If 2A is ok so is 1A?

[knkali]

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/06/10595033-atheist-billboard-hits-snag-in-hasidic-neighborhood

[muggsy]

I've often wondered if when her killers were choking the life out of her, her son and her daughter, did Madeline Marie O'Hare's thoughts turned to God?

[Longitude Zero]

muggsy I do not feel that skank butt subhumanoid realized the error of her ways even as she finished her first set of pole dancing for Satan.

[knkali]

obviously you guys are not athiests, but do you accept that people have the right to say what they want under protection of 1A even though it goes against your beliefs?

[cjjohn]

Yes. I despise some of what is being said, but the constitution, like the bible, and Jack Daniels is best left undiluted.

[JohnR]

"civil rights for non-believers"

Um, no.

This group of atheists is clearly about destroying the culture they are living in so they can institute their own. That's the Communist way.

No, not all atheists are Communists, but all true Communists are atheists.

[tilefish]

I am mixed on those billboards. I do support free speech and while I am not particularly religious, I also support freedom of religion and believe those beliefs should be respected. While I would like to see those billboards torn down, it would just add fuel to the fire. Best thing to do is ignore them anything else will justify them to the people who put them up. If they get zero reaction they will not do it again. It is a reaction and attention they are looking for. People who do such a thing are not simply atheists, they are atheists who take pleasure from angering believers.

[Thunder71]

I have no problem with them, other than that they should be bigger. I'm bombarded with messages "from god" daily on billboards and church signs, no big deal, I don't cry about it...

My kids go to Sunday school and my wife enjoys church, it is possible to coexist and live in harmony. It's when disrespect of another's opinion takes over that it can get ugly, and not allowing them to display their opinion because 'they' don't like it, was disrespectful.

Sent using Tapatalk on Android

[1radman]

Copied from the article:
"But plans to erect the sign in the Williamsburg area of Brooklyn were altered at the last minute when the owner of site refused access to the installers."

This is about personal property rights as much as free speech.
The owner of the site has every right to prohibit anyone he wishes from accessing or entering his property regardless of his reason.
The American Atheist are FREE to speak somewhere else.
If the owner had previously agreed to a contractual arrangement then that's another matter.

[Thunder71]

I'm sure the billboard company pays a generous amount under a contract if it is.

Sent using Tapatalk on Android

[Longitude Zero]

Anybody can express any opinon they want. I then get to ridicule them and it as much as I want knkali!!!

O'Hair was all about money and power. She used atheism to get it. The fact she was one was secondary to the pursuit of power and money.

[knkali]

Yes. I despise some of what is being said, but the constitution, like the bible, and Jack Daniels is best left undiluted.

May I have permission to use that line and make it part of my lexicon?

[knkali]

"civil rights for non-believers"

Um, no.

This group of atheists is clearly about destroying the culture they are living in so they can institute their own. That's the Communist way.

No, not all atheists are Communists, but all true Communists are atheists.


"Religon is the opiate for the masses"

Marx

[knkali]

My kids go to Sunday school and my wife enjoys church, it is possible to coexist and live in harmony. It's when disrespect of another's opinion takes over that it can get ugly, and not allowing them to display their opinion because 'they' don't like it, was disrespectful.

Sent using Tapatalk on Android

While most would say that they would tolerate other faiths coexisting because the constitution protects freedom of religion, but there are limits to that protection. After all, would a religion that as part of their faith, had to drink blood from another human being, would that religion be protected?

[Thunder71]

That's not atheism, no idea what that is.

Sent using Tapatalk on Android

[MuchoUno]

What I don't understand is why the Atheists give a rip what other people believe in. Here's the key. Atheists (like these) ARE practicing a religion of their own, and are busy proselytizing others to join their belief system. It's a competing religion; competing worldview. I just wish they'd be little more honest about it.

[cjjohn]

May I have permission to use that line and make it part of my lexicon?

:)Please do, I may have even borrowed it from somewhere.

[Longitude Zero]

I just wish they'd be little more honest about it.

Atheists are identical to liberals. They always lie and if they spoke the truth their tounges would catch on fire.

[dkmatthews]

If all one does it speak, it should be protected.

However, as MuchoUno pointed out, many atheists have been known to attack others in the name of their belief system. This makes them fanatics, just like other religious fanatics (Westboro Baptist Church fanatics, Muslim fanatics, Catholic fanatics of the Spanish Inquisition, etc).

As long as it remains informative speech and doesn't devolve into personal, defamatory attacks it ought to remain protected.

"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins," Oliver Wendell Holmes.