Atheist billboard in Capitol stirs a storm

[VPStoltz]

Source: Seattle Post-Intelligencer

OLYMPIA -- An anti-religion billboard in the Washington state Capitol has started a firestorm on national television.

Fox News' Bill O'Reilly had an eight-minute segment on his show Tuesday night decrying the inclusion of the atheistic billboard along with a holiday tree and a Christian nativity scene.

Conservative TV personality O'Reilly urged viewers to call Gov. Chris Gregoire's office.



Read more: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/390542_capitoldisplay05.html

---

I urge you to call as well supporting Governor Gregoire's (D) and Attorney General McKenna's (R) decision to honor our state constitution.

360-902-4111

www.governor.wa.gov/contact

[GrpCaptMandrake]

1. Eight minutes?

What? Falafal Man's competing with the Dim Leader and his "My Pet Goat" time?

Eight minutes? Wow. Ted Baxter must be having a hard time finding stuff to be outraged about.



Get On The H.O.R.N.!
www.HeadOnRadioNetwork.com
America's Liberal Voice

[ksimons]

9. pic

“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.“


added:

To protect the sign, the group tapes to it a little note: "Thou shalt not steal."

[drm604]

10. Seems pretty inoffensive to me.

Some people need to get over themselves.

[ksimons]

13. the video of O' Reilly Show is in the videos list now FYI

probably won't get bumped into the main page, but thought you'd like to see that 'debate'

[GrpCaptMandrake]

16. Apoplexy is in the wing of the nutter

or the nut of the winger, or something like that.

:shrug:

[GrpCaptMandrake]

15. Nobody understands irony like an atheist!

After all, if it's anything, gawd is a gawd of Irony.

Irony may actually be the one name of gawd that tradition says only the camels know. It would certainly make sense, them being camels and all.

[tclambert]

37. Clearly, Loki is the god of this world.

Loki, who according to Marvel Comics is the Norse god of mischief, is the only god who would deliberately allow the creation of so many massively opposed religions, and then delight in them duking it out. Loki is the kind of god who would tell one "prophet" his people have to worship him with a very strict system of rituals, and then tell another "prophet" just across the river to worship with a completely different system of rituals. And then he'd give them boats and watch as hilarity ensued.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

88. That's why we named our Schanuzer puppy

"Loki."

Pure, unmitigated mischief!

Loki also roughly corresponds with the native "Coyote" god of the AmerIndians. Same sort of behavior.

[unpossibles]

102. uh oh! I have a rule against naming pets for things that I don't want them to be

I got the idea when a friend named a puppy "Shitter" and it lived up to its name!

[GrpCaptMandrake]

108. In this case

we named him what he already was. Having had a Schnauzer in the past, we knew what to expect. His mischielf has thusfar proven largely benign, but mischief just the same.

Good rule though. Puts a whole 'nother spin on Steve Martin's "Shithead" in "The Jerk."

[Harry Monroe]

158. My uncle had a dog named "Hemmhroid"

No kidding. He never liked the dog and always said it was a "pain in the ass".

[Harry Monroe]

160. BTW, I'll be changing that sig line after 1/20/09 for those of you wondering

[Dr.Phool]

177. I have the same sig line.

I never thought about it, but I guess I'll have to change mine also.

[prostock69]

209. I love your signature! Thank goodness you'll have to change it.

[Twinguard]

109. I used to have a

Yorkshire Terrier named Loki. Definately a good choice of name.

One Christmas, that dog ate some of the cookies we baked to hang as ornaments, and who was blamed for eating the ornaments? I was.

That dog truly lived up to her name.

:rofl:

[GrpCaptMandrake]

113. We've had a Yorkie, too

Ah, Synchronicity!

Our Yorkie was "Nicholas," and he lived to see my children born. He was loved by three generations whose own lives spanned from the '20s into the late nineties. Thanks for the reminder of a whole lot of love.

[Rhiannon12866]

349. Awww. I'll bet he's adorable! My previous boss had a cat named Loki.

He was beautiful, a Maine Coon cat, with the best temperament, though I don't think she named him since he was a retired show cat. :-)

[stubtoe]

159. That's great! My thought was that the Native American analog is Coyote.

Coyote would appreciate Loki, I think.

[starroute]

276. There's an African trickster story that's even more like that

http://www.story-lovers.com/listsdifferentperspectives.html

Once their were two childhood friends who were determined to remain close companions always. When they were grown, they each married and built their house facing one another. Just a small path formed a border between their farms. One day a trickster from the village decided to test their friendship. He dressed himself in a two-color coat and that was divided down the middle, red on the right side and blue on the left side. Wearing this coat, the man walked along the narrow path between the two houses. The two friends were working opposite each other in their fields. The trickster made enough noise as he traveled between them to cause each friend to look up from his side of the path at the same moment and notice him.

At the end of the day, on friend said to the other, "Wasn't that a beautiful red coat that man was wearing today?" "No," replied the other. "It was blue." "I saw that man clearly as he walked between us!" said the first. "His coat was red." "You are wrong!" the second man said. "I saw it too. It was blue." "I know what I saw!" insisted the first man. "The coat was red." "You don't know anything," replied the second angrily. "It was blue!" "So," shouted the first, "You think I am stupid? I know what I saw. It was red!"

They began to beat each other and roll around on the ground. Just then the trickster returned and faced the two men, who were punching and kicking each other and shouting, "Our friendship is over!" The trickster walked directly in front of them, displaying his coat. He laughed loudly at their silly fight. The two friends saw his two color coat was divided down the middle, blue on the left and red on the right.

The two friends stopped fighting and screamed at the man in the two-colored coat. "We have lived side by side all our lives like brothers! It is all your fault that we are fighting! You started a war between us." "Don't blame me for the battle," replied the trickster. "I did not make you fight. Both of you are wrong. And both of you are right. Yes, what each one said was true! You are fighting because you only looked at my coat from your own point of view."


(On edit: Since it may not be obvious, I should point out that, as I see it, even the Christians and the atheists are like the two friends in the story -- simply seeing two different sides of the same coat and determined to come to blows over the matter.)

[Kalyke]

312. I thought Loki was Matt Damon's charager in "Dogma."

:)

[Fumesucker]

94. God is an iron..

"If a person who indulges in gluttony is a glutton, and a person who commits a felony is a felon, then God is an iron." -Spider Robinson

[AlbertCat]

289. Maybe HE can iron that coat from the previous post.

[tbyg52]

336. And a fine story that was, too. nt

[earth mom]

17. That is beautiful! There is NOTHING wrong with it.

The fundie whack jobs need to shut the hell up! :grr:

[surrealAmerican]

202. Thank you for posting that.

Funny how they left the actual text of the sign out of the article. (No, not funny, pathetic.)

[maxsolomon]

218. that photo leaves off the "offensive" part

in the OP, the last sentence says "religion is but myth & superstition that hardens hearts & enslaves minds".

true, but unneccessarily provocative. no one likes to be told that they are willing slaves.

[MNDemNY]

247. No more offensive than a nativity scene.

[hendo]

321. and what is so offensive about a nativity scene?

do you not like the image of a manger, or of the animals, or of the baby inside it?

If you don't believe in what the manger stands for then its just another display.

The existence of a nativity scene is not in and of itself offensive. It does not call anyone else stupid or attack their own personal beliefs.

[baby_mouse]

338. re read the post

it's not saying both are offensive, it's saying both are inoffensive

[MNDemNY]

339. Tell that to the Jews.

Your own "doubts" are apparent, lest you would not be offended by that sign.(you know, turn the other cheek, don't judge, lest you be judged, and all that shit.)

[AlbertCat]

233. The truth hurts some people.

But the thing that always gets me is the hostility toward such common sense. People do like their fairy tales, and if they are so very devout, how is a little sign like this gonna threaten Christendom?

I surmise all the wringing of hands over such things is because of their own doubt. It takes such a huge amount of energy (and $$$) to believe crap. And they hate the idea that all the bad stuff they may have done will NOT be forgiven and they will have to actually die like the rest of us instead of gong to some other-worldly amusement park in the sky.

Anyone who NEEDS the threat of hell to be good deserves close watching.

[liberal1973]

309. I like it.

[SpiralHawk]

18. 'Actually, I farted around for over 1/2 hour on 9/11. Smirk._ - Commander AWOL (R)

"That is, I farted around for more than a 1/2 hour after being told TWICE that the USA was under attack. Smirk."

- Commander AWOL (R)

[awoke_in_2003]

179. please don't insult...

Ted Baxter, at least he was funny

[RyanEb]

2. Freedom of Religion...

get over it

[depakid]

6. O'Lielly and the fundies aren't interested in freedon of religion

any more than the mullahs in Iran are.

[Baby Snooks]

22. I'm interested in freedrom FROM religion...

Where in the Constitution, where in the 1st Amendment, does it say I have to "have" a religion? Where does it say I even had to believe in god? A god. Any god. It doesn't. If you read it carefully, obviously the founding fathers wanted to guarantee both freedom of religion and freedom FROM religion. The fundamentalists and everyone else it seems suddenly believes that while the founding fathers forbade the establishment of a "Church of America" they still intended for this to be a Christian nation founded on Judeo-Christian principles and values.

Nowhere does the Constitution say that. And in the Treaty of Tripoli, John Adams in fact very specifically states this country was NOT founded as a Christian nation. Tell that to a fundamentalist, or one of the rabid Republicans, and they will tell you he and the Senate were simply trying to appease the Muslims on the Barbary Coast who were turning our fine young men into eunuchs. I think the Muslims were merely defending themselves and doing quite well in defending themselves. And wanted some assurance the Crusades weren't about to begin again. Bottom line is one of the founding fathers, and the Senate approved it unanimously, stated this was NOT founded as a Christian nation. End of subject as far as I'm concerned. Anyone who dares to question a founding father is a fool. And that includes the likes of Antonin Scalia. Most of all Antonin Scalia. Who really has always listened to the Catholic Church rather than adhered to the Constitution. No doubt he will burn in Hell along with the bishops and the cardinals and the popes who have ruled over our Constitution in his opinions. There realy is something wrong with a homophobic church filled with homosexual priests and something wrong with those who don't see there is something wrong.

I really am tired of Christians. When someone makes a point of telling me they are a Christian, I am tempted to ask if they have sought help from a psychiatrist.

[prostock69]

51. AMEN! I agree with when you said:

"I am tempted to ask if they have sought help from a psychiatrist." Religion causes a form of mental illness. I have vast experience with mental illness growing up with a mother who has Schizophrenia. Trying to reason with anyone who is ingrained in their "faith" is exactly like trying to reason with my mother when she is having an "episode". There is no way to "reason" with her because she is not thinking "rationally". And that is the same problem I have with religious people: they don't understand that their religious beliefs are "irrational." No matter what evidence you show them, no matter if you prove that what they "believe" is nonsense and wrong, they cannot open their minds to the possibility that they are wrong. Their minds have been damaged with constant indoctrination of their religion, also called brainwashing. You can't pull someone out of religion. It has to be on their own terms. Usually this happens when the rational part of the brain comes back to life, as it did with me.

As the great Sigmund Freud said: "Religion is the universal obessional neurosis of mankind; like the obsessional neurosis of children, it arose out of the Oedipus complex, out of the relation to the father....(It is) a parallel to the neurosis which the civilized individual must pass through on his way from childhood to maturity." AND "The God-Creator is openly called Father. Psychoanalysis concludes that the really is the father, clothed in the grandeur in which he once appeared to the small child....The emotional strength of this memory-image and the lasting nature of his need for protection are the two supports for the religious man's belief in God." AND "Like other neuroses or additions, religion can be overcome, but only by facing up to the truth: People will have to admit to themselves the full extent of their helplessness and their insignificance in the machinery of the universe; they can no longer be the center of creation, no longer the object of tender care on the part of a beneficent Providence. We may call this 'education to reality.' It is something, at any rate, to know that one is thrown upon one's own resources. One learns then to make a proper use of them."

"A personal god was nothing more than an exalted father-figure: desire for such a deity sprang from infantile yearings for a powerful, protective father, for justice and fairness and for life to go on forever." Karen Armstrong.

[truedelphi]

199. My neighbor lady, a really sweet and smart individual

With of course my taking exception to ehr Fundie beliefs, which really dumb her down.

She will tell me to believe in God, her God, and when I say why, she says, read the Bible.

I try to explain her reasoning is circular, and she cannot follow my line of argument. The woman has TWO master's degrees, and runs a program for toddlers who are at risk. Writes books in her spare time.

Her backstory: the mother left when she was fifteen mos old and her brother was 4 mos old. By the time she ws three, her alchie father would leave her alone in the house taking care of her infant brother for hours at a time.

If that was my childhood, I may well be seeking solace in that big ol' Good Daddy in the sky myself.

[AlbertCat]

242. As the great Sigmund Freud said:

Alas, Freud was a quack. All his guesses must be seen though a prism of 19th century morals. On edit....make that 19th century WESTERN morals.

The whole father figure thing....baloney. It ignores all the female deities throughout all the centuries of hundreds of religions. "Religion" does not mean Judeo/Christian/Islam notions only. If the rulers of the universe are usually male, that's because most human hierarchies have males as leaders. In most religions, the "creator" is female....for obvious reasons.

That's the other thing about religion that gets me. Just as Freud is specific to the western world and the 19th century, religion is totally human. There's nothing divine about it at all. It involves nothing and no one other than humans....a single species out of millions on a single planet, out of billions (statistically) in a vast universe 99.99% hostile and inhabitable by its supposed maker's favorites. Huh?

[Baby Snooks]

305. God the Mother?

I know some "pagan" religions refer to the goddess, the Earth Mother, Gaia, and other references to a female "goddess" but in terms of god I believe in all religions of "modern" civilization there is this concept of one supreme god or being as male.

Just as myth is built upon myth, religion is built upon religion. We are a "patriarchal" civilization, if we look upon the world at this point as a civilization, because previous civilizations were patriarchal. Out of curiosity, what religion is "matriarchal?"

I rarely agree with Freud but in this instance I do. If we were a matriarchal civilization, the theory would still hold true. We are all looking for a protector. Unfortunately the god of Abraham is not a nice god. He is a mean old man in the sky. Jews and Christians and Muslims all worship the same god and yet through the centuries Christians and Jews have attempted to destroy the Jewish people. Rather odd when you think about it. Although all religion is odd when you think about it.

The ancient Africans believed in a god who was neither male nor female and yet both. An energy they believed was the "sky god" who created other energies all of which were both male and female which in turn created other energies and created "life" and continue to do so and will continue to do so as indicated by the scientific premise, not really proven, of an expanding universe. Modern interpretations of what may have been the original religion of Man have become increasingly patriarchal, however, so even with what may have been the "original" religion man is once again creating god in his image rather than having been created by god in god's image.

Using DNA and other means including the cave paintings a man named Stephen Oppenheimer has traced the migration of Man. We all came out of Africa. The forgotten continent. Which may also be where we find the forgotten religion. Which of course all other religions fear because of course "they" will have to accept that "their" god is merely myth.

http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/

Perhaps the god of the ancient Africans is myth as well. And maybe not.

