'sign' of the times

pH

This atheism sign in Washington story continues to roll on.

First, the background:

OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - The holiday tree in the Washington state Capitol this year will be joined by a Christian nativity scene and an atheistic billboard.
The Capitol has had a holiday tree for 19 years.
In 2006, it was joined by a menorah sponsored by a Seattle Jewish group for Hanukkah.
That prompted a local man to sue the state to allow the nativity scene depicting Jesus’ birth.
There have been no requests for a menorah display this year.
But a new addition will be a sign sponsored by the Freedom from Religion Foundation celebrating the winter solstice. The foundation says it will declare, in part, “There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell,“ and, “Religion is but myth and superstition.“

http://www.wnct.com/nct/lifestyles/faith_values/article/state_capitol_to_display_tree_manger_atheist_sign/24988/

So basically there's been a tree for years, then a Menorah was added, prompting Christians to demand a nativity scene ...yes you can see how this is going to be all about intolerant militant atheists already can't you?


My favourite bit of this one:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008457064_apwaatheistdisplay1stldwritethru.html

For now, the atheist sign is a stand-in. The metal plaque meant for display was delayed by a shipping error, Barker said.

It will be two-sided, with a lengthy message on the main side, and "Keep State/Church Separate" on the back. Barker said that step is necessary because critics have sometimes spun around the group's other statehouse display, in Wisconsin, in hopes of hiding its message.

Much outrage ensued, even the brilliant legal mind of Bill O'Reilly went to work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0ZoUY1HTAA

So the sign was promptly stolen and returned (with appropriate reminder).

And finally the mob

robindch

pH wrote: »

This atheism sign in Washington story continues to roll on.

18 inches by three feet and over five hundred people show up with megaphones to shout about the sign's intolerance?

Jeez, there'll be civil war if the atheist bus ever shows up there.

L31mr0d

seen this over the weekend. I do think the sign could of been worded better though.

Dades

L31mr0d wrote: »

seen this over the weekend. I do think the sign could of been worded better though.

Likewise. They should have stopped at "...superstition", imo.

DKoala

I have to say the sign irritates me due to its immaturity. I regard the types who put up that sign the 'wrong kind' of athiest.
I mean what did they expect? I see the issue they're trying to raise: To keep church and state separate to the point that the religious displays be kept out of government buildings, but the sign was obviously worded to outright attack the other displays and create controversy.

In this way it's more of a PR stunt than a display of religious freedom to me. If the sign were to be put up at all, it should have been worded so as not to portray atheists as its opponents want it to be portrayed: As condescending, anti-religious and angry people.
It does no more to convince someone to think about their faith as the average evangelical preacher handing out damnation-filled leaflets in the street will make an atheist consider the existance of god.

pH

DKoala wrote: »

In this way it's more of a PR stunt than a display of religious freedom to me. If the sign were to be put up at all, it should have been worded so as not to portray atheists as its opponents want it to be portrayed: As condescending, anti-religious and angry people.
It does no more to convince someone to think about their faith as the average evangelical preacher handing out damnation-filled leaflets in the street will make an atheist consider the existance of god.

Surely this is to miss the point entirely.

I don't believe there is an atheist grass roots agenda to get anti-God messages added to all government buildings in the US. There are however movements to get things like the 10 commandments and other religious displays added to some buildings in some states.

It's nothing to do with the existence of God, or as you allude to trying to convert Christians to atheism by making them think about their faith. They're entitled to their faith, they're entitled to believe what they want, they're entitled to all the mangers and nativity scenes they want - just not on government property.

Atheists shouldn't be able to use state/government property to make theists consider their faith. The fact that (as you agree) they haven't really done this is a good thing in my opinion.

DKoala

Aye, I may have rambled a bit off point there.

My overall opinion is that although I can understand the desire for an athiest display around this time, the controversy is due to the sign was not worded as an example of athiest beliefs, like the nativity scene for Christians or a menorah for Jews, but as an attack on religious beliefs.

