I’ve been seeing this story around on some blogs lately:
While I agree with the right of atheists to have their freedom of speech, and that Christians shouldn’t get a monopoly over government buildings, I actually disagree with doing this. The main problem is: what’s the point in putting up the sign, other than to exercise the right to do it and poke a finger in the eye of Christians? Similarly, I would also suggest that Muslims avoid putting up a sign next to the Christmas tree saying that Jesus wasn’t God, people who believe in the trinity are guilty of blasphemy that will be punished severely in the afterlife, that the Koran is the only uncorrupted divine message. Similarly, if Muslims create religious displays, Christians should avoid putting up signs calling Mohammed a pedophile, and telling them they’ll all burn in hell if they don’t convert. Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should. And it’s not like this atheist sign is going to change anyone’s mind on the issue. It’ll just reinforce the feeling (as the radio ad said) that atheists need to “sit down and shut up”.
I agree with that.
However if it’s result is that no religious symbols are allowed on the steps of any capitol building, then I would be glad.
I wonder, though, if it hadn’t been so antagonistic, if as many people would have gone into an uproar. Like if it was more thought provoking like the recent bus signs, and addressed more the fact that the holidays are coming up. Something like:
“We don’t need superstition in order to celebrate friends and family during the holidays. Happy winter solstice!”
I think that would be pretty benign and would be more likely to bring closet atheists out than going for the throat and saying “religion hardens hearts”.
On another note, check out the recent video on the “Atheist Media” blog. The news anchor defends the nativity scene by calling it benign. How ridiculous is that? The nativity scene is one of several images that have more meaning to more people than just about anything else I can think of.
My biggest gripe with this would be that the sign is BORING. I find it amazing at how many religious people insist on putting up various religiously-themed displays on public property. Leave the public property alone(including that too-wordy and basically pointless athiest sign), and instead leave it to folks to donate the private land for public displays. And what would O’Reily’s take have been had Wiccans, who do celebrate the solcstices, set up a display instead? Too many people are determined to set themselves up as persecuted victims, instead of just enjoying the season for what it is. Namely, the one time a year people actually try to be nice to each other, even as they are driven nuts by ringing bells, endless reruns of bad holiday cartoons, and insane crowds at the mall on weekends.
My recent blog posting was similar to your take on this. While I have supported the Freedom From Religion Foundation in other instances, this one was done to in a spirit to offend, and offend in such a way that it was counter to really convincing people to leave religion.
I suppose quoting the first amendment on the sign would have been more to the point.
However, O’reilly and others seem bound and determined to duck into the punch by presenting exceptionally closed minds and hardened hearts as the centrepiece of their feigned outrage regarding this matter.