Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
A man tried to take down an atheist sign put up at the Illinois State Capitol in Springfield along with a Christmas display, a Festivus pole and other similar displays. The police did their job and protected the display.
A conservative activist and Illinois comptroller candidate was escorted from the Illinois State Capitol building Wednesday when he tried to remove a sign put up by an atheist group.William J. Kelly announced Tuesday that he planned to take down the sign put up by the Freedom from Religion Foundation, and on Wednesday, he tried to make good on his plan.
But Kelly said when he turned the sign around so it was face down, state Capitol police were quick to escort him away.
Good. This was the same sign the FFRF has tried to put up all over the country:
"At the time of the winter solstice, let reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is just myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."
I don't like this display at all. I think it's needlessly insulting and more likely to make people angry than it is to make them think. I much prefer the one put up in Arkansas by a freethought group:
"As the old year passes and a new year is born, we reflect on that which has passed and hope for a better tomorrow. May the light of reason be a beacon to a brighter future for us all."
That display also included pictures of famous non-theists, humanists and freethinkers. I think that's a much more effective display. But that has nothing at all to do with the legal issue here in Illinois and the silly argument made by Kelly that because he finds it insulting he therefore has a right to remove it.
But Kelly called the sign "hate speech," and said he does not believe it is appropriate for a sign that "mocks" religion to be placed next to a Christmas tree and also near a nativity scene."I don't think the State of Illinois has any business denigrating or mocking any religion," Kelly said, "and I think that's what the verbiage on the sign was doing."
Kelly is rather obviously an idiot who doesn't grasp the distinction between private speech on public property and government speech. The government has established a public forum here where members of the community can put up their own displays. Does he think the government is endorsing Christmas, Hannukah and Festivus all at the same time here? What a dolt.
"The fact that sign was immediately in front of the tree, I found that to be disturbing because any family and any child would run up to that tree with a smile on their face, and they would immediately see that sign," Kelly said.
Ah, of course. "Won't someone think of the children?" Because children must be protected against anything that even hints at the fact that there are people in existence who do not believe what their parents have taught them. If only you non-Christian infidel heathens would just stay in the closet where you belong and surrender your freedom of speech, the children could avoid ever having to confront the real world.
Politics
Comments
Hey whatever happened to "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."? He puts the sign facedown, the state's jackbooted fascist thugs shoulda put HIM facedown. Hoooooooooah!
Posted by: democommie | December 26, 2009 9:18 AM
I wonder how he'd feel about my Wilbur Whately creche?
Posted by: Rob Jase | December 26, 2009 10:07 AM
On the other hand, going off of the words alone, I feel that this message is vague enough to be almost meaningless.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 26, 2009 11:01 AM
Sadie, I disagree wholeheartedly, unless your goal is to win converts to atheism (which I would argue is an asinine motive for putting up such a display). As a Christian, I can get behind the message of the Arkansas freethinker display, but I can't get behind the message that FFRF is putting forth. If I were an atheist, I'd want a sign that capitalized on something that many atheists have in common with many religious people - the high esteem of reason - and use that as a way of promoting atheism. It's not meaningless; it's ecumenical (to stretch the term a bit).
Posted by: Mr. B | December 26, 2009 11:09 AM
But of course, it's atheists who are intolerant. *eyeroll*
Posted by: Rick R | December 26, 2009 11:15 AM
Mr B. said: '...something that many atheists have in common with many religious people - the high esteem of reason..."
Bwahahahahahahahahahaha [wipes tear from eye]
Wait, you're serious?!?!?!?
Bwahahahahahahahahahaha*. - DJ
------------------
* I shouldn't mock someone who clearly doesn't get out much, but you really don't know many truly religious types do you? 'Reason' isn't in their vocabulary.
Posted by: DIngoJack | December 26, 2009 11:19 AM
DJ, I normally like what you have to say, but right now, you're being a jackass. Yes, as a religious type myself, I do happen to know many of the religious persuasion who do value reason (as I do as well). I never claimed it was a majority (it sadly is not, I suspect), just that there are many of us who do value reason.
Also, nice use of no true Scotsman in your footnote.
Posted by: Mr. B | December 26, 2009 11:28 AM
god bless america
Posted by: barry21 | December 26, 2009 11:43 AM
Concern troll alert!
Mr. B: "If I were an atheist ..."
I heard the same thing in the 60s in Texas: "If I were a Negro, I'd want to be nice and quiet, so as not to make enemies, and just work within the system. I mean, how do they expect to accomplish anything with all this anger?"
I actually like the first one best: "There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell."
Because all too often, atheists tiptoe around that issue. (The second statement is pure tiptoe.) They end up debating Christians on the merits of the goddy mythos ("Why would a just God make liver flukes?"), rather than just coming out and saying "Hey, that's all a crock. There are no such things as gods."
We're always inclined to play the argumentative ball in the Christian court, when what we should do is force them into the court of reality. In the real world, THEY should be the ones forced to make some sort of defense of their silly beliefs.
Impressionable young minds, who are the people we really need to be reaching, need to hear a short, clear statement of atheism, over and over and over. Not the lame "Oh, well, you know, um ... cough*reason*cough ... you see?"
Sure all the confirmed-Christian adults will hate it. Sure it will make them unhappy. But they're ALREADY unhappy. They ALREADY don't like atheists.
But here's the thing: THEIR OPINIONS DON'T MATTER. They're not the target audience of a message like this. The target audience is the millions of people still flexible and inquisitive enough to be open-minded. Bright young people.
Every other approach is fluff.
Posted by: Hank Fox | December 26, 2009 11:50 AM
The application of reason to religion results in the realization that it is unsupported fancy.
So saying that religious people value reason is at best a testament to their ability to disassociate their favorite magical thinking from the critical analysis of reasoned thought
-The DJ that is not Dingo Jack
Posted by: DJ | December 26, 2009 11:53 AM
Oh, and I wholeheartedly approve of the "in your face" message of the FFRF sign. Why not mock the kind of mushy thoughtlessness that religion engenders?
