Atheist sign disappears from Washington state Capitol

[Popol Vuh]

Source: CNN

(CNN) -- An atheist sign criticizing Christianity that was erected alongside a Nativity scene at the Legislative Building in Olympia, Washington, has disappeared, the co-founder of the organization sponsoring it said Friday.

"I thought it would be safe," Freedom From Religion Foundation co-founder Annie Laurie Gaylor told CNN. "It's always a shock when your sign is censored or stolen or mutilated. It's not something you get used to."

The sign, which celebrated the winter solstice, had some residents and Christian organizations calling atheists Scrooges because they said it was attacking the celebration of Jesus Christ's birth.

"Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds," the sign from the Freedom From Religion Foundation said in part.

The sign, which was at the Legislative Building at 6:30 a.m. PT, was gone by 7:30 a.m., Gaylor said.

The incident will not stifle the group's message, Gaylor said, adding that a temporary sign with the same message would be placed in the building's Rotunda. Gaylor said a note would be attached saying, "Thou shalt not steal."




Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/12/05/atheists.christmas...

[TechBear_Seattle]

1. The sign made absolutely no mention of Christianity, critical or otherwise

But honestly, I'm not surprised that CNN would lie.

[lynnertic]

12. Yes it did, insofar as Christianity is a religion,

and you can read the sign yourself to see how it applies.

These people who protest religion aren't atheist so much as they are anti-religious nutcases who seek to replace one form of intolerance with another.

So much more noise to blur out the signal.

[TechBear_Seattle]

52. The sign mentions generic "religion" but not Christianity specifically

It is flat out lie to say that the sign criticized any religion in particular. To single out a particular religious and claim that it was criticized goes beyond mere slanted journalism.

[superconnected]

63. I agree. It was an intolerant sign. I would have liked them to show alternative and tolerance.

I'm against someone taking their sign though.

[askeptic]

128. I think it was a Critical sign - purposely pushing back

In order to point out that the mere placing of religious icons on public property should not be permitted in a secular society. Seeing a creche in a public park is a slap in the face to our Constitution and to those of us who think that is what churches are for (and that we indirectly subsidize because of their tax-free status). That's not enough for these religious zea;ots - they insist on using public property to shove their religion in everyone's face.

Because of that I am fully supportive of the FFRF sign which shoves back. They are not doing this to convince anyone or achieve converts - they are making a point. And the non-believer community that has kept quiet for years is finally showing that it is a full participant in society, and are fed up with the government coddling religion over non-religion. They are hoping to create enough controversy that all religious displays are disallowed on public property.

[onehandle]

2. I choose to remove my comment.

Some DUers don't understand how some methods make things worse.

Like invading Iraq. How did that work out in winning hearts and minds?

[Bill McBlueState]

4. I agree

Society is best served by the suppression of messages you personally find stupid.

[onehandle]

6. No comment. nt

[DeSwiss]

10. Yet its been working pretty well....

...for the Christians for sometime now....

[yardwork]

19. Absolutely. And it's best to ignore constitutional rights, les we offend others.

It's never a good idea to insist on a constitutional right that others might find offensive. It's no way to win people over. Much better to suffer oppression in silence. At least we'll be liked by our oppressors.

[superconnected]

66. So if the Christians put up a sign that says all atheists have enslaved minds do you think that's

tolerant? Gee, I thought the point of the capitol display was to show tolerance not intolerance. The atheists were wrong on this one. They should have put up a message supporting atheism without attacking others for their beliefs.

[Zhade]

87. Freedom of speech doesn't necessitate tolerance of other's views.

It's hard to support atheism without "attacking" other's beliefs, since to support atheism is to point out the fact that not one religion has any corroborating evidence to support it -- and that would be seen as an attack, no matter how mild and straight-forward that might be said.

The atheists were NOT wrong here, because we also have freedom of speech, even if others don't like what we have to say.

[Goblinmonger]

139. You have no right

to not be offended. Pretty basic Con Law stuff, that.

[superconnected]

64. The intolerant ones, heck yeah.

The interesting thing here is it's ironic that atheists showed the intolerance of others beliefs and not the Christians. I know both groups have people that believe others should believe what they want as well as extremest who are against others holding their own beliefs. I just wouldn't have expected the atheists to be the ones to actually put up and support a message of intolerance.