[RaleighNCDUer]

319. There was a pre-historic mother goddess, and evidence shows

she was predominate for thousands of years. Remnants of her worship were still found 2-5 thousand years ago in Venus, Astarte, Aphrodite, Bath, and it seems clear the predecessor of those goddesses was THE mother goddess, worshipped throughout the indo-european world.

As the world moved to an agrarian society - thus, a town-based, land based society - military power became more necessary to defend the choice agricultural land, which led to the development of the patriarchal worship of Mesopotamia, passed down through the Abrahamic religions to today.

Before 10,000 BC, it was the goddess, all the way.

[DirtyJersey]

81. "When someone makes a point of telling me they are a Christian..."

That is what drive me nuts. If you're a Christian, you're a Christian, great - you don't need to announce it to everyone. Ironically, it's arguably un-Christian to do so. It's like passage from the Bible about the man who fasts in private versus the man who tells everyone he's fasting - who has the truer faith?

[PassingFair]

112. I dropped my daughter off for a sleep-over birthday party last weekend...

And the mother made a big deal over the
fact that she was a Christian and that
she had a Christian family.

She was trying to assure me that they were
"good".

Little did she know that we are a secular family.

We all got a kick out of it though....asked daughter
if there were any burnt offerings with the ice cream.

Hope HER daughter doesn't pick up one of the FFRF
newsletters laying around in my bathrooms!

[DirtyJersey]

You know what they say about assuming...

Seriously, that's pretty funny. People always figure that being a Christian will make them seem good...it never occurs to them that it could be negative to some people.

[pipi_k]

334. For years I was called a "Heathen" by

one of my younger sisters and her husband, who both were/are "born again Christians" because I refused to go to church with them, blah blah blah, although they did often offer to take my two kids overnight when I was going through a messy separation from my second husband. I thought I could trust them, but little did I know....

To make a long story short...

my "CHRISTIAN" brother in law was sexually molesting my daughter and two other little girls and my sister (his wife) was in denial about the whole thing, making up excuse after excuse as to why HE and not SHE was the one who was checking on the kids at night (especially the girls).

That rotten fucker was taking advantage of my horrible home situation in order to get access to my daughter.

I only figured it out when my daughter started showing some strange (for her) behavior


Arrest...trial...conviction...he gets a few months of jail time and they then pack up and move out of state.

This was over 25 years ago

My daughter is now 35 and still can't sleep alone in a darkened room, even though she's had years of therapy


So yeah...just because someone labels him or her self a "Christian", that doesn't mean their morals are above reproach.

I don't trust ANYONE who announces to me, out of the blue, that they are "Christians". If I don't ask, that means I don't give a shit, so don't assume I care. Although it's nice that they give me fair warning that way....people who really practice what they preach, I figure they're too busy LIVING their faith and not running around just giving lip service to the concept.

[DirtyJersey]

342. I'm terribly sorry to hear that

That's a really horrible thing to happen to anyone.

[66 dmhlt]

149. Curious if you meant "pray" and not "fast"

Matthew 6:6 (KJV)

But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

Born, baptised and confirmed Lutheran - but have long since sided w/ Jefferson, Einstein, etc. on the Deist side of religion.

Love using the Bible against those christianist zealots who only pick and choose what they want. But that sword has two edges!

[DirtyJersey]

216. I remember it as fast

I could be wrong, it was a long time ago. It's also possible that various translations of the Bible have it different.

[xxqqqzme]

244. When we first moved to West Virginia, a person would

be identified as a 'good Christian woman/man'. I didn't know, still don't know, what that means, but it immediately made me suspicious.

[DirtyJersey]

271. I would be suspicious too (n/t)

[slay]

170. Me too! Especially when religious people try to make their beliefs law

like the current crop of religious crusaders have been doing in this country. Religious people's beliefs when made law effect EVERYONE. They are not happy being free to practice their religion as they see fit - NO - they want to impose their beliefs on every one of us AS LAW. I've had it with these religious people (Christians here, Muslims other places - is there really any difference) who think it is their right not only to tell others how to live, but to enforce it through the law. How do you get through to one of these christians with logic when their entire belief system REQUIRES that you throw logic out the window. :mad: :grr:

[awoke_in_2003]

185. "Christians here, Muslims other places - is there really any difference"

Nope. And I love it when christians rag on mormons and scientology as being cults- like their religion is any different

[wizstars]

66. They just want us all down on our knees in the church of their choice...

[jmowreader]

25. You know what "freedom of religion" means to fundies, right?

"You're free to practice my religion."

Just tell 'em you practice Haitian Vodou and watch the fun.

[wizstars]

65. Or Head-hunting........ n/t

[AlbertCat]

249. You know what "freedom of religion" means

In the Constitution it says "The free exercise thereof"...which one fundie told me it meant it shouldn't cost anything so churches were not obliged to pay taxes.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[prostock69]

31. No, Freedom FROM Religion :)

[prostock69]

36. The Secular electorate makes up the 2nd largest group

of voters behind Christians. There are more non-religious people than all the other religions put together. AND it's the fastest growing body of people in the U.S. Most of Europe is secular. And it's about God Damn Time that we are given the same rights that religious voters get. Freedom of Speech and Freedom from Religion. If there is going to be a "Faith Based Initiatives" why can't we have a "Secular Based Initiatives?" And they are going to use tax payer money to preach and convert people to christianity, then we should be afforded the same money to fight for Separation of Church and State instead of having to relying on donations.

Don't you think that is fair?

[Wednesdays]

50. Your post brought a question in my mind...

If an atheist says "God damn," are they really swearing?

Sort of a "tree falling in the forest" thing. :shrug:

[prostock69]

54. Sorry If I offended you or anyone else.

I would remove it if I could but the editing time has expired.

[roody]

86. This atheist not offended.

[prostock69]

208. Thanks :)

[Laelth]

346. No offense here.

Your righteous indignation is warranted.

The United States is a LIBERAL Country.

:dem:

-Laelth

[awoke_in_2003]

192. Old habits...

Jesus Christ and God Damnit just role off the tongue so easy, especially when every one else uses them.

[TechBear_Seattle]

90. Especially in Washington State

The 2001 American Religious Identification Survey showed that Washington State was the most secular, with 25% of state residents identifying as "No Religion" (see exhibit 15.) Nationwide, 10% of Americans define themselves as "secular" and 6% as "somewhat secular" (see exhibit 3,) with 14.1% defining themselves as having no religion (which includes atheist, agnostic, Humanist and secular; see exhibit 1.)

[petwlkr]

175. Coincidence??? Perhaps!

Not only does Washington state have the largest percent of residents who identify themselves as "no religion", Seattle is ranked as the most literate city in the US and the most educated....

I'm just saying is all! :shrug:


http://www.ccsu.edu/AMLC/Overall_Rankings/Top10.htm

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/departments/elearning/?article=EducatedCities

[eridani]

352. Seattle leads in total number of library checkouts for cities of 500K to 1M

Tacoma is the leader in its population group as well.

[Juche]

123. Good post, but people who rarely/never go to church alredy outnumber regular churchgoers

The 2004 presidential exit polls showed people who rarely or never went to church made up about the same % of the population (43%) as the people who go once a week or more (42%). And they were just as partisan.

VOTE BY CHURCH ATTENDANCE
TOTAL Democrat Republican
More Than Weekly (16%) 37% 61%
Weekly (26%) 42% 57%
Monthly (13%) 50% 49%
A Few Times a Year (28%) 55% 43%
Never (15%) 60% 36%

By 2008 those numbers had shifted to 44% of voters rarely or never going to church vs. 39% going weekly or more than once a week.


http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=USP00p2


More Than Weekly (12%)
Weekly (27%)

A Few Times a Year (28%)
Never (16%)



We do deserve equal treatment, considering what a gigantic 'minority' secularists are becoming. And it is only going to continue in this direction. In 2004 people who rarely/never went to church outnumbered people who went often by 1%. By 2008 it was 5%. It'll likely be 10% by 2012.

To my knowledge there are no openly agnostic members of congress and an open atheist would supposedly have a harder time than Obama did getting elected president.

I'm fine with other people being religious, but people like myself who don't believe in religion are also a major part of this country. But we aren't represented. There are no openly agnostic politicians, our billboards are whined about and pulled down, and we don't get special government funds to explain our views to people like religious people do.

[mt13]

46. freedom FROM religion too! n/t

[tbyg52]

331. Hey, RyanEb!

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[uppityperson]

341. Separation of Church and State...

get over it

[drm604]

3. Anyone know what the sign says?

Any pictures?

[DUlover2909]

4. That's what I wanna see too.

:hi:

[Suich]

12. Here:

The video shows where it is in the rotunda.

http://freedomeden.blogspot.com/2008/12/freedom-from-religions-atheist-display.html

[DUlover2909]

27. Thanks Suich! I'm thankful for your post and thankful for their freedom of speech!

[tclambert]

32. It's right next to a nativity scene! What if the Baby Jesus reads it?

He might become an atheist! He could still preach peace, love, and forgiveness, but without the God part. What would happen to the Christian industrial complex then?

[AlbertCat]

254. I've always thought the heart of Jesus' message was secular

Y'know..."Love your enemy" "Turn the other cheek"....all that stuff does not require any kind of redemption.

St Paul is the loonie culprit really!

[No Elephants]

41. Follow the link in the thread header.

[BrklynLiberal]

5. But if they had a huge billboard quoting the Bible or telling people

to attend church on Sunday, no one would even comment on it...

[depakid]

8. There's actually a famous one down I-5 from Seattle

between Centralia and Chehalis, Washington- says all sorts of fundamentalist/far right things.

Here's one incarnation:



Here's an article on the nutter who owned the property (complete with several other versions of the billboard).

http://meetthestress.blogspot.com/2007/01/belated-passage-alfred-hamilton-1920.html

[MikeNearMcChord]

91. I had a fantasy that some intrepid freeway bloggers

would write Yes We Can or Obama '08 on that board, during the election, of course I bet the base of the sign is booby trapped. Oh Well.

[alfredo]

193. A Christian wrote "Mein Kampf."

[amyrose2712]

48. UGH... I live in South Jersey and I see those ...

REPENT OR DIE! Signs everywhere, plus there is a van that drives around like Benicio's in Traffic. I can't seem to find a pic of it right now, but it is covered in god pictures and sayings , bumper stickers and spray paint. I think he puts up the signs. Its kinda scary. There was another car I saw like that. And amidst all the gos stickers was one that said "Les Claypool for president." Go figure.

[onager]

147. WTF? We all die whether we "repent" or not.

I thought it was "Repent or Burn In Hell."

Long as I'm here, this is my Fundamentalist Atheist version of how the whole "hell" thing got started:

We know the first hell, or sheol in Hebrew, was a real place--a pit outside Jerusalem where everybody burned their garbage.

Now imagine some ancient Jewish mom, trying to take out her trash, with 2 or 5 kids underfoot throwing icky stuff at each other, rooting in the garbage for treasures like dead animals or live rats, etc. etc.

So she gets fed up and yells: "If you don't cut that out and behave, when you die you're going to end up in a place JUST LIKE THIS!"

Nearby, two Temple priests happen to be strolling by and look at each other with big smiles.

Pure gold!

"Hmm. Eternal punishment after death. We can sell that. Offerings of the First Fruits to us are down, and so are my kickbacks from the Temple money-changers. We really need some new material to goose up the ol' tax-free income."

"I don't know, it's pretty weird. You really think the rubes will go for a burning garbage pit after death story?"

"Are you kidding? They went for the talking snake and Noah's Ark, didn't they? These suckers will believe anything. But just for CYA, let's cobble up one of our usual Ancient Prophecies and back-date it a few centuries..."

[awoke_in_2003]

196. Their is just as much proof

to back up your theory as the one in the "official" book. Ever think of starting your own church as a tax dodge? :)

[RaleighNCDUer]

320. It worked for Hubbard and Smith. nt

[awoke_in_2003]

323. Yep. Maybe I will start

by publishing some mediocre sci-fi books to get my name out there, then move on to the religion thing :)

[BrklynLiberal]

7. Bill O'LIElly is vying for the title of biggest asshole in the world.

His mouth has been designated as one of those National Superfund Sites that is contaminated with uncontrolled hazardous waste material.

[Sebastian Doyle]

11. It's not exactly a billboard. More like a posterboard.

I'm no atheist, and I certainly don't agree with the wording of the sign, but I wouldn't hesitate to personally evict some Freepers from the State Capitol if they tried to remove or vandalize it.

Which they'll probably do, now that this is all over the media. The local right wing nutters are all upset that they didn't get a Dino the Dumbass recount battle this time around, so they're probably looking for an excuse to start some shit.

[valerief]

197. Well, if the board get Billo the Clown stirred up, it's a Billboard!

Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.

[DeSwiss]

14. K&R

[tclambert]

40. See, that idea terrifies the deeply religious.

"Imagine no religion." It really is easy if you try. But the big religions all have a carrot and stick system built in. Believe, and you go to paradise, you know, when you die, if you have lived a holy enough life. But the stick they've been indoctrinated to believe in, is: if you doubt, even a little, you face eternal torment in the pits of Hell! It's a form of terrorism, isn't it?

What I really believe is that no wise god would be so cruel. And the data from this planet shows conclusively that whatever god runs this place is willing to tolerate many diverse religious beliefs, including not believing in "it" at all. If some crazy alien with only a trillion times the power and intelligence of the human race wanted everybody to worship it in some particular fashion, it could make it happen easily enough. For an all powerful, all knowing god this would be a trivial exercise. And yet, the biggest religion has less than 1/4 of the Earth's population amongst its followers. And there are many violently opposed factions within that religion. QED.

[AlbertCat]

258. But the big religions all have a carrot and stick system built in.

Oh that's nothing to the built in harassment and threats of becoming a pariah and "cast out" for even questioning right now in THIS world. It's this earthly punishment that keeps most people in (or pretending to be in) the fold.

[redqueen]

19. K&R!

!

:bounce:

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[acmavm]

23. Religious peope suck? All religious people suck??? How old are you

that you can't reason out that there are fundy whack jobs and really sincere, decent people of faith?

You suck.

[Name removed]

345. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madrchsod]

30. wow.... really how quick to judge are`t you.....

by all means, don`t let your tolerance overwhelm you

[tclambert]

35. I have a rule you might like:

Always is always wrong and never is never right.

[D23MIURG23]

71. I guess your rule obeys itself

2+2 never equals 5.

Genocide is Always unjustifiable.

I could probably think of more but you get the point. To say that all generalizations are bad is still a generalization.

[Sirveri]

248. Monkey!

"2+2 never equals 5."
Unless there is 1 added to it.

"Genocide is Always unjustifiable."
Except in the case of infectious diseases.

"all generalizations are bad"
Uhhh... Shoot...

[ima_sinnic]

21. their own faith is so weak, it can't take questioning or criticism

poor widdle deluded myth-worshippers -- they think everybody else in the world is obligated to blindly, unquestioningly uphold and defend their ignoramus beliefs while they mock and belittle those of others.

oh, and Happy Holidays, Bill!

[merwin]

24. This is no better than the right wing idiots who throw up religious billboards.

By the way it was written, it's primary focus is to push beliefs on others and piss people off.

It's as childish and stupid as the billboards that tell you to repent or go to hell (which also exist in Washington State).

