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…
to all
That should be our message:
Happy April Fools' Day everyone!
#311 Posted by Pete Rooke on December 5, 2008 at 6:03 PM:
Cuttlefish IS a genius.
JBS
Last year in Pennsylvania, a local freethought group put up a tree in the annual holiday display at the state capitol. It was a "Tree of Reason," and on it they hung little books -- The Age of Reason, Origin of Species,The God Delusion, and -- even the Bible and Quran. The point was that it was important to read and examine ideas -- even religious ideas -- in order to rationally consider issues. Atheists were part of the celebration. It was positive, insightful, and supported a message most people can agree with.
And they still bitched. People wanted it taken down. It was a deliberate slap to Christians. It was ruining people's enjoyment of Christmas. And so forth, and so on. So while I prefer the Tree of Reason to the FFRF's statement, I'm not so sure that making a happier humanist statement on the universal value of rationality is really the issue.
I also don't see much similarity here to Crackergate -- Christians doing to us what we did to them, or whatever. I think that, in order to make a proper analogy to the cracker incident, someone should have wandered by and put a Santa hat on the Baby Jesus -- as a joke -- and been chased and vilified in retaliation. There then there would have to have been a horrified outcry and call for criminal prosecution, since the manger scene is "sacred" and the sensibilities of the religious must be protected by an exaggerated deference towards the Nativity. Take the hat off, they're still screaming persecution and vandalism. Popular columnists and commentators would have had to get into the act, whinging on about how the Nativity is special and the the baby Jesus being violated should be treated like child molestation or beating, it was an attack on all that Christians hold dear, etc, etc. etc.
If that happened, I bet PZ would be behind the idea of the FFRF or some other group setting up a manger scene in the State Capitol, with ALL the figures wearing Santa hats and beards.
Better analogy.
The one where some kind of evidence is needed.You went from an article which actually said that two people died in a shooting in Toys"R"Us and police think it was gang-related to telling us that two Christians shot each other in a fight over Christmas presents and you're scratching your head?
To my thinking, your version is an utterly bizarre extrapolation.
http://z.about.com/d/physics/1/0/C/0/-/-/Einstein_tongue.jpg
(the image didn't link in #501)
You said:
It's only a religious holiday to some people and those people are trying to tell everyone else how they should be celebrating it. The "anti-religion" sign is saying so. What's not to understand?
And since we're at it, where's the cute Paliban? She should be entertaining us with her parody.
I killfiled that one after about three posts. It was neither clever nor insightful, just tedious. There's a word for advancing a position you don't believe in order to anger others: "troll".
Teleprompter,
Indeed, but somehow, I think Santa Claus would lose a little of his popularity with six-year-olds if He knows when you've been bad or good, so be good for goodness sake! was replaced with He knows when you've been bad or good, so be good or he'll torture you forever!
Maybe it's just me :o)
to tsg #506
>>It's only a religious holiday to some people and those people are trying to tell everyone else how they should be celebrating it. The "anti-religion" sign is saying so.
So, I got it right then when I said that the only way you can celebrate it is by telling other people that "religion is a superstition".
Well, that seems a bit assholish to me.
It's like saying "Well, your mom's birthday is a holiday for me too, and the way I celebrate it is by telling you that you are a retard."
No, that isn't what I said. And I no longer have any interest in trying to explain it to you since you clearly have no desire to understand it.
Your concern is noted.
:rolleyes:
Emmet,
-You ignored the fact that it happened on THE busiest shopping day for xtians to buy each other xmas presents...and (IMHO) only xtians are crazy enought to go shopping that day. (who and when)
-You ignored the fact that Palm Desert isn't what I'd call a hot-bed of gang related activies...especially gang shootings. (where and what)
-And finally, it was a Toys R Us where all good xtians go to buy toys for their kiddies and not crack for their pipes.
Again, all implied...sort of.
Thus spake Sastra:
What a surprise... not.
It seems like a lot of assumptions to me. Hope you're not on the jury if I'm ever on trial ;o)
to tsg #511
>>you clearly have no desire to understand it.
I sincerely do.
Let me try again.
So, you put up the "religion is a superstition" sign not as a way to celebrate Christmas or Winter Solstice, but to protest the way Christians celebrate Christmas while imposing their view of Christmas on yours?
Or you do celebrate Christmas - by putting up a sing to protest the way Christians celebrate Christmas...etc
Emmet Caulfield @ 509
Yes, once again I agree with your view of it.
Wouldn't it be great if we had songs like that for Santa Claus, such as:
"Down in The Brimstone with St. Nick"?
Santa Claus is more or less a projection of all the good things that people want their god to reflect, but doesn't.
Santa's much more loving and just than the god of the Bible.
Yeah. Bloody libertarians!
#503 Posted by Sastra on December 5, 2008 at 9:53 PM:
So basically, the Christians are gonna treat atheists like assholes no matter what. Might as well be assholes, then, and make it worthwhile.
JBS
I didn't put it up. The sign was put up to protest Christians imposing their view of Christmas on everyone. The sign was put up to promote atheism the very same way other religious displays promote theirs and has as much right to be there as a nativity scene. And "religion is superstition and myth" is no more assholish than saying "if you don't accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior, you are going to hell".
Every religion says "fuck every other religion", the FFRF sign simply said "fuck yours, too." If you still think that's assholish, then I can't help you. And if you think it's assholish but Christian displays are not, then it's a double standard and I don't care what you think.
rs, you are seriously missing the point here. The Christmas display was on government property. Think about that for awhile, will you?
No one went into a church or private home and tried to disrupt a religious celebration. Some Christians are trying to commandeer government property as a forum for broadcasting their personal religious views. Some non-Christians saw this happening and felt it was their right to express (on the same government property) their alternative point of view.
I probably wouldn't have expressed my point of view quite like the sign makers did, but I agree with their sentiments: It's our country, too.
It's nothing new. A "militant" atheist is just one who refuses to kowtow to religion and has the audacity to stand up for his rights. A hundred years ago, we'd have been called "uppity".
Sigh... 130,000 missed opportunities, because there's nothing like a set of inflatable boobs to perk up a nativity scene.
I can haz thredd deraylment by punz?
to tsg #519
>>Every religion says "fuck every other religion"
Well, let's see.
Jews have the Hanukkah holiday which has many attributes of Christmas.
But they don't put up a sign, saying "Jesus was a false prophet and a heretic".
If they did, yes, that would be assholish.
They just celebrate it their own way. And that would be a much better way to promote Judaism, if they cared to promote it.
So, I am suggesting, if there are atheists who want to promote atheism, they perhaps should find a better way to do that too.
The Christmas display was on government property.
More precisely, it wasn't just some generic Christmas scene. It was a nativity scene in which the mythology of Jesus' "holy" virgin birth, with the God of the bible as his father, is celebrated as if real. Rational people don't have the right to step in and say "enough is enough" when this silliness intrudes on government property?
rs: It's like saying "Well, your mom's birthday is a holiday for me too, and the way I celebrate it is by telling you that you are a retard."
That's the funniest thing I've read in ages. I might plagiarize it at some point.
The message does sound a little negative though.
I would have thought a more positive message about atheism would have been worthwhile, but that being said, I hope someone draws a texta mustache on the little guy in the manger :D
There is no way to promote atheism other than by saying "There is/are no [Gg]od(s)". That's all atheism is.
Has anyone considered placing vulnerable atheist signs around in known fun die hotspots with hidden GPS trackers located on them?
It could be interesting to track some of these thieves back to their lairs, and then dream up some fun ironic punishment for them.
to RamblinDude #520
>>Some non-Christians saw this happening and felt it was their right to express (on the same government property) their alternative point of view.
See, you either protest the use of the government property for religious purposes - which is fine, or you try to celebrate your own holiday on that property too - which is fine as well.
But what I don't understand is whether putting up that sign was an action of the first kind or of the second.
If it was both, to me that just seems perverse - to celebrate a holiday (on a government property) by protesting the way other people celebrate their holiday (on a government property).
#523 Posted by: rs on December 5, 2008 on 10:38 PM:
That's been tried. It doesn't work any better.
JBS
rs, you will get it when you understand that the sign was just doing the golden rule. The xians gave everybody else the finger by forcing in their nativity scene, so the sign was just a finger back at them. The xians need to learn to back down in the public sphere.
John B. Sandlin #518 wrote:
I get the opposite out of it. Might as well put up the happy humanist Tree-of-Reason. You get the dual benefits of not being an asshole and pissing off assholes. It's a sweeter victory.
Oops, that should be 'fundie' in my last post not 'fun die'. That'll teach me for running it through spellcheck and not paying attention.
@rs #523
*sigh* Your concern is noted.
Never mind that Hanukkah happened 200 or so years before Christ was allegedly born.
Emmet,
Palm Desert ain't the hood, brotha. (Unless rich Republicans have started a gang there.) Have a great evening!
to John B. Sandlin #518, #530
Nerd of Redhead #531
So, you guys concur with me that those atheists were acting like assholes, but you just think that that's ok?
