Atheists Seek to Erect ‘No Gods’ Display at Arkansas Capitol After Ten Commandments Approved

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — A prominent atheist activist organization is seeking to place a “no gods” display on the grounds of the Arkansas state capitol following the approval of a Ten Commandments monument proposed to be erected at the location.

As previously reported, Sen. Jason Rapert, R-Bigelow, had proposed the monument, which will be overseen by the Secretary of State and funded by private money. Rapert’s bill was approved in the House and Senate in March and April, and was subsequently signed by Gov. Asa Hutchinson.

christiannews.net/2015/08/27/atheists-seek-to-erect-no-gods-display-at-arkansas-capitol-after-ten-commandments-approved/

Why do you need a monument to religious indifferentism? Doesn’t just not having anything at all also work?

It’s about making a point. The government cannot endorse one religion over another. So if the 10 Commandments monument is allowed then all other faith monuments must be allowed as well, including a monument to no faith at all.

Then it should be a stone or plaque with nothing on it.:slight_smile:

While I don’t necessarily approve of the Ten Commandments monument on state property, I think this reaction by the atheist organization, which I realize is designed to make a point, is kind of childish. The atheists lost the legal battle on this particular issue. Why don’t they instead spend their energy on the next battle for non-religious equality on something more constructive?

“Our nation is too full of those crying, ‘Down!’: Down with the universities! Down with schools! Down with the churches! Down with teachers! Down with government! Down with the police! Can you build anything down?!!! You cannot!” – Bishop Fulton Sheen on “Patriotism,” Life Is Worth Living

LOL!
What’s a “‘no gods’ display”?
These “organizations”… sometimes… seriously… what the…?!

Sorry, that is a Buddhist scripture. The Buddhist scriptures come in two versions, the version with no errors and the version with errors. The version with errors has writing, the other version does not. (See “Monkey” for the longer explanation.)

rossum

I wouldn’t mind a huge statue of the Invisible Pink Unicorn…right next to the 1:1 scale statue of Russell’s Teapot…

I never really understood atheist "activists " - if you don’t believe in any God, okay with me; live and let live.

Why go to the trouble of putting up signs and monuments? All you’re saying is “Hey, look at me! I don’t believe in anything!” Who cares? You do your thing, and we’ll do ours.

The Ten Commandments are one of the historical foundations of our legal system. A plaque of the Magna Carta would also make sense. But a monument to “Belief in Nothing” makes no sense at all!

Well it just shows ta go ya, I can’t even get nothing right.:shrug:

But you live in Delray Beach, where my father used to live, so that counts for something. Hope you’re preparing for the potential hurricane.

Justice Benjamin Cardozo once said, “There is a tendency for a principle to expand beyond the limit of its logic.” I think this is one of those cases … among many. Ironically, if atheists keep this up, they might get declared a religion and have to live under all the government restrictions thereof. :wink:

Haha! That’s actually a pretty good idea. :wink:

Unfortunately, I think it makes the point rather poorly. Yes, Atheists can and should have the right to have a monument to reflect theirs beliefs just as much as Christian, Jew, Muslim or any other form belief. However, because the the monument will undoubtedly be negative in nature (most Atheist displays seem to be less about celebrating the Godless and more amount attacking people they disagree with) it will probably just come across as petty.

Truthfully, the biggest obstacle that most Atheists have to broader social acceptance is themselves. I recently read a study which tracked religious affiliation would affect one’s chances at landing a job. They found that everyone, regardless of what religion — or lack of religion — they affiliated themselves with, suffered. The take away is that society frowns upon any strong opinions towards religion. Stunts like these make Atheists unpopular for the same reason that Evangelical Christians are: it makes them look mean and judgmental.

So since they have no belief in God, it will have to be a big nothing. I don’t mind if they erect a big nothing.

I don’t know about that.

Atreyu: What is The Nothing?

G’mork: It’s the emptiness that’s left. It’s like a despair, destroying this world. And I have been trying to help it.

Atreyu: But why?

G’mork: Because people who have no hopes are easy to control; and whoever has the control … has the power!

Atreyu: Who are you, really?

G’mork: I am the servant of the power behind The Nothing. I was sent to kill the only one who could have stopped The Nothing. I lost him in the Swamps of Sadness. His name … was Atreyu.

The ground shakes again and Atreyu is knocked down. He grabs a knife-shaped piece of broken stone and stands up, ready to fight.]

Atreyu: If we’re about to die anyway, I’d rather die fighting! Come for me, G’mork! I am Atreyu!

The Never Ending Story

We will “hunker down” but it seems that it will just be a rain event here, and the Lord knows that we could use it, my front “lawn” is blowing down the street.:o

Exactly…spend the energy on something more worthwhile…!

I thought this very issue was decided in ACLU of Kentucky v. Mercer County, KY.

…Under the endorsement [of religion] test, the government violates the Establishment Clause when it acts in a manner that a reasonable person would view as an endorsement of religion. … This is an objective standard, similar to the judicially-created ‘reasonable person’ standard of tort law. … Accordingly, we do not ask whether there is ANY person who could find an endorsement of religion, whether SOME people may be offended by the [Ten Commandments] display, or whether SOME reasonable person MIGHT think [the government] endorses religion. Rather, the inquiry here is whether THE reasonable person WOULD conclude that Mercer County’s display has the effect of endorsing religion. … The ACLU makes repeated reference to ‘the separation of church and state.’ This extra-constitutional construct has grown tiresome . … state recognition of religion that falls short of endorsement is constitutionally permissible. – Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, ACLU of Kentucky vs. Mercer County, KY

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.