Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
^^Good points above. Just because you believe or don't believe in something doesn't make it true or right, it's simply your opinion. I generally keep my opinions to myself and sure wish everyone else could do the same.
#1: If it's not illegal to remove religious messages from public property, then that must mean it's also not illegal to post them in the first place.
It is in fact not strictly legal to promote a particular religion or religious view on public property. In some areas the posting of such signs is tolerated or ignored, which constitutes government endorsement of the messages.
According to my understanding, at that point, one of two things must happen: either all religious messages must be prohibited, or all must be given equal time. That is the basis for the Satanic Temple demanding that a statue of Baphomet be allowed next to a permitted statue of, say, Moses. In all such instances I know of, the local authorities remove Moses rather than suffer the Baphomet statue.
So this is another tactic that could be explored, to put up signs extolling areligion or atheism or even just countering hellthreat messages with god's love.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FordBronco1967
#2: Because of point #1, it would be just as wrong to take down other people's messages as it would be for others to take down your messages. The subject matter is not important, as long as any obscenity laws are not being violated.
And yet if the subject matter isn't important, why couldn't, say, Pepsi or KFC put up advertisements? Or the local strip joint? Or the KKK? At some point the agency in control of that property would tell everyone to knock it off. You could argue you're doing the agency a favor by taking stuff back down. It spares them addressing it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FordBronco1967
#3: Because of point #2, the appropriate thing for you to do would be to post your own religious messages to counterbalance the other messages. Not remove things simply because you disagree with them. That's reminiscent of some of the things the world's deadliest dictators did.
False equivalence. An individual activist is not an authoritarian ruler. Someone removing a sign has as much authority to do so as someone posting it, which is to say, none at all; and someone who sees the sign is perfectly free to read it or not. And posting the sign is a controlling / presumptive act that puts the message in front of people who didn't ask for it. That said, as I suggested above, dueling signage is also an option.
It is in fact not strictly legal to promote a particular religion or religious view on public property. In some areas the posting of such signs is tolerated or ignored, which constitutes government endorsement of the messages.
According to my understanding, at that point, one of two things must happen: either all religious messages must be prohibited, or all must be given equal time. That is the basis for the Satanic Temple demanding that a statue of Baphomet be allowed next to a permitted statue of, say, Moses. In all such instances I know of, the local authorities remove Moses rather than suffer the Baphomet statue.
Logically speaking, government leaving up signs on public property does not necessarily constitute its endorsement of what's on the sign, particularly if they leave signs of pro-religion and anti-religion nature. To make that mean they automatically endorse what's on the sign would require an assumption, and assumptions are not fact.
If I order a cheeseburger at a restaurant, and do not comment about it after I finished it, does that mean I thought it was good? Not necessarily. I could have thought it was good or I could have thought it was bad and didn't say anything. Not saying anything simply means I didn't say anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
So this is another tactic that could be explored, to put up signs extolling areligion or atheism or even just countering hellthreat messages with god's love.
Sure. That's your right as much as it is the Christian who puts a religious sign on public property.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
And yet if the subject matter isn't important, why couldn't, say, Pepsi or KFC put up advertisements? Or the local strip joint? Or the KKK? At some point the agency in control of that property would tell everyone to knock it off. You could argue you're doing the agency a favor by taking stuff back down. It spares them addressing it.
Sure, Pepsi or KFC could advertise on public property, as long as no rules or laws are violated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
False equivalence. An individual activist is not an authoritarian ruler. Someone removing a sign has as much authority to do so as someone posting it, which is to say, none at all; and someone who sees the sign is perfectly free to read it or not. And posting the sign is a controlling / presumptive act that puts the message in front of people who didn't ask for it. That said, as I suggested above, dueling signage is also an option.
It's not a false equivalency because I wasn't talking about the specific people, themselves, but the actions of the specific people and how similar their actions are.
Because everyone has the right to post a sign or not post a sign, it's morally wrong of someone to remove someone else's sign simply because they disagree with it. Duelling signs is a better approach, because everyone is satisfied.
For the record, I don't like signs on public property. I find it to be akin to littering. I just didn't like the attitude of the OP. It's off-putting and sounds just as fanatical as those who put those signs up.
Logically speaking, government leaving up signs on public property does not necessarily constitute its endorsement of what's on the sign, particularly if they leave signs of pro-religion and anti-religion nature. To make that mean they automatically endorse what's on the sign would require an assumption, and assumptions are not fact.
If I order a cheeseburger at a restaurant, and do not comment about it after I finished it, does that mean I thought it was good? Not necessarily. I could have thought it was good or I could have thought it was bad and didn't say anything. Not saying anything simply means I didn't say anything.
Sure. That's your right as much as it is the Christian who puts a religious sign on public property.
Sure, Pepsi or KFC could advertise on public property, as long as no rules or laws are violated.