[onager]

77. I love how atheism releases the Inner Torquemada in "liberal" Xians.

[Ignis]

80. WHAT?! Christians are 100% about unconditional love...

As long as you agree with them 100% of the time.

[JimboBillyBubbaBob]

5. What?

Pee in their pool. I'd dump in their pool!

[awoke_in_2003]

26. Or at least...

put a Baby Ruth in the pool to make them think you did

[Book Lover]

7. What makes you think "winning people over" is a goal?

Seeking converts is generally a christian activity.

[onehandle]

8. No comment. nt

[Popol Vuh]

13. Is the Legislative Building in Olympia a public building?

If your answer is yes then the sign didn't no more pee in someone's pool as the nativity scene did. That is unless of course what you're trying to really say is that Christian messages should be the only ones allowed on public property.

Talibans destroying Buddha statues comes to mind with stories like this.

[DeSwiss]

21. If the "soltice sign" is peeing in someone's pool....

...then what, pray tell, is a nativity scene considered to be?

- Other than the obvious Paganistic idolatry that it is, and which has gotten Yahweh's people is so much trouble with him in the past???

[Book Lover]

31. That is not an answer to my question.

To answer yours, though: do I agree with you that putting up this sign is like peeing in someone's pool? No. I would say that's not comparable. If someone pees in your pool, you have to drain the whole thing, or dump in huge amounts of chlorine. Putting up a sign at the local gathering of year-end message signs that says the other signs are there for superstitious reasons seems to me to be something someone could shrug off. My opinion.

[Book Lover]

36. edited

I think I lost the threads here. Oops.

[Critters2]

15. then what is the point of putting up a sign with a philosophical statement--

if not to persuade people toward that philosophy?

[Book Lover]

35. I don't know this particular group's motives, but

my answer to that in general terms is just simple visibility. If you (specifically you) wear a crucifix openly, are you trying to persuade people that Christianity is factual and that they themselves should become Christan?

[Critters2]

37. I don't wear a crucifix. Perhaps you should ask, you know, specifically,

someone who does.

[Book Lover]

38. Can you please indulge my theoretical question? (nm)

[Critters2]

39. It wasn't theoretical. The "specifically you" made it not theoretical.

So, no.

[Book Lover]

40. I apologize for my awakward phrasing

I am also sorry that you feel the need to be rude back.

edit: spelling

[Critters2]

42. Wasn't rude. Just honest.

You tell me a statement isn't theoretical, and then claim it was. Either way, I'm not obligated to answer every question I'm asked on the internets.

[Book Lover]

43. I am glad to know you don't feel compelled to grant forgiveness to those who ask

Merry Christmas.

[Critters2]

44. Here's a thought. Why don't you ask someone who wears a crucifix

why they wear a crucifix, instead of trying to pick a fight with me?....which will become difficult, now that I'll be ignoring you.

[Zhade]

92. Uh, you picked the fight. Over one silly word.

NT!

[LanternWaste]

61. I wear one...

I wear one. Not to persuade, but simply as a memorial and as a physical reminder to myself.

[Quantess]

46. One valid reason is to give a breath of fresh air to atheists and other non-religious people.

The sign is for people who don't believe in god, or who are agnostics, or who already have doubts about Christianity. The sign is "preaching to the choir", so to speak.

To a non-religious person, religious messages often get heavy handed at certain times, such as the two month Christmas season. Signs like these are a breath of fresh air, and reaffirm the American value of Freedom of/from Religion.

[Critters2]

50. Ridiculing other people's faith is "a breath of fresh air"?

Washington must have shitty air.

[superconnected]

67. So we need more signs that attack peoples beliefs like the atheist sign.

Gee I was hoping they'd come around and say, maybe everyone should be allowed to believe what they want, instead of sticking to insulting everyone who doesn't think like them. I see that's not likely to happen. I'm glad many other religions have come around to that. I know not all have, but now I can toss the atheists in with the ones who haven't.

[Zhade]

93. Criticizing superstition is not the same as saying "you aren't allowed to believe".

Don't EVEN try to turn this into persecution, because that's laughable.