I just think it's in bad taste, although I know it's not an agenda to get anti-God messages out there, by my PR comment I meant that the particular group that put it there and worded it so as to cause controversy rather than to excercise their freedom of religion that the state building was allowing by inviting all religious groups to put up displays.

ChocolateSauce

I love it.

Galvasean

robindch wrote: »

seattlepi wrote:

Note the photo shows a new note "Thou Shalt not Steal," which he put on it cuz, you know, it was stolen."

LOL.

lostexpectation

DKoala wrote: »

Aye, I may have rambled a bit off point there.

My overall opinion is that although I can understand the desire for an athiest display around this time, the controversy is due to the sign was not worded as an example of athiest beliefs, like the nativity scene for Christians or a menorah for Jews, but as an attack on religious beliefs.

I just think it's in bad taste, although I know it's not an agenda to get anti-God messages out there, by my PR comment I meant that the particular group that put it there and worded it so as to cause controversy rather than to excercise their freedom of religion that the state building was allowing by inviting all religious groups to put up displays.

i don't think the messege as particularly controversial

you still don't get it, no religion in public buildings in the US. end of.

i think your the wrong kind of atheist, cos you clearly don't know what your talking about.

eoin5

pH wrote: »

This atheism sign in Washington story continues to roll on.

First, the background:


http://www.wnct.com/nct/lifestyles/faith_values/article/state_capitol_to_display_tree_manger_atheist_sign/24988/

So basically there's been a tree for years, then a Menorah was added, prompting Christians to demand a nativity scene ...yes you can see how this is going to be all about intolerant militant atheists already can't you?


My favourite bit of this one:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008457064_apwaatheistdisplay1stldwritethru.html

For now, the atheist sign is a stand-in. The metal plaque meant for display was delayed by a shipping error, Barker said.

It will be two-sided, with a lengthy message on the main side, and "Keep State/Church Separate" on the back. Barker said that step is necessary because critics have sometimes spun around the group's other statehouse display, in Wisconsin, in hopes of hiding its message.

Much outrage ensued, even the brilliant legal mind of Bill O'Reilly went to work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0ZoUY1HTAA

So the sign was promptly stolen and returned (with appropriate reminder).

And finally the mob

Bill is painful to listen to, hes mid-sentance interrupting ability is too good.

DKoala

lostexpectation wrote: »

i don't think the messege as particularly controversial

you still don't get it, no religion in public buildings in the US. end of.

i think your the wrong kind of atheist, cos you clearly don't know what your talking about.

I don't see what you're point is here, I agree that there shouldn't be any religion in the buildings, but in this particular case there already is, which is what I'm addressing.

And yes the message is controversial. Avoiding controversy (as much as they can on the issue) while still getting a point across would be the group petitioning to keep the church+state sepearate and have no displays at all.
Going in there with a condescending attack message on a poster is childish at best, and is obviously an attempt to stir up feelings in the religious folk rather than to be a display representing athiest views.

The nativity scene for example does not have an arrow pointing at all the other displays saying "These are all wrong and if you believe in them you're delusional".

pH

DKoala wrote: »

The nativity scene for example does not have an arrow pointing at all the other displays saying "These are all wrong and if you believe in them you're delusional".

But does it need to? Christianity has a long history, and its symbols mean something. Bill O'Reilly brought up the Klan - a burning cross doesn't need the text "black people are inferior" (or whatever, what about a Swastika?), the symbol itself has meaning, it would be disingenuous to argue that without the text the symbol is entirely without meaning. It could be argued that a Christian sign just in itself contains the message "We are the one true religion - the only way to salvation is through Jesus, if you don't believe you'll burn in hell for eternity".

Now atheism doesn't have a symbol like that, so I guess they felt they needed text. I'm not saying that I personally am offended by a manger, but I think the arguments in this thread "I could do it better" miss the point again, either all Americans (atheists Christians/Jews/Muslims) have the right to put religious/anti-religious symbols/statements on government property or they don't, and arguments/observations about "how I'd would have done it" seem irrelevant at best.

I'd have put this up :



but so what?

