Atheist Holiday Display Sparks Outcry

[sabra]

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

[Barrett808]

1. "Get Over It," indeed.

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

[Greyfox_Hyena]

27. I agree

[askeptic]

132. Perfectly fair - they are expressing their non-belief (lacking symbols)

...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.

[Political Heretic]

180. They're not just expressing their non-belief. Saying, somethings wrong with YOU for believing

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.

[askeptic]

190. Again, just stating their views -

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?

[askeptic]

149. What is Atheism?

(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.

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

2. People are still mad about this?

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.

[Taverner]

121. People don't like to have their fairy tales quashed

[Political Heretic]

181. Exhibit A.

[Zhade]

137. Or lack of belief systems, even.

Atheism is not a religion.

[Scout]

3. since his displays of faith are inappropriate on public property

i say too fucking bad to Steve Wilson.

fucking whiner.

[rurallib]

12. "When it comes to disparaging my faith on public property"

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.

[robinlynne]

4. and we have the patience to hear over and over that people actually believe

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

[hendo]

Yup

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

[rateyes]

9. The creche and the menorah are offensive to some, too.

[hendo]

29. the creche and the menorah do not

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.

[rateyes]

71. They attack my belief that religion ought not be propagated on

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

[hendo]

76. however

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?

[rateyes]

89. And, the sign on government property put there by atheists

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.

[hendo]

91. Once again

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

[rateyes]

99. Agreed. But, not protesting won't bring them down.

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

[hendo]

105. I do find it odd though

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

[Lance_Boyle]

124. The winter solstice has been happening for a lot longer than religions

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

[LostinVA]

159. You really have no idea what you're talking about -- the Winter Solstice is ONLY religious

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.

[Bill McBlueState]

182. that makes no sense

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.

[KitchenWitch]

188. Yes it happens independent of whether people ascribe meaning to it.

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.

[hendo]

162. however

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

[Marrah_G]

173. Many pagan religions are based upon the cyclical nature of the Earth

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.

[Chulanowa]

142. Actually that's the core beleif of all monotheist beliefs.

"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"

[ldf]

154. the creche and menorah DO attack

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"....

[Creationismsucks]

22. Let them be offended then

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".

[hendo]

30. 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.

[cosmik debris]

35. Do you accept racism?

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

[hendo]

racism does not equate to religion

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.

[cosmik debris]

44. That's not true.

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?

[hendo]

60. I am intolerant of intolerance.

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

[cosmik debris]

64. Racism is a belief.

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.

[hendo]

73. the leap from being tolerant of racism

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.

[cosmik debris]

81. Take your own advice

"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.

[hendo]

87. I accept that some people are racist

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?

[cosmik debris]

95. And I accept that some people are theists

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.

[hendo]

101. where did i defend thier right to place a creche on public property? NT

[cosmik debris]

103. You claimed they deserve respect.

And I demonstrated why they do not deserve respect.

[hendo]

107. I claimed that all people are deserving of 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.

[cosmik debris]

110. You are trying to out-run your own arguments now

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.

[hendo]

112. you have a nice day too

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

[Zhade]

141. PEOPLE, yes. Beliefs, NO.

NT!

[Zhade]

140. Bullshit. No one should be forced to tolerate beliefs they find abhorrent.

NT!

[Creationismsucks]

40. Openly disagreeing with certain beliefs

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.

[hendo]

58. What I want to know

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.

[Creationismsucks]

67. Hendo

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.

[hendo]

70. which is perfectly fine

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.

[RaleighNCDUer]

90. It all depends on whose ox is gored, doesn't it.

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.

[hendo]

93. the Nicean Creed

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.

[Creationismsucks]

104. No

"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.

[hendo]

106. However

stating a belief as fact does not make it so.

[Creationismsucks]

111. Of course not

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.

[RaleighNCDUer]

116. And if you were to deny those things listed in the creed you could

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.

[askeptic]

147. Sorry, but I think you are cherry-picking - so I'll do one

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."

[David__77]

128. Who said they're progressives? They're atheists - could be anything.

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.

[Zhade]

139. In your opinion. Some of us think otherwise.

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

[Zhade]

138. And? You don't have the right to not be offended by another's free speech.

NT!

