist equals..well..not.
The problem is the privilege. I'm not saying they're doing this to hurt people. I'm saying that they're doing this because they never thought to think what other people might think about it.
And in order to fight privilege, unfortunately it has to be done pretty much across the board. Even when the motives are probably not there. That said, maybe next time the people choosing these monuments won't be such jerks and they'll choose something religious neutral.
Have to be a jerk to fight a jerk? Probably so, unfortunately.
edited 17th Sep '11 10:41:08 PM by Karmakin
Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserveNeither should we.
Okay, let's assume for the sake of argument that they are trying to make some sort of hideous political statement.
That statement is completely indiscernible beyond a generic cultural expression. It's effectively zero.
Not true.
edited 17th Sep '11 10:44:45 PM by Pykrete
So you wouldn't let them do it even if it's what the family wanted—and, of course, assuming there was no documentation of the trooper asking otherwise?
That's not trying to uphold the First Amendment, that's just being anti-religion.
I am now known as Flyboy.If it's on public land? Yes.
Thems the rules. Personally, I'm actually ok with it, in theory. In practice, you really have to take a stand against religious privilege every where it reeks its ugly head.
Edit: And I'm telling you that things like that DO make a tremendous statement. Not the crosses in and of themselves, like I said. That's passive privilege.
It's like this. We'll put crosses up...wait. Shouldn't we put up something secular as to not show endorsement of one religion over another? Screw you, jerkface.
It's not the original symbol that's offensive to me. I see that as people not knowing better. But to defend it once it's pointed out that something like that really shouldn't be done? That's offensive to me.
edited 17th Sep '11 10:49:19 PM by Karmakin
Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve...
/facepalm
Stop and thing about that for a second. What, precisely, is the state if not the citizens? Honestly, when you make an argument like that, what exactly does that NOT apply to? Where, precisely, does "non-establishment" actually apply when you use that logic?
edited 17th Sep '11 10:55:41 PM by TheyCallMeTomu
Thems the rules. Personally, I'm actually ok with it, in theory. In practice, you really have to take a stand against religious privilege every where it reeks its ugly head.
Edit: And I'm telling you that things like that DO make a tremendous statement. Not the crosses in and of themselves, like I said. That's passive privilege.
It's like this. We'll put crosses up...wait. Shouldn't we put up something secular as to not show endorsement of one religion over another? Screw you, jerkface.
It's not the original symbol that's offensive to me. I see that as people not knowing better. But to defend it once it's pointed out that something like that really shouldn't be done? That's offensive to me.
Damn, I got ninja'd on the "public land is for the public" point.
But, freedom of religion includes freedom of expression. It's not paid for by the government. Public land is for the public. If they're stopping AA from putting up a memorial, then I'd be mad. Insofar as I am aware, they aren't.
You want to be offended by me supporting the First Amendment in a way that isn't anti-religion, good for you, but I don't care.
I am now known as Flyboy.Then they can buy the land at open auction or even for going market rates.
For what it's worth, as I said, I have no problems with the crosses in and of themselves. However. The political situation we're in has developed in this way because of the actions of certain groups where they've denied non-believers equal access to public lands, as such it's forced groups like AA to take an ultra-aggressive stance on these things, as it becomes clear that positive equality is simply not an option.
Edit: I'll restate it again. It's probably the opinion of AA, and it's my personal opinion that positive equality, that is, opening up lands for all (which is actually my preferred solution), is simply not politically or culturally feasible. Too many people think that other or non-beliefs are "evil" or "lesser" or most commonly "a bad influence on our children" (That's what I hear the most), to ever think that positive equality is possible.
As I said, it's a Can't Have Nice Things situation.
Edit 2: You do realize that non-believers have a hell of a time getting positive community building advertisements up, right?
edited 17th Sep '11 10:59:14 PM by Karmakin
Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserveWhat's the difference between a cross and an angel? They're both symbols for death, life after death, and memorializing the dead.
You can't just say "well, it doesn't work well, so we'll just deny everyone their rights for the sake of fairness!" If AA was approaching this from the right direction we wouldn't be having this discussion. They decided to be unconstitutional jackasses instead of constitutionally constructive.
edited 17th Sep '11 11:00:31 PM by USAF713
I am now known as Flyboy.As I said. Those are the rules. Government-supported displays of religion either need to be fully open or not at all. They approach things that way because like I said, positive equality is never really on the table.
Edit: Again. I DO think that going over this sort of thing is kind of over-the-top, but if you've been following these things as of late, the entire situation in terms of religious and non-religious expression is already gone way over-the-top.
My main point is yes. They're being jerks. But so are tons of other religious groups/believers who are actually acting in a much worse way, and considering the social/cultural power of the groups, you should be going after them first.
edited 17th Sep '11 11:03:52 PM by Karmakin
Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve

I would say that's "not cool" because it's not a memorial, it's an editorial. You'd be leveraging their deaths to push a political point. That would just make you an asshole.
I think the best symbol would be an American flag. Represents the US—and how we support freedom of religion, or lack thereof.
I am now known as Flyboy.