…and this is a 
But there is a group, Alabama Atheists and Agnostics, which they can join, and I'm sure there are others around. Unfortunately, they seem to be limited in how they can advertise. When they tried to do the common campus practice of chalking — putting messages on the sidewalks to let students know what they were up to — they got an unfortunate response.
"While we were chalking somebody dumped water on what we were chalking, somebody spat at us," Sloan said. "But really, overall, most people were polite."
At approximately 6 p.m., AAA finished their chalking, Sloan said. By midnight, all the chalking had been erased and scrubbed clean by what appeared to be an organization's effort.
Note that there were other groups, Christian groups, that were chalking at the same time, and that the atheists were writing inoffensive messages like "You can be good without god" and suggestions to look them up on facebook.
I guess they'll have to settle for advertising on the internet.
So, all you University of Alabama students, join Alabama Atheists and Agnostics. Heck, all Alabamians should join. It's accessible to the whole of the internet, so people all around the world can sign up.
Any other atheist groups in Alabama want a plug? Send me a note, and I'll add them here.
Whoa. There are lots of atheists in Alabama. Try these organizations out:
The Birmingham Athiests Meetup Group
North Alabama Freethought Association
Alabama Freethought Association
West Alabama Freethought Association
Etowah County Rational Alliance
Southeast Alabama Freethought Association
Montgomery Area Freethought Association
Comments
Posted by: PaleGreenPants
|
October 2, 2009 10:34 AM
Well, to be fair. Religious groups aren't known for their tolerance of other ideas.
Posted by: Richard Eis
|
October 2, 2009 10:36 AM
I wonder what our "atheists must be nice" blogger thinks we should do in these cases?
Make a nice cup of tea perhaps so more spittle can be acquired before turning the other cheek so they have something to aim for.
If someone spits at me, I will make sure they are never able to spit...or chew properly again.
Posted by: Susan
|
October 2, 2009 10:48 AM
The article makes it clear that University workers cleaned up the chalkings (because chalking violates policy) but doesn't mention whether they left the Christian group's chalkings alone. It would have been nice to have that spelled out. I assume they did (otherwise what's the point of the article?) but why not confront the University spokesperson on that hypocrisy?
Posted by: Roameo
|
October 2, 2009 10:49 AM
I'm impressed they managed to find some space to hit up at all. My campus is a perpetual turf war between the evangelical union and the student union. Still, it is a lot of fun to mess with.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
October 2, 2009 10:58 AM
Words can't hurt them. Not if they're erased and the power of the words dispelled, that is.
When all you have is words, you just can't afford to let other words supplant or contradict your own.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: bobxxxx
|
October 2, 2009 11:04 AM
I think it's fair to say Christians are assholes.
Posted by: Zeno
|
October 2, 2009 11:09 AM
More chalk.
And videocameras this time.
It would be interesting to see if the university staff scrubbed the nonbelievers' chalk advert while leaving those of the Christers alone. And it would be even more interesting to see if it's the intolerant Christers themselves who have forgotten that stuff about "do unto others" and "turn the other cheek". (I guess it doesn't count if you don't want it to.)
Posted by: chgo_liz
|
October 2, 2009 11:10 AM
Susan @ #3:
The article also makes it clear that individual students came out from an adjacent building at the time and started defacing and erasing the AAA chalking first.
Interestingly, this info comes from the leader of a religious group, who sounds like a decent guy. He stated:
He seems to get it, that the First Amendment covers everyone.
I agree with you that his religious group's chalking must have been allowed to stay, or else why the article?
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
October 2, 2009 11:20 AM
Yup, this kid does get it. Always nice to see
Posted by: macleodcartoons
|
October 2, 2009 11:41 AM
Of course it's the Atheists who are Angry. Always. Cartoon is here
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
October 2, 2009 11:44 AM
My college had a similar incident with the campus GLB group when I was a first year. They chalked a bunch of messages the Friday before National Coming Out Day (which coincidentally fell on Parents' Weekend). The college maintenance department cleaned them off. Turned out the college did have a policy of no chalking on sidewalks - but this was the first time it had ever been enforced. After the kind of uproar that only whiny overprivileged private college students can muster, the policy was changed.
