Atheist Holiday Display Sparks Outcry

Source: CBS News/AP

Hundreds Rally At Washington State Capitol Against Sign Calling Religion A "Myth"

(AP) Several hundred people rallied at the state Capitol on Sunday to protest a holiday display inside that provoked a national outcry by disparaging religion and declaring there is no God.

The "winter solstice" sign sponsored by the atheistic Freedom from Religion Foundation calls religion "myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."

An organizer at Sunday's rally, Steve Wilson, said outrage over the display was growing, and that it was offensive to people of all faiths.

"When it comes to disparaging my faith on public property, that's where I draw the line," Wilson said.

Three counter-protesters stood at the side of the rally, holding up signs that said, "Get Over It."

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/08/national/main... ;topStories

You have to be pretty insecure in your faith to be so offended by this little sign.

...and exactly what it is that is not believed (and also what they aparrently do believe -- this is a quote from Annie Lori Gaylor).

The Creche is a way of saying "this is my belief, and I don't care what others think"

Same with the Menorah

A few years ago in Georgia, where they were trying to get these religious displays off public property (which iss the real purpose of this display to those who don't get it), they simply hung a simple 5-word sign "Jesus Christ is a myth" and oh me oh my, the pot boiled over. Pretty sure that finally got the religious displays off public property.

With all the private property and the tax-exempt churches, you'd think they'd be able to display their religious symbols without needing to shove it in everyone's face on public property.

That's the problem.

It doesn't just say "we don't believe in the existence of God." It points the finger outward at everyone else. In that sense, it sounds no different than a message I'd expect to find on a fundamentalist christian readerboard driving down the highway. Just swap out a few words, and there you go.

I'm not arguing their freedom to display the message. I'm just pointing out that the message is lame. Absolutist finger pointing where one acts so "certain" that they are right and everyone else is wrong is lame. It's lame when religious people do it. It's lame with non religious people do it.

They are what would be called affirmative rather than passive atheists. Of course, they are just stating in words what almost every religious belief system says in its texts, and is implied in its advocacy. Why would anyone believe something they suspect is wrong? By extension, if a belief thinks it is right (about the nature of truth, or God or whatever) then it is also saying other views are wrong. While FFRF's sign would not necessarily be my method, it reflects their convictions regarding God and religion.

However, unlike you, I don't see it as a personal attack, because it expresses what they believe are the results of religious belief. If you are taking it personal, you might want to examine why it inflames you so.

Go to your Bible and read Psalms 14 -- Do the liberal "tolerant" religionists publicly disavow that passage?

(from my own website - paraphrasing George H. Smith)

What is Atheism?

“Theism” is defined as “the belief in a god or gods.” Since the prefix “a” means “without”, so the term “a-theism” literally means “without theism”, or without a belief in a god or gods. Atheism, therefore, is the absence of theistic belief. Atheism, in its basic form, is not a belief: it is the absence of belief. An atheist is not primarily a person who believes that a god does not exist; rather, he does not believe in the existence of a god. In this context, theism and atheism exhaust all possible alternatives with regard to the belief in a god: one is either a theist or an atheist; there is no other choice. One either accepts the proposition “god exists” as true, or one does not. One either believes in a supernatural being or one does not. There is no third option or middle ground.



What about Agnosticism?

Agnosticism has traditionally been offered as a third alternative to theism and atheism. Coined by Aldous Huxley in 1869, it seems he originally intended the term as somewhat of a joke. He selected the early religious sect known as “Gnostics” as a prime example of men who claim knowledge of the supernatural without justification; and he distinguished himself as an “a”-gnostic by stipulating that the supernatural, even if it exists, lies beyond the scope of human knowledge. Agnosticism, as a general term, now signifies the impossibility of knowledge in a given area.