Posted by: DJ | December 26, 2009 11:55 AM
DJ @10,
Yep, sums it up nicely. Reasoned thought and religious thought are definitely not compatible, you have to go to great lengths to compartmentalize them.
Posted by: Doug Little | December 26, 2009 12:18 PM
It depends on what you're trying to accomplish. In the context of a holiday display, a sign mocking other religions comes off as the only expression which chooses to be negative rather than celebratory. Everybody else is here to have fun and express joy and love, and the atheists are there to sneer at everyone. What's the point of that? Are atheists incapable of celebrating things and having fun themselves? If so, why not celebrate the things that we actually think are worthy?
Posted by: Gretchen | December 26, 2009 12:22 PM
I also support the 'in your face' message in Illinois. If a religious moron cannot explain to his offspring a logical reason to ignore the message, his offspring may someday turn from the dark side.
Posted by: MikeMa | December 26, 2009 12:22 PM
My last sentence should've begun with "If not," obviously.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 26, 2009 12:23 PM
"As the old year passes and a new year is born, we reflect on that which has passed and hope for a better tomorrow. May the light of reason be a beacon to a brighter future for us all."
I think most Xtian fundies would find that offensive to their religious sensibilities too. It doesn't mention Jeebus, and there's that Devil word, "reason," in there. Clearly Satanic, dontcha think?
Posted by: Artor | December 26, 2009 12:31 PM
Mr B. - No 'True Scotsman', religious types have 'faith' which, by definition, transcends evidence, therefore reason (ie the appeal to natural laws and logic).
Science can only enquire about the real world (that is the world that can be sensed, measured and recorded) anything else is beyond it's enquiry.
However since religion has an intrinsic function of 'faith' it inhibits seeing the world as it is, without the filter of religion and therefore can't describe reality as it is because is has to imply a supernatural entity (or entries) that is/are beyond human enquiry, or any kind of evidence..
- DJ (DingoJack, not DJ)
Posted by: DingoJack | December 26, 2009 12:33 PM
Gretchen:
You make a good point, and I don't actually consider what the FFRF sign said to be mocking. It just states what we can reasonably assert to be true based on the evidence... I suggested mocking wouldn't be bad because that is what Mr. Kelly considered the sign. I think there are many more creative and entertaining ways to mock people who believe there is an invisible, omnipresent, and omnipotent magical old man in space who created the universe and knows when you've been bad or good. (some free mocking!)
Posted by: DJ | December 26, 2009 12:36 PM
Is it a feature of authoritarians that 'criticising' = 'mocking' = 'hating' and etc.? - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | December 26, 2009 12:46 PM
Whether you consider it mocking or not, I think if everyone else is putting up symbols that basically say "Hey, it's the holiday that we revere! Let's celebrate!" and you put up a symbol that says "You're all full of crap," you're being decidedly negative.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 26, 2009 12:55 PM
I dunno, kinda fills me with hope that they point out all the other stuff is basically lying to children.
I don't see the negativity in that.
Posted by: DJ | December 26, 2009 1:00 PM
What's a 'concern troll' anyway?
Posted by: Rutee | December 26, 2009 1:22 PM
Gretchen - "...Everyone else is here to have fun and express joy and love". This is indeed "all full of crap." Unless of course you think child abuse is an expression of love, or that it's joyous to brainwash kids with biblical literalism.
What the religiots are doing is trying to redefine the language so whatever they do is good. I'm sure they think it's fun.
Posted by: eddie | December 26, 2009 1:34 PM
Rutee, I was going to say a "concern troll" is where the enemy says "If I were you, I'd ..." And describe it as a stratagem where they try to get you to accept their arguments by presenting them as if they were seeing things from your side.
But looking it up on Wikipedia just now, it looks like I may be slightly off on that definition:
Wikipedia: "The concern troll posts in web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group's actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed 'concerns'. The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt within the group."
To give one historical example, they'd say "Well, I'm a suffragette myself, of course, but I'm just worried that we're turning off a lot of men who would otherwise be allies. I wonder if we shouldn't just be good little housewives and win their support for our voting rights that way."
Posted by: Hank Fox | December 26, 2009 1:40 PM
Sorry, Gretchen. The 'you' I rferred to was a collective 'you' but other than that I was saying much the same as DJ not DingoJack.
Concern trolling is when someone complains abot the tone rather than addressing the substance of an argument. and variants thereof. The tone of the FFRF sign was IMHO spot on.
Posted by: eddie | December 26, 2009 1:42 PM
I think the negative tone is a purposeful response to religious displays in the public square.
Posted by: kamaka | December 26, 2009 1:50 PM
eddie said:
Putting up a Christmas tree is child abuse and denotes biblical literalism? Talk about being brainwashed!
Posted by: Gretchen | December 26, 2009 1:55 PM
Shouldn't the national headline for this story be "Illinois politician assaults freedom of religion?"
Posted by: DuggleBogey | December 26, 2009 2:14 PM
Let's be done with religious displays on public property. Granting equal access leads to this sort of controversy which is why public property should be neutral.
I will add that given the cultural nature of Christmas displays the Freedom from Religion Foundation probably takes the meaning of the nativity scene more literally than most nominal Christians.
Posted by: Bill in NC | December 26, 2009 2:30 PM
Gretchen,
I wont address the child abuse/biblical literalism argument, personally I think you've both established strawmen arguments, but I will address the appropriateness of the FFRF message and your
...comment.
The problem is, the holiday IS full of crap. In fact it's crap piled upon crap, wrapped in crap, tied with a crap ribbon, stuck under a full of crap tree. Christmas is a co-opted made up holiday with co-opted made up traditions, a co-opted made up "spirit" of the co-opted made up "season."
Really, IF there was an historical Christ, he wasn't born in December, co-opt 1. The Christmas tree is a made-up pagan holiday, co-opt 2. Virgin birth, humble origins, co-opt 3 & 4. Santa Claus, co-opt 5. Giving of gifts, co-opt 6. "War on Christmas," co-opt projection and irony hat trick. Commercialization of the whole mess, co-opt freakin' infinity.**
http://media.fukung.net/images/6925/2158.jpg
-----------
** yes I know I'm leaving out a crapload of co-opts.
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 26, 2009 2:34 PM
Bill #29,
As long as religion exists I think I like having religious displays on public property as long as it is open to all. That way the absurdity of it can be highlighted by people like the FFRF.
