Discussion: Mayor Disputes Report That He Compared Atheists To KKK

Discussion for article #225572

One of these groups opposes the other,
One of these groups just doesn’t belong.
Can you tell which group I won’t give a permit,
Before I finish my song?

15 Likes

I’d like to hear from the group that wants to set up the Atheist’s booth.

6 Likes

Maybe the Supreme Court should applied that logic to 35’ buffer zone case. If there’s not threat of violence, the mayor shouldn’t have any say about what the atheists signs say’s and trying to police speech.

3 Likes

“He said that the signs planned by the atheist group had a “pretty negative connotation,” and that they “they wanted to be basically opposed to the prayer station.””

So if the atheists had gotten there first, he would have rejected a “prayer station” because they basically wanted to oppose the atheists?

12 Likes

TPM also incorrectly stated that Fouts is a Republican. While he has run as both a Republican and a Democrat, he does not currently affiliate with a party.

The same way smallpox isn’t affiliated with any particular patient at the moment.

10 Likes

And if the Atheists would have gotten there first? Would the prayer station be denied a booth because they opposed the atheists?

I didn’t think so.

Most Christians think Atheists are going to burn in eternal hell. Can’t be more disparaging than that.

2 Likes

Hey moron:

That “taken out of context” excuse doesn’t work near as well in the age of digital media. Just a bro-tip, punk.

1 Like

Of course he backtracked–under the Skokie decision, Nazis are entitled to free speech.

3 Likes

Yes. It is absolutely unprecedented for any American to disparage any group. Good one, Mayor. Of course in this case the disparagement must be that calling oneself “the reason station” carries the implication that the prayer station uses not reason but faith, which of course it does.

2 Likes

If the mayor is not just spinning and is true to his word, I could support him. Allowing groups to state who they are and what they believe, but not to attack another group, seems reasonable. And it is also reasonable to ban groups that violate common values in very extreme cases (groups that espouse violence, racial supremacy or child exploitation, for example), but we need to be very careful here because of that slippery slope thing.

He said the prayer group is “non-invasive” and “non-aggressive,” unlike the atheist group

How does he know the atheist group is “invasive” or “aggressive?”

He never gave them a flippin’ chance.

2 Likes

“I never did what I did!”

Typical Teabagger.

4 Likes

His clarification does not really make sense. He brings up the example of the KKK being allowed at a Martin Luther King Jr. celebration - basically just making a point that people who are against a celebration shouldn’t be allowed there. But that goes completely against first amendment rights. I would be surprised if the KKK were banned from a MLK Jr celebration - while their beliefs are despicable, we can’t ban them just because of that. It’s the same as how the Westboro Baptist church is allowed to protest at funerals and at high school performances of the Laramie Project. There have been anti-gay protesters at every gay pride parade I have ever been to.

I also don’t see how atheism is antagonistic towards religion any more than Christianity is to Islam (and vice versa, and pretty much any combination of religions)

Plus, this isn’t a pro-religion event. It is a normal booth that is open to the public at City Hall. If he is claiming that City Hall itself is a pro-religion event, then that clearly shouldn’t be allowed at all (which is probably the atheist groups point in the first place).

6 Likes

The nature of virtually all religions, or philosophies rejecting religions, is that they are inherently going to compete with one another. The few religions which don’t rule themselves as mutually exclusive with the others are generally still considered incompatible by said other religions.

Short of going to personal defamation or similar things, that should not be a consideration.

4 Likes

Well that’s cuz the city has certain values that he doesn’t believe are in general agreement with having an atheist station.

Plus they have cooties.

FREEDOM!

Please vote in November.

3 Likes

“The city has certain values that I don’t believe are in general agreement with having an atheist station, nor in general agreement with having a Nazi station or Ku Klux Klan station,” Fouts told the AP.

I guess the last booth space was being held for Hair Club for Men.

2 Likes

Agreed on all points.
Also I think his excuse explanation makes his descision sound even worse.

1 Like

Indeed! In fact, I don’t see how atheism is antagonistic towards religion anywhere near as much as Christianity is to Islam.

To honor the Lord in Heaven, this guy needs to have a map of the constellations tattooed on his scalp.

“TPM also incorrectly stated that Fouts is a Republican. While he has run as both a Republican and a Democrat, he does not currently affiliate with a party.”

I think we can agree the censor-in-chief is an idiot. He can run in both parties but people can’t see both groups?