Properly considered, agnosticism is not a third alternative to theism and atheism, because it is concerned with a different aspect of religious belief. Theism and atheism refer to the presence or absence of belief in a god; agnosticism refers to the impossibility of knowledge with regard to a god or supernatural being. The term “agnostic” does not, in itself, indicate whether or not one believes in a god. Agnosticism can be either theistic or atheistic. The agnostic theist believes in the existence of a god, but maintains that the nature of god is unknowable. The agnostic atheist maintains that any supernatural realm is inherently unknowable by the human mind – that not only is the nature of any supernatural being unknowable, but the existence of any supernatural being is also unknowable. Because this agnostic variety doesn’t subscribe to theistic belief, he qualifies as a kind of atheist.



What Atheism is Not

When portrayed by theists as a “way of life”, atheism is invariably portrayed as evil or undesirable. Conversely, when portrayed by atheists as a way of life, it is portrayed as beneficial rather than harmful. But to view atheism as a way of life, whether beneficial or harmful, is false and misleading. Failure to believe in a god does not imply any specific philosophical system. The label “atheist” announces one’s disagreement with theism. It does not imply or announce one’s agreement with, or approval of, other atheists.

Look, we have bigger problems right now than quibbling over belief systems.

If you have a religion and some sort of holiday coming up, just hang your sign or put up your display on the common OR let's take all of them down. Personally, I really wouldn't miss the nativity scene on my town's common. My local parish has a nicer one set up anyway.

Atheism is not a religion.

i say too fucking bad to Steve Wilson.

fucking whiner.

1) it shouldn't be on public property and
2) why then is it ok for him to do the same?

No doubt O'Lielly laughs his ass off when he reads about idiots like this.

that women came from men's ribs? geesh...

its still offensive and the group that put it up was just being rude.

in and of themselves attack anyone else's beliefs. It isn't like they have signs with them that say "if you don't believe in this you are an idiot," which is exactly what the sign in question states.

government property. That's the sole reason they are placed in the rotunda...to make an attack against the wall separating church and state.

a creche of menorah placed in an appropriate place is not an attack on anyone. Someone has every right to celebrate their own beliefs on their own property, or in their place of worship.

Why does everyone here assume that I do not support the separation of church and state?

does not disallow any person putting up a creche or menorah in an "appropriate place." See, you, by criticizing the atheists' sign are seeking freedom FROM a religious point of view. Why not attack all the religious displays on government property, instead of focusing only on the atheists? The whole point of the atheists' display is to offend, to show how they are offended, as well...in the hopes that all displays be disallowed....as they should be, per the Constitution's principles of freedom of and from religion.

the sign does not belong there, nor do a menorah or a creche. None of them belong there.

Perhaps the solstice sign will, in the end, accomplish that purpose.

that they are protesting religion by wishing everyone a happy winter solstice. Especially since the Winter Solstice has historically had religious significance.

have been around. Unless you get your history from some religion or other, the winter solstice has only natural significance.

The natural phenomena we call the Winter Solstice has been around for almost forever, but is NOT the Winter Solstice unless there is religious significance attached to it. December 25 has no religious significance. Christmas does. Same thing.

Please quit insulting Neo-Pagans and their religious traditions, as well as the history and significance of the Paleopagans.

The winter solstice is the moment that the sun reaches its southernmost declination for the year. That's been happening long before anyone was here to ascribe meaning to it.

And it's wonderful that people are free to ascribe any meaning they wish to the solstice, but the solstice most certainly happens independently of human interpretation.

However, human beings have attached meaning to the turning of the earth's wheel and the cycle of the seasons for thousands of years. Whether the meaning is simply "it's a good time to plant crops now" or something more esoteric, there is still meaning there.

it was quickly interpreted by the "old religions," and festivals arose to celebrate it. The Celts in particular had a huge celebration.

Winter Solstice has been a celebrated holiday since far before any of the Abrahmic religions. The name may change based upon the region or Tradition, but the common thread is that the Solstices and Equinoxes are Holy days.