[redqueen]

29. Well being polite hasn't managed to drag too many too far out of the dark ages,

at least not where the most treasured / sacrosanct mythologies are concerned.

In light of that, I'm not exactly aghast at the impolite wording.

[Deep13]

228. Well, if atheists had iconic figures or objects, we would display those.

Since we don't, all we can do is deny the existence of divinity. We are under no special duty to shut up.

[merwin]

303. Like I said, a childish argument

You're arguing that religious objects shouldn't be on display on government property, so the solution to that is to put YOUR religious (or anti-religious) things up on government property.

Tell me, how does this help?

[Deep13]

310. Your false dilemma is childish.

It would be better from a Constitutional standpoint not to insist on putting religious objects on public property. Since it is in fact being allowed, having a seat at the table is better than standing outside shouting that there is no table. We are very pragmatic people, you see. As a practical matter, I prefer that sort of an arrangement because it allows us to get the word out in a society where belief is the assumption and the perceived norm. Open discussion is always better than shutting up.

[Laelth]

347. Hear, hear! Well said.

I am always suspicious of those who say "shut up." So was Thomas Jefferson, and that's why he insisted that speech ought to be the first thing that the government must not be allowed to criminalize.

Pragmatism aside, the right to speak (and a tree, in this context, is a form of speech) ought to be protected. I prefer a plethora of religious symbols to none.

The United States is a LIBERAL Country.

:dem:

-Laelth

[merwin]

350. Except if it goes to court, then you're basically screwed.

You have no real standing to say something is illegal if you are doing it as well.

Open discussion is fine, but hypocrisy is not

[Zhade]

326. Um, lack of beliefs.

Try again.

[Postman]

26. Neither display belongs on Government property

Why is Christmas a Federal Holiday and Hanukkah is not? Or Kwanzaa? Or Ramadan? Or any other religious observance?

Where is the seperation of Church and State?

The "State" shouldn't be trying to placate to ANY particular belief other than open, fair, honest and equal government for all.

You want to display your belief in public? Go rent a billboard on a highway.

[prostock69]

38. The whole point of the Atheist sign along with the Religious ones

is to force to them have to take down the religious ones. Athesists want Separation of Church and State. The group behind this sign and the billboards is Freedom From Religion Organization (ffrf.org). They sued the White House over Pres. Bush's Faith Based Initiatives program which has helped funnel billions of tax payers' dollars to religious charities so they can preach and convert people to christianity. We feel that is a HUGE violation of Sep. of Church and State. They have lawsuits all over the country to defend our constitution. If you don't want this country to turn into a theocracy, then support the FFRF.

[PassingFair]

117. And I believe this same poster has been displayed in the Wisconsin State House...

for many years.

I think it was vandalized last year, though.

[B3Nut]

292. It's there every year, I think

I saw it in there last year, and expect I'll see it this year if I venture into the Capitol building this season, which I probably will (it's a gorgeous place to take photographs.)

Todd in Cheesecurdistan

[glowing]

49. To tell you the truth, I'd love to celebrate Hanukkah.. 8 days off. that would

be a blessing for every family to have 8 days off to spend with one another celebrating the year and doing things for the community that bring out the true meaning of the holiday spirit.

[awoke_in_2003]

198. Yeah, but all you get...

are stupid dreidels :)

[rurallib]

61. Can I have an "AMEN" on this brothers and sisters?

[Suji to Seoul]

28. HELP!!!! UNFILTERED FREE SPEECH!!!! HELP!!!!!

THIS NEEDS TO BE STOPPED!!! WHERE IS THE PATRIOT ACT!?!?!?!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! DIFFERENT IDEAS!!!! CAN'T HANDLE IT!!!!

Fuck off, Billo-the-Clown.

[progressoid]

33. So there IS a war on Christmas.

Hmmm...

[Jester Messiah]

34. I snapped this one from the Metro recently

I'm 100% in favor of this ad campaign. It's about time the forces of reason rallied!

[kath]

226. What a great sign! I really love the way it juxtaposes someone in a Santa suit with the question

about belief in a god. That, with the line from "Santa Claus is Coming to Town" make it freakin' brilliant.

IMHO, being good for goodness' sake is a MUCH higher, more advanced form of goodness than doing it because of the carrot-and-stick heaven-or-hell bullshit.

[Zhade]

327. That is awesome!

NT!

[Berry Cool]

39. Yawn.

All any of this proves is that atheism is a religion, too: a religion in which people are REQUIRED to believe that there is nothing but the natural world.

And now atheists have become as militant and determined to proselytize for THEIR beliefs as anyone else.

I'm sick of the wars. Believe what you want to, don't believe what you don't want to, but I reserve my right not to be lectured at by ANYONE--Christians, Muslims, followers of any religion of any kind...OR atheists.

[tclambert]

43. Now that raises an interesting question.

You have the right to believe what you want; they have the right to believe what they want. They also have the freedom of speech. They have a right to stand on a soapbox in Central Park and say crazy things. But you have some right not to be bothered by their noise. When does your right to peace and quiet countermand their right to freedom of speech?

[Dogtown]

47. Except we get to sleep in

and have coffee-sex on Sunday.

Whilst you play with your pretend-friend...

:eyes:

[kanrok]

57. Congrats!

You just proved BerryBush's point. Nice job!

[Dogtown]

69. Another one

How droll.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadhu

[kanrok]

151. Yes, apparently you are

How perceptive of you!

[kanrok]

56. Excellent point

n/t

[Orrex]

58. There are many kinds of atheism, and none of them is a religion

Do you believe in magical unicorns? No? Then is your non-belief in magical unicorns a religion?

[PerpetuallyDazed]

114. I know, like, two intelligent atheists

who are logical enough to claim agnosticism.

Unfortunately, most of the Atheists I know are just as illogical as the Religionists. They cling to their "non-belief system" (or, "religion", if you will) in the same manner as a fundamental Christian.

[Deep13]

261. Agnosticism is illogical.

Saying "I don't know" means that one does not believe. That's atheism. The term also presumes that conflicting evidence has caused a person to be undecided. There is no conflicting evidence. There is no evidence at all of any divine or supernatural intervention in the universe. None.

Agnostic-in-principle is also illogical. It is based on the unfounded and unsupportable assumption that nothing supernatural can ever be proved or disproved. I must remind you that a lack of evidence is not evidence in favor of anything. The fact that no WMDs were found in Iraq does not necessarily mean they are in Syria. A lack of evidence does not prove that. The fact that no god is found in the natural world does not mean it must be permanently hidden in some supernatural (whatever that means) realm. In fact, a god that is undetectable can only be so by not interacting with the natural world. Whatever such a being is, it is not god. Supernature is the product of human imagination and nothing more.

[Kashka-Kat]

290. deleted - I need to think thru my response a little more -sorry!

[Deep13]

299. I'll check back later. Thanks.

O8) <----Oh, waitaminute, I don't believe in those things. :evilgrin: <--Those either.

[smiley]

314. I'm agnostic because.....

Even though I am definitely not a christian (don't think he even existed) and I'm not sure if there is a god, but I can't say there isn't.

That doesn't make me an atheist because I do feel that we are guided through life by some metaphysical condition that allows us to make certain decisions and meet certain people. Things happen for a reason and people become connected through weird circumstances all the time. Like minds flock together, is this just coincidence?

My problem with the whole god thing is that it seems illogical for me to believe in one god when there is no scientific proof of the existence of any gods and plus there were many religions and many gods before monotheism. So why is our god all of a sudden the only god? Isn't it a bit arrogant to believe that in the whole entire Universe "god" decided to create us on our little planet of earth. And what happened to all the other Gods? Did they retire?

I do however enjoy reading the old testament. Strictly for it's historical significance. If you have a bible handy, read The book of Ezekial. Sounds to me like the author is describing aliens. It's pretty crazy stuff. But mostly the to old testament of the bible is describing, with mythology, the transition of the human race from a nomadic peoples to an agricultural civilization.

Please read the book "Ishmael". Once you read it you will have a totally different outlook on the Old testament. Having read the bible many times over, before and after reading Ishmael, the bible became much more clearer to me.

But I'm not atheist. I just don't know.

[AlbertCat]

298. I know, like, two intelligent atheists

You need to get out more.

Agnosticism is a joke. If there was some real proof of god, everyone would believe!

Maybe you've got the intelligent ones and the stupid ones mixed up.

So religionists "cling" to their fairytales....and atheists "cling" to....what....logic and reason and evidence? Doesn't sound the same to me.

Many religionists simply don't get it. They cannot understand that atheists don't even think like they do, even when they act like all human beings....in a world slathered in religion. You don't get it. Anyone who thinks 1) all atheists think the same way and 2) approach the world like supernaturalists DON'T GET IT.

[MineralMan]

80. Some atheists....please

Atheists are not a unified group. In fact, they're not really a group at all.

[Bill McBlueState]

87. "people are REQUIRED"

Who promulgates this requirement? The atheist pope?

[dmallind]

104. Unmitigated bullshit

Where is the article of faith for atheism? Accepting only what is demonstrated, and being willing to accept new things which ARE demonstrated, is not a matter of faith at all - it's the ABSENCE of faith. It's an absurdity to say that this point of view requires faith that it is itself correct, when it only accepst what has been proven to be correct.

Remember too that this is a present tense statement with no future assumptions. For all I know telekinesis could be proved tomorrow. If it is, then I will accept (not "believe in") telekinesis. But I reserve that accepatance until it IS proved. Where is the faith in this approach? If anything metioned on that poster (which remember uses the present tense) is proved, then it will by that proof BECOME part of the natural world.

And if that's not enough, your statement is BS in other ways. Buddhists are atheistic in great part (some theistic Buddhists exist obviously) but they certainly don't believe in a world limited to entirely materialist phenomena.

Where is the dogma and ritual of atheism? Where is its codified articles of faith? I know of not one single thing other than the absence of belief in gods that atheists share in toto. The word "religion" comes from the Latin for binding, constraining or restricting. There is no such constraint in atheism. There is no atheist manifesto (there is a Humanist one, but that is a subset of atheism not atheism itself) nor commandments of atheism. It is a point of view concerning religion, not a religion.

Where is the proselytism? An exact religious parallel - a board which removed or added negatives to say the exact opposite, would only be stating the opinion of the person who erected it. Nothing, not one single thing on that board states or implies that you have to agree, or that you will be punished now or aftercdeath if you don't, or that you are less of a patriot or less of a person if you disagree. THAT'S proselytizing. No by the way I am not hypocritical. An exact negative parallel of that sign would be eprfectly appropriate in a display such as this of multiple religious viewpoints. NEITHER would be appropriate as the sole official sign on government property. The whole point of that sign is to offer a distinct opinion among many. That again is in no way proselytizing. It is not militant in any way. Neither would it's opposite be in that context either.


You do NOT have the right not to be lectured. Can you avoid advertising? Can you avoid people voicing their opinions on any subject? Only by becoming a hermit. And even then a hermit found has no right to not be offered an opinion by the finder.

Every single claim you made is utterly wrong.

[Dreamer Tatum]

135. You're kidding, right?

Where is the dogma of atheism? The ritual? The proselytism? The fervor of an atheist's non-belief is matched only
by the fervor of a fundy's belief. You must be too wrapped up in your own frustration and indignance to see it.

And if you have the slightest problem with anything I've written, please refer to your own (comical) claim: "You
do not have the right not to be lectured."

Gee, I WONDER what you'd say if a religious person said that to you in the public square.

[ImOnlySleeping]

RE: UB

Atheism requires the belief that there is no god(s). It's a completely unverifiable concept and while incredibly likely to be accurate, it can't be proved one way or the other. Which is the only reason I identify myself as agnostic. To paraphrase Dawkins, I'm only agnostic in the sense that I'm agnostic about the flying spaghetti monster.

[Zhade]

329. FALSE. I am an atheist. I do not "believe gods don't exist", I just don't buy into any of them.

You're absolutely wrong on this.

[ImOnlySleeping]

340. Atheists should hold themselves to the same standard

I don't think it's fair that religious people try to put the onus on atheists to disprove god(s) existence, but at least be intellectually honest and admit that god is an abstract concept and that either you
a) believe in a god(s) and follow some sort of religious beliefs
b) believe there is no god(s) and are an atheist
or
c) don't know and are agnostic
And to clarify, I don't equate the believing of believing in god(s) to that of not believing in god(s). I'd be millions of times more likely to believe there aren't any due to severally reduced amount of belief suspension required.

Not buying into any of them is the same thing as not believing.

[JDwho]

111. Well said Berry!!

I read more about atheism here on DU, than I do anywhere. It does seem to have a "following", as a religion would. Perhaps, there should be tolerance for those who are believers and not believers. Therefore, there wouldn't seem to be so much bigotry and offensivness toward (christian) religion. I really don't see it toward other religions.
Okay, time for me to get flamed, I'm sure.
Thanks for the post.

[DonEBrook]

137. Do you also consider bald a hair color?

:shrug:

[Arugula Latte]

138. Ha ha ha ha ha!

Yeah -- a billboard proves atheists are as "militant" as the abortion clinic bombers and the Taliban and Focus on the Family.

:rofl:

[NoodleyAppendage]

207. Bzzzzz. WRONG. Thanks for playing the "Xtian talking points meme game" regarding Atheism.

Atheism does not require belief in unprovable, unknowable concepts. The contrary, Atheists do not "believe" that there are no gods, but that they "know" that which is physical, amenable to natural laws, and given the scientific reason. If religion could meet these standards, then Atheists would be religious.

I see that you are well versed in the Xtian memes regarding Atheists, which tend to propogate the often correct assumption that religious types are devoid of critical thinking. Thanks for proving that point.

J

[MNDemNY]

250. The athiests never knock on my front door.

[Tempest]

263. Hell, we never even have meetings

It's an extreme rarity to even have two athists in the same room together and know the other is an athist.

[RaleighNCDUer]

318. I wish we did.

Since social life in this region is centered around work and church - and I long since learned the hard lessons about personal involvement with co-workers - it would be nice to have a place to meet like-minded persons.

Maybe there's a website for meeting atheist singles...

[Tempest]

351. Surprisingly I've found a few in my area

I found out about them on the local newspaper's blog.

They're funny and a lot more educated than the religious nutcases in my area (which is highly conservative).

[Deep13]

260. Wrong.

The only reason the word "atheism" exists at all is to distinguish us from believers. It's kind of like the term "nonsmoker." I suppose nonsmokers are just a different kind of addict in your eyes. I guess bald is a hair color too. We are not required (by whom BTW) to believe anything. You believers can kill and torture each other over your disagreements. We are not proselytizing. We are merely disagreeing. And we have no special duty to shut up. Nor is there any right to have ones irrational and harmful opinions remain unchallenged.

Skeptical atheism (that is what we are talking about here, not some dogmatic belief system like Stalin used) is not a belief system. It is a rejection of the whole concept of faith or belief. We accept evolution, for example, because the evidence is conclusive, not because The Origin of the Species is some kind of holy writ. The facts about the universe are sufficiently developed both to exclude the existence of any god in the religious sense of the word and to show the biological and social conditions that caused theistic belief to arise in the first place. No one is making us accept these facts. The evidence has done that, often in defiance of strongly held belief.