Posted by: Susan
|
October 2, 2009 11:51 AM
@ chgo_liz
I saw that, but he said the kids made an "attempt" and the school's maintenance workers were the ones who finally cleaned it up (twice). The first time, they could probably make the excuse that they were just cleaning up all the ice cream, but the second time?
Posted by: Mike Wagner
|
October 2, 2009 11:55 AM
@chgo_liz #8
Though many people cite the first amendment in matters of free speech, it does not apply to private disputes.
The first amendment is protection from government interference only.
While an individual or group attempt to suppress the speech of another is extremely distasteful, in this case the first amendment is not applicable to this situation. Even if the university in question is a state funded entity, the actions of one group of students against anothers speech is not a violation of the first amendment.
They're just dickheads.
Posted by: Benjamin Geiger
|
October 2, 2009 12:47 PM
Mike Wagner:
Actually, the First Amendment does apply to the University of Alabama, since it's a state-run school. And if it was, in fact, the school itself that decided to remove the chalk, then it becomes a First Amendment issue.
Posted by: bullofthewoods
|
October 2, 2009 12:49 PM
Hell yes it is hard to be an "outed" atheist in the "heart of dixie". My wife and I live in small town that is almost on the state line with florida. I waited until my parents had died to come out as it would have caused them too much pain. After I told my so-called friends of my atheist views I was shunned by two people who I have been"best friends" with since grade school,and that was over 40 years ago.I have been an atheist since my teenage years but had never told anyone because I knew how it would be received in my community.My wife is an R.N. ICU nurse in the regional baptist hospital system and is constantly god-botted,from loudspeaker prayer devotionals every morning to co-workers who won't shut up about their brand of woo.Sadly she has to grin and bear it because if she were to complain to management I guarantee her job would be in jeopardy.
Posted by: Anri
|
October 2, 2009 12:56 PM
Mike Wagner sez (in part):
Ok, IANAL, so I'm not disputing you, but does this apply to the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights as well?
If I were to organize a private corperation that prevented other people from peacably assembling, that would be fine?
Or a company that prevented the practice of Judiasim?
Does Wal*Mart have the right to prevent, say, Robert Mapplethorpe from taking pictures on the grounds that thier management objects to the content?
I was under the impression that the Bill of Rights listed some of the rights the government recognized as existing for all citizens, and that violating the free expression of these rights was therefore against the law.
I understand that there are real-world occasions that may reduce the scope of these rights, but I'm talking theory here.
To put it another way, if the government does not have the authority to enforce the right to free speech regardless of the entity preventing it...
who does?
Am I utterly off base?
Posted by: galileo
|
October 2, 2009 1:05 PM
There is a freethought group at the University of Alabama at Huntsville. Join us on facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Huntsville-AL/UAH-Freethought-Club/135117279735
Posted by: Benjamin Geiger
|
October 2, 2009 1:20 PM
Anri:
Those wouldn't be First Amendment issues. Those would be discrimination issues, if anything.
Wal-Mart couldn't prohibit Mapplethorpe from taking photographs altogether, though they could prohibit him from taking photos on their property, or refuse to develop those photos.
Corporations could refuse to allow their employees to practice their faith, though that would be a discrimination issue, not a First Amendment issue.
Corporations could prohibit people from peaceably assembling on their property.
However, this *is* a First (via the Fourteenth) Amendment issue, as the University of Alabama is an extension of the state government, and their actions carry the full weight of the government.
Posted by: MrFire
|
October 2, 2009 1:24 PM
bobxxxx,
Didn't you used to be 'bobxxx'? Have you upgraded? :)
Posted by: Anri
|
October 2, 2009 1:36 PM
To Benjamin Geiger - ok, I think I'm following you here.
