…and this is a 
Christianist thugs stole the atheist sign from the Washington state capitol building. It's revealing of their mindset — that it's OK to censor anything that disagrees with their petty beliefs.
However, I'm getting a few emails that hint that maybe this means it's now time for open season on nativity scenes. Emphatically NO. Right now we claim the moral high ground here, and we need to maintain it. Put that baby Jesus down right now, guy. Defend their right to display their beliefs and demand equal time for ours!
Comments
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 5, 2008 2:21 PM
*snicker
Seriously though what dumb ass thinks that's going to solve anything or prove anything?
Posted by: WRMartin | December 5, 2008 2:22 PM
Super-extra funny: there are security cameras pointed at the location (government building/religious display gathering place, and all that jazz).
Super-duper-extra funny: offender arrested and serves Christmas in jail. (Fingers crossed). They'll certainly earn their martyrdom merit badge if that happens.
Posted by: megan | December 5, 2008 2:23 PM
I totally agree PZ, but..how different is this really than taking their communion wafers and turning that into a big thing?
Posted by: IST | December 5, 2008 2:24 PM
@1 erm... yea...
It wouldn't solve or prove anything, it would only vent people's juvenile frustrations. I have 35 people per class period that think like that, but they're all 15-18 so at least it's somewhat age appropriate. It's definitely mindset appropriate for the Xians as well...
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 5, 2008 2:25 PM
you really had to do that huh?
I suggest you read up on the WHY about the communion crackers.
Posted by: horrobin | December 5, 2008 2:26 PM
christianofascists? But I was just gonna replace it with rubber octopus and...ohhh, alright....Posted by: Carlie | December 5, 2008 2:26 PM
*drops baby Jesus*
Awwwwwwww....
Can I at least put a wee "I have two daddies" t-shirt on him before I tuck him back in the manger?
Posted by: Fedaykin | December 5, 2008 2:27 PM
This is the best part:
"Before reports of the placard's recovery, she said a temporary sign with the same message would be placed in the building's Rotunda. Gaylor said a note would be attached saying,'Thou shalt not steal'".
;)
Posted by: DrBadger | December 5, 2008 2:27 PM
Stealing the sign is basically religion's argument against reason in a nutshell.
Posted by: megan | December 5, 2008 2:27 PM
oh i'm quite familiar with the whole scenario, I followed the whole thing and couldn't decide what I thought of the wafer-taking. I'm just suggesting this is a good time for reflection.
Posted by: WRMartin | December 5, 2008 2:27 PM
Mwhahaha, I'll hide atheism in the ditch and no one will notice it and then we can all be Happy Christians (tm). Well, after we kill those untrue Christians over there and those over there and those too.</Christidiotian>
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | December 5, 2008 2:28 PM
Posted by: megan | December 5, 2008
I totally agree PZ, but..how different is this really than taking their communion wafers and turning that into a big thing?
Come back when, as part of a ceremony, they start passing out baby Jesuses to the congregation.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | December 5, 2008 2:28 PM
I guess they're following O'Reilly's attempts to give the atheist sign maximum coverage, and to make themselves look bad.
And yes, no reason for us to look evil, or indeed, to be evil.
We've been ExpelledTM. Time for a movie comparing the theft of the sign to the Holocaust!
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: TSC | December 5, 2008 2:28 PM
It would be nice if a new sign were put up that wasn't as descriptively provocative. Something listing FFRF and atheism without attacking the absurdity of the other faiths. Then we'd have equal representation without deliberate conflict. Of course, teh stupid is implied.
Posted by: Chr | December 5, 2008 2:30 PM
Put that baby Jesus down right now, guy.
Says the guy who encouraged stealing of catholics' religious crackers.
Posted by: Flerndip22 | December 5, 2008 2:30 PM
It's since been found in a ditch. Some of the comments in BoingBoing's coverage of this suggest that it, or its replacement sign, has since been removed from city hall, perhaps officially.
The bright side of this controversy seems to be the success of this experiment in determining the predominant source of intolerance. Christians.
Other news from BoingBoing: "Angry bored octopus goes wilding"
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/12/04/angry-borded-octopus.html
Posted by: Sandi Hj | December 5, 2008 2:31 PM
Not only do we need to maintain the moral high ground, but messing with their nativity scenes reduces the whole thing to the generic holiday vandalism that goes on every year in most every town. That's just standard middle school prankster stuff, no message attached.
Posted by: Abbie | December 5, 2008 2:31 PM
I was walking by a church in Montpelier, VT, and the nativity scene consisted of: a lamb, and one Magi. It was pretty pathetic and somewhat strange.
Posted by: tsg | December 5, 2008 2:33 PM
Cracker = theft FAIL.
Because desecrating a cracker isn't infringing on their freedom of expression, for one.
Posted by: Siamang | December 5, 2008 2:33 PM
WR Martin wrote: "Super-duper-extra funny: offender arrested and serves Christmas in jail. "
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cM38kN4AOys
Posted by: Richard Harris | December 5, 2008 2:33 PM
Hey, come on, these guys were doing god's work.
You say removing an atheistic sign is pretty petty, eh. Well, that's about right, their feckin' god is pretty petty, according to their crappy bible book, when it's not doing genocide, etc.
I'm with PZ on the issue of their right to display their beliefs, and demanding equal time for ours.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 5, 2008 2:33 PM
Says the guy who encouraged stealing of catholics' religious crackers. - Chr
Liar. If you are given something, taking it is not stealing.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 5, 2008 2:33 PM
Ok forgive me for assuming.
But these are completely different situations.
First, the cracker was in response to an assault on a student over a trivial act. It blew up after that because of the religious not because of PZ. Yes PZ threw some gas on the fire well after many a persecution marshmallow was roasted but again that was in response to death threats (which you know of course).
Secondly this is talking about the first amendment of our constitution and the attempts of the religious to make their message the only one that matters by any means necessary.
Not the same
Posted by: Michelle | December 5, 2008 2:34 PM
Yea, don't hurt the baby. It's not the baby's fault, he had shit crammed in his head by his "virgin" mom...
...Don't hurt Mary either. She's just a statue.
No dudes, what we need to do is print more signs and put more of them out there.
Posted by: Skepticat | December 5, 2008 2:34 PM
I've got a radical idea. Let's do away with ALL the religious and anti-religious signs on government property.
Oh wait, we tried that.
Ok, since we're going to put all kinds of religious signs up on government property, let's at least show these guys that we aren't afraid of their silly beliefs. Let the Nativity stay - we will make more atheist signs.
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 5, 2008 2:35 PM
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 5, 2008 2:35 PM
I would never, never advocate or condone stealing the Baby Jesus from a nativity scene, even one on public property where it's clearly inappropriate.
But adding items to the tableaux--nothing wrong with that, is there?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 5, 2008 2:36 PM
oh boy. I sense another one of those threads.
Posted by: jayh | December 5, 2008 2:36 PM
I totally agree PZ, but..how different is this really than taking their communion wafers and turning that into a big thing?
Big difference. The wafer was GIVEN for user consumption. It was not stolen, he did not break into the church and damage the wafers there.
A display is property, and the group that places it has all fundamental property rights. Now if they gave out plastic Jesus, and you did funny things with yours, well that's different.
I have visited novel churches, including some that were open and unmanned, and I (and I'm sure PZ) would never do anything to damage their property.
Posted by: tsg | December 5, 2008 2:37 PM
Pete Rooke will be here in 5, 4, 3 ....
Posted by: Butter | December 5, 2008 2:37 PM
a lamb, and one Magi
Magus.
Posted by: tsg | December 5, 2008 2:38 PM
Is "anal retentive" hyphenated?
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Posted by: Randy Stimpson | December 5, 2008 2:39 PM
How many of them were there? Did they have guns? How many people did they beat up?
Posted by: Michelle | December 5, 2008 2:40 PM
The wafers were given. Theft implies that you were NOT given the shebang.
If you give me something I can do whatever the hell I want with it. Afterall, I just sat through your boring mass and sermon, the least you could allow is for me to enjoy my wafer whichever way I want.
Posted by: Richard Wolford | December 5, 2008 2:40 PM
Wow, the dumbfucks come out quickly don't they? Ok you ignorant fucktards, let's go over this one more time. The crackers WERE GIVEN FREELY BY THE FUCKING CHURCH! The recipient of the cracker simply decided to keep it instead of eat it.
Are we clear on this yet? Are your fucking skulls allowing this information to penetrate? Stealing is when you take something without permission, as in the atheist sign. It is NOT stealing when you take something GIVEN to you, as in the FUCKING CRACKERS!
Posted by: Darth Wader | December 5, 2008 2:41 PM
Randy, don't be stupid
Posted by: pharynguphat | December 5, 2008 2:43 PM
It's revealing of a mindset, not the mindset of all Christians. THere are idiots and thugs of every stripe; Christian, Muslim, atheist.
Just look in the mirror, you'll see what I'm talking about.
Posted by: Robert W | December 5, 2008 2:43 PM
How typical. Why am I not surprised by their double-standard.
Hey, they stole the solstice celebration so WHY STOP THERE?
I have to admit, PZ, this angers me greatly. I agree we shouldn't reciprocate, but how many people do you really give us the "moral high ground." No, I think once again atheists will be ignored and ridiculed and Christians will go around clucking their tongues and ranting on about the War Against Christmas.
Posted by: Dahan | December 5, 2008 2:44 PM
Crackers again? Criminy!
PZ, that little cracker incident has to be one of the best pieces of Performance Art I've seen in decades. Mind if I bring it up as such to my Freshman class next quarter?
Posted by: CJO | December 5, 2008 2:44 PM
Says the guy who encouraged stealing of catholics' religious crackers.
Taking an object of negligible value from a person who just handed it to you freely is an odd kind of stealing. Compare it to someone handing out pro-atheist flyers with the same message as was on the sign. Taking one would not be stealing. Taking the sign, or a creche, would be stealing. This is not hard to understand.
Posted by: kapro | December 5, 2008 2:44 PM
Stealing is different from being given something. Nobody (or at least very few) broke into a church and stole crackers or grabbed all the crackers from the priest and ran away with them. They were given the crackers by the priest and then instead of eating them, took them home. The sign was not given to the person who took it. If it was, then it wouldn't have been stealing.
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 5, 2008 2:44 PM
Sven,
Posted by: Alverant | December 5, 2008 2:45 PM
Did anyone else's irony meter blow up when one of the pastors said Atheists were trying to "attempt to rid God and Christmas from the public square". Isn't it funny how christians have the right to freedom of speech and no one else.
Posted by: tsg | December 5, 2008 2:46 PM
In other words: "No matter how often it happens, they are all isolated incidents that can safely be ignored."
Posted by: Richard Wolford | December 5, 2008 2:46 PM
Randy, you would do well to own a dictionary.
thug - noun
1. a cruel or vicious ruffian, robber, or murderer.
2. (sometimes initial capital letter) one of a former group of professional robbers and murderers in India who strangled their victims.
Posted by: Darth Wader | December 5, 2008 2:46 PM
Damn christians trying to take solst out of the solstice
Posted by: TSC | December 5, 2008 2:46 PM
The crackers were given conditionally. On the condition that you chew up Jebus and then shit him out your ass later. Then Jebus rises from the toilet to steal the atheist sign. It's a SouthPark episode.
Posted by: Lana | December 5, 2008 2:46 PM
Slightly OT....
When I was in high school in the sixties, a nun told me to decorate a bulletin board for Christmas. Since I had (and have) no artistic ability at all, I covered it in black construction paper and put in the center (in small letters cut from magazines) "Bah Humbug". It was quickly replaced and I was never told to decorate a bulletin board again.
That passed for civil disobedience in a Catholic high school in the sixties.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | December 5, 2008 2:47 PM
I guess this is not surprising. I do note though that CNN gets the details wrong, and says the sign criticized Christianity specifically, which it obviously does not do. Christianity has a "god", not "gods". Jesus was also not referenced. This mistake adds a bit too much color to the story.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 5, 2008 2:49 PM
and where do you think he says this was the mindset of all christians?
Posted by: Teh Merkin | December 5, 2008 2:49 PM
You mean the crackers that they give away for free to anyone who asks for one? I want to be clear which crackers we are talking about getting stolen. You know, just getting the facts straight up front so that you can then exercise your critical thinking faculties.
Posted by: WRMartin | December 5, 2008 2:49 PM
@20: No can do YouTube at work but I'll forward that link towards home and take a peek. Thanks. And curious...
And does anyone else snicker at the phrase catholics' religious crackers the way I do? Maybe it is just me, though. Heh. Crackers. Religious crackers. No, really: [C]atholics' religious crackers. I swear I'm not making this up. They really have religious crackers.
Not quite rolling on the floor yet but there is a stinging sensation in my nose from the iced tea that I almost spewed out.
I have more respect these days for the Cargo Cult members - at least they're honestly trying and have actual evidence to base their beliefs on.
Posted by: NoAstronomer | December 5, 2008 2:50 PM
There's a house up the street from mine that has one of those Wally World plastic light-up nativity sets. It's somewhat difficult to ascertain if they have a complete set since there's never more than 2 or 3 figures standing at the same time. No, it's not me knocking them down.
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | December 5, 2008 2:52 PM
osted by: TSC | December 5, 2008
The crackers were given conditionally. On the condition that you chew up Jebus and then shit him out your ass later. Then Jebus rises from the toilet to steal the atheist sign. It's a SouthPark episode.
Mr Jesus Christ Hanky?
The Christian Christmas Poo?
Definitely a different type of Yule Log.
Posted by: Darth Wader | December 5, 2008 2:54 PM
Jesus really got the short end of the stick when superpowers were being handed out.
"Superman you get to fly, see though walls, be bullet proof and super strong. Batman you the superpower of being obscenely rich. OK I have two powers left the ability to talk to fish, and the ability to be a cracker. Aquaman you guessed closest to the number I was thinking of so its your choice."
Posted by: Teh Merkin | December 5, 2008 2:55 PM
I look in the mirror and I see a moral person with a nice ass and gorgeous blue eyes. What do you see? Idiot or thug (or both?)
Posted by: samuel black | December 5, 2008 2:55 PM
Nice to see you've learned something from wafergate.
I know, it's not the same exactly, but I think that in wafergate, you showed a lack of respect for other *people*, and gave up some moral high ground.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 5, 2008 2:56 PM
#36
Water, don't be wet.
Posted by: MemeGene | December 5, 2008 2:58 PM
I was previously inclined to take a moderate stance on this by acknowledging that yes, the message was more inflammatory than was appropriate for a holiday sign, and I encouraged everyone to express their opinions in a civilized, constructive manner.
Clearly, the religionists are incapable of this, and thus have proven that the sign hit a little too close to home for them.
What MUST NOT be done now is to post a more moderate sign in the hopes that it won't offend as much; the exact same message should be reposted as often as needed. When a child throws a temper tantrum, you cannot give in one inch. And until the religionists behave like adults, they need to be treated like spoiled, bratty children.
Posted by: Ann | December 5, 2008 2:58 PM
BlueIndependent, I noticed that too. The very first sentence of the CNN article is wrong: This was most definitely not "an atheist sign criticizing Christianity."
Posted by: firemancarl | December 5, 2008 2:58 PM
From the story on CNN.COM
"I guess they don't follow their own commandments," Gaylor said. "There's nothing out there with the atheist point of view, and now there is such a firestorm that we have the audacity to exist. And then [whoever took the sign] stifles our speech."
Ah, the sign was found a in a ditch. Great xtians are.
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | December 5, 2008 2:58 PM
What is Randy when he is in his frozen stage and when he is in his vapor stage?
Posted by: Richard Wolford | December 5, 2008 2:59 PM
There, fixed that for you.
Posted by: tsg | December 5, 2008 3:00 PM
Or at all.
*sigh* He showed a lack of respect for an unreasonable demand. But your concern is noted...
Posted by: firemancarl | December 5, 2008 3:01 PM
@ #56 Teh Merkin
Quit looking into my goddamn mirror!
Posted by: Blondin | December 5, 2008 3:01 PM
"Is "anal retentive" hyphenated?"
And is "ani" the plural for "anus"?
Posted by: Craig | December 5, 2008 3:01 PM
I see nothing wrong with stealing a baby Jesus in-kind. Let the atheist plaque be the ransom.
Posted by: MacNTosh | December 5, 2008 3:02 PM
The sign was taken to a country music station in Seattle and given to a talk show host who had been discussing it. The disclaimers began immediately that the show's host had not been encouraging anyone to steal the sign. He had just been saying that 'negative speech should not be allowed'. Perhaps we should all send Mr. Craine at KMPS a copy of the first amendment, since he so clearly has no grasp of what it says.
Posted by: WRMartin | December 5, 2008 3:02 PM
Stupid, don't be Randy.Posted by: Richard Wolford | December 5, 2008 3:02 PM
Evidence please?
***waits anxiously***
Posted by: LARA | December 5, 2008 3:02 PM
What's a creche? Who's Jesus? Does this have something to do with those nice artistic displays of an ancient happy family with a baby and animals they usually put up this time of year? These displays aren't intended to encourage human reproduction and family bonding? I must take better data.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 5, 2008 3:04 PM
You've completely ignored the context of the incident.
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | December 5, 2008 3:05 PM
Posted by: WRMartin | December 5, 2008
Stupid, don't be Randy.
Stupid just keeps hitting on me. I keep declining but Stupid cannot take a hint.
Posted by: Sam B | December 5, 2008 3:06 PM
Don't damage nativity scenes, don't steal.
Subvert instead.
Put atheist necklaces on them. Give Jesus a copy of the God Delusion. Put a sign saying 'Jesus is naked lol' next to it.
Posted by: tsg | December 5, 2008 3:07 PM
I've always been rather fond of putting Moe, Larry and Curly heads on the three wise men.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 5, 2008 3:08 PM
Or a sign that says "I'm with the imaginary guy" and an arrow.
Posted by: CJO | December 5, 2008 3:08 PM
I think that in wafergate, you showed a lack of respect for other *people*, and gave up some moral high ground.
Christ on a... well, on a cracker! Is this really happening?
What other *people*? The ones calling for the expulsion of Cook from the university? The ones calling for his death? PZ showed a lack of respect for a) a frackin' cracker, and b) the idea that Catholic wingnuttery has any force in the secular world.
As for "the moral high ground," he didn't give it up, he took it, in an act of conscientious protest. The phrase is not synonymous with "the action that causes the least offense."
Posted by: cervantes | December 5, 2008 3:08 PM
What I find most puzzling about these people of religiousness is that they think that God can't take care of himself -- if they weren't out there smiting his enemies for him he'd be - I don't know, his feelings would be hurt? He'd shrivel up like a salted slug? If God is supposed to be omnipotent and all that why would he give a shit if somebody hung up a sign asserting his non-existence? And even if he did give a shit, why does some clown with his collar on backwards have to take care of God's problems for him?
It's like those God Bless America bumper stickers I see all the time. The idea was, God wasn't planning to bless America, but he happened to spot your bumper sticker, so he thinks, oh, what the heck, I guess I'll throw them a blessing after all? Or what?
I'm baffled by the whole thing.
Posted by: debaser71 | December 5, 2008 3:09 PM
IMO the point in putting up these atheist displays next to religious displays is to make the point that the religious display shouldn't be there in the first place NOT that atheists deserve a spot on the wall too.
Defending their right to put it there is IMO not what this is about at all. Anyway with that said don't vandal and don't steal.
Posted by: currie jean | December 5, 2008 3:10 PM
What's with all the whining about the "offensive content" on the sign? What is atheism but an assertion that theists are incorrect? It's certainly not a belief system, as we all surely know: it's a negation. The sign fit that fact quite nicely.
It's only "offensive" because atheism is a voice people have figured it's okay to stifle for too long. No one was called any names or insulted, no sex or nudity or other bodily functions were depicted, no races or genders or sexual orientations were put down.
Sure, people get a little uncomfortable when a new voice speaks up. If it speaks loud enough, they'll get used to it. No need to disguise the message for their sakes.
Posted by: chancelikely | December 5, 2008 3:11 PM
Wasn't Anakin Skywalker born on December 25?
Posted by: pixelfish | December 5, 2008 3:11 PM
Now he tells me that nativity stealin' ain't right.
Actually, back when I was a wee Mormon tyke I and my siblings conspired to hide baby Jesus from my mother. She had this plastic nativity scene she'd bought at the local Kmart and every year, she would haul it out and set it up on our front porch. I didn't like it (even though I was religious at the time) because it was plastic and tackily made and it offended my artistic nature. And my younger siblings were as embarrassed by it as I was. So we reckoned rightly that if baby Jesus was disappeared that Mom would take the nativity scene down. (I think we lodged him somewhere in the garage.) She bemoaned the local hooligans, never knowing it was her precious children that had made off with the Son of God.
It occurs to me that I owe my mother one infant Christ child. Maybe I can find her something small and tasteful. And non-incandescant.
All childhood pranks aside, I too think it behooves atheists to stick to the moral high ground. If'n stuff happens to nativities, people will say, "Well, what do you expect from atheists." Granted, we haven't been clubbing baby seals and eating kittens and all the other evil things we godless and moral-free folk could be doing, and it STILL hasn't changed some people's opinion.
...
Sam Black: Um. There's a difference between desecrating your own property and other people's. I know it's going to take hard thinking to figure out what that difference is, but descrating a wafer given to you, a Koran you purchased on your own, and a copy of the God Delusion you picked up from the local Barnes and Noble seems a bit different than lurching off into the night with an ill-gotten Wise Man. (Besides, that frankincense and myrrh is really cast resin.)
Posted by: Craig | December 5, 2008 3:13 PM
The problem is seeing this as theft (taking the baby Jesus). The idiot who took the atheist's sign saw it as a noble act, no matter how dumb. I see nothing wrong with taking a baby Jesus in-kind as a reciprocal political statement.
Posted by: ShadowWalkyr | December 5, 2008 3:13 PM
Both are correct.
I couldn't resist, either.
Posted by: Travdawg | December 5, 2008 3:14 PM
I think Randy stole the sign...
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 5, 2008 3:14 PM
there are better ways
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 5, 2008 3:15 PM
Now that you mention it... he was ALSO a supposed "virgin birth".
*gasp*!
Dahn Dahn Da Dahn Da Da Dahn Da Da Dahn....
Posted by: WRMartin | December 5, 2008 3:15 PM
Janine, when I clicked 'Post' I noticed the double meaning a fraction of a second too late but I just knew one of our randy regulars would hop on that. ;)
Patricia must be out selling eggs or maybe celebrating the 75th anniversary of the repeal of Prohibition.
Posted by: Jack Flynn | December 5, 2008 3:16 PM
Freeze kid, hands in the air! Put the baby Jezuz down!
Thanks PZ for your great post!
Posted by: BobC | December 5, 2008 3:17 PM
Defend their right to display their beliefs and demand equal time for ours!
I have no plans to steal a baby Jebus. I just want to point out that Christian theocrats do NOT have a right to display their insanity on government property. The Establishment Clause must be respected. There must be no exceptions. The correct response to "Christianist thugs stole the atheist sign from the Washington state capitol building" is a lawsuit that demands the nativity scene be removed.
It's interesting that the Christian retards, who think they are morally superior because they get their moral values from a magic fairy, are the most dishonest and immoral people in human history. They lie, they steal, and they have a long history of murdering non-Christians. Christians must never be allowed to forget they are world-class stupid assholes.
Posted by: varlo | December 5, 2008 3:18 PM
(#57) "I think that in wafergate, you showed a lack of respect for other *people*, and gave up some moral high ground."
And just how much respect was due the halfwits who made the death threats to the kid whose action started the cracker incident? They must have a unbelievably sorry sort of god who relies on poltroons to avenge his slights.
Posted by: Darth Wader | December 5, 2008 3:18 PM
I don't think an arms race with the christians would be a good idea.
Remember these folks were burning people alive not too long ago.
Posted by: Leon | December 5, 2008 3:19 PM
I agree, PZ, that we should keep the moral high ground on this one. It saddens me, though, that our experiences over the past 8+ years indicate that moral high ground means nothing to most Christians in this country on matters of religion. So while it's good for us to do the right thing, that would be lost on the very people who need most to see and understand it.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 5, 2008 3:20 PM
In Latin, yes; in English, "anuses".
Posted by: Brain Hertz | December 5, 2008 3:20 PM
On the local news here in Oregon (KGW) last night they were promoting an online poll asking "Should the Atheist Sign be Pulled?" (this was before the theft).
I must say I'm outraged. Not at the result, which had "yes" narrowly winning at that time (maybe you might want to look at fixing that?), but that they actually saw fit to ask that question. Is it really considered appropriate to ask if a particular group of law-abiding people should have their first amendment rights removed by the state?
Granted, the language of the last sentence on the sign isn't an approach I would personally take, but why would it even be a question as to whether those behind it should have the right to freely express their religious views?
Posted by: Timothy | December 5, 2008 3:20 PM
I've got to disagree, PZ. Our "belief" is correct, theirs is not. All of the evidence in the world supports our position (as well as it being the default position for everyone) and nothing supports theirs at all.
I'm going to go get me a baby jesus tonight if I can find one!
Posted by: Samuel Black | December 5, 2008 3:20 PM
"Sam Black: Um. There's a difference ...."
Sure, I know. That's what I meant by they're not the same, exactly. (It was a short post; you must have seen it.)
It's the similarities that are interesting.
Both acts show needless disrespect, and both forfeit moral high ground.
Posted by: Jack Flynn | December 5, 2008 3:21 PM
Freeze kid, put the baby jezuz down and put your hands in the air!
Thanks PZ for your great post! YAY for free speech!
Posted by: Feynmaniac | December 5, 2008 3:22 PM
Sigh. This is the problem. The only fair thing to do is either put displays for all beliefs and none at all.
If you allow all you're gonna get a lot of problems. The State Capitol is going to be cluttered with nativity scenes, Stars of Davids, crescents, E-meters, whatever the symbol for Unitarianism is, Oms, and magic underwear. People in group X aren't gonna be happy that people in group Y are there (where X≠Y, except maybe in the case of self-hating Jews). There's gonna be fighting and baby Jesus is a deadly weapon.
Just say this is a government building and government is secular. If you want a reminder that it's your religion's special day you'll be reminded by front lawns, churches, stores, commercials, magazines, TV shows, radio, newspapers, blogs and hearing people talk. I think that's fair.
Posted by: tsg | December 5, 2008 3:23 PM
It's the context that makes them completely different. But you go ahead and keep ignoring that.
Your concern is noted.
Posted by: Craig | December 5, 2008 3:24 PM
Darth,
@92
While I understand your principled response, I heartily disagree. It is not an arms race, and we did not start it. Stealing their prized plastic deity is no more a crime than toilet-papering a house on Halloween. They can fuck right off and go buy another Jesus at the Jesus store. I don't think we should allow ourselves to be bullied by these wingnuts.
Posted by: chancelikely | December 5, 2008 3:25 PM
I disagree on both points. Offending others does not equal forfeiting the moral high ground. And when speaking to a group of people who believe that their beliefs are protected from disrespect, I'd argue that the disrespect was close to necessary.
Posted by: Blind Squirrel FCD | December 5, 2008 3:26 PM
Or a tee shirt on the baby Jesus that sez "all daddy wanted was a blow job"
Posted by: Jason Failes | December 5, 2008 3:26 PM
I'm just waiting for American Christians to catch up with 1791 and finally understand the First Amendment.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | December 5, 2008 3:26 PM
People, people, people; the crackers are God. God wants you to share Him with the rest of the world (if He didn't, the last two thousand years' worth of history would have been substantially less stupid.) No man, priest, or crotchety organist owns God, therefore how can God be stolen from someone?
Those braying the loudest about the 'theft' of God from tabernacles are admitting that they too agree that it's not actually God they're chomping on, but a silly little symbol no more sacred than the tassel on a Shriner's fez. A real Christian should be happy that as many people as possible are encountering God's own flesh and blood, whether by hook or by crook.
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | December 5, 2008 3:26 PM
Just off the top of my head: 1) monetary value 2) the communion wafers were freely given, not stolen.Posted by: teacherninja | December 5, 2008 3:28 PM
Agreed w/PZ. A few days before the election, I saw this scrawny long-haired kid pulling and ripping up McCain signs and stopped him. He saw my Obama sticker and was flummoxed. I explained to him about free speech and that he'd be more productive either putting UP more Obama signs or simply calling and getting out the vote.
Posted by: WRMartin | December 5, 2008 3:29 PM
Maybe as a preemptive defensive move the Christianists1 will remove all their baby Jesi2 and thus negate the entire reason for the nativity scenes all by themselves.
1 Adding 'ists' to the ends of words is fun.
2 I'm learnin' Latin too! ;)
Superscipts Are fun. And sciency.
Posted by: kestrien | December 5, 2008 3:31 PM
@ CHR:
It's not STEALING when they GIVE them to you. Dumbass.
Posted by: Cheshire | December 5, 2008 3:31 PM
"That's D.C. -- this is a political center," he said. "If I can see a placard with dead fetuses on it, I think someone can look at our question and just think about it."
I rather like this quote...it's about the bus campaign, but still shows the rank hypocrisy involved in this case. Every fall, there's groups which hang out at the roads leading into ISU with pictures of mutilated fetuses on them. It's probably these same people which are raising a stink about these signs.
