…and this is a 
Wake 'em up!
Category: Godlessness
Posted on: December 8, 2007 5:57 PM, by PZ Myers
This is an amusing reversal. Connecticut Valley Atheists put up a Winter Solstice sign in the town square, in the same place that was reserved for Hanukkah displays and nativity scenes, and while some people think it's just fine and fair, others are freaking out.
On Friday, a town crew erected a larger Christmas tree, 10 feet from the atheists' three-sided display. Mayor Jason L. McCoy said that the intent was not to block the view of the atheists' display, but to place a larger Christmas tree in a prominent position in the park. He said he directed town staff to purchase a larger Christmas tree and to "find a spot in the middle of the green. That's just where it happened to be."
Asked if placement of the tree was intended to obscure the atheists' display, McCoy responded, "Of course not." When told that it appeared to be blocking the display, McCoy said, "Oh, really; that's unfortunate."
The mayor says he's reconsidering the city's policy. Some of the religious leaders are saying it's a good thing because it's making people talk about their faith. The wacky ones are claiming they see a cross in the atheist's sign.
It's so darn easy to blow a narrow mind.
There are more photos of the sign at the Connecticut Valley Atheists site.
Politics
Comments
How did the Winter solstice, a pagan and therefore religious festival, become the rallying point for atheists?
Posted by: Don | December 8, 2007 6:14 PM
Heh heh. Now that's how you take it
to the other side!
Making people think on the holidays-
can't be having that! And the louder the
kneelers get, and the more they try and
shut these people up, the more questions
people ask.
And after the questions are asked- conclusions!
Truth is a beautiful thing...
Posted by: andy | December 8, 2007 6:14 PM
How did the Winter solstice, a pagan and therefore religious festival, become the rallying point for atheists?
Don't you think it's awesome that the christians had to resort
to using a pagan symbol to try and cover it up?
Talk about your mixed messages...
Posted by: andy | December 8, 2007 6:18 PM
I dunno, I find the sign extremely tacky. I can see why they would want to block it.
Equally tacky is exploiting 9/11. I agree with the sentiment of the sign, but I dunno, I can't see this going over well with anybody.
I like the idea, it just could have been done better. Maybe an altar to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Posted by: Abbie | December 8, 2007 6:20 PM
How did the Winter solstice, a pagan and therefore religious festival, become the rallying point for atheists?
While the Winter Solstice is commonly observed by pagans/Wiccans/Druids/delete as applicable, many atheists, agnostics, freethinkers and other non-believers have rallied to using the solstice to define their holiday celebrations. It is a natural occurrence defined by natural phenomenon. Therefore, as an atheist, I have no objection in observing a moment of respect for a wonder of the natural world.
Which is, arguably, why the pagans began the ritual ages ago in the first place.
Posted by: Evan | December 8, 2007 6:37 PM
I think the sign is ugly and I don't blame them for wanting to cover it up. However, I'm glad it's making people think about the idea that religion is unnecessary and often harmful. A highway billboard would be a better place to put this message.
Posted by: Gary | December 8, 2007 6:39 PM
Yeah, that would be a nice change of pace. I'm sick of those signs that spout some right-wing witticism and then attribute it to God. They make me wish that God did exist so that he could light those blasphemers on fire and send them to Hell where I can play skee ball with their organs for the rest of eternity.
I thought the sign was a little crass for a holiday celebration, especially if the townsfolk were being sincere when they said they wouldn't mind a non-polemic display. I think a mural of famous heretics would be awesome. Even better, pick the ones who were killed for being heretics. That way, the mural looks nice but when they go home to Google "Michael Servetus" they'll get a reality check. It's a lower-key "fuck you" that's entirely compatible with the holiday spirit of opening that beautiful package under the tree and getting an ugly ass tie.
Posted by: Dustin | December 8, 2007 6:47 PM
Very poorly done by someone with no sense of aesthetics or humor. Instead of hijacking the winter solstice, important to multiple religions including Xianity, for a sociopolitical message, they should have something more related to the holiday.
The idea of holidays is to be fun, not grind your axe some more. Maybe the Druids or Wiccans can come up with something better
Posted by: raven | December 8, 2007 6:48 PM
I am going to go out on a limb here and assert that the Winter Solstice has been a natural event for several million years.
The other solstice is in June, a month that was NOT named after me!
Posted by: June | December 8, 2007 6:52 PM
ugh...I agree with many above. This particular display is ugly, in poor taste, and unlikely to accomplish anything good.
Nice try, though, I suppose.
Posted by: Sven DiMIlo | December 8, 2007 6:59 PM
Gary
A highway billboard would certainly be one place to put the sign up; but this place appears to be at least getting a reaction.
raven
Unless, of course, one is christian, whereupon "the holidays" become a time of complaining at the usurping of a pagan religion, usurped by christians, by infidels.
Here's the true meaning of christmas: everyone, regardless of religion, comes together at this winter solstice in the spirit of fun to grind axes. Christians are grinding axes at the pagans by complaining at the lack of pagan symbols. Christians are grinding axes at christians for putting too many pagan symbols. Christians are grinding axes at everyone because they don't understand the nativity (the Christians don't understand the nativity, that is, not the everyone else). And everyone gets upset, of course, because the atheists want people to imagine no religion.
