Atheists Post Hateful Christmas Sign (Guest Voice)

“At this season of the Winter Solstice, may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. … There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.”

That’s certainly the mildest of observations; it doesn’t refer to people at all, only a belief set. Compare it to some of the things that the religious say about atheists, elsewhere and even in this particular article.

Your calling them “hateful” is itself more hateful than what they said.

How many wars(Crusades), inquisitions or jihads are the doings of atheists? Are the likes of Dobson or Tony Perkins examples of Christian tolerance?

I fail to see why appeals to reason are considered hateful. Is my microwave oven hateful? Is modern medicine hateful? If rejections to dogma and superstition are seen as threatening to religious groups, then perhaps they are threatened by reason as well. I believe there is room in the holidays for a variety of thinking, without one group accusing the other of being hateful merely because they encourage more self-examination. I’m perfectly capable of coexisting with christians who may think I’m damned (by definitions they accept) so why aren’t they equally capable of living among agnostics and atheists who don’t buy into their beliefs?

I agree with those above in failing to see the “hate” in the atheist poster.

We have seen all these arguments before. For gosh sakes, let’s just admit that the church has been responsible for a great deal of good stuff, from art, music, architecture, and, even science. It has also been responsible for some nast y stuff; a few wars and a the inquisition, etc. That seems pretty normal for a human institution. I leave God out of it because he is not the church. Can anyone say if the balance is negative or positive? Not with certainty. The point to be made is that the church should be challenged when it tears something down, and supported when it builds something up. The same criteria should be used for the atheist. If they are building up good will, commonweal, and historicity, applaud them. If they are tearing down, shun them. The sign serves no purpose except to tear down.

When discussing with a family member the issue of Religion being observed in public schools, of which he approved, I asked him “which religion? Yours? Mine? Hebrew, Muslim, which one? Obviously, it is yours that you want taught to all children, but what if yours ceases to be the majority religion? Then what? As it stands, you are free to believe privately anything you want, as is everyone else. I am perfectly ok with your chosen belief system, although yours and others have a long history of fomenting bloodshed and tyranny…yet you cannot rest easy knowing that I do not share your beliefs.” He then called me “small-minded”. LOLOLOL!!!! Though this article is clearly slanted toward the notion that the placard displayed by the Atheists is “hateful”, I think it is high time that more people are exposed to the idea that it is perfectly possible to be a Moral, Ethical, Reasonable human being by the practice of observation of facts, as opposed to the (continually conflicting) interpretation of one Mythology or another. Isn’t it obvious where that has gotten us?

Oh come on, how can you not think that sign wasn’t in bad taste? This is (especially) the season for unity and compassion. They could have easily said something to the effect of:

““At this season of the Winter Solstice, may reason prevail. Let the wondrous beauty of the natural world be enough to spur all mankind to work towards peace, equality and justice. May we have the wisdom to love each other as we quest for Truth.”

That said, the quotes by Stickney are hilarious. The 1st Amendment guarantees the right to believe anything without “petty” harassment? And then he goes on to complain “but don’t you dare open your mouth disparagingly about a minority religion or a deviant sexual lifestyle.” Man that’s too rich.

I must have also not gotten the memo about the mass firings and rounding up of Prop 8 supporters.

Gay/lesbianism is but unnatural and and perversion that is contrary to human nature and warps values.”

I trust the four fair-minded individuals will support my lack of hatefulness in making the above statement.

There’s been a lot of commentary, of course. People really need to review who made the argument and won the case for religious signs to be put up on government property in the first place. You’ll see the irony in it after knowing the origins of the arguments for religious or “ideological” signs to be put up in display in the public square.

I think what people didn’t expect was for others to proceed to use that “privilege”–it’s certainly a two-edged sword.