I know we're not supposed to steal the baby jesus or the holy people from the nativity scenes, but can we put them in compromising positions?
Posted by: Sastra | December 5, 2008 3:32 PM
Defend their right to display their beliefs and demand equal time for ours!
Exactly. We don't need to vandalize free expression. We've got reason and law on our side. They can behave like ruffians if they want. "Let reason prevail."
While I rather wish the sign had had a more positive message (perhaps left off the last line), I agree with MemeGene in #59. No giving in to abuse.
Stealing the atheist sign isn't similar to taking an offered communion wafer and then not proceeding to perform the religious ceremony with it. It's like stealing a manger scene. I suppose the Catholic equivalent of 'desecration' of atheist object would be taking a free, cheaply printed book on atheism as if you were going to read and consider it -- and then not reading it at all!
Abbie #18 wrote:
Just a guess, but a lot of folks have a family tradition of adding just one item/character to an empty manger scene every day starting on December 1st, culminating in the baby Jesus added last on Christmas morning. I wouldn't be surprised if this church was playing with that idea. Was it Dec 2 when you saw it?
Posted by: zer0 | December 5, 2008 3:33 PM
At the risk of sounding completely lowbrow: "I'm not your guy , friend!"
Posted by: Siamang | December 5, 2008 3:34 PM
"Both acts show needless disrespect, and both forfeit moral high ground."
Let's stipulate that for the sake of a further question:
Which cedes more moral high ground now: a harshly-worded sign, or the stealing of a harshly-worded sign?
Posted by: Jason Failes | December 5, 2008 3:34 PM
That depends on how effective your seduction skills are,
and whether or not you swing that way.
I, for one, am an atheisexual.
Posted by: Kicker | December 5, 2008 3:35 PM
Aw, but when you can't find a football, Baby J is the next most puntable object around!
Posted by: chancelikely | December 5, 2008 3:35 PM
Or put a calendar up on the nativity scene saying, "April, maybe September, somewhere between 8 and 4 BC, unless Matthew and Luke were both just making crap up, which is actually fairly likely"
Or a copy of the Constitution with the relevant parts highlighted.
Posted by: PixelFish | December 5, 2008 3:36 PM
Sam: For certain values of "needless", sure. What you see as needless disrespect, other people see as triumph over superstition. PZed has yet to be struck down by lightning.
Of course, if you subscribe to the theory that the article was worthy of respect, solely because of somebody's belief, you run the risk of letting a lot of inane and potentially dangerous beliefs flourish unchallenged.
...
Aside: If the cracker is the body of Christ, and it went into PZed's garbage, and thence to a landfill, it's presumably being broken down further by seagulls and microbes and stuff, right? Does that make PZed the unintentional missionary to the microbes who are now filled with the body of Christ?
Posted by: chancelikely | December 5, 2008 3:39 PM
If it would somehow end up that PZ was the patron saint of microbes, I'd be all for it.
Posted by: mayhempix | December 5, 2008 3:39 PM
Didn't you know that stealing in the name of Jebus and then asking his forgiveness is the Christian thing to do?
You can steal, torture and kill as long as it's against those who are going to Hell anyways.
Just ask Rick Warren...
From Crooks and Liars:
Last night, on Fox News, Sean Hannity insisted that United States needs to "take out" Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Warren said he agreed. Hannity asked, "Am I advocating something dark, evil or something righteous?" Warren responded, "Well, actually, the Bible says that evil cannot be negotiated with. It has to just be stopped.... In fact, that is the legitimate role of government. The Bible says that God puts government on earth to punish evildoers. Not good-doers. Evildoers."
See the video:
http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/rick-warren-new-jerry-falwell-bible-say
Posted by: Randy Stimpson | December 5, 2008 3:40 PM
Yeah right. Google nativity 2008 stolen
Posted by: tsg | December 5, 2008 3:42 PM
@Craig, #101
I understand the sentiment and I can almost agree with the idea that taking all the religious symbology and dumping it in the same ditch could send the message of "all or none". But it isn't about theft, it's about freedom of expression and nothing points out their hypocrisy better than defending their right to it when they blatantly disregard ours.
I'm with Feynmaniac (#99) on this one, but in a slightly different way than I believe he intended. I think we should petition to get displays from every religion, quasi-religion, cult, etc. so that it does clutter the State Capitol and buries every one of them into obscurity, including the atheist message. They will either have to disallow all religious displays or have their own relegated to one voice in a room of shouting people.
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | December 5, 2008 3:42 PM
It all just makes me want to sing Squidmas Carols...
They came upon a midnight clear
Unto the Olympia Square
The night disguised them while they took
The sign the godless put there:
"It is our wish this Solstice time
That reason should prevail"
With hardened hearts and minds enslaved
The thieves may land in jail.
Still, tis the season to forgive;
To turn the other cheek.
Let's hope they've learned their lesson if
It's wisdom that they seek:
"Be kind unto your fellow man;
Treat them as you'd have them treat you"
There's room for you in the public square
But only if others fit, too.
The right to different views is where
The strength of our nation abides
The First Amendment makes it clear
The government cannot take sides;
The tyranny of majority
May change with the whim of the day
And someday you may need it too--
Don't throw your rights away.
Posted by: Don | December 5, 2008 3:43 PM
Googled nativity 2008 stolen and got sent to: http://www.dinkels.com/?gclid=CPLJ_KSrqpcCFSIgDQodbgthjg
Mmmmmmmm -- tasty!
Posted by: Voltaire Kinison | December 5, 2008 3:43 PM
I'm still laughing at #7...
This is not the first time a Freethought/Solstice sign has been stolen. http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/2002/janfeb02/solsticesign.html
http://www.ffrf.org/afa/archives/press/20dec1997.php
http://badgerherald.com/oped/2005/12/08/ffrf_campaign_unacce.php
After it was stolen the first time, the FFRF printed "Thou Shall Not Steal" on the back.
Posted by: Capital Dan | December 5, 2008 3:44 PM
That'll never happen. Every time they get close to understanding, something happens to drive them back into the safe, thoughtless comforts of the Dark Ages.
By the way, the First Amendment has a birthday coming up (the 15th, I believe). I've got to whip up a t-shirt for the occasion. I'm thinking something along the lines of "Jesus died so you could become an oppressive prick?"
Either that or, "Abortion Saves Lives!"
Posted by: WRMartin | December 5, 2008 3:45 PM
Result number 3 is from... wait for it... wait...The Onion!
ROTFLMAOWMCOMN
Posted by: Craig | December 5, 2008 3:47 PM
"I totally agree PZ, but..how different is this really than taking their communion wafers and turning that into a big thing? "
Well, apart from the fact that this is a case of someone stealing something that didn't belong to them for the purpose of denying someone else their rights, and PZ's act was to accept something freely given to him and use it as he saw fit which was his right - and which did not violate anyone else's rights - apart from that... you're right, they're completely the same.
And if we go by the same standard, apart from the content of your comment, your comment was in no way fucking moronic.
Posted by: Darth Wader | December 5, 2008 3:49 PM
I won't back down, but I also will not lower myself to that level. I won't do it not out of some need for moral high ground.
What do we really want from them? Are we trying to "convert" them? I for one want their respect and to not feel like I am a second class citizen for choosing to think instead of believe. I don't want a rock fight with them.
Posted by: Sastra | December 5, 2008 3:53 PM
Randy Stimpson #120
The "we" who need to claim the high moral ground here are the atheists and theists who read this blog, and are upset that the sign was stolen. PZ wasn't addressing the Vandals of the World, who often steal pieces from nativity scenes for reasons that have little or nothing to do with religion.
Posted by: tsg | December 5, 2008 3:54 PM
Your point being?
Posted by: God retardant | December 5, 2008 3:55 PM
What's stopping the Godbots from stealing baby Jasus and then blaming the theft on the horrid atheists, just to make us all look bad? You see, lying and stealing for Jesus makes it all ok!!!
Posted by: charles | December 5, 2008 3:55 PM
whatever, who cares man. stealing baby jesus? that only gives creedance to their idolatry by saying it's even worth stealing. in the same respect, the christians have given creedance to us (the few, the proud, the atheists) by stealing an object of logical and reasonable significance to us. they can keep their ugly, little plastic jesuses...but make damn sure they pay for stealing something of actual worth and importance.
also, the "crackers" don't even deserve being called such. crackers are {can be} good--i mean, everyone loves some oyster crackers with their soup, right? that styrofoam shit they give out in a catholic church. not good. at all. maybe it would taste a little bit better with a nail through it though...i know it looks better that way. now if they were serving fondue....nah, i won't say it.
Posted by: Craig | December 5, 2008 3:55 PM
(not the same Craig @127)
Darth,
@128
I'm not going to get into a debate about some ideal code of conduct and who's moral objections should be held above (or below) another's. I will say that to pretend that we are taking "the high road" here is dumb. These people barely understand these concepts. I am inclined to go with Hamurabi or Malcolm X, instead of MLK on these issues.
Posted by: guy fawkes | December 5, 2008 3:56 PM
I just saw an american ovie called "Expelled", I had to put it under the sectrion of "Scary movies" in my catalogue system (I am not joking).
It is truly scary to know that a country with access to nuclear weapons have a large percentage of the population believing this. We need to do something before the U.S starts a nuclear war killing and destroying the rest of the world in the name of "Jesus". You guys are truly dangerous individuals to peopel like me living in civilized and superior societies (more or less all of Europe, Oceania Japan, S Korea etc are all highly superior as nation and people, so basically the entire western world and I can include third world nations as well).
PLEASE, the ones that are not insane in the U.S DO SOMETHING BEFORE ITS TO LATE.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | December 5, 2008 3:57 PM
Craig @ # 83: I see nothing wrong with taking a baby Jesus in-kind as a reciprocal political statement.
Sure, if you can identify the thief and take his/her baby J.
Otherwise, you're victimizing some other innocent (if superstitious) bystander and just widening the circle of collateral damage.
Posted by: CyberLizard | December 5, 2008 3:57 PM
The Unitarian symbol is actually pretty cool. It's a flaming chalice. The Unitarian church I attended had a lesbian Zen-Buddhist atheist minister.
Anyway, back to the program...
Posted by: samuel Black | December 5, 2008 3:57 PM
Why should we respect Christian's right to display the nativity scene, but not their right to practice communion with all the beliefs that pertain thereto?
Of course, stealing is illegal, but you could disrespect the displaying of the nativity scene in other ways, like by setting up a scene with Mary feeding (a likeness of) Jesus into a wood chipper
Posted by: kryth | December 5, 2008 3:57 PM
Pious crime...
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 5, 2008 3:59 PM
Randy... i have to thank you for asking me to google "nativity stolen"... the hit from WCVB Boston provided this gem:
Priceless. I hate it when my inanimate objects get sad. In fact I'm quite sure my old CRT cussed at me when I tossed it out in favor of this flashy new 21" flat-panel. Broke my heart.
Posted by: tsg | December 5, 2008 3:59 PM
Who's trying to prevent them from practicing communion?
Posted by: pixelfish | December 5, 2008 4:01 PM
Stealing their prized plastic deity is no more a crime than toilet-papering a house on Halloween.
Um. No. See, the prized plastic deity, while technically useless and a graven image, is still a manifestation of property. It's NOT YOURS to do with as you like. It's theirs. Namely, they had to put their money and resources into creating it, and while you and I would spend our money and resources differently, it is their right to choose that. Stealing their Jesii will mean that they may choose to go out and spend more money that they shouldn't have to on yet another plastic deity.
In the meantime, you have taken something which doesn't belong to you. Which is theft. Which is a crime.
Yes, the plastic Jesii don't mean anything to you and don't do anything and are representations of somebody's mythos, but they aren't yours. (Unlike the cracker, freely given, and PZed's Koran and God Delusion. Which WERE his.)
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | December 5, 2008 4:01 PM
Flaming Jelly BeanPosted by: Pete Rooke | December 5, 2008 4:02 PM
So that is where you draw the line? Theft and subsequent desecration of the Eucharist - that's A-OK (an act you condone) - but theft or desecration of an inanimate plastic figurine - that's crossing some type of line? How principled of you...
Posted by: Rey Fox | December 5, 2008 4:03 PM
"Seriously though what dumb ass thinks that's going to solve anything or prove anything?"
It only takes one.
"Did anyone else's irony meter blow up when one of the pastors said Atheists were trying to "attempt to rid God and Christmas from the public square"."
Like I said, at least we try to stamp out opposing views by putting signs UP.
Posted by: samuel Black | December 5, 2008 4:03 PM
"Who's trying to prevent them from practicing communion?"
Nobody. I said "disrespect", which has a different meaning from "prevent". Read it again. I'll wait.
Posted by: tsg | December 5, 2008 4:04 PM
2... 1...
Cracker is not theft. Go away.
Posted by: Randy Stimpson | December 5, 2008 4:05 PM
Word games
Posted by: pixelfish | December 5, 2008 4:05 PM
Samuel Black: I fail to see how PZed smashing a hammer into a cracker in Minnesota is going to keep Catholics around the world from celebrating Mass. Or the world has a severe cracker shortage that nobody's told me about.
(Although I am kinda curious as to how Christ's molecules get distributed from Catholic to Catholic. Maybe the blood of Christ is like a parts per million diluted solution.)
Posted by: Tulse | December 5, 2008 4:06 PM
Oh, good -- I thought Pete was never going to show.
Posted by: Robert W | December 5, 2008 4:07 PM
@ Pete Rooke: Love your characterizations buddy! the Eucharist vs. an inanimate plastic "figurine." Good lord. Um, your cracker is inanimate too, sir.
Speaking of principles, are you defending the "principles" of those intolerant theists who want to monopolize a public square?
It makes my head spin.
Posted by: tsg | December 5, 2008 4:07 PM
You said "Why should we respect Christian's right to display the nativity scene, but not their right to practice communion with all the beliefs that pertain thereto?"
So, if nobody is preventing them from practicing communion, how is their right to do it being disrespected?
Posted by: mus | December 5, 2008 4:08 PM
I love the last line:
"On that Nativity scene, there is this threat of INTERNAL violence if we don't submit to that master."
(emphasis mine)
HA HA HA HA!!!!
Posted by: pixelfish | December 5, 2008 4:08 PM
Aha. I see. Sam Black is trying to play semantic word soup.
Why should we respect Christian's right to display the nativity scene, but not their right to practice communion with all the beliefs that pertain thereto?
See, the problem is their beliefs extend to PZed's actions over his own legally obtained property.
Posted by: Rey Fox | December 5, 2008 4:11 PM
"Nobody. I said "disrespect", which has a different meaning from "prevent". Read it again. I'll wait."
I already read it.
"Why should we respect Christian's right to display the nativity scene, but not their right to practice communion with all the beliefs that pertain thereto?"
"Respect their right" means to let them do it. I accept and respect their right to have Communion. I don't respect the practice. I don't have to respect any of their beliefs. "Desecrating" a wafer does not in any way affect their right to have Communion.
Posted by: mayhempix | December 5, 2008 4:12 PM
Pete Rooke:
Do you or do you not condone the stealing of the atheist sign?
No weasling please. (Not answering is weasling.)
Posted by: Pete Rooke | December 5, 2008 4:13 PM
Secondly, Christmas, for many, is a secular holiday (much to my dismay) so why do atheists feel the need to go to such lengths as to promote a facile poem besides such a nativity scene. It's part of our shared history - religious or otherwise.
Christians don't feel the urge (or believe it appropriate) to display a poem registering their disgust with Evolution besides Darwin's tomb, so why would you want to associate yourselves with something so petty as in Washington?
Posted by: samuel Black | December 5, 2008 4:14 PM
"Samuel Black: I fail to see how PZed smashing a hammer into a cracker in Minnesota is going to keep Catholics around the world from celebrating Mass. "
It won't, of course. It shows disrespect to those who practice it though. And that seems to be ok with PZ groupies. So why is it not ok to disrespect christians' right to display the nativity scene with (e.g.) the mock wood chipper scene? Other than the admonishment of PZ? Or would that be ok?
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | December 5, 2008 4:14 PM
Some of you could stand to educate yourselves better on constitutional law. The establishment clause says that government may not favour one religion over another (with atheism being considered a religion for first amendment purposes). That means a government may set up an open forum and allow all religious views to participate equally, or they may allow none. In the current situation at the Washington state capitol, they are allowing all views. They could alternatively allow none, and probably messes like the current one will encourage more government entities to favour allowing none.The incorrect and illegal view, which is nonetheless common in many places throughout this nation, and which is endorsed by douchebags like Bill O'Reilly, is that Christian displays are OK, but others are not.
Posted by: mayhempix | December 5, 2008 4:15 PM
"spelling police"
weaseling
Posted by: Bryan | December 5, 2008 4:15 PM
Yesterday, I crashed an "Answering Christianity Q&A" only to find The session being led by two young-earth, Biblical literalist delusionoids. When I questioned why the Bible endorsed slavery they proceeded to say that if they had things the way they wanted, slavery would be legal today.
My question was prompted by one of the attendees expressing his frustration in finding a female spouse willing to live in subjugation to him as her superior as Dog's word demands. He was told that this is a growing problem in todays sinful world.
I was without words.
These people are f#@king sick.
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 5, 2008 4:15 PM
Pete Rooke,
PZ desecrated crackers that were freely given to the people who freely gave them to him. Do you recall his post on the guy who openly stole crackers from a church? He condemned those actions.
So you're bearing false witness, Pete. Your god doesn't like that, remember?
Posted by: Black Centaur | December 5, 2008 4:16 PM
How about a "Mary didn't give consent" T shirt on baby jesus H christ.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 5, 2008 4:16 PM
Oh come on randy. You can't be that dense can you?
Posted by: Darth Wader | December 5, 2008 4:16 PM
Stealing plastic jesii serves absolutely no purpose other than reinforcing their stereotypes.
Do you really think it would play out like this?
"Honey, those atheists stole the baby jesus from the capital's nativity scene. We were wrong about them, and we were wrong about wanting to have our religion promoted by the government"
Posted by: Rey Fox | December 5, 2008 4:16 PM
"Word games
Barack Hussein Obama
Christianist thugs"
Christianist means someone who wants official Christianity. Ripping up a sign displaying an opposing message qualifies. Thug has already been defined on this thread, ripping up a lawfully placed sign also qualifies.
Just calling them as they are. No slander there at all. Unless you condone the actions of the sign thiefs.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 5, 2008 4:17 PM
Any person that continues to equate stealing property from a government facility to tossing a freely given wafer in the garbage as a symbol of personal protest, in any capacity, on any level, is simply a moron. Period. And some of you doing that are smarter than that.
Come on... use your brain.
Pete Rooke... you are excused, as the above skill does not apply to those without said organ.
Posted by: Fuz Rana | December 5, 2008 4:18 PM
As an evangelical Christian I couldn't agree more with PZ Meyers comments.
Censorship leads nowhere. Let everyone express their viewpoints and let's discuss and debate points of disagreement with vigor (hopefully with civility and mutual respect).
It saddens me to see fellow Christians behave in such purile ways.
Posted by: charles | December 5, 2008 4:19 PM
"Christians don't feel the urge (or believe it appropriate) to display a poem registering their disgust with Evolution besides Darwin's tomb, so why would you want to associate yourselves with something so petty as in Washington? "
No, they just made a little movie called Expelled! that propagandized the subject and without an ounce of truth. And I think it'd actually be kinda funny if they did put that kind of sign up!
Posted by: WRMartin | December 5, 2008 4:19 PM
Pete Rooke still doesn't understand the difference between gift and theft? Holy motherfuckingchristonacracker how dense are you, man?
Oh how I wish the Internet had a button we could click that would activate a stick and wail it upside your head until you forgot how to say 'cracker'.
And Randy, here's a few more words for your game:
Darwinist.
Evolutionist.
I would like for President Obama to have the sign for his office at the White House printed to say: B. Hussein Obama
and insist that it remain that way for his entire term(s). Hell, insist his cabinet and the press corps call him Hussein Obama (or he won't answer their questions).
Will that make your head explode? My fingers are crossed.
Posted by: megan | December 5, 2008 4:20 PM
wow, ask a simple question and some of you people go bonkers. chill OUT. sheesh.
Rev BDC, the point about the theft is taken, but I guess i was looking more at the WHY would people take a plastic jesus or a cracker. there's a difference between legality and ethicality. It seems to me that taking the Jesus would serve a similar function to trashing the wafers - trying to point out to these people that you don't like what they're doing and you don't consider it valid. The reasoning behind doing either is fairly similar.
Posted by: Pete Rooke | December 5, 2008 4:20 PM
Do you or do you not condone the stealing of the atheist sign?
I would be happy if the sign was returned to its owner. The general public has no interest in it being displayed.
Where oh where to place the poem extolling Occultism, Hedonism, New Ageism, Esotericism, Nazi Mysticism, Surfism, Magick, Luciferianism, Setianism...
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 5, 2008 4:21 PM
Rookie spewed:
Posted by: Richard Wolford | December 5, 2008 4:21 PM
You seriously didn't just ask that, did you? Granite is not as dense as Randy.
Posted by: PixelFish | December 5, 2008 4:22 PM
Samuel Black: Either you are confusing me with somebody else, or you are engaging in the charming practise of putting words into my mouth that I did not say, or you are moving the goal posts. I'll decide later.
Everything I have said involved the sancrosancty of property according to US law. PZed owned his cracker, he can do with it what he wants. Christian people own their nativities, they can do with it what they want. Anybody interfering with that is stomping on the right to own property.
What you keep arguing is that PZed's cracker defacement--a symbolic and literal smashing of an idea--is the same thing as preventing Catholics from practising as they belief. It isn't. When pointed out, you shifted your argument to the nativity, which as I have already stated, I believe that religious folk have the right to whatever display they want on their own property (or with equal time on public property).
Where you are wrong is trying to draw an exact parallel between PZed's cracker annihilation and a criminal act. But because you really seem incapable of making the distinction, because you want to privilege ideas over rights, I think we'll have to say this is the end of the conversation. Anyway, I have an appointment I have to go to.
Posted by: tsg | December 5, 2008 4:22 PM
Not the same thing, nor what's being discussed.
Disrespecting an idea is not the same as disrespecting the right to have it.
PZ is specifically admonishing against stealing the nativity scene as it infringe their freedom of expression. Setting up your own nativity scene featuring Mary feeding Jesus into a woodchipper doesn't disrespect their right to have one.
Posted by: Jack Rawlinson | December 5, 2008 4:22 PM
I totally agree PZ, but..how different is this really than taking their communion wafers and turning that into a big thing?
Are you *serious*? Because if you are... man. Okay, I don't want to get banned for abusive language.
Posted by: Darth Wader | December 5, 2008 4:23 PM
Its like you get it but don't get it. THATS THE DAMED POINT! There should be NO religious displays in a government Building.
The lights are on but no one is home.
Posted by: mayhempix | December 5, 2008 4:24 PM
If the wafer is part of the body of Christ, and Christ supposedly resides in us all, how can walking out of the church with the wafer be stealing? Not to mention the wafer was given to the person to begin with. Does the Catholic Church own the body of Christ? Doesn't Jesus recognize it as him even if the cannibalistic ceremony isn't completed? I mean he is God. And if take it to another denominational church am I returning it?
I mean, Jesus Christ! Where does cracker crap end?
Please God! Give me a sign! Any sign! You can steal one for all I care, just show it to me!
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 5, 2008 4:25 PM
Rookie @ #171
I knew you couldn't answer the question directly. You're just another Liar for Jesus.
And the general public has no interest in letting you speak for them... trust me.
Posted by: Rey Fox | December 5, 2008 4:25 PM
"So why is it not ok to disrespect christians' right to display the nativity scene with (e.g.) the mock wood chipper scene?"
Because that would not be vandalism of something FREELY GIVEN OUT by churches. Do try to keep up, please.
"I would be happy if the sign was returned to its owner. The general public has no interest in it being displayed."
Pete Rooke: Spokesman For The General Public.
"Where oh where to place the poem extolling Occultism, Hedonism, New Ageism, Esotericism, Nazi Mysticism, Surfism, Magick, Luciferianism, Setianism..."
Wherever you want, Rookie.
Posted by: SASnSA | December 5, 2008 4:28 PM
While they probably wouldn't admit we held the moral high ground, if we did sink to their level, they would be very quick to use that to show us as immoral (while forgetting all about their brother who stole the sign first). And you know the Christian mouthpieces would be all over that.Posted by: WRMartin | December 5, 2008 4:29 PM
On the lawn of the state capitol building, of course.
Posted by: Darth Wader | December 5, 2008 4:29 PM
Where oh where to place the poem extolling Occultism, Hedonism, New Ageism, Esotericism, Nazi Mysticism, Surfism, Magick, Luciferianism, Setianism..
The same place a nativity scene should be placed....One's own private property
Posted by: tsg | December 5, 2008 4:30 PM
As a member of the general public, I don't recognize your authority to speak for me.
Posted by: strangest brew | December 5, 2008 4:31 PM
Just smile and wave boys...just smile and wave!
Posted by: Pete Rooke | December 5, 2008 4:32 PM
As a member of the general public, I don't recognize your authority to speak for me.
I don't consider you to be general to the public. My position is far closer to what is "normal" in America!
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 5, 2008 4:32 PM
So where's your christian morality, Rookie?
It's a real dilemma, isn't it? You know deep down you DO condone the theft of the sign... deep in your heart where you hope god can't see and judge you for it... but you can't say that because it would be wrong to support it, morally. But you can't say you don't condone it because that would be lying, which is also wrong morally. So you just skirt the question by giving a non-answer about not minding seeing it returned, which speaks in now way to the act of its theft.
What a conundrum for poor little Rookie..
Posted by: Wowbbagger | December 5, 2008 4:32 PM
Pete Rooke wrote:
Nazi Mysticism? That's an odd way to describe christianity - but it certainly fits.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 5, 2008 4:33 PM
Well, lets use the "well meaining fool" theory on Mr. Rooke to see what we should believe in. First, the crackergate affair was correct. Second, atheist should have a right to present their case to the public. The third paragraph was an utter inantity, but then again, look who wrote it.
Posted by: Randy Stimpson | December 5, 2008 4:34 PM
It couldn't have been me. The sign weighs 50 lbs. I think Rev BigDumbChimp took it and is trying to frame me.
Posted by: co | December 5, 2008 4:34 PM
I'm awfully glad that the Constitution doesn't give a shit about what you think, Pete.
Posted by: WRMartin | December 5, 2008 4:34 PM
@176 Jack Rawlinson
There usually isn't a problem getting banned for using abusive fucking language on this fucking blog. Fuckity, fuckity fuck, fuck, fuc@*&^ [NO CARRIER]
Posted by: mayhempix | December 5, 2008 4:34 PM
Posted by: Pete Rooke | December 5, 2008 4:20 PM
"Do you or do you not condone the stealing of the atheist sign?
I would be happy if the sign was returned to its owner. The general public has no interest in it being displayed."
You weaseled.
Why am I not surprised. You just can bring yourself to admit to us you approve of it's illegal removal so you try and weasel out of it by doing the Christian thing and avoiding the question.
And I'm a part of the general public anddo have an interest in it being displayed. If Christain displays are to be allowed, then so should all others, regardless of belief. Otherwise it is government supporting one belief ahead of others, a Constitutional no-no.
Posted by: tsg | December 5, 2008 4:38 PM
That is precisely what makes you a bigot. How typically Christian of you.
Unfortunately you are probably correct. More the reason to fight against it and the shit stains like you who believe it.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 5, 2008 4:38 PM
More Pete "well meaning fool" Rooke interpretation. The majority cannot dictate what free speech means. He did get something right in that every religion has as much right to present their claims as his vile religion. And he is not representative of Americans due to his delusional character.
Posted by: John Robie | December 5, 2008 4:39 PM
And this is after they threw acid at the sign, right? Who keeps giving religu-tards acid?
Posted by: bigjohn756 | December 5, 2008 4:41 PM
Christian morality works one way only. They feel that they can do anything they want whereas anything anyone else does is wrong.
Posted by: deep | December 5, 2008 4:41 PM
Moral High Ground Indeed! I do hope no vandals (atheist or not) will succumb to the stealing of baby jesus' (although I have to admit that it does sound like fun). I mean we already have to put up with "atheists are uncharitable" (damn you data!) without having to be watched for potential theft of religious iconery. I urge everyone out there to not only abstain from playing polo with the plastic holy dome of the baby jesus' cranium, but to also give a little this season or at least volunteer. I have placed a list of charities on my blog and I urge everyone with one to do the same. Being outgived by the same demographic that brought along cross burning hurts.
Posted by: mayhempix | December 5, 2008 4:42 PM
Posted by: Pete Rooke | December 5, 2008 4:32 PM
" My position is far closer to what is "normal" in America!"
Uh-Huh. I'll bet you voted for Obama just like the majority of normal Americans.
And oral sex, normal Americans love oral sex.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 5, 2008 4:43 PM
I don't know, but someone must be giving them regular doses of it... you don't think they'd actually believe that goofy shit otherwise, do you?
Posted by: Ty | December 5, 2008 4:44 PM
Now Pete speaks for the 'general public'.
Seriously, it is because of people like Pete Rooke that secularism will win. That degree of belligerent stupidity can only help our cause in the long run.
Posted by: Tulse | December 5, 2008 4:45 PM
If Christmas is a secular holiday, what the hell is the government doing putting up a nativity scene?