Mathew (of the gospel with the wise men) would be grinding axes with Mark (who didn't acknowledge the nativity). Mark would be grinding axes with Luke (who introduced the sheep, but forgot about taxes and Egypt). Luke would be grinding axes with John (who also didn't comment on the tale of the nativity).
Let's face it. There is nothing more traditional about christmas than pissing on each other's myths: it's been documented since the dawn of christianity!
Posted by: Armchair Dissident | December 8, 2007 7:01 PM
Well, I think it is a good publicity stunt. But, to the CVA, take it down now, it's done it's job. Most holiday religious displays don't send much of a message unless you already observe the customs of the religion. In this case, something informative about the winter solstice would have been cool, but of course wouldn't have gotten the same attention. They could discuss Milankovich cycles!!
Posted by: Bill | December 8, 2007 7:03 PM
I like it. Fuck religion in its stupid face.
Posted by: Stogoe | December 8, 2007 7:04 PM
Sven:
And conflating four mutually incompatible stories to create a fairy-tale that kiddies believe to be a genuine portrayal of their parents myth, whilst integrating pagan and Victorian symbols into it, is in good taste? Give me a break.
Posted by: armchair Dissident | December 8, 2007 7:06 PM
a.D., your apparent inference is unwarranted.
Posted by: Sven DiMIlo | December 8, 2007 7:11 PM
Isn't Christmas when Santa Clause stuffed a tree down the chimney thereby causing a fire that burned down the hotel leaving Joseph and Mary homeless so they had to have Jesus in the manger?
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 8, 2007 7:13 PM
but there really does seem to be a cross in the picture. dunno whether it is deliberately there or accidentally.
Posted by: T_U_T | December 8, 2007 7:15 PM
I don't envy the city board. They offer equal opportunity for the "various faiths" to put up a display to celebrate the "winter holidays" so that no-one will be offended at a nativity scene and the atheists say the are going to put up a "winter solstice" sign and then they put up a picture of the twin towers and an anti-religion slogan.
I imagine all the towns that do put up nativity scenes without a fuss would be outraged if a nativity scene had a banner "Jesus is Lord" (Or "Jesus died for You" or "Mary chose Life").
I'd hate to have the head-ache of having to declare holiday decorations have to be positive, non-political, non-controversial (whatever that means) and for gebus' sake ***relevant*** to the damned holiday in question. (Oh, I get it. The angle of the sun makes the twin towers a modern day stonehenge with which one can determine the solstice.)
But then again by offering "equal time" they are skirting the entire issue as to whether a nativity scene is offensive, why, and whether people have a right to be offended by one; this so-called "winter solstice sign" does offer something maybe only equally offensive.
Still though, it was an under-handed trick abusing the city's trust and a deliberately hostile act. It's bad enough the nut-jobs think we liberals are declaring a "war on christmas" without us confirming that in this case, yes, there is.
Posted by: woozy | December 8, 2007 7:25 PM
I'm atheist and I also celebrate Yule. It helps that it's my birthday, too. :)
Posted by: LM | December 8, 2007 7:26 PM
Wimps. What do you want? Something inoffensive and uncontroversial, like a smiley faced snowman or a pretty flower? I like the sign. It says more than "we aren't religious," it says, "and we think your absurd beliefs are dangerous and wicked, too."
That's a message we must make. This movement shouldn't be about just bland, blah, make-nice innocuous pablum. We are on the offensive. If the sign isn't a little bit aggressive (and this sign is pretty darned mild), it isn't doing the job.
Posted by: PZ Myers | December 8, 2007 7:31 PM
My real problem with it is it's ugly.
Posted by: Sven DiMIlo | December 8, 2007 7:33 PM
Wimps, Naw. The sign doesn't work. The best friends and most effective atheist recruiters are the Christofascist leaders, Robertson, Dobson, Haggard, Ham, Hovind, and their ready to lie and murder followers. Dawkins, Hitchens and the rest are so far behind they can't even see the pack. When you overreach, there is always a backlash as people start asking questions like, "Why is it Dark all of the sudden? Weren't the Dark Ages over like 5 centuries ago? And didn't we live in a democracy once?
If your message is more Howard Stern shock jock than anything, it gets lost in peoples reactions like "What an ugly sign and don't these people even have fun on holidays?
You want something artistic, fun, but gets the message across in an effective way.
To make an analogy. You could go to a church and halfway through the service, stand up and shout, "Why are you here? The Big Sky Daddy doesn't exist and you are wasting time on fairy tales." So, the audience will immediately see the validity of your points, get up and leave and never come back. Of course not. They will assume you are crazy and call the cops.
Posted by: raven | December 8, 2007 7:53 PM
I'm not sure what the sign has to do with the winter solstice, but then i'm not familiar with the guidelines.
I find the objections to it for having a political message amusing, as if getting your symbolism erected all over a town doesn't convey any political message.
Posted by: Dutch Delight | December 8, 2007 7:54 PM
... or maybe not.
Does anyone know the back story?
