HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Religion & Spirituality » Religion (Group) » A tale of two logos: Athe...

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 04:38 PM

A tale of two logos: Atheist group targeting Wyoming goes after Ohio city over cross

Published: Tuesday, July 31, 2012, 2:25 PM Updated: Tuesday, July 31, 2012, 2:46 PM
By Garret Ellison | gellison@mlive.com

STEUBENVILLE, OHIO — An eastern Ohio town with a cross on its logo is standing its ground for the moment against the threat of legal action from the same Wisconsin atheist group taking a similar issue with the city seal in Wyoming.

Reporter David Gossett of The Herald Star newspaper in the Upper Ohio Valley reports that city leaders in Steubenville are holding off a prior decision to change the city logo after several attorneys offered the city free legal representation.

Both Wyoming and Steubenville have been targeted recently by the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) of Madison, Wis., which is demanding each city alter its respective logo to remove small depictions of a Christian cross.

The foundation faxed a letter to Wyoming Mayor Jack Poll on July 20 demanding the city change its “unconstitutional” logo, arguing that the addition of the church silhouette on a city insignia violates the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2012/07/a_tale_of_two_city_logos_athei.html

I wonder what they're doing for Alexander Aan.

34 replies, 1754 views

Thread informationRemove bookmarkTrash this thread

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 34 replies Author Time Post
Reply A tale of two logos: Atheist group targeting Wyoming goes after Ohio city over cross (Original post)
rug Jul 2012 OP
dballance Jul 2012 #1
cbayer Jul 2012 #3
Plantaganet Aug 2012 #25
Goblinmonger Jul 2012 #2
rug Aug 2012 #7
Goblinmonger Aug 2012 #24
Goblinmonger Jul 2012 #4
backscatter712 Jul 2012 #5
rug Aug 2012 #8
trotsky Aug 2012 #9
rug Aug 2012 #10
trotsky Aug 2012 #11
rug Aug 2012 #12
trotsky Aug 2012 #13
rug Aug 2012 #14
trotsky Aug 2012 #15
rug Aug 2012 #16
trotsky Aug 2012 #17
rug Aug 2012 #18
trotsky Aug 2012 #19
rug Aug 2012 #20
trotsky Aug 2012 #21
rug Aug 2012 #22
trotsky Aug 2012 #23
rug Aug 2012 #26
cbayer Aug 2012 #27
trotsky Aug 2012 #28
Rob H. Aug 2012 #29
cbayer Aug 2012 #30
trotsky Aug 2012 #31
madrchsod Jul 2012 #6
dimbear Aug 2012 #32
cbayer Aug 2012 #33
rug Aug 2012 #34

Response to rug (Original post)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 05:31 PM

1. "Jews, don't you come around here." The coded message from the past by displaying the cross

Someone correct me if I'm wrong. But as I understand it during our not too distant past towns displayed crosses in the town squares, on town seals, and in literature about the town as a coded message to Jews: "STAY AWAY."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Reply #1)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 05:37 PM

3. I've never heard that before. I that is so, why haven't Jewish groups protested this

or brought lawsuits? Or have they?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Reply #1)

Wed Aug 1, 2012, 11:32 AM

25. And gays.

And, presumably, gay Jews.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Original post)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 05:34 PM

2. What's the RCC doing for Alexander Aan.

Let's see if your crew answers the whistle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goblinmonger (Reply #2)

Wed Aug 1, 2012, 06:04 AM

7. How does that answer my question?

Oh, it doesn't. It simply deflects. Again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #7)

Wed Aug 1, 2012, 11:08 AM

24. No, it points out that you were deflecting.

Rather than deal with the issue of the logo of a US city, you bring up something else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Original post)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 05:46 PM

4. Here's an activity for those of you that aren't atheists

Go here
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/town-forced-to-remove-cross-from-logo.html
And read the replies. THIS is what many atheists have to live with on a daily basis. Perhaps a little understanding for our viewpoint may come from this. Probably not, but it's worth a try.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goblinmonger (Reply #4)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 05:49 PM

5. GAAAAH! My IQ just dropped fifteen points reading the comments there.

Once again, I'm convinced that Idiocracy is a documentary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goblinmonger (Reply #4)

Wed Aug 1, 2012, 06:55 AM

8. That's Fox News. They say worse about Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #8)

Wed Aug 1, 2012, 07:09 AM

9. Would you dismiss hateful comments about any other minority group as blithely, rug?

What if it were homosexuals? Jews? Muslims?

Or do you reserve your snark and nastiness only for atheists, cuz we're so special?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #9)

Wed Aug 1, 2012, 07:17 AM

10. That is an obnoxious, and false, equivalence.

A minority based on an intellectual, and often transient, conclusion, is far from a minority based on sexual orientation, ethnicity or race.