DKoala

Reading over this post I do come off as a religious apologist, which I don't think I am. I'm just trying to give perspective on my objection to the sign.

I can see where you're coming from, but my (admittedly nigh-bleating) argument is that the other displays are, for the most part, benign. There's a degree of religious tolerance in society (for the most part of course, I'm aware of people being at both extremes of the spectrum) that people will respect each others religions in society.
The fact that there were no outright objections to the other displays shows that when people see other displays of faith, especially around a time when multiple religions have major festivals, they do not immediatly see it as an attack on their faith. They see it as people with other beliefs expressing theirs.

I'm aware that there are those who would use symbols to evangelise they're beliefs. The burning cross like you mentioned for instance; but for most people the symbols like the nativity scene or menorrah are sentimental having grown up in that faith etc, and they are enjoyed by those who don't necessarily believe in them but enjoy the imagry none the less. (I enjoy the atmosphere in churches/mosques/synagouges for instance)

I would like to believe those who put up the other displays did not do so to proclaim their religion the one and only, they did it due to the season and for the enjoyment for all those who came to see it, regardless of worldviews. Reedeming qualities which I just don't see in the sign. I'm aware of the stigma attached to atheism in the US, but this does nothing to help alleviate it as far as I'm concerned, if I step in their shoes for a moment.

As for the "I could do it better" argument, I think its inevitable in this situation. Unlike the traditional religions atheism has no common symbol, no traditions. It's different from one person to the next since we're not tied to a single text or belief, which is why I'm glad there is no symbol or motto etc for it since it would be pointless.
Therefore there will be disagreements when people try to summarize the atheistic belief themselves like the sign in question. Not all atheists are derisive of all religion, nor are we all tolerant of it. But the sign in question, especially when given national/international coverage like it is, will give a message of "angry atheism" whethere people believe it outright or not.
Like Fox News's use of chyrons. Even if you don't consciously agree with the message, it rings in your subconscious long after you see the actual message.

Its a "catch more with honey than with vinegar" argument that I'm putting forward here. And in that respect I'd agree with the Darwin picture you put up more than the sign thats there now, though that's just because I find tounge-in-cheek statements work better than outright attacks.

As for the "arguing is pointless because we can't change it" viewpoint, where's the fun in that?


Thanks for reading my wall of text for all those who did.

Zombrex

L31mr0d wrote: »

seen this over the weekend. I do think the sign could of been worded better though.

I imagine the point was to be provocative. This was put up by a Freedom From Religion group after all

My take (and I didn't read this or anything, I'm just imagining) is that the point of this is to highlight to the hypocrisy of some Christian groups calling for more religion in government.

The long established argument is that non-Christians shouldn't find religious symbols in public buildings offensive, so what is the harm in putting them up. They ignore the fact that a lot of people do find them offensive.

The point of this (I imagine) is to simply throw that back in their face. "Oh so you want freedom for all religious positions do you! Well how about this...", that sort of thing.

It is like all the people calling for prayer in school stopping dead in their tracks when someone suggests a teacher should lead the students in a Muslim prayer (heaven forbid! Literally!)

They don't actually want prayer in school, they want their prayers in school. Likewise they don't want religious icons in public buildings, they want their religious icons in public buildings.

Dades

Wicknight wrote: »

I imagine the point was to be provocative. This was put up by a Freedom From Religion group after all

Similarly, if it was displayed here, I'd imagine it would be at the behest of Atheist Ireland, rather than the HAI.

Zombrex

Dades wrote: »

Similarly, if it was displayed here, I'd imagine it would be at the behest of Atheist Ireland, rather than the HAI.

?

Rev Hellfire

Dades wrote: »

Similarly, if it was displayed here, I'd imagine it would be at the behest of Atheist Ireland, rather than the HAI.

You should report yourself for trolling

Goduznt Xzst

Wicknight wrote: »

?