Still, town officials say they are bothered by the tone of the atheists' message, which they say is political and not consistent with the description listed on their application: "triangular stand displaying information about the winter solstice, Atheism and Human Light observance."
Here the implication is that the towns was welcoming a display with information about atheism. Hence, they were inviting the atheists to promote atheism. I'd be utterly disgusted if a nativity scene displayed information about Christianity or even the Christmas story. I'm kind of but not very opposed to nativity scenes altogether. (I'd object to a city spending public money for a nativity scene but not if one were donated; I'm opposed to a menorah but only because it would be publicly viewed as a religious symbol, which, technically it isnt.)
Himes said the whole issue became political when the town decided to allow religious displays on town property.
"The original question was whether Vernon would have a nativity scene on church property or town property," Himes said.
In this light viewing a nativity scene as a religious display *does* kind of give a green light to (anti)religio-political displays.
Actually, re-reading the article it sounds like most of the community is pretty fair-minded about the whole thing.
Sigh. I guess if I were a city council board I'd want yet another committee of bullshit approving and rejecting proposals of displays. You know, "Nativity scene: no crosses, no words indicating Jesus is God, a savior or anything but a cute baby. The more animals, especially camels, the better; halos not to exceed 6" in diameter. Menorrah: no star of David. Athiest: No insinuating religion is ignorant, no comparing religion to terrorism, positive portrayal of atheism, especially as humanist expression equinymity, encouraged but not at the implied portrayal of religious belief as irrational, intolerant, or outdated-- although athiesm as tolerant and modern in itself is acceptable"
This is a case where bullshit does seem to be the answer.
My sign: "Happy Holidays! May your Bullshit be sweet to the smell and smooth to the touch! ... seriously ... I really hope you have a nice time however you choose to celebrate in this dark and stressful times."
Posted by: woozy | December 8, 2007 8:05 PM
Posted by: Bobby | December 8, 2007 8:15 PM
So, these people don't know that the tree has pagan roots? What on earth does the tree have to do with nativity?
As for the nativity scene itself, a quote from The Life of Brian should do it: the wise men walking in, paying their respects to the mother and baby, leaving their gifts and walking out. Only to come back in a couple of minutes, shove the mother aside, re-take the gifts and rush away.
Since they discovered they had gone to the wrong stall.
Posted by: mndarwinist | December 8, 2007 8:17 PM
i can't believe people here are attacking the CVA display. These people are on *our side,* folks. What is this - a game for you? There are real principles and freedoms at stake here.
So what if the sign doesn't happen to meet your standard of aesthetics or message purity? Get real: these people are *testifying* in a very brave and public way and deserve our support. I'm not saying one can't criticize (constructively) and make suggestions, but...
1) criticize in context; and the larger context here is that this is a really brave and magnificent statement, not to mention one that took a lot of time and effort and money; and
2) unless you yourself are making similarly brave and magnificent public statements then your nit-picking criticisms are, at the very least, unseemly. at worse, you look like a wanking keyboard kommando.
their website is www.cvatheists.org and they are probably getting a lot of abuse - and probably outright threats. those who are inclined should send them a supportive note...
i *hate* it when well meaning people trash on each other instead of directing their energies constructively at the opposition. c'mon people - show some respect.
Hillary
Posted by: Hillary Rettig / The Lifelong Activist | December 8, 2007 8:19 PM
Well said Hillary! You saved me from writing much the same sentiment. Besides, this story is hilarious. I'm heading over to the cva site to lend whatever encouragement I can.
Posted by: Tom | December 8, 2007 8:35 PM
Wimps. What do you want? Something inoffensive and uncontroversial, like a smiley faced snowman or a pretty flower?
Uh, well. yeah.
Christmas (like the 4th of July and Thanksgiving), is an inoffensive and uncontroversial holiday to display treacly sentiment, to get folks to spend money, and for the public to express mild and blah but ultimately smalls tokens of the appearance of community spirit. A smiley faced snowman or a pretty flower is exactly the type of thing I expect and would want a city to display or allowed displayed.
I like the sign. It says more than "we aren't religious," it says, "and we think your absurd beliefs are dangerous and wicked, too."
And why on earth should anyone be allowed to say that on city provided property during Christmas? The friggin' Christians should not be allowed to say it.
Well, I guess that's fair if the city was saying "By allowing, this group to put up a nativity scene we are allowing them to express a religious opinion so we will allow everyone to express a religious opinion".
And, I guess that is what Connecticut Valley was doing.
I, however, think CV ought to have it's head examined for openning such a can of worms. What the heck does gaudy display encourage folks to part with menu and sipping warm eggnog have to do with religion? (I'm not being facetious.) If anything I'd think Spring or Summer is a more enjoyable time to engage is a city-sponsered blood-fest.
That's a message we must make. This movement shouldn't be about just bland, blah, make-nice innocuous pablum.
Um, then maybe we shouldn't have applied to make bland, blah, make-nice innocuous pablum as a bland, blah, make-nice innocuous pablum solicitations for a bland, blah, make-nice innocuous pablum holiday?
Maybe wishing folks a "Happy Soltice" isn't a practical offensive tactic this movement should make.
We are on the offensive.
