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!
- Log in to post comments
More like this
The Freedom From Religion Foundation has won the right to post an anti-religion display next to a Christmas tree and a naticity scene in the Capitol rotunda in Washington State:
An atheist group has unveiled an anti-religion placard in the state Capitol, joining a Christian Nativity scene and “…
Here's the latest:
More than 500 people from throughout Western Washington turned out Sunday at the Capitol steps to protest a sign a group of atheists erected as part of the holiday display inside the building.
The protest -- organized late last week by a Federal Way man who said he was offended…
My old home state, Washington (uh, I've got the right one, right? This isn't DC, I hope), is waging the war on Christmas, as is appropriate for one of the most godless states in the country. The FFRF has put up a sign nestled among the religious symbols at the Capitol:
At this season of the Winter…
The WorldNutDaily is reporting on a Federal court case involving Palm Beach, Florida, where they allowed a Jewish menorrah to be displayed in a public park, but refused to allow a Christian nativity scene. Both were paid for with private funds. The city was obviously wrong to do so and they have…
*snicker
Seriously though what dumb ass thinks that's going to solve anything or prove anything?
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.
I totally agree PZ, but..how different is this really than taking their communion wafers and turning that into a big thing?
@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...
you really had to do that huh?
I suggest you read up on the WHY about the communion crackers.
christianofascists?
But I was just gonna replace it with rubber octopus and...ohhh, alright....
*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?
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'".
;)
Stealing the sign is basically religion's argument against reason in a nutshell.
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.
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: 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.
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
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.
Put that baby Jesus down right now, guy.
Says the guy who encouraged stealing of catholics' religious crackers.
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
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.
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.
Cracker = theft FAIL.
Because desecrating a cracker isn't infringing on their freedom of expression, for one.
WR Martin wrote: "Super-duper-extra funny: offender arrested and serves Christmas in jail. "
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cM38kN4AOys
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.
Says the guy who encouraged stealing of catholics' religious crackers. - Chr
Liar. If you are given something, taking it is not stealing.
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
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.
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.
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?
oh boy. I sense another one of those threads.
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.
Pete Rooke will be here in 5, 4, 3 ....
a lamb, and one Magi
Magus.
Is "anal retentive" hyphenated?
Sorry, couldn't resist.
How many of them were there? Did they have guns? How many people did they beat up?
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.
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!
Randy, don't be stupid
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Sven,
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.
In other words: "No matter how often it happens, they are all isolated incidents that can safely be ignored."
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.
Damn christians trying to take solst out of the solstice
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.
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.
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.
and where do you think he says this was the mindset of all christians?
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.
@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.
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.
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.
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."
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?)
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.
#36
Water, don't be wet.
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.
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."
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.
What is Randy when he is in his frozen stage and when he is in his vapor stage?
There, fixed that for you.
Or at all.
*sigh* He showed a lack of respect for an unreasonable demand. But your concern is noted...
@ #56 Teh Merkin
Quit looking into my goddamn mirror!
"Is "anal retentive" hyphenated?"
And is "ani" the plural for "anus"?
I see nothing wrong with stealing a baby Jesus in-kind. Let the atheist plaque be the ransom.
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.
Stupid, don't be Randy.
Evidence please?
***waits anxiously***
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.
You've completely ignored the context of the incident.
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.
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.
I've always been rather fond of putting Moe, Larry and Curly heads on the three wise men.
Or a sign that says "I'm with the imaginary guy" and an arrow.
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."
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.
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.
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.
Wasn't Anakin Skywalker born on December 25?
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.)
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.
Both are correct.
I couldn't resist, either.
I think Randy stole the sign...
there are better ways
Now that you mention it... he was ALSO a supposed "virgin birth".
*gasp*!
Dahn Dahn Da Dahn Da Da Dahn Da Da Dahn....
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.
Freeze kid, hands in the air! Put the baby Jezuz down!
Thanks PZ for your great post!
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.
(#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.
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.
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.
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?
In Latin, yes; in English, "anuses".
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!
"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.
Freeze kid, put the baby jezuz down and put your hands in the air!
Thanks PZ for your great post! YAY for free speech!
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.
It's the context that makes them completely different. But you go ahead and keep ignoring that.
Your concern is noted.
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.
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.
Or a tee shirt on the baby Jesus that sez "all daddy wanted was a blow job"
I'm just waiting for American Christians to catch up with 1791 and finally understand the First Amendment.
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.
Just off the top of my head: 1) monetary value 2) the communion wafers were freely given, not stolen.
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.
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.
@ CHR:
It's not STEALING when they GIVE them to you. Dumbass.
"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?
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?
At the risk of sounding completely lowbrow: "I'm not your guy , friend!"
"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?
That depends on how effective your seduction skills are,
and whether or not you swing that way.
I, for one, am an atheisexual.
Aw, but when you can't find a football, Baby J is the next most puntable object around!
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.
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?
If it would somehow end up that PZ was the patron saint of microbes, I'd be all for it.
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-bibl…
Yeah right. Google nativity 2008 stolen
@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.
