Well it turns out that today's story of an athiest statement of coequal political status sheds a needed light on that debate - in this month when we celebrate the birth of Christ.
As MSNBC reports, authorities in Washington State allowed an atheist sign to be displayed opposite a traditional Christian Nativity scene at the Capitol Building in Olympia. The athiest statement included this passage:
There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds ...Such blatant hostility to traditional American values apparently angered the state's residents, who have been flooding the governor's office with more than 200 calls an hour, and that's not to mention an apparent avalanche of e-mails as well.
It turns out, in any case, that this display of militant atheism, which was sponsored by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, was too much even for Paul at the well-known far-left blog, Shakesville, where he comments on the athiest group's surprise at the backlash:
Oh, puh-LEEZE. You can't for a second tell me that you were expecting any other reaction when you put this sign up. As I've documented far too many times, there are people out there whipped into a frenzy over the manufactured "War on Christmas" that are dying to find examples that it's really happening. And I've got a little news for you, radical athiests: When you do stuff like this, it appears as if it does exist, and you're not helping ....Never mind the incongruity between Paul principled outrage and his crass vulgarity (common to leftists, of faith or otherwise, apparently).
You know something? I seriously f***ing doubt that there was anything on the Nativity scene explicity stating anything about non-believers going to hell. Symbolically? Well, that's arguable. But to say that there was an explicit message is disingenuous, it insults the atheists that can tell the godd****d difference between an expression of celebration of a religious holiday and an attack on themselves or atheism itself, and it's just f***ing annoying. (This is, of course, completely separate from atheists - not to mention religious people, for that matter - who object to religious displays in public spaces for constitutional reasons. There's a difference between that and "You hurt my feelings!") Besides, if you're an atheist, why the f**k are you worried about anyone saying you're going to hell it the first place? You don't believe in hell, remember? "I guess they don't follow their own commandments." Oh, shut the f**k up. You wanted this. You were hoping they would do this so you could use that stupid line.
But what's interesting is not only that Paul's correct (and it's rare that I agree with the lefties), but that his comments have pissed off Brian at Incertus, who would normally be allied with Shakesville on the usual range of all-encompassing anti-conservative derangement. Incertus' post is entitled, "Controversial? Why?":
Dear Paul ... you're not only wrong, but you managed to be more offensive than I ever imagined you capable of being while doing it. Please take your self-righteousness and false equivalencies, fold them up until they have four or five very pointy ends, and insert them in the most uncomfortable place you can imagine.Well, no, Paul is not wrong. There are no "false equivalencies" here: The Freedom From Religion Foundation sucks, frankly.
It's a pretty good indication that when folks up in Washington, a "blue state" if there ever was one, get upset with extremist displays of atheist nihilism, such anti-religionism is obviously way beyond the pale
It's one thing to tolerate diversity of opinion. But when such views themselves become so oppositional as to be inherently hostile toward folks of otherwise good-faith and acceptance of difference in opinion - and this during a time of year when people are reaching out to join hands in callling for peace on earth - then it's obvious something's really out of whack here.
I've already identfied Incertus for its extreme anti-capitalist political agenda. Now with the author's variation on the Marxist attack on religion as the "opiate of the masses," it's clear that this particular blog's neo-Stalinist agenda is truly hegemonic in its anti-American project.
15 comments:
I think God is big enough to handle it, if he exists.
Hey this is Christmas after all.
It's about peace and love and happiness... things religions aren't good at.
As an atheist who celebrates Christmas...
I think the nativity is a nice, symbolic image of re-birth and community. I think the pagan celebration of the return of the sunlight is noble. I think Jewish celebrations like Hanukkah have just the same legitimacy as well. No problem here. Just because I don't celebrate the metaphysical aspects doesn't mean I don't get the gestures and meanings. It's all about goodwill. I think the two bloggers that Donald points out are churlish, a trait of most bloggers I find.
Grace, not sure exactly what you are trying to say here. Anyone who espouses atheism in America is treated pretty poorly. We have a religous caste system here, the devout are deemed the most worthy (i.e. they can run for president), the atheists, scum of the earth. Now I know some atheists probably deserve their place due to intolerance, but that's besides the point here.
Grace, what you suggest is nothing short of religious fascism. Our founding fathers made sure that what you suggest would never happen. For good reason.
Atheism is actually a poor term, as some have described. It puts you in opposition to the ridiculous. For example, I would never call myself an aracist or abigot. I would never call myself an azeusist, ajewist, amormonist...