I disagree with the assertion that saying "there are no gods" to people who believe there are is being an asshole, but saying "there is a god" to people who don't isn't. It's a bullshit double standard.
Ok, rs, how about this:
At the Season of
THE WINTER SOLSTICE
may reason prevail
There are no gods,
no devils, no angels
no heaven, no hell.
There is only
our natural world.
And it all comes down
to Love,
really.
@212:
Don't forget Athena--Didn't she pop, fully grown (& dressed in armor) out of the forehead of Zeus? And a female God to boot! :)
Pete:
Ideas are not stolen? Wow, good to know. Now copyright laws are wrong too. And patents. Are there any U.S. laws that you don't interpret in your own special way?
Cervantes had it... If there was a God, it'd be pathetic petty nonsense by Christians, not non-believers, that would cause the next deluge.
But what I don't understand is whether putting up that sign was an action of the first kind or of the second.
To me, it was obviously a response to the blatant intrusion of the nativity scene by posting their own views and manner of celebrating the holiday season. So yes, it was both. Why would that be perverse?
It's a bit in-your-face, true. Is that the problem? Failure to be obsequious?
Pete Rooke @ 240:
Then I assume that you also wouldn't consider it "stealing" if someone were to box up Nativity sets and return them to their owners (say, depositing them on the church doorsteps)?
Something the local cops, who thought the double homicide was gang-related, seem to have missed ;o)
Same to you!
Isn't it interesting that Pete Rooke says this like it's something to be proud of?
Maybe somehow that's supposed to show that his point of view is more likely to be "correct."
Or maybe we're all just supposed to understand that normal=better.
Yes, Pete, your position probably is closer to "normal" for America than mine is. That's not a compliment. And it doesn't mean I'm any less American than you, either.
#532 Posted by Sastra on December 5, 2008 at 10:47 PM:
I might be afflicted by living in Texas... with the highest concentration of Creationist assholes trying to rule (and ruin) our school system of any place in the nation.
That and I don't see the text of the poster being all that extreme - but just at the edge of polite dialog. Oh, and here, I see Christian (I'm assuming, anyway) telling me that I am going to Hell because I haven't taken Jesus as my copilot or as my president, or whatever.
Cars with the stupid Jesus fish on the back end out number those without. A great number have bumper stickers that say something along the lines of "This is God's Country... Love Him or Leave!" and "Jesus is my President" - and similar messages. I'm sorry, Jesus is NOT my President.
JBS
rs, you are an asshole. Never speak for me. The atheists were absolutely right to put up the sign the way it was written. The xians, by forcing the nativity scene, gave everybody non-xian the finger. By the golden rule, they deserved a finger back at them, which the sign accomplished. Personally, the sign could have been more strongly worded. It was nowhere near over the top. Time for you to stop your concern trolling and leave. Until you can condemn the xians for forcing in the nativity scene we cannot hold a rational discussion, because you premise is they were right and we were wrong.
Also:
Newton finger puppet doll:
http://www.philosophersguild.com/index.lasso?page_mode=Product_Detail&i…
How about:
At the Season of
THE WINTER SOLSTICE
may reason prevail
There are no gods,
no devils, no angels
no heaven, no hell.
There is only
our natural world.
Fuck you.
;o)
to RamblinDude #542
>>To me, it was obviously a response to the blatant intrusion of the nativity scene by posting their own views and manner of celebrating the holiday season. So yes, it was both. Why would that be perverse?
I, usually, either protest something or celebrate something, but I don't protest by celebrating or celebrate by protesting.
But that's just me.
Let me ask you, do you think it's ok for the government property to be used to celebrate Christmas or Winter Solstice?
If it is, why protest? Why not just celebrate?
If it is not, why not try to settle this matter in court? Why try to celebrate Winter Solstice in a capitol, if you think that it's wrong to do so?
It's a bit in-your-face, true. Is that the problem? Failure to be obsequious?
Nicely put, o Ramblindude,
Say no to atheist dhimmitude.
Emmet, interesting sign. Still too polite (too many concern trolls like rs make me angry). rs, go away and I might cool down.
#537 Posted by: rs on December 5, 2008 at 10:52 PM:
I've found that most Christians think atheists are assholes already and nothing we do will ever change that, even being nice forever. At least we don't have to resort to civil disobedience. Not yet anyway. But being a jerk is legal, and moral, and sometimes, necessary.
Is there a nice way to say your imaginary sky fairy isn't real? Because they sure aren't shy about saying that I'm headed to Hell, and my children too. And they say it like they're being nice about it.
JBS
This is just dumb. We should all be able to disagree in harmony.
to Nerd of Redhead #547
You are an asshole for calling me an asshole for calling assholes those atheists who thought that Christians were assholes by putting up that nativity scene!
There.
rs, you want to play nice, do so. Those of us who have suffered xians imposing their will upon us through the years understand the need to stand up and say "no more", or else nothing will change. You aren't changing our minds, just annoying us with your whining. Take your whiny concern elsewhere.
#503 I wrote:
It's probably fair to mention that the Philadelphia freethought group also got a lot of well-wishers, defenders, supporters, and positive publicity. Not all Christians whined.
Of course, not all Christians whined about the sign in Washington, either. The guy who put up the manger scene seems to have been a good sport.
A couple years ago I got a chance to see the same FFRF sign in Madison, WI, at Christmas. I was surprised at how good it made me feel. Yes, that last sentence is a little bit in-your-face for some tastes. But it still struck me as a positive message. I didn't think of it in terms of telling people off. I thought of it as a ray of light.
rs, do you feel the xians were right to impose the nativity upon public property? If so, you fail to understand the basic separation of church and state. That doesn't speak well for your intelligence.
Olbermann's response to BillO:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvnUCG5rYvE
The intolerant creeps who object to the sign should take a lesson from Ron Wesselius, the man who put up the Nativity scene. When he was asked whether he was bothered by the atheist display next to his Nativity scene, he said, "I appreciate freedom of speech and freedom of access. That's why they're in there, and hey - you know, that's great."
to John B. Sandlin #553
>>they sure aren't shy about saying that I'm headed to Hell, and my children too.
Did this actually happen to you personally?
Nothing of this sort has ever happened to me, and if it did, I would tell them to fuck off, go to your own hell or whatever.
But I still wouldn't go around giving fingers to random people for having a Jesus fish on their car or displaying a Christmas tree in public.
But my experience with Christians so far was that they were in general very nice people.
Just post their locations on the internet. Nothing more would needed.
Keep in mind - so far at least one sign was very quickly ditched.
Beyond that - a Christian who stole the sign but didn't throw it away might do something insidious with it. For example - O'Reilly has been comparing atheists to KKK bigots. What if the Christian dropped the sign in the backyard of a black family? (Which could happen by accident as well as by intent.) It would not do to have 'punishment' performed on innocent bystanders.
"rs, you will get it when you understand that the sign was just doing the golden rule."
Golden Rule: Do unto others as you WOULD HAVE them do unto you. Nerd, secular humanist fail on your part. The text of it is very blunt: No Gods, No angels; enslaves minds, hardens hearts. Not untrue, but still, a little too transparent. Ironically, they've proven that they were correct, and that in the end, it was perfectly reasonable to put up the sign. My doubts have been allayed.
Along this thread of inquiry, i thought this was in the spirit of things:
Wintering
If time is an illusion, what is this
a word - winter - of cold times and warm hearts
these are the oxymorons that hold us
but is bondage in human time so bad?
It is this time of primal survival
that man forgets the primordial war -
not mytholigical, but animal -
Battle agaist demons with our spirit
Even pagans knew when the spirits dwelt here
thier unnaparent forsifght is quite strange
did they know that our time is a closed circle?
inexorably, beginning meets end
our condemnation is so visable
when the world falls away and seems to die
cheer and joy are adamentally present
an ironic relic of defiance
---
Any good?
Emmett Caulfield #549 wrote:
HA! Very cute.
rs #550 wrote:
Yes ... but only if it's clear that the official celebration is for a secular Christmas holiday. If there are religious symbols, they need to be balanced by secular symbols and perhaps even anti-religious ones.
Christmas is an officially designated national holiday. That makes it legally and officially secular. Manger scenes say "Jesus is the Reason for the Season" and "Keep the Christ in Christmas." The give the message that "Christmas is really about celebrating the birth of Christ!"
There need to be other displays, so that the overall message is "not for everyone." And, maybe, some of the displays will respond, more explicitly, "Oh no, it's not!"
rs, some xians are nice people. Others are intolerant jerks who steal atheist signs from a public forum, break legs off of Dawin fish stuck on cars, and in general show extreme intolerance for those not of their faith. Nobody is saying all xians are bad, but there are enough intolerant ones that need to learn the lesson that atheists exist and must be treated with the same respect they feel that they deserve. Anything less is non xian, non golden rule.
