I mean God. Sorry.
Assumed, in your comment, is that the person who stole the sign is someone who is part of the Judaeo-Christian faith tradition.
This has not been proven, so the initial assumption is not valid.
I would submit that if the person was a true and faithful adherent, they would honor and obey the command and not do such a thing.
But, there are always people who “claim” that they are submissive to G-d’s word, but act in a way that says otherwise.
Case closed.
Yep, I don’t disagree. It is an assumption. You don’t “assume” it was a believer? Come on Will, be honest.
My point was that:
a) You did not prove that the perpetrator WAS a believer, but you assumed he (or she) was.
b) if the perpetrator is caught and “claims” he is a beleiver, then I would argue that, for the mere reason that he (or she) acted in direct opposition to what “believers” testify to, then the perpetrator is not being honest with themselves.
No. I do not “assume” they are a real, self consistant “believer”.
But you seem to.
In this, there is a difference.
Just being “honest”.
Are you?
Hope this helps;
When did I assume the perp. was a “self consistent” believer. You can’t just through in a bunch of words at will and accuse me of saying them. I’m only assuming it’s a believer that did it and I think we can all agree that’s a pretty safe assumption. Clearly, he wouldn’t be self consistent, however, he would only need to ask for forgiveness and all is well right?
I will try to me clear. Posts are not the best media to discuss “in-depth” concepts.
My “assumption” ( and believe I made this clear ) is that you assumed that the perpetrator was a “believer” because he (or she) stole a sign that maligned “Christianity”.
I retorted that a “real” (i.e., self-consistant, Bible believing and following) “believer” would not do such a thing because it would not be “consistant” with Biblical teaching. If a person “claims” to follow a way, but acts in disregard of the teachings and principles of that way, they are not being consistant and could therefore be easily dismissed.
And, it should be clear from your above arguement, thay you have very little understanding of what those beliefs and principles are. Therefore, by easy logic, you are making assumptions based upon an unclear understanding of what you claim to be against.
Common mistake.
In short, you are slamming someone who you do not know, based upon an assumption that you know who they are, using your own misunderstanding of what you assume to be his (or her) motivation, just because you do not like what you do not understand (but believe that you do) and have already made up your mind against it, even though you don’t know what you are talking about.
Par for the course.
Hope this helps;
How can this sign be considered a religious symbol???
It shouldn’t have been there in the first place.
I wish it was me.
Somehow I think G-D would forgive me.
Would be proud to go to jail for the crime.
Yes of course it was a believer,and there is no doubt about it.
Must admit I finally agree with O"Riley ,and the spin stops here.
If all should have equal and fair access to everything, then they should allow chicken sacrifice on the cartoon network.
…
The better question is why is this allowed to be displayed in a government building in the first place.
The public space was permitted for displaying the symbols of the season.
The sign is not a symbol and is not associated with a season.
It should not have been there in the first place.
The Winter Solstice is not a season?
How is a text sign that is being used to attack belief in God celebrate a season?
Who are you to judge? The nativity scene is making a statement (without text) that Jesus was born of a virgin and is the son of God. The atheist sign is simply stating the views about atheism in a different fashion.
Here’s the kicker. You think intelligent design should be taught alongside science when ID is nothing but stating that evolution is wrong. Yet you disagree with this sign being displayed that states believers are wrong alongside a nativity scene. Par…for…the…course! Pwned.
Kevin, I didn’t really expect you to get it but I’m sure most did.
You do see that the text is the only item with the sole purpose of discrediting ALL the others, right?
The idiot that approved this sign wasn’t very bright.
You’re not related by any chance? 
It’s ok to ignore the ID analogy. I know you don’t like to accept your hypocrisy.
Kevin, What should be taught in a science book and a text displayed with the sole purpose of attacking other’s beliefs has nothing to do with the display of the symbols of the season.
It should never have been there in the first place.
I cannot say it any clearer than that.
They want the snot pounded out of them perhaps? 
Mikey, It appears that Republican Attorney General Rob McKenna disagrees with your assessment.
From this article
Annie Laurie Gaylor of Madison, Wis., a co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, said the group has displayed a similar sign in the Wisconsin Capitol for more than a decade, and has gotten used to this sort of response.
For the first few years, opponents of the anti-religious message have turned the sign to face the wall, stolen it and even showered it with acid, she said.
“It is interesting that our views are so threatening that they have to be stolen and stifled completely,” Gaylor said.
Gregoire and Republican Attorney General Rob McKenna have defended the group’s right to display its sign.
Originally Posted by wdecker http://nachi.cachefly.net/forum/images/2006/buttons/viewpost.gif
*I will try to me clear. Posts are not the best media to discuss “in-depth” concepts.
My “assumption” ( and believe I made this clear ) is that you assumed that the perpetrator was a “believer” because he (or she) stole a sign that maligned “Christianity”.
We both agree it’s probably a believer right? Regardless if they are a sinning believer.*
No, I do not agree that it was “probably a believer”. If it was, it was a person who might think they are a believer, but is confused. As scripture says “They will know we are believers by our love.”
In other words, if I claim to be a member of a group, but I act in direct opposition to the rules, teachings and principles of that group, I am not really an observant member of that group, am I?
*
I retorted that a “real” (i.e., self-consistant, Bible believing and following) “believer” would not do such a thing because it would not be “consistant” with Biblical teaching. If a person “claims” to follow a way, but acts in disregard of the teachings and principles of that way, they are not being consistant and could therefore be easily dismissed.
We agree here.
And, it should be clear from your above arguement, thay you have very little understanding of what those beliefs and principles are.
Actually, I’m not clear as to what you’re saying my misunderstanding is. Please clarify*
*You seem to be saying that because the sign was denouncing religion, G-d and faith, that only a person who believed in these would want it removed. I say that this is a false assumption. It also could have been taken by a Muslim, a Jew, a Jehovah’s Witness or just a Dieist. Because the sign denies the existence of angels and the devil, it could also have been taken by a follower of Oprah or a Satanist. All these are not Christian believers. Why do you assume it had to be a Christian?
Therefore, by easy logic, you are making assumptions based upon an unclear understanding of what you claim to be against.
Same as above. What’s my misunderstanding.*
*Stated above.
Common mistake.
In short, you are slamming someone who you do not know,
We should all slam someone who steals.*
*You were not just slamming a thief. You were slamming believers and implying that the thief is a hypocrite because he would steal while claiming to obey “though shall not steal”.
based upon an assumption that you know who they are,
Why dance around this. Are you saying you don’t think the perp. is a believer regardless of his sins? You talk a lot but don’t answer simple questions.*
*While the thief could be a believer, I would doubt it. I would not take the sign. I would not take it not because of “though shall not steal”, but because it provides a great witness of the existence of evil and un-belief in the world, and of the brokenness of the group that put it there. It can be a good thing for people to be reminded that the Enemy exists and is working. Sometimes people need to see unbelief to be reminded of G-d.
using your own misunderstanding of what you assume to be his (or her) motivation,
Again, are we disagreeing on the assumed motivation here?*
*Yes. You are assuming facts not in evidence, based upon your misconception of what Christians believe and how they act.
just because you do not like what you do not understand (but believe that you do) and have already made up your mind against it, even though you don’t know what you are talking about.
You only needed to say that once. :roll:*
*Evidently, I have to say it more than once. Either you don’t understand or you are being, purposefully dense.