[AlbertCat]

297. All any of this proves is that atheism is a religion,

Uh...before you go to sleep, please explain how. There's no deity....which a religion requires. Now, a philosophy it is, but not a religion. It has none of the trappings of religion. Trusting evidence is not faith.

Militant atheists....what a joke. This very controversy PROVES (that evidence thing again) that atheism is not proselytizing "like everyone else".

And if you don't like to be lectured to...stop lecturing us.

Sheesh!

[Zhade]

328. No, atheism is not a religion. A lack of belief in the supernatural is the opposite of religion.

NT!

[no_hypocrisy]

42. The interesting thing to me is that Bill O and other hosts will avoid interviewing

Annie Laurie Gaylor and/or Dan Barker from FFRF to "cross examine" either or both of them. If the issue is so inflammatory, so offensive, they are the source. Otherwise, almost anyone else as a guest will just support O'Reilly's contentions.

[Ian David]

44. chrisTo-fascist cyrbabies.... WHaaaaaaaah! n/t

[prostock69]

45. The Secular electorate in the U.S. is the second largest group

of voters behind Christians. There are more non-religious people than all the other religions put together. AND it's the fastest growing body of people in the U.S. Most of Europe is secular. They managed to pull themselves out of the dark ages. Yet, we can't seem to get there.

I used to be a Christian until I started to research how Christianity was started and found out the truth about the bible. The bible is not a reliable source of truth. Far from it. It is unscientific, irrational, contradictory, absurd, unhistorical, uninspiring and morally bankrupt. I got tired of hearing I needed to have "Faith". Faith is a cop-out, a defeat,--an admission that the truths of religion are unknowable through evidence and reason. It is only indemonstrable assertions that require the suspension of reason, and weak ideas that require faith. Faith is what you need when you don't have certainty. I have let all that go and I'm so much happier now that I'm free from superstition, fear, guilt and the sin complex. To be able to think freely and objectively is a tremendous relief. Life means so much more now.

It scares me that millions of people today are still relying on the crazy writings of herdsmen and tribesmen who didn't know a thing about their world and who were as ignorant as a rock to guide their lives. They were writing for them in their time. All the prophies were about THEIR time, not ours. I highly doubt they were thinking people 2,000 years from their time would be relying on their writings to predict the future. It's insane. We have come such a long way in educating ourselves about our world through scientific discovery. Yet the Chrisitan Right want's Science destroyed in our Country because it threatens their "Faith". Our scientists are leaving to go to other countries because Bush has slashed the budgets to where they can't afford to stay here. Yet he makes it easy for religious charities, who don't have to be accountable to anyone, to get billions of dollars to promote christianity.

It's about Damn Time that secular people are given the same rights and respect that religious voters get. Freedom of Speech and Freedom from/of Religion are constitutional rights for EVERYONE.

If there is going to be a "Faith Based Initiatives" why can't we have a "Secular Based Initiatives?" If our President is going to help religious charities get our tax payer money so they can preach and convert people to christianity, then the secular people should be afforded the same money to fight for Separation of Church and State instead of having to relying on donations. It's bullshit! And more people should be pissed off about it.

Don't you think that is fair?

[Festivito]

52. FFRF, text, link to prior DU thread, and my take(not pretty).

the placard reads: "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."



Prior DU thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4576416&mesg_id=4576416

MY TAKE:
I find the FFRF lie.

That group claims they have a lack of belief in a god. They go to great and angry lengths to point that atheism is not saying that there is no god, just a lack of belief in a god. Yet, on this poster, in writing, "there are no gods." They went to great lengths only to end up lying.

They complain about religious hypocrites and yet here they exemplify themselves as hypocrites for saying they're not saying one thing and then then writing that they do on a public poster. I thought they were foolish, then they opened their collective mouths on a poster and removed all doubt.

They say they want separation of church and state, so when they see another religion, they don't respect a wall of separation, they make it a wall of confrontation. They have no care or concern for what the Constitution actually says. They just want to yelp separation as though it came from the Constitution and then define it to mean them confronting others in rude fashion is what the founding fathers would just love.

LINK TO MY POST IN OTHER THREAD:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4576416&mesg_id=4583894

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

59. If the sign stopped at "natural world," it would be just right.

What follows IS unnecessarily inflammatory. Then again, someone here pointed out the intention is to throw a wrench in the works so the state will cease promoting religion.

[Festivito]

62. Then they need to wrench the Constitution.

to stop it from its free exercise of religion.

They have every right to post what they want. They point I make is that they have been lying around here on DU, lying on their website. They lied in order to win arguments on the cheap.

They have an agenda that is not American. They want no religion to be the religion. They need to wake themselves.

[TechBear_Seattle]

72. This is not a matter of "posting what they want." This is a matter of state sponsorship

If the state is going to present religion in an official capacity, they must also present non-religion. The whole purpose of the FFRF display is to push the state into not presenting either religion or non-religion.

[Festivito]

78. No! You're after state sponsorship of the no-religion religion.

That argument that says, OH NO, atheism isn't a religion because it's a "lack of belief" not a belief, is a crock of lies.

The poster states a belief system. That is a religion.

And really, it doesn't matter. They are trying to promote a belief that there is no god. Fine.

But, their real end is that they want their no-religion to be the states only belief shown.

[TechBear_Seattle]

84. Fine. Let us go with the premise that atheism, as displayed in the WA display, is a religion

You damage your own case: if religious displays are permitted, and the FFRF display expresses religion, then the state CANNOT not permit it to be displayed. If one religious viewpoint is permitted, then ANY religious viewpoint must be given equal access. How in the world does that lead to "they want their no-religion to be the states (sic) only belief"?

[Festivito]

126. You're changing what I want to what you assume.

I don't have a problem with them posting it. And it is elsewhere someone suggested they wanted to confront in this manner to stop further displays.

[Goblinmonger]

96. Here's what you need to do.

Have some tea and relax. And then you need to research what a secular government is. Then you need to realize that our government was founded as a secular government for some very important reasons. Have a secular government is not a religion. Not getting involved in "god stuff" is NOT a religion. It is just a government that will never become a theocracy. That's a good thing. You can still believe what you want. I can lack those beliefs if I want. The government doesn't give a jack shit about it.

This line of argument is making you look silly. Enjoy your tea.

[Festivito]

124. Thank you. I'm fully aware.

I think you're ill expressed and should probably post after a different post anyway.

[yodermon]

162. You are equating "There is no God" with "Can we not talk about this please".

The are not the same thing.

[RainDog]

167. this remark is just plain stupid

a belief system is not a religion. that is the sort of crap you hear from right wing nutters.

if you believe that the scientific method is the best way to practice science - this is not a religion. If you believe that there is a canon of great works in western civilization, this is not a religion.

the issue at hand is a push-back from atheists (and not just atheists, but also mainline religious groups) who do not buy into the right wing attempt to force govt. to favor one religion.

The real stupidity, however, is the comment that "they want their no-religion to be the states only belief."

Guess what? That is the position of the United States... no state religion. You seem to think the state has a place in promoting religion - the truth of the matter is that when the state gets into that sort of business, then they have to support all varieties of religion or they have to face lawsuits. Or they have to change the constitution and claim a state religion.

[TechBear_Seattle]

183. A belief system is not a religion. But what about a doctrinal postion about God?

Just playing Devil's (sic) advocate here. :hi:

In the sign, the FFRF says, "There are no gods." That is not the same position as, "We believe that there are no gods." The first is a theological position. The second is an expression of belief. I would assert that one of the key distinctions between religious belief systems and other beliefs systems is that religious belief systems have one or more theological position at its heart. (The other key distinction involves non-theological supernatural assertions; thus Buddhism is a religion while the scientific method is not.)

[RainDog]

214. Since this group's name is "Freedom From Religion"

I take it that the primary focus of the group is to promote separation of church and state. The way in which they are attempting to do this is to state a position that, under law, must be allowed to co-exist on public property if any other statements of religion are allowed on public property.

Since anyone can claim "there are no gods" in a number of ways... write it as a line of poetry, put it in a play, create a collage - just as anyone can say "there is a god" in the same ways - I don't see how making such a statement reaches the realm of religion.

[Festivito]

203. Oh, someone else who can make ad hominem attacks.

Right-wing nutter such as Webster:
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Depends if you hold the practice of science with ardor and with faith in reproduceability of nature. Gotta love the science.

The state has no place in promoting A, singular, religion. It does, however, promote a variety of religions by addressing the freedom of religions in the Bill of Rights.

[RainDog]

211. again, you're wrong. the reply was not an ad hominem attack.

because I addressed the points that you made. this, by definition of ad hominem, makes your statement false. if my subject header said your post was stupid and had then not supplied any supporting reason based upon your statements, that would have been an ad hominem attack.

I see you resort to stating this whenever your ideas cannot be supported. This is typical when someone is trying to make a losing argument. Try to shift the focus away from the way in which you are misrepresenting both the flyer on display and the motives behind it.

You have, however, repeatedly used religious right wing talking points on this thread - you can go back and read crap they have spouted for decades and you'd fit right in.

One of their biggies is the attempt to call science a religion.

This is fraudulent. It is intellectually lazy, at best, but most often it is dishonest. If you want to equate science with religion, the next time you need to have surgery, you should go to a witch doctor instead.

[Festivito]

225. Well, we're going to disagree there.

If you don't like systems of belief being called religions, take it up with Webster.

Good luck.

[RainDog]

234. I'm happy to "take it up" with Webster

because, frankly, you are unable to understand, apparently, the distinction between religious tenets and a system of beliefs. "

"Take it up with Webster?" Fine. Here's a definition from Webster for belief: "a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing"

Words and phrases can and do have multiple meanings. The definition of such a phrase depends upon context in many cases. Therefore, if someone says "get out of here" when someone makes a silly joke, this does not mean another person should leave the premises. When that phrase is used to warn someone way from potential danger, it does mean someone should leave the premises.

Can we agree on this? That words have meanings that develop in context?

Webster, whose goal was to also provide information about the multiple meanings for words, provides more than one definition for them. You have chosen to apply your definition to any and all. This is what makes your thinking lazy...or, more to the point, worthless in any discussion - because you refuse to accept multiple applications of the same word based upon the context.

By your definition, however, cooking is a religion. Why? Because there is trust or confidence in butter to melt at a certain temperature. Because water boils every time vapor pressure of the liquid equals the environmental pressure surrounding the liquid. Because entire books are written with the assumption that such events can and do occur. Because cooks will argue with you when you try to claim that you can saute onions without heat.

To any rational person, however, a declaration that cooking is a religion is a ridiculous comment to make. Yet it is based upon a system of beliefs, so, according to your "logic" how can it not be a religion?

So, yes, take it up with Webster. You need to learn that words have meaning in context, and not just a meaning that you want to assign them because it fits your ideological posturing.

[Festivito]

267. Why bother if I'm unable to understand?

And some cooks do treat cooking like it was a religion, and I thank the good Lord they do. (Yes, I love to eat well.)

You may think them ridiculous, but I hope you'll wait until after they've finished cooking my meal to tell them.

Words do change by context, in fact words change from the moment they are first coined.

My fight is for diversity. I think we do better with competition. It's probably the main reason for most of my disagreements here on DU. I want many religions and even non-religions, anti-religions and more to all coexist together and yet retain their distinctiveness.

I want free choice of schools that teach different things.

Mostly I want Americans free to choose between these things.

So, go ahead and take it up with Webster. Free minds will win in the end.

[RainDog]

278. I'm not going to bother anymore

that remark about cooks is simply... beyond comment in the context of this discussion.

but I will add that, from you comments, you seem to now be trying to sneak in religious schools as a way govt. should "protect" religion. I have a problem with taxpayers funding them and will not agree to state-sponsored religious schools. This is also a direct violation of the separation of church and state.

And I have no problem with universities refusing to admit people to study who have substandard educations based upon religious teaching rather than science, for instance. the two belong in very different realms and freedom to choose does not mean freedom to choose to believe bullshit and then expect others to laud you for it.

Yes, I do hope free minds win in the end. We've seen the hope of this repeatedly in the centuries-long struggle between religious indoctrination and science, for instance. Religion, as closed system, loses to systems of belief that posit the natural world can be explained by natural acts. This has been shown to be true over and over again. Religion loses in a system of beliefs that holds we know what we know at this time, but that knowledge may change, based upon other, better evidence.

No one is trying to take away Americans' rights to believe in any sort of god. The issue is that these beliefs are individual, personal and not a matter for the state.

[Festivito]

286. beyond comment, you mean beyond your imagination to comment?

I said I like diversity. I like competition.

I would like to have non-profit church-run schools compete with non-profit public schools. For as much as both take difficult teaching situations, offer core curricula, have accredited teachers, achieve accreditations, ... they should get minimum funding. However, public schools need to be kept even if they attract no students. Religious schools do not need to be kept, if they fail, they're gone.

They both offer the same education for the same kind of students, they should be paid the same.

The argument against it is generally, oh no, it's not separation of church and state, to which I say, that's not the law, free exercise is, then the arguments degrade to the costs are not fair because churches are not taking disabled kids, to which I remind them that's what I meant by difficult teaching situations, at which point they either leave or they pick on some point of english from five posts before.

That's the reason I don't really want to get into it here.

[RainDog]

294. no. I meant I thought it was too stupid to deserve comment

I will fight against my taxpayer dollars funding religious schools. I will not pay for some idiot to teach creationism. I will not pay for some idiot to tell girls they must be subservient to men because this is their religious doctrine.

this issue is hugely important because of the damage religion can do to children. my tax dollars will never support teaching religious crap.

[Festivito]

325. Sounds extreme./nt

[RainDog]

332. only to someone who is ignorant about the history of parochial schools. n/t

[Festivito]

335. You mean how for some it was the only school around?

Amazing how we changed from some church run schools to a Public system that cannot even teach religion.

[RainDog]

220. oh, and to note- you include yet another misrepresentation in this post

you said:

"The state has no place in promoting A, singular, religion. It does, however, promote a variety of religions by addressing the freedom of religions in the Bill of Rights."

No. It does not promote any religion by stating that there is no state religion, or that there is no religious test for public office.

Protections of religious freedom and freedom from religion does not promote any of them. What it does promote is individual rights to freedom of conscious.

YOU take this protection to mean promotion - because that's what you want it to mean. However, there is nothing about the idea of "no religious test for public office" or the statement from the Treaty of Tripoli that "America is not a Christian nation" that supports religion, especially not the dominant one.

[Festivito]

229. You don't like the word promote, fine. Protect. So? /nt

[RainDog]

237. take it up with Webster

the two words mean very different things.

if you want to use them to make an argument, you need to understand that the meaning matters.

[prostock69]

85. Exactly. Religion needs to stay inside the churches and out of our government.

[Festivito]

95. They want un-religion to be the state sponsored belief system.

If they want to drop the free exercise clause of the first amendment, let them get to it.

[TechBear_Seattle]

99. You are lying: FFRF does NOT want to "drop the free excercise clause"

If the state is going to provide a platform for ANY belief system, the First Amendment obligates the state to provide an equal and non-separate platform for, well, any belief system, even when that belief system is about non-belief. The ONLY alternative allowed by the United States Constitution is not to provide a platform for any belief system at all.