[Kittycat]

5. What does it look like?

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

[hendo]

8. how nice of you

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

[Fumesucker]

13. I saw the full sign several days ago here on DU.. n/t

[hendo]

33. the lines that the poster wanted though

were at a very bad angle and hard to read.

[Fumesucker]

83. I had no problem reading the entire sign, including the "controversial" ending n/t

[hendo]

84. hmm, k

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

[Fumesucker]

119. Here's where I saw it..

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

[hendo]

120. thats a far better picture than the ones in the threads I saw nt.

[Ian David]

11. It's a photo of a giant penis coming out of the sky and ejaculating over Jesus, Budah and Mohamed.

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


Actually, I just made that up.

[balantz]

21. BLASPHEMER!!!

[rateyes]

6. If they want a creche or a menorah in the rotunda,

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.

[KittyWampus]

50. it's amazing that athiests can't craft a statement expounding their beliefs without denigrating

someone elses.

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

[rateyes]

68. It's pathetic that any kind of display, including a creche or a menorah

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.

[askeptic]

148. It's amazing you don't understand that non-belief is offensive

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

[RaleighNCDUer]

114. Well, technically only the atheists pay taxes, as an organization.

FFRF is not tax exempt - churches are.

[youthere]

7. Wow, that one little sign sure has a lot of power.

[no_hypocrisy]

10. Freedom of Speech. And Freedom From Religion.

[onehandle]

14. LOL! It's Freedom OF Religion.

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

[cosmik debris]

18. You can't have one without the other. n/t

[onehandle]

26. Really.

How un-Buddhist of you.

[cosmik debris]

28. And I am free to be an Un-Buddhist. n/t

[Randomthought]

20. Freedom From Religion

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

[onehandle]

23. Show me where the phrase "Freedom from Religion" is in the Bill of Rights.

Try one of the Internets.

[no_hypocrisy]

25. It's inherent in the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment of the

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.

[onehandle]

34. It's inherent, huh?

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

"Freedom from Religion" is a bumper sticker.

[hendo]

38. I wouldn't be surprised

if its in the wikipedia writeup of the BoR.

[no_hypocrisy]

80. I hope this expands my premise somewhat.

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

[hendo]

113. yup

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.

[cosmik debris]

31. I can't have freedom of my religion

If I am not free from your religion.

[Randomthought]

66. you don't know how

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

[rateyes]

74. Show me where "freedom OF religion" is in the Bill of Rights.

Perhaps the internets will help YOU.

[onehandle]

77. Yes, I've already admitted that I missed the wording.

But it's there, just worded differently.

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

[rateyes]

85. Yes, freedom from religion is there....just worded differently.

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.

[LanternWaste]

32. It's a concomitant of the right to not carry firearms

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.

[RaleighNCDUer]

37. And where do the words "freedom of religion" appear in the BOR? nt

[hendo]

39. ...

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.

[amdezurik]

47. so what you are now saying is it does NOT SAY

"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"...

[hendo]

65. a hypocrite?

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.

[RaleighNCDUer]

53. Oh, so you're talking about something IMPLIED by the WORDING,

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.

[hendo]

62. the bill of rights

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.

[RaleighNCDUer]

69. When the other persons' religions are being actively promoted by

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.)

[hendo]

75. why do you assume that i want a creche on gov't property?

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.

[RaleighNCDUer]

78. Please note: this entire brouhaha is about religious displays on STATE PROPERTY.

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.

[hendo]

88. if the FFRF

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.

[RaleighNCDUer]

92. They cannot make a religious statement, in that non-religion is not a religion.

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.

[hendo]

97. the lack of a belief is a belief in and of itself

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

[Fumesucker]

130. So, lacking a belief in the Invisible Pink Unicorn is in itself a religious belief?

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

[Zhade]

145. Yeah, and bald is a hair color.

Fuck, some of you lack fundamental LOGIC.

[bperci108]

151. Yeah, right.....

The best reply to that sort of nonsensical statement is:

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

[rateyes]

96. Sure you can.

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??

[hendo]

102. I would bet not

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

[rateyes]

82. It's supposed to protect us from PEOPLE putting up creches and menorahs

and the signs of anti-religion on government property.

[hendo]

109. rather

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.

[Scout]

59. just because it's NOT enumerated in the bill of rights

does not mean it does not exist.

fucking duh.

[onehandle]

45. That is correct, also. That phrase is not in there.

But the meaning is there.

Freedom from Religion is not addressed directly.