Personally I liked someone’s idea about, instead of a Winter Solstice sign, maybe a Flying Spaghetti Monster (representative of another “religion,”) or just some pictures of freethinkers like Voltaire, Franklin, Jefferson, Paine, Ingersoll, Rand, etc., with a caption, “For the Winter Solstice, we honor the great freethinkers of history”.

see:
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blog/the_war_on_xmas_will_not_be_televised_at_least_not_much/

from that: “But one deliciously ironic subtext hasn’t gotten nearly the attention it deserves. Why are any of these symbols of faith or reason on display? It turns out that a few years ago, some religious conservatives sued the state over its refusal to let them install a nativity scene. Their court victory was delectably two-edged. When the rotunda was opened to their creche, that made the location automatically an “open forum,” fair game for members of other religions to put up symbols of their faiths … and for nonreligious people to promote what they cleave to instead of faith. “

Atheism has become a religion itself, with many of the worst aspects of religion including hostility towards other religions and active proselytizing for new members.

In bad taste perhaps but hateful no – both the Christian and Islamic Religous Right have a monopoly on that.

“The sign serves no purpose except to tear down.”

Nonsense. If the purpose of the nativity is to symbolically support the (come on, admit it) unlikely concept of “virgin birth” and support the church, there is nothing wrong with an opposing view that it is “superstition”.

Get over your belief in your own superiority. It’s false pride and conceit.

If your God gives no contemporary “miracle” (and it’s gotta be raising the dead, walking on water or medically verified virgin birth, please) to convince us of His reality, what’s wrong with calling it superstition? How does that “tear down?”

I have no reason, based on my many years on this planet, to believe God overrules the laws of nature here. It’s not necessary for my belief system to have these supernatural exhibitions.

But fine, if your God leaves you in ignorance and expects you to believe based on orally transmitted stories from uneducated men thousands of years ago, that’s your problem. Toughen up a bit. You can still believe in your story if others call it superstition. I suppose you think being honest with children about the Santa and flying reindeer story is “tearing down” too.

You don’t want to look too deep, do you? The church fervently believed in an Earth-centric universe. Does it still? How about stoning people to death for profanity? Selling your daughter into slavery? Women should shut up and “cleave to the opinions of your husband”? Why get so adamant in defense of your mythology? Your religion can adjust to discovery of facts. Like that the Earth really does revolve around the Sun and it actually takes an egg and a sperm to make a baby.

I’ll start out by freely admitting that I am a Christian. However, I do believe that in a holiday display either it should be non-religious or have anyone who wants to have a display included. So I applaud Washington State for allowing that. No matter what your beliefs you should be able to have them expressed if you so desire and should not be excluded because it isn’t mainstream or popular.

However, I believe that the sign put up by the atheistic group was inappropriate. Atheism is as much a belief system as Christianity, Judaism, Islan, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc and if you don’t like Christians (or any other group) insulting your beliefs, then don’t insult theirs. Just because someone does it to you first doesn’t make responding correct. Telling me that my beliefs are “but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds” is as hateful as telling a non-Christian that they are going to hell. Both are essentially saying that you are wrong and stupid for believing what you do.

Religion has and likely will always cause problems. But it isn’t the sole cause of problems, many times it is merely a pretense for other negative actions. Regardless of your beliefs you should always respect the beliefs of others. And even if your beliefs aren’t respected, then act against the disrespect and not the beliefs themselves.

I have no problem with those who have faith, and many problems with my fellow atheists who have a religion – anti-God.

But this sign is hardly ‘hate’. Calling it such both shows the bias (and ill-will, if not hate) TOWARD atheism by the religiously-oriented, and debases the term ‘hate’ for when it truly is applicable.

adexterc – so you would refuse the right of others to comment negatively on God, or religion in general? You now have something in common with radical Islam. Way to go.

Mikkel – bad taste, maybe, but bad taste speech IS Constitutionally protected (as is hate speech, too, as long as it is not to cause violence), and bad taste does not equate to hate.

Ron – you show your bigotry, ignorance and pettiness with your comment that only Christianity and Islam are capable of hate. You obviously are part of the problem rather than the solution with that attitude.

