I have no words.

[ItsTheSheppy]

I'm just going to go ahead and ignore Tomcat, as he appears to have run out of steam and has fallen back to the old tried-and-true 'when in doubt, ad hominem'.

Originally Posted by elfailo

I didn't miss the point at all, and just because I wrote something you can't connect with the points you made yourself, it doesn't make it a strawman. I don't agree the slightest with the terrible resolution you proposed, which I think is unfair to the locals.

Many things are maintained through tax money. Many of those things have some connection to religion, which isn't surprising when religion permeates everything in our societies, especially when it's historical/monumental.

Plenty of churches in the Netherlands get government subsidies. It's done because they're part of our cultural heritage. They're considered works of art on top of places of worship. They're part of the landscape/cityscape and people value them despite not being religious. I know because I'm one of those people.

Museums get subsidized through tax money, even though most people don't give a rat's ass about art. Classical orchestra's get subsidized, even though most people prefer Lil Wayne, dawg. You can go ahead and try to call false analogy on that.

I'm mainly just skeptical about an organization that calls itself "freedom from religion", and then goes around acting like totalitarians.

You cover a few different points in your post and I'll try to address them as best I can, as I feel they deserve separate attention.

I called your suggestions largely straw man examples (through use of a brilliantly clever image) because they featured lots of 'examples' of things that bear little to no resemblance of what I was saying. Addressing them in particular would have been off topic and distracting. I ask that you address what it is that I actually am saying, not whatever semi-logical extreme you feel they may extend to.

I will agree with you that tax dollars does end up supporting religious symbols through the context of art. This is a major reason why I am not for the removal of the statue. It certainly could be classified as art. You and I are not in disagreement over this.

I cannot, however, comment on what is done in the Netherlands. You say they do this or that... well, okay, but I'm limiting the scope of this conversation to the United States, which is where I live and where this incident is taking place.

I will say there is a difference between certain forms of music and art being subsidized through tax dollars and what is going on here. This would take us into a very bumpy road of 'what is and is not art', which is frankly a conversation that's been happening since ancient times and unlikely to be resolved here, and also distracting from the central topic, which revolves around the monument in question. I will merely say that I do not feel the monument was placed there to be intended as 'art'. It was placed there as a religious symbol with religious significance.

The Freedom From Religion group in question is being totalitarian only in their adherence to the Constitution. If you disagree, then you are taking a stance in opposition to the guaranteed freedoms of our constitution; which you are free to do, of course. I have my own problems with the document, and that can be a very interesting conversation. But don't name-call them something they are not to obfuscate the issue. Totalitarians would advocate, for example, the immediate execution or deportation of opposing viewpoints. Freedom From Religion wants to remove a religious monument from government property, using the Constitution to excuse the request. Not even remotely the same thing.

[Effective]

Originally Posted by WildGunsTomcat

Doesn't really make a point

You may want to try 1 more time.

[Figment]

@Wildguns: you are being a tad hypocritical there. >.> Read your post and pretend Sheppy wrote it, replace christian/believer by atheist and the other way around and just sit back for a second. >.>


Anyway. Regarding the Netherlands, yes there's subsidies, though the liberal/christian democrat/populist right wing minority government (that just fell), cut 200 million in subsidies of the arts. The first thing the metropolitan orchestra did, was make a new pop hit with other artists to... subsidise themselves.

Something they could have been doing for decades, but wern't allowed to do under the terms of the subsidies, that stated they were to make this type of music and this type alone (classical music).

They took it as a protest, I, breathed a sigh of relieve. Finally they're creating something instead of parroting old music - which is nice, but a waste of a good orchestra if it is ALL they do. Look at the Japanese Philharmonic Orchestra: they do Nintendo and other video game music as part of THEIR cultural heritage!

Glorious!

It attracts youth to classical music and it pays well too. No need for subsidies there!


See, a lot of monuments and art can also be maintained by public funds, rather than government. I would rather the government stimulate education, than art. If you make sure schools make sure art is appreciated by children, then it's a win-win situation. Of course, support for setting up musea is fine, but it's a bit of a waste to spend millions of euros in tax money on paintings, IMO.

[Vash02]

Originally Posted by elfailo

The reason I'm skeptical towards this organization is that I can't fathom how, with all the actual, serious religious corruption around the world, they chose to focus on something as menial as this.

"Why are you typing here when there are people starving!!!"
People should really stop using that cruddy argument.


Why are they doing it when there is other stuff to do? It's because they can, all it takes is a letter and a lawyer. Not a monumental effort (hehe).