Are we? For what. Christmas? If so, shouldn't we be more like xmas resistance? Anti-religion? Then shouldn't we be addressing religious issues where they matter, such as the school boards, the laws, the president's policies, etc.
If the sign isn't a little bit aggressive (and this sign is pretty darned mild), it isn't doing the job.
Well, that presupposes it's job is to express an atheist sentiment. And I guess that is what the city approved. However a cursory glance at the article would imply that it's job was to express a soltice greeting which has as little to do with atheism as it would with christianity (if not less).
Or to put it in terms of "our movement", our movement doesn't have time to waste in putting up solstice greetings.
Maybe we should fund a superbowl commercial.
Posted by: woozy | December 8, 2007 8:40 PM
Looks like we might have a repeat, of sorts, in PA.
http://atheistrevolution.blogspot.com/2007/12/atheist-xmas-in-pennsylvania.html
Posted by: Ben Abbott | December 8, 2007 8:46 PM
Ehnk.
I don't like the sign. I think it sends a message of intolerance in what is a tolerant community. I think it's okay to pull out the big guns when it's warranted -- in backward bible belt places, but I don't think this particular display does anything good. It's essentially a big middle finger, has nothing to do with Christmas, and is, honestly, kind of a kill joy. I mean, come on, it's Christmas. I don't care if if Jesus was born or if some Maccabees light some candles thousands of years ago. I like carolling, and the trees, and the holly, and egg-nog and the cinnamon, and walking in the snow and the clean bite of the air. I don't want atheist yelling, "RELIGION CAUSED 9/11!!" at me any more than I want christians yelling, "JESUS DIED FOR YOUR SINS!!" They're both equally obnoxious.
If atheists want to have a display, I'd be happier with a display about science, or enlightenment, or the wonder of existence sans God, or a fun Flying Spaghetti Monster display that would be humorous. This is just a joyless juvenille prank.
Hillary -- CVA has a right to put up the display. I have a right to give my reaction. You have a right to be a militant freak with no perspective. Cheers.
Posted by: inkadu | December 8, 2007 8:49 PM
There is no liberal war on Christmas. There is a conservative war on diversity, which they like to portray as a liberal war on Christmas.
I agree absolutely.
This incident, and thousands of others like it, reveals the lie.
Uh, how? The sign had nothing to do with either Christmas or diversity.
Wouldn't disrupting funerals with civil disobediance and protest be more efficient? People are engaging and blindly applying religious sentiment much more vigorously and sincerely at funerals than at a nativity scene.
Posted by: woozy | December 8, 2007 8:49 PM
So, I guess the next step is for Christians to start to putting up signs about stoning non-believers, and for muslims to put up signs about putting infidels to death. And for Jews to put up signs they are the chosen people. And I'll have to wear a bullet proof vest next time I go walking in the village green.
Posted by: inkadu | December 8, 2007 8:52 PM
No, the ugly is good. It shows that it's a grass-roots project. Much better than if the ACLU swooped in with some high-end production by a Madison Avenue agency. The many-headed hydra of grass roots expression is more authentic, and harder to disagree with or mount national campaigns against.
Let a million atheist signs flourish out there, on every "public square" that hosts Christmas creche displays. Some will be done better than others, and the diversity of expression will make its own point.
As for creche displays being "non political".... give me a break. I'll believe that, when the ENTIRE group of top contenders for the Presidential race in this country isn't flaunting religion as a political tool. If Christianism wasn't trying to stick its foot in the door of politics and tell me how to live, I'd feel differently about those supposedly inoffensive "Holiday" displays.
Posted by: foldedpath | December 8, 2007 8:56 PM
Who are these concern trolls saying we shouldn't open our mouths, lest we offend someone? Do they ever care about offending us?
Speaking of trolls, woozy has an absolute right to be one-and I would suggest to PZ to ban him.
Posted by: mndarwinist | December 8, 2007 8:56 PM
yeah...sorry, I'm not lining up behind a poorly thought-out eyesore just because it was erected by fellow atheists. Even granting that "we" are a "movement" on the "offensive," there's a time and a place for it and a certain amount of class necessary for any effectiveness at all, and this particular display fails on all three criteria, for me. *shrug*
Posted by: Sven DiMIlo | December 8, 2007 8:57 PM
...or a fun Flying Spaghetti Monster display that would be humorous.
Actually, that'd be freakin' hilarious.
In light of the story and the city giving approval for a sign "about" athiesm, I think this sign is okay and most are taking it in stride. But I do think it's a little heavy-handed and "not appropriate for "the season". I mean, sheesh, yes, it's good to be passionate about a cause but even holy-rollers take time to sleep. It's a freakin' innocous plablum holiday. Not everything has to be a battlefield.
Posted by: woozy | December 8, 2007 8:57 PM
and woozy's no troll.
Posted by: Sven DiMIlo | December 8, 2007 8:59 PM
Sven DiMilo, for committing the heresy of FREE THOUGHT you are hereby banned from the FREE THOUGHT society!
Posted by: inkadu | December 8, 2007 8:59 PM
Yay, social movement scholarship comes in to ask a few questions and make a couple comments (that's my primary are of scholarship).