Unlike most modern faiths we do not seek to separate ourselves from the Earth. We do not see ourselves as "outside" of nature or separate from the universe.

You say it has "only" a natural significance. To many it has a religious significance not devoid from its natural signifigance, but BECAUSE of it.

"if you don't believe in this you are an idiot"

It's also the entire point of putting up these displays. "I believe this, you don't, therefor I'm your superior"

the nativity scene's core symbolism is of the baby jesus, son of god, through virgin birth, of the virgin mary. and if you don't believe that you are going to burn in fire and brimstone for all eternity. so GET WITH THE PROGRAM.

the menorah takes it one step further, but is much more subtle. they are the chosen. you are not. get over it.



and WE are being "too sensitive"....

Free speech is intended precisely for views you oppose. Nobody is guaranteed the right to go through life without being offended. "Rude" is not "illegal".

but at the same time it is uncalled for. These supposed progressives should actually act like progressives and be accepting of others.

How rude of you to disrespect a person's fundamental belief!

although, racism does equate to something like the sign in question. Attacking people for being who or what they are. The man who hung this sign is a bigot.

an ism is an ism. People are free to believe what ever they want and you, as a progressive, should be accepting of that. At least that's how I read your post.

If you are not willing to accept the beliefs of others, why should others accept your beliefs?

You don't want to come across as an intolerant bigot here. Do you?

Everyone should not accept another's beliefs, but they should be tolerant of them. There is a huge difference there.

If you want to be tolerant of that belief you may. Or not.

But you should not demand that others be tolerant of beliefs that they feel are just as evil.

Apparently you only tolerate beliefs you like.

Me too.

to being tolerant of religious beliefs is a huge one to make. Being religious does not in and of itself indicate a belief that someone is less human than you are, or less important.

"These supposed progressives should actually act like progressives and be accepting of others."

But you only accept the people who believe the things you like.

You seem to expect others to accept the evils of theism, but you won't accept the evils of racism.

Hypocrite? Yep.

and that some people are a**holes. I am tolerant of their beliefs, but once again, there is a disconnect between being accepting and tolerant of a person and being accepting and tolerant of how a person acts upon those beliefs. If a racist guy wants to mumble under his breath and whine and moan thats one thing, but if he wants to go out and beat up someone of another race thats completely different.

There is a big difference between being tolerant and accepting of a person, and being tolerant and accepting of everything they do. Can you really not see that, or are you just pushing this discussion because you have nothing better to do?

and that some people are a**holes. And when theists act like a**holes, we should not be tolerant of them. Just as we should not be tolerant of racists.

It is my position that placing a creche on public property is no different than placing a burning cross on public property. It is intolerable. If the people responsible for this evil will not remove their offensive display willingly, they deserve no respect from me. And they will not get any respect from me.

And I demonstrated why they do not deserve respect.

The fact that they are human earns them that privilege. However, respecting someone does not mean that you have to support everything they do. Heck, it doesn't even mean that you have to like them. It is possible to both respect and hate someone for that matter. However, hating someone really hurts the person doing the hating more than the person being hated, so in the end it is pointless to hate anyone.

I can't move as fast as you are moving the goal posts.

Bottom line is that I only respect theists who deserve it and these theists don't deserve any more respect than racist do.

Have a nice day.

and I love the Frank Zappa avatar. He truly is a misunderstood genius.

NT!

NT!

is not a failure to accept others. It is a fundamental right. Obviously it is for each of us to determine what is appropriate in this regard. I think the sign is both rude and appropriate.

You don't like the rudeness? You are free not to behave rudely. You don't think others should be rude on this issue? Fair enough; duly noted. I think it's called for. One sect does not call the shots for everyone. No way.

is why everyone here hates it when any one religion does something like this, but its fine for most when an Atheist does it. This sign is the equivalent of a fundie christian sign saying "if you aren't a Christian you are going to hell". Neither is appropriate, and neither is a successful way to convert someone to your belief system.

