I find myself muddled over this flap in Washington State that Bill O’Reilly is making much of.
Just in time for the Christmas season, the Governor of Washington State, Christine Gregoire, has insulted Christians all over the world. Inside the state capitol building in Olympia, there is a traditional holiday display featuring a tree and the Nativity scene — perfectly appropriate since the Christmas federal and state holiday celebrates the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem.
But this year, Governor Gregoire decided to add another item to the display. Standing alongside the baby Jesus is a giant placard designed by atheists that reads, “There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.”
You read that correctly. The governor of Washington State has permitted an attack on religion to be displayed in her office building as part of a Christmas presentation.
My “Secular” is at odds with my “Right” here. My “Right” is mostly winning the argument.
If I were Governor of Washington State (I’m assuming that the Governor is the sole decision-maker here, or at least the signer-off) I would not have allowed display of that placard in that place. The Christmas decorations are customary. Christians may take them as Christian; the rest of us take them as a cheery sign that an agreeable public holiday is coming up, trailing all sorts of happy connotations, childhood memories, permitted gluttony and tipsiness, auld acquaintance, etc., etc. Whatever, they are customary. I don’t like fooling around with customary stuff. I don’t much care for menorahs being included, for the same reason. I suppose the menorahs are half-way to being customary, too, by now; but if I could have nipped that in the bud, I would have. Not every decorative feature of a public place is there for someone to make a point about it. Some things are there because we’ve always put them there, and we like the continuity and stability of seeing them there year after year.
The placard, if O’Reilly has transcribed it correctly, is anyway tendentious. “Hardens hearts and enslaves minds”? That’s an unproven assertion. My own opinion of what religion does to hearts and minds is the same as our Mr. Hume’s (from whom, in fact, I first heard it): it’s an intensifier, a “dispersive factor” flattening out the bell curve, with the overall tendency to make good people better and bad people worse, net-net effect probably zero. That’s likewise unproven, though, and if I were in charge of a government building, I would not allow it to be displayed on a placard in the lobby.
Obviously, since I’m blogging here, I don’t believe in the assertions made by the Christian religion, nor in those made by any other religion I’m acquainted with. I agree with the first two sentences on the O’Reilly-offending placard. I love Christmas, though; I’m fond of customary practices; and customary practices aside, I think public places should be left to public business, and not used as arenas for metaphysical argument. We have newspapers and magazines for that. And blogs.
I’m not sure I’ve really thought this through, though, and will be attentive to different points of view, quite possibly to the point of changing my mind.
So? Conservatism is about perpetuating what is best in tradition and heritage, not repeating the status quo without judgment or evaluation. The mere fact that something is familiar is not a reason to preserve it.
Neither the placard nor the display had any business in a hall of government, and both should be removed.
I’m about as agnostic as a person can get, but this story is incredibly aggravating. As much as I don’t care for religion, I love Christmas. I love the traditions, the ceremonies, and the decorations. This atheist placard business is just mean and disrespectful. There is a time and place for everything, and this was not the time nor the place.
I know many good religious people whose hearts are not hardened and whose minds are not enslaved.
This is very similar to (and just as stupid as) when Sean Hannity tries to say that atheism breeds genocide by citing Stalin and Pol Pot.
Agree entirely with JD and JF. Unless the underlying facts are different from what have been represented, you have to think this sort of nonsense will cost the secularist cause dearly in good will.
If all that were included were the secular symbols of Xmas and Hanukkah, the tree (sans angels), presents, Santa and Rudolf, dreidels etc., then I would agree with your leanings.
But once you put in religous material, depictions of dieties and miracles, such as Nativities and Menorah, etc., then I believe that you have to open it up to other religious expressions, as well. (Although personally, I would have left off the last sentence on the placard.)
Grant has a strong point. The Christmas tree, the lights, the heaps of presents, are not (so far as I can recall) mentioned in the Gospels.
And yet … I’d miss the baby Jesus, the shepherds and wise men and angels.
Do we have to thrash everything to death with intellection? Can’t we just enjoy some sentimental custom, however worn out the metaphysical content of the symbols may be? The Christmas tree, after all, is something to do with pagan religion, isn’t it? So strictly speaking, that will have to go too.
I guess I’m just nostalgic for the England of my childhood, when these symbols, stories, hymns, prayers, and cant expressions (God bless us!) were common fare, but nobody was expected to believe anything much, or mind if another person did, or didn’t.