To ask any movement to act in concert has almost always been like herding cats. It's the exception rather than the rule. That's why movements develop so many organizations (yes, movements develop organiations, not the other way around). These different organizations comprise different identity, strategic, ideological, etc., fields, and overlap in strange ways.
One thing, though, that rarely gets discussed is the relationship between tactics and strategy. PZ is clear. His goal is a world in which religion is taken less seriously, or not seriously at all. His strategy is attacking the symbolic privilege of religion whenever possible. Tactics such as those taken in CT--a sign saying religion is responsible for 9/11 during a religious season--are right in line with that.
However, while others are quick to criticize this, I wonder how often they're thinking in terms such as tactics and strategy. Indeed, I'd guess most people aren't thinking that way because they don't consider themselves part of "a movement."
just a few thoughts.
Posted by: MAJeff | December 8, 2007 9:01 PM
And still nobody has mentioned Mithras...
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 8, 2007 9:03 PM
That does it. next year I am gonna work on a nice big sculpture of cthulhu eating a cheerleader.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | December 8, 2007 9:06 PM
MAJeff--
I consider myself very much part of this movement and it's rather cheap of you to imply that I don't and set up this distracting discussion of motivation and "belonging."
My problem with this display is that it does exactly what everyone thinks about atheists -- they they are eye-poking kill joys who'd smack their dying grandmother if she started to pray.
I'd also point out that by your standards, any display or action is within the movement's goals and tactics. Where do you draw the line? How about a display that said, "Fuck you. Fuck you and your stupid religion. Right in your stupid fucking faces." That would also be attacking the symbolic role of religion. So would kidnapping a bishop in full regalia, rolling him in noodles and tomato sauce and dumping him on the steps of the cathedral on Sunday morning. How do you draw the line? Is anything that superficially seems to advance the Cause a Good Thing?
Christ, people are fucking stupid. Especially when there's a cause involved.
Note that I'm not questioning CVA's devotion to the cause, just the impact of their message. I'm not asking them to take it down. If anything, I'm offering advice on a different tactic that might generate more good will and be ultimately more effective in getting people to think. This sign is just too crass to sneak under anyone's radar.
Posted by: inkadu | December 8, 2007 9:13 PM
Who are these concern trolls saying we shouldn't open our mouths, lest we offend someone? Do they ever care about offending us?
Actually, I disapprove of public displays of nativity scenes. Most cities have given this serious thought (or so I have assumed). I don't see why a city should allow *anyone* to use public space to offend another. Actually, I disapprove of cities using the word "Christmas" which actually surprised me once during a "How the Grinch Stole Christmas"-themed parade in Boulder a decade ago. I was used to cities playing lip service to the idea that not everyone celebrated "Christmas" and the idea of assuming otherwise was patently offensive. (admitted said cities were mostly San Francisco, Berkeley, and San Jose-- the last of which I thought was the least ecunymical and really pushing the envelope with its "Christmas in the Park"-- {Santa's village basically} for several square blocks in the downtown)
Posted by: woozy | December 8, 2007 9:14 PM
The best display would be art depicting all those famous atheist composers (Mozart et al) who wrote xmas music and whom Christians *wrongly* think were believers.
That would be an amazing sight to behold. Talk about controversy!
Posted by: Luzid | December 8, 2007 9:18 PM
I am going to go out on a limb here and assert that the Winter Solstice has been a natural event for several million years.
Billions, in fact.
That does it. next year I am gonna work on a nice big sculpture of cthulhu eating a cheerleader.
So long as it's a Liberty U cheerleader.
Posted by: Graculus | December 8, 2007 9:20 PM
Inkadu writes:
How about a display that said, "Fuck you. Fuck you and your stupid religion. Right in your stupid fucking faces."
That's great! I'm with you! Let's do it!
Maybe add another line at the bottom that says "Neener neener I bet you 'turn the other cheek' sissies are going to tear this down. U R Pwn3d!"
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | December 8, 2007 9:20 PM
I'd also point out that by your standards, any display or action is within the movement's goals and tactics.
Um, no. I'd say these are issues under contention. I'd say that different people have different goals, strategies and tactics...
but thanks for playing.
Posted by: MAJeff | December 8, 2007 9:20 PM
Yeah, and goal is, but it depends upon which segment of the movement....you seem to think there's one movement...it's an umbrella of movements, as well as people who don't want to be a part of any movement, who claim a post-political identity when the very existence of an atheist identity is politicized in this environment.
Just making several obeservations. Didn't give any of my prescriptions...perhaps
so, inkadu, the fucking stupidity might be yours.
Posted by: MAJeff | December 8, 2007 9:24 PM
So who gets to declare what the right, proper, and official one, true strategy is to be?
Get used to it, everyone. There will be appeasers, there will be moderates, there will be revolutionaries. They're all part of the spectrum.
Posted by: PZ Myers | December 8, 2007 9:31 PM
It looks like the display had two sides, one with the "Imagine No Religion" picture and another with an informational blurb about the winter solstice. Both parts look pretty mild to me.