First of all let me thank you for the back and forth. It's fun and stimulating

You're quite right, of course, I am irked by Christian signs telling me that I am going to hell.

However, I am irked by the flaw in their reasoning --not by the mere fact that they would say it in a sign--.

I would probably be willing to die (as the old saying goes) to defend their right to put up such a sign.

HOWEVER: were I to live instead, I would probably spend a large part of the rest of my live exhorting them to reconsider their reasoning.

I have no problem with people doing that so long as they keep the discourse respectful. That is my disagreement with this sign. It's primary purpose is to be disrespectful and piss people off.

I don't see it as inflammatory or disrespectful at all. It is not more disrespectful to christians than the nicean creed is disrespectful to non-christians. Just a statement of beliefs.

is stated as a belief. This sign seeks to state a belief as a fact. By stating thier sign as fact, they are saying that it transcends mere belief.

See the Nicean Creed below with the statements that it is furthering a belief marked for emphasis.

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

Who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.

And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

"The Nicene creed is stated as a belief. This sign seeks to state a belief as a fact. By stating their sign as fact, they are saying that it transcends mere belief."

True, this is worded as a 'belief' but people can state their beliefs as facts if they like. Yes, it is a bit more potentially abrasive than couching it as a mere 'belief, but there is no law against it.

stating a belief as fact does not make it so.

But whether someone is right in their metaphysical beliefs is an entirely separate issue from whether they have equal rights to put up signs.

If you think the sign's factually wrong, you are free to disagree. The sign putter-upper is free to be wrong, but to say it straight up as a fact.

They are also allowed to be just as arrogant as they like about it.

be 1) hanged 2) burned alive 3) excommunicated, or any combination thereof, throughout most the history of christendom - and it could happen yet again.

The fact the the creed says "I believe" does not change the FACT that the church accepts these as FACTS. Because if these are not FACTS then all of christianity is, admittedly, nothing more than MYTH.

Psalms 14.1 “The fool says in his heart ‘There is no God.’ They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none that does good.”

The religionist’s fear of the thinking man is so great that he must denigrate reason constantly. If people were really to embrace critical thinking and employ reason in all their endeavors, religion – and belief in God – would be tagged with the label it deserves – irrationalism.

As Thomas Paine said: “The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is reason. I have never used any other, and I trust I never shall."

There are atheist progressives certainly. There are also neo-conservative or fascist atheists. Some of the biggest criminals in DC are atheists, if not "officially." I defend the sign only because it's posted by the rules. I would ideally prefer NO such public displays.

We are not required to accept beliefs -- only others' right to believe.

NT!

I don't care about it offending anyone - but I might want to add a picture of it in my siggy somewhere

but the only pictures of the sign that were online did not show the full sign.

were at a very bad angle and hard to read.

perhaps you could direct the poster to a link of it then? I think its somewhere in the religion forums.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

I don't know why they're so offended.


Actually, I just made that up.

they should have to live with the sign put up by atheists. They ALL pay taxes, don't they?

That's why the creche, the menorah and the atheists sign should ALL be banned from government property. Amazing how these protestors don't get it.

someone elses.

How pathetic that this group of people apparently define their belief system according to what OTHER people think.

is allowed on government property. I think the point the atheists (and, I'm not one) is that if the religious folk insist on offensive displays, they can be offensive as well.

Simply not believing - and saying so, out loud or on a sign - is obviously upsetting.

FFRF is not tax exempt - churches are.

Some DUers need to brush up on their Bill of Rights.

How un-Buddhist of you.

is correct. Yes some DUers do need to brush up on the Bill of Rights

Try one of the Internets.

Bill of Rights of the Federal Constitution, and specified in the interpretation by the federal Supreme Court of the Establishment Clause commencing in the late 1940's.

Of course it is, but it's not in the Bill of Rights.