It's happened to me personally several times. Having spent most of my life living in predominantly Mormon areas, I've been told I'll end up in either 'outer darkness' or the 'Telestial Kingdom' many more times. Notably, It's happened much less frequently as I've grown older. Now that I no longer look like I'm 16, it hardly ever (about 1/yr) happens. Funny that.
to Nerd of Redhead #558
>>do you feel the xians were right to impose the nativity upon public property?
I'm not sure. I think that qualifies more as letting some group express their views on a public property (which is legal), than as an endorsement of religion (which is not). But I don't know enough details. Were any government funds used for that display? Were any of the state officials involved in helping to organized this event? But I just don't feel strongly about that issue. Those who do, should go to court.
But what is you answer to my questions (at #550)?
"Right now *we* claim the moral high ground here, and *we* need to maintain it. Put that baby Jesus down right now, guy. Defend their right to display their beliefs and demand equal time for *ours*!"
What's with the "we" and "ours"? Atheists never tire of complaining about the fact that all atheists are different, that they have no necessary connection to one another aside from a lack of a certain belief, and so on. And what's with the "demand" for "equal time" to "display" atheists' "beliefs"? If anyone else had said, in any other context, something about atheists "displaying their beliefs," you all would have attacked him mercilessly, complaining that "atheism is defined as a lack of belief, stupid!"
So, is there a "we" beyond the lack of belief, or not? And is there a "belief" to be "displayed," or not?
RickrOll, if I am responding using the golden rule, I look at how I was treated and return the treatment. So tolerance and good will are returned. In your face gets returned too. I always start off with tolerance and good will myself. But if they unnecessarily disturb me to talk their religion I am not very polite.
Let me ask you, do you think it's ok for the government property to be used to celebrate Christmas or Winter Solstice?
If it is, why protest?
You're drawing a false equivalence here.
I don't have a problem with courthouses hanging up festive lights (tis the holiday season) or advertising important astronomical occurrences--as long as it doesn't proselytize any group's particular religion to the exclusion of any others.
The sign posters were not protesting innocuous displays of festivity or educational announcements; they were protesting countering an overt religious statement put there by a religious group. That's why the protest.
As it as been pointed out here before, Christmas means different things to different people. Just because it has a mythological person in the name doesn't mean Christianity has a government mandated holiday.
Nerd of Redhead #565
>>Nobody is saying all xians are bad, but there are enough intolerant ones that need to learn the lesson that atheists exist and must be treated with the same respect they feel that they deserve.
Absolutely.
The way I go about that is by not hiding my views Christians from them and celebrating Christmas with them without trying to cause disruption.
rs -
I'm actually surprised to meet someone (well, cybermeet someone) who hasn't been told s/he is going to Hell. You've really never had a Christian tell you how sorry they are that you've not accepted Christ as your personal savior because now you're going to Hell? That's the polite version. The impolite version occurs when you're doing something they don't like, like protecting patients from "pro-life" protesters at clinics, or being at a Gay Pride Parade, or -
well, you know.
And there's the fact that hundreds of preachers in this country stand up every Sunday in front of millions of people and tell them that people like me and those I love are going to Hell. And, BTW, that they should vote to deny "those" sorts of people the right to marry or adopt children.
I try to always hold the moral high ground, but honestly, fundamentalist Christians never seem to give anyone any credit on that front, unless it's themselves.
When people keep telling you to shut up, or (worse) assume that you'll keep your mouth shut even if you disagree, eventually you will want to speak all the more.
Where the hell are you getting the idea that this is the standard M.O. of atheists here?
Patricia @ 241:
I wouldn't call it definitive, but a quick Google kept bringing up this (various sites, same wording, suggesting extensive "borrowing"):
"Christmas which takes its name from Christ's Mass, was first celebrated on various dates but was finally set on December 25 by Bishop Liberus of Rome in 354 A.D.";
and, according to Wikipedia:
"The earliest reference to the celebration of the nativity on December 25 is found in the Chronography of 354, an illuminated manuscript compiled in Rome in 354", said Chronography being "a 4th century illuminated manuscript, which was produced in 354 AD for a wealthy Roman Christian named Valentius. It is the earliest dated codex to have full page illustrations. None of the original has survived."
Oh, and Pete Rooke....Cuttlefish is a genius, at least where his poetry is concerned. Your dislike for his art doesn't diminish his artistry.
rs, you seem to be missing the history with your questions. The state had just a tree and a few secular ornaments on state property. They were sued by a xian to put up a nativity scene with the ornaments, and they lost the court case. Now, since government must be neutral in all religious activity, and the nativity scene is religious, they had to allow any group who wanted to display something even remotely religious to display something, and this included the FFRF card. Now some people don't like anything other than their religion expressed so they complained about the card, and it was taken up by some right wing loudmouths like OReilly.
My own opinion is that the nativity scene should be at the church down the street. The state display should only be a xmas tree and a few snowmen and the like. And since there is no nativity display on state property, the atheist card should not be there either. But my opinion differs from the court case.
eric you raise a good point. I still think they ought to have put up a Mithras display of some sort, or a festivus pole with Dawkins on top ;)It was a little too wordy for a kind of protest, if it was one, and a bit too insensitive. It wasn't a middle finger per se, but it was condescending.
Let the christians worship thier idols- and point out that the nativity scene is idolotry. There were all sorts of creative avenues to explore, and they picked the most boring and un-festive way to put it.
But we all see these things differently, so trying to say it is either here-or-there is disingenious.
#561 Posted by rs on December 5, 2008 at 11:34 PM:
Only once to my face... I generally keep my thoughts on religion to myself, since. Of course, they tried to sound so sweet and concerned that I was condeming myself and family to eternal damnation... I was too embarrassed at the time to have a pithy come back for that. Especially since I didn't really even know the person, and would likely never see them again. But dang!
That said, I'm sure lots of Christians are nice. But they don't think about what they say a lot of times.
As for not to my face, in the online arena, all the time, but then I'm kinda expecting it here in the land of no manners.
JBS
Of course, not all Christians whined about the sign in Washington, either. The guy who put up the manger scene seems to have been a good sport.
Oh yeah, I forgot about that. Oh, the irony. . .
Emmet Caulfield #549
I'll take 200!
"But I just don't feel strongly about that issue. Those who do, should go to court."
Who are you to tell those who do feel strongly about that issue how to respond when they did nothing to break the law?
"Where the hell are you getting the idea that this is the standard M.O. of atheists here?"- Rev Ham hands lol.
Who has two thumbs and is the perfect answer to that question?
This guy!! HA HA HA haaa
But in all seriousness, christmas trees are awesome. There just has to be a "-mas" at the end of it, whatever you call it. heh heh
"Who are you to tell those . . ."
Not saying your not entitled to your opinion, of course.
If Mr. Wesselius meant it, he understands freedom of speech. That is to be admired.
Ham hands my ass.
bacon maybe but not hams
Did I mention "Emmet for Molly?"
I think I did.
to Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM #573
>>Where the hell are you getting the idea that this is the standard M.O. of atheists here?
see #518, #531
to RamblinDude #578
>>Who are you to tell those who do feel strongly about that issue how to respond when they did nothing to break the law?
Well, I meant that in general disputes of this sort are better to be settled in court.
Otherwise, you might end up with this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuFnZ3klslU
Just an advice, that's all.
rs:
Yes, many Christians are nice people. Many of my closest friends are Christians, and nice people.
But then again, there was the Christian (a total stranger to me) who, while I was just trying to ring up her groceries in a businesslike manner, first invited me to go to her church and when I politely declined, told everybody within earshot, loudly and in no polite language, that I was going to burn in Hell forever, while she laughed.
And there are also the Christians (not a sweeping generalisation; I'm thinking of a specific group of individual Christians who I personally know) who feel that it's perfectly alright to lie to, cheat or steal from anyone who isn't a Christian, by which they mean anyone, even professing Christians, who are not members of their particular congregation. After all, that's what unbelievers are there for--to supply free goods and services to True Christians. They're not members of a small congregation, either; this particular church is one of the two largest (and best financed) in my city.
Religion or lack thereof is no reliable predicter of niceness or ass-holishness.
OK, totally OT, but I feel the need to say that I love many, many of the posters here. Because they express/validate so much of what I have felt but have not found elsewhere.
At 6 yrs old, I told my parents (one ostensibly Catholic and one, again ostensibly, protestant), that I didn't believe in God. Their mutual response was that I should (would) go to church school (Catholic) until my confirmation, and then I could decide for myself.
Since neither of my parents ever mentioned god, or had gone to church, I had no idea that my dad would be hurt when (at the age of 19) I finally mentioned (again) that I didn't believe in god. Was I ever surprised.
After that, I spent far too much time trying to make my family feel good. Ouch. My parents are/were good people (one of each). Both treat all people with respect. They dislike others based solely on their attitudes/behaviors/actions. They are/were outstandingly moral.
Despite all of this, I find myself trying to justify my anger at intolerance. My mother's life stance is that people shouldn't make waves, or judge others based on superficial features. Yet she believes that gays shouldn't "announce their sexuality".