No, they just try to eliminate its teaching in government-funded schools.
It is the principle of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. The state capitol is implicitly endorsing a specific religion with the nativity scene, and thus should allow other displays as well, including those of non-belief.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 5, 2008 4:45 PM
As far as acid goes, if chemicals are not on a DEA list they are not that hard to buy. It is shocking what is readily available.
Posted by: Pete Rooke | December 5, 2008 4:46 PM
Uh-Huh. I'll bet you voted for Obama just like the majority of normal Americans.
Yes indeed, as I have mentioned on this site previously, I believe Obama is more sincere in his faith and I believe his policies will reflect this.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 5, 2008 4:46 PM
Who what
i don't no nothing about no sign
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 5, 2008 4:48 PM
Sorry to disappoint you Pete, but Obama appears to be a closet secularist.
Posted by: Happiness Runs | December 5, 2008 4:48 PM
I don't condone theft, but atheists should appreciate it's removal. The message on the sign was not really representative of what atheism posits.
The sign proposes "may reason prevail" and then lists tenets of the atheist creed (there is no god, no spirits, nothing outside of nature, etc.) which is fair enough, but 5 lines after "may reason prevail" it defies itself by ignoring the use of reason to present an unreasonable statement.
"Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds"... is both an inaccurate generalization and an unjustifiable accusation. It is not "Reason"able to publish indefensible falsehoods to achieve the desired end of being defamatory.
Where is there any scientific and statistically valid empirical evidence to support this statement as universally true? None exists because the statement is false. To deliberately publish a known false statement runs counter to the prevalence of reason. It becomes self-defeating 5 short lines after it's proclamation.
Nice going antitheists! Demean with unsupportable lying assertions to disturb the peace, and joy of your fellow humans. That tells volumes about the "spirit" of your natural solstice celebration.
Unfortunately for the atheist cause, this another example of the most prominent "atheist" promotional messaging method. Attack and demean. Is there nothing positive you can say about your ideas?
Most people are trying to express their desire for friendship, community, joy, and peace at this time of year, but antitheists words and actions display that they obviously don't want those things for society.
Nativity scenes express and honor goodness, love, joy, and peace. They don't attack or demean.
Why don't you try post something positive about atheism one of these days?
Posted by: Capital Dan | December 5, 2008 4:49 PM
Wow... Just, wow.
It's going to take months mopping up the ignorance and arrogance dripping off your bloated, sanctimonious carcass, Pete. You should be fucking ashamed of yourself for such a statement. Really, man. Get some help for your addictions.
Posted by: Yarcofin | December 5, 2008 4:50 PM
Simple solution... every time a sign is taken down, replace it with 3 more.
Posted by: CodewordConduit | December 5, 2008 4:51 PM
Okay, until anyone is actually caught for this, it's sort of out of order pointing the finger. Could this stunt have been pulled by some agent of the press in order to create a little furore?
I know that it's likely that someone who considers themselves to be a Christian did this. But the possibility exists that an atheist with a screw loose could have done it in order to provoke angry reactions. Nothing's certain until the culprit is found.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 5, 2008 4:51 PM
Rookie
Luckily for the rest of us, that's just more of you being deluded. None of his policies so far show any indication that they are driven by his faith (alone), and is on record as stating that faith has no place in determining public policy, and that separation of church and state is a vital component to our government.
But I think it's so cute that you believe that.
Oh... how's that answer on whether or not you condone the theft of the atheist sign coming?
Posted by: CJO | December 5, 2008 4:52 PM
How about equal representation for all the other virgin births and miraculous conceptions? Romulus: born of a vestal virgin; Perseus: born to Danae, a virgin; Dionysius, born to Semele, a virgin; Mithras: born of a virgin; Adonis, born to Myrrh, a virgin; Attis, born to Cybelle, a virgin; Augustus: conceived by Apollo, in the form of a snake.
Nativity scenes all around!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 5, 2008 4:53 PM
Happiness, you think your stupid nativity scene is not insulting to non christians? What a dweeb. If christians kept their religion in their churches, which is where all nativity scenes should be, then atheists wouldn't have to return the favor. Read the golden rule, and keep reading it until you can put yourself on the receiving end of your attitude.
Posted by: WRMartin | December 5, 2008 4:53 PM
Ooh, deliciously evil idea:
Buy a Jesus baby at your local Jesuses 'R' Us and add it to your favorite local manger scene.
The Jesus Twins!
Adding something isn't stealing, is it?
;)
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 5, 2008 4:55 PM
Happiness runs:
Hey, look everyone! It's another singular individual making representative claim about the "real" position of a larger group. Wow... how many is that today?
Epic fail.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 5, 2008 4:55 PM
WRMartin, great idea. Don't forget the "I have to daddies" t-shirt.
Posted by: Fire | December 5, 2008 4:56 PM
Here's hoping the day NEVER comes when Atheists predominate America 10 to 1 and some vestigial theotard comes along with a hideous Ten Commandments placard for seasonal display and the rest of us are so insecure as to feel the need to desecrate, protest and steel it.
Let us always remember what we stand for; not collectively, but individually.
Posted by: mayhempix | December 5, 2008 4:56 PM
"...atheists should appreciate it's removal."
Oh, of course. How silly of us not have realized that to begin with...
So in other words you believe stealing is right when it's against atheism.
All of these idiot Christians obfuscate for paragraphs about everything but the actual point that any Christian professes to live by: Thou shalt not steal.
Posted by: tsg | December 5, 2008 4:57 PM
I love nothing more than other people telling me what I believe. It makes me feel all warm and cozy and that the world is a really keen place.
STFU.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 5, 2008 4:57 PM
Post #216 to = two. *headdesk*
Posted by: The Perky Skeptic | December 5, 2008 5:00 PM
Back when I was religious, a fellow Wiccan friend of mine saw a bulletin-board flyer for some kind of Satanist group meeting. She ripped it down, saying "People will confuse them with us!" I let her know that what she did was unconscionable from a Free Speech standpoint and I put the damn flyer back up.
Posted by: mayhempix | December 5, 2008 5:01 PM
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 5, 2008 4:43 PM
"Who keeps giving religu-tards acid?
I don't know, but someone must be giving them regular doses of it... you don't think they'd actually believe that goofy shit otherwise, do you?"
It was the Taleban. They had some left over after spraying it on the faces of Afghan school girls. Fundies have to stick together so they can maim and kill everyone else before they kill off each other.
Posted by: Sha | December 5, 2008 5:03 PM
Pete Rooke wrote:
Where oh where to place the poem extolling Occultism, Hedonism, New Ageism, Esotericism, Nazi Mysticism, Surfism, Magick, Luciferianism, Setianism..
Sorry, but seitan is a gluten product used as a meat analogue. So unless you were referencing vegetarians, you are a dumbass.
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 5, 2008 5:04 PM
Happiness Runs wrote:
How, exactly? It's a bunch of people and animals standing around in a stable looking at a baby in a box. It only 'expresses' the things you mention if you happen to believe in the fairy tale events surrounding it - which atheists don't.
And considering it's a core belief of xinanity - which is most certainly not dependent on expressing goodness, love, joy or peace - rejecting it is quite reasonable.
Posted by: tsg | December 5, 2008 5:05 PM
I disagree. He's a dumbass whether or not he was referencing vegetarians.
Posted by: maureen | December 5, 2008 5:05 PM
Pete Rooke,
On theft - all of the symbolism and meaning of the celebration at the winter solstice have been stolen by Christians. None of them was Christian to begin with.
The family feast, the celebration of fire or light, the marking of birth or rebirth, the phallic tree, the bringing of evergreen foliage inside the home, the exchange of gifts can all be traced to assorted Pagan traditions in Europe where we still - well, most of us - happily recognise and acknowledge them.
No serious theologian has ever set out to prove that Jesus was actually born on 25 December - one because there is nothing even vaguely resembling evidence and two because he would then have to say whether he meant the Julian or the Gregorian calendar.
So, if you're against theft could we have our mid-winter festival back? Please.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 5, 2008 5:05 PM
I'll assume you meant "steal" it, and respond accordingly...
Why is it that brainwashed christians always assume that if put in similar circumstances, everyone would act as terribly as they would?
Posted by: WRMartin | December 5, 2008 5:05 PM
I feel that CJO @212 has outdone me. By a kilomile.
Also, doesn't Confuscious have a better version of the Golden Rule? Instead of:
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you the better version is something along the lines of:
Don't do unto others as you wouldn't want them to do unto you.
Much easier to implement. I don't need to go out and buy Ferraris for everyone in the lame hope that someone will get me one! All I need to do is not piss other people off by installing my personal view of the world on property that belongs to everyone. Simple.
Posted by: Pete Rooke | December 5, 2008 5:06 PM
Dear Sha
Relieve yourself of your ignorance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Setianism
Kind regards
Pete Rooke
Posted by: mayhempix | December 5, 2008 5:08 PM
Posted by: Pete Rooke | December 5, 2008 4:46 PM
"Uh-Huh. I'll bet you voted for Obama just like the majority of normal Americans.
Yes indeed, as I have mentioned on this site previously, I believe Obama is more sincere in his faith and I believe his policies will reflect this."
Fair enough. I had missed that pronouncement.
But if you believe Obama will support the idea that one belief should be given special treatment over others, you are sadly mistaken.
Now if you would please directly answer the question that you previously weaseled out of:
Do you or do you not condone the stealing of the atheist sign?
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | December 5, 2008 5:09 PM
Posted by: Pete Rooke | December 5, 2008
My position is far closer to what is "normal" in America!
Funny how the Rookie thinks that the multitudes of beliefs and opinions of a population can be reduced to a "voice of the general public". Even funnier is how the Rookie thinks that he is qualified to be that voice.
One voice.
One people.
One religion.
Such are the fuzzy dreams of the Rookie.
Posted by: Legal Beagle | December 5, 2008 5:09 PM
Kestrian @ 109
"It's not STEALING when they GIVE them to you. Dum***s."
Actually IT IS STEALING when you misrepresent yourself in order to have someone give you something. It's called fraud, and causes the item you deceived the other person into giving you to become "stolen goods".
In order to obtain a consecrated host, the larcenous crimes of misrepresentation and fraud must be committed in order to obtain the "property" used. The perpetrator must pretend to be a member in good standing of an organization, and must deceive an authorized representative of that organization in order to acquire the "property", which upon receipt, becomes classified in legal terminolgy as "stolen goods".
The ensuing desecration constitute the crimes commonly called "destruction of property", or "mischief", (depending on jurisdiction) which are prosecutable criminal acts in virtually any and all 50 states...and pretty much everywhere else in the world too. Unspeaking Donkey.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 5, 2008 5:11 PM
Purely as atheists? Actually, no, there isn't. Atheism is purely the absence of belief in gods. It's an single idea, not a system of "ideas", fairly narrowly defined in negative terms as "not believing that god(s) exist(s)". You can't derive much in the line of positive assertions from that alone.
Now, we can say something positive about other things that most of us (I think) share, like our well-founded belief in methodological naturalism as a way of producing new knowledge, but that's nothing to to with atheism per se. True, it's hard to see how one could be both a methodological naturalist and a god-soaked imbecile, but some people manage it.
While uncommon, one could in principle be an atheist, but still believe in ghosts, fairies, and leprechauns, which isn't a great advance over being a Christian.
Why don't you post something positive about not believing in leprechauns? Kinda hard, isn't it, without introducing something else?
We can't extol the virtues of atheism, because it doesn't have any of its own. Complete freedom from belief in the supernatural, afterlives, reincarnation, magic zombies, and other religious delusions has its benefits, of course, but strictly, atheism is only a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for that.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 5, 2008 5:11 PM
Wikipedia: where Pete Rooke relieves himself... of his ignorance!
So much starting to come into focus now...
Posted by: Dark Matter | December 5, 2008 5:12 PM
Pete, I don't think you understand. First, if there was a "general public" in America - which I would strongly contest - I doubt it'd let you represent it. You're an awfully narrow-minded little person and the public is too diverse to be spoken for by someone like that. Secondly, the beauty of the Constitution and its amendments is that it doesn't matter what the majority wants or doesn't want to see, or what is "normal" (and what the fuck does that mean anyway?); the minority still has a right to express its views in a public forum. Democracy: It's all or nothing, baby.
Posted by: Rolan le Gargéac | December 5, 2008 5:13 PM
Lana #48
I love that ! Superb ! And that's a wonderfully striking image which contradicts your 'no artistic ability' statement.
Posted by: Pete Rooke | December 5, 2008 5:13 PM
Maureen:
Please, come on now dear... Let us not be foolish. Ideas are not stolen and Jesus' birthday does not have any significance in and of itself (per se). No, No. But is does now have cultural significance (the 25th). You know as well as I that it would not change the true meaning of Christmas if it was celebrated on the 26th of each year, or on the odd leap years ...
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 5, 2008 5:16 PM
And now for closing arguments in today's episode of "Kangaroo Court", please see post #232.
Posted by: Adrienne | December 5, 2008 5:16 PM
I like the idea of adding to nativity scenes. I work with a bunch of Indian people, some of whom have krishna necklaces and Ganesh statuettes. I bet they know where I can get myself a few of the same doodads cheaply.
I think the Baby Jesuses in nativity scenes near my house might have to experiment with Hinduism this year.
Posted by: Pete Rooke | December 5, 2008 5:17 PM
Do you or do you not condone the stealing of the atheist sign?
There is a moral judgement implicit in that question ("stealing").
If someone were to place a stake through my right hand I would not consider it "stealing" to remove it and then return it to the owner (etc.)!!
Posted by: Patricia | December 5, 2008 5:17 PM
Holy shite! I go out to load the truck and all this happened. Wow.
If I have time today I'll look up exactly who did in fact make Christ's birth on December 25th. Pete is full of shit again as usual.
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 5, 2008 5:18 PM
Legal Beagle, #232,
If you had read the original cracker posts you'd have known that those he was sent were obtained by people who were catholics at the time they obtained them. They simply chose to take the freely-given crackers with them rather than eat them at the church - as many former (and current) catholics revealed to us they often did and still do.
So, no misrepresentation, no fraud, no criminal act.
Better luck next time.
Posted by: Adrienne | December 5, 2008 5:18 PM
I like the idea of adding to nativity scenes. I work with a bunch of Indian people, some of whom have krishna necklaces and Ganesh statuettes. I bet they know where I can get myself a few of the same doodads cheaply.
I think the Baby Jesuses in nativity scenes near my house might have to experiment with Hinduism this year.
Posted by: tsg | December 5, 2008 5:19 PM
@Legal Beagle #232
If you've ever taken a flier handed to you on the street and not read it, you're guilty of theft.
If you've ever walked off with a pen that wasn't yours, you're guilty of theft.
If you've ever thrown a candy bar wrapper in a restaurant's dumpster, you're guilty of theft (specifically theft of services).
This is all trivial bullshit as is the supposed theft of a cracker that is being given away.
You're trumping up charges to rationalize the idea that cracker desecration is immoral. If all you have is the petty theft of an intrinsically valueless item, you have no argument. Call a cop or shut the fuck up.
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | December 5, 2008 5:20 PM
Celtic Evolution, it was funny how often that argument was dragged out during the heydays of Crackergate. Even funnier were the real lawyers who shredded the silliness.
Did you happen to hit the link at #232. Did that legal troll think that sort of "authority" would lend credence to it's screed?
Posted by: Fire | December 5, 2008 5:21 PM
[steal] Jeeeeeezus.
Celtic_Evolution: "Why is it that brainwashed christians always assume that if put in similar circumstances, everyone would act as terribly as they would?"
The same way they assume that scientists accept evolution because they are submitting to unchecked authority. They don't know how to think.
Posted by: Adrienne | December 5, 2008 5:21 PM
Oh yeah, and a very religious Catholic woman wrote something on a message board a couple years ago that cracked me up--seems that her neighbors across the street put up one of those ginormous almost lifesize nativity scenes that is lighted from within the figurines. Only they have a very strange addition to it: SpongeBob Squarepants. She hates the scene not so much because it offends her religious sensibilities but because she gets creeped out by seeing a large, luminous SpongeBob staring through her window at her all night.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 5, 2008 5:22 PM
Rookie @ #240
Dodge, dip, duck, dive, dodge!
So, Rookie... you'd have the same answer if the nativity were stolen you pious liar!
Let's ask it a different way:
Do you object to the theft of property from a public facility (or anywhere else, for that matter) that has every legal right to be there? Or does it only matter if it's an object that you find offensive?
Intellectual honesty, Rookie... try some... it might hurt someone like you, though...
Posted by: Kel | December 5, 2008 5:22 PM
Without reading this thread, how many religious apologists have posted in the 246 pages so far?
Posted by: tsg | December 5, 2008 5:23 PM
What a surprise, you still haven't answered the question.
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | December 5, 2008 5:24 PM
Posted by: Pete Rooke | December 5, 2008
Do you or do you not condone the stealing of the atheist sign?
There is a moral judgement implicit in that question ("stealing").
If someone were to place a stake through my right hand I would not consider it "stealing" to remove it and then return it to the owner (etc.)!!
People, I claim the right of discovery of a new species of animal. I present the Rookie Weasel!
Posted by: CrypticLife | December 5, 2008 5:24 PM
Another difference between crackers and the sign (and why you shouldn't steal baby jesus, or vandalize (no matter how much fun it might sound)) -- putting a nail through a cracker isn't squelching anyone else's freedom of speech.
Posted by: mayhempix | December 5, 2008 5:25 PM
Posted by: Pete Rooke | December 5, 2008 5:13 PM
"You know as well as I that it would not change the true meaning of Christmas..."
In my family the true meaning of Xmas is to get together, show our love for each other, play games, eat and enjoy watching the kids and grandkids discover what is wrapped up in those ribboned and bowed packages.
Tradition? Yes.
Religious? No.
And for most Americans that's what it is all about Pete. Only a small minority take it seriously as a celebration of the birth of a man-god. Sure many pay lip service to the Christian connection, but they are just going through programmed motions and really could care less.
Posted by: Pete Rooke | December 5, 2008 5:25 PM
@ Dark Matter (aptly named)
You too could do well to relieve yourself of your ignorance (it abounds on these threads)...
what is "normal" (and what the **** does that mean anyway?);
I think you understand what "normal" refers to - (characteristics that the vast majority share) - maybe that was a rhetorical point...
the minority still has a right to express its views in a public forum. Democracy: It's all or nothing, baby.
As to your error - democracy does emphatically *not* equal the right to express views in a public forum. If people decide that doing so should result in death - then that is perfectly compatible with democracy.
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | December 5, 2008 5:27 PM
Also, it seems that the Rookie Weasel is confusing his body with a government building. Which makes sense, he thinks his voice this that of the general public.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 5, 2008 5:28 PM
Fire
A statement that would only be made by someone completely foreign to science.
What you just said there is yet another example of why you, and all christians, seem to believe that the only real "truth" must come from indoctrination... it's the very act of thinking for one's self that removes that shackle.
I know it's hard for you to believe that people arrive at knowledge differently than the way you've been brainwashed... you know... we like to posit, investigate, reason, test, observe, evaluate, retest... etc...
It leads to better answers than "some dusty 2000 year-old tome says so". You should try it. And stop assuming that everyone must work the way you do.
Posted by: engel306 | December 5, 2008 5:29 PM
Kind of like how some, presumably, "christian" thugs vandalized my car and my Darwin bumper sticker.
Posted by: anon | December 5, 2008 5:29 PM
Governor Christine Gregoire's office is getting deluged with emails, comments, and telephone calls demanding take-down of the atheist sign at the capitol building. Of course to comply, she'd have to also take down all the religious garbage. However it might be worthwhile to mount a countercampaign in support of her fair approach to this ridiculous controversy.
http://governor.wa.gov/contact/default.asp
Posted by: Pete Rooke | December 5, 2008 5:29 PM
Ah, Janine. What a pleasure to find you here. Just as insulting as ever!
Posted by: Kel | December 5, 2008 5:29 PM
Yes, Christmas tree and Santa Claus have everything to do with the birth of Jesus... I'm sure the consumerist buyfest this holiday has turned into is in the spirit of what Jesus intended...
or it could be that traditions change over time. Like the Christians stole this day from the pagans (including the tradition of gift giving) the day has become a secular holiday in western society.
Posted by: uselesstwit | December 5, 2008 5:30 PM
@Pete
If anyone, at anytime ever puts something in your body, just go ahead and consider it a gift. Okay?
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 5, 2008 5:31 PM
Janine
I remember... it was humorous how easy it was for them to really think that deference to their silly ritual carried some weight in a legal courtroom. Sheer dizzying ignorance form people who know better but can't put the beliefs aside...
Posted by: ThinkingApe | December 5, 2008 5:32 PM
Happy @207,
I don't know, I've got some people in my life who have been 'born again'. It seems like the one constant among them is that they've all become...well...hatefull bigots.
I'm suprised (should I be?) and hurt by how little they talk of 'doing unto others' and 'judge not', etc. It seems like their new faith is a way to justify being superior to others. Religion has hardened their hearts and minds.
I was would say that when a faith is at its most aggressive and militant, its number of followers is at its highests.
How many wars, massaquers, etc. have been committed in the name of one religion or another? Even in the last century? I think there is plenty of "valid empirical evidence to support this statement as universally true?"
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | December 5, 2008 5:32 PM
Posted by: Pete Rooke | December 5, 2008
If people decide that doing so should result in death - then that is perfectly compatible with democracy.
While we are at it, fuck civil rights; denying people of their humanity is perfectly compatible with democracy.
Posted by: dinkum | December 5, 2008 5:32 PM
Everybody got that?
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 5, 2008 5:33 PM
Pete, considering the sick fantasies you told us about in your first posts here on the site I have serious doubts that you are anything resembling 'normal'.
And you still haven't answered the question.
Posted by: Pete Rooke | December 5, 2008 5:33 PM
@ Kel
Yes, Christmas tree and Santa Claus have everything to do with the birth of Jesus... I'm sure the consumerist buyfest this holiday has turned into is in the spirit of what Jesus intended...
You're quite right!!! I have written extensively on this:
Bill O'Reilly has done a great job of highlighting this issue (the war on Christmas) in the past. The Catholic League's influence over craven corporations (Wal-Mart, Target, Kmart etc.) has also been extremely effective.
I feel that it is symptomatic of societies in which people feel unable to culturally identify with anything - whether it be citizenship ("am I American ... what does that mean ... why classify me in terms of arbitrary lines on a map"), whether it be sexuality (why should marry someone of the opposite sex ... is it because it's in my genes ... surely that would be committing the naturalistic fallacy), whether it be immigration and a subsequent lack of assimilation resulting in corporations, that fuel Christmas fever as we know it, deciding that a "holiday season" would be more profitable and far reaching.
Nary a thought is given to the ultimate sacrifice that Christmas celebrates, what this means to us, and why this is so important. I'm all for exploiting the commercial activities if it spreads the message of Christianity. As it is I feel that committed Christians should consider forgoing present giving, reinventing it as a purely religious celebration with an emphasise on the nuclear family - without commercial pressures and the distractions this brings. On a positive note, at least Church services still remain packed around December time.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 5, 2008 5:33 PM
Only if you mean that "democracy" is exactly equivalent to mob rule.
Is that what you think "democracy" means?
Posted by: Wowbagger-NOT | December 5, 2008 5:34 PM
Wowbagger 242.
1) I did read the posts at the time, and there was no evidence offered that the thieves were "Catholics"
2) Even if they were Catholics, their acts were still misrepresentation and fraud. Same as an ex-anything entering their former diggs and presenting themselves as still "in good standing".
The act itself is sufficient evidence of their not being in good standing, and therefore unqualified.
REF: Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. United States, 261 U.S. 592 (1923)
If they were not consecrated, and were legitimately purchased, then no crime was committed by the "provider". However, since these were consecrated, criminal acts were required to obtain them.
If they were not consecrated and PZ was deceived by his "supplier", PZ is still prosecutable as he believed the items were consecrated. Like a jewel heist where the actual jewels were replaced with cut glass. The thieves still stand trial for the theft of the jewels, not the cheap glass.
Since these are criminal acts, (ie against public order in the state of Minnesota) any Minnesota resident can call the police to initiate an investigation.
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | December 5, 2008 5:35 PM
Posted by: Pete Rooke | December 5, 2008
Ah, Janine. What a pleasure to find you here. Just as insulting as ever!
My pleasure! It is the least I can do for a moral monster.
Posted by: mayhempix | December 5, 2008 5:35 PM
Posted by: Pete Rooke | December 5, 2008 5:17 PM
Do you or do you not condone the stealing of the atheist sign?
"There is a moral judgement implicit in that question ("stealing")."
You deserve a job in the Department of Redundancy Department.
Let's face it Pete. You cannot bring yourself to condemn the stealing of of the sign because you are glad it happened, moral judgement be damned.
Posted by: Pete Rooke | December 5, 2008 5:36 PM
If anyone, at anytime ever puts something in your body, just go ahead and consider it a gift. Okay?
You failed to apply the analogy to the situation appropriately. Taken individually from its reference, of course it's easy to mock.
Posted by: WRMartin | December 5, 2008 5:37 PM
Ah, freedom of speech. Ain't it grand?P.S. That goes for you too Pete. Wonderful how that works out, huh?
Posted by: MikeM | December 5, 2008 5:37 PM
Hear-hear, PZ.
Vandalism is NEVER the answer.
Posted by: Fire | December 5, 2008 5:37 PM
Celtic:
Your REALLY misreading me. I am an atheist! I'm talking ABOUT Christians.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 5, 2008 5:38 PM
Legal Baguel @232,
Actually, no.
During crackergate, we had a variety of lawyers from all over the world give their opinions on the Cooke "case". The only jurisdiction in which the legal opinion was that it might be prosecutable in principle as theft was England and Wales, from a former QPS prosecutor.
In the US, the consensus was that Cooke's action could not conceivably constitute a criminal offence, and, while it might superficially appear to be civilly actionable as breach of contract, the absence of mutual consideration and trifling value of the wafer made that theory untenable.
As to your larceny charge, the only kind of larceny that Webster Cooke could reasonably be suspected of is "larceny by trick", which requires intent to steal on the part of Cooke. Since nobody has challenged his contention that he obtained the cracker with the intent of returning to his pew, showing it to his friend, and then consuming it in the usual way, there was no intent to steal on his part, and therefore no larceny.
Posted by: Celtic_Evoltuion | December 5, 2008 5:38 PM
And yet...
You know what, go for it, sockpuppet... you go on and do just that. In fact I think you should videotape the whole thing so we can watch as you make that attempt... the comedic value would be through the roof!
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 5, 2008 5:39 PM
Er, isn't that what Easter is for?
And that you and your cult celebrates the fact that someone (if he existed) was tortured and murdered at the urging of his own father so that father could forgive humanity (who he created imperfect) for sins all but two of them had not committed is the perfect illustration of the moral vacuity implicit in the christian belief system.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 5, 2008 5:40 PM
How very Puritan.
But it's too late. Christmas is a national holiday, and therefore Christians do not own it. If you want to have your own celebration of the religious significance of Christmas, that's your prerogative. But you have no say whatsoever in how the rest of the nation celebrates it.
Posted by: SASnSA | December 5, 2008 5:40 PM
The funniest thing about Christmas is that nobody knows when Jesus was born (if he ever was), not even what season he was born in; but many Christians will argue till their dying breath that it was December 25th. Sorry Christians, but that was just the date of a Pagan holiday, celebrating the rebirth of the sun, that the early Christians wanted to go away.
Posted by: CJO | December 5, 2008 5:40 PM
In order to obtain a consecrated host, the larcenous crimes of misrepresentation and fraud must be committed in order to obtain the "property" used. The perpetrator must pretend to be a member in good standing of an organization, and must deceive an authorized representative of that organization in order to acquire the "property", which upon receipt, becomes classified in legal terminolgy as "stolen goods".
We've heard this line of frankly preposterous pseudo-legalese on the order of hundreds of times since the heady days of crackergate, and you know what? You're full of shit.
1st, no pretense or deception is necessary. Walk up to the guy in the dress, and he'll give you a cracker. Even in Catholic doctrine, being "a member in good standing" is taken to be a matter between the individual and god. There simply is no fact of the matter as regards an individual's standing, and, in any case, different churches approach the matter differently.
2nd, there is no property on which a criminal proceeding could even begin. The state has no legitimate interest in the disposition of items without material value.
You're vaguely fumbling toward the act of pocketing a magic cracker being some kind of breach of contract, but even there, you have no case whatsoever. Matters of contract law are civil, not criminal, law; and in order for there to be any kind of implied contract, the church would have to make a good faith effort actively to ensure that all participants in the ceremony understand all of what is expected of them, as well as what, exactly, is to be delivered. And you'll never see such an effort.
In short, you're a dumbass.
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | December 5, 2008 5:41 PM
Posted by: Pete Rooke | December 5, 2008
If anyone, at anytime ever puts something in your body, just go ahead and consider it a gift. Okay?
You failed to apply the analogy to the situation appropriately. Taken individually from its reference, of course it's easy to mock.
Great! The Rookie Weasel is back to saying that we just cannot understand his analogies. Sorry, a stake through your hand is nothing like an atheist statement on public propery.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 5, 2008 5:41 PM
Fire -
Wow... I fudged that one...
yeesh... yes, re-reading that I see what you're saying... looks like I skipped over a few important pronouns... like "they" and "they"...
ouch... apologies... I need a drink... who's with me?