I've grown a touch fond of that "Imagine No Religion" picture. If you pause for a moment and think, it gives you the idea that human life is valuable and its loss a tragedy. Whereas, of course, a Nativity scene is just the prelude to the blood sacrifice of a son to his father; that we can be sentimental over such barbarism speaks volumes as to the state of our wiring.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | December 8, 2007 9:33 PM
The sign says a few more things on top of that. It says "a city hall was brave enough to be open to all holiday displays instead of just shutting down and this is what they got in return." It says "being liberated from religion is dour and unfestive (completely untrue). As an atheist I'm offended by the sign. Therefore I feel no allegiance to the group that put it up.
I guess I see the point that no social movement ever got anywhere until they were offensive and violent even, feminists goals for example were equality but they didn't get anywhere until they started insulting men and calling them inferior, I guess thats why atheists must go the extra step of pissing all over holiday displays. Whatever. Its a cheap shot worthy of the religious right.
Posted by: Karey | December 8, 2007 9:36 PM
MA Jeff --
I usually like your stuff, but you're being way too dismissive.
You stated that the goal of the P-Zed movement is:
His strategy is attacking the symbolic privilege of religion whenever possible.
Then you agreed that the sign was in agreement with the tactics: Tactics such as those taken in CT--a sign saying religion is responsible for 9/11 during a religious season--are right in line with that.
I just gave you two examples of other actions that would be in line with that. You didn't give any guidelines for when something would cross the line. Instead, you accused people who disagree of not thinking they belong to a movement.
However, while others are quick to criticize this, I wonder how often they're thinking in terms such as tactics and strategy. Indeed, I'd guess most people aren't thinking that way because they don't consider themselves part of "a movement.
From this I took that:
a) you don't have any guidelines for when something becomes neuteral to detrimental to the Cause and
b) anyone who disagrees with a classless tactic must not be serious about the "movement."
Which is weird, because you start by saying how movements have conflicting tactics, and end by implying some people aren't really in the movmement. Did you spend last weekend writing Romney's speech?
Woozy -- Yeah. I don't think Christmas should really be a government thing.I don't think Government's should be running parades, but I think it's OK for government to let their own citizens use public property almost any way they want to. Public space should be public space. As long as nobody gets special treatment. And as Vernon has shown, anybody can put up a display.
Marcus - I like your Cthulhu eating cheerleader display idea better. Plus maybe some posters from "Dagon" and "Merry Squidmas."
Posted by: inkadu | December 8, 2007 9:36 PM
One thing, though, that rarely gets discussed is the relationship between tactics and strategy. PZ is clear. His goal is a world in which religion is taken less seriously, or not seriously at all.
And no one is objecting to his goals or his tactics.
But one thing for every member of a movement is how much one specifically is going to act. Is this dollar fifty going to go for a cup of coffee and a newspaper or to send three letters to my congressman? Am I going to go to the park on my day off or am I going to spill my blood on the train tracks? Am I going to send non-denominational holiday cards or am I going to stand outside macy's with a "Boycott Christmas" placard? When I walk across the stage to recieve my bachelor's diploma should I walk quietly and shake the provosts hand, or should I wave my motorboard and shout "Hi Mom! Hi Dad!" while blowing soap bubbles, or should I scream "Religion is Poison", or should I flash the audience?
To read this story on a cursory glance it sounds like the city gave free reign to all community groups to put up a "season's greeting" display. In light of that introduction, it seemed just a *weeeeeee* tad jarring to see this taken as a movement oppurtunity. It's a bit like the guy who dresses up as George Bush with blood on his hands *every* halloween and gets annoyed when people show appreciation for another "inoffensive" costume.
Posted by: woozy troll troll (god is great!) troll | December 8, 2007 9:37 PM
I looked at the sign and my first thought is "this is three months late." This sign would have been perfect around Sept. 11th. As it is, it's a math lesson in literature class. What should have been there is a message of equal force, but actually relevant to the season (and perhaps a little less forward, but that's just a matter of personal aesthetic preference). A short bit about secular celebration of the holidays, and maybe a calling for a bit of unity in our common nature as human beings would be good, something that is welcoming and inclusive that contrasts the elitism of religious messages, preferably drawing copious attention to that fact. This sign is ok, it just lacks relevance to the context of its presentation.
Posted by: uknesvuinng | December 8, 2007 9:39 PM
Some of the things that I see on this thread just blow me off.
I can't imagine them coming from anyone other than trolls.
For example, if abusive words were used in the sign...or better, if anyone were kidnapped...it would not help...
Except that nothing like that happened.
It just says in a world with no religion, the towers would still be standing. Which is absolutely true.
Gee, we can never turn our head without seeing a religious sign. Whether we approve or not.
And this one thing is "too much"?
If Lennon were to listen to you guys he could not sing "Imagine".
We have kept a low profile long enough. Has done us no good.
Posted by: mndarwinist | December 8, 2007 9:39 PM
PZ- Yep. I'm in agreement with you there. There's different approaches, different philosophies, etc. However, telling fellow atheist to shut the fuck up or accusing them of not being atheist enough isn't anything I'm really going to get behind. I think we can handle a little criticism. I don't like the sign and think it sends the right message. So sue me. If I wanted to ignore what I thought to get along with people, I sure as shit wouldn't be an atheist.
