GaryP

Good Question!

Megusic

No I said nothing about "abandoning the field" but I think that a better combative strategy is to educate our adversaries, rather than post this sign in particular in "retaliation".

My comment about wanting to "get along" was definately not geared at only atheists. Like I said, I think the first sign was rude and offensive, but I think there could have been a better response to it than w/ the FFRF sign. Sure they have every right to that sign and whatever they want to write on it, which is one of the wonderful things about our country, I just personally think they could have done a better job. (However, I did like the "thou shalt not steal" part) Whoever defaced the FFRF sign was an immature ass, but an example of what happens when you keep trying to "even the score" Instead of trying to "score points", time would be better spent effectively educating the public on the issues, IMO .

GaryP

You can't educate someone who isn't paying attention.

Megusic

And you also can't educate someone w/ a sign that offends them.

GaryP

Offense is in the eye of the beholder.

Megusic

yes, and many beholders were offended. thus, they probably would not be too open to learning anything from the offendors they beheld. uh, yeah.

GaryP

Perhaps Atheists are offended when Christian symbols are placed on public property.

Perhaps we All were intended to have freedom of speech in this Secular country.

Perhaps Creches and 10C's could and should be placed on tax exempted church or other private property.

Perhaps there is no other way to get attention.

Megusic

Perhaps Atheists are offended when Christian symbols are placed on public property.

Definately



Perhaps we All were intended to have freedom of speech in this Secular country.

Agree completely. I agree that FFRF had every right to place their plaque with whatever they wanted to say on it, as did the Family Research Institute. My argument is not that the plaque shouldn't be allowed, but my opinion is that it could have had a more effective message.


Perhaps Creches and 10C's could and should be placed on tax exempted church or other private property.

Perhaps. I agree that the 10C's don't belong in capital or gov. buildings. I think holiday displays are a bit different b/c they are a temporary display of the area's culture during times of the year. Throughout the year the capital displays area children's school projects. These sometimes include things such as Native American sprirituality and Greek gods, historical figures, and projects about the child himself, which often include religious references. No one complains about these. Only when Christian symbols are displayed does anyone feel offended.

Now, while it is my personal opinion that the holiday displays aren't that big of a deal, I certainly see why it bothers others. There should be an effort to get the displays moved elsewhere, but this sign is not gonna help that happen.

Perhaps there is no other way to get attention.

Negative attention isn't going to help the cause much.

Arrowman

OK, I've just read this thread through and I've got some comments.

"Intolerance"

In the first part of this thread, at least, a large part of the discussion revolved around whether the FFRF sign (and the Christian displays to which it was a response) were "intolerant". What a waste of bandwidth - frankly I'm surprised such an intelligent group of people spent so much time bandying that word around when it is completely irrelevant! The thread was a week old, and IPU knows how many impassioned posts long, before Bill Snedden pointed this out.

Neither "the fool hath said in his heart, there's no God" nor "there are no gods" are particularly "intolerant" - they are simply statements of opinion/belief. OK, maybe there's a little insult in both of them - both imply that the "other" are "fools" but I don't think that justifies all this banging on about "tolerance" that went on early in the thread.

"Jesus Is Lord - and if you don't believe that, you're not a True American" is intolerant. And "There are no gods, and if you believe there are, you're an ignorant jerk" would be intolerant.

Oh, yes, I know, a lot of people who think "Jesus Saves" also think atheists are kitten-boiling heathens who don't deserve to live in a free, Christian (oxymoron? ) country - but a lot of Christians don't think that way, too.

And just read the FFRF sign again - it says, in effect: "If You're a Religious Person You Have A Hard Heart and An Enslaved Mind".

So let's forget about that little crimson fish, or blackened cookware, or whatever, shall we.

Effective Public Relations and the Target Audience

This is the key point here. The question is not whether the FFRF sign was "intolerant" - it's not even was it "offensive" - the key question is:

Was the FFRF sign
(a) an effective communication with which the broader community could sympathise and from which the broader community might draw a point about the place of the non-Christian community in US society?
(b) an unnecessarily confrontational communication which risks alienating even moderate Christians, and fails to elicit any great sympathy or support from its target audience?