Posted by: CrypticLife | December 5, 2008 5:43 PM
Ummm. . . the atheist sign was put up as a counterpoint to the nativity, and then the sign was stolen and mutilated -- and it's atheists who are trying to monopolize the public square?????
Rooke's not weaseling. He's made it clear he agrees with the theft.
Gaaahh. . . I don't blame her for being creeped out.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 5, 2008 5:44 PM
s/QPS/CPS/ in my #276, of course.
Posted by: Kel | December 5, 2008 5:44 PM
Woah, Pete tried to grab the point and run with it but missed it by a long way (and still ran anyway).
Pete, Christianity was an amalgamation of pagan festivals (based on their own beliefs) and Christianity. Where's the tradition in that? What we have today is a secular holiday in a capitalist society, so of course there is going to be plenty of consumerism - it's what our society does.
If it makes you feel better, I put a "Happy Festivus" sign on a pole at work. At home though we have a tree. And at Christmas I'm going to spend time with my family and give gifts. I will partake in nothing related to Jesus, yet this is the way I celebrate Christmas. Are you going to say I'm wrong for doing so?
Posted by: Zar | December 5, 2008 5:44 PM
"I don't consider you to be general to the public. My position is far closer to what is "normal" in America!"
I don't think the average American enjoys being spanked by non-theists.
"If someone were to place a stake through my right hand I would not consider it "stealing" to remove it and then return it to the owner (etc.)!!"
You'd return it to the owner to have it put in again. And again. And AGAIN. HARDER. OH GOD PLEASE HARDER. YES. YES! TELL ME HOW BAD I AM! TELL ME HOW IGNORANT I AM!!! OH, YES, PERSECUTE ME, DADDY! PERSECUTE ME ALL NIGHT LONG!!! OH GOD IT HURTS SO GOOD.
Posted by: Fire | December 5, 2008 5:45 PM
Celtic: "who's with me?"
I am!
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 5, 2008 5:46 PM
As to your error - democracy does emphatically *not* equal the right to express views in a public forum. If people decide that doing so should result in death - then that is perfectly compatible with democracy.
Only if you're stupid enough to think "democracy" means untrammeled power for a majority... oh, it's Pete Rooke. Carry on.
Posted by: Happiness Runs | December 5, 2008 5:46 PM
Celtic Evolution @ 215
Thanks for agreeing with me. These signs do exactly as you describe:
"... making representative claim about the "real" position of a larger group. Wow... how many is that today?
Epic fail."
My Point EXACTLY. Thanks for your agreement.
Posted by: Brain Hertz | December 5, 2008 5:46 PM
I'm pretty sure this was exactly the sort of shit that was being imagined with the "weaseling" clause.
The sign in question wasn't actually attached to a stake and then rammed through your right hand. It was set up on public property with all relevant permissions having been obtained beforehand.
So could you please just answer the question and say whether you condone its being stolen?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 5, 2008 5:47 PM
I see Pete "well meaning fool" Rook is living up to his nickname. Pete, the first amendment to the US constitution guarantees that free speech goes to everybody, not just those in the majority. Second, answer Janine's question directly, or are you afraid the answer will show you to be an even bigger fool than we already think you are. Third, quoting religious bigots like Bill Donohue show you to be as much of an imbecile as he is, and just as intolerant.
Posted by: Pete Rooke | December 5, 2008 5:48 PM
Wow... I fudged that one...
yeesh... yes, re-reading that I see what you're saying... looks like I skipped over a few important pronouns... like "they" and "they"...
ouch... apologies... I need a drink... who's with me?
As usual (nothing I've seen from you suggests otherwise).
I grow weary of the arrogance displayed on this thread. You people will readily lambaste someone simply because you mistakenly identify them as a theist without even considering the position they advocate (take the analogy I sketched futher up thread as an example and the mauling it received detached from its point of reference).
Step back and take a moment to reflect on your approach.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 5, 2008 5:53 PM
Wait, are you saying that you're an atheist?
Posted by: Pete Rooke | December 5, 2008 5:54 PM
Are you going to say I'm wrong for doing so?
Wrong for barring Jesus from your life, yes. The actual values you espouse in that picture are not too far removed from how I celebrate Christmas (although I sense there is an insidious undertone in your behaviour - e.g. "Happy Festivus"). Are you an active seeker?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 5, 2008 5:55 PM
Pete "well meaning fool" Rooke, what about your arrogance coming to an atheist blog and godbotting? You get what you gave. Live with it. You need to take a step back and stop posting your imbecilities here. You have your own blog. Post there.
If you try to say you are absolutely right, we are going to have to insist you showing physical evidence for your imaginary god. Until you are ready to do that, stay away.
Posted by: John Morales | December 5, 2008 5:56 PM
PR:
Like being willing and able to reconsider, to acknowledge errors, to be of good faith towards one's interlocutor?It is a contrast with your approach, I grant.
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | December 5, 2008 5:56 PM
The Rookie Weasel is such a moral monster, he incoherently dismisses Celtic Evolution's apology to an other person.
And yet again, he accuses all of us of being to arrogant to understand yet an other of his inane analogy. Sorry bub but I understand. I would like to see if a half way sane person here can show that I got it wrong.
Or maybe you should SPELL IT OUT for us. You know, the Rookie kind of sucks as an educator.
Posted by: Pete Rooke | December 5, 2008 5:57 PM
No, I am a Catholic. The point was that he is seeing one side and attacking them without considering what they might have to offer (that may even challenge his preconceptions).
Posted by: dinkum | December 5, 2008 5:57 PM
"Happy Festuvis" has an insidious undertone...you have to be FUCKING KIDDING.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 5, 2008 5:59 PM
I grow weary of the arrogance displayed on this thread. - Pete Rooke
Well, stop displaying it then!
Posted by: WRMartin | December 5, 2008 5:59 PM
The:
Imaginary birth
Of an imaginary person
On an imaginary date
From an imaginary fornication
Between an imaginary god
And an imaginary virgin
(or should I say macro-virgin?)
That ultimate sacrifice? Believing that requires more than a sacrifice; a standard lobotomy wouldn't suffice. Not on ice or with rice. Not even if you're extra nice.
[too much Dr. Seuss lately]
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | December 5, 2008 5:59 PM
Posted by: Pete Rooke | December 5, 2008
Are you going to say I'm wrong for doing so?
Wrong for barring Jesus from your life, yes.
And here we find the pea hidden under the forty mattresses.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 5, 2008 5:59 PM
Pete "total fool" Rooke, time for you to show the physical evidence for your imaginary god. Or go back on your meds. What's the problem Pete, you god, an omnipotent being, a little shy?
Posted by: mayhempix | December 5, 2008 6:00 PM
Rooke Weasel:
"If someone were to place a stake through my right hand..."
I guess that makes him a stakeholder in the push for a government sanctified religion.
If someone were to place a steak in my right hand I wouldn't return it.
I would cook it over hot coals on both sides until almost, but not quite, burnt on the outside and still blood red in the center, then eat it.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 5, 2008 6:00 PM
Because?
Festivus is insidious?
Posted by: Pete Rooke | December 5, 2008 6:01 PM
I think I will leave you to dwell on what has been written. Until next time,
Pete Rooke
Posted by: Full of Shit Dumbass | December 5, 2008 6:01 PM
CJO @ 281
Civil suits are for those seeking restitution that is a direct benefit to the victim. That is not applicable in this case. The item was destroyed and is irreplaceable.
Criminal prosecutions are to protect the public and punish perpetrators. They are not intended to directly benefit victims, but to punish perpetrators.
I don't expect the State of Minnesota will ever press the charges, so it will never be decided by a jury. But that does not change the facts that crimes were committed.
Convince PZ turn himself in and see what happens if you are really so certain these were not crimes.
Posted by: Lowell | December 5, 2008 6:01 PM
It's amazing that in a thread discussing a clearly criminal act (stealing the atheist sign), we get more fucking law-trolls arguing that PZ committed a crime by throwing away a cracker he received in the mail.
Get over it people! Just because PZ's actions pissed you off doesn't make them illegal.
It's like when little children threaten to call the cops on each other, or yell "I'm gonna sue you!"
Posted by: Capital Dan | December 5, 2008 6:03 PM
Who gives a fuck what a worthless, sanctimonious, arrogant little troll, such as yourself, with nothing to contribute to the conversation, does and does not grow weary of?
Really, Pete. No one cares. Stop pretending they do.
It's embarrassingly astounding how far you'll go for attention.
Posted by: Pete Rooke | December 5, 2008 6:03 PM
WRMartin-
Simply because something is in the form of a poem does not lend it any more credence, or Cuttlefish would be a genius...
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 5, 2008 6:04 PM
What?
Then who mistakenly who as a theist? Who is the atheist so mistakenly identified, and how do you know it was a mistake?
What are you even talking about?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 5, 2008 6:04 PM
Pete "total fool" Rooke, we never dwell on the words of godbots, because there is absolutely no logic to them. Your posts show you to be an illogical godbot too. So all you words will be given the due contemplation they deserve, that is none.
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | December 5, 2008 6:04 PM
Posted by: Pete Rooke | December 5, 2008
I think I will leave you to dwell on what has been written. Until next time,
Rookie Weasel
You are sadly mistaken if you think you are a teacher of any sort.
For most of us, you are sport. And you never fail to spill out the insane confetti.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 5, 2008 6:05 PM
The item was destroyed and is irreplaceable. - Full of Shit Dumbass
Well, your parents certainly chose your name well - but how lucky their surname was Dumbass! Remind me again - what is it that good Catholics do with the consecrated wafer?
Posted by: Pete Rooke | December 5, 2008 6:06 PM
Even Jesus could not transform the worst sinner Janine. We have a choice which is all I will say on the matter.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 5, 2008 6:06 PM
Wowbagger-NOT @269
Seems to me you just accused PZ of a criminal offence in the State of Minnesota. I don't know about MN or US law, but where I come from, accusing someone of a criminal offence that they've not been convicted of is pretty much a slam-dunk libel case.
So, have you the courage of your convictions to post your contact details so PZ's lawyer can get in touch, or are you a coward and a liar?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 5, 2008 6:08 PM
Whats the matter Pete me fool, can't you go away? We will get the last word in you delusional liar.
Posted by: Pete Rooke | December 5, 2008 6:08 PM
what is it that good Catholics do with the consecrated wafer?
They consume it.
Posted by: notedscholar | December 5, 2008 6:09 PM
I'll file this under: Ehhhhhhhhhh who cares.
NS
http://sciencedefeated.wordpress.com/
Posted by: Kel | December 5, 2008 6:09 PM
Judge not lest ye be judged motherfucker!
So would you agree that Christmas can be celebrated any way you wish? It's all above board. One of my mates in the adjacent section of our office was putting up decorations in his section; now I'm not one for anything elaborate - I'm a very minimalist person. So there's a giant pole next to my desk which reminded me of the Seinfeld episode. So I put up a sign that says "Happy Festivus (your gift has been donated to the human fund)". Now anyone who has seen Seinfeld will look at that and laugh.If you were going to celebrate the birth of Jesus, why wouldn't you do so in spring? After all the story fits far better in a spring setting than a winter. Really you are celebrating the birth of Mithra on December 25 ;)
Seeker of what? If you mean knowledge, then I am an active seeker. But if you mean Jesus, then no. I already found Jesus, he was behind the couch along with my keys. ;)Posted by: Capital Dan | December 5, 2008 6:10 PM
I think we can translate this as "Hurrr-durrrr..."
I might be off a bit, though. It's been a while since I spoke Window-Licker.
Posted by: WRMartin | December 5, 2008 6:10 PM
No one is leaving until we have the Feats of Strength!
</insidious>
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 5, 2008 6:10 PM
I'm starting to think that Christians have similar Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle-Dee fantasies about the contents of the Statute Book to their fantasies about the contents of the Bible.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 5, 2008 6:10 PM
OM NOM NOM NOM!
Posted by: dinkum | December 5, 2008 6:10 PM
Janine, as applicable as "Rookie Weasel" may be, in light of post #316, might a lurker suggest "Petey Jesus?"
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 5, 2008 6:11 PM
Pete "total fool" Rooke, show us the physical evidence for your imaginary god. A person of your alleged godliness surely has some proof laying around. Or is the existence of god just another lie from your mouth?
Posted by: Voltaire Kinison | December 5, 2008 6:11 PM
Adding to Nativty scenes is brilliant...
How about apples in honor of Sir Issac Newton... (Newton dolls may be hard to find)
And Newton actually was born on Dec.25.
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | December 5, 2008 6:11 PM
Posted by: Pete Rooke | December 5, 2008
Even Jesus could not transform the worst sinner Janine. We have a choice which is all I will say on the matter.
You say that to me as if the name would have some kind of effect on me. But please go on about your connection to THE TRUTH. It makes for great comedy.
It is this mental blinders that makes you a moral monster.
Posted by: Lowell | December 5, 2008 6:12 PM
Emmet,
Fortunately, PZ wouldn't have any damages in a libel case because nobody gives a fuck what the-troll-who-keeps-changing-his-name thinks.
Posted by: Pete Rooke | December 5, 2008 6:14 PM
I don't watch television (barring "Songs of Praise" every now and then).
Posted by: samuel Black | December 5, 2008 6:14 PM
Everything I have said involved the sancrosancty of property according to US law. PZed owned his cracker, he can do with it what he wants. Christian people own their nativities, they can do with it what they want. Anybody interfering with that is stomping on the right to own property.
OK. OK. I get it. I get it. Cracker: Legal; Stealing nativity: illegal. But come on. If your only criterion for morality is legality, then you don't really have much moral high ground to lose. To me the recent comments of NHL enforcer Avery (legal), are far more despicable than, say, jay-walking (illegal). Maybe if PZ had called it "legal high ground", I wouldn't have made any comments at all.
What you keep arguing is that PZed's cracker defacement--a symbolic and literal smashing of an idea--is the same thing as preventing Catholics from practising as they belief.
No. I never intended to give this message. I may not have been as unambiguous as I could have been, but all I ever meant to argue is that the wafer defacement (while perfectly legal) constitutes needless insults to those who practice communion, and as such forfeits moral high ground.
It isn't. When pointed out, you shifted your argument to the nativity,
Shifted? The argument started with the nativity, remember.
which as I have already stated, I believe that religious folk have the right to whatever display they want on their own property (or with equal time on public property).
That's motherhood. In order to make a better parallel to wafergate, I invented a way to legally disrespect the nativity display with the wood-chipper display. To my surprise at least one commenter here has no problem with it. I wonder then, why someone doesn't do it. That would get BillO's attention! And in my opinion, give up much more moral high ground than stealing the doll.
Where you are wrong is trying to draw an exact parallel between PZed's cracker annihilation and a criminal act.
Again with the legality. But I never did this. From the first post, I admitted differences, which means the parallel is not exact. On this, I think I was unambiguous. I merely claimed that both acts were disrespectful, and both forfeited moral high ground. Many disagreed with this because (again) one is legal and one isn't. And that's fine if your sense of morality is that shallow.
But because you really seem incapable of making the distinction, because you want to privilege ideas over rights, I think we'll have to say this is the end of the conversation. Anyway, I have an appointment I have to go to.
Well that's a pity, because I won't get a response to my brilliant riposte. As if!
Posted by: mayhempix | December 5, 2008 6:16 PM
Pete Rooke was first asked this question way back at post #155:
"Do you or do you not condone the stealing of the atheist sign?"
We are past now past 300 comments and he still hasn't answered it directly.
(Although we do know he won't condemn the action even though it breaks one of the basic Christian commandments.)
Rooke is the true champion of Weaseldom.
In other words... he's a Christian.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 5, 2008 6:16 PM
Lowell @330,
Fair point :o)
Posted by: Capital Dan | December 5, 2008 6:17 PM
So, exactly how much undigested Jesus is there floating around in people's septic tanks and city sewerage systems?
And, what happens to all those alligators who eat the leftover Jesus? And, the dung beetles?!?
Yup. I see how this could become a problem.
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | December 5, 2008 6:17 PM
Emmet, I think you are mistaken.
Does this sounds like a person who would accuse PZ of a crime over Crackergate?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 5, 2008 6:17 PM
Poor Pete, afraid to let reality dilute his delusions. Take your meds.
Posted by: Pete Rooke | December 5, 2008 6:17 PM
It is wrong to steal. It was wrong to place the sign there in the first place.
Posted by: Tulse | December 5, 2008 6:19 PM
I was always taught that it was Easter which celebrated that "sacrifice".
And explain again to me how it is such an "ultimate" sacrifice if I am a god, and thus know that, at worst, I'm going to have a bad long weekend before I pop right back up and get to go live in eternal bliss? Sure, I might be pissed off at my dad (who oddly enough is also me) for making me go through that little unpleasantness, but really, how does that kind of "sacrifice" compare to, say, dying slowly of terminal cancer, or starvation, or of child abuse, all of which happen every single day?
Posted by: Kel | December 5, 2008 6:19 PM
Why was it wrong to put the sign there in the first place? Is it really any more wrong than having the nativity scene in winter?Posted by: spurge | December 5, 2008 6:19 PM
"It was wrong to place the sign there in the first place. "
Why?
Posted by: tsg | December 5, 2008 6:20 PM
Wrong, Full of Shit Dumbass (at least your nick is accurate). You can get a box of 250 for about $6 or about 3 cents a piece and have a guy in a robe wave his hands over them. They are trivially replaceable.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 5, 2008 6:20 PM
Pete, you don't get to qualify the statement. The US Constitution says that it was right for the sign to be there, so you are wrong again.
Posted by: Capital Dan | December 5, 2008 6:20 PM
And you clearly don't read anything, so...
Posted by: mayehmpix | December 5, 2008 6:20 PM
"Posted by: Pete Rooke | December 5, 2008 6:14 PM
I don't watch television (barring "Songs of Praise" every now and then)"
Yep. He represents the average American just like he claims. Sure he does.
Why do Christians obfuscate, lie and steal when it suits their purpose but condemn everyone else for the same actions?
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | December 5, 2008 6:20 PM
Lowell (#330), I think that Emmet misunderstood something somewhere. Emmet has hardly been a troll.
Posted by: WRMartin | December 5, 2008 6:20 PM
Corrected that for you. You're welcome.
Posted by: dinkum | December 5, 2008 6:21 PM
You've made the assertion. Back it up.
Posted by: Siamang | December 5, 2008 6:21 PM
Rev. Big Dumb Chimp called it all the way back at #28.
Posted by: Kel | December 5, 2008 6:21 PM
Isn't it nice that when he condemns the actions (stealing is wrong) that he adds a rationalisation to it (displaying a message of atheism is wrong)Posted by: Owlmirror | December 5, 2008 6:21 PM
Ah! Moral vs legal high ground.
You mean, like Webster Cook's moral and legal high ground, in having been assaulted and attacked and threatened with expulsion and additional and worse attacks and assaults by his fellow Catholics in the first place?
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 5, 2008 6:22 PM
Janine @336,
I think it's you who's mistaken. A morphing troll adopted the nym Wowbagger-NOT for the post I referenced. That was the nym I used. I didn't confuse him with the real Wowbagger (one of my favourite posters) for one second, nor would I.
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | December 5, 2008 6:25 PM
Posted by: Pete Rooke | December 5, 2008
It is wrong to steal. It was wrong to place the sign there in the first place.
It was blasphemy!
ONE GOD!
ONE RELIGION!
ONE PEOPLE!
ONE VOICE!
And the Rookie Weasel is big sky daddy's own spokesweasel.
Posted by: Voltaire Kinison | December 5, 2008 6:26 PM
Pete Rooke: December 5, 2008 6:14 PM
"I don't watch television"
But the television is watching you Pete.
Posted by: Capital Dan | December 5, 2008 6:26 PM
Please, I've been drinking, and I feel I can answer for "Piñata" Pete Rooke.
It's all about the grass. We just can't have signs placed willy-nilly on our well-manicured lawns and whatnots.
Posted by: Lowell | December 5, 2008 6:27 PM
Janine @346,
I should have been clearer. Emmet wondered whether the troll-whose-name-changes committed libel by accusing PZ of a crime.
I was just saying that, even if it was libelous, PZ's reputation has not been damaged because any reasonable person would know that said troll is full of shit.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 5, 2008 6:27 PM
With all the traffic Pete "total fool" Rooke generated for a thread that was beginning to die out, PZ can now look forward to a HDTV in the bedroom too. See Pete, when you post, you help out PZ. So if you stay away, you hurt PZ.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 5, 2008 6:28 PM
Thus spake Janine @346:
No, again, I think you've got your wires crossed. I challenged the morphing troll on his libelous statement about PZ, then Lowell just pointed out there'd be no damages in a libel action because nobody cares what the troll thinks. Lowell didn't mean to suggest anything about me, he was making an observation at the troll's expense.
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | December 5, 2008 6:29 PM
Emmet, things have been going so fast here today, I did not notice "Wowbagger-NOT". I am sorry. I just did not want two of the regulars here fighting over stupid shit.
Please feel free to stomp the morphing troll.
Posted by: mayhempix | December 5, 2008 6:30 PM
Posted by: Pete Rooke | December 5, 2008 6:17 PM
"It is wrong to steal. It was wrong to place the sign there in the first place."
Ahhh!!! the fine art of weaseling!
Notice he didn't say "the sign" in the first sentence but does in the second.
Christians and wingnuts are great at insinuating the appearance of relationships when none exist. Then when called on it they claim that technically they never said any such thing. But they have no qualms in letting the uneducated sheep they herd believe the "untrue" assumptions they ignorantly bought into.
Now passing comment #350 and he still hasn't given a direct answer.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 5, 2008 6:30 PM
Hey, maybe Pete Rooke is PZ!
A cunning plan, Dr. Myers! A cunning plan!
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 5, 2008 6:30 PM
Janine #336,
Emmett's comment wasn't aimed at me (the 'real Wowbagger), it was toward the morphing idiot troll who called himself Not-Wowbagger in post #269.
Posted by: CJO | December 5, 2008 6:30 PM
Convince PZ turn himself in and see what happens if you are really so certain these were not crimes.
Are you really this stupid?
He posted all about it on a publicly accessible website with daily traffic approching that of your mother's bedroom!
If the authorities were at all interested, I don't think they would have waited for him to turn himself in.
Posted by: Sanity Jane | December 5, 2008 6:33 PM
pixelfish @ #148:
Is Jebus homeopathic??
Posted by: dinkum | December 5, 2008 6:34 PM
Posted by: Capital Dan | December 5, 2008 6:26 PM
Yeah, okay, granted. That shit's hard to maintain, especially in December. I suppose your average injection-molded-plastic seasonal statuette could be converted into a sprinkler, or (better yet) a manure-spreader.
Posted by: tsg | December 5, 2008 6:34 PM
Then it's a good thing we aren't relying on simple legality to make that determination. The issue is, and always has been, freedom of expression. The moral high ground is gained by defending theirs despite their adamant and blatant refusal to grant us ours.
Ignoring the context doesn't make it go away regardless of how much you try.
Your concern is noted.
I'm going to spell this out very succinctly and then I give up. Crackergate was in response to the unreasonable demand that everyone treat the cracker as Christ because some believe it is thereby denying others the right to freedom of religion. Refraining from stealing or otherwise vandalizing the nativity display is respecting the Christians' right of freedom of expression. Context is everything. If you can't see that then there is no point in continuing the discussion and, frankly, no reason to give your opinion on the moral high ground any consideration whatsoever.
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | December 5, 2008 6:35 PM
Lowell, Emmet and Wowbagger; I apologize to all three of you. But I want you all to know, my intentions were good. Even if I am an insulting sinner in the eyes of the Rookie Weasel.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 5, 2008 6:35 PM
Janine @359,
No problem: it's hard to keep track in a thread this fast. Of all the people here, I think there's precious little danger of myself and Wowbagger fighting: we seem to agree on everything and have a similar love of snarky troll-stomping.
Posted by: gypsytag | December 5, 2008 6:37 PM
Simply because something is in the form of a poem does not lend it any more credence, or Cuttlefish would be a genius...
Cuttlefish is a genius
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 5, 2008 6:37 PM
I don't know how much beer it would take for PZ to think that way. Probably enough to make him pass out and slip under the table (that would be required for me to think that way). Even passed out, PZ is still more intelligent than that godbot.Still, it would be a cunning plan if PZ could pull that good a Poe.
Posted by: gypsytag | December 5, 2008 6:40 PM
also, i read that they found the sign in a ditch and it has been returned to its proper place.
of course i think I read that on fox news.
I go there everyonce in a while to see what's passing for facts nowadays.
Posted by: mayehmpix | December 5, 2008 6:40 PM
"I feel I can answer for "Piñata" Pete Rooke.
It's all about the grass."
Rookie Weasel is a pothead?
That would explain the "giving back the stake through his hand" comment.
Any idea where I can score some of that?
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 5, 2008 6:41 PM
Janine @367,
How could it be otherwise? Honestly, I think we know your track-record here well enough to know that your intentions toward us could never be anything other than good. No harm, no foul. Apology unnecessary.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 5, 2008 6:44 PM
Thus spake Nerd of Redhead:
Oh I think PZ is that clever. And has anyone ever seen PZ and Pete Rooke in the same place at the same time, huh? Have they? Huh?
Posted by: Lowell | December 5, 2008 6:44 PM
Agreed. No problem at all, Patricia.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 5, 2008 6:45 PM
Some of us have wondered that. And would like to know so we could spread the word to avoid that drug. Too many side effects like hallucinations involving Jebus.Posted by: WRMartin | December 5, 2008 6:46 PM
New band name: The Insulting Sinners
Or would they be the backup singers? Or guests on the album?
Pharyngula featuring The Insulting Sinners.
A new 'award' from Dr. Myers?
Janine ID ADA The Lone Drinker, I.S.
In any case, you are in good company Janine.
Posted by: mayhempix | December 5, 2008 6:46 PM
"PZ can now look forward to a HDTV in the bedroom too. "
Being the socialist-lefty PZ is, shouldn't he be sharing those blog ad revenues with us?
;^ )
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | December 5, 2008 6:46 PM
Completely OT but I think some of the people hear should know that Forrest J Ackermann just died.
Posted by: Lowell | December 5, 2008 6:46 PM
@375
I meant Janine, not Patricia. Aghhhh!
Posted by: Shamar | December 5, 2008 6:46 PM
I wish that I could see fsmguy's Eucharist desecration videos. I never got a chance to see them before they got taken off of youtube. If someone knows where I can see them, please let me know.....
Posted by: gypsytag | December 5, 2008 6:49 PM
if anyone has undigested jesus still in them i recommend
2 glasses of
1TBLSPN epsom salts in 3/4 cup water taken 2 hours apart
you might want to stop eating about 8 hours prior to doing this unless you enjoy crippling bowel movements.
if that doesn't clear you out, then you need to see an exorcist.
also i'm not a doctor, so don't do this.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 5, 2008 6:50 PM
All poster are equal, but some are more equal than others.......Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | December 5, 2008 6:54 PM
Thank You WRMartin! I now have a new moniker. Anyone else who wants to adopt "Insulting Sinner" or "IS", feel free to do so.
Posted by: spurge | December 5, 2008 6:56 PM
But there is no such thing as sin.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 5, 2008 7:00 PM
You could also change the wording.
"Sinning Insulter of Ninnies"
("and/or Nitwits", perhaps?)
Posted by: clinteas | December 5, 2008 7:01 PM
I CAN HAZ CRACKER THREAD ?
Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | December 5, 2008 7:01 PM
But earlier this afternoon, the Rookie Weasel called me both a sinner and insulting. Therefore, it must be true.
Posted by: WRMartin, I.S. | December 5, 2008 7:01 PM
And along comes spurge to ruin our fun. ;)
Adios fellow Insulting Sinners - I'm off to celebrate the repeal of Prohibition.
Posted by: Brain Hertz | December 5, 2008 7:04 PM
Certainly not. In Rookeworld, failure to completely agree with Pete Rooke (and particularly on the subject of the existence of specific undetectable fairies) is extremely insidious.
Posted by: mayhempix | December 5, 2008 7:04 PM
"And would like to know so we could spread the word to avoid that drug. Too many side effects like hallucinations involving Jebus"
I was thinking something more along the line a of Mary Magadalene hallucination while Jebus hangs around and watches...
Posted by: Kel | December 5, 2008 7:05 PM
I had an argument I wrote about faith being useless as a form of evidence and I had it called "completely vile" and her response was to call me a "pompous, elitist, bigoted asshole" through a prose. You know you are doing something right when you invoke such a strong gut reaction.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 5, 2008 7:06 PM
Thus spake Shamar @381:
It was FSMdude, not FSMguy. I saw them all (about 40 in total) and, TBH, you're not missing much. Each one was a couple of minutes long and involved him burning, smoking, drilling, shooting, blending, etc. a couple of communion wafers. A few of them were quite funny, but, for the most part, they were pretty straightforward destruction of the wafer. There were copies of them on a few other YouTube accounts for a while after Dom took them down, but they all seem to be gone now.
Posted by: That Guy | December 5, 2008 7:07 PM
May Reason Prevail!