I understand that corperations could prevent peacable assemblies on thier property - I was making the point that I believed it would be a legal issue for a coperation to prevent peacable gathering elsewhere.
But am I misunderstanding the reason for this is, at base, the First Amendment right of free expression? And therefore, that does apply to entities other than the government?
Let's see if I can make myself more clear - I have the right to display Mr. Mapplethorpe's photos in my own house. This is due essentially to my First Amendment rights, and does not change regardless of what entity is attempting to prevent me from exersizing that right. Wal*Mart isn't allowed to come into my house and tell me what I can and cannot display there because of my freedom of expression (and, as you note, the expectations of privacy that come along with it).
Am I mistaken in this?
Posted by: Steven Mading
|
October 2, 2009 1:46 PM
The first amendment does not protect forms of speech that involve defacing public property (even if it will wash off in the rain).
The only first admendment issue is if the rule against chalking is being applied inconsistently based on religious positions such that ONLY the atheist group is getting their message removed while others get to keep theirs in place. And even then it only applies if it's the campus authorities removing it and not just other students.
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
October 2, 2009 1:52 PM
Anri, you are not mistaken. What you are missing is that the University of Alabama owns the sidewalks. You have a right to display a Mapplethorpe photo in your house, but you don't have a right to display it in someone else's house.
But, UofA being a government-run institution, those sidewalks belong to the people of Alabama via the state government. So if they let one group chalk on them, they have to let everybody. They can probably legally restrict it to student groups, but they can't discriminate among student groups.
Posted by: Benjamin Geiger
|
October 2, 2009 1:54 PM
Anri:
Wal-Mart (and by extension, other corporations) don't have the authority to tell you what you can and can't do in your home, or on public property. There's no need to prohibit them from limiting free speech because they have no authority to do so in the first place.
(The exception is the corporation that owns your home, assuming you don't own it outright. They could, theoretically, object to you hanging Mapplethorpe photos on your walls. They know it'd be stupid to do so, so they don't, but they could.)
Steven Mading:
Yes, it's inconsistently applied, and yes, it's (reportedly) the campus authorities doing the censoring. Also, many schools have explicit rules regarding where chalking can be done; most often, they can be summed up to "don't chalk anywhere the rain doesn't fall".
Posted by: MPFarmer
|
October 2, 2009 2:04 PM
As a student of the University of Alabama, and an atheist, I did become upset upon hearing of this. A friend of mine was walking by as the chalking wrapped up and said a group of "rival" students came out to buff out the chalkings that challenged them.
It's a blast when you live in the Bible Belt.
Posted by: Anri
|
October 2, 2009 2:09 PM
And my point would be that the reason we do not recognize the authority of corperations to tell us what we can do in our homes, or public property, is (in part) because of the First Amendment. But I guess that's just quibbling.
I'm not missing it, as I am working on a slightly different point.
It was stated above,
and that's the bit I am not entirely certain of.
Clearly, UofA has the right to clean off chalk on their sidewalks. As they are a government agency, they have a much narrower scope of what they can clean off selectively than, say, Wal*Mart. In this case, the UofA was in the right if they just cleaned off all of the chalkings, even if their motives were less than noble. And they were in the wrong if they selectively cleaned off only the ones that didn't agree with what they thought would 'play well'.
Posted by: Mike Wagner
|
October 2, 2009 2:09 PM
Agreed on the point that if the University itself censors some of the chalk and not others it becomes a discriminatory issue and even a first amendment issue. But what part of free speech involves writing on other people's property is questionable. The thing being that, as a public university, it belongs to more than just the students writing on it.
I'm curious to know if there is there any case law where a graffiti artist was able to get off under free speech protection?