So, I've limited the use of the word in regards to myself and would urge others to investigate other terms. Nothing wrong a term like humanist, no matter what a right wing religious autocrat would tell you. Same thing with secularism. It's very easy to paint us as the bad guys, simply because we don't believe in fairies, Santa Claus, or the pearly gates.
I'd like to correct you on something--again. It seems this is becoming a habit. I am not anti-capitalist, and I never have been, your blathering notwithstanding. I am, however, in favor of a well-regulated capitalism, with a strong social welfare program. I'm a fan of Bernie Sanders, in other words. If in your limited worldview that makes me a neo-Stalinist or anti-capitalist, I suppose I can't stop you from being either wrong or stupid, but I would like the record to show that I am neither.
P.S. I'm an atheist who celebrates Christmas, largely because Christmas as it exists today is a commercial holiday, not a religious one. How does that square with my anti-capitalism, I wonder? Also, atheism and nihilism aren't related. I'm still able to find the transcendent in the universe without depending on a personal God to lead me to it. I believe in lots of things--I just don't see positive evidence for the existence of a personal god.
I'd love to see that group try the same thing in the South. They'd probably take the sign out for target practice, at least until Obama takes their guns away...
Brian: Save your ideological confusing for the nihilist choir.
If you're for Bernie Sanders, by definition you're not for capitalism.
I'm not so bothered by this because it legally treats Atheism as another religion, which is what it is, and when it is considered simply another religion it has the same rights and the same legal limitations as all other religions do.
As far as Religions spreading sorrow and misery I need only point out such famous Atheists as Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot etc.
Thanks Shoprat.
"As far as Religions spreading sorrow and misery I need only point out such famous Atheists as Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot etc. "
Let me quote Richard Dawkins:
"Hitler and Stalin both had mustache also, did their mustaches make them evil?"
shoprat, I dont' want to ruin santa-claus comin' down your chimney and all, but Hitler was raised in a "Christian" home.
anon ...
Strain strain strain ... strain those gnats
Then fling 'em out like monkey poo from wherever you're at
As you swallow camels of destruction 'till your belly's fat ...
Strain strain strain ... strain those gnats
While it is debatable whether Hitler was a true atheist, the others on that list racked up a far higher butcher's bill than any Christian Crusade I know of.
Just make sure you keep those who would blame war on religion honest too, with at least an equal effort as you have made here to keep us honest.
If you're for Bernie Sanders, by definition you're not for capitalism.
No, I'm just not for stupid capitalism. There is a difference.
To Rich, and the rest of the Christians...who use the same tired argument as if it is relevant at all.
Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, whoever...the underlying basis for their murderous ways was political. They killed to justify their political beliefs, not to placate their god. Their ends justified their means, which meant millions of people of faith were slaughtered. You could argue that their political system was their god, but no one kills out of atheism.
And yes, the other tired argument of atheism as just another religion is weak. Please see my previous comment. For example, I don't pray to a non-god, I don't go to a church or give money, I don't proselytize either. It simply is what it is. It's like saying that because I don't play the same video game that you play, I must be playing another video game.
I may just not play video games.
Howdy folk,
As far as the wording of the Constitution goes – freedom “of” religion is correct – however, the deeper meaning of freedom “from” religion is what really counts.
I’m sure that each religion appreciates being free FROM the encroachment of other religions upon their personal practices. Baptists and Methodists, etc. appreciate protection FROM having their tithing sent to Rome to support the Pope, etc.
Atheists just want one more freedom FROM religion than those of any given other religion – freedom FROM every religion.
I believe that the basic issue with the sign from the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) in the state of Washington is the same issue that created the original wording of a similar sign placed in the capital building for the state of Wisconsin – namely the religious entanglement of church and state.
One would think that with all of the tax-exempt church property all over the place – that there would be plenty of opportunity for religious folk to place “nativity scenes” on private property. The issue is when a “nativity scene” finds placement on public property that the entanglement of church and state ensues. The FFRF would never place one of their signs on a private “nativity scene” on private property.
I fully support what the FFRF is doing with their efforts in breaking up a large number of entanglements between church and state. I am proud to be an Assertive Atheist doing my part in confronting the over zealousness and audacity exhibited by many Theists that believe they have the Right to encroach upon the Public sector – with out and out Propaganda. Although to date, both Theists and Atheists tend to take a provincial view that the contest between Atheism and Theism has only been around for a few thousand years – the truth is that this contest has been going on for better than 2.9 Million years.