[askeptic]

130. When they insist on pushing their religion on public property, yes

This is push back. Non-believers are finally standing up. The religious crowd and the government itself is constantly pushing the message that if you don't be;ieve (in some kind of supernatural mythology), you are less than equal as a citizen. Get this stuff off public property and the FFRF won't be there either.

[Quantess]

132. "...insulting everyone who doesn't think like them..."

Can you honestly deny that many, many, Christians do exactly that?

[skepticscott]

134. Maybe just to show

what a bad idea it is for this sort of thing to be promoted by government agencies on government property in the first place. Maybe to show that the Christian claim that they are tolerant of all points of view is disingenuous bullshit, and that fundy Xstians would have these displays promote only their own narrow view of the world if they could get away with it.

[dbonds]

60. If they can't convert you - they kill you.

[superconnected]

71. After that sign, you gotta wonder how soon the atheists would start doing the same thing.

I mean they've already picked up on the religious intolerance that extreme hostile religions have.

[Zhade]

97. Are you out of your fucking mind? You think this will lead to atheists KILLING people?

Are you so insecure in your beliefs that they can't take a little challenge now and again?

Your comment is unconscionable. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[ZombieHorde]

135. After reading that sign, I have killed and eaten no less than 27 people.

[dbonds]

125. There is nothing intolerant or hostile in that sign.

It is the equivalent of 'Jesus is the reason for the season' signs.

[Swede]

11. It should have been worded differently.

Not so confrontationally. Other than that,an atheist sign should be included.

[Ian David]

17. How about you come here and let me pee directly on you?

Oooh, you'd like that, wouldn't you, you dirty boy... bad, bad naughty, filthy, dirty boy...

[awoke_in_2003]

27. Hey now...

let's not get all R Kelly up in here

[NoodleyAppendage]

20. Yeah. That's right...those pesky Atheists just don't know their place.

I guess they should just suck it up and enjoy domination by their Xtian masters. I wonder if you would think the same if the shoe was on the other foot. The fact remains that Xtians and other religious folk are the majority and Atheists are the minority. Vocal minorities keep a society healthy and vibrant. The flow of ideas is stiffled in a homogenous social environment.

Plus, if the offended Xtians are so weak in their faith that this silly sign shakes their core, then I guess their faith wasn't so strong in the first place. Whatever happened to Xtians following the lead of Jesus who was challenged by the Devil in the desert, but was able to maintain his faith and resolve?

J

[superconnected]

69. They have an intolerant message and yet you complain about people being intolerant of them?

Gee, maybe if they didn't put up a sign attacking others for their beliefs, they wouldn't be very validly getting attacked now.

I don't agree with the sign disappearing, I think it should have been removed by the state. I'm all for it being replaced with an atheistic sign that doesn't attack other religions but says something about it's own beliefs. Maybe happy Soltice or smth. Attacking others wouldn't have gone over no matter which group tried it.

[Zhade]

They did NOT attack believers. They attacked beliefs. That's their right.

The mere existence of atheism is seen as an "attack" on religion. Thus, you are calling for stripping atheists of their First Amendment right to free speech.

You scare the fuck out of me.

[Eric J in MN]

22. That building belongs to all the citizens, believers and non-believers.

Atheists should express themselves.

[Pale Blue Dot]

23. Yeah. And gay people shouldn't shove their "gayness" in straight peoples faces.

They should just act "normal" until straight people treat them well on their own accord.

[atreides1]

28. Is that what they were trying to do?

Win people over?

But, you're right you can't win people over by peeing in their pool, you do it by kissing their ass!

No matter what they did, the atheists can't win over the Talibangelicals, they would have a better chance of conjuring a demon.

[baldguy]

30. So, people who commemorate the solstice aren't allowed in the public square?

[struggle4progress]

89. "It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things:

freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them" -- Mark twain

[varkam]

133. Ohhh...what'd I miss? eom

[Sebastian Doyle]

3. Sounds like an inside job to me.

You don't get in that building before 7:30 AM without a key.

If you searched the Repuke offices in the Leg building, I'll bet you would find it.

[wial]

9. along with

Al Franken's missing ballots.

What next, a steroid scandal in the clergy? Should our young be exposed to these clowns?

[truthisfreedom]

14. Freedom from religion is a god-given right.

As I said the last time this thread appeared (and I was immediately censored for it)...