Posted by: Peter Sloan
|
October 2, 2009 2:09 PM
Hi everybody. I'm the vice president of AAA, and I wrote an editorial for the school paper which you all might like to read.
The paper ran an edited version, but my original, longer draft can be read here:
http://platoisdead.blogspot.com/2009/10/aaa-editorial.html
As for chalking, our university allows it in some areas but not in others. These regulations were not all posted in a single place online. We had seen other groups chalking in the areas we planned to, so we thought we were within the rules.
It seems our university is selectively enforcing the rules, which, in my view, is just as bad as explicit, systematic discrimination.
Posted by: Teslacrashed
|
October 2, 2009 2:12 PM
I'm an atheist here in Mobile, AL.
My mother doesn't know, it would break her heart.
I'm fortunate I have a lot of agnostic friends I met in high school, and we stay close. In fact I was a pseudo christian person (was getting disillusioned with it) until I dated a hardcore atheist I met in high school for 4 years... She indoctrinated me good, and it's her to blame for me reading this blog XD
But in day to day life, it can be hard. I once accidentally slip to a co-worker were I implied I was skeptical of miracles and she never talked to me the same again.
I just have to keep my mouth shut regarding ANY jesus business. Especially around work or professionals.
I'll tell you a sad, but funny story.
A friend of mine had a plumber that was a middle eastern Muslim. This guy had a hard time getting repeat business. So my friend tells him, "if you want to fit in, say "JESUS CHRIST!" as a cuss word, try to fit it into conversations, because it's not again the Qur’an to take Jesus's name in vain, and every southerner does it. Worked like a charm.
Posted by: Cheryl
|
October 2, 2009 2:13 PM
Yes, it is hard to be an Atheist in Alabama. I was bullied out of my last job for being one and am still unemployed.
The Alabama Constitution, Section 3 states "That no religion shall be established by law; that no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship; that no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship; nor to pay any tithes, taxes, or other rate for building or repairing any place of worship, or for maintaining any minister or ministry; that no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state; and that the civil rights, privileges, and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected by his religious principles."
This is a joke in Alabama because only the religious are allowed any "civil rights, privileges, and capacities" and any non-believer or non-christian is at risk of harassment, being ostracised, and physical violence. I have been on the receiving end of each.
Posted by: Benjamin Geiger
|
October 2, 2009 2:14 PM
Mike Wagner:
Many (most?) schools explicitly allow chalking.
Posted by: JSC_ltd
|
October 2, 2009 2:24 PM
@25:
"And my point would be that the reason we do not recognize the authority of corperations to tell us what we can do in our homes, or public property, is (in part) because of the First Amendment. But I guess that's just quibbling."
The reason that corporations do not have the authority to tell us what we can do in our homes, etc. is because they do not have police power, which is a power reserved by the states. The First Amendment has nothing to do with non-government actors (that's the "Congress shall pass no law..." part). The First Amendment does not apply to disputes that have no government actor.
"Clearly, UofA has the right to clean off chalk on their sidewalks.... In this case, the UofA was in the right if they just cleaned off all of the chalkings, even if their motives were less than noble. And they were in the wrong if they selectively cleaned off only the ones that didn't agree with what they thought would 'play well'."
You're right on the money there.
Posted by: Newman
|
October 2, 2009 2:48 PM
Whoever says the sidewalks and plaza at UA are always washed, no matter what the message says, is a liar. There is ALWAYS religious (Christian) graffiti on the sidewalks and often on the Ferg plaza. Usually it's a giant "UNASHAMED" scrawled across the road, sidewalk, plaza, stairs...with a Bible verse and/or invitation to church. And they stick around for a long time. As for the excuse that housekeeping doesn't notice it, when the letters of "UNASHAMED" are as large as a person, it's kinda hard to miss. It's also kind of hard to overlook these:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=42124840&l=2a2985697e&id=27414691
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=42124841&l=25bcfec9f7&id=27414691
That's just 2 of the many things I saw last time I was in Tuscaloosa back in early September.