GD – despite your words, based on our history of give and take, I find it hard to believe you cannot understand those who have faith, i.e., belief without proof. We may not believe, but we shouldn’t denigrate those who do. You, too, make yourself part of the problem with that attitude. And why is served by bringing up ancient history? Atheistic science used to believe in spontaneous creation of life from inanimate objects and the Aether. Does that disprove atheism?

AR, I’m not trying to prove or disprove anything. I bring up history to show that a PARTICULAR Biblical belief is not essential to the religion. It can adapt to the discovery of the solar system. And hurting others (like Galileo) who don’t believe in (or actually disprove) literal Biblical teachings is wrong. I do understand faith without proof. But as you point out, it is not hateful for a naturalist to disagree with the beliefs of supernaturalists. It’s a difference of worldview, and it IS true that literal adherence to belief has done harm and continues to do so.

It is not just my opinion that it takes a sperm and egg to make a baby. It’s a fact. I thank God we’re not a Christian (or Muslim or Hindu) nation.

BTW, I’m not an atheist. Far from it. But I don’t have to believe literally in any mythology and until I personally see otherwise, I think the laws of nature rule here.

I would only add, in a positive and hopefully instructive tone, that it is a mistake (in my view) to call atheism a “religion.” There are many more eloquent writers who have covered this claim very well. It’s a very common retort that, despite generating some comraderie among believers, (or defining some behavioral parameter of outspoken non-believers,) implies that there is some communal tie among all “believers” versus “non-believers.” Most belief, if not blatantly mutually exclusive in its dogma, is at least widely debated and interpreted among and between believers. Yet there are very good definitions of religion, and it’s really difficult to characterize “non-belief” as falling into one of them. I know these are old tired arguments, so sorry to repeat them here–

There can be those who are rebellious against a god, but that hardly qualifies them to be non-believers. To be angry at a god is not to deny that the gods exists.

I would want to try to distinguish that any perceived “anger” or “hatefulness” in regard to a Winter Solstice sign is not the result of a well-organized, agreeable and committed group of “believers” who are eager to proselytize their message to the masses in hopes of building some dogmatic congregation.

I think the whole stunt was done as a political move, and a legality that should cause Americans to think about the utility of suing a city over a right to display a religious display on government grounds. Dan Barker has taken quite a bit of heat on this one himself, from all over the spectrum (including “freethinkers,”)–which supports the idea that “atheism” isn’t some religion where all are in agreement of a formulated dogma. If anything, I’d characterize atheism as the most anti-authoritarian position one might take, as a worldview.

Um, who are Floyd and Mary Beth Brown, and why are they guest posting at The Moderate Voice?

Perhaps the original authors of this commentary (Floyd and Mary Beth Brown) could explain exactly *why* the athiest group’s sign is “hateful”. Because I, like many other who commented on this discussion before me, don’t see any hatred involved at all. Bad taste, yes – hatred, no. Just because there are a some people out there that like to believe in the christian mythology of Christmas who are offended is not good enough reason to restrict the athiest group’s first amendment rights.

As a religious Jew, I don’t see anything hateful about the atheist group’s sign. Why do some Christians feel threatened by it?

Holly,
It’s because some conservative Christians think that anybody who does not accept their savior or their version of the Bible is going to Hell. From there flows all kinds of hysteria.

It’s fundy Christians who blocked Wiccan monuments for US soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan at military cemeteries. These wackjobs are threatened by anything that doesn’t fit into their dogma. Let anyone believe in their own crazy ideas, just ignore or except others crazy beliefs.

The only “hate” I can spot is coming from the authors of the post, not the atheists who put up the sign. Speaking as a secular agnostic who embraces the cultural aspects of my families Jewish heritage – and who spent the 80’s pushing back against the God Boys who were in the process of taking over the Air Force officer corps – I am sick to freakin’ death of having other peoples religion shoved down my throat. And by the way – sacred, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

It’s absurd that the author of this piece specifically avoids actually describing the sign in question. “we report, we decide” at its worst.