I like the idea of the religious having to explain why the fairy tale is true when the other display says it isn't.
Posted by: DJ | December 26, 2009 2:41 PM
DJ,
Highlighting the absurdity of religion can be done without a government forum. This is an ad infinitum discussion, not just between atheists and the religious but between different religions. You're right that an atheist display takes away from the banality of manger scenes and menorahs which probably has some conservative Christians saying "bring it on."
Posted by: Bill in NC | December 26, 2009 2:54 PM
I have to agree with you on just about everything here, Ed. However, I think the FFRF wanted something like this to happen, for publicity. You don't put up a sign like the one they put up unless you're itching for a fight.
I'll use a drunken barfight analogy: Some drunk guy having a loud conversation shouts something offensive across the bar so that some one in particular will hear it and be offended. The offended individual also has a few in him, and walks over, and it just escalates from there.
Posted by: Jim | December 26, 2009 2:55 PM
"I think its needlessly insulting..."
So is the Christmas tree, which represents a religion which states that if one doesn't practice it, then one is literally going to burn for hell forever for eternity when he/she dies. In comparison to this kind of belief, the content of the FFRF sign actually comes across as quite mild.
Posted by: daniel rotter | December 26, 2009 2:57 PM
@30 dogmeatib,
Whether Christmas is "full of crap" or not is entirely up to the beholder. I happen to think it's not, and I'm an atheist. I celebrated yesterday with my family, giving and opening gifts in front of a nicely decorated Christmas tree. And I'm certainly not unique in that regard-- anyone who thinks that in order to decorate for and celebrate Christmas you must be a Christian, much less a biblical literalist, is sorely mistaken.
As you rightly point out, Christmas is a co-opted holiday. And the Christmas tree is, as I understand, a holdover from the holiday which was co-opted. As such, it has an multiplicity of interpretations. Even if the public display contained a nativity scene, I would find it in poor taste and needlessly insulting to put a sign up next to it which declares religion in general to be "just myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds." Not even all atheists believe that, let alone appreciate the expression of such a view in such a context.
As I said before, I would prefer a statement of what non-religious people have to celebrate. Religious people are already well aware of what that list does not include, but not so much what it does.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 26, 2009 2:58 PM
I said in my comment that I wasn't addressing the biblical literalist argument since it (and your earlier reply) was(were) strawman arguments. My question would have to be, regarding your celebration, were all of those present atheists, or was this a celebration where there was a mixture of believers and non-believers? Also, the question is obvious, were you always an atheist, or were you a "believer" who then came to question those beliefs? Culturally speaking, both cases involve celebrations that are either holdovers from an earlier time (IE a "tradition") or an (unintentional) dishonest celebration, IE the "believers" in your group were celebrating one thing, you were celebrating another.
I'll tell you though that my wife and I do quasi celebrate Christmas as well. Not as much as we did when we were closer to family (1500 miles from the closest members), but we still exchange small gifts, have a nice meal, etc. We don't put up a tree, got tired of the cats taking it down for us ... it also looked rather silly with just the presents for the two of us to each other under the tree.
But, to be completely honest, it is still a load of crap. We don't believe in any of the trappings, whether they be Christian or pre-Christian, and, quite honestly, we don't need excuses to give each other gifts.
Personally I'm rather neutral to the statement. I can see both sides of the argument, the "positive statement" versus the "in your face" statement, and I can see arguments for and against each of them. I can see the argument that the FFRF sign is offensive, but at the same time I'd like to ask the religious why it's offensive. At the same time I can see that the Arkansas sign might be a little to benign, as we've seen with the statement by Mr. B, it is very easy for the religious to co-opt the statement themselves and dismiss or ignore that it's an atheist sign. As some would say, the former version is the sign that an "uppity atheist" would put up while others would argue that the latter sign is the kind that a good "uncle Tom house atheist" would put up. Note I am using Civil Rights language because, in many ways, the arguments are similar.
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 26, 2009 3:21 PM
I have to agree with Gretchen. There is a big difference between "There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world", which is a statement of one's view of the world, and "Religion is just myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds", which is an attack on someone else's. While it's true that theism and atheism are diametrically opposed, so that espousing one is to deny the other, that's not the same as directly stating that one or the other is "evil", so to speak. The Christmas Tree is closer to the first part of the FFRF statement. If the tree had been accompanied by some theist canard, such as "atheism in the 20th century is responsible for millions of deaths under Stalin", that would be akin to the second part.
That being said, there does seem to be a trend now of theists wanting Christmas decorations on public property more for the in-your-face rather than the celebratory aspect.
Posted by: Taz | December 26, 2009 4:08 PM
I don't celebrate the holiday, it has no meaning for me.
A nativity scene gracing the public square, on the other hand, has much meaning for me, and not in a positive sense. It reeks of government endorsing religion and it was just that for many years. Only lately has anyone stood up to the religionist bullies and told them they don't own the public square.
I'm all for the "in your face" message. It's the surest way to send the nativity scene back to church where it belongs.
Now if we could only send victimless crime back to church where it belongs.
Posted by: kamaka | December 26, 2009 4:09 PM
dogmeatib,
Sorry, which reply of mine was a straw man, now? If you refer to my pointing out that Christmas trees are not emblematic of child abuse and biblical literalism, then I fail to see how that qualifies.
I don't see how any of that is relevant.
So in order for something not to be crap, you have to believe in all of the trappings and need an excuse to give gifts? This seems like a silly argument. If you enjoy and celebrate something, it seems to be pretty plainly not crap to you.
I would imagine the reply would be "Because nobody likes to be told their belief system is only ridiculous and harmful, that's why."