Posted by: Anri
|
October 2, 2009 3:02 PM
I'm still not certain it's as cut-and-dried as that.
If I were to (let's say) post a sign stating true but uncomplimentary things about (let's say) Wal*Mart, and the local store manager dropped by to ask that I take the sign down - you're saying that were I to refuse, it would not involve my First Amendment rights at all?
I'm just trying to get where you're coming from here.
Posted by: Asa
|
October 2, 2009 4:39 PM
As a participant in the chalkings, I think I can add a little insight into the incident.
On Sunday afternoon, we chalked from 4pm to 6pm in several areas, including the ferguson center, reese phifer hall, lakeside dining hall, and gorgas library. The ferguson center chalkings seem to be getting most of the attention, but we were in violation of the chalking policy. Although we disagree with the policy, and we see the policy not being enforced most of the time, it is still the policy and we will adhere to it in the future. We did take the time to read chalking policy beforehand, but the chalking guidelines we examined did not contain any mentioning of the ferguson center, as the guidelines pertaining to the ferguson center was on a separate website within the UA domain. Why they have chalking guidelines spread across 2 websites beats me. However, the other locations where we chalked were also erased. We thought at first it might be sprinklers, but the grass wasn't wet. We did notice the Church of the Highlands had some chalkings in the same exact locations where we did, including the ferguson center. They claim they saw maintenance wash away our work while they were chalking, but wouldn't maintenance have told them they couldn't chalk in the same places we did? Whether it was maintenance, students, or religious student organization(s), it is still unacceptable.
We got a lot of "love" from our fellow students while we chalked. While Peter was inside Lakeside Dining Hall grabbing something to drink while we were chalking outside, the guy in front of him ordered a cup of water to wash away our work. As he walked by, he called our work ignorant, and attempted, and failed to hit our work with the water, and scampered away into his big truck, yelling "faggots" as he drove past. Later when we rechalked after being erased, a muslim walked by praising Allah. Another man asked if I were one of the ones "populating Hell". An older man walked past our work, seemingly concerned, and stopped to get on his cellphone to call/text. A couple people spat on our work, some just gave us concerned looks, some displayed confusion, some were shocked and accelerated their walking speed upon viewing our chalkings as if they were in immediate danger.
It has been an exciting week for AAA.
Posted by: JSC_ltd
|
October 2, 2009 5:18 PM
@33:
"If I were to (let's say) post a sign stating true but uncomplimentary things about (let's say) Wal*Mart, and the local store manager dropped by to ask that I take the sign down - you're saying that were I to refuse, it would not involve my First Amendment rights at all?"
Assuming that you posted your sign on your own property (or a "traditional public forum" such as a telephone pole or bulletin board), the manager can ask you to take it down. You can refuse, because the manager does not have the power to *make* you take it down, not because you have a First Amendment right of free speech.
Contrast this situation with the situation in the original post: U of A apparently has some restrictions on where students can chalk messages on the sidewalk (time, place and manner restrictions on the right of free speech are constitutional). If the U of A (a government actor, since it is an institution of the State of Alabama) selectively enforces those restrictions, the U of A is violating someone's rights of equal protection (Fourteenth Amendment), not of free speech. If the U of A had a regulation prohibiting chalked messages of certain viewpoints, the U of A would be violating someone's right of free speech.
Posted by: Coelacanth Filet
|
October 2, 2009 5:22 PM
The amount of ire you draw in Alabama depends where you live. I live in Huntsville, which is a hub of technology and academia, so it tends to be a little more tolerant and diverse (though no one could possibly mistake it for Portland or San Francisco). I'm lucky enough to have never experienced any serious discrimination because of my views. Fellow NAFA members have, though, particularly the braver ones who are vocal about their nonbelief through bumper stickers, license plates, etc. One acquaintance of mine even had a cross burned in his front yard - quite a skewed interpretation of "love your neighbor."