So what do you want? A collection of displays where groups like the FFRF can express its distain in religious belief, or no displays at all? Those are the only two options.

[Festivito]

119. In English, persons use the word "if" NOT to affirm.

Perhaps you speak Spanish where si is if and means yes and if.

What I'd like is to have, off the top of my head, a celebration of free religion day. Atheists, agnostics, pantheists, Catholics, Lutherans, Buddhists, Shintoists, Spinozaists, ... could celebrate their own freedom to believe as they wish inside this wonderful country.

They can even post lies.

And I can point that out.

Go back and find the if in the post that lead you to go ballistic TechBear_Seattle. I bet you're not that dumb.

[TechBear_Seattle]

154. I sit partially corrected, but you are still lying: they do not want to establish non-religion

As I said above, they are pointing out that giving a platform to any religious view requires that they give a platform to any religious views. The only alternative is not to provide a platform in the first place. That is very, very different from trying to establish non-religion.

[Festivito]

188. That reminds me of the Washington Post attack on Gore.

They finally acknowledged the misquote but astonishingly said it meant the same thing.

Hmmm. What's the difference between establishing a non-religion as the state religion within all Federal holdings and allowing no religion in all Federal holdings.

Hmmm.

I guess THEY'D BOTH LOOK THE SAME.

[RaleighNCDUer]

232. The difference is

non-religion is not a fucking religion.

And all your creatively invented definitions don't make it so.

[Festivito]

243. Creatively copied from Websters using copy/paste. /nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

245. Curious -

My Webster says:
Atheist - a person who believes that there is no God.

Atheism - 1. The belief that there in no God, or denial that God exists 2. godlessness

I see no mention of it being a religion.

Liar.

[Festivito]

252. Oh, I've been getting the 'We only LACK belief."

which is fine. There are hard-atheists.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

1archaic : ungodliness , wickedness
2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity

Mine shows a doctrine. Hey, people believe this stuff.

Fool,

[RainDog]

262. doctrine is also a term for common law

We have been faced with The Bush Doctrine - so, since someone called it a "doctrine," I guess that makes it a religion, huh?

[Festivito]

280. Doesn't make it not, either. /nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

316. LOL

I'm a fool for not believing in something for which there is absolutely no empirical evidence.

Well, I'm certainly not going to change your belief that atheism is a religion - you are too well trained in believing things which are not true to be susceptible to any rational argument.

Enjoy your Holy Days; I will enjoy my holidays.

And never the twain shall meet.

[Festivito]

333. Holidays. Isn't that a contraction for holy days? Enjoy them!

Why do you need only empirical evidence and not just plain old evidence.

Perhaps rational arguments like rational numbers, need irrational numbers with imaginary parts placed right along side of those rationals. Perhaps there is something more than just the rational argument just given some imagination.

Perhaps I'm just right.

Thanks for the chuckles.

Sometimes I find myself arguing on the same side of some people who become wildly angry with me in these religion posts.

Let's hope that we all survive despite not having everything perfectly thought through.

[Khaotic]

287. godlessness

That's such a fucked up term.

Do you know why?

Because the last time I checked people don't call themselves Santaless, or Easter Bunnyless, or Dragonless.

A myth is a myth is a myth.

We don't debate about believing in dragons or unicorns even though the word of the worshipped deity mentions the mythological creatures, do we?

There are no unicorns, there are no dragons.

No debate.

It really is puzzling how "atheists" debate about "God." Why debate about a myth?

It makes no more sense to debate about a deity than it does to debate about who's tougher, Mighty Mouse or Superman!

[RaleighNCDUer]

344. Mighty Mouse, hands down.

After all, Superman doesn't even have a theme song.

HERE HE COMES, TO SAVE THE DAYYYY!

[Imperialism Inc.]

307. The difference is pretty huge.

In one case you'd have the government actively promoting non-belief and actively trying to prevent people from being religious in their lives. In the other case you'd have (and we do have in fact) a government who is neutral to religious belief. It has no say in what people believe and the the only constraints it places on religion is that if it appears in a venue funded by public money all sides must be given equal access to express their views. That is precisely what is happening here. The nativity scene gets its place and those who think it is myth and superstition get theirs. Totally fair. No side is being discriminated against. If a Jewish group wants to put up a menorah, like they have done in past years, they can do that too. And so on.

I was trying to put my finger on where it was that you had gone wrong, where you were most confused and, though the choices were many, I think this is the crux of it. That you don't understand the difference between promoting non-religion and being a neutral party is a pretty huge oversight on your part.

[Festivito]

317. Gee, you boiled it down and then goofed the sentence.

Where to put the comma(s). Hmmm.

Maybe you can't get it put together because maybe I'm not as wrong as you thought at first.

Wish you well.

[RaleighNCDUer]

322. If you are going to play grammar nazi, at least get it right.

There is nothing wrong with the comma placement in the poster's paragraph.

[RainDog]

169. this person sounds like an O'reilly mouthpiece.

it is amazing to see such ignorant bullshit touted as some big revealed "truth."

:eyes:

[JetCityLiberal]

265. Agree, what ignorant typical o'reilly bullshit

These posts have got stupidity and ignorance down.

Nothing 'truthful' in any of that spew.

[ImOnlySleeping]

257. or

Instead of un-religion you could call it "nothing".
They want nothing to be the official state belief system. No official state belief system. The state should be governed as to the best interests of the citizenry without the influence of a religion.
Feel free to believe the unknown on your own free time, but religion has no place in government.

[Festivito]

274. True, but why does their favored belief system get preferred treatment.

The nothing of the nothing believers.

It becomes the established belief system of government displaying and teaching.

I don't want to argue this here. It's a bigger topic and only touches on the OP.

[RainDog]

301. Your contention is so dishonest you should be ashamed of yourself

but you are obviously not because you spout this bullshit over and over and over there. You spout this bullshit after half a dozen, at least people have taken the time to refute your contention that an absence of religion equals a religion.

what you're doing, instead, is pissing on the hard-fought battles of everyone who worked to create a nation that allowed freedom of conscience. I'll take Jefferson, Adams, Franklin and Paine over your ignorance any day.

but I see you continue to toss up these fatuous words like mental vomitus - and the content is the same - regurgitated and half-digested morsels and nothing anyone would seriously want to touch if they have a thinking bone in their bodies.

To state, as the founders did, that America is not a Christian nation, and, therefore, there is no state religion is not to state a religious belief system. It is to declare that religion and state are not one and the same and one may not intrude upon the other.

You seem to think that continuing to repeat bullshit is the equivalent of creating reality. It's not. Stubbornness is not equivalent of "right."

No one wants to prevent you from practicing your religion. The issue is that tax dollars and the public square are not part of the practice of your religion. If you can't handle that, tough shit.

[Festivito]

324. Oh dear, you really mean that, don't you.

I tried to answer everyone.
I tried to use only respectable words.
I tried to spell my words correctly.
I tried to make my grammar correct.
I tried to be concise.
I tried not to call names.
I tried not to be negative.

And, I certainly tried to keep the posts accurate, clear and thereby honest.

You don't like what I'm saying. I can understand that. That's okay.

Some posters came into the discussion thinking I did not want the atheists to post anything. That happened several times.

It usually takes a while for people to understand. Usually there is someone.

When I started at DU it took over a year to get people to think that the media might not actually be left-wing.

This will take time.

Wish I had more.

[RainDog]

330. I'm beginning to think you're delusional

because I've been on DU for 6 years now and at no time did the majority of people on this board think that the media was left-wing...I think you must have gotten lost on the way to the fox news outlet. If you really think you have done some great work because you have convinced people that the media is not left-wing...well, let me just say it explains a lot about you, and none of it is flattering.

the tone of this post... in which you place yourself as some sort of sage who has come to enlighten the masses.. is laughable.

It is not that I do not like what you're saying. I'm telling you that what you are saying is bullshit. Wrong. You are wrong. You are wrong. Did you hear me? I and others are saying that you are wrong to conflate a state that does not promote religion with a religion. The idea is ignorant. It does not merit serious consideration.

Others have pointed out the flaws in your logic, and yet you continue to repeat your bullshit as tho it had merit. It doesn't.

In any case, I'm tired of this. I'll just have to put you on ignore because, at this time, I lack the self-discipline to read your crap and not reply.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

118. You forgot forced abortions, redistribution of wealth, confiscation of guns, and gay indoctrination.

[Festivito]

141. That's just off the wall.

Are you alright?

[RaleighNCDUer]

224. Sorry, you can't make up your own definitions and declare victory.

Atheism is not, in any of its many - dare I say infinite - forms, a religion.

It has no god. It has no creed. It has no fundamentals.

It is nothing more than a belief that there is no god. That belief is expressed by the statement "There is no god". And there is no way you can turn that into a religion.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation encompasses many different ideas about atheism, from the agnostic who concedes a possibility that while it is impossible to prove the existence of god it is a possibility, to the hardest atheist who says flat out that there is no such critter. The fact that there are variations on the theme within the organization does not make them "liars". They are lying about nothing. There is no atheist agenda to overthrow religion - only an agenda to protect the rights of atheists against the theist majority.

You are the liar, making dishonest claims about others.

Isn't lying - bearing false witness - a sin in your book?

[Festivito]

240. You have an opinion. Bully for you.

Very flowery. You say atheism is not a religion. Am I supposed to say WOW.

You've popped into the middle of someone else's branch and want answers that are deeper down the thread, and yet convoluted in logic requiring that lineage.

If you want a post answered, go to that post.

[AtheistCrusader]

230. What

A lack of religion isn't a religion. Fighting to get religion, illegally or unethically inserted into Government spaces, doesn't make unbelief a religion.

Churches already have tax exempt property they can put this manger stuff on. Why do they feel the need to stick it in the Capitol building? It doesn't belong there. When Justice Roy Moore put a sculpture of the 10 Commandments in the foyer to his courthouse, it at least had some non-religious artistic context that made sense. It was an example of ancient human law, somewhat appropriate to a courthouse for artistic decoration. Troubling, but somewhat within context. In what context does a manger, depicting events that may or may not have happened, fit within the State Capitol building?


I'm going to have my picture taken next to that thing. It's awesome. Hopefully next year, State Government buildings will be used only for their intended purpose, not to promote religious festivals.


The FFRF poster could have been a little less confrontational, but I'm tempted to join. This is a worthy cause.

Edit: Fixed spelling

[Festivito]

246. Believing there is no god, are no gods, is a system of beliefs.

That's what the poster has said. That's hard-atheism, strong-atheism, whatever nomenclature one wishes to use.

That's not stating a lack of belief in a god, that is stating a belief that there is no god, strong enough to put up a public posting, strong enough to go so far as to disparage other people's beliefs.

That's a religion. And that puts Hard-Atheism on equal footing with other religions with equal rights and equal responsibilities. No supercessory rights to be the only religion allowed to display itself with the nothingness it wants.

[AtheistCrusader]

255. Burden of proof isn't a religion.

Neither is parsimony. If you want to convince us there is a god, show some evidence. Until you do, there is no god, only imaginary friends, and superstition.

Technically, I am an agnostic, but I feel the burden of proof is so far in the religion camp's side of things, I'm perfectly happy to be identified as an Atheist.

[Festivito]

277. I think you might have posted under the wrong post.

I can no more prove there is a god than you can prove there is no god.

I wish you well though.

[AtheistCrusader]

283. Right, I can't prove a negative.

If you were correct, you ought to be able to prove a positive, that god does exist.
If you believe there's an invisible pink dragon in your garage, you are expected to prove it. I cannot disprove it.

(utilizing probability I could perhaps show the odds of you being correct approach infinity, but will grant that the odds are non-zero)

[Festivito]

291. You can prove a negative. It's just harder to do.

Proving no car in your garage is possible.

Wow, the probability of my being correct is near infinite, that's a lot better than 1.


Oh, did you mean infinitely small?

[AtheistCrusader]

306. Depends on the subject matter.

If it comes to an imaginary friend, impossible.

[prostock69]

60. They don't complain of religious hypocrites. That is not what FFRF is about

A religious hyprocrite is someone who preaches one thing then does the opposite. Like, for instance, Ted Haggard: He preached against homosexuality and doing drugs. Yet, he engaged in a 3 year homosexual relationship with a male prostitute and took meth. THAT is a relgious hypocrite! And he is one of a very LONG line of them.

When they said "gods" they were talking about the Judaism god, Islam god, and Christianity god separately. The people of those beliefs generally think their god is the only true god.

Go to their website and actually read what their mission statement says and actually look at the lawsuits they have filed. There is no separation of church and state in this country. The Faith Based Initiatives Program started by Bush is a perfect example. They have filed numerous lawsuits to fight for this very right that we are entitled to. There are several other organizations like them that do the same thing. They are not promoting Atheism.

And not all members of the FFRF are Atheists. There are Agnostics, Deists and even Christians that support them as well.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

The point of such an amendment is twofold. First, it ensures that religious beliefs - private or organized - are removed from attempted government control. This is the reason why the government cannot tell either you or your church what to believe or to teach. Second, it ensures that the government does not get involved with enforcing, mandating, or promoting particular religious doctrines. This is what happens when the government "establishes" a church - and because doing so created so many problems in Europe, the authors of the Constitution wanted to try and prevent the same from happening here.

Can anyone deny that the First Amendment guarantees the principle of religious liberty, even though those words do not appear there? Similarly, the First Amendment guarantees the principle of the separation of church and state - by implication, because separating church and state is what allows religious liberty to exist.

[Festivito]

73. They come close. You're right that it's "not what they're about."

You do not need to explain all this stuff to me, especially since I rather succinctly already said it.

My ire arises out of many DU arguments where atheist assure me they lack belief in order to win the discussion and then their statements are shown by this poster to be nothing but a pack of lies.

A1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

You and I disagree on your last point. I say the A1 denotes liberty to do and that liberty to do creates a wall of separation by protecting that freedom.
You say it is separation that allows liberty to exist.

No, it is A1 that allows religious liberty to exist, the resulting wall of separation is gravy, good gravy. For example: A1 allows FFRF to post the poster. If there was truly a wall of separation developed, the two postings would not be placed in a confrontational manner. Instead, each belief system would respect each others free exercise with a thicker wall of separation.

EDIT: HIT POST BY ACCIDENT.

[dmallind]

116. What the hell?

"My ire arises out of many DU arguments where atheist assure me they lack belief in order to win the discussion and then their statements are shown by this poster to be nothing but a pack of lies"

So atheists HAVE to agree with this sign as a statement of faith? Where does it say that? When did we elect Dan Barker Pope and make him infallible? Since when did the (never ever ever denied) existence of strong atheism make all weak atheists liars?

Trust me I LACK BELIEF, and somebody else disgareeing with me does not make that a fucking lie any more than I disagreeing with you makes a claim that Democrats are not an atheistic party a lie. Individual Democrats may be atheists. That does not make all of us atheists. Individual atheists may hold the philosophical opinion of strong atheism without making all weak atheists into strong ones.

That you think atheista re all liars because one atheist says something different from them is either an insane or idiotic opionon or the biggest hypocrisy possible if you really know better.