Sorry, I don't see it. As far as I can tell, this is a matter of tact, truth, and pragmatism. Not only is it rude to plant a sign in a Christmas display that says religion is "just myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds," but also factually questionable and unquestionably bad PR. Three strikes and it's out of consideration, for me.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 26, 2009 4:24 PM
If the atheist sign is offensive, then the message of Christianity is even more so:
"At this time of Christmas, let faith prevail. God exists and Jesus is the reason for the season. Religions other than Christianity are just myth and superstition that send people to hell to be tortured for eternity."
I have to see Christianity's bullshit version of the message 365 days a year in our national media and political discourse, so they can bloody well have a warm glass of STFU over a similar sign posted for two weeks in December.
Posted by: Robert Faber | December 26, 2009 4:55 PM
Just out of curiosity, why would someone put up a sign that says "There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world." if atheism is simply a lack of belief?
Posted by: Jim | December 26, 2009 6:05 PM
@Jim
Why indeed. Perhaps because we don't believe in gods, devils, angels, heaven, and hell. Since their is absolutely no evidence that those things exist outside the fevered dreams of our species. They certainly do exist in the same way Santa and the Pope's infallibility does.
Posted by: jimphones | December 26, 2009 6:16 PM
The FFRF sign makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside.
More importantly, I think it's more likely to result in a total ban on all such messages, religious or not, being placed in government-sponsored places.
Posted by: llewelly | December 26, 2009 6:54 PM
I like the Illinois sign, but would have preferred one that doesn't make declarative statements, but emphasizes HOW we arrive at these conclusions. Consider this quote from Richard Dawkins:
[quote]I am fed up with opinions and feelings... I don't care what you feel, and I don't care what I feel. I want to see the evidence. Please stop telling us what you feel. Please stop telling us what your intuition is. Your intuitive feelings are of no interest whatsoever, and nor are mine. I don't give a bugger what you feel, or what I feel. I want to know what the evidence shows.[/quote]
Granted, it was said in a completely different context, and is too long for a display any way, but it shows how we can explain why we believe gods are so improbable.
Posted by: Big T | December 26, 2009 6:59 PM
Jim "I'll use a drunken barfight analogy: Some drunk guy having a loud conversation shouts something offensive across the bar so that some one in particular will hear it and be offended. The offended individual also has a few in him, and walks over, and it just escalates from there."
That sounds like a good family Christmas to me. You just forgot the bit about one of them falling asleep at the table.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 26, 2009 7:06 PM
@jimphones
Ah, but many atheists have taken a great effort in saying that atheism isn't a belief system, but merely a lack of belief in such things. The FFRF sign is, however, is a statement concerning the nature of reality, a clear statement of belief in a negative. So it directly contradicts the way so many people have tried to define atheism.
Posted by: Jim | December 26, 2009 7:26 PM
Jim @ 41:
Because at least some atheists are reasonably confident that the world would be a better place if more people agreed with them regarding the nature of reality, especially since the empirical evidence is now strongly in their favor. Also to show some unity of purpose so atheists or other freethinkers driving by the sign realize they're not alone and that social opportunities with other freethinkers is possible. I'd bet there are more reasons, these are merely two.
Personally I think they'd be far wiser and more productive to present a positive message in such a venue. There's a huge difference between providing one's group some emotional comfort vs. helping one's cause. I prefer the latter at all times. So I side with Gretchen in the above debate.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 26, 2009 7:28 PM
The guy from FFRF responsible for maintaining the sign posted about it over on Phyrangula
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/war_on_christmas_continued.php#comment-2163389
The short version is that the FFRF wants the sign to cause enough conflict that the state decides to do away with all the displays.
Posted by: Alareth | December 26, 2009 7:41 PM
On the one side, we've got the ever reasonable Gretchen, who through her many posts has proven herself to be intelligent, thoughful and rational. (kiss, kiss)
On the other side, we've got a lot of people who are really making one argument, but using different levels of explicitness. Their argument is: "I don't like religion and I want the government to not allow religious people to use the public forum."
Any attempts to try to compare the imaginary plight of the irreligious to that of gays, non-whites or women is complete and utter self-aggrandizement. Atheism is not a social justice movement. Atheists are not systematically prohibited from participating in the economy, the government, the school system, etc. Therefore, there is no "good-doggy" v.s. "bad-doggy" atheist dichotomy. The only difference is between rational people like Gretchen, who recognize that each person finds their own way through life, and egotists like most of the rest of the posters who pretend that calling themselves atheists means they have the right to dictate life choices to others.
The FFRF is notorius for trying to pick fights where none exist. I rejected their POV 'way back when they thought it was a good idea to go around on public roads and pull up the crosses private individuals had placed to mark where people had died.
Also, propogating the false idea that religion is child abuse shows that the writer is completely irrational and pretends that emotional reactions are reasoned arguments.
Finally, the existence of accomplished scientists who are devout Christians (for example) proves that many believers can and do hold reason in high esteem. Mr. B never said that he put reason above faith, he just said that he and other Christians he knows hold reason in high esteem. The proof of the vacuousness of the "compartmentalization" argument is that not a single one of you would reject medicine made by theists who work at pharmaceutical companies, decline to ride in an airplane built by theists who work at Boeing or Airbus, or stay out of high-rises designed by theists who are engineers and architects. There is no validity in claiming that merely because a person holds theistic views they are incabable or unwilling to use reason as a tool for dealing with reality.
Posted by: 10,000li | December 26, 2009 7:42 PM
@48
I figured that's what was really going on. No one's going to put a statement like "There are no gods" in a public space, and not be itching for a fight.
@49
I actually think its a good idea not to have a nativity scene on public property, if just to avoid controversy. In most town squares there is a church anyway, so if you still want to see a nativity scene, all you need to do is turn your head.
Also, you're about to get a lot of flak. You're pretty much right on the whole, but I'm sure most of the atheist posters here do have some personal stories of discrimination that I have no reason to doubt, and you'll probably hear them very soon.
Posted by: Jim | December 26, 2009 7:57 PM
While I agree that the government should not take a position on religion, I also think that this is a symptom and not a cause. I.e., as religion fades, so too will tendency of government flirting with it.
I think the FFRF could pick better battles. Instead of trying to convince the government to remove In God We Trust, how about nurturing a good skeptical attitude towards religion instead? And as each generation gets more and more skeptical of it, removing the phrase from the coins and the pledge will be a moot point.