[rateyes]

72. How can there be freedom OF religion without freedom FROM religion?

[enlightenment]

79. Actually, it's

"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.

[Zhade]

143. Uh, no. It's both. Learn your Bill of Rights.

NT!

[scytherius]

15. As religion starts to crumble, they are terrified. n/t

nt

[cosmik debris]

16. Oh how they hate equality! n/t

[balantz]

17. WTF?!

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

And I say when it comes to pushing Christianity on us that's where we should draw the line!

How fuggin' arrogant that some pretend to have all the right answers and then push their agenda on the rest of us!

Actually, the solstice is a proven fact. The myths of religions? Not so much.

[KittyWampus]

52. then the sign the athiests put should have focused solely on the solstice and not what other people

think or believe.

[balantz]

54. Perhaps they learned to act that way by the centuries of actions of religious folks? n/t

[cosmik debris]

55. What gives you the right to tell atheists what they should do?

The purpose of the sign was to draw attention to the monopoly that theist hold on use of public property.

It worked.

[VPStoltz]

19. These fools might want to go back to their bibles and read up on how Jesus prescribed us to worship.

[hendo]

42. This sign

attacks more than Christianity. It attacks every religion.

[amdezurik]

48. yes. and so?

[bperci108]

152. Welcome To Freedom Of Speech.

[Kolesar]

24. These atheists' method is *all wrong" because it entertains the *frame* of religious belief

And henceforth gets *everybody* to examine the issue in the frame of whether you believe or not. Those who feel they belong with the tribe of the believers will resort to their instincts and rally around the belief system of the tribe.

There has got to be a better way to advance skepticism. I think that that atheists should approach the problem by playing on the doubts that believers have and then expand on it. Heck, it worked for me!

[hendo]

43. exactly

there are far better ways for them to get thier message out. As it is they are galvanizing believers and removing the chance of winning anyone over.

[cosmik debris]

49. I think the purpose of the display

Was to draw attention to the monopoly that theists hold on the use of public property for their religious messages.

If that is the case, their methods worked quite well.

I also think that their goal was to stop ALL religious messages on public property.

And I expect that result, though it may take a while.

[Creationismsucks]

56. I'm not sure about that BA

I think you've mixed together two quite distinct issues here:

1. Whether the atheists are making the right moves in the debate over which metaphysical system is correct. This is a side issue, but you raised it so I want to address it. Of course no one should HAVE to believe any particular thing; that's repellent. And generally, it's probably the case that atheists will catch more flies with honey. But it might also be that what goes into opinion formation is a complex cocktail, involving several different approaches. Some people may respond better to a bit of rudeness. Or someone who believes in God, but has doubts, may need to see evidence that others doubt too, before they'll give themselves permission to change their opinion. In such a case it could be very effective that next to the nativity scene they come across a statement of very different idea.

2. Whether statements of belief are legitimate on public property, managed by the state. As far as I can tell, you either let everyone speak, or you let nobody speak (including atheists, Christians, jews, muslims, etc.). This is the core issue, I think. Can one group exert its will so as to enjoy a status denied others? Not in society that claims that all its citizens have equal rights.

It seems to me that the people getting most upset about this are the ones who can't stand to see evidence that their religion isn't STATE religion, that there is a substantial percentage of the population who does NOT believe as they do, and that their religion does NOT enjoy a privileged status of state sanction. Those are the people who, in my estimation, most need a reminder that their church does not call the shots for everyone.

Finally, yes the behavior of the atheists is rude sometimes. But did the atheist create the environment where simply stating their conclusion could generate such controversy? No, that problem was in the works the second someone (Christians in this case) decided that certain opinions were good and others were offensive.

[Kolesar]

189. Acknowledged...eom

[rateyes]

86. That's why, instead of a sign, perhaps they should have put

up an altar to Satan. If creches are legal on government property, altars to Satan should be legal as well.

Hell, even military chaplains have to provide space for a Satanist to worship.

[Fumesucker]

94. Atheists don't believe in Satan.

Or any other metaphysical beings.

[rateyes]

98. Yes, I know.

But, putting up the display would have been, IMO, an even better protest...even as they put up the sign about the solstice. I assume the point of the sign is to protest all displays. Why not put up a religious display that is the most offensive one can put up to fight those who insist on a right to do so?