That England is comprehensively gone, though. I’m stuck here in a world full of lawyers and intellectuals chopping every damn thing up into pieces a millimeter cube, and scrutinizing the pieces for purity and logical consistency. God damn them all!
Andrew [Stuttaford]: If you want to have a drink any time, drop me a line.
Just so.
I also like seeing things like statutes of Justice, blindfolded and holding up scales. Are all iconic images to be put in the closet? What a boring public place that would make for.
Can’t we just enjoy some sentimental custom, however worn out the metaphysical content of the symbols may be? The Christmas tree, after all, is something to do with pagan religion, isn’t it? So strictly speaking, that will have to go too. You can enjoy the sentiment and the customs all you like – as long as you don’t expect the government to endorse and subsidize them.
I suspect there will be enough demand to motivate businesses and private individuals to pick up the slack of holiday cheer, just as I suspect that religion in America would somehow – against all odds – survive even if we removed “In God We Trust” from the money.
Is a little intellectual consistency really so much to ask?
The governor was in a corner, in that the rules mandate equal opportunity. Does she really want to be in the center of court case and a nasty cultural fight that she could well lose? She does have a state to govern, after all.
The secular group, IMO, is the one who blew it. Instead of a cringe-inducing rant, they could have put up a display of the solar system showing the solstice and its cultural import. Lord knows kids of all ages are fascinated with astronomical science. By doing that, or something like that, they would have made their point without falling into the tiresome role of the tub-thumping, atheist grinch.
This stuff pisses me off too. First of all, it makes atheists look like sissies and idiots: attacking religion by putting ridiculous placards next to Baby Jesus dioramas? Or putting moronic signs on busses? It just opens atheists, as a whole unfortunately, up to both ridicule and scorn. And it accomplishes nothing.
Also, why are atheists even competing with Christians? It seems like they’re proselytizing and that kind of bothers me. Maybe next Atheists should go door to door, handing out copies of Origin of the Species?
I agree, this damages good will to the Secular cause. It offends atheists who don’t go for this nonsense and it offends the Bill O’Reilly camp who will just dig their heels in more and heap even more scorn on atheists. If Atheists represented ~50% of the population in the country, that might be one thing, but a group that consists of maybe 5% of the total population doesn’t exactly have a lot of muscle to show, and putting signs on buses doesn’t really tip the “wow” factor for me.
Intellectual discussion is great. There’s been a lot of heady chatter from both sides of the equation these days and that’s good. But, antagonizing those who don’t do well with “discussions” (a la Bill O’Reilly, who ironically graduated from the same Catholic High School that I graduated from, along with Glenn Hughes of the Village People) doesn’t do much except put a small minority group in a big groups cross hairs.
I’m not saying that reindeer-Frosty-snowflake displays are a bad solution for a government space, although my personal opinion is that angels, Wise Men and many other specifically Christian references, including creches, by now have been incorporated comfortably into the secular version of the holiday. That doesn’t make adding an explicitly proselytizing counter-placard a good idea.
I know, I know, in legalistic ACLU-land values such as formal equality among creeds are supposed to be placed above other values, such as getting along well with our neighbors. Were in Gov. Gregoire’s office, however, and worried about a legal challenge, I might have suggested inviting the atheists to come back in January for their equal time when they could erect some wordless symbolic display (I assume the objected-to creche was wordless) that would be as agreeable and inoffensive for most Christians to behold as the sight of angels’ robes and shepherd figurines is for most nonbelievers in Christianity.
Ugh, what a horrible secular foot to have put forward! What ninny (or committee of ninnies) decided that placard was what was needed? Here’s an alternative version for consideration.
“What makes this time truly special? That the days are short, the nights long, our land cold, and our need for our fellow people that much stronger. With awe, without worship, we celebrate the wonderful consequences of the tilted whirl of our world.”
“…these symbols, stories, hymns, prayers, and cant expressions (God bless us!) were common fare, but nobody was expected to believe anything much, or mind if another person did, or didn’t.”
This may be the most perfect expression of the Anglican mentality that I have ever read. (You may take that however you’d like.)
I’m with Grant. The difference in opinion here may just be due to what people think of as being customary, though. To my mind, a Christmas tree is secular. If someone displays a tree, I don’t regard it as a statement of a religious belief. I feel similarly about menorahs, as well as most other Jewish symbols (I’ve met too many irreligious people who still identify as culturally Jewish and who still enjoy the trappings of Judaism, myself included). But I have a hard time imagining a non-Christian going out and getting a Nativity diorama for his lawn (I guess Bradlaugh may well have done this, though).