Posted by: Hammiesink | December 26, 2009 8:06 PM
Nice try, but you miss the point.
The religionists have gotten away with promoting their beliefs/agenda in the public square for a very long time.
This is the fight. The christers no longer get to pretend they own the public square. Keep your stupid religion where it belongs...at church and at home. Fine, display xmas trees, I don't care.
But manger scenes do not belong on public property.
Posted by: kamaka | December 26, 2009 8:17 PM
#49,
" Their argument is: "I don't like religion and I want the government to not allow religious people to use the public forum.""
That is not the argument I made at all... perhaps you shouldn't lump everyone together to create some erroneous strawman.
I think it is fantastic that religions can put up their b.s. in public, and I think it is equally fantastic that atheists can challenge that garbage in a straightforward and honest way. Why on earth should any atheist be happy with the status quo? "Self aggrandizement?". I think it's a huge pile of stinky concern trolling to say we atheists should play nice with people whose belief system equates us with evil, or that we are all going to hell or whatever.
By the way, religion (Roman Catholic) is actively protecting and hiding child molesters. Would you like to defend them some more?
Posted by: DJ | December 26, 2009 8:51 PM
Oh yeah, one more thing.. Your interpretation of compartmentalization makes no sense; they are using science not hand waving magical spells to make medicine and airplanes. I most definitely would not want to utilize those things if they didn't compartmentalize and prioritize science and reason over magical thinking.
A scientist holding onto religious dogma is something they should be embarrassed about. I don't think it makes good "proof" of holding reason in high esteem.
Posted by: DJ | December 26, 2009 8:57 PM
I agree with Gretchen and 10,000li. Your personal opinions on religion and atheism are irrelevant. Any rational analysis will conclude that the FFRF sign is terrible, terrible PR. If you want to express your disdain for all things religious, that's fantastic. That's your right and it's part of what makes America great. But don't fucking do it in a Happy Holidays forum. Really? Did a bunch of atheists gather and say, "You know what our biggest problem is? Americans think we're grumpy elitist snobs who spit on their traditions. So, how about we be grumpy elitist snobs who spit on their traditions, on Christmas? That'll help!"
I'll put it out there. The FFRF signs have a legal right to exist, no doubt about that. But the only possible reason you could endorse the FFRF sign is if you mind-numbingly hate religion so much that you will take any opportunity to go "Take that, religion!" at the expense of actually working to make your society a better place.
Posted by: Brandon | December 26, 2009 9:06 PM
At the time of the winter solstice, let reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is just myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds, thanks, FFRF.
There, fixed it!
Posted by: ildi | December 26, 2009 11:19 PM
"Atheists are not systematically prohibited from participating in the economy, the government, the school system, etc."
Re: the "government" part of that sentence: Cecil Bothwell, anyone?
As for Brandon's last sentence @55, to my knowledge, it is possible for a person to bash religion AND make society a better place. Your implication to the contrry, he former does not automatically come at the expense of the latter.
Posted by: daniel rotter | December 26, 2009 11:21 PM
@DAniel: I believe Brandon is saying "You could do something useful WITH THE SIGN", and I'm inclined to agree that the sign is useless. But I tend to believe in approaching softly, and defending yourself harshly.
I can actually see the sign in that context, since the religious right wing started this "War on Christmas" meme as a serious thing, but it's still not how I'd do it.
Posted by: Rutee | December 27, 2009 12:08 AM
Mr Bothwell has been duly sworn and is serving as a member of the Asheville City Council. He has in no way been discriminated against based upon his position as an atheist. As it happens, this Christian voted for him and is glad to see him in office.
Posted by: kehrsam | December 27, 2009 7:23 AM
I agree with Gretchen as well.
@53 DJ,
You know very well that liberal Christians don't think we're going to hell. Whether or not liberal Christianity is "real" Christianity - and I'm incline to argue that it isn't - is another issue. The bottom line is that there are millions of people who call themselves "Christians" who don't think we're going to hell, and would be appalled at the idea - and, please believe me, I am no defender of Christianity. Frankly, I can't stand the thing.
Also, there seems to be an unfortunate tendency recently in threads such as this one to label someone who express a dissenting opinion a "concern troll". What, he isn't allowed to disagree with you?
Moving along - they put up a Festivus pole? Seriously? I find that hilarious, but I also think it indicates a willingness on the part of the Illinois authorities to allow expression of all points of view. I'd assume that someone who puts up a Festivus pole is largely atheist in orientation to begin with (either that, or a devout Seinfeldian).
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | December 27, 2009 7:48 AM
Jeff Eyges: "Also, there seems to be an unfortunate tendency recently in threads such as this one to label someone who express a dissenting opinion a 'concern troll'. What, he isn't allowed to disagree with you?"
Jeff, calling someone a concern troll isn't about simple disagreement. Concern trolling is when you essentially pose as one of the people you're disagreeing with in order to sow doubt.
Posted by: Hank Fox | December 27, 2009 10:17 AM
Jeff, calling someone a concern troll isn't about simple disagreement. Concern trolling is when you essentially pose as one of the people you're disagreeing with in order to sow doubt.
I understand that, which was my point - this doesn't characterize Mr. B (in fact, my observation has been that it doesn't characterize many to whom the label is applied). He identified himself as a Christian; he simply disapproves of the FFRF's behavior and those here who are arguing in favor of it.
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | December 27, 2009 12:32 PM
Having just returned from visiting family in Little Rock, I have found that fundie Arkansans find no substantive difference between the display at the Capitol in Little Rock and the one in Illinois. After speaking to the bible-thumper segment of my family, I found that the real insult is that the non-religious are speaking up. They make no distinction between a statement to the effect of "we exist" and the statement "religion is myth" - both are equally offensive to them.
I suspect that a major reason that the display in Arkansas hasn't been damaged is that it is quite a substantial display and therefore is not as amenable to tampering. If it were just a sign that could easily be moved, someone would have given it the same treatment as Kelly did in Illinois.