[Fumesucker]

115. The one they put up was the most offensive to many religious people..

A lot of theists believe in Satan, my brother's wife does and she an RN and far from stupid.

What really chaps many theists 'nads though is being forced to recognize that not everyone shares their mystical point of view, something the sign did in spades.

I'd be surprised if even a Satanist display would create as much backlash as a simple statement of complete disbelief.

[PittPoliSci]

126. i tend to agree with you.

but in my opinion, it would be a whole lot funnier to watch the shitstorm that erupts from an altar covered in upside-down crosses and goat's blood.

[hendo]

122. oddly

Satanists do not worship Satan. Or at least the Anton Levay variety do not.

[Zhade]

146. A few words could effect that change. Simply pointing out that there is no evidence for gods...

...and the rest would make it a statement that couldn't be accused of being belief, since it's a fact that there is no corroborative evidence for such myths.

[54anickel]

36. Need the Tull Soltice Bells video in the background to make it complete

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qcPS-J0HTg

[Alter Ego]

41. Yeah this is kinda not the point of atheism.

Folks like this and Michael Newdow make the rest of us look bad.

[JohnDoe_America]

118. Being rude is the point of Atheism

According to Sam Harris in a A Letter to a Christian Nation the US ranks 33 out of 34 Industrial nations polled as a percentage of the population that accepts evolution as a scientific fact, we ranked just above Turkey.

We need to question faith on every opportunity. It is imperative that we start accepting science if we ever want to compete on a global stage. Having first century beliefs is no way for our society to progress away from the in-group ideology of religion. Religious belief is the only place where we are supposed to respect the irrational beliefs of our neighbors.

As an atheist I am tired of every story on the MSM where a belief in GOD is what help the survivor get through his or her ordeal. I am sick of hearing about the grace of GOD. There is no such thing and it is about time we bring the fight to them. No more ID or creationism in our schools and In God We Trust needs to be taken off our currency. If there is one thing Lincoln can be criticized for is putting that ridiculous statement on our currency.

We need to replace superstition with reason.

[Alter Ego]

127. That's funny--I'm an atheist and I really don't give a shit

who's Christian or Muslim or Jewish or Zoroastrian or whatever.

Religion inspires horrible acts of violence, sure, but it inspires great things and great people too. And it will ALWAYS be there. Why fight a battle you will never win?

[prostock69]

46. It's not that we are questioning your "faith", Mr. Wilson, we are questioning

your lack of rational thinking basic Christian history knowledge. That's all. Do a little research on the validity of the bible and how Christianity was invented by men. Read about evolution and natural selection. READ A FREAKING BOOK OTHER THAN THE BIBLE! You will be amazed how having this knowledge will empower you and will help you over come the indoctrination of Christianity.

If their faith wasn't shaken, they wouldn't be protesting.

[Bigmack]

51. I'm pissed....

that there isn't a Festivus pole on display.

It's just a symbol of a different belief.

I can understand the argument that the Holiday Tree is just a symbol, but so is my beloved Festivus pole.

The Nativity Scene? Kinda specific to a religion, huh?

Luckily, the governor is gonna include a Festivus display, too.

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/35616504.html

[cosmik debris]

61. I'd love to see a thousand people with a thousand signs

promoting a thousand points of view demanding equality in the public square.

That would certainly piss off the monopolist who want to have the only voice.

[balantz]

57. The "Holier Than Thou" attitude by dominant religionists is disgusting.

It is the source of many social evils.

[Dogtown]

63. ALERT:

"This thread is rekindling a previous flamewar and is NOT LBN; please move to Religion Forum."

[NoodleyAppendage]

100. Hundreds of protestors who have "shaky faith" in their religion rallied at the state Capitol...

It's so sad to see people turn their own doubts outward as a psychological defense mechanism. If your faith can't stand up to a stupid sign, then you are pathetic and lacking any capacity for introspection.

J

[Creationismsucks]

108. True, they might be projecting their doubts outward, but

I don't mind that. What I mind is the attempt to bully others out of their equal rights.

[skooooo]

117. Where's the almighty Spaghetti Monster???

I love his noodly appendages.

[onenote]

123. i tend to side with those that think all of these displays on public property are inappropriate

That being said, and with the acknowledgment that being rude and offensive isn't illegal, I find those here who are defending the sign on the grounds that the display of a menorah or creche "attacks" their beliefs to come perilously close to the illogic of those that argue that same sex marriage consitutes an attack on straight marriage. Displaying one's beliefs does not, in and of itself, attack those with other beliefs.

