Washington State Atheist Sign Stolen

aNiMaL

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

Both sides.

How are the atheists being intolerant in this situation?

Rhinocerous Surprise

aNiMaL wrote:

How are the atheists being intolerant in this situation?

Putting a sign that says "Religion is but Myth and Superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds." right next to a nativity scene seems fairly intolerant to me. If they had put it up somewhere else, I'd be okay with it, but putting it right next to the Christian display just seems deliberately spiteful. And if it had been put somewhere else, I'd wager it wouldn't have been stolen.

But hey, then we likely wouldn't have media involvement.

aNiMaL

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

Putting a sign that says "Religion is but Myth and Superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds." right next to a nativity scene seems fairly intolerant to me. If they had put it up somewhere else, I'd be okay with it, but putting it right next to the Christian display just seems deliberately spiteful. And if it had been put somewhere else, I'd wager it wouldn't have been stolen.

But hey, then we likely wouldn't have media involvement.

Ehhh, if it was a church, your argument would have merit. Both parties, the Christians and the atheists, had to go through the same approval process to display their holiday stuff in the public legislative building, the state capitol. A couple years ago we also had a Monera on display because a local Rabi went through the approval process to get his religion equal rights in the state capitol to more evenly represent the people that make up our state. Just because the Christians get their display approved first, there's should be the only one and opinion on display? Poppycock.

Rhinocerous Surprise

aNiMaL wrote:

Ehhh, if it was a church, your argument would have merit. Both parties, the Christians and the atheists, had to go through the same approval process to display their holiday stuff in the public legislative building, the state capitol. A couple years ago we also had a Monera on display because a local Rabi went through the approval process to get his religion equal rights in the state capitol to more evenly represent the people that make up our state. Just because the Christians get their display approved first, there's should be the only one and opinion on display? Poppycock.

I'm not saying the Christian display should be the only one there. But the atheist display could have celebrated the Winter Solstice all it liked without pointlessly attacking religion, particularly since the Nativity scene is offensive to precisely nobody - "On that Nativity scene, there is this threat of internal violence if we don't submit to that master. Hate speech goes both ways." is absolute nonsense. The atheist foundations can harp on all they want about being victimised by Christian groups, but they just look like idiots when they're doing the exact same thing to a very innocent display.

ajedigecko

mickeyrat wrote:

so you are saying that PUBLIC property i.e a Government Building is a "Christian Establishment"?

mistake on my part, i can admit it. a government building should not be considered an establishment for any faith.

that being said.....you avoided the basic premise of the question. i would like to see atheists protest something new.

seriously i would......i am real close to joining the atheist train but need something more than "blame it on the Christians".

mickeyrat

ajedigecko wrote:

mistake on my part, i can admit it. a government building should not be considered an establishment for any faith.

that being said.....you avoided the basic premise of the question. i would like to see atheists protest something new.

seriously i would......i am real close to joining the atheist train but need something more than "blame it on the Christians".

I would probably put it to christianity being an easy target that way.plus these "attacks " on established religions is a real easy way to make the news, isn't it.

Not a fan of it but I don't really have anything against it either. That's the beautiful thing about our country. Freedom to express and on the flip side the freedom to ignore.

Rhinocerous Surprise

Here's a question: if this Freedom from Religion group had put up a Winter Solstice display first (without the anti-religion slant) and a Christian group had put up a sign next to it saying "Yeah, but seriously, atheists are idiots, and going to hell", would people be sympathetic to the Christians in this case?

ajedigecko

mickeyrat wrote:

I would probably put it to christianity being an easy target that way.plus these "attacks " on established religions is a real easy way to make the news, isn't it.

Not a fan of it but I don't really have anything against it either. That's the beautiful thing about our country. Freedom to express and on the flip side the freedom to ignore.

i respect that you have stated "easy target".

for me, i have never liked the easy target. i can tell you, with all honesty, it is not easy being a Christian. i say this with no disrespect to the atheists belief or any belief, for that matter.

lastly, i know that we have much more in common than we do not.

mickeyrat

ajedigecko wrote:

i respect that you have stated "easy target".

for me, i have never liked the easy target. i can tell you, with all honesty, it is not easy being a Christian. i say this with no disrespect to the atheists belief or any belief, for that matter.

lastly, i know that we have much more in common than we do not.

I do wonder now though, why they(athieists) haven't expressed their disagreement with either Judaism or Islam being that all three religions have the same root in monotheism. Or even the Mormons for that matter.

