Tree of Knowledge

[gnomon]

the constitution says that the government shall not establish a religion. people forget what this means. in England there is an official church for the country, the Anglican church or church of England. putting a Christmas tree on public property is not the same thing. many different religions have Christmas trees and the government is not saying people have to belong to or believe in any one church or in no church at all. why not ban pumpkins at halloween because some people don't believe in them? people need to get a thicker skin and stop being such cry babies. if you don't like what you see then look the other way

The Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;......"

Just a clarification.

 

[outhouse]

there is not much about Christmas that is not religious. except maybe the excess commercialism

im just the opposite, Theres not much about xmas that has to do with christ anymore.

The xmas tree has nothing to do with christ and thats what xmas is all about,, santa!

Its a special holiday for children

 

[linwood]

I agree with both of you but that is not exactly the point I am trying to make. These kind of displays by atheist groups are meant to be in response to religious displays as a way to promote Separation of Church and State. In other words, they are of the opinion religious displays should not be on state grounds period. And now we have an atheist display on state grounds, by itself.

Can you supply support for the highlighted section.
I`m sincerely curious as I`m unfamiliar with this group.
I believe I heard vague mention of them last year.

If it is indeed their point that there should be no display then I believe using a display to make this point is ..dumb.
Using a display to make the point that there should be no displays in a place where there already are no displays is very very dumb.

Overall I don`t have a problem with anyones public display as long as everyone gets the option of presenting their own display.

 

[Apex]

Can you supply support for the highlighted section.
I`m sincerely curious as I`m unfamiliar with this group.
I believe I heard vague mention of them last year.

If it is indeed their point that there should be no display then I believe using a display to make this point is ..dumb.
Using a display to make the point that there should be no displays in a place where there already are no displays is very very dumb.

Overall I don`t have a problem with anyones public display as long as everyone gets the option of presenting their own display.

FFRF There are quite a few more of these on their site if you want to look at them.

 

[TJ73]

the constitution says that the government shall not establish a religion. people forget what this means. in England there is an official church for the country, the Anglican church or church of England. putting a Christmas tree on public property is not the same thing. many different religions have Christmas trees and the government is not saying people have to belong to or believe in any one church or in no church at all. why not ban pumpkins at halloween because some people don't believe in them? people need to get a thicker skin and stop being such cry babies. if you don't like what you see then look the other way

I agree. Seperation of church and state is widely misunderstood. It in fact gives people the RIGHT to practice their faith, rather than being held to one, mandated.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I have a question for everyone, non-theists and theists included.

You may have heard of Trees of Knowledge being put up by atheists at various capitols. Theses are in response to theists displays on the same government grounds. Seattle Atheists have erected one this year, except there is no accompanying religious display on the state capitol. The atheist display is it. Going by how big of a deal many atheist groups have made about religious displays on state grounds, should this atheist display remain when there is no religious display? What are your thoughts on it?

Link

Hmmmmm, why would atheistits put up a religious symbol? Aren't atheists non-religious? Is there a non-religious meanng to the Tree of Knowledge?

 

[linwood]

FFRF There are quite a few more of these on their site if you want to look at them.

Ok, after some reading and thinking about it I agree with the FFRF`s tactic of using a secular/atheistic display to counter any religious display that may be present.

It accomplishes a few things, not the least of which is the exposure of religious hypocrisy when theists call for the secular display to be removed while allowing religious display to stay.

However, if there is no religious display present then putting up a secular/atheistic display defeats the entire purpose of their stated objective.
(To remove religious displays)

 

[Jeremiah]

Perhaps, if they were not guilty of the same thing they complain about.

You are complaining about a silly tree? How about the religious community get their religion out of marriage laws?

 

[Jeremiah]

I think some people are bit over obsessed with he actions of a few atheist. It is a bit silly to see a thread titled "Atheist put up a billboard" Ok, I get it, it is something to talk about, but still it is a bit silly.

 

[Jeremiah]

Hmmmmm, why would atheistits put up a religious symbol? Aren't atheists non-religious? Is there a non-religious meanng to the Tree of Knowledge?

That is strange... How did they get the tree up then? I thought holy symbols burned the flesh of the non-believers.

 

[Autodidact]

I have a question for everyone, non-theists and theists included.

You may have heard of Trees of Knowledge being put up by atheists at various capitols. Theses are in response to theists displays on the same government grounds. Seattle Atheists have erected one this year, except there is no accompanying religious display on the state capitol. The atheist display is it. Going by how big of a deal many atheist groups have made about religious displays on state grounds, should this atheist display remain when there is no religious display? What are your thoughts on it?

Link

That is so cool! No, I hadn't heard of that. I love it. Celebrate knowledge! Surely everyone can get behind that, atheist and theist alike. No?

 

[Autodidact]

I agree with both of you but that is not exactly the point I am trying to make. These kind of displays by atheist groups are meant to be in response to religious displays as a way to promote Separation of Church and State. In other words, they are of the opinion religious displays should not be on state grounds period. And now we have an atheist display on state grounds, by itself.

Ah, but it's not. Those clever atheists. There's nothing atheist about it, except the sponsor. They're celebrating knowledge. Or do you think religion opposes knowledge?

 

[Apex]

You are complaining about a silly tree? How about the religious community get their religion out of marriage laws?