[David__77]

125. Here's the display: I think it's good.

It's a tribute to reason. I see nothing to protest about, unless one wants to remove ALL such displays, which would include religious displays.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

134. While it has nothing to do with your post pr see,

this seems as good an spot as any to post two of my favorite quotes in regards to faiths.(i so very seldom get an proper reason to post em :p

first one
Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of great and mystical powers.
We know this because they are capable of being both invisible and pink at the same time...
The religion of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based on both faith and logic.
Faith tells us that they are pink; through logic, we know that they are invisible....

And the second one that i in some ways love
A man who was handsome, intelligent, and elegant, was asked who he was. "I am the Devil", he replied. "But that cannot be," said the questioner, "for the Devil is evil and ugly!" "My friend," was the reply, "you have been listening to my detractors."

Personally i believe that there is something out there, i just have no idea 'what' it is.

Sidenote addition to make this relevant to the post i replied to: I agree on your view, there is nothing wrong with what is on display(might be a minor tad rude, but i see nothing wrong with it)

[hughee99]

129. To be consistent, I would think religious people should support this and atheists should oppose it.

IMHO, People who support religious displays on public property are hypocrites for complaining about this. Along the same lines, people who oppose religious displays on public lands are hypocrites for supporting this.

On Edit: I would note that not all religious people support public religious displays, and not all atheists oppose them.

[Lerkfish]

133. I've always opposed anything that blurs the line between church and state

even though I'm a religious person, I do not want that line messed with.

at the same time, I support this as a reaction to previous displays that benefit religion. If they cannot help themselves, and MUST honor a religion on public property, then they darn well better honor all of them and also honor agnosticism and atheism.

[One_Life_To_Give]

131. Fighting in someone elses back yard?

I wonder how much of this is powerfull interests from across the country. Choosing to have this fight in the backyards of the people of Olympia?

For all the people who think they have to get in each others face about religous matters. There are alot of us who are live and let live. And can find happiness in just knowing that someone else is happy.

[Nye Bevan]

135. Let the grinches put up their sourpuss sign

if it makes them feel good. I wonder if they put these signs up in their houses and put presents under them? "Happy Solstice kids- and remember, religion is but myth and superstition!" Of course, if they keep pushing this nonsense we will end up with a 100 foot high version of this sign on public display in New York City, to "balance" the Christmas tree at Rockefeller Center.

[bperci108]

153. Time to refresh the facts here.

You just created and attacked a strawman.

The FFRF folks are protesting the placing of religious displays on GOVERNMENT property.

Do you get the distinction?

Or are you going to go along with Bill O'Reilly and call this more of the War On Christmas?

[mondo joe]

157. You're confused about public property and private. Badly confused. NT

[Zhade]

136. You're out of luck, wilson - we have the same right to free speech you do.

So suck it, asshole.

[Festivito]

144. FFRF's has self-deluded hatred for separation of church and state.

What they create is no wall of separation, they create the thin line of confrontation and then cross that to try and make a fight.

Jefferson wanted us to be free to express ourselves, practice our religion, and feeling free to express and practice WE WOULD RESPECT other people to hold, express and practice their religious beliefs. That respect would become a wall of separation, made thicker stronger higher more founded even more and more opaque by the ever increasing respect a free people would then make of that wall.

It is one thing to display how a person of this country believes, it is another thing altogether to display what one person thinks of another person's beliefs. This FFRF act is no opaque wall, it is meant to be seen past; it is no high wall, it is meant to be low to invoke confrontation; it certainly is not a thick wall, it is constructed as close as their confrontational attitude can place it; its foundation and strength are merely joking matters to these delusionals who have opened their mouths and left no room for doubt of their foolheartiness.

FFRF shows a lack of respect, for others, for Jefferson, the Constitution, and certainly for Jefferson's desire for a wall of separation.

They could have just made a statement about their own beliefs and it would have been fine. But, no, these FFRF people show themselves as self-deluded and display their hatred for separation of church and state.

[Fumesucker]

155. Those who put religious displays on public property are the ones lacking respect..

Respect for the establishment clause of the Constitution which bars government from promoting religion.