This comes from a woman who enjoyed the rights that were gained by women who "overstepped their boundaries". She really doesn't understand that the only reason we know that there are gay politicians, is because people protested that nobody should have to hide who they are, or what they believe to be elected to office.
Aaaaargggghhhhh. It's late. I'm angry and tired.
That's also my opinion. It's also the way it should be. The Establishment Clause means what it says. Congress (and also state governments thanks to the Fourteenth Amendment) can't favor any religion. Since a Jebus-Baby equals Christianity the Nativity stuff can't be in a state capitol building. For the same reason a sign promoting atheism shouldn't be in a government building. If Christians had any intelligence at all they would be able to figure out our wall of separation between church and state is in everyone's best interest, including theirs. I imagine there's at least some Christians who aren't theocrats, but it seems most Christians have no respect for our constitution, no respect for minority religions, and no respect for atheists. This is why it's fair to say most Christians are stupid assholes. They have a bad reputation because they earned it.
Nerd of Redhead wrote:
The state had just a tree and a few secular ornaments on state property.
Actually, they had a tree and a Menorah. Not exactly secular. Part of the settlement agreement says that displays can't be restricted on account of content, religious or not.
i think everyone minus the overly itchy Christians here agree.
However, if they somehow manage to post their shrines to a zombie son of a god, we should press to have some voice of reason there to, so they know that is what is required by law.
Sorry rev. That was in homage to cuttlefish's nominating poem of you ;) Reverand Baconater it is then. Maybe you and the resident Gubernator can get together for brunch sometime. ha ha ha
"If Mr. Wesselius meant it, he understands freedom of speech. That is to be admired."- Red nerd
Even if he didn't, he was still good enough to be respectful on the air about it. And that means more than his actual opinion. It shows good character. Sending the right message i think is more important than honesty. Most objectionable christians have it ass-backwards. Don't mind my $.02
to mandrake #572
>>You've really never had a Christian tell you how sorry they are that you've not accepted Christ as your personal savior because now you're going to Hell?
I guess I should get out more.
But I understand - children and young people usually get a lot of shit from adults - for all sorts of reasons.
cicely,
"After all, that's what unbelievers are there for--to supply free goods and services to True Christians."
You just creeped me out. I remember being told the story of Noah's ark as a kid, and we all felt good and superior at seeing the picture of all those unbelievers drowning in the huge waves. They deserved to die after ridiculing Noah the way they did.
Most of the Christians I know (many relatives included) would not steal, but they have spent their lives cultivating that same feeling of superiority.
I despise religion.
Now this thread is just depressing. Back to the boob jokes!
I tend to rearrange nativity scenes to make the camel the centre of attention.
"Thou shalt not steal" = pwned
Of course they think about what they say. The fact that the person didn't know you was no deterrent. That's exactly the point. The majority of people who post here respect individual opinions. In opposition to the majority of xtians who post here.
Perhaps this is why many Christians want to throw out the Establishment Clause. They think they are better than everyone else because they are the magic fairy's chosen people, therefore they can ignore any part of the constitution they don't like.
So they stick their Jebus in a government building, not caring about non-Christians, then they complain when a group of non-Christians wants to put up a sign in the same building. Christians don't care about their reputation. They are only interested in pleasing the god fairy who lives in their tiny defective brains.
rs, even in the more secular UK I have had many xians tell me to my face that, not only that I an going to hell, but that I deserve to for not accepting god/Jesus.
So if this is the most ass-hole thing that we put on a sign, i.e. simply stating that there is no god and that religion has caused much damage (to paraphrase) then I am all for being an ass-hole. Especially when it is the truth.
By the way, there is no positive atheist message in the sense that atheism is simply the stand that there is no god or gods. Far too many religious accuse us of intolerance, and worse, for simply admitting that we are atheists. As even admitting we are atheists is seen as a fundamental militant attack on their beliefs by many.
As we have seen in other such examples, where even putting up a road sign stating that an atheist organisation exists as a heads up to other atheists in the area, has been denigrated by shits like O'Reilly, Donowhore and other believers as intolerant and a deliberate attack on religion, especially theirs.
It's also the way it should be. The Establishment Clause means what it says.
i think everyone minus the overly itchy Christians here agree.
Not everyone. Certain areas of the building are designated for public use and citizens are encouraged to participate. This includes displays during the holiday season, religious, non-religious, whatever, all subject to the same rules and regulations. It's no different than a government-owned public park where just about any point of view is allowed to be expressed.
#577 Posted by John B. Sandlin on December 6, 2008 at 12:02 AM:
I want to expand on this a little: Because I typically don't talk about religion at work or with friends, people I know assume I'm a full on Christian just like them. So I get to hear their comments about atheists, and Muslims, and so on, without their politeness filters on.
These folks are active in their churches, teaching Sunday School and so on. These people attend Mega-churches. They go to gatherings like "The Promise Keepers." They talk about their churches and what they've been doing, and the missions people are on (such as missionary service in Central America).
They do believe non-believers are condemned to Hell and sometimes let slip a tiny bit of joy (or at least appear to) at the misfortune of a non-believer. Other Christians (in other sects) can be considered non-believers, too, not just agnostics and atheist, or Muslims or Buddhists.
I don't know if they realize they sound joyful, or if maybe I'm misreading them, or some other thing. At this point, I'm not comfortable with people knowing how often I go to church (or not).
So, even if they are not in my face because I'm an atheist (OK, actually I call myself an Agnostic - defined by what I know or don't know, not what I believe or don't believe) and would be polite and pretend-kind if they knew, they would still think of me just like they do the folks they do know about, and that would affect how they treat me and affect my opportunities at work, even if they tried to not let it show.
Just like I try not to treat them as silly superstitious people (literally, too: Seriously knocking wood, salt over the left shoulder, black-eyed peas for new years, etc.).
JBS
Off topic but: Romania removes theory of evolution from school curriculum
Just an image. Nothing more need be said.
http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w11/bredae/crechecannon.jpg
"I tend to rearrange nativity scenes to make the camel the centre of attention."- Don't forget to put a red dot on all their foreheads AHA HA HA
"'Thou shalt not steal' = pwned"- [above] also Dveduu
Thanks for that. A return to humor. Always appreciated.
BobC, quit the hatemongering. Really. it's called projection, i fear you have it. Especially when you say "[They] don't care about their reputation. They are only interested in pleasing the god fairy who lives in their tiny defective brains."
Wheras you seem hell-bent (pun involved, sorry) on maintaning the sanctimony of "not-god" in the State's eyes. The Wall works both ways, neither forbidden, nor protected. Your brain works/is fine, what's your excuse?
"rs, even in the more secular UK I have had many xians tell me to my face that, not only that I an going to hell, but that I deserve to for not accepting god/Jesus."- John, Dawkins' Atheist Comrade, or John DAC
yep, even some of the nicest and seemingly intellectual
xians are like this. To whit:http://johnshoreland.com/2008/12/01/the-one-sin-god-cant-forgive/
And yeah, you have a great point- i think more blacks ought to be pissed buring February, especially in the South. This runs along that similar vein, doesn't it? The display is perfectly justified now, and i have removed all qualms that i had attached to it's presentation.
damn shit damn!
http://johnshoreland.com/2008/12/01/the-one-sin-god-cant-forgive/
Time for a heavier sign.
Plus rebar. Anyone willing to wrestle four feet of rebar out of the ground and drag away a 200 pound iron sign has rightly earned it, that's what I say.
Also, a video camera to record the struggle so the entire epic can be posted on the net with the caption: "Christian so afraid of the Establishment Clause he is willing to sacrifice an hour of his time and the health of his lower back to fight it."
Emmet @549:
I think I just got a tear in my eye.
RickrOll (602), go fuck yourself. If you want to suck up to Christian assholes, that's fine with me. Just don't expect me to be a suck up like yourself.
B Godless America.
When did i ever say that they weren't as you said they were!? I'm not saying they are any better by being comarable to the likes of you, BobC. Your egocentrism/Stalinism is quite bare-faced at this point.
And you go right for the jugular and insult me personally, which therefore proves my point exactly. Thank you so very much. You are just as bad as they are. They haven't been "praised" at all by me saying that.
Just because X is bad, doesn't mean Y is suddenly better. Especially if Y was terrible to begin with. If you can't accept this logic then you are just as blind as the Creationists in insisting that a disproof of evolution (which they have none of) is proof fro creation. Same for Personality BOB.
So as for Who is fucking themselves, i would have to say just look at the attitude and argument you put forward, and the PROJECTION becomes oh so obvious. It is always so easy for an arrogant Aryan to so easily put someone in the "out" group and then systematically point out their own incredably flawed psychology.
And(ONCE AGAIN) this has no bearing on the sheer stupidity of the godbots we all mock; but it would be wise not to be as quick as yourself to malign to the anti-godbot position. All it does is validate the kind of mindless tactics that they use.
My Stalinism? You really are an idiot. That's what I would expect from a Christian retard.