One of the many fruits of "myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds":
http://www.crs.org/newsroom/releases/
Some of the fruits of "There is no god, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world"":
http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=30882&page=1
Posted by: spurge | December 5, 2008 7:10 PM
Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner
"But earlier this afternoon, the Rookie Weasel called me both a sinner and insulting. Therefore, it must be true."
Is today opposite day?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 5, 2008 7:10 PM
Oooh, that's a good one.Posted by: Samuel Black | December 5, 2008 7:14 PM
The issue is, and always has been, freedom of expression. The moral high ground is gained by defending theirs despite their adamant and blatant refusal to grant us ours.
With you so far.
Crackergate was in response to the unreasonable demand that everyone treat the cracker as Christ because some believe it is thereby denying others the right to freedom of religion. Refraining from stealing or otherwise vandalizing the nativity display is respecting the Christians' right of freedom of expression.
The sign thieves have denied others freedom of expression by unreasonably stealing the sign, so there is the context. But PZ's response is very different. Instead of recommending or threatening something to ridicule christian beliefs, even if it were short of denying freedom of expression, such as say a mock nativity scene, he recommends doing nothing, to maintain the moral high ground. He could have recommended doing nothing in wafergate, to maintain the moral high ground. Or to argue against the religious zealots' actions. Instead he ridiculed them and their beliefs, and in my opinion, lost the moral high ground. I know: "my concern is noted".
So I maintain PZ learned something from wafergate.
What about you? Do you think it would be ok to set up a nativity scene with Mary feeding a Jesus-doll to a wood chipper? It doesn't deny freedom of expression, but it ridicules a religious belief. It seems like a good parallel to the the cracker case.
Posted by: Rick Schauer | December 5, 2008 7:14 PM
Well, stealing by christians is much preferable then xtian shooting each other over xmas presents in a Toys R Us. If I have to choose; stealing is way better behavior then killing. Let's see...what did I do with those commandments?
Posted by: gaypaganunitarianagnostic | December 5, 2008 7:18 PM
Someone said someting about what symbol Unitarian use. UU's symbol is a flaming chalice. Dates back to WWII I believe
Posted by: Rey Fox | December 5, 2008 7:24 PM
"I don't watch television (barring "Songs of Praise" every now and then). "
He used to watch Davey and Goliath, but found the idea of a talking dog to be blasphemous.
--------
"It is wrong to steal. It was wrong to place the sign there in the first place."
Ahhh!!! the fine art of weaseling!
Notice he didn't say "the sign" in the first sentence but does in the second."
--------
The thing you have to remember about all those moral proscriptions in the Bible is that they only apply to the book's intended audience in their dealings with each other. Pete Rooke demonstrates that aptly, he doesn't give a shit about anyone who doesn't share his narrow Christian beliefs.
Posted by: Kel | December 5, 2008 7:25 PM
I'd go to an art exhibit that had that!Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 5, 2008 7:28 PM
Rick Schauer @398,
The article says two guys were shot dead in Toys"Я"Us and authorities indicate that it may have been gang related.
So, 72% of Californians are Christian, but what other reason is there to believe that they were Christians or that there was "over xmas presents". What am I missing?
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 5, 2008 7:30 PM
s/that there was/that it was/ in my #402
Posted by: Teh Merkin | December 5, 2008 7:30 PM
Wait a few hours. It can certainly be replaced...
Posted by: Teleprompter | December 5, 2008 7:32 PM
That Guy @ 394
Sure, there are people who have died for Christianity. Just like there are people who have died for Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, and Sikhism.
What makes those who have died for your faith more special or more important than those who have died for other faiths? Martyrdom has no implications for the validity of a religious belief, or all of the various and diverse religions that have had and still do have martyrs would be valid.
Also, I do agree with you that some people who are religious do a great deal of good work; many people do a good deal of good work in the name of religion. However, many people do good work who aren't religious. Warren Buffett and Bill Gates aren't religious, but they give away billions of dollars to philanthrophy. Religion helps sometimes, but you don't have to be religious to have a desire to help others.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 5, 2008 7:34 PM
Tell that to this woman of relaxed morals I dated in College.
If there's not sin, we sure came close to creating it.
Posted by: windy | December 5, 2008 7:35 PM
Messing with a nativity scene is only cool if you're Mr. Bean
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | December 5, 2008 7:35 PM
And, of course, you're wrong. PZ was telling people not to steal stuff. You know, that old fashioned idea that so many Christians ignore: "Thou shalt not steal."
No theft was involved in crackergate. Just a demonstration that certain people couldn't insist that everyone accept their wacko idea that a guy in a dress could perform magic involving a bakery product and a make-belief sky-pixie.
But thank you for playing. There'll be a nice gift for you on your way out...or possibly not.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 5, 2008 7:36 PM
would it be too much to add another couple of lett....
bah nah. too muchh
Posted by: MikeM | December 5, 2008 7:36 PM
As much as I decry vandalism -- just think about how your own hometown would look without it; I know mine would look nicer -- I still can't stand those giant inflatable "decorations" (there's those air-finger quotes again!) people put up.
Well, someone stole someone's gigantic inflatable Santa in Sacramento.
And the Bee decided it's news.
Hmmm. When my house was burglarized, it wasn't news. And some irreplaceable items of ours got stolen. About $5,000 worth.
http://www.sacbee.com/latest/story/1451514.html
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 5, 2008 7:36 PM
Janine of the fluctuating titles,
All is good. It's really the fault of the lackwit who thought it was clever to incorporate another's handle into his screen name. And he's scuttled back into whatever slim-covered swamp he crawled out of, so we needn't worry too much about it happening again.
Posted by: spurge | December 5, 2008 7:39 PM
@Rev. BigDumbChimp
"Tell that to this woman of relaxed morals I dated in College. "
Do you still have her number?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 5, 2008 7:42 PM
We have two roundabouts on one of the main streets in my neighborhood. One has the fountain of perpetual teenager soaping and the other is the Christmas display. It's a nice neighborhood. Upscale. Nice houses upper middle class houses. Well kept yards.
As soon as thanksgiving day has passes the gaudy ass inflatable x-mas display on the 2nd roundabout complete with blinding wreck inducing lights and flashing reindeer noses is installed.
it is a fucking nightmare.
Posted by: ggab I. S. | December 5, 2008 7:43 PM
Hi kids!
Did I miss something?
Over 400 comments.
How many trolls we talkin' here?
My little brother once stole a virgin Mary statue.
He put it back a couple days later with a sign on it that read "She's not a virgin anymore."
I didn't care for the theft part, but that was pretty damned funny.
Posted by: Zar | December 5, 2008 7:44 PM
I grow weary of the arrogance displayed on this thread.
Meaning you came?
Unfortunately, I saw you immediately came back. You really are a masochist! Well, blather on. Maybe you'll get a sounding, if you ask real nice.
It must be really difficult typing all that with one hand.
Posted by: Teleprompter | December 5, 2008 7:44 PM
@ MikeM #410
I'm sorry about your loss. However, stealing Santa is more obviously more newsworthy because...
Okay, I can't think of a good reason.
I believe that it gets more coverage because more people identify with Santa than with a stranger they don't know (such as yourself). You see, Santa Claus is like the spirit of Christmas to most people. If you steal Santa, there are a lot of people you're going to seriously upset.
This "War on Christmas" is a facade. The only reason people want to say that there's a "War on Christmas" is because Santa Claus is more popular than baby Jesus in many parts of America. And are we not already familiar with the clear tendency for jealous resentment from the god of the Old Testament (or from his followers - wait, maybe there's a connection)?
Merry Christmas!*
*Because Christmas is already a secular holiday.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 5, 2008 7:44 PM
I saw her recently. Trust me. It's better to stay away.
Posted by: spurge | December 5, 2008 7:48 PM
I will defer to your judgment.
Posted by: Zar | December 5, 2008 7:48 PM
In non-Rook's-spanking-fetish-related news, here's a news report about a tragic theft of a cement Jesus statue. Also, poopie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUJ4es4cYIU
(Apologies if it has been posted before. But it's worth watching again.)
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 5, 2008 7:49 PM
No it doesn't even come close. The context of the incidents is of utmost importance.
Posted by: Samuel Black | December 5, 2008 7:50 PM
So I maintain PZ learned something from wafergate.
And, of course, you're wrong. PZ was telling people not to steal stuff. You know, that old fashioned idea that so many Christians ignore: "Thou shalt not steal."
No theft was involved in crackergate. Just a demonstration that certain people couldn't insist that everyone accept their wacko idea that a guy in a dress could perform magic involving a bakery product and a make-belief sky-pixie.
Right, but how come there was no demonstration of any kind involved this time? Nothing to ridicule christians. Nothing to disrespect dolls. No youtube video of him torching a nativity scene (his own, or one someone might donate). Nothing at all.
What he learned was to respect other peoples' rights to their beliefs, and thereby maintain the moral high ground. And good for him.
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 5, 2008 7:50 PM
Considering how ignorant of the intricacies of their own religion christians tend to be, I imagine many of them would be surprised to hear the Santa Claus isn't what baby Jesus grew up to be.
Posted by: tsg | December 5, 2008 7:50 PM
No, he is not recommending "doing nothing", he is saying that stealing the nativity scene is the wrong thing to do. There is a difference. By publicly advocating for and defending their freedom of expression, he very effectively points out the hypocrisy of those who refuse to grant us ours.
Just saying the same thing over and over isn't making an argument, and you've not convinced me to give your opinion any more weight than that of a concern troll. He was standing up for his and others' rights to freedom of religion: deliberate defiance of the unreasonable demand that religious beliefs are not to be ridiculed. It's called civil disobedience. He never would have even considered doing it if Donahue et al didn't say he couldn't. You can choose to see that as losing moral high ground all you like, but it doesn't make it so just because you say it does.
And until you can back it up with something other than unsupported assertions and vapid platitudes presented as self-evident truths, I will continue to give it zero consideration.
I've already answered this, but no, I don't see anything wrong with a display mocking the nativity scene. Nor do I see anything wrong with the wording of the atheist message. That I respect their right to believe whatever they want does not mean I automatically have to respect their beliefs any more than believing that people should have the right to make their own decisions means I have to think their decisions are necessarily good ones. People can choose to be ignorant if they want, but I don't have to think it's a good choice.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 5, 2008 7:53 PM
And so he should be. Santa Claus appears to do exactly what the stories say he does if you're 6. To my young mind, there was ample evidence that he answered my letters: there were the requested presents under the Christmas tree and the mince pies, which I thoughtfully laid out for him, and carrot (for Rudolph) were always gone. I never got a bike from Baby Jesus, the scabby little git.
Posted by: CrypticLife | December 5, 2008 7:53 PM
I think there is something of a difference there. One person feeding another into a woodchipper can be offensive for reasons entirely separate from religious belief -- it is a clear representation of murder. One doesn't need to know anything about the characters, motivations, or storyline to be disturbed by the scene in Fargo, for example.
I think even the highly tortured theology of Catholics doesn't equate the cracker-stabbing with murder -- the cracker, whether it's Jesus or not, can't die. In fact, if I had free reign over the theology I could make cracker-stabbing mandated rather than forbidden.
The upshot is, when Christians do something unreasonable, how should one respond? It likely depends on many factors, no? In the Cook case the wafer was an integral part of the dispute -- not so with the nativity. What would setting up the woodchipper scene actually mean? Anything? Stabbing the cracker wasn't pure gratuitous insult, it was a statement that "this cracker is a cracker, not a deity. It can be treated like a normal cracker." The woodchipper wouldn't be saying an equivalent statement, unless you happen to be a murdering psychopath.
Could he have recommended something else here? He probably could have, I suppose. I don't think his message here is, "refrain from ridiculing theists", it's just, "don't steal, thereby lowering us to their level". One could even go back and see what being lowered to their level would have been in the Cook case -- I count assault, death threats, and threats to get people fired (note that the one person who was fired, a florist, was so b/c of her own actions).
Posted by: Malcolm | December 5, 2008 7:54 PM
Rick Schauer #398
Obviously you didn't get the memo: Christians don't have to follow the laws from the OT any more, they have been superseded by the new testament.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 5, 2008 7:54 PM
Posted by: rs | December 5, 2008 7:56 PM
Honestly, I think it's a bit assholish to put up an anti-religion sign next to a religious display on a religious holiday.
Instead, atheist should join others to celebrate Christmas, Ramadan, Mickey Mouse Birthday or whatever. It's more fun this way.
Posted by: mayhempix | December 5, 2008 7:56 PM
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 5, 2008 7:44 PM
"I saw her recently. Trust me. It's better to stay away"
See what you do to people?
You screw them and they go apeshit.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 5, 2008 7:57 PM
blockquote fail
Posted by: ggab I.S. | December 5, 2008 8:01 PM
rs
"Honestly, I think it's a bit assholish to put up an anti-religion sign next to a religious display on a religious holiday."
To tell you the truth, I was a little put off by the tone of the sign myself. I would have liked for it to be changed to a more friendly message, but now it's too late.
If the message is changed now, it will seem to be due to the theft. the last thing we want is for them to feel they can continue to intimidate us.
Posted by: chancelikely | December 5, 2008 8:01 PM
This is not a criticism: I don't think PZ "learned" anything from Crackergate that informed his post here today.
I'll wager that his opinion of both theft and freedom of expression would have been exactly the same had the Great Olympia Sign Kerfuffle happened before Crackergate.
Now, I'm not him, and he can even weigh in with his own opinion, but it seems to me that the Right Thing here is pretty damned obvious, and it doesn't take an experience with death threats from fatwa-envious Catholics for you to know that theft is wrong and freedom of expression and religion is right (especially since we all knew what the rules were going in.)
Posted by: tsg | December 5, 2008 8:03 PM
The bloody point is that it is only a religious holiday to some.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | December 5, 2008 8:04 PM
You're saying that crackergate was disrespecting other peoples' rights to their beliefs. In a round-about, half-assed way, you're kinda-sorta almost near to maybe, possibly being close to right, but not really.
Crackergate was about people demanding that their beliefs, regardless of how illogical and unsupportable they might be, be respected. So PZ "desecrated" a cracker, along with a couple of other things. The point was that people do not have such a right.
PZ telling people not to stoop to the tactics of the theist thief had nothing to do with respecting beliefs. It had to do with not being a thief.
Posted by: chancelikely | December 5, 2008 8:04 PM
The point is that the Christmas that the State of Washington is celebrating CAN'T be a religious holiday.
Posted by: Samuel Black | December 5, 2008 8:05 PM
And until you can back it up with something other than unsupported assertions and vapid platitudes presented as self-evident truths, I will continue to give it zero consideration.
Well, that's just not true. You've responded to nearly every one of my posts, even after you said you were done. And your responses are pretty long. That's quite a lot more than zero consideration.
Anyway, to some extent, morality is a matter of individual judgement. I was expressing mine, and to the extent that PZ has not chosen to defend the sign-makers' rights by an insulting stunt, it appears to me, his judgement on such matters has changed... for the better.
Posted by: chancelikely | December 5, 2008 8:07 PM
I still don't think it's changed at all. You seem to have no concept of proportional response. Your 'compliment' continues to be both patronizing and wrong.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 5, 2008 8:08 PM
You must've missed host desecration being equated with pretty much every crime (theft, vandalism, kidnapping, murder, etc.) up to and including genocide during CrackerGate, then. Admittedly, we had a fair few crackpots from the lunatic fringe of Catholicism at the time, but the comparisons were nonetheless made. I seem to recall a couple of loonies saying that they would gladly die to prevent host desecration.
Posted by: CrypticLife | December 5, 2008 8:09 PM
Honestly, I think it's a bit assholish to co-opt months out of the year as times when religious messages are posted without any allowed countervailing viewpoint. I think it's highly assholish to put Under God in the Pledge, make my kids say it, pretend it has nothing really to do with religion and then use it to argue that we're a Christian nation. I think it's pretty assholish to argue for your own free speech, but then specifically eliminate it for others and then, after your side successfully censors the opposing view to publically claim they're trying to censor you.
You sure you want to play the "who's a bigger jerk?" game?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | December 5, 2008 8:10 PM
No, the way to get a bike from Jebus is to steal one, then go to confession and have your "get out of hell card" stamped.
Posted by: tsg | December 5, 2008 8:11 PM
Now you're just being a twit.
*sigh* Your concern is noted.
Posted by: Terrorist Painter | December 5, 2008 8:13 PM
Okay, we don't steal them....we paint them the color they're supposed to be.
Posted by: ggab I.S. | December 5, 2008 8:15 PM
Samuel
I'm too lazy to go back and search for all of your posts, so just tell me this.
Are you just repetedly making the same silly assertion and ignoring any arguments against it?
Have you even attempted to understand what is going on here?
The difference that you're not grasping seems painfully obvious to everyone else.
Posted by: Marc Abian | December 5, 2008 8:16 PM
Because the nativity scene isn't the issue. The issue is the stealing of the sign,
All he learned is that Catholics are every bit as whinny and reactionary as one would think. He never at any stage during crackergate (I'm sick of that suffix) disrespected other people's rights to their beliefs, he just disrespected the beliefs.Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 5, 2008 8:17 PM
Or replace the little carved Jesus with a little carved Goat of Mendes.
Posted by: CrypticLife | December 5, 2008 8:21 PM
*giggles*
Oh, yeah -- I was particularly amused by the "kidnapping" charge.
Okay, is this better? In crackergate, the point was you can treat the cracker as an ordinary cracker. In displaygate, the proper "ridicule" would be showing that you can treat the baby jesus as an ordinary doll. You don't usually shove dolls in woodchippers, but giving him a new outfit, soiled diaper, or the like would be similar to treating him as an ordinary doll, and thus could be a closer parallel.
And I see nothing wrong with that type of mockery.
Note that I don't see that the woodchipper scene is all that horrible, either. It's still just a scene. The implication is a bit different, though. Maybe that's just because I see the cracker as just a frackin' cracker.
Posted by: mayhempix | December 5, 2008 8:21 PM
Posted by: Terrorist Painter | December 5, 2008 8:13 PM
"Okay, we don't steal them....we paint them the color they're supposed to be."
All black and white can get boring after a while.
Posted by: Scrabcake | December 5, 2008 8:21 PM
I think the sign in itself was out of place in the display. It is not right that someone stole it, but I think that Freedom From Religion could have done something a little more tasteful and a little less off-putting than a sign that specifically shot down religion. If *I* were Mary the Ordinary Downtown Shopper Who is Apathetic About Religion, I'd see that sign and think
"Wow, those Atheists are a bunch of killjoys. Bet they're not much fun to be around. Kind of like those PETA people hanging around outside of Macy's with buckets of paint."
I mean, I know that they're working towards a good and fair cause, but do they have to alienate everyone not already in the choir?
If *I* were Gaylor, I'd put up either a blank white sign saying "[This Space Intentionally Left Blank]", or I'd put up a bunch of signs with high res photos of things that are beautiful and real: a snowflake. a diatom. a slide of a cut leaf. Or maybe of people (not models, but ordinary people) being nice to each-other. Because frankly, I don't give a crap about Jesus, but I do like arranging the figures in the nativity and smelling the gingerbread, and getting a vacation wherein I can see my family. And I don't think the Freedom from Religion Foundation realizes that they're bagging on the secular part of the holiday, too.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 5, 2008 8:22 PM
I do what I can for the humans
Posted by: FrodoSaves | December 5, 2008 8:26 PM
Can we put dinosaurs in the nativity scenes? I mean, I can actually see the freaks over at AiG agreeing with it...
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 5, 2008 8:26 PM
Says you }:->
Posted by: Pope Ratzi | December 5, 2008 8:26 PM
Fuck baby Jesus in the ass, it's what a priest would do...
Posted by: Lee Picton | December 5, 2008 8:28 PM
I see Olberman is covering the story.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | December 5, 2008 8:28 PM
Not in the same place, but in the same thread.
1.
2
If PZ is Pete Rooke he is playing it very well.
Posted by: RamblinDude | December 5, 2008 8:34 PM
Samuel Black,
Do you honestly think that if crackergate were to happen all over again, PZ's response would be different this time because "he's learned something?" What? He would say, "Just let them destroy that young man's life, because after all, this is about respecting people's beliefs"?
Really?
And your idea of "Nothing at all" is peculiar. PZ is adamant that we take appropriate measures. That's hardly doing nothing. Or is the subtlety lost on you?
There was something to be gained by tossing crackers in the trash. It was a valid response, pertinent to the situation and it made a point. This time around, the Christian thugs/thieves are not threatening to ruin anyone's life, and the stealing speaks for itself. This is a different situation; it calls for different measures. The idea is not to escalate violence; the idea is to shine a light on the inherently violent mentality of religious fundamentalism. The idea is to give them enough rope to hang themselves.
Posted by: margaret | December 5, 2008 8:34 PM
pz is so correct - stealing is wrong; and I don't need no copulating god raping no virgin myth stories stolen from more than 12 other mythical manger births scenes superimposed on an also stolen from some nature religion worshiping the rebirth of the sun not fucking son myth. the real message of this day is expression of peace and good will to all men (I dearly hope that includes us poor women). the only sensible action (meaning legal) is a display of the bill of rights and possible question to the public; Which is the only display that is legally supposed to be here? OR a display of cuttle fish 's (sp?)last artist effort. I hope he doesnot mind me stealing, giving the author full credit, of course.
Posted by: CrypticLife | December 5, 2008 8:36 PM
I understand what you're saying, Scrabcake@447 -- however, snowflakes and gingerbread say nothing about a deity. For atheists to really be putting forth a message, they have to be saying that religion is bunk. I think they could have added in some nicer aspects of the season as well, but "There are no gods, heaven, hell, etc." has to be part of it, or it's just a neutral statement, not an atheistic one.
"that enslaves minds" is a bit of a wide brush. Does ALL religion enslave minds? Are we really sure it's not the mind picking the religion (as might be the case in New Age type religions)? Mind you, I'm not saying they're not wacky, just that the mind may be a willing participant.
I suspect part of this may be a reaction to the guy suing to get his nativity scene put in.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 5, 2008 8:36 PM
I would've put up some kind of figure, symbol, or statue of some kind to parody the whole thing. For me, I think the funniest thing would be something Satanic, a pentacle, a statue of the Goat of Mendes, or something similar. It would absolutely infuriate Christians to have it beside their precious nativity scene, and they'd have a much harder time denying it equal status beside other religious icons.
While I think it would be hilarious to do, I wouldn't do it under the auspices of an atheist organisation for fear of reinforcing the "them atheists are closet Satanists" nonsense.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 5, 2008 8:38 PM
Scrabcake, your concern is noted and rejected. The only way to get through to some people is to get in their face just to get their attention. Exhibit A is Peter "total fool" Rooke.
Posted by: Jeebus teh Chrisp | December 5, 2008 8:40 PM
Add a penis to baby Jeebus?
"Oh look, Jesus got wood."
lol
Posted by: Gordy | December 5, 2008 8:41 PM
Separation of church and state, people - NEITHER display belongs in a public building. Two wrongs don't make a right...
I personally think that the atheist sign was a spectacular own-goal, likely only to alienate the vast majority of people who see it. Having said that, it still doesn't justify stealing the sign.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 5, 2008 8:42 PM
See! PZ is even cleverer than I thought!
Lest anyone "not get it", I'm kidding about PZ being Pete Rooke.
Posted by: Rick Schauer | December 5, 2008 8:43 PM
Emmet #424,
the shooting happened in Palm Desert, CA this past "Black Friday." Not exactly what I'd call a shooting outside a crack-house in Compton.
Malcolm #426...in that case...I can hardly wait for the NT's Apocalypse. It should be a riot!
Peter Rooke,
ever read anything by Margaret Singer? You'd especially enjoy, Cults in Our Midst.
Posted by: J-Dog | December 5, 2008 8:45 PM
PZ - I wouldn't worry about someone taking the Baby Jesus - According to their mythology, he's gonna come back in 3 days, so no big deal.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 5, 2008 8:53 PM
I'm sorry, but I don't see how that supports the claim that the double homicide involved Christians fighting over Christmas presents. I read the article that you linked to, and it contained nothing that would support that claim.
Posted by: John B. Sandlin | December 5, 2008 8:53 PM
#156 Posted by Pete Rooke on December 5, 2008 at 4:13 PM:
Actually, yes, many Christians do seem to feel that urge. Second, the poster is on state government property, not some site of religious import. Why do you conflate a secular institution where all perspectives should be free to display their message with a sacred place?
Posted by: rs | December 5, 2008 9:00 PM
to tsg #433
>>The bloody point is that it is only a religious holiday to some.
And?
What is the point?
You don't come to other people's birthday parties to tell them that you don't give a fuck about them, do you?
Posted by: John B. Sandlin | December 5, 2008 9:02 PM
#171 Posted by Pete Rooke on December 5, 2008 at 4:20 PM:
Why, right next to the Nativity scene and Atheist poster. All perspectives should be welcome - or none at all. It's a secular spot and not a Christian site.
JBS
Posted by: rs | December 5, 2008 9:11 PM
to CrypticLife #439
I agree with your points, but I don't understand why atheists should behave as some assholish theist.
Why not instead have our own holiday celebrated at the capitol building or wherever.
April Fools' Day, maybe?
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 5, 2008 9:12 PM
Emmet Caulfield:
And yet another monitor is sacrificed as a result of projectile liquid spewing from my mouth... thanks Emmet...
Posted by: Randy Stimpson | December 5, 2008 9:13 PM
Lone Drinker,
Having mistletoe taped to my back doesn't mean I am hitting on you.
Posted by: echidna | December 5, 2008 9:14 PM
malcolm@426 said:
Interesting point. The follow up question is superceded how, and by whom?
The gospels have Jesus saying "Be perfect, even as our Father is perfect", and "not one jot or iota of the law shall pass away".
Paul, on the other hand, the self-confessed Jew-persecutor, is the one who says that Jewish Law (i.e. the OT) is as much as evil (the whole section around "the wages of sin is death".)
The anti-Torah idea seems to be emanating from Paul alone, not Jesus' disciples. The letter purported to be by James, Jesus' brother reads more like a Jewish teacher might have written it, and is pro-Law.
Now answer me this: do you truly believe that Jesus taught his followers to abandon the Law of the Torah? If not, then what is the basis for Christianity as we now know it?
Posted by: raven | December 5, 2008 9:15 PM
Just more Xian terrorists doing their thing. Terrorism.
It doesn't fall into the class of a Timothy McVeigh with 300 dead or the WTC with 3,000 dead but it is the thought that counts. A sign here, a dead MD there, a few family planning clinic bombings and arson, a few thousand death threats, and it all adds up. Because Xianity is a religion of peace, love and tolerance while jesus loves you.
Since it was just a sign, the FFRF should just put up a new one. Or come up with a real holiday display, maybe the FSM eating a reindeer or something.
Posted by: John B. Sandlin | December 5, 2008 9:16 PM
#186 Posted by: Pete Rooke on December 5, 2008 4:32 PM:
You say that like you believe it... Of course several polls seem to agree. However, that doesn't actually validate your opinion of displaying the atheist poster next to a Nativity scene or Christmas/holiday tree. The Constitution specifically allows unpopular displays in the First Amendment - that's what Free Speech is all about, not some popularity contest for ideas. So, the fact that the atheist poster is unpopular is exactly the reason the government of Washington state must allow it.
JBS
Posted by: RamblinDude | December 5, 2008 9:19 PM
You don't come to other people's birthday parties to tell them that you don't give a fuck about them, do you?
Depends. Are they throwing their party on public land and then insisting that I listen to their birthday song over and over and over again? Cause I may have a few choice things to say.
Are they then preventing me from throwing my own party on public land? Are they stealing my ribbons and balloons and trying to prevent me and my friends from singing a different birthday song than they do?
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 5, 2008 9:21 PM
Sorry for the late response to this, but family obligations and all...
however...
Rookie back at # 293:
Ironically, an approach you've taken here exactly never.
The difference between you and I, Rookie (other than the ability to let go of myths and fantasies like most little children do), is that I'm more than willing to accept responsibility for mistakes I've made... and anyone here who knows me knows I've done so with persons of like mind and not-so like mind. When I'm wrong, I admit it, and offer humble apology.
You don't even have the intestinal fortitude to come out and admit that you approve stealing the atheist sign. How dare you pass judgment on me and slap the label of "arrogant" on me, you insipid, intolerant, ignorant god-botting piece of monkey shit.
And no... you'll be getting no apologies for that last line... as I said... I apologize when I'm wrong.
Posted by: raven | December 5, 2008 9:22 PM
What is wrong with that? Nativity scenes are way overdone and have gotten totally clichey and boring. I'd like to see what the Scientologists, Heavens Gaters, or Wiccans would put up for a holiday scene. Maybe Thetan ghosts feeding on someones soul while Demigod Hubbard waves an E-meter at them.
Posted by: rs | December 5, 2008 9:24 PM
to RamblinDude #475
>>Are they then preventing me from throwing my own party on public land?
Are they?
Have you tried?
Posted by: echidna | December 5, 2008 9:25 PM
rs@469:
You don't really get it, do you? Christmas as we know it is essentially the Yuletide celebration co-opted by the Church centuries ago. It is not an inherently Christian celebration, no matter how many Christians think that trees, holly, mistletoe and ham have something to do with the birth of a Jewish boy.
Christians do not own the winter solstice.
Posted by: Randy Stimpson | December 5, 2008 9:27 PM
Strangley the sign turns up at a radio station rather than being buried in a dumpster.