If the religious displays were not there in the first place, the FFRF would not have put their sign up either.

The sign was deliberately made provocative in order to make a point, a point which a large number of theists seem completely unwilling or unable to understand.

[Festivito]

160. Well, first, one would have to believe your version of the 1st.

You seem to stop thinking as you end reading the first phrase. The next part does not seem to exist: do not prohibit free exercise. Don't..Stop..It. This does not just ignore religion, it does, however, for as long as there exists one American with the will, allow that American to exercise, more it promotes that American's act from privilege to right. It promotes.

So, I'm not buying your words just because you spell them correctly. They're not even your words, are they. We've heard them. Please.

The rest of what you said depends upon acceptance of your version of the 1st. If you have the ability to fight any further, please do better than to just place promote in a sentence. Make it mean something that describes why it is there.

THE 1st:
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.

[Fumesucker]

161. Why then do you have a problem with the FFRF sign?

They are just doing what you think people should be doing, putting up religious displays on public property.

If one religious display is OK, then they all should be.

I suspect that you only dislike the FFRF display because you disagree with it.

But I agree with the last sentence of the FFRF display and I know many other atheists who do also, do you wish to restrict the freedom of speech of atheists because what they say causes you discomfort?

BTW, I've heard all your arguments before too.

[Festivito]

164. Because they are tearing at the fabric of separation.

And, I don't like the hypocrisy, although the hypocrisy is not as important to me. The destruction of the wall is more important than the hypocrisy, but not the most important thing, that most important thing exists outside the box of this thread.

They are stifling the 1st amendment. They have been for some time now. And more than tearing at the fabric of a wall of separation, it tears the fabric of our society, our union, our needs-to-be-more-perfect union.

It works fine for the atheists. The law of no religion in every public space means the atheist is the de facto established religion of this country. They win. Yeah. Wonderful for them. But, it's not wonderful.

It has been tearing this country apart. It makes a martyr of religion and extends the worst of these religions beyond their due. Mostly it stops Democrats from making what should be easy inroads to a huge organized voting block.

Part of this last eight years, eight years that will keep us tied to paying for its time for decades to come, was in goodly part due to the antagonistic undermining of all things religious in the public space.

Let it be free and I think you'll be surprised and pleased at how much it resembles no need for confrontation at all. EDIT ADDING: This concept is the fabric of separation of church and state, and the fabric of our freedoms in general.

[Fumesucker]

165. Atheists are tearing at the fabric of separation of church and state?

Have you looked at the money in your pocket lately?

Hint: It has an affront to atheists right on every single coin and bill.

And as for hypocrisy, Jesus the Christ specifically commanded His followers not to pray in public.

Matthew 6:5-7

5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

[Festivito]

166. That's not what I was saying. I think I explained it well enough.

And, I imagine the word that confronts you is united. You hate the idea of accepting people who believe in a God as your countrymen.
Oh my: In God We Trust? You'll survive. I agree though, it should not be there.
Again you've regressed back to your original idea of what the 1st means. Hello? Perhaps trying to work from an idea held in common was too much for you.

Jesus also taught us to pray with his hands held into the open air. You think this passage from Matthew is a command. Oh.

Be careful for you are easily fooled.

Good night.

[Fumesucker]

169. Your mind reading schtick is not working very well...

I have very strong theists in my own family who I love dearly and for whom I would sacrifice my life, do you think I hate the idea they are my countrymen?

Your reply is one of the reasons I have a hard time with some Christians (I mostly know Christian theists), you take very clear and remarkably unambiguous statements in your holy book and twist them beyond recognition to suit your own agenda. How you could possibly think the scripture I quoted says anything other than "don't pray in public" is completely beyond me.

One of the reasons fundies rarely quote the Christ's words is because most of them are clear and unambiguous and twisting them the way you have just done is an exercise that even a lot of fundies find cognitively dissonant.

[Festivito]

172. It seems you're just playing a game here, not being genuine.

I have been arguing this secular point of politics from a secular point of view. Separating, if you will, church from state in my posting. And you respond with biblical passage.

I have responded in kind to your biblical meandering with biblical retort. And your response is riddled with mistakes: You insisted non-public prayer was COMMANDED, then you drop that notion in your next post. I offer another story from the Bible, so for you I must be twisting it. Not.

You're fighting some biblical fight from somewhere else. I'm not. I'm discussing a political point of how we get along secularly, which is best handled in secular fashion.