RickrOll, There's a lot to be said for the concept called "minding your own business". If you want to suck up to Christians, that's fine with me. If I want to tell the truth about Christians, you shouldn't have a problem with that. Instead you call me a hatemonger, and just to prove you're as stupid as the worst Christians, you call me a Stalinist. I repeat, go fuck yourself moron.
They don't do it just to children & young people. I'm 46 years old, and only last month someone asked me if I wouldn't come to the Lord rather than burn in hell for being an atheist. I've been hearing that crap all of my life. And I'm sick of it. That's the response I get just for saying, "No, I don't believe in God." You can say it as sweetly as you like, and the response you get is pearl-clutching hysteria. At least down here in Texas. And I live in one of the GOOD parts of the state, where it only happens periodically, rather than ALL---THE---TIME. Do you know what it was like to grow up in a place where the first thing someone asked you upon meeting wasn't, how old are you, are you married/single, do you have kids, what do you like to do, but, "What church do you go to?" And to get the "you're going to burn in hell" spiel yet again?
I swear, if I'd had to stay in East Texas one minute longer than I did, I wouldn't have made it to my 30th birthday.
So, yes, rs, there are people who have to deal with this nonsense, day in, day out. And yes, you do need to get out more. What are you not to know this is how things are for atheists in most of America, a 12 year old?
RickrOll: "..."If Mr. Wesselius meant it, he understands freedom of speech. That is to be admired."- Red nerd
Even if he didn't, he was still good enough to be respectful on the air about it. And that means more than his actual opinion. It shows good character. Sending the right message i think is more important than honesty. Most objectionable christians have it ass-backwards. Don't mind my $.02"
No it would not mean he has "good character". It would mean he's a liar and so spineless that he feels the need to pretend to be someone other than who he is.
You have some very twisted ideas about what makes someone a good person.
Phew, a bit of catching up on this thread.
rs @428,
Still stand by that, after the subsequent discussion?
It'a called hyperbole, smart man. Again, no point, no response, just a knee-jerk reaction, as i would expect.
"The truth"? I saw that tomh responded to that quite simply at 598, so is he "sucking-up" too? Just like christians everywhere, you are perfectly willing to take an abolitionist approach to religion and sacrifice that excluded middle (which includes a lot of fence-sitting christians as well as many mild-mannered atheists to se reality conform to your ideal.
Was Stalin different? Yes, he was insane, he was a dictator who had more people killed than even Hitler to consolidate his power. Obviously you think that such tactics aren't really all that extreme, for the sake of accomplishing your idealogue (his- political, yours- ethnocentric as it pertains to a demograghic).
You heve already said that all creationists ought to be forcibly removed from schools. Not much different from the idea of removing evolution from schools, when you come down to it- except that creationism only pertains to a particular subject.
"No it would not mean he has "good character". It would mean he's a liar and so spineless that he feels the need to pretend to be someone other than who he is.
You have some very twisted ideas about what makes someone a good person."-Plex Flexico #612
You mean what, like putting the Constitution above his own opinions? How could he be lying if he was telling the truth? He would be at worst, a coward, but a liar he would not be. You think the 1st Amendment is terrible, the antithises of "Great"? Besides, moot because what he said ringed of sincerity.
I said creationist teachers should be fired for incompetence and stupidity. I didn't say "forcibly removed".
If you think it's fair to students to have a teacher stupid enough to believe a god fairy waved its magic wand to magically create creatures, that's fine with me. That's your opinion. You don't give a shit about students. You want to suck up to religious insanity. Good for you. But you got a lot of nerve to call me a hatemonger and a Stalinist just because I'm not a wimp like you are.
RickrOll, is this one of your hobbies, insulting atheists who aren't wimps like yourself?
RickrOll posted
Cheers Rick, I quite like that moniker, I might well approprioate it as my signature as it goes well with FCD :)
John DAC
You're wrong.
He had the opportunity to sound off like Bill O'Reilly and many of the other Christians of various stripes who assert that America is a Christian nation, and therefore Christianity should be given primacy. He avoided doing that, even though it would have been very easy to do so.
If he genuinely agrees in true freedom of expression, then he's rejecting the opportunity to go along with the vast herd of his fellow religious believers, and is taking a stand on the true intent of the First Amendment. That is true integrity.
If he doesn't really agree with freedom of expression, but says that he does in a public forum, he's still rejecting the opportunity to go along with the vast herd of his fellow religious believers, and is supporting the First Amendment regardless, perhaps out of the pragmatic understanding that he benefits from equal enforcement of the establishment clause. While that isn't quite integrity, speaking supportively of an atheist message is still magnanimity, and it is still a positive quality.
I'm with adding something to the Nativity scene.
Nowhere in the bible does it say there were 3 wise men, just wise men bearing gifts. There could have been many magi bearing gold, frankincense and myrh. So we need to add to the nativity scene as many wise men as we can. Maybe one or two with an atheist t-shirt on.
Enough wise men to block the nativity scene from view, perhaps. And a line of them going to the atheist sign to read it too.
Well, back to reading this post. I think I was at comment 50 ...
Wow John [DAC] *blushes*, i had know i dea i could say something that someone Liked Ha ha...ha...*cough*
And on the flip side: Bob, continue anti-godbotting to your pleasure. I will ignore you because all you are interested in is insulting me.
And fine, you aren't a Stalanist, you're a Catholic preist, circa 1500. Keep the knowledge of religion a secret, create a new paraih for society. That won't empower them at all *roll*
Forcibly removed=fired. rebutt FAIL.
If you hate creationists so much, then simply mandate religious critique classes. Sounds like a fair compramise.
OH boy oh boy, Nance is BACK in Business! http://womenintheword.wordpress.com/2008/12/05/the-god-of-mormonism/#co…
Enlighten Tree in my kitchen
http://acksisofevil.org/images/AmasTree.jpg
increasing the post count in this Über Thread
Forcibly removed implies using physical force. Most fired people leave peaceably.
Again you sound just like a Christian retard who tell atheists they hate god or they hate christians, just because they want Christians to keep their insanity out of our schools.
I don't hate creationists. I just don't want creationists in public schools. Just because somebody is stupid is no reason to dislike them, unless of course they're atheist wimps like yourself.
CosmicTeapot. "I'm with adding something to the Nativity scene....."
Gnomes and Trolls! YEAH ha hah ha!
Oh, and do treat Nance a little gentler ok? just so that there can be a discussion. And the plaigerism thing is officially done now alright? Now she's talking about Mormons... a little common ground to agree to hate. OOOOooooooooh, exciting!!
I never heard of you until you started calling me a hatemonger, Mr. Asshole.
Hey, i resent being lumped with this para-christian fucktard!
@BobC: I'm sure RickROll can take care of himself, but a couple of things about your #610:
The Stalinist bit may be a bit melodramatic, but without taking on the disagreeable task of scanning your post history I can't really say. Hatemonger seems much closer to the mark -- can you point to a single one of your past posts that _isn't_ an example of hatemongering?
Everything you add to a thread is "on record" as it were. The posters here are generally top-notch, and their thoughtfulness is large part of why I visit so often. It's also why I get annoyed when someone comes in and thoughtlessly hurls their e-feces around like a prejudiced, distempered fourteen year old. It warrants not "minding my own business" long enough to point out what an asshole you're being.
I already knew that being an atheist was no guarantee of good (or even civil) behavior, I don't need to have it proved to me over and over again. Seriously, lighten up on the prejudice against everybody who isn't sufficiently atheistic for you long enough to try judging people by their behavior. Who knows, you might even find you _like_ some of them (One can always hope, right?)
I'm from the provence, and for the last 30 years I've been collecting Santons. These are little hand painted figurines cast in terracotta that are used to build nativity scenes (crêche de noël). I've got about 50 of them, they are very beautiful, and every year, I go in the forest and collect leaves, branches, stones, pine, wood etc... and set up the nativity scene in my house. I add some lighting, I make it as pretty as I feel like.
Yet, I've never done it as a sign of my religosity as I've never believed in any religious myth, I'm an agnostic.
It's only a naïve representation of a fairy tale, could have been Cinderella, sleeping beauty, or the frog that turned into a prince but can't find Santons for that, so it's that other fairy tale, the one about the birth of Jesus.
By the way, you see that a lot in France, the majority of the population is now non religious, yet so many set nativity scenes as a matter of tradition or naïve art. Most of my friends and family are atheists or agnostics and when they see my crêche, they all say : how beautiful, and nobody would even think I'm actually remembering the virgin birth of the son of the creator of the universe.
Nobody would think I'm THAT crazy !
Maybe that's what happens in a post-religious society, the myths remain as sources of creativity and really move beyond belief.
negentropyeater, are you a para-christian fucktard too? HA HA HAH AH AAAHA
kids, all of it. The best part is Mr. Asshole being created specifically for a post called "Let's not play that game." How fitting that someone else would be so kind as to point to the traditional role that these things have in society. It is like the memetic version of junk DNA, something that survives despite losing it's original function. Cool, i'll have to start calling it that crêche too, as soon as i figure out how the fuck to put the carrot symbol above like that... hmmm.