It's not a false equivalency because I wasn't talking about the specific people, themselves, but the actions of the specific people and how similar their actions are.
Because everyone has the right to post a sign or not post a sign, it's morally wrong of someone to remove someone else's sign simply because they disagree with it. Duelling signs is a better approach, because everyone is satisfied.
For the record, I don't like signs on public property. I find it to be akin to littering. I just didn't like the attitude of the OP. It's off-putting and sounds just as fanatical as those who put those signs up.
Frankly, I think you're making a lot of guesses based on your logic here and not speaking from a factual position.
It is in fact not strictly legal to promote a particular religion or religious view on public property. In some areas the posting of such signs is tolerated or ignored, which constitutes government endorsement of the messages.
When did freedom of speech in the public square become government endorsement, Mordant? An argument could be made it is tolerating "littering" but not government endorsement. With supposedly "good intentions," we have so thoroughly eroded freedom of speech in this country that such mistaken views become widely believed, IMO.
#1: If it's not illegal to remove religious messages from public property, then that must mean it's also not illegal to post them in the first place.
#2: Because of point #1, it would be just as wrong to take down other people's messages as it would be for others to take down your messages. The subject matter is not important, as long as any obscenity laws are not being violated.
#3: Because of point #2, the appropriate thing for you to do would be to post your own religious messages to counterbalance the other messages. Not remove things simply because you disagree with them. That's reminiscent of some of the things the world's deadliest dictators did.
Point 1 makes no sense. It's not illegal to pick up trash thrown on the side of the highway but it is illegal to throw a McRib out they window of your car.
Many cities have local rules about what is allowed on publicly owned land. Around here, there are some busy roads where the public land will be littered with political signs for most of this year. By the rules, you aren't supposed to take down somebody else's sign, and your own signs have to be removed the day after the election.
I don't think the rules would be any different for religious signs, but I don't know for sure. I'm not a constitutional lawyer, I didn't play one on TV, and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
When did freedom of speech in the public square become government endorsement, Mordant? An argument could be made it is tolerating "littering" but not government endorsement. With supposedly "good intentions," we have so thoroughly eroded freedom of speech in this country that such mistaken views become widely believed, IMO.
I guess your advanced studies didn't include constitutional law. The Constitution, which is the source of "Freedom of Speech," means whatever the Supreme Court said it means the last time they ruled on an issue. They have ruled on numerous issues regarding Freedom Of Speech. That you don't know about or understand those rulings is your own personal shortcoming. Maybe you should have studied law. You know law school graduates have degrees equivalent to PhDs, don't you? That's why they call it a j.d. (juris doctor). If you had done that, you could brag about two doctorates.
Freedom Of Speech is alive and doing well in the US.
#1: If it's not illegal to remove religious messages from public property, then that must mean it's also not illegal to post them in the first place.
#2: Because of point #1, it would be just as wrong to take down other people's messages as it would be for others to take down your messages. The subject matter is not important, as long as any obscenity laws are not being violated.
#3: Because of point #2, the appropriate thing for you to do would be to post your own religious messages to counterbalance the other messages. Not remove things simply because you disagree with them. That's reminiscent of some of the things the world's deadliest dictators did.
#1: Your first point makes absolutely no sense, the fact that removing these signs is not illegal does not make posting them legal & it actually is illegal to post these on public property in most parts of the United States, including where I live. Private property is fine, you can post this stuff on your front yard or a church property for instance, but posting these on street signs & power poles is illegal because it's littering & in all 50 states it's in violation of city ordinances against signs being placed in the public right of way, even where it's not technically illegal. Power companies are also discouraging people all over the country from posting any kind of bandit signs on power poles in particular since the leftover nails & staples used cause safety hazards for line workers.
#2: I don't post bandit signs since I have more reasonable things to do with my time as well as better ways to get a message out if I ever want to so badly & the subject does matter & is relevant, it's a sign trying to convert people to a religion that discriminates against nonbelievers by nature. You also don't get to determine what laws need to be violated in order to justify removing this propaganda.
#3: It would be a counterproductive waste of time to counter these religous signs by littering the streets with more signs & I have no religion, therefore I have no religious message in the first place. To be clear, I'm not removing these signs "simply because I disagree with them" they're illegal, they're ugly, they advertise a harmful, pessimistic, exclusionary message & they serve as landmarks supporting & representing Christian Nationalism & dictators did a hell of a lot worse than just take down illegally placed signs & stickers that overstep free speech laws; they executed innocent people, they burned buildings, they often passed laws not allowing any other religious practices (dictators & dictatorships associated with multiple different religions have done these things) none of which are things that Atheist Street Pirates or Atheists United does or advocates for.
Just because you believe or don't believe in something doesn't make it true or right, it's simply your opinion. I generally keep my opinions to myself and sure wish everyone else could do the same.
Tell that to the people who post these propaganda signs
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