No where have I complained. I simply asked what everyone's opinion was on this given certain circumstances surrounding other displays on state grounds.

 

[Jeremiah]

No where have I complained. I simply asked what everyone's opinion was on this given certain circumstances surrounding other displays on state grounds.

And I am simply asking you people to get your religion out of our laws, off our money, out of our pledge of allegiance, out of our political system, and off of our military arms.

 

[Falvlun]

The way I understood it, these atheist displays at Christmas weren't meant to say that there shouldn't be any displays, but that all beliefs should get equal representation, if they wanted it.
The problem was that originally, Christians were free to put up their nativity scenes, and atheists were banned from putting up their own displays. So, the fact that they put up a tree when no one else did isn't hypocritical: the other beliefs could put up their nativity scenes or menorrahs, they just didn't do so. Heck, who knows: Maybe the atheists expected the other displays to be there, and nobody showed up this year.


Also, this is actually the first atheist Christmas display that I can actually feel good about. It doesn't demonize, make fun of, or bash religion like most of them tend to do; it just simply states a pretty universal message about valuing knowledge. And the tree was actually a good idea, as it, imo, shows a willingness on the atheists' part not to go about destroying tradition surrounding this season.

As for those who question whether the atheists knew the biblical connections to the Tree of Knowledge, I have no doubt they do, and that's precisely why they used it. In the Bible, it was a forbidden thing; in contrast, they are offering it as something to be revered and cherished.

 

[Apex]

And I am simply asking you people to get your religion out of our laws, off our money, out of our pledge of allegiance, out of our political system, and off of our military arms.

This has nothing do to with what I said but ok.

 

[Apex]

The way I understood it, these atheist displays at Christmas weren't meant to say that there shouldn't be any displays, but that all beliefs should get equal representation, if they wanted it.

And the simple act of the atheists being allowed to put up their own counter displays signifies that all groups may have equal representation should they want it.

The problem was that originally, Christians were free to put up their nativity scenes, and atheists were banned from putting up their own displays.

But this is no longer true, at least in most areas I know of.

So, the fact that they put up a tree when no one else did isn't hypocritical: the other beliefs could put up their nativity scenes or menorrahs, they just didn't do so. Heck, who knows: Maybe the atheists expected the other displays to be there, and nobody showed up this year.

I consider it to be hypocritical when atheists groups are saying they do not think there should be any displays on state grounds, religious or irreligious.
FFRF

We don't think religion, or irreligion, belongs in state capitols

Also, this is actually the first atheist Christmas display that I can actually feel good about. It doesn't demonize, make fun of, or bash religion like most of them tend to do; it just simply states a pretty universal message about valuing knowledge. And the tree was actually a good idea, as it, imo, shows a willingness on the atheists' part not to go about destroying tradition surrounding this season.

I agree. This is the first display that I could actually support were I not so jaded from nearly everything coming from atheist groups being meant with some kind of anti-religious subtlety.

 

[Falvlun]

And the simple act of the atheists being allowed to put up their own counter displays signifies that all groups may have equal representation should they want it.

But this is no longer true, at least in most areas I know of.

I think the point is still in the process of being made. Once atheists feel that it is a dead horse, then you'll probably see a precipitous drop in such displays.

I consider it to be hypocritical when atheists groups are saying they do not think there should be any displays on state grounds, religious or irreligious.
FFRF

From the article: "
"We don't think religion, or irreligion, belongs in state capitols," noted Annie Laurie Gaylor, Foundation co-president. The backside of FFRF’s sign notes: “Keep State & Church separate.”
“But if a state is going to permit a nativity, then we want to be sure that the views of the 15 percent of the U.S. population that is not religious is also represented."

They are simply making a couple of points: 1) Americans are atheists too. Everyone isn't Christian, ya know? 2) If you find our sign offensive, then you can probably imagine how yours makes us feel. Perhaps it's just better if we don't have any signs at all, 'k?

It's not hypocrisy: They aren't saying their display is right, and the other's is wrong. Or that only atheists are allowed to have a display.

I agree. This is the first display that I could actually support were I not so jaded from nearly everything coming from atheist groups being meant with some kind of anti-religious subtlety.

In general, I think they should just leave Christmas alone. I'm not a huge fan of atheist methods of saying "Hey, Look at me!" Although, I do find some of the billboards amusing and thought-provoking.

 

[gnomon]

I agree. This is the first display that I could actually support were I not so jaded from nearly everything coming from atheist groups being meant with some kind of anti-religious subtlety.

I think your view of nearly everything coming from atheist groups being meant with some kind of anti-religious subtlety is misguided.

 

[Dan4reason]

I have a question for everyone, non-theists and theists included.

You may have heard of Trees of Knowledge being put up by atheists at various capitols. Theses are in response to theists displays on the same government grounds. Seattle Atheists have erected one this year, except there is no accompanying religious display on the state capitol. The atheist display is it. Going by how big of a deal many atheist groups have made about religious displays on state grounds, should this atheist display remain when there is no religious display? What are your thoughts on it?

Link

I think that the state should not support nor attack religion. If the state did allow displays that do any of this, I am against it. I am however OK with religious organizations putting up displays which do not assert or deny religion, and I am OK with atheists doing the same. The question is, does this tree of knowledge deny religion in any way or does it simply support the ideas of science and reason?