We didn't set up a christmas village at my house this year, no good place to put them where they won't get broken. A real shame, that.
Aaaah, there's something, those little Christmas villages, which have all the churches and things such as that but are devoid of religious meaning. An intreaguing possibility that may put an end to the Nativity scene in our non-religious future...
Thank you Neg,for posting something of substance relevant to the thread topic.
well according to the activity on this thread anf others i can reasonably get to sleep at aroung 2:30 am. Otherwise i just Have to know what's being said! it's a pain in the ass being addicted to the internets. *sigh*
When I lived in the US (ok, I only lived in Manhattan and San Francisco, not exactly representative), I did get a lot of reactions to my crêche that were new to me, positive reactions from Christians who thought that meant I was one of them and perplexed reactions from non believers who had thought, rightfully, that I was one of them.
Eventually, I felt compelled to add a little hand painted sign to my nativity scene, Magritte style, I added :
ceci n'est pas une crêche
This really pisses me off. There's plenty of idiocy to go all around. The display[s] were placed in front of a State Capitol building. NEITHER have any business being there.
"Although a number of humanists and atheists continue to attempt to rid God and Christmas from the public square, the American people are overwhelmingly opposed to such efforts," Roberta Combs, the [Christian Coalition of America] president said in a press release. "We will ask our millions of supporters to call the city of Washington, D.C., and Congress to stop this un-Godly campaign."
Anyone who makes any such statement is un-Amercian and an asshole, no matter how "godly" they perceive themselves to be.
She and others of her obnoxiously righteous ilk are either:
A. Pretty damned stupid or woefully miseducated and therefore entirely ignorant of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and don't understand how freedom of speech cannot supervene the religious clauses in the First Amendment, even though it has been established time and time again all the way to the Supreme Court,
or
B. Not so stupid and DO understand the Constitution, yet CHOOSE to BREAK State and Federal laws because they feel their religious conviction supercedes the law of the land...DESPITE the fact that state and federal courts have repeatedly emphasized clarifications of the relation between freedom of speech and the Establishment Clause, performed in the EXPERT service of their solemn duty to interpret the friggin' LAW as the third leg of the tripod of US government, the Judicial Branch of the United States...and DESPITE the fact that the Founders of this country went to great pains to specify the rule of law - not the rule of man, nor any of man's varied superstitious contraptions based on whatever supernatural whim.
If the latter is the case, Ms. Combs and her kind are blatantly anti-American. Plainly, they hold their creed above the laws of the United States of America. They, as a group, are traitors, conducting treasonous acts AGAINST the laws of these United States of America.
And, by the way, Ms. Combs? If any part of a "public square" is government property, and under the jurisdiction of that government that upholds the Constitution, in THIS country it means you CANNOT exercise your "free speech" there if it interferes with the separation of religion and state. That's all there is to it: the Founders made absolutely sure everyone could practice whatever religion they wished on their own time, property and resources. A SOUNDLY COMPLETE interpretation gives that same right to individuals who practice no religious superstition at all: no matter how revolted you may be by it, the provision in the Establishment Clause in concert with Freedom of Speech and of Assembly and so on, recognizes the freedom FROM religion as well as the freedom OF religion (or it wouldn't make a turd's-worth of sense, would it?) - all of these liberties - MUST be extended to everybody, no matter how much their thinking differs from yours.
Remember? America? Land of the free? Home of the brave? All that deliciously illustrious feel-good patriotic Good Stuff? Well, you guys went and ran with that as if it was your own monopoly for quite enough time, and you failed miserably. You so easily forgot Life, Liberty, The Pursuit of Happiness and even Justice for All.
You even enjoy tax-exempt status! (Yet emminently arguable as unconstitutional!). What the hell is your problem? What can you want? More? You want to dictate what is taught in public schools to OUR kids too?
You are very fond of inviting people who "criticize" the country in order to improve it to go live in another - preferably, one that is oppressed by some horrible dictatorship regime. Yet that is precisely the kind of country you are bent on fashioning for us. And you still want more.
Well, we're all very sorry, but you've already had quite enough, and you can't have any more. It's high time your immodest standards were reduced back to the level that does not make you special in the eyes of government. Truly, I do not give a shit whether your god considers you special or not: that preposterous question is utterly irrelevant, and you had better learn to start living WITH people, instead of AGAINST them.
No, you won't find that in your precious bible and other religious texts. You have to learn to live like a real human being, taking responsiblity for ALL of your actions, right here and now, while you are actually alive. No more passing the buck to the Big Guy; no more avoiding responsibility via confessionally-prescribed pennance or absolution that makes everything better by absolving you of your transgressions; no more thinking that anybody else (including your concept of god) can possibly do a better job of controlling your actions than you yourself can...or thinking that you can escape the consequences of your actions in this life, whenever other people you share existence with call you out on it.
If it's ultimately all about individual responsibility, what does that single circumstance say about those who practice a belief that systematically absolves them of all their actions? Poof! My sins are now vanquished because I've confessed to god almighty and he cleared the record? > I can now go ahead and remain a jackass, in full knowledge of the fact that I can always get a reprieve?
If you think you know the answer to that, I must humbly conclude that you know what god knows, and in knowing that much, you think yourself AS GOD.
(I wonder if you would stoop to taking that particular issue up in the confessional - you know, assuming the knowledge of a god...no, I don't suppose anything that lurid ever occurs to you).
Oh, and Ms. Combs? Be VERY sure that God wasn't on the side of our American founders Jefferson and Madison, won't you? Even after all the fact-twisting you may not find what you were looking for. You may even conclude that Jefferson and Madison were atheistic! (Just be careful in your analysis. God can't possibly be pleased with people who twist, spindle, mutilate, or otherwise obscure the facts, would He? If you do, and if He IS pleased by such arrogant contempt of the truth, He would be as much of a liar as you are, and we couldn't have God reduced to the level of fallible human beings, now, could we?
--
Now, the OTHER beef. This will be relatively short, because American atheists really ought to know better. Unfortunately, stupidity is not restricted to non-atheists.
There's an obnoxious display put up by a religious group in front of a State Capitol building (or, say, a City Hall somewhere, or whatever): so what do atheists do? In order to "respond" in kind, to get their own opinion across (it is alleged) they break the same laws as the religious folks did, and put up their own display in the form of a sign.
Does this help instruct people of the importance of the separation of state from any religious or non-religious ideologies? NO. What does it do? THE VERY VERY WORST: it validates the religious display and sets a precedent for government property to be places where such displays are erected. When (NOT "if") this business will get into the courts, anybody who thinks this will not confuse and obfuscate the preeminant issue under examination is as big a moron as any religious zealot could possibly be.
Whether or not the atheist group responsible had good intentions or not, their naivete is alarming. Placing that sign there and expecting it NOT to be it ripped off is stupid beyond belief, but it also turns it into another legal dimension that has the potential of wrecking the focus on the actual constitutional issues involved. I think the whole business of the "theft" of that plaque is a strategic act aptly played out as a news story by CNN and others, and believe me, they'll try to milk this for all it's worth. The timing gloves right in with their neurosis, and it IS Christmas time, after all, and these kinds of spotlights really do a bang-up job of seizing people's attention on things that otherwise don't deserve spit.
If it is possible to be more assinine still, it's the impulse expressed by some people to steal away religious displays, however unlawful those displays are. It is assinine for precisely the same reason that it is unlawful for anybody to take the law into their own hands, as in, for example, a lynch mob hanging somebody without a trial.
No, really. No matter the difference between petty and capitol offenses, it's precisely the same affront to the rule of law.
There. I've said my piece, however awkwardly.
These other guys (among MANY others of similar accomplishment and virtue, far above my inept squeaks) also had things to say:
"The principle that government may accommodate the free exercise of religion does not supersede the fundamental limitations imposed by the Establishment Clause, which guarantees at a minimum that a government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise, or otherwise act in a way which "establishes a [state] religion or religious faith, or tends to do so."" [Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 678. Pp.7-8. - re-enunciated in Lee vs. Weisman, 1992, Supreme Court decision]
"[E]xperience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation." [James Madison, as quoted by Justice Kennedy, opinion of the court in Lee vs. Weisman]
Arnosium: As I understand it, this all started a few years ago when the governor, perhaps innocently, allowed a tree and a menorah to be displayed but then refused to allow a nativity scene. The xians took it to court where the court said, rightly or wrongly and to paraphrase, allow one (the menorah) and you have to allow any.
If I had been the atheists involved, my reason for putting an atheist sign up, seeing the court had said it was OK as long as all were allowed,, would be to engender a debate about the correctness of the decision, while knowing it likely that some xians would act hypocritically. Perhaps the xians would get so upset, that they would campaign to have none displayed in future, though from experience, they would more likely campaign for the rejection of all but theirs. However, this would not only allow them to be slapped down in court, but would also display their hypocrisy.