Religious people suck.

I know, because I was raised in a religious cult.

Let's see if the mods censor me again.

[superconnected]

72. Saying relgious people suck indicates you mean all religious people.

That blanket statement means you're likely to make blanket statements in other areas too. Ie all black people steal cars. It's wrong. Blanket statements show the narrow mindedness of the people making them. As it stands you statement is also intolerant.

I used to meet intelligent atheists. They were tolerant of others. This must be very difficult to them to have to see atheists putting up intolerant signs and ppl like yourself spewing more intolerance.

[Zhade]

101. I'm going to have to call you out on this one. Your comment is rather intolerant.

Sure, religious people believe nonsense ranging from silly woowoo to insane dangerous bullshit, but that doesn't mean they're bad people -- just very misinformed about reality (and likely scared to admit it). But they have every right to believe what they choose, and we shouldn't attack them for being believers. There's plenty to criticize in their unsupported beliefs without getting personal.

I've known great people who happen to be religious. I no more hate them for it than I would hate someone with a brain tumor or who came down with Stockholm Syndrome under duress.

[ZombieHorde]

136. truthisfreedom did not mean that religious people are bad.

truthisfreedom was trying to say that religious people enjoy oral.

[Pale Blue Dot]

16. Cowards. Apparently God is really, really weak.

He must be protected from a sign.

[Ian David]

18. Do you have proof that the sign wasn't Raptured or removed by god himself?

Or for that matter, it could have been stolen by the god Loki.

[hatrack]

45. IMHO, I think Coyote snatched it . . .

Or was it Kokopelli?

[DeSwiss]

24. K&R!!!

[Laelth]

48. That graphic is priceless.

A picture can say 1000 words, and an animated gif can say even more. Thanks for posting it.

The United States is a LIBERAL Country.



-Laelth

[Pastiche423]

62. Hope you don't mind

I'm stealing your graphic.

[John Q. Citizen]

25. Imagine no religion

It's easy if you try

no hell below us,

above us there is only sky

Imagine all the people,
living all as one.


Call me a dreamer if you must, but please don't call me late for dinner.

[sarcasmo]

29. It wold be a glorious world if MR. Lennon's words came true.

[byrok]

47. Beautifully written,

perfect song. Nice reference.

[Alexander]

32. Funny how the non-religious are expected to always be tolerant of religion...

But that tolerance rarely, if ever, goes the other way.

[Critters2]

51. The sign itself was intolerant.

they could have stopped short of ridiculing other people's faith.

[Ignis]

81. Where does it say "two wrongs make a right" in the Bible?

I can't seem to find the chapter and verse....

[Critters2]

95. Where did I say that?

It does say this, though:

‘Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. For with the judgement you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck in your neighbour’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbour, "Let me take the speck out of your eye," while the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbour’s eye.’

So, if you're going to whine about intolerance, it's probably best to avoid being intolerant yourself.
Oh, and that's in Matthew 7.

[Solon]

100. Those words only have power over you, not over those who don't follow your religion.

You can quote Homer, for all I care, they are just stories, after all.

[Critters2]

106. You asked.

Welcome to my ignore list.

[Zhade]

110. HA! He calls your myths what they are, you ignore him. Some faith you have!

[Solon]

115. I find it illuminating that the only reason I'm put on ignore is that I stated my belief that the...

Bible is just a story.

[Evoman]

140. Weak. Very weak.

He isn't the person that asked. And all he did was tell you his opinion, that the stories in the bible aren't real, and you ignore him?

And you have the audacity to call people intolerant?

Ma'am..with all due respect, maybe YOU should re-read your own passage.

[Ignis]

114. What, specifically, was intolerant about the sign?

How is "believe in X or suffer Y" a tolerant position?

Why should Atheists and other non-believers comply with a verse from the Christian Bible?

Is everyone who asks for tolerance in the public sphere a "whiner," or only those who don't happen to concur with your own flavor of religious belief? Because I have many GLBX friends here in California who seem to be obsessed with the issue of tolerance. (Gee, I can't imagine why. ) Are they all "whiners" as well?

I look forward to your responses.

[Zhade]

104. We're not required to respect beliefs we find ridiculous.

NT!