You also ignore a strong possibility that the sign is as is to make a point rather than to be the encyclopaedic and complete statement of even FFRF's opinion (which is in no necessarily sense mine). Were I to attempt that even limited to these consatructs listed I would have to state "There is no evidence of anything like angels, demons, gods, etc and much evidence that they are merely a side effect of the ability of humans to think in an abstract manner coupled with the psychological desirte for certainty and social cohesion". Not exactly fucking snappy repartee to post on a sign now is it? Wouldn't exactly make Bill O apoplectic and get the state to see the problem with promulgating ALL religious opinions would it? Not half as well as this one does eh?

[Festivito]

139. The statement does not necessarily apply to ALL DUers.

And your logic requires that it would necessarily apply to all.

You have also jumped into the conversation somewhere in the middle.

It has a start.

[dmallind]

171. I read the start too

And my contention applies not just to all as a group but to each and every individual DUer as a singular entity.

The only POSSIBLE way you could be justified is if Dan Barker himself posted that he merely lacked belief, and if he created this poster with the intent of expressing his own beliefs in complete detail. Then yep you got him personally as a hypocrite.

ANY Duer who has said that atheists simplpy lack belief, or that they personally simply lack belief, is not in possible way shape or form proven a liar by this sign unless they ever expressly said that any statement whatsoever from the FFRF would always reflect their own views.

[immoderate]

70. What do you mean by, "confronting others in a rude fashion?"

Do atheists come knocking at your door to persuade you to believe as they do? Do atheists have government supported structures on every corner with billboards telling you that you will suffer an eternity of agony if you don't follow their rules?

Everybody is bombarded with religious nonsense all the time. When someone finally says "cut it out," they are rude? When someone tries to shine a light of reason through the dark age of superstitious fiction -- that's rude? Can all the various religions be true? Unless you say "yes" you are being rude to someone. Unless you can show how they all can be true, you are a purveyor of nonsense. That's what atheists are saying, "cut out the nonsense."

--IMM

[Festivito]

76. Rude? Direct attack: "Religion is but myth and superstition "

What's rude about a direct attack in public? Do you really need that explained to you?

Sadly you've been "bombarded" by some other people sometime somewhere. But, here, now, the offense is putting up a pretty display to attract people while alongside someone else puts up a poster directly attacking the people with the pretty display.

Wake up.

[snooper2]

100. truth hurts?

:evilgrin:

[Festivito]

105. Yeah, not knowing a direct attack could be considered rude.

Sheesh.

[snooper2]

115. You should be happy I didn't write the sign

It would be downright fucking MEAN!

[Festivito]

146. naw, you're a pussycat. /nt

[AtheistCrusader]

236. I consider sticking a religious display in a Government Building to be rude.

And un-American.

[Festivito]

253. Good that you have self-awareness. /nt

[Fumesucker]

106. Actually there are (at least) two sorts of atheism..

The "hard atheist" believes there is no god, hard atheists are not agnostics.

"Soft atheists" lack a belief in god, quite a few soft atheists are agnostics.

So perhaps the atheists you were arguing with were soft atheists and the ones who put up the sign were hard atheists.

[Festivito]

130. Thank you, yes. but, I think they were playing both sides.

When they wanted to argue atheism is not a religion they were soft-atheists, then when it suited them to be more militant they would suddenly be hard-atheists and that's why I'm mad.

[Twinguard]

133. Everyone should be agnostic.

Nobody knows for sure if there is a deity or not. Not a "hard atheist" nor the Pope can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that there is or isn't a god. Personally, I refer to myself as an atheist agnostic. I don't believe in god. I don't believe in an afterlife. I look at the bible the same way I look at Aesop's fables... good stories, not to be taken literally, all ending with some kind of moral. I do, however, think it would be foolish to just turn off my brain and blindly follow either side.

Above all else, we have to keep an open mind.

And to the display in Olympia...
In order to put up a display there you must get a permit. You must get a permit to put up a nativity scene, a menorah, or a winter solstice billboard. I believe the constitution mentions "freedom of religion." That means in this country you are free to be a christian, a jew, a muslim, a buddhist, or even an atheist. I'm not wild about any religious displays in a government building, but I am glad that the capital of my state has more than just Christianity represented.

Also in my opinion, people need to get over it. I don't think atheists should get upset over nativity scenes or menorahs, I don't think christians should get upset over winter solstice billboards or menorahs, and I don't think jews should get upset over manger scenes and Christmas trees. We all need to learn to get along, and every time something like this starts, it divides us up just a little more. We should be secure enough in our religion, or lack there of, that we don't feel threatened by something with a different perspective. I guess that goes back to my thought that we should keep our minds open.

[Fumesucker]

144. Very few atheists get upset over religious displays ON PRIVATE PROPERTY

It is displays on public property which are upsetting to most of us.

[Enthusiast]

227. It is only religious displays

on public property that is upsetting to me. Did you see Lou Dobbs yesterday evening? It was a perfect illustration of this.

[AtheistCrusader]

235. Oh I see.

When the Norse do it, it's 'mythology', but when you do it, it's RELIGION.

(It's all mythology)

As far as I'm concerned, neither of these displays belong in the Capitol Building. But the rules that justify the religious display, also apply to the FFRF display. Next year, if they do the religious displays on PRIVATE property where they belong, we won't have to have this controversy again.

[Festivito]

275. Hey, wrong strawman. I'm norse.

Why are you calling my religion mythology?

It would be too bad. Christmas is fun, dontcha know.

[AtheistCrusader]

304. Well, the Christians who celebrate Christmas call it mythology..

But I think re-doing 'The Last Supper' with Jupiter, and Zeus, and Hermes/etc might be kind of amusing.

[nebenaube]

77. Frankly I don't see the lie...

Frankly I don't see the lie... what I do see is just a affront to your belief system that you can't handle. The Christo-fascists started this problem long ago and this is just another episode of the push back. "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction". Twenty years ago the fundies were running around claiming to be the "Moral Majority" and pushing for biblical law. Ten years ago they had their "kNOw JESUS, kNOw PEACE" bumper stickers; which of course were a blatent threat. Four years ago, their 'President' had to remind them that they were not going to get their theocracy and yet they continue to push, push, push. Give it up, go back into your closet and pray there; after all, that is what Jesus actually preached.

[prostock69]

82. How true

:thumbsup:

[redqueen]

101. Thank you!

:thumbsup:

[Festivito]

103. You did not address what I said, just personal attack, then story...

Fine. You don't see the lie.. Why not then at least let me know where you got lost?

Instead you have to make an ad hominem "belief system that you can't handle" attack and tell a short history of some other so-called Christians that probably neither of us like and neither of us agree with.

You're wasting our time.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

120. Thin skin much? Saying that "you can't handle" something is hardly a personal attack.

You're a whiner.

(See, THAT was a personal attack.)

[Festivito]

132. They're both personal attacks. /nt

[nebenaube]

145. No, you are wasting your own time.

We all have the capacity to have a 'religious' experience. Our ignorance of what that experience represents evolved into a superstitous attempt to rationalize and understand the phenomena. Sociopaths exploit this to gain power over fools.

Understand this, there is a collection of cells in our brains that are intertwined with the emotional centers of the Limbic system. This nucleus of cells, labeled the 'god nodule' by neurologists, whenever properly or accidentally stimulated, makes one feel connected to the universe. The experience itself does not prove the existence of a god. All it proves is that in some cases, hypnosis or covert/accidental exposure to psychoactive compounds can be a pleasing and somewhat enlightening experience and that it's all in your head.

Would you like some mushroom tea in your holy water?

[Festivito]

150. Mmmm "mushroom tea" sounds nice.

Sure, it could be the only reason religions exist. Would you be happier if government was the only religion? Then they could abuse this without any competing religions to stop it.

At least some religions acknowledge that some of those speaking up within it, are not of the religion.

[ImOnlySleeping]

259. I don't think religion means what you think it means

I don't think religion means what you think it means, which is why you're getting so upset. A religion is institutionalized belief in the supernatural. Government, while an institution, does not require a belief in the supernatural.

[Festivito]

270. Maybe it doesn't mean what you think it means.

to toss that right back at you.

Welcome to DU.

Glad to have you here.

Now lets fight again. ;)

[ImOnlySleeping]

337. Arguing about different things.

Thanks. I've been lurking for years, but finally got around to registering.
I was going to make a crack about free markets being super natural in my last post, but left it out for brevity.

[go west young man]

107. Love the billboard myself just because it takes a swipe at christianity.

But in some ways your right. Christianity and Atheism both hold a finite view on things. Agnostic is the way to go. That way one doesn't presume to know either way. I hope Bill O'reilly and his mindless minions scream as loud as they can because the louder they scream the sooner the christian lie goes away. I also hope Obama reverses all the tax exempt BS that churches get away with. That's one way to pull us out of an economic depression.

[Festivito]

142. Agnostic is like ignorant.

If you don't mind being called ignorant.

Just playing with ya.

I don't think the current overtaking of religion by political forces will destroy religion. Hurt it, yes, destroy it, no.

I hope you don't enjoy taking swipes at other peoples personal beliefs just for the fun of it. I'd have to say, that isn't nice.

Nice talking to ya though.

[go west young man]

178. Unfortunately I am a bit sadistic.

;) I am working on it though. Being an agnostic you can get away with pretty much anything }( As the great Robyn Hitchcock once said " It's very dangerous to mock people's religions and beliefs. They're gods won't kill you but they might."

[go west young man]

180. Kick me in the butt for that "They're".

[Festivito]

205. Oh, thought about the commas needed after gods and you.

Butt, if you insist.

:buttkick:

...Darn, it won't work.

[RainDog]

157. Like this founding "father?"

And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

your post is somewhat hard to follow, but its reasoning is entirely faulty, from what I see. If there are displays in public spaces based upon religious belief, they have every right to display their poster too.

you know, I don't particularly like the poster, but I support the right for it to be on display. You claim they are hypocrites - based upon a claim they are calling others hypocrites - but they're not calling anyone a hypocrite in that poster - that's how you're reading it, but it is not what they said. A hypocrite does one thing and says another. There is nothing in that poster that states this about anyone.

You are simply calling names and pretending like that is a valid argument. But you know what? It isn't a valid argument. It is merely your expressed dislike of their actions.

The wall of separation between church and state does not say anything about whether or not one group can question another group's beliefs. You made up this version of the term. Religious tolerance does not mean one group has to shut up because you don't like what they have to say.

[Festivito]

217. Hard to follow when you assume something there that isn't.

For me, and for you, it follows A1 for them to display this poster. So that's fine. The rest of your post assumes we don't agree there.

[SidDithers]

53. K&R...nt

Sid

[Vinca]

55. The Capitol shouldn't host religious displays of any kind, but

since they do can we get a Muslim display up? That will really annoy Bill-o.

[Mad_Dem_X]

64. I agree - there shouldn't be any

religious displays in a government building!

[Cults4Bush]

68. Yes or even better...

an assortment of pan-pagan solstice/yule time displays! Lets teach the history about the source of this whole winter celebration thingy me bopper anyways.

[rurallib]

63. Actually O'Really is giving atheists a ton of free publicity

If he would have just shut up, no one would even have known about this sign.
I would like to thank him for pointing it out.
BTW - I hope he calls us when he dies and goes to heaven. I have yet to hear of anyone doing that yet.

[prostock69]

89. Yes, there is a bright side to this. Besides riling up his Christian watchers

He's riling of the non-religious people as well.

[prostock69]

92. Our secular government should NOT be promoting or funding religion. PERIOD

I don't care what faith you have. No one is saying you can't believe what you want. What we non-believers are saying is respect the constitution and the rights of the non-believers. Quit treating us like we are immoral because we are not. You would be surprised to learn just how many closet Atheists there are preaching in churches today! They feel trapped because they don't know how to do anything else. The FFRF gets thousands of letters every year from people who are afraid to come out with their non-beliefs due to fear of ridicule from Religious people. It's not right and it's not fair. If you want respect for your "religious beliefs" then you need to respect our non-religious beliefs. And until we have a government that sets this example, I will continue to support the FFRF and other organizations like them who stand up for our rights.

There is hope for this change:

The largest group of non-religious people are between the ages of 15-30.

The number of college and university campus secular clubs is growing rapidly. 15 to 20 years ago there were only about 1/2 dozen groups, but today there are hundreds. The Freedom from Relgion Organization has been working with the Secular Student Alliance (SSA) in a joint outreach project to college and university campuses, and the SSA is very busy just trying to keep up with the increas in affiliates. One of the most common reasons why these students join the SSA, other than they don't believe in god is they want to fight back because the religious groups on campuses are often very pushy and obnoxious and the nonbelieving students want to counter their proselytizing to promote REASON, SCIENCE and HUMAN ETHICS over faith, superstition and orthodoxy.

I feel a new "ENLIGHTENMENT" coming folks. The days of religious dogma controlling this country and government will pass and hopefully we will get back to thinking like reasonable and rational people again. Maybe then we will catch up with the rest of the world who has passed us in education and science.

[D23MIURG23]

67. K&R !!

The noodly apendages... they touched that billboard!!!

[CitizenPatriot]

74. So Bill must consider himself a "Christian"

I guess when god opened the door to sexual harassers, Billo blew through that door with ferocious determination to do god's will.

[TechBear_Seattle]

75. Joint statement by Dem. Gov. Gregoire and Rep. Att. Gen. Rob McKenna

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.

Taken from http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/390542_capitoldisplay05.html

If I can find the full text of the statement, I will post it here.

[TechBear_Seattle]

79. Contact Gov. Gregoire, and my letter to her

http://www.governor.wa.gov/contact/default.asp

If you are a resident of Washington, this is a very good way to get your thoughts heard.

My email:

Professional Faux News liar, Bill O`Reilly, has asked his devotees to contact your office and complain about the Freedom From Religion Foundation's display in the Capital Rotunda. With the amount of ignorance and hate those people can spew, I thought you would like a word of appreciation for your even-handed approach in reviewing display requests and your support for the constitutions of the United States and the State of Washington.

Thank you.

[prostock69]

83. Thank you for the link. I'm emailing my support right now

[Love Bug]

93. It's rather "in your face," but no more so than some religious/anti abortion signs I've seen

Bill'O is not happy unless he has something to whine about. Cry me a river... :nopity:

[Soylent Brice]

97. o'lielly is a DOOSH

who gives a shit what this guy says anymore.

i think the sign is a WAY nicer approach than what i would have in mind.

the most ridiculous part to me is where they call it an anti-religion sign. how about calling it what it really is, a "pro-common sense" sign.

[snooper2]

98. Good, FUCK RELIGION

:headbang:

Bout Time we got our viewpoint out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Soylent Brice]

223. if you like that sign, check this out

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Soilent%20Brice/9

[paulthomson]

110. OK so be sure to contact the gov

and let her know she has some support so she won't back down!

Amen

[daveskilt]

121. no problem with the sign itself BUT.....