Posted by: Rick Schauer | December 5, 2008 9:29 PM
Emmet,
shopping on black friday at a Toys R Us in Palm Desert doesn't imply xtians buying xmas presents to you?
Have you ever been to a Toys R Us on a black friday?...one must be a wackaloon xtian to even go near that place on a black friday. Did the story call them xtian gunmen, no. It's implied in the context of the event (at least to me). Does clear things up a tad for you?
(*scratching head* ...Sheesh, what planet am I on?)
Posted by: kamaka | December 5, 2008 9:29 PM
"Even Jesus could not transform the worst sinner Janine."
Congratulations, Janine, I aspire to such sinfulness.
I promise to share my beer with you when we are both in HELL.
StuPete, no beer for you. Just dry, awful crackers, sans jebus, hell and all.
Posted by: Brain Hertz | December 5, 2008 9:29 PM
What would stop the Christians from subsequently adopting said holiday and then claiming it to be exclusively theirs and that everybody else should just fuck off and die? Like, you know, they already did with Christmas? And Easter?
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 5, 2008 9:29 PM
rs -
Nice attempt at being clever... saw the same joke on another thread here yesterday in fact. Try something you didn't pilfer from somebody else.
Oh... and "our" own holiday? You're an atheist? God heard that, you know...
That whooshing sound is the sound of the point going right over your head...
Posted by: John B. Sandlin | December 5, 2008 9:31 PM
#467 Posted by rs on December 5, 2008 at 9:00 PM:
If they were holding in my front yard? You bet I would. The lawn of the state Capitol building is government property. Government property is public land. Public land is the property of the citizens of the state. And that is like having your party in my front yard.
So, yeah, I'm gonna voice my opinion!
JBS
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 5, 2008 9:35 PM
Thus spake Celtic_Evolution:
I have to confess an ulterior motive: I'm a screen-wipe salesman... saving for a bike.
And while I'm at it, I have a piece of monkey shit that takes grave exception to being equated with Pete Rooke.
Posted by: Brain Hertz | December 5, 2008 9:35 PM
I like your thinking. Maybe a gilt covered statue of Jim Jones too?
Posted by: rs | December 5, 2008 9:36 PM
to Celtic_Evolution #484
>>Nice attempt at being clever... saw the same joke on another thread here yesterday in fact.
I'm not alone then!
And I'm being (semi)serious. We, atheists are in much better position to celebrate the joy of foolishness than most of the religious folks who are so dead serious about their holidays.
>>You're an atheist?
Yes.
Posted by: echidna | December 5, 2008 9:37 PM
Brain Hertz@483 said:
and Halloween.... but they botched that one, I think.
Posted by: Insightful Ape | December 5, 2008 9:39 PM
Dear Pete the troll/weasel, as you have taken the role of spokesperson for what is "normal", I guess I may assume the position of speaking for everyone on this thread and thank you for contributing to a lively discussion.
As an aside: since your asinineness seems to have missed it, the sign was stolen from public property, and not removed from the thieve's private property. There is a difference.
And your stupidness also seems to have missed another minor point: the sign was put up because a nativity sign was placed, by a party other than the State, on public display. This opens the door for another private citizen to display a sign of dissent. As you pointed out, for many, Christmas is a commercial occasion(like the advertisers that keep your hero, BillO from Fox Noise, on the air). But that certainly wasn't the case for the individual that put up the nativity scene.
The trivial difference between these two acts that seems to be missed on you is that the display was legal, the theft was not. I hope that helps.
May you have a merry Christmas and a new year full of peace and job.
Posted by: tsg | December 5, 2008 9:40 PM
That Christians are not the sole arbitrators on how Christmas should be celebrated. A good many people celebrate Christmas as a secular holiday and no amount of vapid "Jesus is the reason" posturing is going to change that, nor should it.
If they're coming to mine telling me how I should be celebrating it, you can be damned sure I will tell them exactly what I think of it.
Posted by: raven | December 5, 2008 9:41 PM
I like it!!! Wish I'd thought of that. A whole nativity scene done with cartoon and mythological figures. SpongeBob Squarepants, Teletubbies as jesus, Tinkerbell as one of the angels, dinosaurs as the sheep. This would raise Holiday displays to a whole new level.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | December 5, 2008 9:41 PM
The good professor speaks the truth. He says it is a good idea to observe the rule that states:
If It Is Not Yours Don't Fuck With It.
We know that this rule is true because we know what is means when someone Fucks With Our (or My) Stuff. No argument is required.
If we would hold the religious to the standards that they themselves hold as over arching, then they must be able to hold us to our higher standards. Again, no argument is required. Most free thinking people understand this instinctively; many religious people can't stand the idea.
Posted by: Zar | December 5, 2008 9:42 PM
It seems appropriate that the Christians are all bowing down to praise a great big baby.
Posted by: Teleprompter | December 5, 2008 9:43 PM
@ Emmet Caulfield
Yes, I agree with you. There was plenty of evidence for me to believe in Santa Claus at age 6. I was so mad when one of my family members told me...what every little kid doesn't want to hear about Santa. :(
Plus, Santa Claus is just a cool dude: even if you get coal one year, if you're nice the next year, and Christmas comes around, he'll start bringing you presents again. He's just; he's fair. He truly does reward the good and punish the bad, but he's always willing to give you another chance.
Now, if Santa promised to torture you and all your offspring for all of eternity for just one offense, maybe he wouldn't be quite so popular? Or would he just be even more popular?
Who really knows?
Posted by: John B. Sandlin | December 5, 2008 9:44 PM
#269 Posted by Wowbagger-NOT on December 5, 2008 at 5:34 PM:
You people keep using B&O R. Co v US, 261 U.S. 592 (1923). I don't think is says what you think it says.
I do not believe there is any contract in evidence to be breached... and such a breach is a civil matter, not criminal... and freely distributed wafers, handed out to all present, cannot be considered stolen regardless.
Why do you people hate atheists so much? I'm pretty sure it wasn't your babies we ate... (Sorry, excuse me... my tummy is full).
JBS
Posted by: tomh | December 5, 2008 9:48 PM
@ #202 what the hell is the government doing putting up a nativity scene?
The government didn't put up a nativity scene. A private citizen did and had to sue the state of Washington for the priviledge. The government put up a Christmas tree and a Menorah and tried to exclude everything else.
Posted by: rs | December 5, 2008 9:48 PM
to tsg #491
I don't get it.
You are welcome to celebrate Christmas any way you want, as long as you are respectful to others celebrating it with you.
Do you want to celebrate it? Or the only way you can celebrate it is by telling other people that "religion is a superstion"?
Posted by: Ron Sullivan | December 5, 2008 9:49 PM
Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker @# 378:
Completely OT but I think some of the people hear should know that Forrest J Ackermann just died.
Impressive autographed photo of him here.
Posted by: Insightful Ape | December 5, 2008 9:52 PM
Dear rs, what part of "dissent" don't you understand?
Posted by: rs | December 5, 2008 9:52 PM
to all
That should be our message:
Happy April Fools' Day everyone!
Posted by: John B. Sandlin | December 5, 2008 9:53 PM
#311 Posted by Pete Rooke on December 5, 2008 at 6:03 PM:
Cuttlefish IS a genius.
JBS
Posted by: Sastra | December 5, 2008 9:53 PM
Last year in Pennsylvania, a local freethought group put up a tree in the annual holiday display at the state capitol. It was a "Tree of Reason," and on it they hung little books -- The Age of Reason, Origin of Species,The God Delusion, and -- even the Bible and Quran. The point was that it was important to read and examine ideas -- even religious ideas -- in order to rationally consider issues. Atheists were part of the celebration. It was positive, insightful, and supported a message most people can agree with.
And they still bitched. People wanted it taken down. It was a deliberate slap to Christians. It was ruining people's enjoyment of Christmas. And so forth, and so on. So while I prefer the Tree of Reason to the FFRF's statement, I'm not so sure that making a happier humanist statement on the universal value of rationality is really the issue.
I also don't see much similarity here to Crackergate -- Christians doing to us what we did to them, or whatever. I think that, in order to make a proper analogy to the cracker incident, someone should have wandered by and put a Santa hat on the Baby Jesus -- as a joke -- and been chased and vilified in retaliation. There then there would have to have been a horrified outcry and call for criminal prosecution, since the manger scene is "sacred" and the sensibilities of the religious must be protected by an exaggerated deference towards the Nativity. Take the hat off, they're still screaming persecution and vandalism. Popular columnists and commentators would have had to get into the act, whinging on about how the Nativity is special and the the baby Jesus being violated should be treated like child molestation or beating, it was an attack on all that Christians hold dear, etc, etc. etc.
If that happened, I bet PZ would be behind the idea of the FFRF or some other group setting up a manger scene in the State Capitol, with ALL the figures wearing Santa hats and beards.
Better analogy.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 5, 2008 9:54 PM
The one where some kind of evidence is needed.
You went from an article which actually said that two people died in a shooting in Toys"R"Us and police think it was gang-related to telling us that two Christians shot each other in a fight over Christmas presents and you're scratching your head?
To my thinking, your version is an utterly bizarre extrapolation.
Posted by: rs | December 5, 2008 9:54 PM
http://z.about.com/d/physics/1/0/C/0/-/-/Einstein_tongue.jpg
(the image didn't link in #501)
Posted by: tsg | December 5, 2008 9:54 PM
You said:
It's only a religious holiday to some people and those people are trying to tell everyone else how they should be celebrating it. The "anti-religion" sign is saying so. What's not to understand?
Posted by: Insightful Ape | December 5, 2008 9:55 PM
And since we're at it, where's the cute Paliban? She should be entertaining us with her parody.
Posted by: tsg | December 5, 2008 9:59 PM
I killfiled that one after about three posts. It was neither clever nor insightful, just tedious. There's a word for advancing a position you don't believe in order to anger others: "troll".
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 5, 2008 10:03 PM
Teleprompter,
Indeed, but somehow, I think Santa Claus would lose a little of his popularity with six-year-olds if He knows when you've been bad or good, so be good for goodness sake! was replaced with He knows when you've been bad or good, so be good or he'll torture you forever!
Maybe it's just me :o)
Posted by: rs | December 5, 2008 10:03 PM
to tsg #506
>>It's only a religious holiday to some people and those people are trying to tell everyone else how they should be celebrating it. The "anti-religion" sign is saying so.
So, I got it right then when I said that the only way you can celebrate it is by telling other people that "religion is a superstition".
Well, that seems a bit assholish to me.
It's like saying "Well, your mom's birthday is a holiday for me too, and the way I celebrate it is by telling you that you are a retard."
Posted by: tsg | December 5, 2008 10:05 PM
No, that isn't what I said. And I no longer have any interest in trying to explain it to you since you clearly have no desire to understand it.
Your concern is noted.
:rolleyes:
Posted by: Rick Schauer | December 5, 2008 10:08 PM
Emmet,
-You ignored the fact that it happened on THE busiest shopping day for xtians to buy each other xmas presents...and (IMHO) only xtians are crazy enought to go shopping that day. (who and when)
-You ignored the fact that Palm Desert isn't what I'd call a hot-bed of gang related activies...especially gang shootings. (where and what)
-And finally, it was a Toys R Us where all good xtians go to buy toys for their kiddies and not crack for their pipes.
Again, all implied...sort of.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 5, 2008 10:10 PM
Thus spake Sastra:
What a surprise... not.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 5, 2008 10:13 PM
It seems like a lot of assumptions to me. Hope you're not on the jury if I'm ever on trial ;o)
Posted by: rs | December 5, 2008 10:16 PM
to tsg #511
>>you clearly have no desire to understand it.
I sincerely do.
Let me try again.
So, you put up the "religion is a superstition" sign not as a way to celebrate Christmas or Winter Solstice, but to protest the way Christians celebrate Christmas while imposing their view of Christmas on yours?
Or you do celebrate Christmas - by putting up a sing to protest the way Christians celebrate Christmas...etc
Posted by: Teleprompter | December 5, 2008 10:20 PM
Emmet Caulfield @ 509
Yes, once again I agree with your view of it.
Wouldn't it be great if we had songs like that for Santa Claus, such as:
"Down in The Brimstone with St. Nick"?
Santa Claus is more or less a projection of all the good things that people want their god to reflect, but doesn't.
Santa's much more loving and just than the god of the Bible.
Posted by: Feasibelly Real | December 5, 2008 10:20 PM
Yeah. Bloody libertarians!
Posted by: John B. Sandlin | December 5, 2008 10:26 PM
#503 Posted by Sastra on December 5, 2008 at 9:53 PM:
So basically, the Christians are gonna treat atheists like assholes no matter what. Might as well be assholes, then, and make it worthwhile.
JBS
Posted by: tsg | December 5, 2008 10:27 PM
I didn't put it up. The sign was put up to protest Christians imposing their view of Christmas on everyone. The sign was put up to promote atheism the very same way other religious displays promote theirs and has as much right to be there as a nativity scene. And "religion is superstition and myth" is no more assholish than saying "if you don't accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior, you are going to hell".
Every religion says "fuck every other religion", the FFRF sign simply said "fuck yours, too." If you still think that's assholish, then I can't help you. And if you think it's assholish but Christian displays are not, then it's a double standard and I don't care what you think.
Posted by: RamblinDude | December 5, 2008 10:31 PM
rs, you are seriously missing the point here. The Christmas display was on government property. Think about that for awhile, will you?
No one went into a church or private home and tried to disrupt a religious celebration. Some Christians are trying to commandeer government property as a forum for broadcasting their personal religious views. Some non-Christians saw this happening and felt it was their right to express (on the same government property) their alternative point of view.
I probably wouldn't have expressed my point of view quite like the sign makers did, but I agree with their sentiments: It's our country, too.
Posted by: tsg | December 5, 2008 10:36 PM
It's nothing new. A "militant" atheist is just one who refuses to kowtow to religion and has the audacity to stand up for his rights. A hundred years ago, we'd have been called "uppity".
Posted by: Longtime Lurker | December 5, 2008 10:38 PM
Sigh... 130,000 missed opportunities, because there's nothing like a set of inflatable boobs to perk up a nativity scene.
I can haz thredd deraylment by punz?
Posted by: rs | December 5, 2008 10:38 PM
to tsg #519
>>Every religion says "fuck every other religion"
Well, let's see.
Jews have the Hanukkah holiday which has many attributes of Christmas.
But they don't put up a sign, saying "Jesus was a false prophet and a heretic".
If they did, yes, that would be assholish.
They just celebrate it their own way. And that would be a much better way to promote Judaism, if they cared to promote it.
So, I am suggesting, if there are atheists who want to promote atheism, they perhaps should find a better way to do that too.
Posted by: RamblinDude | December 5, 2008 10:40 PM
The Christmas display was on government property.
More precisely, it wasn't just some generic Christmas scene. It was a nativity scene in which the mythology of Jesus' "holy" virgin birth, with the God of the bible as his father, is celebrated as if real. Rational people don't have the right to step in and say "enough is enough" when this silliness intrudes on government property?
Posted by: CodewordConduit | December 5, 2008 10:40 PM
rs: It's like saying "Well, your mom's birthday is a holiday for me too, and the way I celebrate it is by telling you that you are a retard."
That's the funniest thing I've read in ages. I might plagiarize it at some point.
Posted by: Simon Scott | December 5, 2008 10:41 PM
The message does sound a little negative though.
I would have thought a more positive message about atheism would have been worthwhile, but that being said, I hope someone draws a texta mustache on the little guy in the manger :D
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 5, 2008 10:43 PM
There is no way to promote atheism other than by saying "There is/are no [Gg]od(s)". That's all atheism is.
Posted by: Horwood Beer-Master | December 5, 2008 10:44 PM
Has anyone considered placing vulnerable atheist signs around in known fun die hotspots with hidden GPS trackers located on them?
It could be interesting to track some of these thieves back to their lairs, and then dream up some fun ironic punishment for them.
Posted by: rs | December 5, 2008 10:46 PM
to RamblinDude #520
>>Some non-Christians saw this happening and felt it was their right to express (on the same government property) their alternative point of view.
See, you either protest the use of the government property for religious purposes - which is fine, or you try to celebrate your own holiday on that property too - which is fine as well.
But what I don't understand is whether putting up that sign was an action of the first kind or of the second.
If it was both, to me that just seems perverse - to celebrate a holiday (on a government property) by protesting the way other people celebrate their holiday (on a government property).
Posted by: John B. Sandlin | December 5, 2008 10:47 PM
#523 Posted by: rs on December 5, 2008 on 10:38 PM:
That's been tried. It doesn't work any better.
JBS
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 5, 2008 10:47 PM
rs, you will get it when you understand that the sign was just doing the golden rule. The xians gave everybody else the finger by forcing in their nativity scene, so the sign was just a finger back at them. The xians need to learn to back down in the public sphere.
Posted by: Sastra | December 5, 2008 10:47 PM
John B. Sandlin #518 wrote:
I get the opposite out of it. Might as well put up the happy humanist Tree-of-Reason. You get the dual benefits of not being an asshole and pissing off assholes. It's a sweeter victory.
Posted by: Horwood Beer-Master | December 5, 2008 10:48 PM
Oops, that should be 'fundie' in my last post not 'fun die'. That'll teach me for running it through spellcheck and not paying attention.
Posted by: tsg | December 5, 2008 10:48 PM
@rs #523
*sigh* Your concern is noted.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 5, 2008 10:51 PM
Never mind that Hanukkah happened 200 or so years before Christ was allegedly born.
Posted by: Rick Schauer | December 5, 2008 10:51 PM
Emmet,
Palm Desert ain't the hood, brotha. (Unless rich Republicans have started a gang there.) Have a great evening!
Posted by: rs | December 5, 2008 10:52 PM
to John B. Sandlin #518, #530
Nerd of Redhead #531
So, you guys concur with me that those atheists were acting like assholes, but you just think that that's ok?
Posted by: tsg | December 5, 2008 10:53 PM
I disagree with the assertion that saying "there are no gods" to people who believe there are is being an asshole, but saying "there is a god" to people who don't isn't. It's a bullshit double standard.
Posted by: Sastra | December 5, 2008 10:56 PM
Ok, rs, how about this:
At the Season of
THE WINTER SOLSTICE
may reason prevail
There are no gods,
no devils, no angels
no heaven, no hell.
There is only
our natural world.
And it all comes down
to Love,
really.
Posted by: Tomecat | December 5, 2008 10:57 PM
@212:
Don't forget Athena--Didn't she pop, fully grown (& dressed in armor) out of the forehead of Zeus? And a female God to boot! :)
Pete:
Ideas are not stolen? Wow, good to know. Now copyright laws are wrong too. And patents. Are there any U.S. laws that you don't interpret in your own special way?
Posted by: Mike | December 5, 2008 10:59 PM
Cervantes had it... If there was a God, it'd be pathetic petty nonsense by Christians, not non-believers, that would cause the next deluge.
Posted by: RamblinDude | December 5, 2008 11:00 PM
But what I don't understand is whether putting up that sign was an action of the first kind or of the second.
To me, it was obviously a response to the blatant intrusion of the nativity scene by posting their own views and manner of celebrating the holiday season. So yes, it was both. Why would that be perverse?
It's a bit in-your-face, true. Is that the problem? Failure to be obsequious?
Posted by: cicely | December 5, 2008 11:01 PM
Pete Rooke @ 240:
Then I assume that you also wouldn't consider it "stealing" if someone were to box up Nativity sets and return them to their owners (say, depositing them on the church doorsteps)?
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 5, 2008 11:01 PM
Something the local cops, who thought the double homicide was gang-related, seem to have missed ;o)
Same to you!
Posted by: mandrake | December 5, 2008 11:04 PM
Isn't it interesting that Pete Rooke says this like it's something to be proud of?
Maybe somehow that's supposed to show that his point of view is more likely to be "correct."
Or maybe we're all just supposed to understand that normal=better.
Yes, Pete, your position probably is closer to "normal" for America than mine is. That's not a compliment. And it doesn't mean I'm any less American than you, either.
Posted by: John B. Sandlin | December 5, 2008 11:05 PM
#532 Posted by Sastra on December 5, 2008 at 10:47 PM:
I might be afflicted by living in Texas... with the highest concentration of Creationist assholes trying to rule (and ruin) our school system of any place in the nation.
That and I don't see the text of the poster being all that extreme - but just at the edge of polite dialog. Oh, and here, I see Christian (I'm assuming, anyway) telling me that I am going to Hell because I haven't taken Jesus as my copilot or as my president, or whatever.
Cars with the stupid Jesus fish on the back end out number those without. A great number have bumper stickers that say something along the lines of "This is God's Country... Love Him or Leave!" and "Jesus is my President" - and similar messages. I'm sorry, Jesus is NOT my President.
JBS
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 5, 2008 11:06 PM
rs, you are an asshole. Never speak for me. The atheists were absolutely right to put up the sign the way it was written. The xians, by forcing the nativity scene, gave everybody non-xian the finger. By the golden rule, they deserved a finger back at them, which the sign accomplished. Personally, the sign could have been more strongly worded. It was nowhere near over the top. Time for you to stop your concern trolling and leave. Until you can condemn the xians for forcing in the nativity scene we cannot hold a rational discussion, because you premise is they were right and we were wrong.
Posted by: mandrake | December 5, 2008 11:13 PM
Also:
Newton finger puppet doll:
http://www.philosophersguild.com/index.lasso?page_mode=Product_Detail&item=0249
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 5, 2008 11:14 PM
How about:
At the Season of
THE WINTER SOLSTICE
may reason prevail
There are no gods,
no devils, no angels
no heaven, no hell.
There is only
our natural world.
Fuck you.
;o)
Posted by: rs | December 5, 2008 11:18 PM
to RamblinDude #542
>>To me, it was obviously a response to the blatant intrusion of the nativity scene by posting their own views and manner of celebrating the holiday season. So yes, it was both. Why would that be perverse?
I, usually, either protest something or celebrate something, but I don't protest by celebrating or celebrate by protesting.
But that's just me.
Let me ask you, do you think it's ok for the government property to be used to celebrate Christmas or Winter Solstice?
If it is, why protest? Why not just celebrate?
If it is not, why not try to settle this matter in court? Why try to celebrate Winter Solstice in a capitol, if you think that it's wrong to do so?
Posted by: Longtime Lurker | December 5, 2008 11:19 PM
It's a bit in-your-face, true. Is that the problem? Failure to be obsequious?
Nicely put, o Ramblindude,
Say no to atheist dhimmitude.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 5, 2008 11:20 PM
Emmet, interesting sign. Still too polite (too many concern trolls like rs make me angry). rs, go away and I might cool down.
Posted by: John B. Sandlin | December 5, 2008 11:22 PM
#537 Posted by: rs on December 5, 2008 at 10:52 PM:
I've found that most Christians think atheists are assholes already and nothing we do will ever change that, even being nice forever. At least we don't have to resort to civil disobedience. Not yet anyway. But being a jerk is legal, and moral, and sometimes, necessary.
Is there a nice way to say your imaginary sky fairy isn't real? Because they sure aren't shy about saying that I'm headed to Hell, and my children too. And they say it like they're being nice about it.
JBS
Posted by: Michael Hawkins | December 5, 2008 11:25 PM
This is just dumb. We should all be able to disagree in harmony.
Posted by: rs | December 5, 2008 11:25 PM
to Nerd of Redhead #547
You are an asshole for calling me an asshole for calling assholes those atheists who thought that Christians were assholes by putting up that nativity scene!
There.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 5, 2008 11:25 PM
rs, you want to play nice, do so. Those of us who have suffered xians imposing their will upon us through the years understand the need to stand up and say "no more", or else nothing will change. You aren't changing our minds, just annoying us with your whining. Take your whiny concern elsewhere.
Posted by: Sastra | December 5, 2008 11:26 PM
#503 I wrote:
It's probably fair to mention that the Philadelphia freethought group also got a lot of well-wishers, defenders, supporters, and positive publicity. Not all Christians whined.
Of course, not all Christians whined about the sign in Washington, either. The guy who put up the manger scene seems to have been a good sport.
A couple years ago I got a chance to see the same FFRF sign in Madison, WI, at Christmas. I was surprised at how good it made me feel. Yes, that last sentence is a little bit in-your-face for some tastes. But it still struck me as a positive message. I didn't think of it in terms of telling people off. I thought of it as a ray of light.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 5, 2008 11:28 PM
rs, do you feel the xians were right to impose the nativity upon public property? If so, you fail to understand the basic separation of church and state. That doesn't speak well for your intelligence.
Posted by: currie jean | December 5, 2008 11:29 PM
Olbermann's response to BillO:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvnUCG5rYvE
Posted by: tomh | December 5, 2008 11:33 PM
The intolerant creeps who object to the sign should take a lesson from Ron Wesselius, the man who put up the Nativity scene. When he was asked whether he was bothered by the atheist display next to his Nativity scene, he said, "I appreciate freedom of speech and freedom of access. That's why they're in there, and hey - you know, that's great."
Posted by: rs | December 5, 2008 11:34 PM
to John B. Sandlin #553
>>they sure aren't shy about saying that I'm headed to Hell, and my children too.
Did this actually happen to you personally?
Nothing of this sort has ever happened to me, and if it did, I would tell them to fuck off, go to your own hell or whatever.
But I still wouldn't go around giving fingers to random people for having a Jesus fish on their car or displaying a Christmas tree in public.
But my experience with Christians so far was that they were in general very nice people.
Posted by: llewelly | December 5, 2008 11:34 PM
Just post their locations on the internet. Nothing more would needed.Keep in mind - so far at least one sign was very quickly ditched.
Beyond that - a Christian who stole the sign but didn't throw it away might do something insidious with it. For example - O'Reilly has been comparing atheists to KKK bigots. What if the Christian dropped the sign in the backyard of a black family? (Which could happen by accident as well as by intent.) It would not do to have 'punishment' performed on innocent bystanders.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 5, 2008 11:37 PM
"rs, you will get it when you understand that the sign was just doing the golden rule."
Golden Rule: Do unto others as you WOULD HAVE them do unto you. Nerd, secular humanist fail on your part. The text of it is very blunt: No Gods, No angels; enslaves minds, hardens hearts. Not untrue, but still, a little too transparent. Ironically, they've proven that they were correct, and that in the end, it was perfectly reasonable to put up the sign. My doubts have been allayed.
Along this thread of inquiry, i thought this was in the spirit of things:
Wintering
If time is an illusion, what is this
a word - winter - of cold times and warm hearts
these are the oxymorons that hold us
but is bondage in human time so bad?
It is this time of primal survival
that man forgets the primordial war -
not mytholigical, but animal -
Battle agaist demons with our spirit
Even pagans knew when the spirits dwelt here
thier unnaparent forsifght is quite strange
did they know that our time is a closed circle?
inexorably, beginning meets end
our condemnation is so visable
when the world falls away and seems to die
cheer and joy are adamentally present
an ironic relic of defiance
---
Any good?
Posted by: Sastra | December 5, 2008 11:39 PM
Emmett Caulfield #549 wrote:
HA! Very cute.
rs #550 wrote:
Yes ... but only if it's clear that the official celebration is for a secular Christmas holiday. If there are religious symbols, they need to be balanced by secular symbols and perhaps even anti-religious ones.
Christmas is an officially designated national holiday. That makes it legally and officially secular. Manger scenes say "Jesus is the Reason for the Season" and "Keep the Christ in Christmas." The give the message that "Christmas is really about celebrating the birth of Christ!"
There need to be other displays, so that the overall message is "not for everyone." And, maybe, some of the displays will respond, more explicitly, "Oh no, it's not!"
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 5, 2008 11:40 PM
rs, some xians are nice people. Others are intolerant jerks who steal atheist signs from a public forum, break legs off of Dawin fish stuck on cars, and in general show extreme intolerance for those not of their faith. Nobody is saying all xians are bad, but there are enough intolerant ones that need to learn the lesson that atheists exist and must be treated with the same respect they feel that they deserve. Anything less is non xian, non golden rule.
Posted by: llewelly | December 5, 2008 11:41 PM
It's happened to me personally several times. Having spent most of my life living in predominantly Mormon areas, I've been told I'll end up in either 'outer darkness' or the 'Telestial Kingdom' many more times. Notably, It's happened much less frequently as I've grown older. Now that I no longer look like I'm 16, it hardly ever (about 1/yr) happens. Funny that.Posted by: rs | December 5, 2008 11:48 PM
to Nerd of Redhead #558
>>do you feel the xians were right to impose the nativity upon public property?
I'm not sure. I think that qualifies more as letting some group express their views on a public property (which is legal), than as an endorsement of religion (which is not). But I don't know enough details. Were any government funds used for that display? Were any of the state officials involved in helping to organized this event? But I just don't feel strongly about that issue. Those who do, should go to court.
But what is you answer to my questions (at #550)?
Posted by: eric | December 5, 2008 11:49 PM
"Right now *we* claim the moral high ground here, and *we* need to maintain it. Put that baby Jesus down right now, guy. Defend their right to display their beliefs and demand equal time for *ours*!"
What's with the "we" and "ours"? Atheists never tire of complaining about the fact that all atheists are different, that they have no necessary connection to one another aside from a lack of a certain belief, and so on. And what's with the "demand" for "equal time" to "display" atheists' "beliefs"? If anyone else had said, in any other context, something about atheists "displaying their beliefs," you all would have attacked him mercilessly, complaining that "atheism is defined as a lack of belief, stupid!"