The key distinction between the Christmas tree and the baby Jesus has nothing to do with their histories (as you say, both are religious in origin and have historically been part of religious celebrations), but about their meanings. It’s the distinction that makes Christ the Redeemer a secular landmark worthy of the Brazilian government’s protection while forbidding the placement of the Ten Commandments outside of courthouses. It’s about what people think when they see them, and it seems to me that it’s hard to look at a display of the baby Jesus without thinking that it’s meant to emphasize the religious aspects of Christmas. Now, if secular entities displayed baby Jesuses (Jesi?) for the next few decades, over my objections, they’d likely lose their religious meaning over time. But right now they’ve got it, as far as I’m concerned, and I think as far as most Americans are concerned.
These numbnuts are just bound and determined to sterilize the world and leave it void of any kind of happiness, peace, or contentment that isn’t shared equally by all peoples across the country. What a bunch of losers. They want everybody to share their values and agree with them on everything, and the first step towards doing that is removing from the public square any place for any kind of philosophy that might at some point be at odds with their precious views on various topics. Nobody gives a shit about what atheists feel about Christmas. That’s just the facts. Think about it. When you walk by a Christmas display, if you’re an atheist, you will probably think, “what a load of crap”, but if you’re a well-rounded individual, you’ll probably let it go at that. If you’re a Christian, you might think a lot of things, but I promise you are not going to be thinking “I wonder what the atheists think about this” unless you’ve just read or heard about such a controversy and its fresh on your mind. All atheists do by pushing this crap is turn more people against them who ordinarily wouldn’t give them that much thought, if any. They sure as hell ain’t winning friends and influencing people.
Realistically though, for an atheist, shouldn’t Jesus represent just as much of a silly myth as say, Santa Claus? Sure, I won’t put a Nativity Scene on my lawn (I wouldn’t put an Atheist sign on my lawn either 😛 ) but I also wouldn’t display a menorah or any religious symbol, not because I’d find it offensive, but because it would look bizarre. If I were a Christian I wouldn’t put up a menorah either.
I love the Christmas Season. I try to ignore the annoyingly commercial aspect (not watching TV at all helps) but I enjoy the festivity and I like putting up a tree and making a holiday dinner with my wife and dressing the cats up in their little intricate Christmas Costumes (this year, we’re dressing up our 6 cats as Jesus, Mary, Joseph and the 3 wise men) and all the other things that go along with it. It seems like a cultural holiday to me that also has some Religious things that sorta go along with it.
The signs on the buses are just embarrassing though. When asked, I just tell people, “no, not an atheist, I’m a nihilist.”
Here’s a picture and story about the sign, except it was in Wisconsin a few years ago.
http://badgerherald.com/news/2006/12/04/contentious_sign_gar.php
This seems pretty cut and dry to me and unlike the rest of you gents, my secular wide won. ( full disclosure: I’m more of a right libertarian than true conservative )
I believe the legal standard is that if the government allows a religious group to place a religious message, then they must allow other sects / viewpoints as well. Christmas trees, Santa, lights are all, IMHO, perfectly acceptable secular holiday decorations.
But if the government only allows one set of religious icons ( yes, baby Jesus, no not the statue of Justice ), that’s promoting a specific religion. Even the references to god on our money and in the pledge are promoting religion. I was disappointed that the Supreme Court virtually invented a technical reason to overturn the lawsuit regarding that issue.
I can agree it might be nice if it was more tactfully worded. OTOH, I can see the value of showing people what it’s like to have differing beliefs publicly paraded about – you know, as if it was ok to believe them.
Caledonian identifies the crucial issue, which is government support of religious displays. No one is saying that individuals cannot put up religious displays. No one is saying that private businesses cannot put up religious displays. However, I would think that conservatives, especially secular conservatives, would be extremely wary of government supporting one type of speech over another. The government should not be picking sides here — either allow any religion-relevant display (including ones against religion), or get out of the business of religious displays altogether, and leave that to private individuals and concerns. Does such a principle really do violence to the Christian holiday?
(On a peripheral note, I would counter (or rather augment) the author’s complaint about the placard by pointing out that the central fact of the nativity scene [a virgin birth] is also an unproven assertion, to put it mildly.)