"Freedom from Religion" is a bumper sticker.

if its in the wikipedia writeup of the BoR.

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this:

Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.
Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.
Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.
No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance.
No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion.
Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups, and vice versa.
Source of Information:



Numbers 3 & 4 especially express this concept of freedom of religion and freedom from religion.



http://candst.tripod.com/freefrom.htm

the first ammendment was set up so that no national religion could be forced upon the masses. The founding fathers saw what happened when religion was forced upon people in England and wanted to move away from that.

If I am not free from your religion.

to use the internet.
The government does not have the right to impose a state religion. that is freedom FROM religion.
Take an American History class. Your local community college is a good resource.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"

No state religion which means freedom from having religion forced on you.

edited sent before finished

Perhaps the internets will help YOU.

But it's there, just worded differently.

Freedom from religion, isn't. That's a "liberal" Bumper sticker.

The Constitution keeps me free from you imposing your religious beliefs on me with the help of the government...which is what displaying a creche or a menorah or an anti-religion sign on government property does...seeks to impose a belief on the rest of us who walk through that rotunda.

It's a concomitant of the right to not carry firearms, yes?

Obviously implied in the documents, but written or said mainly for melodramatic purposes, or to advertise a point of view I imagine.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

free exercise of religion is pretty much the same thing.

"freedom of religion" but is inherent in the words. Funny how when it is a point YOU want inherent is A-OK, but for anyone else it is somehow bad. You do know there is a word for that don't you? it starts with an "h"...

the government is not allowed to pass any laws favoring any one religion.

Once again take note, the first amendment does not protect any individual from the acts of any other individual. that is what laws and the courts are for.

not the actual words itself.

Since a person cannot (as another poster noted) be free to practice his own religion unless he is free from coercive influences of other religions, freedom OF religion is synonymous with freedom FROM religion. The difference between an atheist and a believer is that the atheist wishes to be free from ALL religions, while the believer wishes to be free from all religions but one.

does not protect you from someone else following their religious beliefs. it only protects you from the government infringing on your ability to do so.

No amendment protects you from the people who disagree with you.

the government - as in a creche on state property - that IS the government infringement.

You don't find atheists protesting creches on church property.

(Though there are plenty of so-called christians upset about the "be good for GOODNESS' sake" advertisements.)

and yeah, last year in denver a group destroyed a creche on church property. I'm not sure who the group was, but it does happen.

That's the only reason the FFRF sign was there in the first place.

As for the church creche that was vandalized, do you have ANY evidence that it was atheists that did it, rather than a pissed off drunk christian teenager?

Didn't think so.

really does not want religious statements on state property then they should have refrained from making one there. it does no service to their cause to do exactly what it is that they are protesting.

You CANNOT change the world by replicating the actions of those you disagree with.

And as their intent is to advertise the violation of the establishment cause in having religious displays on state property, this is more effective (and safer for the individuals involved) than having an atheist picket line outside.

To not believe in any religion is in and of itself a religious statement. It is the belief that there is no god.

The lack of belief in a giant teapot circling the planet Neptune is a religious belief?

Fuck, some of you lack fundamental LOGIC.

The best reply to that sort of nonsensical statement is:

"If Atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby."

If replicating the actions are hyperbolic in order to drive the point home. Wanna bet whether or not the Washington legislature will be taking this up in the coming session??

or, if they do, this act by the FFRF will be enough for the legislature to rally around keeping religious displays on public property.

and the signs of anti-religion on government property.

it protects you from the government endorsing them putting up such things. The problem though is that the politicians are held accountable to their electorate, which unfortunately means that the separation between church and state is hard for politicians to enforce. They are always afraid that they may piss off the electorate and not get re-elected.

does not mean it does not exist.

fucking duh.

But the meaning is there.

Freedom from Religion is not addressed directly.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

not 'freedom of religion'

If we're going to be precise and suggest others should brush-up on their reading, let's be precise.

NT!

nt