Posted by: Jessa | December 27, 2009 12:52 PM
The FFRF sign is short and to the point and accurately express my view and should not be altered to misrepresent the opinion of those of us it represents in a public forum.
Those who choose to be offended and try to oppress the FFRF's message serve to validate the message.
Posted by: Psy | December 27, 2009 1:15 PM
Responding to DJ @53 and 54:
"I think it's a huge pile of stinky concern trolling to say we atheists should play nice with people whose belief system equates us with evil, or that we are all going to hell or whatever."
It doesn't matter at all what a religionist's belief system says about us, because atheists recognize that there are no gods, so belief systems based on the words of gods are irrelevant to our lives. If you feel bad because of what some kinds of believers say about you, that is a personal issue that has nothing to do with atheism.
"By the way, religion (Roman Catholic) is actively protecting and hiding child molesters. Would you like to defend them some more?"
Roman Catholicism is no more representative of religion in general than you are of atheists in general. It is not because of their religion that the RC priests did what they did, nor is it because of their religion that the Bishops protected them. If it were, then every priest, pastor, rabbi, imam, etc. on the planet would be buggering their religion's equivalent of "alter boys." We know they aren't, so pretending that the actions of a few RC priests and Bishops is proof that religion = child abuse is poppycock.
Here's a self-contradiction on your part:
"I most definitely would not want to utilize those things if they didn't compartmentalize and prioritize science and reason over magical thinking."(emphasis added)
v.s.
"A scientist holding onto religious dogma is something they should be embarrassed about. I don't think it makes good "proof" of holding reason in high esteem."
First, if they didn't hold reason in high esteem, they wouldn't prioritize it over magical thinking.
Also, feeling that scientists should be embarassed for holding onto religous dogma is, yet again, your personal opinion about religion and has nothing to do with atheism.
With every post you make, you prove my assessment that your issue with expression of religious ideas in the public square is based on your personal dislike of religion.
Posted by: 10,000li | December 27, 2009 5:32 PM
"But manger scenes do not belong on public property."
kamaka, I agree. Nor do festivus poles or FFRF signs or solstice globes or menorahs or anything that shows any kind of religious or irreligious point of view.
Taxes come at the cost of the labor of each and every American. We should get full value for our money. The time spent installing and protecting holiday and anti-holiday messages as well as having hearings about the rules (as they have had to do in Olympia, WA) drafting new ones and enforcing them is a complete waste of tax money. Every penny spent on these kinds of things is better used paying teachers, or fixing roads or buying safety equipment for police officers ... there are hundreds of things our government officials can and should be doing besides refereeing various people's desire to be "in your face" about their beliefs or lack thereof.
There is only one rational response that all government bodies should make when it comes to requests to put up religious and irreligious displays: "No."
Posted by: 10,000li | December 27, 2009 5:48 PM
Really? I disagree. It may not be a primary reason, but possibly a dominant one. I think it would be interesting to see as a comparison what percentage of Anglican priests are found out to be sexually abusing children. There are many similarities between the two religions, one key difference being that Anglican priests are not required to take a vow of celibacy.
Posted by: ildi | December 27, 2009 6:05 PM
Yet again you get it wrong.
What I have already stated and will state again is that I am just fine with the expression of religious ideas in public (i.e. I have not issue with it), as well as the atheist expression as presented by the FFRF. You and others who "disapprove" of the tone of the FFRF sign are the ones suggesting there is a problem.
I think I will echo Bill @32's statement:
I concede that my personal opinion is what I presented here.
Posted by: DJ | December 27, 2009 6:13 PM
Ignoring most of this (the compartmentalization argument is tiring), I find this statement by dogmeatib interesting:
But what I stated was specifically not a matter of co-option but common ground - as if atheists are the only group with any claim to reason! If anything, I would think the religious people most likely to sympathize with this message would see the pictures of the other atheists, humanists, etc. and connect with them. A lot of what Carl Sagan said about the universe resonates with me. Does his atheism mean that I'm not entitled to that? Absolutely not.
What's funny* to me is that I see the same trend that is common among many religious people: refusing to see any commonalities or redeeming qualities in some outside group. Of course religious people don't value reason; they just compartmentalize. Of course atheists can't be moral; they only act out of self-interest because they can't believe in a transcendent good. These statements are equally worthless.
And even funnier is the fact that I, a Christian, am fond of finding common ground with atheists and agnostics - common ground that I sometimes don't have with other Christians - and am labeled a "concern troll" (which is one of the most overused labels, frankly) when I attempt to highlight the possible common ground that atheists around here might actually share with some religious individuals.
Welcome to the culture war. In the future, make sure you're looking at a hostile party before you shoot.
--------
*Note that I don't mean funny ha-ha here.
Posted by: Mr. B | December 27, 2009 6:23 PM
ildi,
Enforced celibacy may be a contributing factor to the way some RC priests behaved. To find out, we would need to look at the behavior of men in positions of authority over boys in other enforced celibacy situations. There is nothing in RC dogma that requires the Bishops to protect teh buggering priests. It doesn't take religion to make a cover-up.
DJ,
My issue is that any of this crap goes on at all. I don't like the FFRF for reasons I've stated, that is my personal opinion as well. I don't donate any money to them, nor do I ever defend their monkeyshines when believers ask me what the heck the FFRF is up to now. I think they're just a bunch of grandstanders, and grandstanding never solved anything. To me, they're like the NRA of the freethought world.
At the same time, as I've repeated through this thread, there is nothing inherently atheistic about having any concern whatsoever about the actions and opinions of religionists. Such concern may come from one's version of a humanist philosophy or a rational materialist one or an eclectic social liberalism or even a communistic world view, but there is no necessary consequence of atheism that influences one's opinions wrt religion and religionists.
So, again, this is not an issue between atheists. It is an issue between those who have a beef with religion and religionists - that beef may be just wanting "equal time" in the public forum - and those who think the whole thing is a waste of our government employees' time and our money.
Posted by: 10,000li | December 27, 2009 6:39 PM
The RCC has a long and nefarious history of abusing children. It is their culture. Children are to be humiliated and beaten to "keep them in line, lest they be sinners."