If I were governor, I’d have a place in various major public squares/areas that reserved spaces for each of the major religions and for atheists. They could do nothing with their spaces, or set up displays for their own special holidays, erect placards, whatever.
A spiritual trade show, I suppose.
That way, everyone gets freedom of expression year-round, no one gets favored status from the government, and there’s no room left to fuss (or grandstand for viewers) over stuff like this.
Realistically, Christmas has become (and was originally designed to be) our society’s winter celebration. It is utterly devoid of religious significance unless you put it there for yourself. As such, I have no problem with the displays of alternate symbols of the season.
Let’s face it, though, the display they actually chose was wholly inappropriate. The sentiment belongs on a bumper sticker or a billboard, not a celebratory state sanctioned display. It’s a pity the FFRF couldn’t have seen that.
And if the capitol building did not have a Nativity scene, you might be right about the whole “utterly devoid of religious significance” approach, and thus rightly chastise the atheists. However, given that there was indeed a Christian display there (and a menorah as well), I’d question whether a statement of an alternative view on religious belief was somehow inappropriate.
I love Christmas, though; I’m fond of customary practices
With that said, Merry Christmas, Mr. Derbyshire.
I didn’t say any message supporting atheism would be inappropriate; I said that the one they ultimately used was. It was a sledgehammer used in a situation where a scalpel was called for.
A portrayal of Jesus being attended by angels and foreign ambassadors isn’t just a “customary” seasonal display, it’s a promotion of the Christian religion, plain and simple. If there’s going to be a promotion of Christianity in a government-provided space, there has to be room for promotion of alternatives.
But I do think a different kind of secular display would have been more appropriate. None of the religious displays, to the best of my knowledge, demean other points of view. A secular display could have, for example, presented portraits of Robert Ingersoll and Albert Einstein with quotes indicating their views that belief in a deity is not necessary to a good life. The point of the displays should be good will, not debate.
I’m with Grant Canyon and (what seems to be) the majority sentiment of the posters here: The last sentence was needlessly antagonistic. All is serves to do is bristle up the RR, and give a bad name to secularists.
I share Bradlaugh and Hume’s view of religion as an “intensifier” (and I heard it first from the two of them). I also find plausible the evo. psych. view that religious thinking is “natural”, and something we’re basically hard-wired with. (As per Scott Atran and Pascal Boyer’s “by-product” stance). From that viewpoint, a religion of some kind will always be with us, so we non-believers may as well get used to it.
Think about how we’d react if, instead of a manger scene, various not-so-friendly bits of Deuteronomy or whatever (the stuff condemning non-believers to fire and brimstone, etc.) were cited chapter and verse and boldly displayed. It would be a bit much. But that’s our belief system!…the Christians might scream. Well yes, but you’ve been rather intemperate about it.
That’s what the placard was like to them.
Perhaps, but are you arguing that on the basis of personal taste they should not have been allowed to put it up? Do you want the government making those kind of determinations, intruding to that degree on free speech?
I am honestly confused by the arguments offered here. While I will gladly grant that Christmas is a tradition for the majority of Americans, and one worthy of defense, I think it is silly to argue that religious displays in state capitols are themselves somehow an essential part of the holiday, or (even sillier) that challenging such displays with a small placard of atheist messaging is a fundamental undermining of the holiday.
Gary Mcgrath said:
If there’s going to be a promotion of Christianity in a government-provided space, there has to be room for promotion of alternatives.
This is the part that I don’t get. Why do Atheists need to promote anything? I don’t believe in God. That’s where it begins and ends in my mind. There’s no further desire to get other people to not believe. I don’t NOT believe and pressure others to do the same. I just…don’t believe. There is no need for a promotion or a display.
And if there truly were a need for such secular displays, the least they could do was come up with something that didn’t make Christians feel like crap.
I’d rather see a thriving, equal access, public square than an empty one.
I happen to love Christmas lights and decorations, including Christmas symbols, but I’m not terribly sympathetic to the religious (or apparently even atheist) furor over signage. Wistfulness for Christmas Past, however, kind of comes with the territory.
foley: “This atheist placard business is just mean and disrespectful.”
We’ve seen where trying to banish disrespect for religion goes, haven’t we? I’m not sure we want to add tacky to the list of offenses. I’m for just expecting folks to scroll on by.
What Mr. Foley said. I have no desire to convert the religious to being non-religious. I don’t care if others believe or not. It’s none of my business.
Atheist placards in a Christmas display seem to be in very bad taste.
I love Christmas. The whole idea is charming.