I think Dades is highlighting the only possible difference between HAI and Atheist Ireland

Personally, I find the sign boring and lacking humor. It conjures an image of cold and bitter Atheists scowling and waving their scrooge like fists at the happy american christians as they sit down to their second big turkey dinner this year. I understand the motive behind it, but it was poorly thought out and will do nothing but damage their future plans with this campaign.

The Mad Hatter

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

I think Dades is highlighting the only possible difference between HAI and Atheist Ireland

Personally, I find the sign boring and lacking humor. It conjures an image of cold and bitter Atheists scowling and waving their scrooge like fists at the happy american christians as they sit down to their second big turkey dinner this year. I understand the motive behind it, but it was poorly thought out and will do nothing but damage their future plans with this campaign.

Humbug!

pH

More reporting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiZxm1LD6Ww

lostexpectation

the point of the sign was to protest the use of religion in public buildings, the ffrf (should) have the law on their side.

ian doherty in the indo, said 'i bet they wouldn't put that sign at local mosque' (suggesting they would be afraid)

and no they wouldn't because that would be just being controversial for controversy's sake as its not a public building, putting such a sign at local mosque would be petty in comparison, putting it in the statehouse house, is considered protesting of the breach of church state separation.

think some people need assertiveness training.

pH

lostexpectation wrote: »

and no they wouldn't because that would be just being controversial for controversy's sake as its not a public building, putting such a sign at local mosque would be petty in comparison, putting it in the statehouse house, is considered protesting of the breach of church state separation.

No, but these people might:

Fred Phelps wants in with "Santa Claus will take you to Hell" sign.

Galvasean

pH wrote: »

No, but these people might:

Fred Phelps wants in with "Santa Claus will take you to Hell" sign.

See? This is what happens when everyone gets an equal say in things!

DKoala

I've always considered the Phelps family to be trolls. After being kicked from enough forums they went to the only place the banhammer couldnt find them: The Real World.
To this day they scour the globe looking for lulz.

That said, they are the epitome of the fundementalist christian. (And at that a perfect straw-man subject). As fun as it is to hate them for their derangement it's far better to ignore them and not give them the attention they strive for. Protesting at Obama's grandmother's funeral was their latest controversy I believe.

pH

3 anti-atheist signs added. A festivus pole, FSM and Fred Phelps under consideration.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/808991.html

Zombrex

Galvasean wrote: »

See? This is what happens when everyone gets an equal say in things!

Exactly. That is the whole point for freedom of/from religion. You can't (nor do most people want to) to everyone equal say in terms of the particular beliefs they believe in. The only fair way is to give no one say, to have public property free of religious iconography and message.

eoin5

Wicknight wrote: »

Exactly. That is the whole point for freedom of/from religion. You can't (nor do most people want to) to everyone equal say in terms of the particular beliefs they believe in. The only fair way is to give no one say, to have public property free of religious iconography and message.

I was just thinking that due to our religious past if were going to rid our public spaces of religious iconography should we not rid ourselves of state iconography since both are so intertwined

I'm not christian but its where my parents and my grandparents (etc) came from and the country to a large degree did too, surely if were going to erect memories from our past should we not be truthful about it?

Im not saying we should erect religious advertisments but I think we shouldnt ignore our religious past in what we remember in our public displays.

lostexpectation

in recent times the only religious past we've been allowed to have is roman catholic, we're not allowed to have any other religious past, thats an inaccurate reflection.


somebody made the point at the time of the hoohaa over the gardai turbans that Catholicism had been inserted into the gardai symbols.

pH

More Fox News on this ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9y17pyVzHhM

See pharyngula for commentary.

robindch

pH wrote: »

More Fox News on this

Quoth the bleached blonde, "I am absolutely abwhored that you are not upset at this!"

studiorat

Bill O'Reilly will be knocking the spirit of God into her...
I love those goofy bastards!

pH

Bill O'Reilly vs Megyn Kelly Part Deux ... AKA "YOU'RE WRONG BILL!!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZTotLErnhw

(I think I may be in love)

pH

Orson Scott Card rants about the sign (and atheists in general)
http://www.mormontimes.com/mormon_voices/orson_scott_card/?id=5572