Tis the season...deja vu anyone?

[Sir Dillon]

Greetings all!

I've been contemplating how I would begin participating in this forum since WendyBeth invited me...join a current discussion or start a new one?

Since so many threads have lengthy discussions...I figured it best to start a new one rather than jump in the middle of one.

So, here goes...

Today on my lunch break I was listening to pundit Lars Larson discussing essentially the first "hot topic" of the Christmas season...the atheist display next to the nativity scene and Christmas tree in the State Capitol of Olympia, Washington.

Having a business associate call in and foster the discussion, both agreed on the following shared opinions/arguments against the Governor allowing the atheists equal access and shared space the freedom to express their view on religion:

1. The atheist display = hate speech
2. By the Governor allowing the atheist display, it is tantamount to agents of the government supporting/proliferating a particular religious belief
3. And the atheist display is patently unconstitutional based on #2

Therefore, it should be removed.

After hearing this, I could not help but be utterly dumbfounded by this argued shared opinion.

First, "hate speech" is not defined or addressed by the Revised Code of Washington. Moreover, the 1st Amendment "freedom of speech" clause protects it (with the Supreme Court reinforcing this protection more than once).

Secondly, what was printed on the display hardly constitutes so-called "hate speech":

"There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens our hearts and enslaves our minds."

There is enough human history to sufficiently substantiate each expressed "opinion" within that statement. All one has to do is Google 'religious violence,' 'Biblical evil,' 'the Inquisition,' or even '9/11' to get an eye full of nothing short of violent words and images advocating the death of others who believe in a different religion, are gay, or served in the military during the 'war on terror' campaign(s).

I mean really, if Lars and his friend want to invoke the "hate speech" label; why not open up the Bible or Koran and practice what they preach? For there is plenty of "hate speech" within each religious text.

Last but not least, by stating that the Governor allowing this display is tantamount to the atheists being an agent of the government in proliferating a particular 'religous' belief - in violation of the spirit of 'Separation of Church and State' (not even a Constititional provision/protection)...is prima facie foolish and ridiculously absurd! For the very same argument could be made for the Governor allowing the Nativity and Christmas tree display. Talk about your special pleading fallacy...

It has truly amazed me over the past several years just how bad some religious believers can be at whining over opposing arguments. Contesting non-religious views - whether public or private - meanwhile professing they have the greater right to do that which they argue the opposition does not.

I'm sorry, but while the 1st Amendment gives everyone the right to practice their religion unfettered by Congress (i.e. under the law); it also indirectly gives the right of others not to be forced (i.e. under the law) to subscribe to a particular religious practice. As such, both sides have the "freedom of speech" and "expression" in announcing their respective opinions/arguments.

What's even more sad about this story is Bill O'Rielly, who I generally enjoy watching or listening to on the radio, bloviated a little too much on this story.

The underlining fact is that the atheist have just as much of a moral and legal right to place their display opposing religion as those who believe in religion do in displaying the Nativity scene (which is debated to have occurred during Easter, not Christmas) and the Christimas tree (which has far more roots in paganism than Christianity).

Anyhow...any and all comments/responses appreciated.

S.D.

[Alex]

If there was a Nativity there as well, wouldn't #2 apply as well?

I'm an atheist and I don't really care about Christmas displays on government property. Like it or not we are a predominantly Christian nation and so long as the same space is generally made avaialable to other groups who'd like a similar opportunity then I don't care.

That said, specifically targeting a Christmas display for a counter-display is a dick move as much as I agree with the sentiment.

[lashbear]

Maybe they should combine it all into one and call it a Naivety?

[wendybeth]

It's a dick move, but I can see why they might have done it. They had to the right to do it, and it's probably a counterpoint to all the religiously inspired political activism (let's rewrite the California constitution the way Jesus would want it!) that has been so very prevalent these days. A friendly little reminder that our intellectual diversity is not a crime, and their message falls far short of the 'hate crime' requirements.

Bill O'Reilly is a dick, so I fail to see why this bothers him. Even his pea brain should be able to grok the situation for what it really is- he's just trying to stir up controversy because people are becoming bored with his shtick.

[Not Afraid]

Maybe if they changed their sign a bit, it would be "ok":

"During this Holiday Season remember: There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens our hearts and enslaves our minds. Keep this in mind but have a happy holiday anyways - and remember, you don't need to have a mythology to buy presents. Go out there and help our ailing economy!

[Cadaverous Pallor]

<ruler of the world mode>

Images of any god should never posted at a governmental building.

Yet the nativity goes up, year after year.

Since it's bloody 2008 and we still have a religious symbol at a state capitol, and no amount of complaints or rational arguments have made a dent in the placement of a freaking idol at our houses of rule, action is warranted.

I dig this idea, as it hits this tradition where it needs to be hit. For my part, I have never complained about a nativity to any authority, because it's just another stupidity I've decided to endure quietly. I'm glad someone has got the balls to make the dick move that this country needs.


As an aside, looks like my city isn't posting their nativity this year. Interesting.

[Bornieo: Fully Loaded]

There are numbers, words and links in the OP. Can someone translate , I don't wanna read all that...

And what sick f**k names their kid Lars Larson...

That's what I wanna know...

[Betty]

He talks about respect yet repeatedly refers to other group as silly.

And the b.s. comment that we are granted freedom of religion and not freedom from religion is ridiculously implying that one MUST be of some sort of religion.

Bah.

I'm all for you believing whatever you want - as long as your ok with me doing the same.

[Strangler Lewis]

Is there anybody as needy as a conservative Christian at Christmas?

Technically, it's constitutional so long as the public space is open to all. However, I do believe the Court occasionally waxes eloquent about tradition, which is how congressional chaplains stay employed and God stays on our money.

That said, as I've said before, I think atheists going "me, too; me, too" at Christmas is also somewhat on the needy side and should be avoided.

[Ghoulish Delight]

If a public space is open to anyone putting what they want, then I have no problem with religious items being put there. If the religious display is brought in and funded by the government, then I have a problem.