[Critters2]

108. I know how difficult respect for others is for you.

It's sad really.

[Solon]

111. When did this become personal?

We aren't talking about respecting other PEOPLE, but respecting beliefs. My mom, I love and respect her, but she's a Catholic, and I don't respect Catholic beliefs.

[Zhade]

112. That is patent BULLSHIT. I respect PEOPLE. I am not required to respect their beliefs.

Your comment is a personal attack, and it's wrong to boot.

[nodster]

116. Over a thousand posts

I wonder how many of them "respect" the beliefs of conservatives.

[Soylent Brice]

33. LAME LAME LAME LAME LAME LAME LAME LAME LAME LAME

scaredy cats. can't lose control of the flock, lest they run in droves from the shepered.

hypocritical bullshit.

so ten commandments are okay, but a sign about how religion divides people by tapping into their primal fears about a magical boogeyman, that's bad?

LAME.

[Javaman]

34. personally, I think their sign would have been more effective if they

pointed up the fact that the "birth of jesus" aka x-mass was originally created virtually whole cloth from a pagan holiday. that really would have set their brains spinning. but, hey, that is just me.

[Barrett808]

41. We no can haz atheism in Washington State

[K8-EEE]

49. IMO religious people are very threatened by this kind of thing because

they aren't REALLY that convinced that their stories are true.

Bill Maher is right - agnostics and atheists are a LARGE MINORITY of the population, and it's time they at least got in on the conversation.

After all this country was founded by most AGNOSTIC AND PROGRESSIVE THINKERS. I think one of the reasons we have crashed and burned is the new hyper-religosity that nobody is allowed to criticize, this helped people "know in their heart" that things like electing GWB and invading Iraq were "the right things to do." NO REASON ALLOWED. We come out of this "faith-based" GWB era in smoke and ruin.

[Ian David]

55. If god was real, beer would be health food. n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

53. There should be plenty of security cameras in the Rotunda.

Should be easy to catch the perpetrator of this hate crime.

[gaspee]

54. Oh those poor persecuted

Relgionists - they felt so persecuted they needed to steal the sign.

The atheist sign has as much right to be there as the religious rigmarole.

[uppityperson]

56. Thank god, it was found again.

Sorry, secular humanist here with a warped sense of humor.

[One_Life_To_Give]

57. Is Olympia a Fundy Area?

Seems a bit in your face for use in Liberal area's. Why not just be happy that other people found some reason to be happy? Wishing people a Happy Winter Solstice would have sufficed.

[droidamus2]

58. Amazing

If the 'religious' crowd had any brains they would see the irony in this situation. Here the religious groups are always trying to put their symbols and their beliefs in the public square and not really caring if it makes other people 'uncomfortable' or goes against other peoples beliefs. They even question peoples morals and ethics when they don't 'believe'. Yet let another group do basically the same thing and they are all up in arms about how that belief doesn't belong in the public square because it questions their beliefs.

[Liberal Veteran]

59. Is there some part of "Thou shalt not steal" that is unclear to Christians?

And it likely was a fundie.

[LanternWaste]

65. It was an act of cowardly aggression

Bad form. Very bad form. Personally, I don't give a widget what the sign may or may not have said, nor do I care if it was respectful or distasteful. It's simply bad form to remove anything from the public grounds for no other reason than "I'm offended by it."

It was an act of cowardly aggression that has no good place or standing in a civil society.

If it makes someone feel better to believe that my heart has been hardened and my mind enslaved, so be it, it's an opinion someone holds-- nothing more, nothing less. I value my freedom of religion as much as I value my freedom of expression.

Assholes.

[superconnected]

74. How is it taking it down anymore bad form than putting up a sign of religious intolerance.

Someone put up a sign that was intolerant of people believing what they want. someone else stole a sign who was intolerant of other people believing what they want. Sounds like two bigots at odds. One calls their bigotry religion, the other calls it atheism. They're both still wrong. Happy solstice.

[Solon]

76. That's stupid...

Damn near every religious message that's displayed publicly in this country is intolerant in one form or another. The biggest difference between these types of messages and the one mentioned in the OP is that at least Atheists don't condemn you to eternal hellfire.