Recently, Assertive Atheists finally speak up and place this contest in the larger human picture.
On my new Website of www.assertiveatheistmoments.com I present a different orientation as to what the Epistemology of Atheism covers. The focus is on Symbols and Symbolic Form (ala Cassirer) combined with Symbolic Anthropology (ala Geertz). Roughly, the orientation is that during the evolution from proto-Homo Sapiens to Homo Sapiens, commencing 3 million years ago, the physical brain size and brain mass increased three-fold, due to the use of Symbols and Tools. During this 3 Million year evolutionary process, the Symbols for Atheism and the Symbols for Theism have also evolved.
With the written word being around for no longer than 100,000 years, there is a 2.9 Million period during which we know very little about the evolution of the Symbols of Atheism and the Symbols of Theism. It is during this 2.9 Million year period that the origins of the Symbols of Atheism and the Symbols of Theism begin. Although we know little, we can apply Cassirer’s orientations to Symbols and Symbolic Form to learn and Know more.
This places a totally different take on the notion of Assertive Atheism.
Bob
Bob: This comment of yours is a little disturbing to me: "One would think that with all of the tax-exempt church property all over the place – that there would be plenty of opportunity for religious folk to place “nativity scenes” on private property."
The Constitution guarantees our right not only to religion, but also includes the right to free speech (expression) and the right to assemble. It sounds like you're in favor of having "Theists" gather in private -- in hiding? -- and out of public view, as if we were doing something perverted. We should no longer be allowed to have groups sing and perform at festivals and parades? We have to always hold them indoors, away from the eye of the public? That's scary ...
I also take issue with your interpretation of the "freedom of religion." It is not a matter of one religious group forcing its beliefs upon me. It is, rather, a matter of the GOVERNMENT telling how citizens must believe. Unlike in Europe's past, I do not have to be of the same religion as the king. I can practice what I want ... or not at all.
I cannot recall who likened society to a public square: the square can be either open, closed, or naked. "Open" to all thoughts (i.e. religions), "closed" to all but one, or "naked" -- allowing none.
The open square is, of course, the ideal -- allowing everyone the freedom to exercise their beliefs. The closed public square leads towards oppression, in that it allows freedom only to a certain, select portion of the population.
But, the bare or naked public square is the most dangerous to a free society, because then EVERYONE'S rights are denied.
Hi KMacGinn,
I can certainly understand your concern – however – I was addressing the issue of “nativity scenes” on tax-exempt private property without going in to detail about a number of issues that I did not go into in my original post.
I believe that originally the state of Washington made an error of entangling church and state issues by allowing the “nativity scene” display to appear in the public space. The FFRF originally appealed to the state of Washington to cease the entanglement of church and state – and when the state of Washington refused to cease the entanglement – the FFRF insisted that their sign receive equal display.
The right of Free Speech and the right of Free Assembly are issues that I also support. Free Speech uses Symbols and Symbolic Form and Free Assembly is an action of folk assembling somewhere – at a place, at a time, with time having a defined start and a defined end.
However, a “nativity scene” uses Symbols and Symbolic form to convey a Propaganda message (from the perspective of this Atheist) and is a tad different from Free Speech or Free Assembly when displayed in a public area 24:7.
I am concerned with not only your definitions and examples of the “public square” but with your mingling of these definitions and examples with the Constitutional First Amendment rights of Free Speech and Free Assembly.
The proper course for the State of Washington would have been that of refraining from the entanglement of church and state by allowing the display of a “nativity scene” on public property. Since the state of Washington refused to refrain from the entanglement of church and state, we now have the consequences steaming from this failure to refrain.
And by the by, tax-exempt status for private church property is granted in part to promote the religious perspectives of said church. I would think that a “nativity scene” would be a religious perspective. No Atheist would have objection to this religious display on private property. Only when the religious perspective finds fostering on the public, at public expense, on public property, does one find Atheist objection.
And by the by, I believe that my example of Freedom FROM Religion in my original post, stands as valid.
Feel free to stop by the www.assertiveatheistmoments.com site – and maybe even Blog there too. The site address issues of Symbols, Symbolic Form, Epistemology, Propaganda – and even covers in detail the “wall of separation of Church and State” espoused by Tom Jefferson, third President of the US of A.
Bob
Post a Comment