Karey - I don't know about "offensive." I think the idea that women should vote was offensive enough. Atheists who are unashamed is quite offensive enough. Pointing out the obvious about religion is offensive enough. You really don't need to go the extra mile whne you're an atheist in order to piss people off.
Posted by: inkadu | December 8, 2007 9:45 PM
Gee, we can never turn our head without seeing a religious sign. Whether we approve or not.
And I get exceedingly pissed off if they are government approved. *Exceedingly* pissed off.
Posted by: wzy (hy! wht hppnd t my vwls?) | December 8, 2007 9:48 PM
Oh yeah, that is a really offensive sign isn't it. How sensitive are you people. Tasteless, how so? All it does is use a roughly two by three foot poster from RDF which asks the viewer to try to imagine a world with no religion and validly linking the question with religious fundamentalism. While the other side has a brief piece about the mid winter solstice and its importance in many cultures down the ages. Perhaps if it was twenty foot high or similar then maybe there would be a point, but 7 foot or so high with the actual so called offensive part maybe two by three feet. Ironically, the pastor and the priest interviewed see no problem with it, appearing almost thankful that it may make some people actually think about their belief. Though I can see how that very prospect could upset those of a more fundamentalist bent. If this is the most offensive thing that a group of atheists put up this pudmas I don't think we have much to worry about. Except of course for those who always look for and find offense everywhere, but we will never satisfy them until we go back and hide under our rock and let them walk all over us.
Posted by: John Phillips | December 8, 2007 9:50 PM
Strange; the sign reports that the solstice is due to the motion of the sun. Since when?
Posted by: Rita Bennett | December 8, 2007 9:53 PM
I just saw the other side to the sign about the winter solstice. That bit is pretty good, drawing attention to human progress past the need for supreme beings while remaining relevant to the season. Had the other side had that same relevance, I'd be void of any complaints.
I'd still like to see that "Imagine" bit displayed on 9/11, though, preferably on a billboard. It'd be a much more effective presentation, in my opinion.
Posted by: uknesvuinng | December 8, 2007 9:53 PM
John Phillips
Tasteless, how so? All it does is use a roughly two by three foot poster from RDF which asks the viewer to try to imagine a world with no religion and validly linking the question with religious fundamentalism.
Um, yes, and a not insignifcant detail is that it's a picture of the twin towers. Granted, it's just a picture of the twin towers. Everytime I even think of the twin towers, I imagine a plane smashing into it, then another plane, then people jumping out of buildings from several stories, then the buildings collapsing in a cloud of dust, taking everyone inside down with them, and a several-story hole in the ground where two buildings used to be.
It's not a day I appreciate anyone reminding me about. I don't have any trouble remmebering it. Maybe I'm just sensitive. Maybe, despite being an atheist, I think there are some images that are just too visceral -- too sacred -- to play politics with.
Posted by: inkadu | December 8, 2007 10:02 PM
I like the sign.
As for all the people complaining about the sign's presentation and/or aesthetics, wouldn't it be nice if we had some symbols to denote atheism, like a Christmas tree or nativity scene for Christians? Then nobody would be saying, "I appreciate the intent, but I would really have liked it if they had done such and such and such." Too bad we were never able to decide on a symbol.
Posted by: j | December 8, 2007 10:09 PM
inkadu write (see #31 above)
Exactly! Not every religious person is a nutjob that wants to shove their particular perspective on life down one's throat. Frankly, I think it would be cool to see displays that everyone could appreciate, that reflect joyous, not confrontational situations. I am an atheist and I'm not insulted or disgusted by a nativity scene or a menorah or by candlelight representing Dewali (yeah, I know that's late October, but heck - what's a month or two).
We may be very different in what we believe and we are a lot alike in our enjoyment of celebrating this interesting natural event of the winter solstice. So why can't we just "party" ?
I vote for a Tree of Life display. That concept is glorious!
Posted by: foxfire | December 8, 2007 10:13 PM
Yeah, I know what you mean. You seem to be mentally ill but you could just be a troll. Or a mentally ill troll. Or maybe you are just drunk on saturday. Please fix your anger and hostility issues before you go to a shopping mall.
Some Xians are such disgraceful trolls that they make the religion seem worthless. Some atheists are such trolls that they make religionist look good. I guess trolldom is universal and atheists can be slackjawed morons too.
The sign doesn't work on many, many levels. It is juvenile and inappropriate for the site and time and isn't going to convince anyone of anything except that atheists lack judgement, humor, and ability to have fun.
It is counterproductive. If that is the level of sophistication of the freethinker movement, Dobson and the Pope can send them thank you notes and get a good nights sleep. It isn't going to have a positive impact on anyone and will have a negative impact on lots of people.
Posted by: raven | December 8, 2007 10:13 PM
Raven, I think you are wrong. That is precisely what people said about Dawkins. Without him, no one would ever know we exist.
As for my anger...well, PZ has received similar advice. I have met him personally and he never struck me as the angry type. Believe me, in my line of work I see plenty of them.
And who is the troll? I will leave that for PZ to decide. After all, it's his blog.
