Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The Admiral · 12-25-2002, 08:03 AM

Why aren't we having a party? We do, several times a year and increasing. If you are interested e-mail me.

The Admiral

Bill Snedden · 12-25-2002, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by atheist_in_foxhole:
<strong>If it's intolerant or "mean" to speak the truth, then I am PROUDLY intolerant.</strong>

But, of course, it's not.

IMHO, I think that to label this sign "intolerant" is plainly incorrect. If we are to have anything approaching a free marketplace of ideas, simple expression of contradictory ideas cannot be labeled intolerant. Simple offensiveness, no matter how offensive or to whom, cannot be equated with intolerance.

It seems to me that intolerance is the suggestion that someone not be allowed to express their viewpoint and/or the demonization of those who hold opposing viewpoints.

I don't see how it can be intolerant to tell someone that they're wrong; how could we ever have a legitimate discussion? Therefore, I don't think "religion is myth and superstition" is any more intolerant than "Jesus is Lord!"

My $0.02...

Regards,

Bill Snedden

GaryP · 12-26-2002, 03:22 PM

What Bill Said.

12-26-2002, 08:01 PM

You can view photos of the defaced sign here.

The Admiral · 12-27-2002, 08:08 AM

There would be no Atheist sign in the Capitol rotunda if the religious signs hadn't been there first.

The Admiral

Just Another Infidel · 12-27-2002, 07:05 PM

While I like and agree with the message on the sign, I feel it was needlessly confrontational. This type of message may be appropriate in a debate or on a bumper sticker, but it is inappropriate on a sponsored sign for public viewing, especially on the Christian's holiest of holidays.

A message stated this strongly will only generate anger by believers it will not convert them. This type of message will alienate weak or nominal theists. The large body of nominal Christians who vote and have the disposable income to give to political causes are the people Freedom from Religion advocates needs to get support from. A sign like this makes atheists appear hateful and most people are not interested in supporting hateful or militant groups.

Most mainstream middle-class Americans have lived with Christian traditions all their lives. They may not feel strongly about religion but they have been exposed to Christianity as the source of morality in civil society, correctly so or not.

If you approach me in a public setting and tell me I'm butt-ugly we will have a confrontation, I may feel provoked enough to respond with violence or some other anti-social behavior. I certainly won't support your goals even if I think there is a possibility you are correct. But if you approach me and tell me I'd look really good if I grew my hair out a little or wore solid colors, I'd consider what you suggested and I would feel good about you.

I will not buy Pepsi because Pepsi tells me I'm an idiot if I drink Coca-cola. Fuck you for even suggesting I may be an idiot. I'm a human being, I have feelings, I'm sensitive, I react to perceived slights.

If I'm offended I am not interested in some academic philosophy which maintains that it's my own fault for being offended. I am not inclined to respond with clever arguments. You would probably enjoy a debate, I'm not interested in debates. I will not even consider the truth or fallacy of your statements. I'll respond with votes or money for your opponents.

IMO, atheists need to mount an effective Public Relations campaign and I don't think this type of public hostility is the way to go about it. I'm a conservative middle-aged working stiff who only recently decided to investigate his non-religiousness. I'd like to join the activists against the creeping theocratic designs of the religious right, but I have misgivings about joining a group which employs such a heavy-handed method as this sign. I want to get involved in a group that I feel has the moral high ground and presents their message in a positive way. Tell me why your idea is better, not why their idea is bad.

JAI

Megusic · 12-28-2002, 10:21 PM

In another article from the FFRF news release page, president Anne Gaylor said, "In celebrating the Winter Solstice, we celebrate reality." Good. I personally think a better way of celebrating reality in a sign would be to give some history on the solstice and how Christmas came from older traditions. In an environment where other religions are celebrating their beliefs, to come out and just say "you are wrong" is a bit rude. while the foundation has faced opposition in the past, they are only going to get more negativity by posting signs like this. I can see having this sign around the city or elsewhere on the grounds, but in the midst of others' celebration...c'mon.

I wouldn't attend a friends Christmas party and yell to everyone "Jesus wasn't real!" I might however, talk to some people about the origins of their celebration. The latter technique is sure to open more minds. How often do you readily accept someone telling you you are going to burn in hell? Aren't you more receptive to understanding other people's religious views when you are able to sit down and have a real conversation about it?

Jayjay · 12-29-2002, 01:05 AM

So, if I understood the situation correctly, FFRF erected this sign as a response to christian "the fool hath said in his heart, there's no God" sign. In that light, the confrontational tone makes a little bit more sense... even if I do think that perhaps attacking religion with the excuse of christmas or "winter solstice" is a bit childish, at least it does not directly call anyone a fool.

I do think that if religionists get their silly anti-atheist "Jesus says you're a fool, nyah nyah nyah" sign out, then FFRF should remove theirs as well (or replace it with something more constructive). And even if christians insist on posting their insults, it would still not hurt if FFRF claimed the moral high ground and walked away from this fight. The only problem is, now that the plaque has been vandalized, if it is removed or altered christians will get the impression that vandalizing atheist/non-christian property is okay and will drive satan away... bah.

GaryP · 12-29-2002, 04:37 AM

Every time I drive past my city's Nativity scene, I feel my city is calling me wrong-headed at best and possibly a "fool".

If Christians want to celebrate, their "party" should be on private property.

I have asked for equal time from the city for an Atheist display. Even though my letters have been polite, and even though my wife and son goes to the same church as the Mayor, no one from the city has ever communicated with me.

The only letter I ever got was from the city law director. It said, "Unattended, private displays are prohibited." Kind of gives you that warm fuzzy, feeling doesn't it?