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.
Googled nativity 2008 stolen and got sent to: http://www.dinkels.com/?gclid=CPLJ_KSrqpcCFSIgDQodbgthjg
Mmmmmmmm -- tasty!
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.
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!"
Result number 3 is from...
wait for it...
wait...
The Onion!
ROTFLMAOWMCOMN
"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.
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.
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.
Your point being?
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!!!
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.
(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.
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.
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.
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...
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
Pious crime...
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.
Who's trying to prevent them from practicing communion?
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.)
Flaming Jelly Bean
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...
"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.
"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.
2... 1...
Cracker is not theft. Go away.
Word games
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.)
Oh, good -- I thought Pete was never going to show.
@ 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.
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?
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!!!!
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.
"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.
Pete Rooke:
Do you or do you not condone the stealing of the atheist sign?
No weasling please. (Not answering is weasling.)
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?
"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?
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.
"spelling police"
weaseling
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.
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?
How about a "Mary didn't give consent" T shirt on baby jesus H christ.
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"
Oh come on randy. You can't be that dense can you?
"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.
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.
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.
"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!
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.
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.
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...
Rookie spewed:
You seriously didn't just ask that, did you? Granite is not as dense as Randy.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
"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.
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.
On the lawn of the state capitol building, of course.
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
As a member of the general public, I don't recognize your authority to speak for me.
Just smile and wave boys...just smile and wave!
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!
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..
Pete Rooke wrote:
Nazi Mysticism? That's an odd way to describe christianity - but it certainly fits.
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.
It couldn't have been me. The sign weighs 50 lbs. I think Rev BigDumbChimp took it and is trying to frame me.
@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]
I'm awfully glad that the Constitution doesn't give a shit about what you think, Pete.
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.
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.
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.
And this is after they threw acid at the sign, right? Who keeps giving religu-tards acid?
Christian morality works one way only. They feel that they can do anything they want whereas anything anyone else does is wrong.
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: 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Who what
i don't no nothing about no sign
Sorry to disappoint you Pete, but Obama appears to be a closet secularist.
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?
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.
Simple solution... every time a sign is taken down, replace it with 3 more.
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.
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?
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!
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.
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?
;)
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.
WRMartin, great idea. Don't forget the "I have to daddies" t-shirt.
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.
"...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.
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.
Post #216 to = two. *headdesk*
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: 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.
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.
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.
I disagree. He's a dumbass whether or not he was referencing vegetarians.
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.
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?
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.
Dear Sha
Relieve yourself of your ignorance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Setianism
Kind regards
Pete Rooke
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: 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.
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.
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.
Wikipedia: where Pete Rooke relieves himself... of his ignorance!
So much starting to come into focus now...
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.
Lana #48
I love that ! Superb ! And that's a wonderfully striking image which contradicts your 'no artistic ability' statement.
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 ...
And now for closing arguments in today's episode of "Kangaroo Court", please see post #232.
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.
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.)!!
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.
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.
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.
@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.
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?
[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.
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.
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...
Without reading this thread, how many religious apologists have posted in the 246 pages so far?
What a surprise, you still haven't answered the question.
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!
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: 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.
@ 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.
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.
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.
Kind of like how some, presumably, "christian" thugs vandalized my car and my Darwin bumper sticker.
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
Ah, Janine. What a pleasure to find you here. Just as insulting as ever!
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.
@Pete
If anyone, at anytime ever puts something in your body, just go ahead and consider it a gift. Okay?
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...
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: 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.
Everybody got that?
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.
@ 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.
Only if you mean that "democracy" is exactly equivalent to mob rule.
Is that what you think "democracy" means?
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: 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: 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.
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.
Ah, freedom of speech. Ain't it grand?
P.S. That goes for you too Pete. Wonderful how that works out, huh?
Hear-hear, PZ.
Vandalism is NEVER the answer.
Celtic:
Your REALLY misreading me. I am an atheist! I'm talking ABOUT Christians.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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: 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.
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?
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.
s/QPS/CPS/ in my #276, of course.
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?
"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.
Celtic: "who's with me?"
I am!
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Wait, are you saying that you're an atheist?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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).
"Happy Festuvis" has an insidious undertone...you have to be FUCKING KIDDING.
I grow weary of the arrogance displayed on this thread. - Pete Rooke
Well, stop displaying it then!
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: 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.
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?
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.
Because?
Festivus is insidious?
I think I will leave you to dwell on what has been written. Until next time,
Pete Rooke
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.
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!"
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.
WRMartin-
Simply because something is in the form of a poem does not lend it any more credence, or Cuttlefish would be a genius...
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?
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: 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.
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?
Even Jesus could not transform the worst sinner Janine. We have a choice which is all I will say on the matter.
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?
Whats the matter Pete me fool, can't you go away? We will get the last word in you delusional liar.
what is it that good Catholics do with the consecrated wafer?
They consume it.
I'll file this under: Ehhhhhhhhhh who cares.
NS
http://sciencedefeated.wordpress.com/
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. ;)
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.