In Lynch v. Donnelly, didn't the Supreme court hold that the city of Pawtucket's nativity scene does not violate the Establishment Clause :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynch_v._Donnelly
John #634,
not eacxtly, you are refering to County of Allegheny v. ACLU :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegheny_County_v._Greater_Pittsburgh_ACLU
So apparently the crêche in Lynch v. Donnelly was constitutional, but the one in County of Allegheny v. ACLU wasn't.
The difference, the unconstitutional crêche had an angel carrying a banner, with the words:
Gloria in Excelsis Deo!
Negentropyeater;
http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/WesseliusSettlement.pdf
from;
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/12/give_bill_oreilly_apoplexy.p…
John,
thx for the info.
It seems the Supreme court and District court rulling are quite different.
The Supreme court looks at whether the display, (or set of dsplays) hasn't for "principal or primary effect" to advance religion according to the Lemon test, ie whether the display can be considered secular whereas the district court says if you allow one, you should allow all.
Isn't it confusing ?
Enlighten Tree in my kitchen
http://acksisofevil.org/images/AmasTree.jpg
Our courts interpretation of the first amendment can be some very fine hair splitting, with conflicting decisions in various district courts. In this case, the state made the mistake of adding a menorah to their display at some time. That gave it a bit of religiousness, which then really required all the other "religious" displays to be included, for example, both the nativity scene and the FFRF card. No surprise that the state lost the case in court. It is usually safest for the state to stick to just a tree, santa, and snowmen, which are totally secular. Then they can point to the church just down the street (isn't there always one just down the street) as the proper place for the nativity scenes.
echidna #472
Negentropyeater: Tell me about it :)
Though possibly the local court was simply deciding on balance, i.e. allow none or allow all. Either decision would lead to the state not endorsing a religion. Possibly they decided for balance because the promoters of the nativity scene asked for the right to also be allowed their display rather than to banish the other. Perhaps if instead they had asked for the banishment of the menorah under the establishment clause, the local court would have banned such displays altogether.
Emmet @424
You steal the bike, and then pray for forgiveness. That's how christianity works!
Negentropyeater,
On a similar note to your experiences, I have sometimes been asked "Why would you celebrate Christmas, if you're an atheist?"
I ask them:
"Do you believe in Santa Claus?"
"Do you believe in Frosty the Snowman?"
"Do you believe in Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer?"
When all the above have been answered in the negative, I reply:
"Well, I don't believe in Christ the Magic Hebrew."
Nerd,
Maybe the problem is with the first amendment itself, such a confusing piece of text, written more than 200 years ago. A lot has happened since then. My personal opinion, Americans could do themselves a favour and make things clear : separation of church and state only works when the state isn't allowed to recognize any religion, as in the French 1905 law on Laïcité. The rest in just wishful thinking.
Junk? I don't think so.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061113180029.htm
Hmmm... that gives me an idea for a seasonal song...
Jesus the Magic Zombie
On the cross and comatose
And if you ever saw him
You would even say "He's toast!"
All of the Roman soldiers
Used to laugh and call him names
They wouldn't let poor Jesus
Undermine the Roman state
Then one sultry Pass-over
Judas came to say:
"Jesus with your halo bright,
I will fuck you up tonight"
Then all the soldiers grabbed him
They all shouted out with glee:
"Jesus the Magic Zombie
We're gonna nail you to a tree!"
I think RickRoll missed my point:
If the guy had said: "I think it's fine." and meant it, he's not a liar, is he?
If he disagreed and had said: "I do not agree with it, but they are within their rights to do so." or "My personal beliefs are not the issue, they have every right to have this display." he is also not a liar, right?
If he says: "I agree with it and have no problem with it", when he does have a problem with it, he is a liar, yes?
So in your hypothetical situation, there are many ways he could have upheld your constitution without lying about his own position, if his position had been one of disagreement with the sign being posted.
....now, just to be clear, you were the one who suggested that lying about his position would make him a person of good character, and I was responding that that and that alone.
Lying to appear more popular = Lying for Jesus = Lying for your own gain and people with good character don't lie.
Seems quite a few people missed points on this thread today.
It's pretty simple...
Christians go to church and worship a god that tortured and killed his own son. (then turned him into a zombie)
We think it's wrong to kill our children.
Christians call us evil, and think we should be tortured for infinity because we don't go to church and worship the child killer.
Yeah, we're the immoral ones.
@#633 If any part of a "public square" is government property, and under the jurisdiction of that government that upholds the Constitution, in THIS country it means you CANNOT exercise your "free speech" there if it interferes with the separation of religion and state. That's all there is to it:
That's not all there is to it, there are rarely simple answers to complex questions. There is a huge body of law concerning free speech in a public forum on government owned land, some of it contradictory. This was a state case, not a federal one, but for anyone interested in the facts of this case this is the original complaint and this is the
settlement agreement.
Pardon me, I'm mistaken, this was a U.S. District Court.
Nerd of Redhead #643 wrote:
Agree -- but I wanted to point something out, which needs to be kept in mind. Although most people, including the atheists who read this blog, agree that decorated trees, Santa, and snowmen are "totally secular," there is a small but significant group of what I call "Purists" who instead see them as strictly religious expressions of Christianity.
The Purists include Christians, atheists, and people of non-Christian religions. In their view, the people of the world are divided into very strict religious categories, with little to no overlap, and virtually no common ground. And like must keep to like. One should not allow one's ideology to be tainted or compromised by compromise with the enemy.
To Purists, the origins of holidays really matter, and holidays, like ideology, must be kept pure. If Halloween was originally a pagan holiday with pagan purposes, then it is still a pagan holiday. Non-pagans who celebrate it and ignore its roots are wrong. Ditto for Santa Claus. If it's short for "Saint Nicholas" then it belongs to the Christians. A Jew, pagan, or atheist who has a Santa on their porch is a hypocrite, and a traitor to their own views.
Of course, there's a huge problem with Purism. That same Santa Claus can be traced back to a Catholic saint -- which means Protestant sects can't use Santa, either. Or, alternately, you can decide to trace it to its pagan origins -- in which case it's fine for pagans, but not for anyone else. And since "pagan" is a broad category, Purists are going to need to know which pagans invented Santa Claus, so that some pagans who use Santa without proper claim to it can be scolded for their hypocrisy. And so forth and so on.
I've known atheist Purists who think doing anything at all during December is pandering to the religious. They won't even eat cookies or drink egg nog. They're sort of the atheist equivalent of Jehovah's Witnesses.
As a secular humanist, I think Purism is a bad idea. But of course, I have places where I draw a line myself: I eventually stopped putting our manger set up under the Christmas tree when I got more and more involved in atheist and humanist activism, and found it harder and harder to just continue to approach it with the natural assumption that it was a nice historical myth, like negentropyeater. But, of course, I still keep the Christmas tree, and call it Christmas tree. To me, that's still secular.
But now I put a little sun ornament I made on the top. Not as explicit as scooter's impressive Dawkins' Atheist A, but still a nod to its non-religious purpose.
Aquaria wrote:
Hahaha! That's a perfect way of phrasing it. And I note that you weren't the person wandering about professing atheism. The whole thing starts when *they* ask *you*. (Got out of Louisiana at 17, btw, can totally relate. It doesn't help that I don't like football, either.)
Pete Rooke #311
Poor Pete -leaves
moon-viewing
for poet baiting
I love the 'A-tree'...great, now I have something I can do to avoid all the bill paying and filing I really need to do in my office this beautiful Saturday. Instead I can blow up the Scarlet-A logo from richarddawkins.net and use it to cut one out of plywood or something and mount it to the tree before my wife (the semi-ex x-ian [logic and reason seems to have worked pretty well on her, but she still has the whole, "but I hope I'll live forever after I die" thing going on]) gets home :-)
Hey All,
i need to ask a question here - they had a HUGE brouhaha about this issue on the local progressive radio station here yesterday (KPOJ Portland, OR) the host Carl Wolfson (who is GREAT) was objecting to the tone of the atheist plaque -not their right to display it (he specifically objected to the wording that religion "hardened hearts" etc basically calling those who believed in God ignorant/stupid etc) - Christine the other underling co-host was staunchly defending the plaque stating that since Christmas has been forced down everyone's throat forever that the 'payback' aspect of the plaque was AOK - but what really infuriated me (and what i need help with) was that the other main host Thom Hartman (who by the way is a TOTALLY self absorbed pseudo-intellectual shameless self-promoting blowhard and know-it-all) came on in defense of the Nativity calling out those who believe in the "Atheist Religion" and repeatedly called atheists people who believe in the '"Atheist Religion" . Now, i was driving and wanted to call up and ask him exactly what the hell he meant by that term - but i am not the most articulate person when i am angry and probably would have blathered some idiocy in rage that hurt rather than helped the issue. So please - those more level-headed and articulate among you - how should/could i have responded to this????
gwyllion, hopefully some of those better able to answer your question will chime in.
The definition of atheism is the lack of belief in god. Usually this means the Abrahamic god, but can also refer to any god. It can also mean the lack of belief in all gods.