I know it’s just a guest voice post, but maybe the voices should have a more reasonably style in the future.

“At this season of the Winter Solstice, may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. … There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.”

What’s hateful about that? It’s just the truth. Religions are nothing more than collections of made up stories. Religions cause great harm to people. Any sign that encourages people to throw out their religious insanity can only make the world a better place.

mlhradio wrote “Bad taste, yes – hatred, no.”

Since when is telling the truth “bad taste”?

Floyd and Mary Beth Brown, There was nothing hateful about that atheist sign, but it might be fair to say my following comments do not respect you or your insane religion. Christianity is a death cult. It’s all about death. Jeebus died on the cross. Dead people go to heaven. If the dead person was not stupid enough to believe in Jeebus, the dead person goes to hell. The Bible is full of genocide. Christianity is about death, death, and more death. Christianity would be extinct in one generation if not for the relentless brainwashing of young gullible children. There’s no such thing as a moderate Christian because there’s nothing moderate about child abuse. That’s what religious indoctrination is, child abuse. Even the most moderate Christian believes in heaven, and they believe in heaven because they are cowards who are terrified of reality. I could write several more paragraphs about the hopeless stupidity and insanity of Christians, but I think you get the idea.

AustinRoth, are you a Jeebus freak? You sure sound like one. Whether or not you’re a religious idiot, you are part of the problem and you should be ashamed of yourself.

“You hate God”

OK genius. Please tell me how a person can hate something that doesn’t exist.

You need to grow up.

AustinRoth, you might be an atheist, but you’re part of the problem because you’re a suck up. You also have a foul mouth.

By the way asshole, a real atheist would never say “You hate God” so it’s obvious you’re a liar.

AR, nice job of dragging this thread into the cesspool. Prior to this I actually bothered to read your comments. My mistake.

AustinRoth, you’re mentally disturbed and your language is disgusting. You don’t belong here.

Like it or not, there are many who genuinely believe a human culture that values the use of reason as its primary path to knowledge is a good thing and any affirmation of that belief also the good. It follows that, if one values life, human life and the capacity for reason, the good is also to affirm the error in other beliefs and how those errant beliefs harm people. A wish for the victory of good reasoning is a wish for the defeat of poor reasoning. This is precisely what the sign communicates. It is no more negative than a mother’s cleaning and bandaging a skinned knee. She makes war on injury and infection. Does this make her viewpoint and actions inherently negative or are these instead positive in favor of a healthy child?

I submit the symbols of some religions – Christianity being a clear example – can as easily communicate the very negative messages in their teachings and practices as they can the positive ones. When I personally see a manger, after my admiration of the non-religious significance of the mother-child symbolism, it then reminds me of the dubious support for the event it claims to represent, of the alleged horrible nature of the deity these people claim to worship and of the horrors perpetrated by these believers in the name of their deity and in the name of the “messiah” allegedly lying in the manger. To me, the symbolism of the Christian nativity scene is primarily negative. There are many characteristics true of me that these believers fear, denigrate and attempt to suppress or overshadow on a regular basis and displays of their symbolism only serve to remind me how different my life would be if they did not exist and how very different it would be if they were fully free to impose their views. But having said that, I would not wish the display removed or those who believe such things denied the right to express their beliefs – wrong or right.

Christian posturing around assumptions of monopoly over human culture, American culture, and various dates throughout the solar year only serve to reinforce the message regarding their views of non-christians and their continued arrogance regarding dominion. Their behaviors surrounding the display of an alternate point of view ought to send a clear message to those who wish to be free to believe and practice as they choose that neither Christianity nor its equally aggressive sister religion of Islam nor their parent religion of Judaism are the friends of peace and respect they claim to be.

I do not oppose Christianity as a free choice of others, despite its obvious errors of reason, however, I do and always will oppose Christian domination. I will not allow my voice to be silenced or the voices of others be suppressed solely because it makes you uncomfortable.

Freedom of speech and freedom of religion does not include freedom from skepticism, critique and rebuttal.

Well said Naumadd.