I believe O’Reilly once took umbrage at the push to eliminate “Merry Christmas” from the list of accepted seasonal greetings. When that proved a real attention grabber, he probably just pulled out his perpetual calendar and inked in “Christmas Outrage.”
We’ve seen where trying to banish disrespect for religion goes, haven’t we?
No one is advocating a ban on any sign. We’re saying the people behind this particular sign are acting like petty jerks. They got their display space and used it to assault the other groups. Thus they confirmed in a lot of people’s minds every trite stereotype about atheists being joyless cranks.
Can anyone who launches this sort of verbal assault in the middle of a holiday season seriously complain about the “hardening of hearts”?
And if this story wasn’t goofy enough, the sign was stolen…
http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/12/05/atheists.christmas/index.html
Polichinello:
Well, we think this whole controversy is unfortunately overwrought all around. When it comes to being defined by the loudest voices amongst you, however, you’re certainly not alone.
John Foley:
O’Reilly’s OK. He’s good-natured and tolerant (which count); his tendency to pomposity is just natural to one with such a high opinion of his own intellect not offset with some appreciation of the extent of what he knows nothing about. Sean Hannity’s somewhat similar and, though I think favorably of him on a personal basis, he’s a “one-trick pony” with a pronounced tendency toward stridency and a tendency (extremely common on the left–a matter of general practice) to gloss over or omit entirely material facts bearing against his argument du jour. Moreover, both (more promounced on O’Reilly’s part) limited comprehension of Economics.
That aside, I would agree that there is a close connection between atheism and impulses toward both totalitarianism and genocide. Not at all the connection Hannity thinks he sees but a connection nonetheless.
Coincidentally, I was prompted to explain the connection (or, at least, my “take” on the matter) in extension of a post by Ms. MacDonald (earlier today) but, at some point of “putting it up,” realized that I was out of available time and only half-way through the available amount of topic, and, accordingly, “wiped” what I’d thus far written.
But it’s an important matter, worthy of far better understanding, especially by atheists (like myself) who are primarily anti-collectivist. And, since it’s a subject that’ll fit well with many topics discussed here, I’ll try to do it in the near future.
At its heart, my thesis is that anger with various aspects of the status quo necessarily fixates on its elements of preservation: tradition, religion, social hierarchy, economic relationships, etc. Thus emerges a tendency to view each of these as an obstacle to the realization of a better world. The complete theory fully explains also the oft-remarked tendency for failing collectives to blame “enemies” (foreign), saboteurs (domestic), and even the “insatiably greedy” (neighbors asking higher prices than one “ought” to have to pay), etc.
It’s nonsense like this which makes me want to beat atheists over the head with a kitchen chair.
And I’m an atheist.
Maybe I should just beat THESE atheists over the head with a kitchen chair… bloody killjoys.
And as for this sentiment:
[quote][i]You can enjoy the sentiment and the customs all you like – as long as you don’t expect the government to endorse and subsidize them[/i][/quote]
Government of all stripes manages to waste public funds on projects which have far less community value than a Christmas display, which brings a feeling of holiday spirit to all but the most manger-bound dogs. Let the killjoys and pecksniffs find more worthy targets for their accursed budgetary efficiencies.
Good grief. I can’t believe I’m supporting Christians — but that only goes to show how much preferable their inoffensive Christmas displays and such are, over the grim and joyless world of the politically-correct.
“That aside, I would agree that there is a close connection between atheism and impulses toward both totalitarianism and genocide…
At its heart, my thesis is that anger with various aspects of the status quo necessarily fixates on its elements of preservation:…”
And how does that relate to atheism?? Of the 4 genocide events that I can think of, viz., Armenia, the Holocaust, Khmer Rouge, and Rwanda, not one could be categorized as being caused by, or exacerbated by, atheism. Nor, for that matter, is there any strong connection between atheism and totalitarianism. While there’ve been totalitarian atheists, there were religous totalitarians, as well.
There is also a close connection between religion and genocide, starting with the Biblical destruction of the Canaanites, with stops along the way for various Christian pogroms against the Jews in Medieval Europe and the destruction of various native North American peoples by the Catholic Conquistadors, rounding up with the apocalyptic anti-Semitism of the theocracies of the Middle East.