Posted by: Jr.
|
October 2, 2009 5:56 PM
Hey y'all (I don't really say "y'all")--
I'm a Yankee by birth, but I've been relocated here to Alabama to teach at UA. I've been here a few years now.
What I've found: The religiosity here, and its attendant ignorance, is as thick as country gravy. So many of my students have had their ability to think critically severely crippled by needless dogma. It's truly sad how they cling to it when I ask them to face tough issues from a rationalist, critical thinker's perspective (not a liberal perspective, not an atheist perspective--just a rational perspective).
BUT! As PZ's post points out, the Freethinkers who are here are wonderful. I saw the chalking story in our newspaper and thought it dreadfully depressing--but then I realized, "Hey, wait a minute: ATHIESTS ARE CHALKING AND ORGANIZING HERE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA!" I rejoiced!
My university is, in many ways, still somewhat backward (no monument, plaque, or any other marker exists here to honor James Hood and Vivian Malone--those two remarkable people who stood up to George Wallace and took there rightful place here as students--no monument at all; it's erased, and sofar as the students walking around here can tell, it never happened). But the atheists here--are here! Hooray!
Posted by: Jr.
|
October 2, 2009 6:11 PM
Posted by: Blair Scott
|
October 2, 2009 6:23 PM
Yes, there are atheists in Alabama!
I'm the Alabama State Director for American Atheists and the founder and Public Relations Director for the North Alabama Freethought Association (NAFA).
NAFA sponsors the West Alabama Freethought Association and the Etowah County Rational Alliance. In addition, Micah Cochran, an Assistant Organizer to NAFA, coordinates and sponsors the Florence United NonTheists and the Southeast Alabama Freethought Association.
The Montgomery Area Freethought Association was also co-sponsored by NAFA and Micah until they were able to stand on their own and they are doing amazing work down there in Montgomery.
The Birmingham Atheists (atheists is spelled wrong in the link above) have been around for a while now and are also getting involved in the community.
The Alabama Freethought Association is a chapter of the Freedom From Religion Foundation and they own Lake Hypatia near Talladega where once a year they have a huge July 4th bash!
We're down here guys and gals! And were here to stay and continue the fight for SOCAS, civil rights for non-theists and freedom from religion!
Blair Scott
National Affiliate Director & Alabama State Director for American Atheists
Founder & Public Relations Director for the North Alabama Freethought Association
Director, AlabamaAtheist
Posted by: harv
|
October 2, 2009 6:32 PM
Why buy water to wash the atheist chalkings away? Wouldn't it be easier to pray for rain targeting the Atheists? Oh ye of little faith.
Posted by: holydust
|
October 2, 2009 7:35 PM
There are some great kids at UofA. I was lucky enough to get invited as a guest to a student group event (unrelated) and could sense that there were probably a huge number of non-religious there that were probably suffering from having to hide. This story just makes me feel worse for them.
Posted by: holydust
|
October 2, 2009 7:36 PM
I'm from Texas, by the way -- turns out traveling across several state lines doesn't get you as far from persecution as one might hope, especially in the South.
Posted by: cbunn
|
October 2, 2009 7:37 PM
I'm an Alabama atheist and all I have to say is 'awesome', I never knew there were such groups. I'd be happy to join one of these groups some day.
Posted by: ckitching
|
October 2, 2009 8:07 PM
I'm curious if it's selective enforcement, or just lazy enforcement. It might be worthwhile to see if they're targeting certain messages, or only cleaning the messages off when someone registers a complaint. Given the reception you got, I'm certain your message probably registered complaints, but it may be that no one complains about the rule-breaking Christian ones.Posted by: george.w
|
October 2, 2009 8:20 PM
Our campus is covered with chalkings from the Neuman center reassuring us atheists that we are "not alone b/c ppl are praying" for us. How nice.