Further - would the broader community react to the defacing of the sign with
(a) "Bloody redneck vandals - I'm ashamed to call myself Christian sometimes." or
(b) "Bloody rude FFRF bastards - I don't like vandalism in any form, but serves 'em right for being so rude to Christians at Christmas."

Obviously, I go with (b) in both cases.

Other posters, including most notably Digital Chicken and Megusic, have expressed this opinion. Some selected quotes with which I agree :
Shadowy Man: "It'd be nicer to have a benign winter soltice sign being sprayed with acid, stolen, or otherwise vandalized. That way the FFRF could at least claim the high-road."
Lady MacDuff:" The sign, which is supposedly for the winter solstice, actually says nothing about it at all." (damn good point, Lady!)
DigitalChicken: "Its hard to gain sympathy when your message is "Your beliefs suck!" Perhaps a message of "Peace is the reason for the season. We wish all people of all colors and creeds a joyful holiday season" would be better." (you'd get a job with Hallmark's Atheist division, if they had one!)
Toto: "There is a definite lack of strategic thinking in the freethought movement." (highly relevant to this discussion!)

The response to this sort of comment? I'll paraphrase and summarise, if I may...
- 'It doesn't matter what the sign said, someone would still vandalise it.'
(Maybe - but a vandalised "peace" sign looks a lot more sympathetic in the media than a vandalised "your beliefs suck!")
- 'It doesn't matter what the sign said - Xians would still take offense.'
(True of some Christians, but not of all - and not necessarily true of your target audience.)
- 'They started it! As soon as they take their signs down, we'll take ours down.'
(No comment on this piece of schoolyard logic.)

Now some direct quotes:
Krieger: That is very naive to think that hate-filled people will all of the sudden feel sorry for us.
(I don't think anyone is claiming "hate-filled people will all of a sudden feel sorry..." Do you think that all Christians, and the majority of the US community, are "hate-filled people" who are incapable of absorbing a bit of well planned PR?)
Living Dead Chipmunk: "I get the feeling that DC's version of the homosexual movement would include the slogan "We're nice, safe, and not out for your kids. Please don't hurt us. We'll be good. Honest. Watch us simper in the corner until you feel sorry enough for us that you afford us basic human rights."
(Such a gross misrepresentation of a reasonably expressed opinion on the PR value of the FFRF sign, and avoidance of the point, that it does not merit comment.)
The Admiral: "So we should just abandon the field and let religious triumph by default."
(You might have a point, if anyone had actually suggested that.)
GaryP: "Perhaps there is no other way to get attention."
(Or perhaps there is. You don't work in marketing, do you? )

I'd like to quote from Just Another Infidel's post of 28 December, because s/he says it so well:
:notworthy:

Guys, this is not about being right - being right is not enough in public debate. Do you want to make a point, or make a difference?

Sure, the lunatic Christian Right will never be persuaded, no matter how non-confrontational is the message. They're not the audience.

The audience is the mainstream middle-class Americans to which JAI refers above. The audience even includes the non-religious and non-Christian sections of the community who don't really think about this issue a lot. These are people who need to be persuaded that
a. Atheists and other non-Christians are not bad people.
(many of them probably already understand that, at least until they see signs like the one in question!)
b. Church-state separation is actually a real and important issue, even for Christians.
(Try doing that with a sign that says "religion is bunk!")
c. Church-state separationists are not anti-religion.
(Would it be too much to refer again to the sign? )
d. Christians who oppose CSS have a very bigoted and intolerant view of the world and their fellow citizens.
(As opposed to people who erect signs in public places saying "religion is myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds")

I'll get out the hammer and bang this nail down further.
These people do not think about this issue. They do not particularly care about this issue. Even a lot of non-Christian people do not care about this issue. They are more concerned about the economy or whether their children might get killed in a war. They do not read Ingersoll or Barker. They have no clear concept of what is an atheist. They think rather little about theology and philosophy. They draw impressions from what they see in the newspapers, and they rarely read past the headlines and the opening paragraph. And They Vote.

I think I've expressed the point I was trying to make?

(One more thing - I must say I have to wonder about the PR sense of an organisation which purports to promote the separation of church and state, and then calls itself the "Freedom From Religion Foundation". I can just see myself debating with a Christian friend, and saying "well, have a look at this really good article from the Freedom From Religion Foundation and you will see why we should all be able to respect each other's beliefs...." )