I would ask what is meant by the atheist religion, since it has no god, no holy books, and no theology. The squirming should begin almost immediately as they try to twist the three noes into some type of religion. Then keep bringing up what is required for a religion, like god, holy book, and theology, and how atheism doesn't fit.
My two cents.
Well, I think it might be worthwhile to ask what he thinks "religion" means. "Atheism" is certainly something that exists in relation to religion, but it is a rejection of religion and belief in God.
You might ask "Is bald a hair colour? Is lack of religion a religion?"
Also, it might be worthwhile pointing out that if he really thinks that religion is important, calling atheism a religion trivializes the very meaning of the word "religion". If not believing in the truth of any religion is a religion, then anything at all can be a religion. Driving your car; eating waffles; watching TV; surfing the Internet. Does he really want to suggest that people who go to church and pray with true devotion are doing the exact same sort of thing as whose who stay in and watch a movie, who are exact doing the same sort of thing as people who firmly say that religion is false and prayer is useless?
And so on.
I think it might have been interesting to point out that, when atheists object to religion, they do so because they think religion is not scientific enough; instead, it's dogmatic. People believe it because they want it to be truel
When theists object to atheism, they do so because they think atheism is too much like a religion: it's unscientific, dogmatic, and people just believe it because they want it to be true.
So it seems both groups agree that calling something "religious" is an insult.
I might also use Richard Dawkins point on not confusing passion with dogmatism. He knows what it would take to change his mind about evolution and atheism. If he's wrong, he'd want to change. And he could.
But you're supposed to hold on to faith, and never change. If your answer to "what would it take to change your mind and become an atheist?" is "I would and could never do that" -- then there is the difference between a working theory -- and a religion.
I'm copying this comment that I made to KING5, a Seattle TV station. I've noticed that many people here and on other blogs have objected to the wording of FFRF's sign, specifically, the part about hardening hearts and enslaving minds.
The truth of that statement is proved by watching the clip at KING5's site: http://www.king5.com/topstories/stories/NW_120508WAB_atheist_holiday_di…
My comment, which is relevant to some of the comments posted in this thread:
Arno, #633. That was an absolutely beautiful rant. I read every word. Hope you don't mind if I send it to a few friends & family who live in Washington and Oregon...
Some people consider the sign-stealer to be a hero!
http://calvinists4conservatism.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/profiles-in-cou…
Of course there is no excuse for stealing the sign from the public square, I have to agree with those who feel it was a tad mean spirited. I would propose for a more positive (but no less cynical) statement such as:
For ages we have honored the Winter Solstice because in the darkest of times, we recognize the importance of staying together and helping each other. We fill ourselves with the rich foods of our harvest in the hope that we may survive until the spring.
Flexico @649: may i just point out to you Owlmirror's post on this at 618. And liars for Jesus are going Against polular sentiment, not with it, and it is why they are trying to get thier mentally retarded curriculum OK'ed for public schools.
@633: A little too black and white. It is far less cimple then that, as many have stated.
To much of the following discussion: Now, it seems to me that Yes, nativity scenes are highly secularised, as -S8'er pointed out so well at #628, but when they proclaim a religious message, then it is wrong. For example, the "Gloria in Excelsis Deo!" banner=unconstitutional. So......how is that "there are no gods or anglels" any different on that point? It IS promoting an anti-religious message after all.
@666 Now, it seems to me that Yes, nativity scenes are highly secularised, as -S8'er pointed out so well at #628, but when they proclaim a religious message, then it is wrong.
If we're still talking about the Seattle display, this sign is in front of the Nativity scene. Part of the settlement agreement was that the sign would be displayed at all times. Secular doesn't enter into it.
This nativity holiday display was provided and erected by private citizens of the State of Washington to commemorate the birth of Jesus Christ, which is celebrated by Christians around the world.
Awesome, i got to be 666! Anyway, yes, it would seem that secular doesn't factor into this particular scenario, but i was looking at it from a legal standpoint. But if it doesn't go to court, then i guess that is rather moot, isn't it?
Pete Rooke @ # 171 disses: ... Surfism...
Prepare to be stomped by a lot of muscle boys with excellent tans.
Of course, it's not Seattle at all, it's in the Capitol building in Olympia.
He might like it.
I'd like to fashion a pair of surfing trunks from the excellently tanned skin of a muscular loved one. Now that would be bitchin'!
Religious or anti-religious, there can be no discrimination based on content. The point is that the government is not promoting or endorsing any of these displays, it is providing a public forum where all and any views are allowed.
tomh #673: "Religious or anti-religious, there can be no discrimination based on content. The point is that the government is not promoting or endorsing any of these displays, it is providing a public forum where all and any views are allowed."
Very well put.
christ, i am tired of christians getting government property at all to tell me i need their savior, or else. i don't need a savior. i don't need saving. especially not by a guy whose followers have burned people, sacked cities, attempted repeatedly to wipe out jews and american indians, and have done and still do everything in their power to suppress knowledge, encourage ignorance, and make almost every form of sexuality into a crime. that's what i see when i look at a creche. if ffrf wants to put up a sign next to the baby jesus that reminds people of that, good for them.
@668
To continue, since the government is not endorsing any (religious) display, there is no Establishment Clause problem, and as long as they don't discriminate based on content there is no Free Speech problem. So there would be nothing to base a court case on. The problems come when people object to displays based on what they say, religious or otherwise. But that's the price of living with the American concept of free speech - sometimes you have to endure speech that makes you uncomfortable.
Why does the government need to provide a space for such? What stops this being interpreted as all government locations are open for such displays?
umm, didn't the christians sue to be able to even put up a nativity scene? I distinctly remember reading that.
@677
Why does the government need to provide a space for such?
They don't.
What stops this being interpreted as all government locations are open for such displays?
This is a specific area designated for this purpose. The justification is spelled out in the Capitol Campus Facilities Policy, which is appended to the
Settlement Agreement of the Washington case.
"The buildings and grounds of Washington's capitol campus are maintained by its citizens for the pupose of conducting the business of state government. Public participation and involvement by citizens is encouraged. Therefore, where and when access is allowed, state government must provide for non-discriminatory access to and use of capitol facilities by all citizens."
Then there are four pages of rules spelling out where and when access is allowed. Holiday displays of this sort are allowed for about three weeks during December.
So they specifically outline setting up holiday displays?
interesting.
So they specifically outline setting up holiday displays?
Not exactly. The time limit was set when the application for the Nativity scene was granted, but it was probably in line with the time allowed for the holiday tree, which has been put up for 20 years or more.
@678 umm, didn't the christians sue to be able to even put up a nativity scene? I distinctly remember reading that.
See post #652, there are links to the original complaint and the settlement agreement that led to this whole situation.
tomh #652/3 & and RickrOll #666: I am perfectly well aware I was being "simplistic" and "black and white" on a "complex" issue. That's inevitable (even in a long rant) and it was part of the point. I trust there's nothing very wrong with re-examing an issue in terms that are at least digestibly simple, yes? Yeah, the varied legal interpretations of this and that law, state and federal gets hoary. That's part of the problem, isn't it? So isn't it okay to look back what the original intent of the Establishment Clause is and, as clearly and SIMPLY and in in no equivocally uncertain BLACK & WHITE terms, DETERMINE once and for all what that actually means? And, if no consensus is yet available, determine once and for all what it OUGHT to mean? So what if that inevitably turns into a relatively "simplistic" exercise. So be it. That's the whole friggin' idea, to simplify that which is unnecessarily complicated. And if you want any kind of chance at an substantive"debate", [listen up, John Phillips, FCD #634] quit messing around with the derivative minutae and rinky-dink small stuff. The other part of the piss-off was a motivation to perform CPR on a thread that had once again deteriorated into irrelevant nose-picking. (As in clinteas, #630, who said precisely what I was thinking when I got to that point with glazed eyes, and who provided the trigger).
Bob Vogel #663: Thanks, and no, I don't mind. (OT: Hey, do you have people from Hungary by any chance?)
#683
I'm sorry, I guess I just don't know what your point is. If it's that there should be no displays at all in this public building, (and they are inside not on the lawn), then that's fine and perfectly within the purview of the state office. They can deny all displays with no problem. But once they allow one, even a Christmas tree, they can't deny others based on content. That's pretty simple.
A better idea.... in front of a school near me, I saw a little Richard Dawkins model brandishing a little clay copy of the god delusion had been added next to the crib! ...don't break, take or invade anything, but adding a little something is pretty good harmless fun!
Here's my conspiracy theory:
Al Qaeda stole the sign. Their original plan was to assasinate Obama and start are race war. But then they thought that it would work better to steel the sign and get the Atheists and Christains to fight it out.
But now that the truth is out what will happen next?
@Emmet Caulfield #648: When I saw that, I immediately thought,
Christ the Magic Hebrew
Lived by the sea,
And frolicked in the autumn mist
In a land called Galilee...
Now to put the thread back on track...
Thank-you Dr. Myers for taking the high ground. You set an example that many Christians should follow.