So, is there a "we" beyond the lack of belief, or not? And is there a "belief" to be "displayed," or not?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 5, 2008 11:49 PM
RickrOll, if I am responding using the golden rule, I look at how I was treated and return the treatment. So tolerance and good will are returned. In your face gets returned too. I always start off with tolerance and good will myself. But if they unnecessarily disturb me to talk their religion I am not very polite.
Posted by: RamblinDude | December 5, 2008 11:49 PM
Let me ask you, do you think it's ok for the government property to be used to celebrate Christmas or Winter Solstice?
If it is, why protest?
You're drawing a false equivalence here.
I don't have a problem with courthouses hanging up festive lights (tis the holiday season) or advertising important astronomical occurrences--as long as it doesn't proselytize any group's particular religion to the exclusion of any others.
The sign posters were not protesting innocuous displays of festivity or educational announcements; they were
protestingcountering an overt religious statement put there by a religious group. That's why the protest.As it as been pointed out here before, Christmas means different things to different people. Just because it has a mythological person in the name doesn't mean Christianity has a government mandated holiday.
Posted by: rs | December 5, 2008 11:53 PM
Nerd of Redhead #565
>>Nobody is saying all xians are bad, but there are enough intolerant ones that need to learn the lesson that atheists exist and must be treated with the same respect they feel that they deserve.
Absolutely.
The way I go about that is by not hiding my views Christians from them and celebrating Christmas with them without trying to cause disruption.
Posted by: mandrake | December 5, 2008 11:55 PM
rs -
I'm actually surprised to meet someone (well, cybermeet someone) who hasn't been told s/he is going to Hell. You've really never had a Christian tell you how sorry they are that you've not accepted Christ as your personal savior because now you're going to Hell? That's the polite version. The impolite version occurs when you're doing something they don't like, like protecting patients from "pro-life" protesters at clinics, or being at a Gay Pride Parade, or -
well, you know.
And there's the fact that hundreds of preachers in this country stand up every Sunday in front of millions of people and tell them that people like me and those I love are going to Hell. And, BTW, that they should vote to deny "those" sorts of people the right to marry or adopt children.
I try to always hold the moral high ground, but honestly, fundamentalist Christians never seem to give anyone any credit on that front, unless it's themselves.
When people keep telling you to shut up, or (worse) assume that you'll keep your mouth shut even if you disagree, eventually you will want to speak all the more.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 5, 2008 11:56 PM
Where the hell are you getting the idea that this is the standard M.O. of atheists here?
Posted by: cicely | December 5, 2008 11:57 PM
Patricia @ 241:
I wouldn't call it definitive, but a quick Google kept bringing up this (various sites, same wording, suggesting extensive "borrowing"):
"Christmas which takes its name from Christ's Mass, was first celebrated on various dates but was finally set on December 25 by Bishop Liberus of Rome in 354 A.D.";
and, according to Wikipedia:
"The earliest reference to the celebration of the nativity on December 25 is found in the Chronography of 354, an illuminated manuscript compiled in Rome in 354", said Chronography being "a 4th century illuminated manuscript, which was produced in 354 AD for a wealthy Roman Christian named Valentius. It is the earliest dated codex to have full page illustrations. None of the original has survived."
Oh, and Pete Rooke....Cuttlefish is a genius, at least where his poetry is concerned. Your dislike for his art doesn't diminish his artistry.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 5, 2008 11:59 PM
rs, you seem to be missing the history with your questions. The state had just a tree and a few secular ornaments on state property. They were sued by a xian to put up a nativity scene with the ornaments, and they lost the court case. Now, since government must be neutral in all religious activity, and the nativity scene is religious, they had to allow any group who wanted to display something even remotely religious to display something, and this included the FFRF card. Now some people don't like anything other than their religion expressed so they complained about the card, and it was taken up by some right wing loudmouths like OReilly.
My own opinion is that the nativity scene should be at the church down the street. The state display should only be a xmas tree and a few snowmen and the like. And since there is no nativity display on state property, the atheist card should not be there either. But my opinion differs from the court case.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 6, 2008 12:01 AM
eric you raise a good point. I still think they ought to have put up a Mithras display of some sort, or a festivus pole with Dawkins on top ;)It was a little too wordy for a kind of protest, if it was one, and a bit too insensitive. It wasn't a middle finger per se, but it was condescending.
Let the christians worship thier idols- and point out that the nativity scene is idolotry. There were all sorts of creative avenues to explore, and they picked the most boring and un-festive way to put it.
But we all see these things differently, so trying to say it is either here-or-there is disingenious.
Posted by: John B. Sandlin | December 6, 2008 12:02 AM
#561 Posted by rs on December 5, 2008 at 11:34 PM:
Only once to my face... I generally keep my thoughts on religion to myself, since. Of course, they tried to sound so sweet and concerned that I was condeming myself and family to eternal damnation... I was too embarrassed at the time to have a pithy come back for that. Especially since I didn't really even know the person, and would likely never see them again. But dang!
That said, I'm sure lots of Christians are nice. But they don't think about what they say a lot of times.
As for not to my face, in the online arena, all the time, but then I'm kinda expecting it here in the land of no manners.
JBS
Posted by: RamblinDude | December 6, 2008 12:05 AM
Of course, not all Christians whined about the sign in Washington, either. The guy who put up the manger scene seems to have been a good sport.
Oh yeah, I forgot about that. Oh, the irony. . .
Emmet Caulfield #549
I'll take 200!
"But I just don't feel strongly about that issue. Those who do, should go to court."
Who are you to tell those who do feel strongly about that issue how to respond when they did nothing to break the law?
Posted by: RickrOll | December 6, 2008 12:09 AM
"Where the hell are you getting the idea that this is the standard M.O. of atheists here?"- Rev Ham hands lol.
Who has two thumbs and is the perfect answer to that question?
This guy!! HA HA HA haaa
But in all seriousness, christmas trees are awesome. There just has to be a "-mas" at the end of it, whatever you call it. heh heh
Posted by: RamblinDude | December 6, 2008 12:10 AM
"Who are you to tell those . . ."
Not saying your not entitled to your opinion, of course.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 6, 2008 12:12 AM
If Mr. Wesselius meant it, he understands freedom of speech. That is to be admired.Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 6, 2008 12:12 AM
Ham hands my ass.
bacon maybe but not hams
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 6, 2008 12:15 AM
Did I mention "Emmet for Molly?"
I think I did.
Posted by: rs | December 6, 2008 12:19 AM
to Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM #573
>>Where the hell are you getting the idea that this is the standard M.O. of atheists here?
see #518, #531
to RamblinDude #578
>>Who are you to tell those who do feel strongly about that issue how to respond when they did nothing to break the law?
Well, I meant that in general disputes of this sort are better to be settled in court.
Otherwise, you might end up with this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuFnZ3klslU
Just an advice, that's all.
Posted by: cicely | December 6, 2008 12:20 AM
rs:
Yes, many Christians are nice people. Many of my closest friends are Christians, and nice people.
But then again, there was the Christian (a total stranger to me) who, while I was just trying to ring up her groceries in a businesslike manner, first invited me to go to her church and when I politely declined, told everybody within earshot, loudly and in no polite language, that I was going to burn in Hell forever, while she laughed.
And there are also the Christians (not a sweeping generalisation; I'm thinking of a specific group of individual Christians who I personally know) who feel that it's perfectly alright to lie to, cheat or steal from anyone who isn't a Christian, by which they mean anyone, even professing Christians, who are not members of their particular congregation. After all, that's what unbelievers are there for--to supply free goods and services to True Christians. They're not members of a small congregation, either; this particular church is one of the two largest (and best financed) in my city.
Religion or lack thereof is no reliable predicter of niceness or ass-holishness.
Posted by: Tomecar | December 6, 2008 12:21 AM
OK, totally OT, but I feel the need to say that I love many, many of the posters here. Because they express/validate so much of what I have felt but have not found elsewhere.
At 6 yrs old, I told my parents (one ostensibly Catholic and one, again ostensibly, protestant), that I didn't believe in God. Their mutual response was that I should (would) go to church school (Catholic) until my confirmation, and then I could decide for myself.
Since neither of my parents ever mentioned god, or had gone to church, I had no idea that my dad would be hurt when (at the age of 19) I finally mentioned (again) that I didn't believe in god. Was I ever surprised.
After that, I spent far too much time trying to make my family feel good. Ouch. My parents are/were good people (one of each). Both treat all people with respect. They dislike others based solely on their attitudes/behaviors/actions. They are/were outstandingly moral.
Despite all of this, I find myself trying to justify my anger at intolerance. My mother's life stance is that people shouldn't make waves, or judge others based on superficial features. Yet she believes that gays shouldn't "announce their sexuality".
This comes from a woman who enjoyed the rights that were gained by women who "overstepped their boundaries". She really doesn't understand that the only reason we know that there are gay politicians, is because people protested that nobody should have to hide who they are, or what they believe to be elected to office.
Aaaaargggghhhhh. It's late. I'm angry and tired.
Posted by: BobC | December 6, 2008 12:22 AM
That's also my opinion. It's also the way it should be. The Establishment Clause means what it says. Congress (and also state governments thanks to the Fourteenth Amendment) can't favor any religion. Since a Jebus-Baby equals Christianity the Nativity stuff can't be in a state capitol building. For the same reason a sign promoting atheism shouldn't be in a government building. If Christians had any intelligence at all they would be able to figure out our wall of separation between church and state is in everyone's best interest, including theirs. I imagine there's at least some Christians who aren't theocrats, but it seems most Christians have no respect for our constitution, no respect for minority religions, and no respect for atheists. This is why it's fair to say most Christians are stupid assholes. They have a bad reputation because they earned it.
Posted by: tomh | December 6, 2008 12:23 AM
Nerd of Redhead wrote:
The state had just a tree and a few secular ornaments on state property.
Actually, they had a tree and a Menorah. Not exactly secular. Part of the settlement agreement says that displays can't be restricted on account of content, religious or not.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 6, 2008 12:26 AM
i think everyone minus the overly itchy Christians here agree.
However, if they somehow manage to post their shrines to a zombie son of a god, we should press to have some voice of reason there to, so they know that is what is required by law.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 6, 2008 12:27 AM
Sorry rev. That was in homage to cuttlefish's nominating poem of you ;) Reverand Baconater it is then. Maybe you and the resident Gubernator can get together for brunch sometime. ha ha ha
"If Mr. Wesselius meant it, he understands freedom of speech. That is to be admired."- Red nerd
Even if he didn't, he was still good enough to be respectful on the air about it. And that means more than his actual opinion. It shows good character. Sending the right message i think is more important than honesty. Most objectionable christians have it ass-backwards. Don't mind my $.02
Posted by: rs | December 6, 2008 12:32 AM
to mandrake #572
>>You've really never had a Christian tell you how sorry they are that you've not accepted Christ as your personal savior because now you're going to Hell?
I guess I should get out more.
But I understand - children and young people usually get a lot of shit from adults - for all sorts of reasons.
Posted by: RamblinDude | December 6, 2008 12:33 AM
cicely,
"After all, that's what unbelievers are there for--to supply free goods and services to True Christians."
You just creeped me out. I remember being told the story of Noah's ark as a kid, and we all felt good and superior at seeing the picture of all those unbelievers drowning in the huge waves. They deserved to die after ridiculing Noah the way they did.
Most of the Christians I know (many relatives included) would not steal, but they have spent their lives cultivating that same feeling of superiority.
I despise religion.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 6, 2008 12:36 AM
Now this thread is just depressing. Back to the boob jokes!
Posted by: Dveduu | December 6, 2008 12:41 AM
I tend to rearrange nativity scenes to make the camel the centre of attention.
"Thou shalt not steal" = pwned
Posted by: Tomecat | December 6, 2008 12:44 AM
Of course they think about what they say. The fact that the person didn't know you was no deterrent. That's exactly the point. The majority of people who post here respect individual opinions. In opposition to the majority of xtians who post here.
Posted by: BobC | December 6, 2008 12:49 AM
Perhaps this is why many Christians want to throw out the Establishment Clause. They think they are better than everyone else because they are the magic fairy's chosen people, therefore they can ignore any part of the constitution they don't like.
So they stick their Jebus in a government building, not caring about non-Christians, then they complain when a group of non-Christians wants to put up a sign in the same building. Christians don't care about their reputation. They are only interested in pleasing the god fairy who lives in their tiny defective brains.
Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | December 6, 2008 12:53 AM
rs, even in the more secular UK I have had many xians tell me to my face that, not only that I an going to hell, but that I deserve to for not accepting god/Jesus.
So if this is the most ass-hole thing that we put on a sign, i.e. simply stating that there is no god and that religion has caused much damage (to paraphrase) then I am all for being an ass-hole. Especially when it is the truth.
By the way, there is no positive atheist message in the sense that atheism is simply the stand that there is no god or gods. Far too many religious accuse us of intolerance, and worse, for simply admitting that we are atheists. As even admitting we are atheists is seen as a fundamental militant attack on their beliefs by many.
As we have seen in other such examples, where even putting up a road sign stating that an atheist organisation exists as a heads up to other atheists in the area, has been denigrated by shits like O'Reilly, Donowhore and other believers as intolerant and a deliberate attack on religion, especially theirs.
Posted by: tomh | December 6, 2008 12:56 AM
It's also the way it should be. The Establishment Clause means what it says.
i think everyone minus the overly itchy Christians here agree.
Not everyone. Certain areas of the building are designated for public use and citizens are encouraged to participate. This includes displays during the holiday season, religious, non-religious, whatever, all subject to the same rules and regulations. It's no different than a government-owned public park where just about any point of view is allowed to be expressed.
Posted by: John B. Sandlin | December 6, 2008 1:05 AM
#577 Posted by John B. Sandlin on December 6, 2008 at 12:02 AM:
I want to expand on this a little: Because I typically don't talk about religion at work or with friends, people I know assume I'm a full on Christian just like them. So I get to hear their comments about atheists, and Muslims, and so on, without their politeness filters on.
These folks are active in their churches, teaching Sunday School and so on. These people attend Mega-churches. They go to gatherings like "The Promise Keepers." They talk about their churches and what they've been doing, and the missions people are on (such as missionary service in Central America).
They do believe non-believers are condemned to Hell and sometimes let slip a tiny bit of joy (or at least appear to) at the misfortune of a non-believer. Other Christians (in other sects) can be considered non-believers, too, not just agnostics and atheist, or Muslims or Buddhists.
I don't know if they realize they sound joyful, or if maybe I'm misreading them, or some other thing. At this point, I'm not comfortable with people knowing how often I go to church (or not).
So, even if they are not in my face because I'm an atheist (OK, actually I call myself an Agnostic - defined by what I know or don't know, not what I believe or don't believe) and would be polite and pretend-kind if they knew, they would still think of me just like they do the folks they do know about, and that would affect how they treat me and affect my opportunities at work, even if they tried to not let it show.
Just like I try not to treat them as silly superstitious people (literally, too: Seriously knocking wood, salt over the left shoulder, black-eyed peas for new years, etc.).
JBS
Posted by: RamblinDude | December 6, 2008 1:10 AM
Off topic but: Romania removes theory of evolution from school curriculum
Posted by: James | December 6, 2008 1:21 AM
Just an image. Nothing more need be said.
http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w11/bredae/crechecannon.jpg
Posted by: RickrOll | December 6, 2008 1:21 AM
"I tend to rearrange nativity scenes to make the camel the centre of attention."- Don't forget to put a red dot on all their foreheads AHA HA HA
"'Thou shalt not steal' = pwned"- [above] also Dveduu
Thanks for that. A return to humor. Always appreciated.
BobC, quit the hatemongering. Really. it's called projection, i fear you have it. Especially when you say "[They] don't care about their reputation. They are only interested in pleasing the god fairy who lives in their tiny defective brains."
Wheras you seem hell-bent (pun involved, sorry) on maintaning the sanctimony of "not-god" in the State's eyes. The Wall works both ways, neither forbidden, nor protected. Your brain works/is fine, what's your excuse?
"rs, even in the more secular UK I have had many xians tell me to my face that, not only that I an going to hell, but that I deserve to for not accepting god/Jesus."- John, Dawkins' Atheist Comrade, or John DAC
yep, even some of the nicest and seemingly intellectual
xians are like this. To whit:http://johnshoreland.com/2008/12/01/the-one-sin-god-cant-forgive/
And yeah, you have a great point- i think more blacks ought to be pissed buring February, especially in the South. This runs along that similar vein, doesn't it? The display is perfectly justified now, and i have removed all qualms that i had attached to it's presentation.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 6, 2008 1:31 AM
damn shit damn!
http://johnshoreland.com/2008/12/01/the-one-sin-god-cant-forgive/
Posted by: Jam | December 6, 2008 1:59 AM
Time for a heavier sign.
Plus rebar. Anyone willing to wrestle four feet of rebar out of the ground and drag away a 200 pound iron sign has rightly earned it, that's what I say.
Also, a video camera to record the struggle so the entire epic can be posted on the net with the caption: "Christian so afraid of the Establishment Clause he is willing to sacrifice an hour of his time and the health of his lower back to fight it."
Posted by: Rey Fox | December 6, 2008 2:06 AM
Emmet @549:
I think I just got a tear in my eye.
Posted by: BobC | December 6, 2008 2:11 AM
RickrOll (602), go fuck yourself. If you want to suck up to Christian assholes, that's fine with me. Just don't expect me to be a suck up like yourself.
Posted by: antaresrichard | December 6, 2008 3:24 AM
B Godless America.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 6, 2008 3:31 AM
When did i ever say that they weren't as you said they were!? I'm not saying they are any better by being comarable to the likes of you, BobC. Your egocentrism/Stalinism is quite bare-faced at this point.
And you go right for the jugular and insult me personally, which therefore proves my point exactly. Thank you so very much. You are just as bad as they are. They haven't been "praised" at all by me saying that.
Just because X is bad, doesn't mean Y is suddenly better. Especially if Y was terrible to begin with. If you can't accept this logic then you are just as blind as the Creationists in insisting that a disproof of evolution (which they have none of) is proof fro creation. Same for Personality BOB.
So as for Who is fucking themselves, i would have to say just look at the attitude and argument you put forward, and the PROJECTION becomes oh so obvious. It is always so easy for an arrogant Aryan to so easily put someone in the "out" group and then systematically point out their own incredably flawed psychology.
And(ONCE AGAIN) this has no bearing on the sheer stupidity of the godbots we all mock; but it would be wise not to be as quick as yourself to malign to the anti-godbot position. All it does is validate the kind of mindless tactics that they use.
Posted by: BobC | December 6, 2008 3:39 AM
My Stalinism? You really are an idiot. That's what I would expect from a Christian retard.
Posted by: BobC | December 6, 2008 3:45 AM
RickrOll, There's a lot to be said for the concept called "minding your own business". If you want to suck up to Christians, that's fine with me. If I want to tell the truth about Christians, you shouldn't have a problem with that. Instead you call me a hatemonger, and just to prove you're as stupid as the worst Christians, you call me a Stalinist. I repeat, go fuck yourself moron.
Posted by: Aquaria | December 6, 2008 3:53 AM
They don't do it just to children & young people. I'm 46 years old, and only last month someone asked me if I wouldn't come to the Lord rather than burn in hell for being an atheist. I've been hearing that crap all of my life. And I'm sick of it. That's the response I get just for saying, "No, I don't believe in God." You can say it as sweetly as you like, and the response you get is pearl-clutching hysteria. At least down here in Texas. And I live in one of the GOOD parts of the state, where it only happens periodically, rather than ALL---THE---TIME. Do you know what it was like to grow up in a place where the first thing someone asked you upon meeting wasn't, how old are you, are you married/single, do you have kids, what do you like to do, but, "What church do you go to?" And to get the "you're going to burn in hell" spiel yet again?
I swear, if I'd had to stay in East Texas one minute longer than I did, I wouldn't have made it to my 30th birthday.
So, yes, rs, there are people who have to deal with this nonsense, day in, day out. And yes, you do need to get out more. What are you not to know this is how things are for atheists in most of America, a 12 year old?
Posted by: Plex Flexico | December 6, 2008 3:56 AM
RickrOll: "..."If Mr. Wesselius meant it, he understands freedom of speech. That is to be admired."- Red nerd
Even if he didn't, he was still good enough to be respectful on the air about it. And that means more than his actual opinion. It shows good character. Sending the right message i think is more important than honesty. Most objectionable christians have it ass-backwards. Don't mind my $.02"
No it would not mean he has "good character". It would mean he's a liar and so spineless that he feels the need to pretend to be someone other than who he is.
You have some very twisted ideas about what makes someone a good person.
Posted by: John Morales | December 6, 2008 4:03 AM
Phew, a bit of catching up on this thread.
rs @428,
Still stand by that, after the subsequent discussion?
Posted by: RickrOll | December 6, 2008 4:08 AM
It'a called hyperbole, smart man. Again, no point, no response, just a knee-jerk reaction, as i would expect.
"The truth"? I saw that tomh responded to that quite simply at 598, so is he "sucking-up" too? Just like christians everywhere, you are perfectly willing to take an abolitionist approach to religion and sacrifice that excluded middle (which includes a lot of fence-sitting christians as well as many mild-mannered atheists to se reality conform to your ideal.
Was Stalin different? Yes, he was insane, he was a dictator who had more people killed than even Hitler to consolidate his power. Obviously you think that such tactics aren't really all that extreme, for the sake of accomplishing your idealogue (his- political, yours- ethnocentric as it pertains to a demograghic).
You heve already said that all creationists ought to be forcibly removed from schools. Not much different from the idea of removing evolution from schools, when you come down to it- except that creationism only pertains to a particular subject.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 6, 2008 4:16 AM
"No it would not mean he has "good character". It would mean he's a liar and so spineless that he feels the need to pretend to be someone other than who he is.
You have some very twisted ideas about what makes someone a good person."-Plex Flexico #612
You mean what, like putting the Constitution above his own opinions? How could he be lying if he was telling the truth? He would be at worst, a coward, but a liar he would not be. You think the 1st Amendment is terrible, the antithises of "Great"? Besides, moot because what he said ringed of sincerity.
Posted by: BobC | December 6, 2008 4:21 AM
I said creationist teachers should be fired for incompetence and stupidity. I didn't say "forcibly removed".
If you think it's fair to students to have a teacher stupid enough to believe a god fairy waved its magic wand to magically create creatures, that's fine with me. That's your opinion. You don't give a shit about students. You want to suck up to religious insanity. Good for you. But you got a lot of nerve to call me a hatemonger and a Stalinist just because I'm not a wimp like you are.
RickrOll, is this one of your hobbies, insulting atheists who aren't wimps like yourself?
Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | December 6, 2008 4:25 AM
RickrOll posted
Cheers Rick, I quite like that moniker, I might well approprioate it as my signature as it goes well with FCD :)
John DAC
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 6, 2008 4:33 AM
You're wrong.
He had the opportunity to sound off like Bill O'Reilly and many of the other Christians of various stripes who assert that America is a Christian nation, and therefore Christianity should be given primacy. He avoided doing that, even though it would have been very easy to do so.
If he genuinely agrees in true freedom of expression, then he's rejecting the opportunity to go along with the vast herd of his fellow religious believers, and is taking a stand on the true intent of the First Amendment. That is true integrity.
If he doesn't really agree with freedom of expression, but says that he does in a public forum, he's still rejecting the opportunity to go along with the vast herd of his fellow religious believers, and is supporting the First Amendment regardless, perhaps out of the pragmatic understanding that he benefits from equal enforcement of the establishment clause. While that isn't quite integrity, speaking supportively of an atheist message is still magnanimity, and it is still a positive quality.
Posted by: CosmicTeapot | December 6, 2008 4:36 AM
I'm with adding something to the Nativity scene.
Nowhere in the bible does it say there were 3 wise men, just wise men bearing gifts. There could have been many magi bearing gold, frankincense and myrh. So we need to add to the nativity scene as many wise men as we can. Maybe one or two with an atheist t-shirt on.
Enough wise men to block the nativity scene from view, perhaps. And a line of them going to the atheist sign to read it too.
Well, back to reading this post. I think I was at comment 50 ...
Posted by: RickrOll | December 6, 2008 4:37 AM
Wow John [DAC] *blushes*, i had know i dea i could say something that someone Liked Ha ha...ha...*cough*
And on the flip side: Bob, continue anti-godbotting to your pleasure. I will ignore you because all you are interested in is insulting me.
And fine, you aren't a Stalanist, you're a Catholic preist, circa 1500. Keep the knowledge of religion a secret, create a new paraih for society. That won't empower them at all *roll*
Forcibly removed=fired. rebutt FAIL.
If you hate creationists so much, then simply mandate religious critique classes. Sounds like a fair compramise.
OH boy oh boy, Nance is BACK in Business! http://womenintheword.wordpress.com/2008/12/05/the-god-of-mormonism/#comment-296
Posted by: scooter | December 6, 2008 4:40 AM
Enlighten Tree in my kitchen
http://acksisofevil.org/images/AmasTree.jpg
Posted by: moother | December 6, 2008 4:41 AM
increasing the post count in this Über Thread
Posted by: BobC | December 6, 2008 4:45 AM
Forcibly removed implies using physical force. Most fired people leave peaceably.
Again you sound just like a Christian retard who tell atheists they hate god or they hate christians, just because they want Christians to keep their insanity out of our schools.
I don't hate creationists. I just don't want creationists in public schools. Just because somebody is stupid is no reason to dislike them, unless of course they're atheist wimps like yourself.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 6, 2008 4:47 AM
CosmicTeapot. "I'm with adding something to the Nativity scene....."
Gnomes and Trolls! YEAH ha hah ha!
Oh, and do treat Nance a little gentler ok? just so that there can be a discussion. And the plaigerism thing is officially done now alright? Now she's talking about Mormons... a little common ground to agree to hate. OOOOooooooooh, exciting!!
Posted by: BobC | December 6, 2008 4:49 AM
I never heard of you until you started calling me a hatemonger, Mr. Asshole.
Posted by: Mr. Asshole | December 6, 2008 4:54 AM
Hey, i resent being lumped with this para-christian fucktard!
Posted by: pcarini | December 6, 2008 5:02 AM
@BobC: I'm sure RickROll can take care of himself, but a couple of things about your #610:
The Stalinist bit may be a bit melodramatic, but without taking on the disagreeable task of scanning your post history I can't really say. Hatemonger seems much closer to the mark -- can you point to a single one of your past posts that _isn't_ an example of hatemongering?
Everything you add to a thread is "on record" as it were. The posters here are generally top-notch, and their thoughtfulness is large part of why I visit so often. It's also why I get annoyed when someone comes in and thoughtlessly hurls their e-feces around like a prejudiced, distempered fourteen year old. It warrants not "minding my own business" long enough to point out what an asshole you're being.
I already knew that being an atheist was no guarantee of good (or even civil) behavior, I don't need to have it proved to me over and over again. Seriously, lighten up on the prejudice against everybody who isn't sufficiently atheistic for you long enough to try judging people by their behavior. Who knows, you might even find you _like_ some of them (One can always hope, right?)
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 6, 2008 5:05 AM
I'm from the provence, and for the last 30 years I've been collecting Santons. These are little hand painted figurines cast in terracotta that are used to build nativity scenes (crêche de noël). I've got about 50 of them, they are very beautiful, and every year, I go in the forest and collect leaves, branches, stones, pine, wood etc... and set up the nativity scene in my house. I add some lighting, I make it as pretty as I feel like.
Yet, I've never done it as a sign of my religosity as I've never believed in any religious myth, I'm an agnostic.
It's only a naïve representation of a fairy tale, could have been Cinderella, sleeping beauty, or the frog that turned into a prince but can't find Santons for that, so it's that other fairy tale, the one about the birth of Jesus.
By the way, you see that a lot in France, the majority of the population is now non religious, yet so many set nativity scenes as a matter of tradition or naïve art. Most of my friends and family are atheists or agnostics and when they see my crêche, they all say : how beautiful, and nobody would even think I'm actually remembering the virgin birth of the son of the creator of the universe.
Nobody would think I'm THAT crazy !
Maybe that's what happens in a post-religious society, the myths remain as sources of creativity and really move beyond belief.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 6, 2008 5:17 AM
negentropyeater, are you a para-christian fucktard too? HA HA HAH AH AAAHA
kids, all of it. The best part is Mr. Asshole being created specifically for a post called "Let's not play that game." How fitting that someone else would be so kind as to point to the traditional role that these things have in society. It is like the memetic version of junk DNA, something that survives despite losing it's original function. Cool, i'll have to start calling it that crêche too, as soon as i figure out how the fuck to put the carrot symbol above like that... hmmm.
We didn't set up a christmas village at my house this year, no good place to put them where they won't get broken. A real shame, that.
Aaaah, there's something, those little Christmas villages, which have all the churches and things such as that but are devoid of religious meaning. An intreaguing possibility that may put an end to the Nativity scene in our non-religious future...