DOSW

Kenny Olav wrote:

Athiests are not pushing beliefs, we don't have any to push. We just want to get our point across, and we should feel free to do so. Furthermore, athiests didn't steal the nativity scene. Who's being intolerant here?

How is putting a display in public for all to see, which bashes religion and tells people what to think, not pushing beliefs on unwanting people?

It's the equivalent of Christians putting up a sign that says "Believe in Jesus or you will go to hell," which would be blatantly offensive and a clear example of pushing a belief system on unwanting people. It's the same thing.

Yes, a nativity scene should not be placed in front of a civic building. It should be taken down. But to claim that putting a sign up which is blatantly offensive and obtrusive to others' belief systems is somehow OK, when atheists continually preach against it, is ridiculous.

Urban Hiker

From: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008475714_atheist06m.html

Capitol holiday-display controversy turning into "circus"
By Janet I. Tu
Seattle Times religion reporter

The state Capitol hosts a Nativity scene and a 25-foot "holiday tree." The nearby atheists' sign that sparked a nationwide furor was back in place Friday after being stolen and then dropped off at a country-music radio station.

And joining those displays soon could be a 5-foot aluminum pole in celebration of "Festivus for the Rest of Us." Not to mention a protest, a balloon display and even more signs, this time supporting religion.

"It's a circus and we're the center ring," said state Sen. Pam Roach, R-Auburn, who wants the atheists' sign moved farther from the Nativity scene and the governor to establish firmer guidelines on displays.

Things in Olympia have taken a bizarre turn since Monday, when the Freedom From Religion Foundation, a national group for atheists and agnostics, put up a sign that says, in part: "Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds." The sign was partly a reaction to the Nativity scene.

The issue went national when FOX News personality Bill O'Reilly chastised the state during his show for allowing the sign.

On Friday, workers discovered the sign was missing shortly after the building opened at 7 a.m., said Steve Valandra, spokesman for the Department of General Administration, which maintains the Capitol grounds.

Later that morning, a man carrying the sign walked into country-music radio station KMPS in Seattle, saying "you know what it's for," said News Director Stephen Kilbreath. Radio-show host Ichabod Caine and others had been talking Friday morning about how disparaging the sign was.

Of the sign turning up at the station, Caine said: "First you think: No way this happened. ... That's sort of funny on one level."

But what happened was stealing, Caine said, and "certainly, because we know 'thou shalt not steal,' don't steal a sign."

The Washington State Patrol is investigating the theft. The State Patrol also is providing extra security in the Capitol for all the holiday displays, Sgt. Mark Arras said.

The Rev. Ken Hutcherson of Redmond's Antioch Bible Church put up his own sign at the Capitol on Friday that says, in part: "There is one God. ... Atheism is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."

There are requests for other displays as well. Someone applied to put up a "Festivus" pole in honor of the invented holiday featured in the 1990s sitcom "Seinfeld." Another person wants to create a religious-themed "balloon display."

And a demonstration against the atheists' sign is planned for 2 p.m. Sunday on the Capitol steps.

Organizer Steve Wilson of Federal Way said he's for free speech but thinks the sign denigrates religious people. His rally is intended to be pro-faith, not anti-atheist. "We just want to go show our support for people of faith. We don't want any hate," he said.

O'Reilly, on his FOX News show earlier this week, urged viewers to call Gov. Christine Gregoire's office to protest the sign. Gregoire's office received more than 9,000 calls Thursday alone, said spokesman Pearse Edwards.

Both Hutcherson and Roach taped segments Friday for a follow-up segment on O'Reilly's show.

Gregoire, a Democrat, and state Attorney General Rob McKenna, a Republican, issued a statement after O'Reilly's first show, explaining the state's position.

"The U.S. Supreme Court has been consistent and clear that, under the Constitution's First Amendment, once government admits one religious display or viewpoint onto public property, it may not discriminate against the content of other displays, including the viewpoints of nonbelievers," the statement said.

On Friday, some nonbelievers said they had very mixed feelings about the sign.

Michael Amini, a University of Washington student and president of the Secular Student Union, says he's glad to see nonbelievers represented among the Capitol displays. But he doesn't like the sign's wording, saying it's inflammatory and divisive.

"Right now, the atheists are the least trusted minority in the United States," said Amini, who believes the foundation should spend its time and money trying to show people that atheists are "decent people, rational and sane, with legitimate world views. This sign does not send that message."

Dan Barker, Freedom From Religion Foundation co-president, said he intended the sign to be a little controversial — though he didn't expect this much.