No one is leaving until we have the Feats of Strength!
</insidious>
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.
OM NOM NOM NOM!
Janine, as applicable as "Rookie Weasel" may be, in light of post #316, might a lurker suggest "Petey Jesus?"
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?
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: 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.
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.
I don't watch television (barring "Songs of Praise" every now and then).
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!
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.
Lowell @330,
Fair point :o)
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.
Emmet, I think you are mistaken.
Does this sounds like a person who would accuse PZ of a crime over Crackergate?
Poor Pete, afraid to let reality dilute his delusions. Take your meds.
It is wrong to steal. It was wrong to place the sign there in the first place.
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?
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?
"It was wrong to place the sign there in the first place. "
Why?
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.
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.
And you clearly don't read anything, so...
"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?
Lowell (#330), I think that Emmet misunderstood something somewhere. Emmet has hardly been a troll.
Corrected that for you. You're welcome.
You've made the assertion. Back it up.
Rev. Big Dumb Chimp called it all the way back at #28.
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)
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?
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: 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.
Pete Rooke: December 5, 2008 6:14 PM
"I don't watch television"
But the television is watching you Pete.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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: 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.
Hey, maybe Pete Rooke is PZ!
A cunning plan, Dr. Myers! A cunning plan!
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.
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.
pixelfish @ #148:
Is Jebus homeopathic??
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
"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?
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.
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?
Agreed. No problem at all, Patricia.
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.
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.
Completely OT but I think some of the people hear should know that Forrest J Ackermann just died.
"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?
;^ )
@375
I meant Janine, not Patricia. Aghhhh!
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.....
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.
All poster are equal, but some are more equal than others.......
Thank You WRMartin! I now have a new moniker. Anyone else who wants to adopt "Insulting Sinner" or "IS", feel free to do so.
But there is no such thing as sin.
You could also change the wording.
"Sinning Insulter of Ninnies"
("and/or Nitwits", perhaps?)
I CAN HAZ CRACKER THREAD ?
But earlier this afternoon, the Rookie Weasel called me both a sinner and insulting. Therefore, it must be true.
And along comes spurge to ruin our fun. ;)
Adios fellow Insulting Sinners - I'm off to celebrate the repeal of Prohibition.
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.
"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...
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.
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.
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: 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?
Oooh, that's a good one.
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.
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?
Someone said someting about what symbol Unitarian use. UU's symbol is a flaming chalice. Dates back to WWII I believe
"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.
I'd go to an art exhibit that had that!
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?
s/that there was/that it was/ in my #402
Wait a few hours. It can certainly be replaced...
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.
Tell that to this woman of relaxed morals I dated in College.
If there's not sin, we sure came close to creating it.
Messing with a nativity scene is only cool if you're Mr. Bean
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.
would it be too much to add another couple of lett....
bah nah. too muchh
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
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.
@Rev. BigDumbChimp
"Tell that to this woman of relaxed morals I dated in College. "
Do you still have her number?
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.
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.
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.
@ 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.
I saw her recently. Trust me. It's better to stay away.
I will defer to your judgment.
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.)
No it doesn't even come close. The context of the incidents is of utmost importance.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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: 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.
blockquote fail
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.
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.)
The bloody point is that it is only a religious holiday to some.
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.
The point is that the Christmas that the State of Washington is celebrating CAN'T be a religious holiday.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Now you're just being a twit.
*sigh* Your concern is noted.
Okay, we don't steal them....we paint them the color they're supposed to be.
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.
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.
Or replace the little carved Jesus with a little carved Goat of Mendes.
*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.
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: 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.
I do what I can for the humans
Can we put dinosaurs in the nativity scenes? I mean, I can actually see the freaks over at AiG agreeing with it...
Says you }:->
Fuck baby Jesus in the ass, it's what a priest would do...
I see Olberman is covering the story.
Not in the same place, but in the same thread.
1.
2
If PZ is Pete Rooke he is playing it very well.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Add a penis to baby Jeebus?
"Oh look, Jesus got wood."
lol
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.
See! PZ is even cleverer than I thought!
Lest anyone "not get it", I'm kidding about PZ being Pete Rooke.
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.
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.
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.
#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?
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?
#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
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?
Emmet Caulfield:
And yet another monitor is sacrificed as a result of projectile liquid spewing from my mouth... thanks Emmet...
Lone Drinker,
Having mistletoe taped to my back doesn't mean I am hitting on you.
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?
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.
#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
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?
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.
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.
to RamblinDude #475
>>Are they then preventing me from throwing my own party on public land?
Are they?
Have you tried?
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.
Strangley the sign turns up at a radio station rather than being buried in a dumpster.
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?)
"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.
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?
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...
#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
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.
I like your thinking. Maybe a gilt covered statue of Jim Jones too?
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.
Brain Hertz@483 said:
and Halloween.... but they botched that one, I think.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It seems appropriate that the Christians are all bowing down to praise a great big baby.
@ 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?
#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
@ #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.
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"?
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.
Dear rs, what part of "dissent" don't you understand?