Another church says their hep' congregation is "not your grandmother's church!" And what's wrong with gran'ma?
Posted by: Anri
|
October 2, 2009 8:33 PM
So, if I understand the points that you folks have been instructing me on, my examples would be free speech issues, which might - or might not - be First Amendment issues.
Free speech is defended by several, indeed, many pieces of legislation, the First Amendment being merely one of these - the one that talks in specific about the federal government. The only way the First Amendment protects free speech beyond direct governmental quashing of it is by forcing government's hand in not supporting other levels of legislation that might do the same.
But even then, it would only be invoked if a federal agency were involved (such as a high enough court appeal).
Yes?
That's interesting information, and makes perfect sense in hindsight - thanks, all, for taking the time to hammer that into my thick skull.
That's one the reasons I like this place - I almost always get a new (and usually more accurate) angle on things.
Posted by: SMo
|
October 2, 2009 9:10 PM
A little off-topic, but this really peeved me today:
"If you happen to have ever worked in scientific research, then you were or you remember a certain type of researcher. This type is the orthodox, inerrant atheist, who gives no quarter to a thought of anything supernatural, or anything that is not specifically allowed in the present physical model of the universe. These researchers keep you thinking straight, and prevent you from wandering off the path and down some rabbit-hole, and as such they are invaluable. However, they are worthless if you want to discover something. They make fabulous lab assistants; but if you want to do some research out on the edge, they will only hold you back. If our present model of everything is absolutely correct, then there is simply nothing else to discover, and anything that would question the model's correctness is not allowed. To push the model forward you must be able to think that the impossible may be possible.
Consider Sir Issac Newton, the man who invented calculus, formulated the laws of motion, and founded the science known as physics. He was a prolific writer, and three quarters of everything he wrote concerned spiritualism and the occult. Dr. Albert Einstein, world famous for his theories of relativity and the photoelectric effect, shook physics to its core and changed it for all time. He spent the last decades of his life pursuing the unified field theory, which was so mathematically abstract it seemed closer to a religion than physics, and at the same time he wrote papers on theology. These are extreme examples of genius, to be sure, but the point is that without at least a slight allowance for an awe of the supernatural, the known laws of physics would have likely remained primitive."
(emphasis added)
James Mahaffey Atomic Awakening: A New Look At The History And Future Of Nuclear Power (2009 pp.XVII-XIX)
Posted by: Jr.
|
October 2, 2009 10:55 PM
I think you put it pretty eloquently, Anri.
As it happens, in the courts, Atheists/Freethinkers are less likely to have their speech respected by the courts (in most US jurisdictions, save perhaps places like VT, CA, MA, etc.) Religious speech and religious expression has mountains of precedent behind it, and it's given a bigger break up front than secular speech.
But secular speech and atheist speech are two different things. Nobody likes atheists, unfortunately. But that's changing more and more, demographically speaking, with more and more people self-identifying as "atheist, agnostic, or non-religious."
Posted by: Rorschach
|
October 2, 2009 11:01 PM
@ 47,
Fixed.
Posted by: Cluskey
|
October 2, 2009 11:21 PM
As an Alabama atheist, I'm proud to see the numerous comments on this post from my fellow nonbelievers.
Thankfully, I'm able to discuss my lack of belief with some of my coworkers and neighbors, but this is most likely due to the fact that I live in Huntsville which is the most un-Alabama-like part of the state.
Posted by: Roger M
|
October 3, 2009 1:17 AM
Good to hear Cluskey. I'll be moving down there next year. Let me know if you start an atheist something. I'd be happy to join.
Posted by: Newman
|
October 3, 2009 2:07 AM
@34 -- Thanks for sharing! Isn't it great the love and tolerance we are shown as nonbelievers in Alabama?