I find it shocking that a group that claims some moral high ground just should not be trusted with children.
Posted by: kamaka | December 27, 2009 8:36 PM
Kehrsam @59:
The constitution of North Carolina STILL prohibits atheists from serving in public office. Whether you or I like it or not (and no decent person should fit into the former category), the Asheville City Council violated or ignored (whichever way you want to look at it) the state constitution of N.C. when the council swore in Mr. Bothwell as a member of that council. So my initial point still stands, since, under the N.C. Constitution, atheists continue to face discrimination when it comes to the issue of seeking public office. The fact, that, as in Mr. Bothwell's case, the law was violated or ignored (again, whichever way you want to look at it) doesn't change that fact.
Posted by: daniel rotter | December 27, 2009 8:49 PM
"I don't like this display at all. I think it's needlessly insulting and more likely to make people angry than it is to make them think."
So how, exactly, Ed, does it differ from the religious displays we all have to put up with?!
Posted by: IanW | December 28, 2009 6:50 AM
"So how, exactly, Ed, does it differ from the religious displays we all have to put up with?!"
Because while these people may believe you will go to hell for a lack of belief, that is not why they put up their displays (usually. Given the War on Christmas crap, that may in fact be part of the reason now). They put up their displays as pure celebration (generally).
To claim their displays are offensive by default is EXACTLY as dumb as idiot boy up there saying the atheist sign proclaiming there are no gods is hate speech. It's conflating "I don't like it" to "It is a deliberate attempt to do X".
Posted by: Rutee | December 28, 2009 9:35 AM
Gretchen,
Sorry, didn't mean to blow you off, wasn't available for the last two days, left in mid conversation. If you'll read carefully what I said in the first post, I considered both your statement and eddie's to be strawmen from the beginning. Eddie's because of the brainwashing abuse and literalism, your's because of the innocuous Christmas tree, etc. Both ignore the reality of attempted government endorsement of religious beliefs (nativity only X-mas displays, etc.), the "war on Christmas" garbage we run into, attempts to suppress non-religious statements, etc., all very real issues that both of your arguments (intentionally) completely ignore in effectively textbook strawmen arguments.
Nope, simply being honest. I enjoy celebrating Halloween as well (though I don't dress up, etc.), but I recognize that the scary costumes, scary movies, etc., are "all crap." If you want to use the "holiday season" as an excuse to get together with friends, great, but don't claim that there is inherently something special about the "season."
That's the point though. As has been pointed out in the thread, and I mentioned, those in the FFRF who put up the more "in your face" display, had a very good reason for doing so. Every year we have this demand that the public forum become a "Christian only" promotional display. We see year in and year out the demand that all non-Christian displays be banned, attempts to rig the rules to limit the displays to just nativity scenes, the crying and gnashing of teeth about secular or non-Christian displays, the whole ridiculous "war on Christmas" meme.
As I said, I'm not sure which side I come down on, I can see both sides and understand what they're saying. I don't think I'd personally put up such a sign, but at the same time I wont condemn them either.
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 28, 2009 12:00 PM
Mr. B, as you can see, when you put it in block quotes, you can see that it is a quote and don't need too [sic]* point out a typo.
To answer your point, the problem is when the religious make ludicrous claims and then attempt to support them with their religious beliefs, in other words attempt the opposite of science. For example the more benign statement may lead some religious people to turn it into "God gave us reason, don't forget to celebrate that as well." Which, while a nice sentiment, is a rather silly twisting of their statement and actual intention.
Point in fact most atheists recognize that our colleagues and allies in the "culture wars" are religious. Given that the vast majority in the western word claim to be at least nominally religious, it'd be silly not to we aware of that so it really isn't necessary for you to point it out. What you're going to see with atheists are three basic positions when it comes to these two displays. Those like Gretchen who argue in favor of the more benign statement. Those who argue for the "in your face" statement. And those like me who are in between and see the purpose of both.
I'll say again that I'm not specifically defending the Illinois statement, but I recognize what they're trying to do (IE close down all displays and leave it to private individuals and organizations to put up what they want). I agree with that goal, so I don't have a problem with their potentially offensive statement. At the same time I see what they were trying to do in Arkansas (IE put up a statement that lets other atheists know that they aren't alone). I also support that message and intent, so in the end I come down in the middle.
----------
*feel free to point out any typos or misspellings in future replies of text you've quoted, that will go a long way towards removing that "concern troll" label you love so much.
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 28, 2009 12:17 PM
Exactly how does one suggest a wording or an approach might be in poor taste and counterproductive under certain circumstances without being labelled a 'concern troll'?
There are times and places for everything. If the manner a message were delivered were irrelevant, then diplomacy is meaningless, tact is meaningless, putting something kindly is meaningless, saying something respectfully is meaningless... hell just shout it out and be done with it!
Not that blunt language is never appropriate, but every human society has developed complex rules of ettiquette, or respect, of tact because thiese things are so deeply ingrained in our makup. This is not insignificant. And I'm afraid that people who deride such concerns will find themselves in a lot of unnecessary fights.
Posted by: jay | December 28, 2009 1:48 PM
dogmeatib @75 I enjoy celebrating Halloween as well (though I don't dress up, etc.), but I recognize that the scary costumes, scary movies, etc., are "all crap." If you want to use the "holiday season" as an excuse to get together with friends, great, but don't claim that there is inherently something special about the "season."
There is something inherently special about the season, at least for people in the northern hemisphere. The days are shorter, the nights longer, the weather nastier, all of which results in higher incidences of depression, self-destructive behavior, and suicide. It makes perfect sociological sense to plunk down a holiday in the middle of it. Especially one that involves lots of lights - whether they're on a tree, candlestick, or in the fireplace - and time off from work to socialize.
I think your "its crap" argument completely ignores the fact that humans respond to ritual and symbolism. You can complain that whatever value we might attach to rituals is irrational. But it is a fact that we do, and because we do, celebrating holidays like Christmas, Yule, or whatever makes a lot of sense. Is the content irrelevant? Yes - it probably doesn't matter if its Christmas or Festivus - but is the holiday useless? No.