[superconnected]

79. No that's stupid. The tree, menorah etc. are not intolerant of others.

Writing an attack of other religions is. I know many Jews and Christians and Muslims that don't attack others beliefs. Then again I have found many atheists on DU who do. they're as bad as any extreme religion that goes after anyone that doesn't think like them.

[Solon]

83. I said message, not symbol, and the Christmas tree is secular...

In particular, when it comes to the Christian and Muslim faiths, the general consensus is: "My way, or the Highway to Hell." This isn't an extremist position, but rather settled theology for over 1000 years.

[superconnected]

90. Wrong. The consensus is only in some groups. Most muslims are progressive now a days.

Just like most Christians. What next, start quoting the old testament and wrongly insist Christians follow it or it's valid in their religion today? Btw, what's the bad implications of a statue of Buddha, my Buddhist beliefs want to know.

[Solon]

98. That those who don't follow his teaching can't reach enlightenment.

Slightly different than the fire and brimstone of Christianity, that's true. However, most religions follow a "carrot and stick" model for believers, punishment and reward, its rather simplistic, when you think about it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

99. You're saying most Christians don't believe in the 10 commandments?

[ZombieHorde]

137. Do most Christians even know the 10 commandments?

[nodster]

119. Yeah right,

you can see just how "progressive" Christians are here at DU. The proud, willful ignorance and blatant hypocrisy I constantly encounter here makes me feel like I'm lurking at Free Republic or RightNation.

The posts here just prove how correct Sam Harris is about moderate "Progressive" Christians.

[Popol Vuh]

105. I disagree

I didn't read the sign that way at all. I read it as a statement which reflects the beliefs of Atheists. Its only those who are religious or see things from the perspective as religious folks who see it differently.

[nodster]

118. Oh stop.

Your posts are such cringe fests.

By the way, I see you have over a thousand posts. I wonder how many of them "respect" the beliefs of conservatives.

Criticize religion = bigot

Criticize politics = fair game

Tell me why. I have a feeling a could find you commiting bigotry if I went through your posts.

[askeptic]

131. There, there - Here's Erich Fromm - a religion critic

"If faith cannot be reconciled with rational thinking, it has to be eliminated as an anachronistic remnant of earlier stages of culture and replaced by science dealing with facts and theories which are intelligible and can be validated."
— Erich Fromm

[vinylsolution]

68. Gotta love that sign....

Those words ring so true, especially for the oppressed minorities here in Colorado Springs - home of James Dobson and Ted Haggard.

[cosmik debris]

70. I love it when Christians get pissed off because

They are not the only game in town.

I hope they take there creche and go home to pout!

[superconnected]

73. How do you know it was a Christian, the sign was intolerant of all religions.

[cosmik debris]

85. Just as many christians are intolerant of all (other) religions.

And I never said it was a christian, that's what's called guilty conscience.

[superconnected]

96. "I love it when Christians get pissed off because" quoting you.

[cosmik debris]

113. Because ...They are not the only game in town.

I never accused anyone of stealing any signs. You just made that up because you have a chip on your shoulder.

Good luck with that.

[onager]

88. It expressed an opinion about all religions.

It didn't say all religions should be outlawed, or believers should be rounded up and stoned to death, or even that atheists should not marry non-atheists.

Without too much trouble, I could probably find religious websites advocating all three of those as a proper way to treat non-believers.

And that is intolerance. Intolerance is not a sign expressing an idea with which you happen to disagree.

[superconnected]

94. Yeah, but others aren't on the state capital lawn attacking other's beliefs.

No signs like that belong there. And actually no signs on religion or attacking religion belong there.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

102. "And actually no signs on religion or attacking religion belong there."

Fine. If the atheist's sign has to go, so should the nativity scene.

[superconnected]

103. I don't have a problem with that. Had Gregoire done that in the first place, she woulnd't be in

this O'lielley and political mess.

I doubt she's going to catch on though.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

107. So you didn't have a problem until the atheist put up the sign...

[liberal1973]

117. I could go with that.

[Adam42069gc]

75. How Christian of them

"Thou Shall NOT Steal" I may be an atheist but as I remember that is one of those 10 commandment thingies. How predictable! I wouldn't expect any less from your typical HYPOCRITICAL Christian!

[superconnected]

78. How do you know it was a Christian? Maybe it was maybe it wasn't.

It may have been Gregoire sick of phone calls.