Posted by: clinteas | December 6, 2008 5:26 AM
Thank you Neg,for posting something of substance relevant to the thread topic.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 6, 2008 5:29 AM
well according to the activity on this thread anf others i can reasonably get to sleep at aroung 2:30 am. Otherwise i just Have to know what's being said! it's a pain in the ass being addicted to the internets. *sigh*
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 6, 2008 5:43 AM
When I lived in the US (ok, I only lived in Manhattan and San Francisco, not exactly representative), I did get a lot of reactions to my crêche that were new to me, positive reactions from Christians who thought that meant I was one of them and perplexed reactions from non believers who had thought, rightfully, that I was one of them.
Eventually, I felt compelled to add a little hand painted sign to my nativity scene, Magritte style, I added :
ceci n'est pas une crêche
Posted by: Arnosium Upinarum | December 6, 2008 5:53 AM
This really pisses me off. There's plenty of idiocy to go all around. The display[s] were placed in front of a State Capitol building. NEITHER have any business being there.
"Although a number of humanists and atheists continue to attempt to rid God and Christmas from the public square, the American people are overwhelmingly opposed to such efforts," Roberta Combs, the [Christian Coalition of America] president said in a press release. "We will ask our millions of supporters to call the city of Washington, D.C., and Congress to stop this un-Godly campaign."
Anyone who makes any such statement is un-Amercian and an asshole, no matter how "godly" they perceive themselves to be.
She and others of her obnoxiously righteous ilk are either:
A. Pretty damned stupid or woefully miseducated and therefore entirely ignorant of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and don't understand how freedom of speech cannot supervene the religious clauses in the First Amendment, even though it has been established time and time again all the way to the Supreme Court,
or
B. Not so stupid and DO understand the Constitution, yet CHOOSE to BREAK State and Federal laws because they feel their religious conviction supercedes the law of the land...DESPITE the fact that state and federal courts have repeatedly emphasized clarifications of the relation between freedom of speech and the Establishment Clause, performed in the EXPERT service of their solemn duty to interpret the friggin' LAW as the third leg of the tripod of US government, the Judicial Branch of the United States...and DESPITE the fact that the Founders of this country went to great pains to specify the rule of law - not the rule of man, nor any of man's varied superstitious contraptions based on whatever supernatural whim.
If the latter is the case, Ms. Combs and her kind are blatantly anti-American. Plainly, they hold their creed above the laws of the United States of America. They, as a group, are traitors, conducting treasonous acts AGAINST the laws of these United States of America.
And, by the way, Ms. Combs? If any part of a "public square" is government property, and under the jurisdiction of that government that upholds the Constitution, in THIS country it means you CANNOT exercise your "free speech" there if it interferes with the separation of religion and state. That's all there is to it: the Founders made absolutely sure everyone could practice whatever religion they wished on their own time, property and resources. A SOUNDLY COMPLETE interpretation gives that same right to individuals who practice no religious superstition at all: no matter how revolted you may be by it, the provision in the Establishment Clause in concert with Freedom of Speech and of Assembly and so on, recognizes the freedom FROM religion as well as the freedom OF religion (or it wouldn't make a turd's-worth of sense, would it?) - all of these liberties - MUST be extended to everybody, no matter how much their thinking differs from yours.
Remember? America? Land of the free? Home of the brave? All that deliciously illustrious feel-good patriotic Good Stuff? Well, you guys went and ran with that as if it was your own monopoly for quite enough time, and you failed miserably. You so easily forgot Life, Liberty, The Pursuit of Happiness and even Justice for All.
You even enjoy tax-exempt status! (Yet emminently arguable as unconstitutional!). What the hell is your problem? What can you want? More? You want to dictate what is taught in public schools to OUR kids too?
You are very fond of inviting people who "criticize" the country in order to improve it to go live in another - preferably, one that is oppressed by some horrible dictatorship regime. Yet that is precisely the kind of country you are bent on fashioning for us. And you still want more.
Well, we're all very sorry, but you've already had quite enough, and you can't have any more. It's high time your immodest standards were reduced back to the level that does not make you special in the eyes of government. Truly, I do not give a shit whether your god considers you special or not: that preposterous question is utterly irrelevant, and you had better learn to start living WITH people, instead of AGAINST them.
No, you won't find that in your precious bible and other religious texts. You have to learn to live like a real human being, taking responsiblity for ALL of your actions, right here and now, while you are actually alive. No more passing the buck to the Big Guy; no more avoiding responsibility via confessionally-prescribed pennance or absolution that makes everything better by absolving you of your transgressions; no more thinking that anybody else (including your concept of god) can possibly do a better job of controlling your actions than you yourself can...or thinking that you can escape the consequences of your actions in this life, whenever other people you share existence with call you out on it.
If it's ultimately all about individual responsibility, what does that single circumstance say about those who practice a belief that systematically absolves them of all their actions? Poof! My sins are now vanquished because I've confessed to god almighty and he cleared the record? > I can now go ahead and remain a jackass, in full knowledge of the fact that I can always get a reprieve?
If you think you know the answer to that, I must humbly conclude that you know what god knows, and in knowing that much, you think yourself AS GOD.
(I wonder if you would stoop to taking that particular issue up in the confessional - you know, assuming the knowledge of a god...no, I don't suppose anything that lurid ever occurs to you).
Oh, and Ms. Combs? Be VERY sure that God wasn't on the side of our American founders Jefferson and Madison, won't you? Even after all the fact-twisting you may not find what you were looking for. You may even conclude that Jefferson and Madison were atheistic! (Just be careful in your analysis. God can't possibly be pleased with people who twist, spindle, mutilate, or otherwise obscure the facts, would He? If you do, and if He IS pleased by such arrogant contempt of the truth, He would be as much of a liar as you are, and we couldn't have God reduced to the level of fallible human beings, now, could we?
--
Now, the OTHER beef. This will be relatively short, because American atheists really ought to know better. Unfortunately, stupidity is not restricted to non-atheists.
There's an obnoxious display put up by a religious group in front of a State Capitol building (or, say, a City Hall somewhere, or whatever): so what do atheists do? In order to "respond" in kind, to get their own opinion across (it is alleged) they break the same laws as the religious folks did, and put up their own display in the form of a sign.
Does this help instruct people of the importance of the separation of state from any religious or non-religious ideologies? NO. What does it do? THE VERY VERY WORST: it validates the religious display and sets a precedent for government property to be places where such displays are erected. When (NOT "if") this business will get into the courts, anybody who thinks this will not confuse and obfuscate the preeminant issue under examination is as big a moron as any religious zealot could possibly be.
Whether or not the atheist group responsible had good intentions or not, their naivete is alarming. Placing that sign there and expecting it NOT to be it ripped off is stupid beyond belief, but it also turns it into another legal dimension that has the potential of wrecking the focus on the actual constitutional issues involved. I think the whole business of the "theft" of that plaque is a strategic act aptly played out as a news story by CNN and others, and believe me, they'll try to milk this for all it's worth. The timing gloves right in with their neurosis, and it IS Christmas time, after all, and these kinds of spotlights really do a bang-up job of seizing people's attention on things that otherwise don't deserve spit.
If it is possible to be more assinine still, it's the impulse expressed by some people to steal away religious displays, however unlawful those displays are. It is assinine for precisely the same reason that it is unlawful for anybody to take the law into their own hands, as in, for example, a lynch mob hanging somebody without a trial.
No, really. No matter the difference between petty and capitol offenses, it's precisely the same affront to the rule of law.
There. I've said my piece, however awkwardly.
These other guys (among MANY others of similar accomplishment and virtue, far above my inept squeaks) also had things to say:
"The principle that government may accommodate the free exercise of religion does not supersede the fundamental limitations imposed by the Establishment Clause, which guarantees at a minimum that a government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise, or otherwise act in a way which "establishes a [state] religion or religious faith, or tends to do so."" [Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 678. Pp.7-8. - re-enunciated in Lee vs. Weisman, 1992, Supreme Court decision]
"[E]xperience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation." [James Madison, as quoted by Justice Kennedy, opinion of the court in Lee vs. Weisman]
Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | December 6, 2008 6:20 AM
Arnosium: As I understand it, this all started a few years ago when the governor, perhaps innocently, allowed a tree and a menorah to be displayed but then refused to allow a nativity scene. The xians took it to court where the court said, rightly or wrongly and to paraphrase, allow one (the menorah) and you have to allow any.
If I had been the atheists involved, my reason for putting an atheist sign up, seeing the court had said it was OK as long as all were allowed,, would be to engender a debate about the correctness of the decision, while knowing it likely that some xians would act hypocritically. Perhaps the xians would get so upset, that they would campaign to have none displayed in future, though from experience, they would more likely campaign for the rejection of all but theirs. However, this would not only allow them to be slapped down in court, but would also display their hypocrisy.
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 6, 2008 6:50 AM
In Lynch v. Donnelly, didn't the Supreme court hold that the city of Pawtucket's nativity scene does not violate the Establishment Clause :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynch_v._DonnellyPosted by: negentropyeater | December 6, 2008 6:58 AM
John #634,
not eacxtly, you are refering to County of Allegheny v. ACLU :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegheny_County_v._Greater_Pittsburgh_ACLU
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 6, 2008 7:04 AM
So apparently the crêche in Lynch v. Donnelly was constitutional, but the one in County of Allegheny v. ACLU wasn't.
The difference, the unconstitutional crêche had an angel carrying a banner, with the words:
Gloria in Excelsis Deo!
Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | December 6, 2008 7:23 AM
Negentropyeater;
http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/WesseliusSettlement.pdf
from;
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/12/give_bill_oreilly_apoplexy.php#comment-1241502
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 6, 2008 8:04 AM
John,
thx for the info.
It seems the Supreme court and District court rulling are quite different.
The Supreme court looks at whether the display, (or set of dsplays) hasn't for "principal or primary effect" to advance religion according to the Lemon test, ie whether the display can be considered secular whereas the district court says if you allow one, you should allow all.
Isn't it confusing ?
Posted by: scooter | December 6, 2008 8:13 AM
Enlighten Tree in my kitchen
http://acksisofevil.org/images/AmasTree.jpg
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 6, 2008 8:20 AM
Our courts interpretation of the first amendment can be some very fine hair splitting, with conflicting decisions in various district courts. In this case, the state made the mistake of adding a menorah to their display at some time. That gave it a bit of religiousness, which then really required all the other "religious" displays to be included, for example, both the nativity scene and the FFRF card. No surprise that the state lost the case in court. It is usually safest for the state to stick to just a tree, santa, and snowmen, which are totally secular. Then they can point to the church just down the street (isn't there always one just down the street) as the proper place for the nativity scenes.
Posted by: Malcolm | December 6, 2008 8:24 AM
echidna #472
I wouldn't have a clue.
You'd need to ask a Christian.
I just meant that every time I ask one about them breaking one of the rules from the OT, they tell me that they only follow the NT.
I knew I should have put sarcasm tags on that post.
Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | December 6, 2008 8:31 AM
Negentropyeater: Tell me about it :)
Though possibly the local court was simply deciding on balance, i.e. allow none or allow all. Either decision would lead to the state not endorsing a religion. Possibly they decided for balance because the promoters of the nativity scene asked for the right to also be allowed their display rather than to banish the other. Perhaps if instead they had asked for the banishment of the menorah under the establishment clause, the local court would have banned such displays altogether.
Posted by: CosmicTeapot | December 6, 2008 8:35 AM
Emmet @424
You steal the bike, and then pray for forgiveness. That's how christianity works!
Posted by: DaveL | December 6, 2008 8:51 AM
Negentropyeater,
On a similar note to your experiences, I have sometimes been asked "Why would you celebrate Christmas, if you're an atheist?"
I ask them:
"Do you believe in Santa Claus?"
"Do you believe in Frosty the Snowman?"
"Do you believe in Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer?"
When all the above have been answered in the negative, I reply:
"Well, I don't believe in Christ the Magic Hebrew."
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 6, 2008 8:54 AM
Nerd,
Maybe the problem is with the first amendment itself, such a confusing piece of text, written more than 200 years ago. A lot has happened since then. My personal opinion, Americans could do themselves a favour and make things clear : separation of church and state only works when the state isn't allowed to recognize any religion, as in the French 1905 law on Laïcité. The rest in just wishful thinking.
Posted by: Marc Abian | December 6, 2008 9:27 AM
Junk? I don't think so.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061113180029.htm
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 6, 2008 9:34 AM
Hmmm... that gives me an idea for a seasonal song...
Jesus the Magic Zombie
On the cross and comatose
And if you ever saw him
You would even say "He's toast!"
All of the Roman soldiers
Used to laugh and call him names
They wouldn't let poor Jesus
Undermine the Roman state
Then one sultry Pass-over
Judas came to say:
"Jesus with your halo bright,
I will fuck you up tonight"
Then all the soldiers grabbed him
They all shouted out with glee:
"Jesus the Magic Zombie
We're gonna nail you to a tree!"
Posted by: Plex Flexico | December 6, 2008 9:48 AM
I think RickRoll missed my point:
If the guy had said: "I think it's fine." and meant it, he's not a liar, is he?
If he disagreed and had said: "I do not agree with it, but they are within their rights to do so." or "My personal beliefs are not the issue, they have every right to have this display." he is also not a liar, right?
If he says: "I agree with it and have no problem with it", when he does have a problem with it, he is a liar, yes?
So in your hypothetical situation, there are many ways he could have upheld your constitution without lying about his own position, if his position had been one of disagreement with the sign being posted.
....now, just to be clear, you were the one who suggested that lying about his position would make him a person of good character, and I was responding that that and that alone.
Lying to appear more popular = Lying for Jesus = Lying for your own gain and people with good character don't lie.
Posted by: clinteas | December 6, 2008 9:58 AM
Seems quite a few people missed points on this thread today.
Posted by: Voltaire Kinison | December 6, 2008 10:07 AM
It's pretty simple...
Christians go to church and worship a god that tortured and killed his own son. (then turned him into a zombie)
We think it's wrong to kill our children.
Christians call us evil, and think we should be tortured for infinity because we don't go to church and worship the child killer.
Yeah, we're the immoral ones.
Posted by: tomh | December 6, 2008 12:18 PM
@#633 If any part of a "public square" is government property, and under the jurisdiction of that government that upholds the Constitution, in THIS country it means you CANNOT exercise your "free speech" there if it interferes with the separation of religion and state. That's all there is to it:
That's not all there is to it, there are rarely simple answers to complex questions. There is a huge body of law concerning free speech in a public forum on government owned land, some of it contradictory. This was a state case, not a federal one, but for anyone interested in the facts of this case this is the original complaint and this is the
settlement agreement.
Posted by: tomh | December 6, 2008 12:21 PM
Pardon me, I'm mistaken, this was a U.S. District Court.
Posted by: Sastra | December 6, 2008 12:51 PM
Nerd of Redhead #643 wrote:
Agree -- but I wanted to point something out, which needs to be kept in mind. Although most people, including the atheists who read this blog, agree that decorated trees, Santa, and snowmen are "totally secular," there is a small but significant group of what I call "Purists" who instead see them as strictly religious expressions of Christianity.
The Purists include Christians, atheists, and people of non-Christian religions. In their view, the people of the world are divided into very strict religious categories, with little to no overlap, and virtually no common ground. And like must keep to like. One should not allow one's ideology to be tainted or compromised by compromise with the enemy.
To Purists, the origins of holidays really matter, and holidays, like ideology, must be kept pure. If Halloween was originally a pagan holiday with pagan purposes, then it is still a pagan holiday. Non-pagans who celebrate it and ignore its roots are wrong. Ditto for Santa Claus. If it's short for "Saint Nicholas" then it belongs to the Christians. A Jew, pagan, or atheist who has a Santa on their porch is a hypocrite, and a traitor to their own views.
Of course, there's a huge problem with Purism. That same Santa Claus can be traced back to a Catholic saint -- which means Protestant sects can't use Santa, either. Or, alternately, you can decide to trace it to its pagan origins -- in which case it's fine for pagans, but not for anyone else. And since "pagan" is a broad category, Purists are going to need to know which pagans invented Santa Claus, so that some pagans who use Santa without proper claim to it can be scolded for their hypocrisy. And so forth and so on.
I've known atheist Purists who think doing anything at all during December is pandering to the religious. They won't even eat cookies or drink egg nog. They're sort of the atheist equivalent of Jehovah's Witnesses.
As a secular humanist, I think Purism is a bad idea. But of course, I have places where I draw a line myself: I eventually stopped putting our manger set up under the Christmas tree when I got more and more involved in atheist and humanist activism, and found it harder and harder to just continue to approach it with the natural assumption that it was a nice historical myth, like negentropyeater. But, of course, I still keep the Christmas tree, and call it Christmas tree. To me, that's still secular.
But now I put a little sun ornament I made on the top. Not as explicit as scooter's impressive Dawkins' Atheist A, but still a nod to its non-religious purpose.
Posted by: mandrake | December 6, 2008 1:16 PM
Aquaria wrote:
Hahaha! That's a perfect way of phrasing it. And I note that you weren't the person wandering about professing atheism. The whole thing starts when *they* ask *you*. (Got out of Louisiana at 17, btw, can totally relate. It doesn't help that I don't like football, either.)
Posted by: Rolan le Gargéac | December 6, 2008 1:49 PM
Pete Rooke #311
Poor Pete -leaves
moon-viewing
for poet baiting
Posted by: Robert Thille | December 6, 2008 2:32 PM
I love the 'A-tree'...great, now I have something I can do to avoid all the bill paying and filing I really need to do in my office this beautiful Saturday. Instead I can blow up the Scarlet-A logo from richarddawkins.net and use it to cut one out of plywood or something and mount it to the tree before my wife (the semi-ex x-ian [logic and reason seems to have worked pretty well on her, but she still has the whole, "but I hope I'll live forever after I die" thing going on]) gets home :-)
Posted by: gwyllion | December 6, 2008 4:11 PM
Hey All,
i need to ask a question here - they had a HUGE brouhaha about this issue on the local progressive radio station here yesterday (KPOJ Portland, OR) the host Carl Wolfson (who is GREAT) was objecting to the tone of the atheist plaque -not their right to display it (he specifically objected to the wording that religion "hardened hearts" etc basically calling those who believed in God ignorant/stupid etc) - Christine the other underling co-host was staunchly defending the plaque stating that since Christmas has been forced down everyone's throat forever that the 'payback' aspect of the plaque was AOK - but what really infuriated me (and what i need help with) was that the other main host Thom Hartman (who by the way is a TOTALLY self absorbed pseudo-intellectual shameless self-promoting blowhard and know-it-all) came on in defense of the Nativity calling out those who believe in the "Atheist Religion" and repeatedly called atheists people who believe in the '"Atheist Religion" . Now, i was driving and wanted to call up and ask him exactly what the hell he meant by that term - but i am not the most articulate person when i am angry and probably would have blathered some idiocy in rage that hurt rather than helped the issue. So please - those more level-headed and articulate among you - how should/could i have responded to this????
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 6, 2008 4:22 PM
gwyllion, hopefully some of those better able to answer your question will chime in.
The definition of atheism is the lack of belief in god. Usually this means the Abrahamic god, but can also refer to any god. It can also mean the lack of belief in all gods.
I would ask what is meant by the atheist religion, since it has no god, no holy books, and no theology. The squirming should begin almost immediately as they try to twist the three noes into some type of religion. Then keep bringing up what is required for a religion, like god, holy book, and theology, and how atheism doesn't fit.
My two cents.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 6, 2008 4:27 PM
Well, I think it might be worthwhile to ask what he thinks "religion" means. "Atheism" is certainly something that exists in relation to religion, but it is a rejection of religion and belief in God.
You might ask "Is bald a hair colour? Is lack of religion a religion?"
Also, it might be worthwhile pointing out that if he really thinks that religion is important, calling atheism a religion trivializes the very meaning of the word "religion". If not believing in the truth of any religion is a religion, then anything at all can be a religion. Driving your car; eating waffles; watching TV; surfing the Internet. Does he really want to suggest that people who go to church and pray with true devotion are doing the exact same sort of thing as whose who stay in and watch a movie, who are exact doing the same sort of thing as people who firmly say that religion is false and prayer is useless?
And so on.
Posted by: Sastra | December 6, 2008 4:43 PM
I think it might have been interesting to point out that, when atheists object to religion, they do so because they think religion is not scientific enough; instead, it's dogmatic. People believe it because they want it to be truel
When theists object to atheism, they do so because they think atheism is too much like a religion: it's unscientific, dogmatic, and people just believe it because they want it to be true.
So it seems both groups agree that calling something "religious" is an insult.
I might also use Richard Dawkins point on not confusing passion with dogmatism. He knows what it would take to change his mind about evolution and atheism. If he's wrong, he'd want to change. And he could.
But you're supposed to hold on to faith, and never change. If your answer to "what would it take to change your mind and become an atheist?" is "I would and could never do that" -- then there is the difference between a working theory -- and a religion.
Posted by: Rebelest | December 6, 2008 5:39 PM
I'm copying this comment that I made to KING5, a Seattle TV station. I've noticed that many people here and on other blogs have objected to the wording of FFRF's sign, specifically, the part about hardening hearts and enslaving minds.
The truth of that statement is proved by watching the clip at KING5's site: http://www.king5.com/topstories/stories/NW_120508WAB_atheist_holiday_display_KS.3284f26e.html?ocp=1#slcgm_comments_anchor
My comment, which is relevant to some of the comments posted in this thread:
Posted by: Bob Vogel | December 6, 2008 6:06 PM
Arno, #633. That was an absolutely beautiful rant. I read every word. Hope you don't mind if I send it to a few friends & family who live in Washington and Oregon...
Posted by: Kevin | December 6, 2008 6:13 PM
Some people consider the sign-stealer to be a hero!
http://calvinists4conservatism.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/profiles-in-courage-sign-stealers/
Posted by: Mark | December 6, 2008 6:52 PM
Of course there is no excuse for stealing the sign from the public square, I have to agree with those who feel it was a tad mean spirited. I would propose for a more positive (but no less cynical) statement such as:
For ages we have honored the Winter Solstice because in the darkest of times, we recognize the importance of staying together and helping each other. We fill ourselves with the rich foods of our harvest in the hope that we may survive until the spring.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 6, 2008 7:09 PM
Flexico @649: may i just point out to you Owlmirror's post on this at 618. And liars for Jesus are going Against polular sentiment, not with it, and it is why they are trying to get thier mentally retarded curriculum OK'ed for public schools.
@633: A little too black and white. It is far less cimple then that, as many have stated.
To much of the following discussion: Now, it seems to me that Yes, nativity scenes are highly secularised, as -S8'er pointed out so well at #628, but when they proclaim a religious message, then it is wrong. For example, the "Gloria in Excelsis Deo!" banner=unconstitutional. So......how is that "there are no gods or anglels" any different on that point? It IS promoting an anti-religious message after all.
Posted by: tomh | December 6, 2008 7:43 PM
@666 Now, it seems to me that Yes, nativity scenes are highly secularised, as -S8'er pointed out so well at #628, but when they proclaim a religious message, then it is wrong.
If we're still talking about the Seattle display, this sign is in front of the Nativity scene. Part of the settlement agreement was that the sign would be displayed at all times. Secular doesn't enter into it.
This nativity holiday display was provided and erected by private citizens of the State of Washington to commemorate the birth of Jesus Christ, which is celebrated by Christians around the world.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 6, 2008 7:53 PM
Awesome, i got to be 666! Anyway, yes, it would seem that secular doesn't factor into this particular scenario, but i was looking at it from a legal standpoint. But if it doesn't go to court, then i guess that is rather moot, isn't it?
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | December 6, 2008 7:54 PM
Pete Rooke @ # 171 disses: ... Surfism...
Prepare to be stomped by a lot of muscle boys with excellent tans.
Posted by: tomh | December 6, 2008 8:01 PM
Of course, it's not Seattle at all, it's in the Capitol building in Olympia.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 6, 2008 8:02 PM
He might like it.Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 6, 2008 8:10 PM
I'd like to fashion a pair of surfing trunks from the excellently tanned skin of a muscular loved one. Now that would be bitchin'!
Posted by: tomh | December 6, 2008 8:11 PM
Religious or anti-religious, there can be no discrimination based on content. The point is that the government is not promoting or endorsing any of these displays, it is providing a public forum where all and any views are allowed.
Posted by: Plex Flexico | December 6, 2008 8:49 PM
tomh #673: "Religious or anti-religious, there can be no discrimination based on content. The point is that the government is not promoting or endorsing any of these displays, it is providing a public forum where all and any views are allowed."
Very well put.
Posted by: culuriel | December 6, 2008 8:54 PM
christ, i am tired of christians getting government property at all to tell me i need their savior, or else. i don't need a savior. i don't need saving. especially not by a guy whose followers have burned people, sacked cities, attempted repeatedly to wipe out jews and american indians, and have done and still do everything in their power to suppress knowledge, encourage ignorance, and make almost every form of sexuality into a crime. that's what i see when i look at a creche. if ffrf wants to put up a sign next to the baby jesus that reminds people of that, good for them.
Posted by: tomh | December 6, 2008 8:55 PM
@668
To continue, since the government is not endorsing any (religious) display, there is no Establishment Clause problem, and as long as they don't discriminate based on content there is no Free Speech problem. So there would be nothing to base a court case on. The problems come when people object to displays based on what they say, religious or otherwise. But that's the price of living with the American concept of free speech - sometimes you have to endure speech that makes you uncomfortable.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 6, 2008 8:56 PM
Why does the government need to provide a space for such? What stops this being interpreted as all government locations are open for such displays?
Posted by: RickrOll | December 6, 2008 9:03 PM
umm, didn't the christians sue to be able to even put up a nativity scene? I distinctly remember reading that.
Posted by: tomh | December 6, 2008 10:13 PM
@677
Why does the government need to provide a space for such?
They don't.
What stops this being interpreted as all government locations are open for such displays?
This is a specific area designated for this purpose. The justification is spelled out in the Capitol Campus Facilities Policy, which is appended to the
Settlement Agreement of the Washington case.
"The buildings and grounds of Washington's capitol campus are maintained by its citizens for the pupose of conducting the business of state government. Public participation and involvement by citizens is encouraged. Therefore, where and when access is allowed, state government must provide for non-discriminatory access to and use of capitol facilities by all citizens."
Then there are four pages of rules spelling out where and when access is allowed. Holiday displays of this sort are allowed for about three weeks during December.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 6, 2008 10:20 PM
So they specifically outline setting up holiday displays?
interesting.
Posted by: tomh | December 6, 2008 10:34 PM
So they specifically outline setting up holiday displays?
Not exactly. The time limit was set when the application for the Nativity scene was granted, but it was probably in line with the time allowed for the holiday tree, which has been put up for 20 years or more.
Posted by: tomh | December 6, 2008 10:42 PM
@678 umm, didn't the christians sue to be able to even put up a nativity scene? I distinctly remember reading that.
See post #652, there are links to the original complaint and the settlement agreement that led to this whole situation.
Posted by: Arnosium Upinarum | December 7, 2008 11:53 AM
tomh #652/3 & and RickrOll #666: I am perfectly well aware I was being "simplistic" and "black and white" on a "complex" issue. That's inevitable (even in a long rant) and it was part of the point. I trust there's nothing very wrong with re-examing an issue in terms that are at least digestibly simple, yes? Yeah, the varied legal interpretations of this and that law, state and federal gets hoary. That's part of the problem, isn't it? So isn't it okay to look back what the original intent of the Establishment Clause is and, as clearly and SIMPLY and in in no equivocally uncertain BLACK & WHITE terms, DETERMINE once and for all what that actually means? And, if no consensus is yet available, determine once and for all what it OUGHT to mean? So what if that inevitably turns into a relatively "simplistic" exercise. So be it. That's the whole friggin' idea, to simplify that which is unnecessarily complicated. And if you want any kind of chance at an substantive"debate", [listen up, John Phillips, FCD #634] quit messing around with the derivative minutae and rinky-dink small stuff. The other part of the piss-off was a motivation to perform CPR on a thread that had once again deteriorated into irrelevant nose-picking. (As in clinteas, #630, who said precisely what I was thinking when I got to that point with glazed eyes, and who provided the trigger).
Bob Vogel #663: Thanks, and no, I don't mind. (OT: Hey, do you have people from Hungary by any chance?)
Posted by: tomh | December 7, 2008 12:40 PM
#683
I'm sorry, I guess I just don't know what your point is. If it's that there should be no displays at all in this public building, (and they are inside not on the lawn), then that's fine and perfectly within the purview of the state office. They can deny all displays with no problem. But once they allow one, even a Christmas tree, they can't deny others based on content. That's pretty simple.
Posted by: Chris | December 7, 2008 12:47 PM
A better idea.... in front of a school near me, I saw a little Richard Dawkins model brandishing a little clay copy of the god delusion had been added next to the crib! ...don't break, take or invade anything, but adding a little something is pretty good harmless fun!
Posted by: Randy Stimpson | December 8, 2008 12:05 AM
Here's my conspiracy theory:
Al Qaeda stole the sign. Their original plan was to assasinate Obama and start are race war. But then they thought that it would work better to steel the sign and get the Atheists and Christains to fight it out.
But now that the truth is out what will happen next?
Posted by: jim | December 8, 2008 7:17 AM
@Emmet Caulfield #648: When I saw that, I immediately thought,
Christ the Magic Hebrew
Lived by the sea,
And frolicked in the autumn mist
In a land called Galilee...
Posted by: Mathi | December 8, 2008 1:14 PM
Now to put the thread back on track...
Thank-you Dr. Myers for taking the high ground. You set an example that many Christians should follow.