"We thought our sign was pretty mild. But some people thought it was pretty hard-hitting," he said. "It's a criticism of religion. I think people like O'Reilly confuse criticism with hate speech."

All this hubbub threatened to overshadow what would otherwise be a big-deal wintertime moment in the Capitol: the annual lighting of the "Capitol Holiday Kids Tree" Friday. The tree, sponsored by the Association of Washington Business, is part of a charity drive.

There also will be a menorah in the Capitol this year, scheduled to go up on Dec. 21.

Janet I. Tu: 206-464-2272 or jtu@seattletimes.com

Grace7

I wonder if the hate radio talking heads noticed the"Reasons Greetings"

was on a Clear Channel billboard?????????
The greatest enemy of free speech!!!!

I guess you now have to be flexible to meet profit expectations!!

I just LOVE THIS !!!


peace
i don't have a gun

Smellyman2

you have to throw rationale out the window when speaking about religion. So having a rational discussion about is it impossible.

iamica

Here's a thought...just forbid all expressions of religion/statements against religion from being on government property. Let atheists and religious people keep their nativitys and signs on their front lawns, and leave it at that.

Porchsitter

Here's my point: why even bother? Speaking as a Christian, I generally disagree with those who try to push their religion or "beliefs" on someone who believes differently or not at all; therefore I disagree with this sign. If you don't believe in what the Nativity scene portrayals, then bully for you. It's vanity, however, to try to dissuade somebody from their beliefs or lack-thereof. And "believe me" when I say again I disagree with my own religion trying to push their beliefs on other people.

South of Seattle

Urban Hiker wrote:

From: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008475714_atheist06m.html



Michael Amini, a University of Washington student and president of the Secular Student Union, says he's glad to see nonbelievers represented among the Capitol displays. But he doesn't like the sign's wording, saying it's inflammatory and divisive.

"Right now, the atheists are the least trusted minority in the United States," said Amini, who believes the foundation should spend its time and money trying to show people that atheists are "decent people, rational and sane, with legitimate world views. This sign does not send that message."

I agree with what this guy said.

In all honesty. They should take down all of the displays at any type of establishment that is not privately owned. If it's privately owned then you can have whatever you want, as long as it's not hateful.

There are so many issues out there that have logical solutions, it's mind boggling sometimes.

wolfbear

South of Seattle wrote:

I agree with what this guy said.

In all honesty. They should take down all of the displays at any type of establishment that is not privately owned. If it's privately owned then you can have whatever you want, as long as it's not hateful.

There are so many issues out there that have logical solutions, it's mind boggling sometimes.

I agree. Why antagonize when you don't have to? This applies to both sides of anything. Free speech is great, but in this instance and many others all it does is make bad blood and good (but bad) headlines.

PearlJamaholic

maybe im stupid but atheism is just as much a belief as any religion.

religions believe in some crazy super power but cant prove it
atheist believe there is no crazy super power but cant prove it

so atheists are just as guilty of pushing their beliefs down peoples throats as far as i can see.

Collin

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

Here's a question: if this Freedom from Religion group had put up a Winter Solstice display first (without the anti-religion slant) and a Christian group had put up a sign next to it saying "Yeah, but seriously, atheists are idiots, and going to hell", would people be sympathetic to the Christians in this case?

I'm an atheist, but if atheists stole the sign I'd lose all respect for them. I truly feel everyone has the right to express his or her beliefs but they must be responsible for their words.

Your "Yeah, but seriously, atheists are idiots, and going to hell" is basically the message for atheists when we read the bible. We don't stand a chance. We are called "fools" in the bible and everyone knows the godless have no place near god. Jesus also represents that part of christianity, I think. His dad or Jesus or their sort of 'we're the same entity' thing made the rules. For the godless - in biblical terms - Jesus' birth just means they are going to hell and suffer for eternity.

Collin

PearlJamaholic wrote:

maybe im stupid but atheism is just as much a belief as any religion.

religions believe in some crazy super power but cant prove it
atheist believe there is no crazy super power but cant prove it

so atheists are just as guilty of pushing their beliefs down peoples throats as far as i can see.

I disagree. Religions are based on belief and by their very nature they must remain that way. They rest on assumptions that cannot be tested.

Atheism is based on what's directly or indirectly verifiable, things we can test and things we can logically deduce. It's not a 'faith'.

As for pushing their 'beliefs', I agree that some atheists do. There is a distinction to be made between belief in this sense and belief in a religious sense.