[ItsTheSheppy]

Elcyco, you and I are not at cross purposes here. I cannot stress that enough. I agree with you. The cross should stay. In fact, you pointed out something that's really rather significant: That the cross has become a symbol of a 'grave' in our culture. The cross has become so much a part of our western culture that it has started taken on meanings beyond "jesus loves you". I seriously doubt you thought putting a cross over the grave of your dog would score him points with Jesus.

What I have opposed you on is your language. Calling the atheists in question "totalitarian" and such, or hinting that all atheists (like Richard Dawkins, not sure why you roped him into this, I haven't seen his name attached anywhere) have a hand in this. I stand as living proof that it is not the case. You would be hard pressed to find someone with more contempt for religion than I, and I think the monument should stand.

I suggested the compromise more because it would take the wind out of the sails of the protesters. If it wasn't public land, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on. How much does a 10'x10' plot of land cost? Can't be very much. They could take up a collection at a local church. Maybe hold a bake sale. Buy the land and call it a day. Everyone would leave happy, or at least legally satisfied, if not morally.

The problem, Elcyco, is that you make some very good points, but you pollute them with calls to straw men arguments and inflated language that takes away from what you're saying. That's what I have opposed you on.

[Figment]

Hell, a symbolic purchase of a total sum of $1 would probably suffice.

Real Madrid bought a football pitch for that kind of money from the local government once (after selling it for half a billion a bit earlier to the local government...).

[RawketLawnchair]

I'll just leave this here.^

also

[Zulthus]

Originally Posted by RawketLawnchair

I'll just leave this here.^

This... see how much useless bitching and attacks the topic of religion has brought? It's so useless. I don't see the point of arguing about something like this when there are more important things.

[Effective]

Originally Posted by Zulthus

This... see how much useless bitching and attacks the topic of religion has brought? It's so useless. I don't see the point of arguing about something like this when there are more important things.

You call attacking religion iteself useless, but try studying a little bit of history.

Nevermind that the suppressed rights of LGBT community is a direct result of religious influence on the government. Not to long ago, atheists were the most mistrusted group of people in the united states. President George Bush (1st one). Said he didn't believe atheists were even citzens in the US and to my knowledge never took back that statement. And this isn't even the tip of the iceberg that forms hatred towards the atheist community.

The overall movement to making sure the government stays secular is a very good thing overall. Now this particular lawsuit is a bit over the top, sure. But saying the entire thing is "useless" is downright dumb.

[Zulthus]

Originally Posted by Effective

You call attacking religion iteself useless, but try studying a little bit of history.

Nevermind that the suppressed rights of LGBT community is a direct result of religious influence on the government. Not to long ago, atheists were the most mistrusted group of people in the united states. President George Bush (1st one). Said he didn't believe atheists were even citzens in the US and to my knowledge never took back that statement. And this isn't even the tip of the iceberg that forms hatred towards the atheist community.

The overall movement to making sure the government stays secular is a very good thing overall. Now this particular lawsuit is a bit over the top, sure. But saying the entire thing is "useless" is downright dumb.

Sorry, I meant the bitching and attacks part was useless. My bad if I didn't make that clear.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Effective

President George Bush (1st one). Said he didn't believe atheists were even citzens in the US and to my knowledge never took back that statement.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm

Nice source for that.

Also fun is that the atheists were told by some member of the Bush Sr. administration that they had to sue for discrimination if they wanted anything changed.

On December 23, 1990, in Chicago, Illinois Mr. Robert Sherman met with Ed Derwinski, the secretary of the Department of Veteran's Affairs, to discuss exclusion of American Atheists from veteran's groups which have been chartered by the United States Congress. Mr. Derwinski said he would do "absolutely nothing" about the discrimination. On January 3, Mr. Sherman crossed paths with Ed Derwinski again at the Illinois inaugurations. He asked Mr. Derwinski, at that time, what American Atheists could do to have the Bush administration take an interest in the problem of discrimination against American Atheist veterans. Mr. Derwinski's response was:

When Mr. Sherman was in Washington, D.C., on another issue on March 20, 1991, he again met with Mr. Derwinski, who, on this occasion, shouted that the atheists should "get off his back," that the Bush administration would do nothing for them, and that they would need to "sue" to end discrimination against them.

And when they sue as suggested, it's 'mean spirited people that have it in for religion', right?

[Figment]

Originally Posted by elfailo

Figment how is bringing down this statue going to help stop discrimination against atheists by ignorant politicians at large? It's the means that frustrate me, not the ends. This is like picking flowers with industrial chainsaws, and it only seems to happen because of symbolic thinking. You can find a million references and examples of discrimination, but it doesn't change the fact that this discussion revolves around this one little cross.