"typical HYPOCRITICAL Christian!" Oh look a typical bigot. How narrow minded and uneducated. Are all Muslims smth too? How about Buddhists?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

82. There have been a number of Christian bigots making an issue of this sign.

If a black family moves into a rich white neighborhood, and somebody burns a cross on their lawn, I think it's reasonable to suspect the perpetrator was white.

[superconnected]

91. True. I have to admit if they catch the person I'll be

entertained by the press the nut gets and what they spew. I'm hoping they catch em!

[superconnected]

84. Wow, they're going to put up the same sign with "Thou shalt not steal on it".

They're going to continue to practice intolerance of other beliefs, while complaining that people are intolerant of theirs.

I love it. bigots mad over bigotry. I know this is unfair but I hold the atheists to be higher and not to be bigots so they piss me off the most in this. Obviously my beliefs in atheists not doing the same thing the extreme religious do was misplaced.

Ah well, fun to watch. Burn baby burn to all of the intolerant. Even the intolerant person who took the sign.

[nodster]

120. Stop with "Bigot" nonsense.

You look ridiculous.

I assure you, if this was about politics, you wouldn't use the word "bigot".

If I said conservatism hardens hearts and enslaves minds, would you use the words "bigots" and "intolerance"? I guarantee you wouldn't.

But no, religion should be singled out and immune from criticism.

It's the age-old double standard and you bought into it.

[cosmik debris]

121. Being intolerant of bat-shit crazy ideas is a GOOD thing.

I'm certainly intolerant of racism. Is that bad? I'm intolerant of homophobia. Is that bad?

What is it about one crazy idea that earns it tolerance when other crazy ideas don't get tolerance?

[Zhade]

86. So, those of you whining about the "hearts and minds" comments...

Would you be happy if those had been left off and the rest of the message remained?

I'm hearing a lot about how this was the wrong tactic, and I'm wondering just how much truth is allowed before people find it objectionable.

[Zhade]

109. Moved to R&T? What a cowardly move.

Hiding actual news in this ghetto is pathetic.

Guess someone's going to have to repost in GD, just so this crime and violation of our first amendment rights isn't swept under the carpet.

[askeptic]

122. This Bible Verse from Psalms shows no Tolerance

Do you detect any shyness, any respect for opposing viewpoints – any “appropriateness” - in this quote from 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.”

[cosmik debris]

123. Are you saying

atheists "do abominable deeds, there is none that does good.”?

That seems like a pretty intolerant thing to say. Besides being patently false.

[askeptic]

126. I'm not saying it - the Bible is

I'm a non-believer, but use it to show how non-believers have been portrayed by the Christian religionists for centuries. Now when the FFRF essentially quotes Ingersoll, they are the intolerant ones according to some here. Thing is, the criticism, while pointed, happens to be largely true. And if there weren't any religious displays allowed on public property, there wouldn't be any atheist group with their comeback. Get the religious stuff of public property.

[cosmik debris]

129. Yes, I missed your point on first reading. Sorry. n/t

[dmallind]

138. Well in all fairness

Since I see Xians quote this more, I should point out the translation error here too. The word here is not "fool" as in "idiot" or "dumbass". The word is "nabal" which means impious or ungodly (or wicked in some cases). The word for abominable is "ta'ab" which is used mostly in a ritual sense, so abomination as in abaomination to the faith, not as in raping children etc. The only word that is definitively critical of the ungodly in any other way but that they are ungodly is in the word "towb" for "good" which here as in most places means ethical or pleasant or benign. It is of course a biased assessment when the meaning even of ethical "good" wasassumed to be religiously determined.

The verse remains clear, as do many others in scripture, that nonbelievers are contemptible, but it is not saying that nonbelievers are idiots who go around performing horiible evil in a teleological sense.

[sarcasmo]

124. Billo the State Police are looking for our sign, do you have it?

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Evoman]

141. Good, now get rid of all that Jesus bullshit and the Jewish bullshit and we can all be happy.

There shouldn't be any displays. Thats the fucking point of the sign.

That religious people miss the point does not suprise me.

[cosmik debris]

142. They want to make this about tolerance.

And they seem to be "irony impaired" to say the least.