Posted by: mndarwinist | December 8, 2007 10:22 PM
Here's a constructive suggestion: all the people who dislike the sign can tell us all about the tasteful, enlightening seasonal displays they have put up in cooperation with their local pro-atheist group. Set an example!
Posted by: PZ Myers | December 8, 2007 10:32 PM
That particular photo has been used frequently by Christians because of the cross effect of the lighting.
Not being a US citizen, I don't relate to the image in the visceral manner that most Americans might, so I'm afraid I see it as an overused melodramatic photo that doesn't connect with an atheist solstice celebration at all. I see the point of the sign, of course, as it is an extremely obvious one.
Secular Solstice parties are popular around here, especially winter Solstice parties. It's dark and cold, and knowing (love that science) that the longest night is behind you is the best message of hope any Canadian atheist may experience. It's also an opportunity for friends to gather and celebrate before having to pack up and spend Christmas with families.
So I'm somewhat on the side of people here who don't like the sign. It is ugly. It is heavy handedly political. It would go down better in September, maybe, when Americans are memorialising 9/11 with enormous prayerfests all over the place, and the slogan 'Imagine no Religion' would be more significant.
I think it's great that atheist groups might have a Solstice display, but I'd go for pointing out the 'true meaning of the season', which is the joyous fact of days getting longer and hope of spring coming round eventually before us cold northerners all commit seasonal affective disorder fueled suicide.
Posted by: Bee | December 8, 2007 10:41 PM
As for all the people complaining about the sign's presentation and/or aesthetics, wouldn't it be nice if we had some symbols to denote atheism, like a Christmas tree or nativity scene for Christians?
Well, part of the problem may be that we don't have any atheist winter solstice holiday. We don't have *any* holidays.
So what's a Christian sentiment for a solstice holiday: "Uh, God Bless You? I guess, Have a Merry Christmas, and uh, I guess if I have to get preachy I could add just as Christ offers eternal life after death, in the dead of winter keep faith that spring will come again."
Okay, now a Jewish sentiment for a solstice holiday: "What? We're supposed to pretend we're like Christians and come up with some silly catch phrase like 'Happy Channuka'? Well, Okay, um, Happy Channuka. Keep the lights burning in the darkness, and always keep hope alive? Will that do?"
Okay, now an atheist sentiment for a solstice holiday: "Fuck you, religion! Fuck you in your stupid face! It's you guys responsible for 9/11! Oh, and something about the nights getting longer. And Fuck you!"
Okay, I kid. But what do you expect; I am a troll after all....
Posted by: woo... er, Mr. Yoop... yeah that's it... Mr. Yoop! | December 8, 2007 10:47 PM
I've been reading a book called "Wrigleyville" which is a history of the Chicago Cubs. It seems that William Wrigley (after whom the park was named) was an unbeliever! Apparently he went around and asked people "so, what superstition do you subscribe to?".
This is enough reason for all Aethists to be Cubs fans!
Posted by: John Sully | December 8, 2007 10:49 PM
I'm not holding my breath, PZ...
Hillary
Posted by: Hillary Rettig / The Lifelong Activist | December 8, 2007 11:02 PM
Fair enough and what I was thinking, not about doing but how it could be made to work in the context of a holiday nativity scene. My bias is to enjoy the holidays not because they are religious (they are mostly secular anyway) but because it is the year end party-family have fun time.
This has almost exhausted my artistic advertising exec. talents. Some of the suggestions on the thread have possibilities such as the Tree of Life or flying spaghetti monster.
1. Maybe just some generic holiday symbols, the conifer Tree of Life. With something about the sun. The winter solstice is the shortest day of the year. Message, Happy Holidays from the CVAtheists. The subtext here, atheists are just normal people who celebrate the usual holidays in a secular way and have fun. Not ideologue wackos out to send your kids to reeducation camps. Toss in a wreath and a snowman as well. A Darwin fish holding a drink in its left hand with a santa hat on.
2. The Flying Spaghetti Monster touching her noodly appendage to a child's head as she reads a book. Message. Nothing wrong with thinking and becoming educated and enlightened. Going to have to explain that one in a short paragraph, hardly anyone has ever heard of the FSM. Toss in a conifer Tree of Life and a Darwin fish in a santa hat for seasonality.
The religious have an advantage. They've been doing these for thousands of years. Tradition. All they have to do is follow the directions. Atheists will have to come up with their own formulas. Not claiming any of these are good, what you get in 5 minutes on saturday night.
Posted by: raven | December 8, 2007 11:04 PM
all the people who dislike the sign can tell us all about the tasteful, enlightening seasonal displays they have put up in cooperation with their local pro-atheist group. Set an example!
Ooh, Nice zing! (I mean that, too.)
Well, a display of atheist christmas composers (uh, other than Mozart....?) as suggested above is nice. And display of progress and humanity and reason, is good. And what on earth could possibly be a *better* symbol for atheism and rationality than a light in the darkness? I mean, hello!! a *light* in the *darkness*. Silver platter here!... being handed to you! .. oh, you're going to abuse a national tragedy in a "we can do it, too" approach, uh, I guess so but if you change your mind .... it's a freakin' light!!