I'm glad you love your family. That doesn't mean you can't still resent them for their beliefs, and resent them for having to accept them as believers. Just doesn't.

Perhaps this discussion is, indeed, beyond you which would lead you to just make this a response game.

I wish you well.

[Fumesucker]

176. You were the one who brought up hypocrisy on the part of atheists

I just responded with my own example of hypocrisy on the part of theists.

From what I can tell, and unlike you I'm not a mind reader, you seem to think the best way to protect the separation of church and state is to let religion run rampant in government.

I could not disagree more strongly, mixing religion and politics always ends up being poison to both.

[Festivito]

187. So far your disagreements are weak.

I'm sad, but in a way glad that you "could not disagree more strongly."

[askeptic]

175. Since when does silence advocate a position?

I disagree with your premise - that by the state not taking a position on religion - pro or con - that it somehow is a defacto endorsement of the con position.

I strongly disagree. What the 1st means, I think, is that the State should remain neutral. It should neither advance or discourage religion.

Atheists have a definite point of view which is basically that religion is bunk.

If the state simply does not allow any religious displays on public property, it is not advocating for the atheists, any more than it is not advocating for the Christians the Buddhists or the Scientologists.

Apparently, you seem to think there is no such thing as neutrality.

[Festivito]

178. Since when is silence the same as talking???

You mean the metaphorical silence of not saying anything. Well, the 1st does say something, hence, not silence.

No! Bad analogy. It's not a pro and con position. It's a pro and NON position. If NO-PRO is enacted as law, the NON position effectively wins.

Is that so hard to understand?

The state's purpose is not to prove how neutral it can be. It is here for the people, not the concept of neutrality.

The question is how can I as believer in one thing move to a more perfect union with someone else who believes something else.

Some say: Let's just ignore each other. I don't. I say: Let's show each other our celebration of who we each are and in the process learn how to get along and then move to enact a more perfect union.

You want everyone to keep their heads firmly stuck in the sand of eminent neutrality, fine. I don't.

[askeptic]

191. The atheistic position openly questions religious validity

It does not remain silent. While you may like it if all atheists would just shut up about expressing their non-belief (as they have been doing for thousands of years), that time is over.

And most atheists will shut up about their non-belief if others shut up about their belief. Displaying a creche or Menorah is making a pro-religious statement, not shutting up. Similarly, the FFRF folks are making a statement, an anti-religious statement.

However, a neutral position advocates neither against or for religious belief, period.

You are used to having the religious belief questions framed in terms of WHICH religion is to be believed. However the first question to be framed is whether one believes there is a supernatural realm or aspect to existence BEFORE one decides (assuming one answers that there IS), just how to express that answer through a particular religious faith.

You are free to celebrate your faith as you see fit, and applaud your desire to advance acceptance of others who think differently. But there are far more believers than non-believers screaming intolerantly, and I think the FFRF folks are responding to those people.

The government advances religion throgh sponsored prayer days, prayer breakfasts and the like. It does not sponsor days of irreligion, or even days of rationality. It grants tax-exempt status to organized religion, giving it a special status.

The only way the government can remain neutral is to not advocate for either. One way for that to happen is to disallow overtly religious displays on public property as well as overtly anti-religious displays. As I've stated above, this is only one aspect. Government should not be advocating for national days of prayer, or sponsor prayer breakfasts, or anything of that ilk.

[cosmik debris]

177. That's so ridiculous it is funny!

The theists breached the wall of separation and now they want to make sure that no one else gets to use the gaping hole they created. They want a monopoly of ideas in the public square -- no competition. When they are not allowed to have a government sponsored monopoly, they whine and pout about free exercise. It is truly laughable.

If you want respect, you have to have equal respect. I know that theists hate equality, but that is what is required here. And that's what we have. The theist show absolutely no respect for the beliefs of others. And in turn their beliefs are not respected.

If you want respect, get you silly religion out of my government and off of public property.

[Festivito]

185. I think you must have hit the wrong post's reply button.

None of this seems to reflect what I said.

[cosmik debris]

192. No, I replied to the correct post.

You are just blinded by your own hatred of opposing ideas to see how it applies.

Your post was ridiculous. It is full of bogus nonsense and vitriol. It has absolutely no credibility, only hatred for opposing ideas.