@37 -- In my many years as a Tuscaloosa resident and, most recently, my 2 years as a nonbeliever, I've noticed the same thing. It really is quite depressing to see so many otherwise bright young minds who refuse to even consider thinking critically about their beliefs. I recently moved from Tuscaloosa to Davis, CA (much, MUCH different), and I often get asked if Tuscaloosa, as a university town, is more liberal/rational than the rest of the state. I grew up in Tuscaloosa, and it's always hard for me to explain the general sentiment. I think anywhere would be more progressive than rural Alabama, but Tuscaloosa isn't very far ahead at all. I would say that campus is definitely one of the hubs of progressivism in the state. But is Tuscaloosa progressive by any "normal" person's standard? No way.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
October 3, 2009 2:08 AM
James Mahaffey Atomic Awakening: A New Look At The History And Future Of Nuclear Power (2009 pp.XVII-XIX)
the whole first paragraph you quoted is nothing but a bait and switch.
starts off by identifying scientists who refuse to test non-naturalistic causes and state so (duh - there simply is no way to do supernatural science, by fucking definition).
But, OK, let's say we have an outspoken scientist, even though it's really just bait.
here's the switch:
they are worthless if you want to discover something
excuse me??
how the fuck does one follow the other?
*sigh*
sorry, but whoever this asswipe his, he's absolutely lying.
Again:
If our present model of everything is absolutely correct, then there is simply nothing else to discover, and anything that would question the model's correctness is not allowed.
how does defining oneself as a scientist acting only on naturalistic causes (the only testable causes), remotely relate to "everything being absolutely correct".
seriously, this is nothing but a bait and switch, nothing but lies.
It rightly SHOULD piss you off. It rightly should piss anyone off with half a brain!
Posted by: LG3
|
October 3, 2009 2:22 AM
I am not sure if someone else has beat me to this comment because there are so many posted here that I got lazy and scrolled down.
I apologize if this is not original...
Let me get this straight. The Crimson White article indicates that a student who presumably believes in god doesn't "believe in the organization" that was standing in front of him chalking up a sidewalk?
I know what he was really trying to say, but I still get a good kick out of this.
Posted by: procrastinator.myopenid.com
|
October 3, 2009 4:20 PM
A hypothesis: Why the school maintenance people removed the chalking.
The anti-atheist people trashed the atheist groups chalking with food. This has to be cleaned up so it isn't tracked into the adjacent building(s). Thus the selective cleaning.
Just a thought.
Posted by: kopd
|
October 5, 2009 9:43 AM
My student group in the Midwest got similar treatment. People would dump their drinks on our chalkings. People would call in to the campus newspaper forum and say we should shut up. A Christian student group out chalking the same night as some of our members admitted to defacing one of our messages. They crossed out words and put in their own. At the end of it where we had written "join us in the Union" and had a room number and time, they altered it to read "join us in hell". Then they were dumb enough to sign it with their own club's name and meeting time/place. They apologized, but only because we filed a complaint.
Posted by: Jeremy
|
October 6, 2009 2:49 PM
I'm the Organizer of the Montgomery Area Freethought Association. I'd like to thank PZ and Blair for the mentions here. Our membership covers a wide geographic range, and we have members who drive up to 50 miles from any direction to come to meetings, and we are currently working with a couple of our members to gauge interesting in starting a group in the Auburn area as well. I'd like to personally invite anyone in the region who is looking for like-minded people to check us out.
I guess they'll have to settle for advertising on the internet.
That doesn't just apply to sidewalk chalkings. The biggest billboard company in this area, Lamar, turned down a sign in Birmingham from the Freedom From Religion Foundation reading "Imagine No Religion" for being "offensive." There are Christian billboards all over town leased from Lamar, and I don't personally take offense to any of them, though I have to chuckle and wonder who the "Jesus Loves You" billboards with no phone number or web address are supposed to be targeting.
Posted by: Steven S.
|
February 4, 2010 1:48 PM
As an update, the Auburn Atheists and Agnostics group just received a preliminary charter from the University this past week.
We're making some sort of progress down here