The point of the display with a menorah, a nativity and other religious symbols from the competing brands of religion is actually a pretty cool message of tolerance - bringing them all together. The sign for the atheist group is actually doing what atheist decry about religion - It draws lines in the sand and literally states that the others are all wrong and only their way is right. Now a sign promoting, peace and secular harmony would be cool. But a sign pushing an agenda about religious beliefs (organized atheism has in its own funny way become a religion - a big club that dogmatically think they are right and everyone else is wrong) has no more place at the capitol than a sign saying jesus is the only way or a little guillotine to make sure everyone entering is circumcised (moyle-o-matic - patent pending)

[WarhammerTwo]

128. Gotta agree

If the sign say, "We believe there are no gods..." or "we think there are no gods..." or something like that. After all, just like those with religious conviction cannot prove the existence of their god(s), atheists can offer no proof that something greater than ourselves doesn't exist. So to come off with such a declarative statement, making it sound like it's a fact and they can readily disprove the existence of any sort of spiritual being comes off as condescending. The most tolerant thing would be for the Christians to say we believe in Christ, the Jews to say we believe in Moses, the Islamics to say we believe in Mohammad, the Greeks to say we believe in Zeus, the Romans to say we believe in Jupiter and the atheist to say we believe in the natural world with no one being able to prove any of the others wrong.

[JerseygirlCT]

134. Just a niggling point here

Jews and Muslims believe in God, as do Christians - the same God. Moses was a man. Mohammed was a man. A prophet, but a man. Muslims do not "believe in" (as in worship) him, or Jews, Moses, any more than say you or I "believe" in maybe... Obama.

But yes, atheists can no more prove their disbelief than believers can prove their belief. Which ought to be just fine, either way. And the greater message of tolerance and understanding is a good one, and I agree, somewhat undercut by the need to tear down other beliefs in order to establish one's own.

[WarhammerTwo]

152. You're absolutely right....

...but they all believe in different interpretations of God's word as per their corresponding prophets. I should've said Jews believe in Moses' God and Islamics believe in Mohammad's God but I was just trying to make a quick point.

[TechBear_Seattle]

153. Most definitely NOT the same god

The Christian god is a trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Observant Jews and Muslims will get VERY annoyed if you suggest that the deity they worship is anything other than a single, monolithic being.

Likewise, observant Jews and Christians will get very annoyed if you suggest that their deity sent Muhammad to teach a new religion which made their own beliefs outdated and probably wrong. Remember, the special status Islam gives to "people of the Book" is not one of "they are right, if only marginally;" it is one of "converting everyone else to the One True God is more important, the Jews and Christians can wait for now."

So while Judaism, Christianity and Islam have common roots, it is fundamentally wrong to say that they worship the same god.

[JerseygirlCT]

163. As a Christian myself, I can refute that, TechBear

We worship the same God. The idea that Muhammad might be a prophet doesn't annoy me in the least. Not sure I agree, but not sure that matters, either, in the end. Religion itself is a man-made construct - God is not.

As many within our respective traditions do, we see that God differently sometimes. But we worship the same God.

The Christian idea of the trinity certainly causes Jews and Muslims to scratch their heads. But Christians believe that God is one, although three in one. We are not polytheists.

How we worship differs. The God we worship is the same God.

[TechBear_Seattle]

176. The vast majority of these religions' adherent disagree

Most may say that they worship the same god, but will almost always assert that their own theology and manner of worship is the only correct and true theology and manner of worship, and the others have it all wrong.

Regarding the Trinity, what Christians belief about it is not the point. What is relevant in this context is what Judaism and Islam believe about it, which is that Christians are polytheists trying desperately to look like monotheists and that this desperation is an implicit admission that they are wrong. I used to have a list giving about thirty bibliographic references to Jewish and Muslim material written over the last 500 years which expresses this position; I will see if I can locate it for you.

Ask yourself: are you, as a Christian, really willing to concede that the foundational doctrine of the Trinity is incorrect, which would imply that Jesus was just an ordinary man and not God Incarnate? Are you, as a Christian, really willing to admit that maybe the Jews and Muslims are correct and that Jesus was never resurrected, much less ascended bodily and alive into Heaven?

[JerseygirlCT]

182. LOL

well, sure. But, admittedly, I'm not your average Christian, either.

(I wouldn't likely be your average Jew or Muslim, for that matter.)

The doctrine of the trinity *is* a totally confusing one. I'd be hard-pressed to come up with one real-life person I know who can honestly claim to totally understand it. Most simply "accept" the idea. I can intellectually dodge my way through it fine enough, and there is certainly precedence for God's presence on earth in Jewish belief - it's the human form and the length of the interaction starts to make things sticky. My Jewish family and I shrug and agree with have differing understandings. Who knows? We both could be wrong.

There is something attractively spare and clean about the Muslim approach as well, though at times the veneration of the prophet certainly approaches worship to an outside eye.

But I do think those are doctrinal differences that come *after* a belief in the same God. Personally, I think anyone with a belief in the divine of any sort believes in the same God - it's all one to me, whether seen as one or many or nature or what-have-you. But as I said, I'm not exactly your typical Christian. You'd have to use more modifiers than you'd want to start describing me, lol: unitarian universalist liberal Episcopalian Christian ... makes something of a start!

[TechBear_Seattle]

210. I had a pretty liberal Christian upbringing as well

I spent several years in the Metropolitan Community Church, which was (somehow) both fundamentalist and theologically liberal. I latter moved to the Episcopal Church and had begun studies with the diocese that, eventually, would have led to ordination. My spiritual path has also included many years studying Wicca and a brief but intense study of Theravada Buddhism. My best friend in high school was the son of "Conservadox" Jews who were active members of B'nai Or ("Children of Light"), part of a movement which seeks to revive orthodox observances combined with a liberal, modern theology and Jewish mysticism; I passed many hours together discussing spiritual matters with him and his parents. Then there was the college classes in religious studies (taught by my school's philosophy department rather than the much more common sociology) and two independent study classes in History where I learned about the Great Schism. And after all this, I've identified as either an atheist or an apatheist for about 15 years now.

So trust me, we have no theological arguments on a personal level :hi:

The point I am making is that while individual believer might assert that the three Abrahamic religions worship the same god, the religions themselves say otherwise in their doctrine and theology. That is, after all, why they are different religions in the first place. The differences between Judaism, Christianity and Islam are far more fundamental than the differences between the Greek Orthodox, Catholic and Methodist churches, after all.

[sledgehammer]

187. No concrete answer to this...

When there's a kumbaya moment, adherents of these three religions claim they all follow the same God. When things are a little trickier, one religion's God is better than the other, so they are not the same.

What is common is that these three religions believe in the same concept of God - a creator with human-like attributes, a single male God, with the power of rewarding and punishing in this world and the next, etc.

[TechBear_Seattle]

212. That is an excellent distinction to make

Yes, the Abrahamic religions have the same basic concept of God, but that is very different from saying that they have the same god. I will have to steal that argument point, thanks. :hi:

[sledgehammer]

239. Do I get royalties? ;) n/t

[JerseygirlCT]

215. Nope, gonna quibble over that male thing, too

Many of us are working to break away from that idea - there's nothing in the theology to insist on that - just habit and the boys writing all the books, lol!

I like the move toward gender-neutral language and hope our prayer books someday reflect that. God is neither male nor female - or both male and female - take your pick!

[sledgehammer]

238. True...

The notion of a male God is primarily a result of the old habit of male-centric writing.

Of the three religions, Christianity is probably the most insistent on a male God, because he is the "Father" as well, and impregnated Mary through the Holy Spirit.

[Kashka-Kat]

155. Yeah, we gotta get an AGNOSTIC sign up in there !!! Agnostic w/ a touch of neo-pagan

probably most closely matches MY own personal religious belief - and in a sense atheism & agnosticism are a religious beliefs arent they in the sense that it is a belief about the nature of being-ness and reality. If your belief is atheism, no higher power, then that is a "religious" belief is it not.

(Oh my goddess... too much thinking this early in the a.m.)

[TechBear_Seattle]

161. How about an apatheist display?

"Why are we spending so much public money to put up and protect religious displays in government buildings, when schools are being closed for lack of money, state infrastructure is collapsing and large corporations get bigger and bigger tax breaks which further decrease the state's already severely depleted budget? Don't we have more important things to spend this money on?"

For those unfamiliar with "apatheism," the word is a combination of "atheism" and "apathy" and represents the view that religion and theology is irrelevant. Basically:

Theism: I believe in God.
Atheism (weak): I do not believe in God.
Atheism (strong): I believe there is no God.
Agnosticism: I am not sure about belief in God.
Apatheism: I believe I will have another slice of cake.

[Kashka-Kat]

200. LOL - sign me up! Actually finding Nirvana thru Chocolate Cake- could be considered a religion?

[laconicsax]

288. Would the agnostic sign look like this?

--------
|:shrug:|
--------

[TechBear_Seattle]

129. Well stated. n/t

[NoodleyAppendage]

213. Again, NO. Atheism is NOT a religion. We only follow what we "know," not what we "believe."

Religion requires faith in unprovable, unknowable absolutes. Atheism makes the simple proposition that these concepts are not amenable to observation, reproducability, and confirmation. Just because people of similar minds follow this tenet does NOT make them a religion...maybe a social club or organization, but DEFINITELY NOT a religion.

This "Atheism is a religion" bullshit meme has been promulgated by the Xtians as a way of denegrating the core of the Atheists arguments. As is typical of Xtians, rather than debate the issues they would rather destroy and belittle.

J

[JerseygirlCT]

219. Although the statement referenced in the OP says

there is no God.

That is not something provable, or something you can know. It is an absolute statement as well. But it is, in its own way, every bit as much a statement of belief.

More factual had they said: we cannot prove that God exists.

[hedgehog]

122. FWIW, I believe that crosses and manger scenes belong in homes and churches,

not on the lawn of City Hall or in the window at Macy's. Ditto with religious Christmas carols. My religion is too important to me to let it be used to get someone in the mood for shopping.


On the other hand, if no one made a fuss over this sign, the people who sponsored it would be deeply disappointed.

[Kashka-Kat]

125. OH FOR CRYING OUT LOUD - isn't there a better way to frame your issues??

Sure, there is a point to be made about Freedom OF Religion = Freedom FROM Relgion.

But this aint it, you aren't making it in a helpful, constructive, elucidating manner. Geez, what is so bad or offensive about a HOLIDAY tree?? Which is a pan-European pre Christian symbol which symbolizes solstice/year end like easter eggs symoblize spring/ new growth. Symbols abound everywhere! For example= flags denoting nationhood.
Its not a manger scene which is specific to Christianity.

Besides, everyone knows AGNOSTICISM is the true intellectually honest path, not atheism (in your face back at ya)

[dmallind]

194. Since when are they mutually exclsuive?

Atheism is an ontological position. It is a statement about whether you believe gods exist (it is gods by the way folks, not just your favorite one). That staement is simply "no I don't". You can be an atheist and lack belief or be an atheist with a positive belief in the absence of gods. Both however address the question of existence.

Agnosticism is on epistemological position. It is a statement which addresses the question of if and how we can know. That statement is "mystical revealed certainty is invalid". We KNOW this because we have very detailed accounts from the guy who invented the damn word just a bit more than 100 years ago, Thomas Huxley, about what he meant. It is, intutitively, the rejection of gnosis or certain mystical knowledge revealed to a person. It addresses the question of knowledge.

I am 100% atheistic - I lack belief in gods. I am joine din this by anyone who answers the question "do you beleive in a god or various gods" with any answer other than "yes". It is a yes or no question. Telling me you don't think we'll ever know, or don;t think it's a meaningful question (both of them defensible positions indeed) are just diversions. You either believe or you don't.

I am 100% agnostic - I do not think the truth can be found by simply being certain of either answer without evidence or elimination of all possibilities.

This is no more fence sitting than saying I am both white and overweight. Not all white people are overweight. Not all overweight people are white.


For those who quibble about this and seek to quote incomplete references that list only strong atheism (as meaningful by the way as claiming that "gay" no longer means light hearted and happy simply because many people also now use it to mean homosexual) I ask one simple question. What would a person who simply did not accept the existence of gods have been called prior to the late nineteenth century?

[Kashka-Kat]

221. hmmm, maybe not mutually exclusive but the billboard in question defnitely

was using your definition #2, positive belief in absence of gods (and one would assume also the concept of an all-pervasive unifying life force energy field a la native american and Neo-pagan religions?)

I totally respect the position described in your definition #1 but wonder why you don't then identify as Agnostic? Actually,I respect anyone's beliefs including your definition #2, but the minute it or any dogma is in my face as some absolutist truth - I get a little testy. I think because I grew up in an intolerant religious household I am hypersensitive to the "religiosity" in a lot of people's behaviors and beliefs. Including those that on the surface claim to be anti- or non-religious

[dmallind]

266. Because as I explained it's a different question entirely

Agnosticism is NOT a third option between belief and non belief. It is a position on how the question could be answered. There is no ROOM for a third option - any more than there is between symmetrical and asymmetrical.

"Do you believe in gods?" cannot technically be answered by "I'm an agnostic". It may be understood by a lot of people, but that's because a lot of people don't know the difference. It's like saying slingshots work because of centrifugal force. Everybody understands what you mean, but it is utterly wrong - it's actually centripetal acceleration.

A case (weakly) could be made that we should all kowtow to what people THINK words mean and stop using correct ones, but unlike centrifugal (and gay come to think of it) the neologistic meaning is not yet so completely dominant that the technically corrrect answer would lack communicative value. Lots of people DO know what atheist means, and that it includes weak atheists. So until the dark day comes when the answer "I'm an atheist" becomes so completely misunderstood as saying "I'm gay" when you are just in a cheerful mood would be now then I prefer to identify with a correct definition for me.

Theism is belief in gods

I lack theism.

I have then a condition of a (without) theism

I am then an atheist.


The fact that I don't accept gnosis is a completely irrelevant (but true) distraction.


EDIT - yes the poster as written is indeed a statement of strong atheism. It may have been designed that way to make a point more clearly or cause a greater stor (if so it worked) or it may be the statement of a person who is indeed a strong atheist. Frankly I find strong atheism as illogical as theism, just in a different way, but I understand people disagree.

Oh and bear in mind folks that making claims that a SPECIFIC god claim is impossible does not equal strong atheism. I cannot for one second say that there are no gods in the univers, or even that the god who is described in the Bible does not exist. I CAN say that it is impossible for a god exactly AS described in the Bible and as understood by mainstream Christian theology cannot exist because the ideas in it are internally contradictory. Perhaps Yahweh might exist, and perhaps even many things said about him in the Bible are true (this by the way is exceptionally unlikely to a newra infinte level in my opinion, just not outright impossible). However he cannot be all knowing, all powerful and all-loving. The simple existence of tooth decay blows that out of the water with millions more examples in the wings.

The parallel here is I have no way to say thet there are no 18 feet tall bright blue bachelors somewhere in the universe because I lkack universal knowledge. I CAN however say there are no 18 ft tall bright blue MARRIED bachelors in the universe (in the normal understanding of those words in English that is - perhaps some races refer to anyone over 17' tall as a bachelor) because there are contradictory characteristics involved.

[Bleacher Creature]

127. Because there are no other problems to devote eight minutes to . . . .

Moron.

[jfkraus]

131. I am certain of only two things in this life...

...the sun will come up tomorrow and there is no god.