Good luck with that.

[bemildred]

150. Well, the thing is, if you believe religion is made by humans, why can't you argue your view?

If freedom of religion means anything, it ought to mean being able to not believe in any of them, and being able to advocate for your point of view. Does not religious freedom include freedom to criticize religion?

[IndianaGreen]

156. It is the pagan winter solstice celebration that the Christianofascists took as their own

These religious idiots don't care about my rights, so I don't care what happens to them. They can all die.

[LostinVA]

158. I hate to tell them, but if they're atheists, they shouldn't be talking about "Winter Solstice"

That is also a religious holiday, as many Neo-Pagans I know would attest. Having more than a bit of those beliefs myself, I find their ignorance on this subject amusing -- and a bit offensive. Decrying religious displays by IDing with a rlgious holiday? Oh brother.

[Fumesucker]

163. Winter Solstice is an astronomical event..

The shortest day of the year, the day during winter after which the days start getting longer again.

[LostinVA]

168. Wrong -- it is a RELIGIOUS event

The natural event that goes along with it isn't religious, But WINTER SOLSTICE is every bit as religious as CHRISTMAS or EASTER. Denying it isn't religious is just as silly as ignorant as denying Christmas has no religious meaning. They both do.

Saying it over and over doesn't mean you're right, it just means you are totally ignorant of Paleo and Neo Pagans.

[Fumesucker]

170. Winter Solstice has been taken by *some* *people* as a religious event..

But the fact remains that, at its heart, it is an astronomical event.

If it isn't an astronomical event, then why does Winter Solstice (along with Summer Solstice) turn up on every single astronomical calendar I have ever seen? Christmas, Easter and all the other religious holidays don't show up on an astronomical calendar but Winter Solstice does.

[Marrah_G]

174. It is both.

Winter Solstice is indeed a cyclical part of the Earth. It has been recognized and celebrated by people since as far back as we can tell. Summer Solstice, Fall and Spring Equinoxes as well. They are 4 of our 8 Holidays, we call them the "Minor Sabbats". Planting and harvesting feast days are refered to as "Major Sabbats". Full Moons are refered to as Esbats.

You separate religion from nature and science. Our traditions do not separate ourselves from nature and the universe. We embrace and revere them. We acknowledge their significance in our life and the very life of our planet and all that reside on them. We are not separate from nature, we are part of it.

[Fumesucker]

183. I was responding to someone who claimed that the Winter Solstice was a purely religious event..

I do know the Solstices and Equinoxes are sacred to some people and I respect that as long as those people do not try to force me to follow their particular metaphysical rules (and I'm not saying they have done so).

But even when there were no people to hold it sacred there were indeed Solstices and Equinoxes ever since the Earth began to spin on a tilted axis.

In other words the astronomical events came first, literally billions of years before there were humans to attach a spiritual significance to them.

But then I'm something of an astronomer and astronomers tend to take the long view, I can take you out on a clear Summer evening and show you light you can see with your naked eyes that left well before Homo Sapiens Sapiens ever evolved. With only a very modest telescope or even binoculars I can show you light that left before Lucy walked the slopes of Olduvai Gorge.

Astronomers call it "fossil light" or "lookback time", when we look into space we are traveling time in a way.

I guess that is my form of spirituality if you want to put a name to it, awe at the mystery that is our universe combined with a burning desire to understand.

[Marrah_G]

184. "awe at the mystery that is our universe combined with a burning desire to understand."

What a great statement. I also feel that way.

[Vektor]

167. It's sad how insecure they are in their faith. If they truly believed the Atheists were incorrect,

they wouldn't feel threatened at all.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

171. Steve Wilson is a horse's ass.

[lynne]

179. I enjoy everyone expressing their own beliefs in the public square -

- BUT I do have a problem when they feel it necessary to denigrate and belittle the beliefs of others in the process. A display in honor and celebration of Winter Solstice would have been wonderful. However, they only showed their own hardened hearts by disparaging other religions in the process.

The denigration of others says more about THEM than about religion, IMO.

[madmom]

186. I think the key phrase here is...

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

ON PUBLIC PROPERTY! that means it belongs to the public not any one specific group of people so Wilson is out of line, atheists and anyone else for that matter have just as much right to state their beliefs as he does.

[maddezmom]

193. locking

It's time to lock this one down, nothing new being discussed.