How is it going to help? Though I don't really can care much for the example here (as it's - as Sheppy also noted - an old thing that's been there for a while), from a pure principle point of view, it is setting a precedent.

It's indeed symbolic thinking, but I'm not sure if that's entirely "wrong". Within cultures, symbolism expresses the norms and values of a culture. In that sense, symbolism create by the state or nation sets the norms and values of that state or nation. Correct? An example would be Justicia.



This represents that justice is blind (unbiased) and that the state supports this sentiment.

If you put a religious item in the same or a similar spot, for instance you place the ten commandments next to the Texan court of law...



...then you create the impression of prejudice and bias.

If you have a graveyard just for catholics or protestants, etc. Fine. It's their personal turf, use any personal symbols you want. If you use the same symbol on a governmental institute or monument, you essentially claim the public domain as yours - whether or not you intend to.

Similarly, representatives of a state or nation expressing their personal morality, norms and values through symbolism can be confused with representing the morality, norms and values of a state - even when they're not. This though, comes from distrust regarding people that use their own morality, norms and values to determine that of others.


So the point of such lawsuits - whether or not I support lawsuits in individual cases - is to protect the secularism of the state and the state morality from being claimed by any particular group. If you condone its symbolism to dominate here or there, where does it end? That's the slippery slope those groups are afraid of. And by setting precedents over even the most menial monuments, they not only make a statement, but they make those particular governments that got sued think about these constitutional issues the next time they issue the building of a monument.

This is not to be confused with an attack on religion though, it's not claiming the public domain for atheists: it's claiming the public domain for anyone, regardless of religious conviction. For no symbolism means nobody can claim bias.



As usual, lack of something does not mean the affirmation of something else.

[Figment]

Just to add. Symbolism goes very far. Just look at the design of (post-)renaissance buildings. Even the use of (fake) pillars on state buildings, everything represents morality of the state through symbolism.

Why are specific buildings and people selected to be printed on money? For what they represent and for their authority, not because they look nice.

That's why "In God we trust" is such a controversial statement. Personally I cringe everytime some US president ends a speech with "God bless America" because it just indicates how dominant religion is in US politics: not doing that probably costs voters. If it's so present, it's become a tradition that chains politicians to religion and it becomes "second nature"-symbolism which is the exact intend of a religious agenda: stop second guessing and accept it as "how it is".

There are people even on these forums (as seen in other threads here, we can actually all guess who I'm talking about I presume) who take these expressions of religion and say "See? Even the state says so". At that point very innocent symbolism (when looked at seperately from the rest) becomes a dangerous tool of subtle, but structural indoctrination.

So if people have principle objections regarding the constitutionalism or legalism of such iconery - regardless of how long something has been there - and they are valid purely objectively speaking, then they have every right to sue, IMO.

I would recommend reading up about Hofstede and any related antropological/social/cultural studies regarding symbolism and culture.
http://www.geerthofstede.nl/

His articles are used by industrial designers to learn to understand other cultures (classify their charactersistics) in order to be able to design products for those cultures without having the same background. Note that they are NOT a study on bad effects of religion or what not, but simply on what culture is.

Symbolism is the outer ring of culture in the "onion model".

http://laofutze.wordpress.com/catego...el-of-culture/



As said before, symbolism is a form of superficially expressing and communicating the deeper meanings of culture. If one form of symbolism is dominant, then that culture becomes more dominantly present in every day life - does that make it more important and accepted? Perhaps. Elcyco questioned the impact of the lawsuit (does it do anything to change the thinking of those in charge), probably not. The question is whether or not you can change the fundamental values of a culture through symbolism. Maybe not, but as Elcyco already illustrated quite aptly, the cross symbolism has become part of his death ritual. So one could argue symbolism can influence underlying layers.

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by Figment

An example would be Justicia.

A roman goddess. No different than the 10 commandments, excepting for the fact that only 3(loosely 4, if you count the adultery one in divorce cases) of the commandments have any actual relevance to notions of modern justice.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

A roman goddess. No different than the 10 commandments, excepting for the fact that only 3(loosely 4, if you count the adultery one in divorce cases) of the commandments have any actual relevance to notions of modern justice.

Indeed! Glad you picked that up actually.

It is however different, since the one is backed by an active religion and the morals of THAT religion, while the other has become an expression of neutrality without religious morality, including no bias towards Pantheon gods as that religion is "dead".

EDIT: In fact, the blindfold was added to express just that neutrality in the middle ages. In Roman times, Justitia was not blind. In Roman times the virginity of Justitia resembled the lack of bias (I would presume virginity stood for "uncorrupted").

EDIT2: I presume you see a difference between a cross, crescent moon or weighing scales ornamenting a court of law? Which of the three comes over as least biased?