John Oliver Rakes Televangelists over the Coals

[Nakosis]

The cross was on public land thus illegal. The mother's grief does not grant her a right to break the law. Appeals to emotions, nothing more. So she was in the wrong in the first place.

http://www.lake-elsinore.org/index.aspx?page=122

Apparently using the legal system is a militant action according to the Patriot news site.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

aren't the atheists forcing their beliefs on others? they want no religious items on public land but by having no items on public land then the atheist beliefs win.

 

[Ouroboros]

I love John Oliver and he definitely raised some good points, But I also think the way he went about it probably ostracized him from the people who are actually taken advantage by the Televangelists.

I don't think so. I know people like those who are taken advantage of, and they don't watch John Oliver. He's from satan, and watching him will put sin and sickness in them, so they avoid his show anyway.

I think if anything his segment about it just made things worse for everyone, making fundie Atheists more derisive and giving them more ammo and fundie Christians more stubborn and less likely to see any other perspective because he just totally mocked their values.

What he pointed out wasn't any news. This is something that was exposed years ago. "Fundie" atheists have pointed this out for the last 15 years at least (I know I have). The things to take home from John Oliver is that these scams are still going on and that it's extremely easy to start your own church and your own scam

 

[leibowde84]

http://www.patriotnetdaily.com/mili...her-to-take-down-cross-honoring-her-dead-son/

This is clearly biased and misleading. The cross was put in that location illegally. No amount of grief authorizes someone to break the law. Atheism has absolutely nothing to do with this.

 

[leibowde84]

aren't the atheists forcing their beliefs on others? they want no religious items on public land but by having no items on public land then the atheist beliefs win.

Atheists alive today did not create the constitutional provision outlawing the state endorsing any religious beliefs. So, I fail to see how they could even be seen to be involved. You can say that the "atheist argument" won in this instance, but there is a lot more than "atheists" who would be against the State endorsing specific religious symbols on public land.

 

[Skwim]

aren't the atheists forcing their beliefs on others? they want no religious items on public land but by having no items on public land then the atheist beliefs win.

If you're a resident of the USA you, and all other residents, should also want "no religious items on public land," an interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. That atheists recognize this and adhere by it certainly doesn't make it an atheist belief.