And it's still Fox.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #10)

Wed Aug 1, 2012, 07:18 AM

11. So yeah, your hatred and contempt is reserved solely for atheists.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #11)

Wed Aug 1, 2012, 07:20 AM

12. You assume, again.

You equate not buying bullshit with hatred. The jury is still out on contempt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #12)

Wed Aug 1, 2012, 07:22 AM

13. Bullshit about what, rug?

Do you think church-state separation issues are bullshit?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #13)

Wed Aug 1, 2012, 07:25 AM

14. Hardly.

This particular bullshit, as opposed to the general bullshit, is that the comments section of Fox News is illustrative of the particular persecution of atheists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #14)

Wed Aug 1, 2012, 07:36 AM

15. So anti-atheist hatred that appears on a Fox website can't be used to demonstrate...

that anti-atheist hatred exists.

Got it. Thanks for your continued shitting on atheists, rug. You provide a valuable community service.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #15)

Wed Aug 1, 2012, 07:42 AM

16. It can in the sense that a bioposy of a suppurating sore shows disease.

It would be foolish to then describe the human body as a mass of disease. Extrapolation can be tricky, depending on the sample.

And I again commend you on the heightened tome your last sentence brings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #16)

Wed Aug 1, 2012, 07:48 AM

17. Just calling it as I see it.

Which I know is why you reserve particular snappiness for me.

You analogy fails poorly - no one has ever said that EVERYONE hates atheists or that we are discriminated against "no differently" than blacks or homosexuals. Only that anti-atheist discrimination exists and is real. Your continued refusal to accept this basic fact is just another way you enjoy slapping atheists in the face and why you get back exactly what you give.

Maybe someday you'll learn and start acting more "Christian."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #17)

Wed Aug 1, 2012, 07:49 AM

18. Feel free to do so.

Unless you have no choice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #18)

Wed Aug 1, 2012, 07:54 AM

19. Rounds are over, it appears.

Unless you have another snappy last word snipe to make?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #19)

Wed Aug 1, 2012, 07:57 AM

20. As I told your friend, whose motto you've adopted,

that is a bigoted remark against anyone who has a mental illness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #20)

Wed Aug 1, 2012, 07:58 AM

21. Are you calling me a bigot? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #21)

Wed Aug 1, 2012, 08:00 AM

22. Go ahead. Give a non-bigoted meaning to that phrase.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #22)

Wed Aug 1, 2012, 08:01 AM

23. Boxing.

A very apt analogy to heated discussion and debate.

So, are you calling me a bigot?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #23)

Wed Aug 1, 2012, 01:08 PM

26. Ah, you were referring to puglistics.

Excepte that phrase is rarely heard outside hospital wards, psychiatric wards to be specific, and never in a boxing ring.

I repeat: That's a bigoted statement. Own it or disavow it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #26)

Wed Aug 1, 2012, 01:13 PM

27. It's not heard in psychiatric wards either. It would be arrogant to dismiss anyone in such a way,

particularly a psychiatric patient.

I also object to it's use here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #26)

Wed Aug 1, 2012, 01:28 PM

28. So, are you calling me a bigot?

Do a Google search on the phrase. Tell me what you find to be the most common uses of it.

Then come back here tell me what you think I am. You're trying to squelch debate because you've lost again, and I'm not letting you play that game.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #22)

Wed Aug 1, 2012, 01:29 PM

29. It's widely used in forensics (as in debate, not criminal science) tournaments

I've always assumed that's what people mean when they use it here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rob H. (Reply #29)

Wed Aug 1, 2012, 01:32 PM

30. It was described by a frequent poster here as something he learned while

working in a psych unit. He has said that once it becomes clear who is the psych patient, rounds are over.

While it may be used differently elsewhere, he is the one who introduced it and defined it here.

It's offensive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #30)

Wed Aug 1, 2012, 01:50 PM

31. And that's their business. I'm not using it that way here.

And to attempt to silence someone by implying they ARE using it in an offensive way is dishonest and disrespectful.

Take me at my word, and I'll do the same for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to rug (Original post)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 11:01 PM

32. City fathers of Steubenville bow to civil rights request............

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dimbear (Reply #32)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 11:10 PM

33. Thanks for the follow up. These cases have been really interesting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dimbear (Reply #32)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 11:21 PM

34. I don't see the FFRF announcing that.

This is their most recent press release:

http://ffrf.org/news/releases/ffrf-cautions-steubenville-not-to-be-duped-by-religious-right-offers/

This is the story a day earlier:

Steubenville puts logo change on hold

http://www.cantonrep.com/newsnow/x521646526/Steubenville-puts-logo-change-on-hold

Is the Christian Post reporting the earlier decision, to change the logo, which was put on hold? I don't see FFRF failing to announce this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread