Ayn Rand's Utopia

On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 05:28:00 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Apparently the installation of a demonic statue in Oklahoma was "contingent" upon the rebuilding of a Ten Commandments display that was vandalized; had the Ten Commandments display not been rebuilt, then the owners of the demon statue would probably have deployed it elsewhere.

Of course. The Satanic Temple is quite open about its intent in
placing the statue. Like most secularists, they prefer that we have no
religious displays on government property at all. The reason that
secularists place alternative displays isn't because they want those
displays, but to press for the removal of all displays.

However, the Masons are probably not a "protected" group enjoying "victim status" the way atheists appear to be and any complaints they might have will fall primarily on deaf (ie, politically correct socialist) ears.

Atheists are a protected group to exactly the same extent that the
religious are, as courts have ruled that for legal purposes, atheism
is a religion. You can't treat atheists differently from theists.

On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 13:26:25 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
Anybody is free to put up anything they want as "food for thought".
But the government is not.

Is the government excluded from the category "anybody"? :-)

On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 05:04:16 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 6:18:04 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 14:10:14 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

So far, the fascists haven't figured out how to outlaw nativity scenes on private property, but they're probably working on it. They'll still have the plastic reindeer rule with which to contend.

I've never heard of anybody even slightly interested in limiting
nativity scenes on private property.

"Quasi-governmental" HOAs have involved the courts in such issues.

In those cases the homeowners have agreed to a covenant. It has
nothing to do with religion.

On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 07:06:31 -0400, Lord Vath
wrote:

Prostitution is illegal. When you sleep with someone outside of
marriage you usually pay them in some way.

Prostitution isn't illegal everywhere. I don't see it as immoral, and
I think it should be legal. And that's not a response to the question
of adultery.

On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 04:49:50 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 6:19:12 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 13:57:37 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

The statement you made was:

"I'm not aware of any athletic activities that involve a belief in supernatural entities."

so I gave you an example.

No, you haven't. And you can't. Your argument is ridiculous.

I gave you the example of ancient Hawaiian surfing. There is also the "land diving" of Pentecost Island, where good, courageous diving is thought to lead to a good harvest.

How embarrassing for you.

On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 07:47:45 +0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote:

The Girl Scouts accommodate members with any or no religious beliefs.
The organization itself has no element of supernatural belief or
worship.

My wife was almost banned as a Beaver (Junior Cub Scout) leader because
she is an atheist. They wanted her to lie and that would be OK but she
wouldn't do that.

Indeed. The Boy Scouts are horrible. A regressive, bigoted
organization that no parent should allow their children to be involved
with.

On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 06:15:19 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
Perhaps the Creator was always here?

Exactly the same thing could be said about the universe itself -
perhaps it was always there? So the creator hypothesis solves no
problem, it's merely a method to push away the problem and to
inhibit
further questions.

"It's turtles all the way down."

Precisely!

On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 9:43:28 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 04:32:12 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

You can say "incorrect" all you want, and that doesn't change the
reality. I already presented you with several court cases saying just
that. There are many. I don't think you'll find a decision that
presents a different view.

Your statement is overly broad and therefore incorrect. "Other types of display" could be construed as plates of spaghetti that depict the god of the Pastafarians, left all over the grounds of city hall. A festivus pole made of beer cans is, in reality, just a pile of junk.

In reality a creche is just a pile of junk, too.

Incorrect, a nativity scene consists of durable items, whereas the plates of spaghetti need to be thrown into the refuse bin before they start to rot, and the beer cans should go into the recycle bin.

wrote:
On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 6:18:04 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 14:10:14 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

So far, the fascists haven't figured out how to outlaw nativity scenes
on private property, but they're probably working on it. They'll still
have the plastic reindeer rule with which to contend.

I've never heard of anybody even slightly interested in limiting
nativity scenes on private property.

"Quasi-governmental" HOAs have involved the courts in such issues.

Why can't you Americans just tolerate each other without the slanging
matches.
In Britain about 50% of the population say they have no religion. Most of
the people who say they are Christian only go to church for weddings,
funerals and christenings. Yet almost every school has a nativity play at
Christmas and nearly every classroom has a crib. Almost nobody gets
offended by this and we don't have the prejudice against atheists that you
have in the USA. My own children played Mary and Joseph in school nativity
plays despite having an atheist and an agnostic as parents.
Lighten up!

On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 9:48:17 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 05:04:16 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 6:18:04 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 14:10:14 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

So far, the fascists haven't figured out how to outlaw nativity scenes on private property, but they're probably working on it. They'll still have the plastic reindeer rule with which to contend.

I've never heard of anybody even slightly interested in limiting
nativity scenes on private property.

"Quasi-governmental" HOAs have involved the courts in such issues.

In those cases the homeowners have agreed to a covenant. It has
nothing to do with religion.

There has been at least one case where a nativity scene was singled out, while other lawn decorations were not.