Posted by: eric | December 28, 2009 5:17 PM
eric - In the Southern Hemisphere Decembers are noted for their long, hot days and short warm nights (the temperature will peak around late December/early January due to the Hemisphere being near it's summer solstice and the Earth's orbit being near perihelion, plus lag in the system).
And yet we still sit around with family eat ourselves into a coma on hot food, whilst ignoring the over 40oC heat and near 100% humidity, despite the fact that it is clearly not helpful.
We don't fear the cold and dark in December; bushfires, cyclones and floods are more pressing dangers.
Perhaps the you northerners can have tradition, and we southerners can strike-out in a different direction. Come down under for a cool Yule in July! :) - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | December 28, 2009 5:39 PM
But the vast majority of public displays allow any group to put up decorations. In fact, they're all legally required to. The liberals won the War on Christmas before it even began. The most Bill O'Reilly and his minions have accomplished is getting some Walmart greeters to say Merry Christmas.
If this was the FFRF's real concern, they would have found some small Mississippi village and put the display there. Then when the city council took it down, they could take them to court and establish a precedent. How does putting the sign in a location that already allows any religion help the situation? If anything, it just energizes the conservatives. "If we let anybody put up a display, then those mean ol' atheists are going to crap on everything! We need to stop this!"
Stop pretending there's some benevolent motive behind the signs. The FFRF was starving for attention and it was too much trouble to actually do something good. It really is that simple.
Posted by: Brandon | December 29, 2009 7:06 AM
DJ - yes, I lived in Melbourne for six years. Loved it. Certainly the original value/usefulness of different social rituals may change as it spreads. And it may become outdated. You southerners don't need a December holiday to ward off depression any more than air-conditioned office workers in Spain need a siesta to avoid the mid-afternoon heat. My point to Dog was merely that many of these rituals and celebrations served a useful purpose when and where they were invented. Making them "not crap," or at least not all crap.
Posted by: eric | December 29, 2009 9:31 AM
Brandon @80: How does putting the sign in a location that already allows any religion help the situation? If anything, it just energizes the conservatives. "If we let anybody put up a display, then those mean ol' atheists are going to crap on everything! We need to stop this!"
Brandon, stopping religious displays on government grounds IS one of the points. If conservatives can be energized to do this, so much the better.
In a broader sense, the goal is convince the majority religion to protect the equal rights of minority religions. An effective way to do this is to put them in those minorities' position and see how they like it. Putting a declaration of one's (non-majority) beliefs in the town square - where everyone sees it and it gives the appearance of government endorsement - does this.
Posted by: eric | December 29, 2009 9:45 AM
First of all, you misunderstood my point. I was saying that the FFRF is just going to encourage the religious right to argue that only Christians should be allowed to put up a display. Because if they let just anybody put up a display, they get crap like the FFRF sign. They won't win, but they'll get louder.
And you know what? If the FFRF's goal is to end all religious displays on public property, then fuck them. A public forum is the exact opposite of government endorsement. This is so insanely obvious to me that I'm surprised it's even up to debate.
Posted by: Brandon | December 29, 2009 6:50 PM
eric - and my point is that it is crap now; and even then. The religious encrustations to various festivals (such as Saturnalia) were added consciously, not as a way of allying fears, but to convince others of the powerfulness of their fledgling god. It was as artificial as the commercialisation of Santa by the Coca-Cola Company in the early 20th century, and just as venial. -Dingo
-------
PS Commiserations in being forced to live in the Grey City for 6 years. Transportation is a cruel punishment. :)
Posted by: DingoJack | December 29, 2009 7:19 PM
"I was saying that the FFRF is just going to encourage the religious right to argue that only Christians should be allowed to put up a display."
Who cares what the Religious Right argues as long as (in your own words later in the same paragraph of the above sentence), "they won't win."
Posted by: daniel rotter | December 30, 2009 1:32 AM
Maybe its the crassness of plunking it right next to the Nativity Scene, as if it, too, represented a message of hope, that gets me. For the Nativity Scene, even if poorly understood, even if misportrayed, even if represented by charletans, still represents hope to countless millions of people that this life, ever full of hardship, is not all there is. What would a corresponding Atheist Scene be? You are telling the impoverished and disadvantaged, forever punted about and trod upon by human agencies, that not only is this life rough - it is also all they are ever going to get. Atheism may be attractive and trendy to the young and monied, but it sure is a downer to those poor and hungry and abused. They're to get the warm and fuzzies over "reason prevailing?" I don't think so. It hasn't served them well so far.
Posted by: tom sheepandgoats | January 1, 2010 5:39 PM
dogmeatib:
First, you'll find that lots of people do this around here; Ed even does it in his posts. Second, think about the logic this way - "As you can see, when you use quotation marks, you can see that it is a quote and don't need to point out a typo." No, in fact, that's exactly what the [sic] tag is for.
But if that gives you more of the justification you desire to continue calling me a concern troll, then so be it. Irrational namecalling doesn't really faze me anymore.
What point does this answer? I said that atheists as a group don't have sole ownership of reason, and then you start talking about religious people making irrational claims that are contrary to science. Fine, but atheists do that, too (and neither is really as a consequence of their group membership) - your point, then?
The funny part is that I was not talking about atheists realizing that they have common ground with some religious people - that was actually something separate - but religious people realizing that they have common ground with atheists. I can't believe this hasn't been clear after statements of mine like:
So I've pointed out here how the Arkansas freethinkers' display is honey to the FFRF's vinegar (if you follow this old adage) in terms of getting religious people to think differently about atheists, and my statements have been construed as referring to what the display should say to atheists. I'm not, and if the signs are only for the consideration of atheists, then I think that it's simply very poor PR. I can at least see some real positive good that could potentially come from the verbiage of the Arkansas display that extends beyond atheists, and I would think that counts for something.
P.S. @Jeff Eyges #62: I missed your defense of the concern troll accusation and as such missed the opportunity to thank you for the defense, which is greatly appreciated.
Posted by: Mr. B | January 1, 2010 6:42 PM