Why the Heck should non-Christians have to put up with Christian symbols on public property? They have shown dis-respect to non-Christians for many years now. Time to stand up and be counted!

ybnormal · 12-29-2002, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Megusic
I wouldn't attend a friends Christmas party and yell to everyone "Jesus wasn't real!"

Nor would I, but this ain't someone else's party.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-25-2002, 08:03 AM	#51
The Admiral Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Racine, Wi. USA Posts: 768	Why aren't we having a party? We do, several times a year and increasing. If you are interested e-mail me. The Admiral

12-26-2002, 03:22 PM	#53
GaryP Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Lancaster, OH Posts: 1,792	What Bill Said.

12-26-2002, 08:01 PM	#54
atheist_in_foxhole Guest Posts: n/a	You can view photos of the defaced sign here.

12-27-2002, 08:08 AM	#55
The Admiral Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Racine, Wi. USA Posts: 768	There would be no Atheist sign in the Capitol rotunda if the religious signs hadn't been there first. The Admiral

12-27-2002, 07:05 PM	#56
Just Another Infidel Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Seattle, WA, USA Posts: 370	While I like and agree with the message on the sign, I feel it was needlessly confrontational. This type of message may be appropriate in a debate or on a bumper sticker, but it is inappropriate on a sponsored sign for public viewing, especially on the Christian's holiest of holidays. A message stated this strongly will only generate anger by believers it will not convert them. This type of message will alienate weak or nominal theists. The large body of nominal Christians who vote and have the disposable income to give to political causes are the people Freedom from Religion advocates needs to get support from. A sign like this makes atheists appear hateful and most people are not interested in supporting hateful or militant groups. Most mainstream middle-class Americans have lived with Christian traditions all their lives. They may not feel strongly about religion but they have been exposed to Christianity as the source of morality in civil society, correctly so or not. If you approach me in a public setting and tell me I'm butt-ugly we will have a confrontation, I may feel provoked enough to respond with violence or some other anti-social behavior. I certainly won't support your goals even if I think there is a possibility you are correct. But if you approach me and tell me I'd look really good if I grew my hair out a little or wore solid colors, I'd consider what you suggested and I would feel good about you. I will not buy Pepsi because Pepsi tells me I'm an idiot if I drink Coca-cola. Fuck you for even suggesting I may be an idiot. I'm a human being, I have feelings, I'm sensitive, I react to perceived slights. If I'm offended I am not interested in some academic philosophy which maintains that it's my own fault for being offended. I am not inclined to respond with clever arguments. You would probably enjoy a debate, I'm not interested in debates. I will not even consider the truth or fallacy of your statements. I'll respond with votes or money for your opponents. IMO, atheists need to mount an effective Public Relations campaign and I don't think this type of public hostility is the way to go about it. I'm a conservative middle-aged working stiff who only recently decided to investigate his non-religiousness. I'd like to join the activists against the creeping theocratic designs of the religious right, but I have misgivings about joining a group which employs such a heavy-handed method as this sign. I want to get involved in a group that I feel has the moral high ground and presents their message in a positive way. Tell me why your idea is better, not why their idea is bad. JAI

12-28-2002, 10:21 PM	#57
Megusic Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: OH Posts: 1,292	In another article from the FFRF news release page, president Anne Gaylor said, "In celebrating the Winter Solstice, we celebrate reality." Good. I personally think a better way of celebrating reality in a sign would be to give some history on the solstice and how Christmas came from older traditions. In an environment where other religions are celebrating their beliefs, to come out and just say "you are wrong" is a bit rude. while the foundation has faced opposition in the past, they are only going to get more negativity by posting signs like this. I can see having this sign around the city or elsewhere on the grounds, but in the midst of others' celebration...c'mon. I wouldn't attend a friends Christmas party and yell to everyone "Jesus wasn't real!" I might however, talk to some people about the origins of their celebration. The latter technique is sure to open more minds. How often do you readily accept someone telling you you are going to burn in hell? Aren't you more receptive to understanding other people's religious views when you are able to sit down and have a real conversation about it?

12-29-2002, 01:05 AM	#58
Jayjay Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Finland Posts: 6,261	So, if I understood the situation correctly, FFRF erected this sign as a response to christian "the fool hath said in his heart, there's no God" sign. In that light, the confrontational tone makes a little bit more sense... even if I do think that perhaps attacking religion with the excuse of christmas or "winter solstice" is a bit childish, at least it does not directly call anyone a fool. I do think that if religionists get their silly anti-atheist "Jesus says you're a fool, nyah nyah nyah" sign out, then FFRF should remove theirs as well (or replace it with something more constructive). And even if christians insist on posting their insults, it would still not hurt if FFRF claimed the moral high ground and walked away from this fight. The only problem is, now that the plaque has been vandalized, if it is removed or altered christians will get the impression that vandalizing atheist/non-christian property is okay and will drive satan away... bah.

12-29-2002, 04:37 AM	#59
GaryP Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Lancaster, OH Posts: 1,792	Every time I drive past my city's Nativity scene, I feel my city is calling me wrong-headed at best and possibly a "fool". If Christians want to celebrate, their "party" should be on private property. I have asked for equal time from the city for an Atheist display. Even though my letters have been polite, and even though my wife and son goes to the same church as the Mayor, no one from the city has ever communicated with me. The only letter I ever got was from the city law director. It said, "Unattended, private displays are prohibited." Kind of gives you that warm fuzzy, feeling doesn't it? Why the Heck should non-Christians have to put up with Christian symbols on public property? They have shown dis-respect to non-Christians for many years now. Time to stand up and be counted!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.