Here’s the thing about it. All religions have their own particular holidays, and they should be respected up to a point. There is no need to have every religion in the world put up a “me too” sign during arguably the most important Christian holiday. Every religion with a particular day set aside as a holiday should be able to publicly display something appropriate to their beliefs, and atheists should do the same. Community standards come into play here as well. Why should a community that is nothing but Christian with maybe a smattering of atheists have to put up with Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc. displays? It doesn’t make sense. Moreover, again, it isn’t doing those minority faiths any good in the eyes of the general public, it’s only turning people against them. Political correctness has all but castrated this country.
I’m all for equal access to the public forum, I just think we should use a little more tact in what we say there. When I saw this sign I shuddered. The people who put it there don’t speak for me, and I suspect they don’t speak for the majority of the unbelieving community. But they’re the ones who make all the noise, so we’re all characterized by them. Makes me want to duck back into the closet for a while.
@Gaylord Perry
Dressing up cats sounds cute … and it could be the basis for a religion.
I’m just putting a Santa Hat on my golden calf.
Lots of good arguments here. One that I haven’t seen is that aggressive denial/confrontation with organized religion is a past time in parts of the North West. If you are going to have respect for tradition as part of your conservatism, you’re going to have to negotiate traditions that are diametrically apposed to those you’d find in Alabama. It might not have been subtle but it certainly was regional. Gregoire would have committed political suicide by doing anything other than she did.
Neither of these has any business in the capitol building, although I do note that at least one other religion was represented. Didn’t you all see the portrait of the invisible pink unicorn next to the nativity scene?
Christmas displays being ‘customary’ or ‘cheery’ is worse than irrelevant when deciding whether to allow them in the government. It Insults those who didn’t have their holiday represented by implying they weren’t good enough. This can be true even if they didn’t want their holiday paraded around in the capitol. For that matter, I’ll be putting up a christmas tree soon (emphasis on the lowercase), but I don’t want to see one in the capitol. This proves just as strongly as affirmative action that enforced equal representation is not the path to justice. Take them both down with as little fanfare as possible and get back to wasting our money on something else we don’t want.
Well, I don’t like the sign much, but I would have allowed them to put it up – freedom of speech is more important to me than people’s sensibilities.
I think part of the question is who put up the displays, and who payed for them? If it was the Governor on my dime, I don’t approve. If it was a private individual exercising their free speech, does free speech include going into the capitol building and dropping off your stuff and leaving? Would it then be free speech for someone else to go deface or remove it, or would you call that a hate crime?
I’m really having trouble with this. Tulse at 12:17 has appealing logic:
Loathing of government and all its works (and especially of all its expenditures) is a pretty good resting place for conservatives. I’m still thinking nostalgically of Bill Buckley, who in his last years still spoke with affection of Albert Jay Nock, his first mentor, author of Our Enemy, The State. Perhaps we should not have any public buildings — make the buggers work out of their own homes, as I do, just give them a tax break or something.
Christmas, at any rate, puts me in Duke of Norfolk (the Third) mode: “It was merry in England before this New Learning came up. I would have all things as they were in times past.”
All right, that’s reactionary, not conservative. Anybody up for a spinoff site: “Secular Reactionaries”?
[The Duke was speaking in the mid-16th century. That “New Learning” he deplored was the preposterous idea that gentlemen of quality should be expected to know reading and writing. “I have never read my Scriptures nor ever will …”]
Grant, Tulse:
Sorry:
My thesis will have to wait for explication, as noted above; there’s not even yet a straw man at whom to hack.
In no way do I argue that religions may not be a source of bellicosity or that the religiously bellicose aren’t often savage. I could say that you’re missing the point but that, itself, would be pointless, since I haven’t yet made it.
@Bradlaugh
how is asking the government not to promote a religion ‘Loathing of government and all its works’? We are just loathing a particular work that government isn’t even supposed to be working by asking them not to work it.
The atheists had every right to put up a sign, and they should have put up one like this:
“We, the atheists of America, would like to take the opportunity to wish a Merry Christmas to our fellow Americans.”
TrueNorth-
EXACTLY! Very well said.
With all of these things, I’ve never understood why the standard can’t be something along the lines of requiring the statements (written or symbolic) to be a positive statement about one’s own beliefs rather than a negative one about someone else’s.
The atheists should be free to put something like “Peace on Earth, good will to all. From your local atheists”
Simlarly, positive Christian messages are okay, but “God will send you to hell if you don’t believe” and such aren’t.
Not only is it basic courtesy, but it is also good social policy. Saying that public spaces must be available to all is not the same as saying that the government must sponsor negative tones.