[WarhammerTwo]

165. Until...

the day you die and there he/she/it is standing in front of you tapping his/her/its foot saying, "Well? I'm waiting for an apology.' j/k :)

[Dukkha]

281. i'm only certain of two things being infinite

the universe and human stupidity, and only the former can be proven to end eventually

[keepthemhonest]

136. what are they trying to do reignite the republican party? NT

[Javaman]

140. Well, it is that time of year after all.

the "war on christmas", season. which follows the, "people who observe Holloween are all going to hell" season.

[Guaranteed]

143. If the nativity scene is in the Capitol, the atheist billboard can be too.

If the nativity scene wasn't in the Capitol, it couldn't.

But the concept is very simple. I don't see the point of Dueling Religions (or lack thereof) on public property, but if anything is going to be up, everything- just about- has to be allowed up.

[TechBear_Seattle]

164. What a lot of people find offensive is not that the display is there, but the content of the display

Speaking as an atheist, I find it a bit offensive. The purpose of the display is to represent the varied beliefs that come together at or around midwinter. A display that denigrates the beliefs represented by the other displays is inappropriate, regardless of what you might personally feel about those other beliefs. It would be wrong for the Nativity display to include text that read "Believe or burn forever," correct? I don't see any meaningful difference between that and "Religion is myth and superstition."

[keepthemhonest]

148. It does not seem like something atheist would do....

push their views on other people.That is what the right wingers do.Here is my conspiracy theory it's a fake group made up to pretend to piss off the the right wingers and rally the repubican party again.ha

[ooglymoogly]

156. Reason must be stomped out....billo

[asjr]

166. I think that billboard was set up specifically

for DUers to embark on a long long thread about something other than Mumbai, automakers, interest rates, the bankrupt credit card companies that suck our blood, and Bill Richardson shaving off his disguise. Good times are acoming folks, Shrub and Daisy Bush on on their way to Texas in just a couple of months. I would love to see billboards about that.

[tjahome]

168. Slight Disconnect

I agree with the Governor and Attorney General allowing an atheist sign. However, I must agree with the posts above, this sign seems to not express a belief, but rather cast dispersion on all religions. I love everyone no matter their religion, but I do take offense to the atheist sign as it seems to have a single purpose: to put other religions down.

Why not an atheist signs that says: "Winter Solstice: the real reason for the season"?

[MNDemNY]

313. What is wrong with "casting dispersion" on religion?

Your religion sucks. Does that statement offend you? well, too bad. You have no "right" to not be offended. Deal with it.

[Don Davis]

172. How do ya' think OReilly would like ... The Atheist Song!

http://satiricalpolitical.com/?p=5049

[66 dmhlt]

173. My email to the Governor:

Of course there is room for the “Winter Solstice” sign.

It seems to me inevitable that if you employ what amounts to a religious test for your politics, that the same logic would justify a political test for your religion. If the two are so tightly fused that they become indistinguishable, then how could it be otherwise?

I sincerely believe that there are few things more moral, decent, humane (dare I say Christian?) than refraining from using the coercive power of the state to punish those who do not agree with every tenet of your own moral system.

The best reason to separate politics and religion is not because religion poisons our politics, but because for many, religion is too profound and important to be sullied by the frauds and factions that run our political system. It grieves my heart to see anyone’s beliefs bandied about in this way. All anyone should want is to be left alone to worship, to pray, to meditate and to love their neighbor.

When you go after others because of their beliefs or moral system, sometimes they will go after you. Power is strange like that, isn't it? It always – always! – cuts both ways.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

174. I'm a Washington State Atheist.

I'm really glad to see the atheist sign at the capitol.
When Christians try to shove their 10 commandments (that they don't obey) and such down our throats in public places, did it ever occur to them that would give others the right to do the same?

Always wondered how would they feel if Muslims were putting up statues etc in public place in the US?

This is what I hate about religions, they start wars. Give me the winter solstice any day.

By the way, when I die, I die with the knowledge I lived a good life. I planted many trees. I saved some wild mustangs. I didn't eat the flesh of another creature. Raised two very good sons. Left behind lots of my artwork all over the planet etc.. I lived for this world.

I did swear like a lot though.

[onager]

184. Point taken, but Muslims don't put up statues.

That violates the rule against "graven images." They came up with an interesting loophole. If you look at many mosques, you'll see a line of symbols that look sort of like fleurs-de-lis. Those represent people praying with their arms uplifted, even though they don't look like people.

Maybe the Muslims invented Impressionism...:-)

Though I am a Fundamentalist Atheist myself, I lived for 2 years in Saudi Arabia and am writing this from Alexandria, Egypt, where I've lived for over 3 years now. So I've spent quite a bit of time around Muslims in their native habitats, as it were.

Since you are apparently English, you might appreciate the definition of "god" from a British Army website, of all places:

Most practitioners of the above religions engage in some form of communication with their chosen deity, commonly known as 'prayer'.

Prayer takes many forms, from loud verbal masturbation in public (see also: Mosques, daily Mass) to quiet internal contemplation (see: Om).

A few claim that their deity answers back (notably Jesus Jim, T Blair and George W Bush).

Remember that's literally, like telling them to do stuff... like invade Iraq. Steer clear of these types and hope they don't get into power... ooops!

ARmy Rumour SErvice (ARRSE)

http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/God

[Boudica the Lyoness]

241. Thanks for the info

I went to that website and had a good laugh. Thanks.

[prostock69]

186. Your post is beautiful and sooooo true.

My favorite saying: "After you Christians, Mulsims and Jews get done killing each other off in the names of your gods, can us non-believers have the world back, please?!

[PassingFair]

190. 'Come the rapture....

can I have your car?

(One of my favorite bumperstickers)

[prostock69]

273. Bart Ehrman, during one of his lectures was joking on how

when he first came to Chapel Hill, NC to teach in 1988, people there were literally selling their farms because they thought that year was when the "rapture" was going to happen. All because some guy, who wrote a book that sold millions, figured out by reading the bible and through his interpretation, the rapture would happen in 1988. Needless to say, we are all still here. And again, the fundies are claiming the rapture is near. And again, nothing will happen. But do you think they will learn? Noooooooooooooo. All you fundies out there: the apocolypsic books of the bible were written for THEIR TIME. Not ours. Even in the bible, Jesus said it would happen in HIS generation and nothing happened. We can't even prove that Jesus even existed! It's been 2,000 years and nothing has happened. How ironic it will be that this world will be destroyed over nonsensical relgious beliefs that were totally made up by a mad men named Moses and Mohammad who were probably mentally ill just like Jim Jones, Warren Jeffs, The Bab, Guy Ballard, Ron L. Hubbard, Joseph Smith, Sun Myung Moon, David Keresch, Victor Paul Wierwille, Charles Fillmore and every other cult leader that has ever lived!

[Gen. Jack D. Ripper]

181. I HAVE THE SOLUTION TO HOLIDAY RELATED, INTERFAITH CONFLICT!

Alright, now this is pretty revolutionary, so some of you may find the concept difficult at first, but please try to follow.

Ok, here we go: When you are in a public place and there are holiday signs or decorations that offend you because they pertain to a culture or religion that is different than yours, don't bitch and complain, just ignore them. Feel free to decorate a private residence and/or place of worship however you wish. Public = Open to everybody. Private = Do whatever the hell you want, it's none of my business.

I hope this was helpful.

[onager]

191. OK, but "Religious Death Race" would be a lot more fun.

n/t

[prostock69]

204. I like your idea accept for one thing:

It's the government places most non-believers have a problem with, not public places. I don't get offended at the malls, or stores, etc. It's when the Government (Federal, State, and City) openly supports and promotes religion. Our government is supposed to be secular. Yes, I know 99.9% of our government is made up of people of the Christian faith. This wouldn't be the case if Atheists, Agnostics, Humanists, Freethinkers, etc. were not DEMONIZED by Christians. Our Government should be an elected body that represents all the people who live in this country, included the 30% who are non-religious, without belief of a god. But an open non-believer cannot run for office and win. Look what Elizabeth Dole did to her opponent during the election. She demonized her,calling her an Atheist. And her opponent (I forgot her name) was religious! Her opponent won but still, people still believe that people who do not believe in god are evil and immoral. Why? because it's preached to them in their churches. Their children are indoctrinated at an early age to believe this nonsense. Instead of judging somebody by their character, it's all about what church you attend and how often.

The biggest fear we non-believers have is besides a revival of the Inquisition or Crusades, is that our country will become a theoacracy. There are a lot of people in this country who want to change our constitution to reflect the bible (Mike Huckaby, for one). There are a lot of people who want our laws to reflect the laws of the Old Testament, i.e. stone to death homosexuals, adulterers, all non-believers, etc. Now, like it or not, those people have a lot of money and pull. Some of them had a direct line to President Bush. So excuse us if we get a little ancy when we have states like Kentucky who want to demand that God be given credit for keeping their state safe. It's fricking ridiculous and wayyyyyyyy over the line.

This rant wasn't directed at you personally. It's directed to people who think we are a bit too touchy.

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis, 1935

[Gen. Jack D. Ripper]

284. I understand what you're saying

I agree with you for the most part, but I don't believe we should demand that all state and federal entities act in a completely secular way. It's cold and unreasonable. Frankly, and speaking as an atheist myself, I don't care if a state capital building choices to display a Christmas tree. After all, Christmas trees are as much a social tradition as a religious tradition. But, if a state wants to display a Christmas tree, they should be required to display any other religious or cultural decoration, should they be requested to do so. Equal consideration should be given to all different religions and/or beliefs. That's why I think Washington state is doing the right thing, and that's also why I believe Bill O'Rielly and anyone else who is offended by this Atheist sign is way off base.

That being said, there are, for certain, many people in this country who are in a position of power and would choose to use that power to further a religious agenda, like Mike Huckabee for instance. These people (and as someone living in Utah, let me tell you, I'm more than familiar with them) believe they are not only right, they believe they are ordained by God to act without concession. That is a very dangerous way of thinking and I fully agree that these people cannot be allowed to take our country from us.

[Dangerously Amused]

189. I would like to put up a Satanic display.

I am not a Satanist and never have been one, but I feel sorry for the Satanists who ALWAYS get excluded from government sponsored holiday displays.

I trust the other religions, who want their own displays up, won't have a problem with this.

[prostock69]

206. I wouldn't have a problem with it. It sure would be interesting to sit back and watch the madness

that would ensue! lol.

[penndragon69]

308. Perfect!!

A satanic display right next to EVERY nativity scene on public property.

It would be a beautiful site to see all the righty protesters.

[valerief]

195. Oh, those freepers gotta beeyatch about something, don't they? It's nice seeing

some acknowledgement for us non-believers in the Capitol .

[anonymous171]

201. Yep. They have to accept all of them or none of them.

[Deep13]

222. How dare they disagree with the opinions of others!

What do they think this is? A democracy?!

[defendandprotect]

231. Thought it a wonderful sign ---

Called and urged Governor to continue to protect Separation of Church & State --

[YOY]

251. Bill sees them rollin'. He hatin'.

n.t.

[Quantess]

256. Some Christian DUers are very sensitive about their religion being slighted.

It looks like insecurity to me. Is your faith not strong enough to let this little atheist billboard roll off your back?

[mackerel]

264. Seriously I could care less either way. Why should I care?

It's a dark time of year, what's wrong with some lights, some gold ribbons to bring some cheer to the work place? Why do we have to assume it's religious? Does everything have to be so cold and dank?

[Deep13]

272. I thought we were talking about a public display of genuinely religious symbols.

We are not talking about decorations generally which have been done to brighten up mid-winter for millenia. We are talking about religious displays on public property specifically.

[Deep13]

269. In truth no.

The reason we have developed a social convention of respect for religious beliefs alone among all possible kinds of opinions is because it cannot stand up to scrutiny. Liberal theologians have already had to concede that there holy book is metaphorical and a product of its time. There have had to concede that somehow religions which espouse proposed facts different from theirs (the exclusivity of ones own god being the main one) are as valid as their own. The only thing they really have left is faith and an insistence that their beliefs be free from examination. They put religious opinion in the same category as race, gender, nationality and orientation despite the fact that one can change his mind about religion anytime he or she wants to do so.

[jfkraus]

268. Gods were created by ignorant human beings

to explain away things they did not understand (Sun God, Moon God, Volcano God). Smarter human beings quickly discovered that they could control dumber ones through fear of Gods-- thus religion was born. To this day, religion exists to control people and create power and wealth for the people running the religion. It's always been so and it will always be so, because we are human and imperfect.

People who identify themselves as belonging to a particular religion do so mostly because they have been indoctrinated since birth to believe it. Very few people wake up one day at age 35 only to discover they are Jewish or Muslim or Catholic or whatever. Religion works because of the only thing in human beings that separates us from other animals-- our propensity for self-deception. It's our ability to deny what is staring us right in the face and to believe whatever we want despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that allows religion to exist.

[prostock69]

279. What a brilliant post! "Dancing joyously"

:toast:

[PassingFair]

293. To me..Atheism is all about...

acceptance.

We don't make stuff up, or
believe in unproven tales
of rewards in an afterlife.

We face our mortality.

It certainly makes for a "bitter-sweet"
outlook, (At least for me) but, hey,
knowing that I don't know what comes
next is the reality.

Anything else is delusional.

[Dangerously Amused]

311. Well stated. Thanks.

[Arugula Latte]

315. Agree -- Religion is all about deception and control.

And this silly tempest by the religious is another example of that.

[Skittles]

282. I have to see religious f***ing crap ALL THE TIME

funny how theire "faith" seems so shaky

[laconicsax]

295. As was said about the FFRF billboard in CA,

One tiny freethought sign in the entire state of Washington is such a threat to the religious that it must be taken down?

[Khaotic]

296. Exactly dude

Back in November ...



A billboard in Rancho Cucamonga asking viewers to "imagine no religion" was taken down this week after residents and the city complained about its message. The Freedom From Religion Foundation advertisement was first installed last week causing local conversation and complaints. The pressure quickly built up and the General Outdoor sign company took it down.

The foundation's co-president Annie Laurie Gaylor was not so happy, as expressed in a statement they sent out: "Are religionists so thin-skinned they must squelch free debate? One small freethought billboard in the immense state of California is such a threat to insecure religious egos that it must be censored? With local freethinkers' help, the Freedom From Religion Foundation would love to plaster the valley with our message. Let's fight back!"

=========================

What get's me is that the FFRF get's slammed for their billboard, but godspeaks.com can get away with speaking FOR a deity.

How is that?

[Skittles]

302. lots of brainwashing in this country, and around the world

amazing what people can be made to believe

[Khaotic]

285. Wow

What a great Winter message! :-)



Let us take up reason and logic! Cheers to someone who put their wallet on the line and put publicity out there to divulge the truth and to dismiss lies and myths.

If these kooks like Bill-O are somehow successful in getting the billboard taken down, then I hope the law that is used to take them down also demands that the billboards that speak for a mythical deity are also taken down.

You've seen these billboards ...


WTF?

Who has the right or the ability to speak for a deity?

The very existence of the billboards is actually a statement AGAINST religion. Why? Because no one can speak for a deity unless ... that said deity doesn't actually exist.

Hmmmmm.....

Yes, that right. The very people who "pray" the hardest, "worship" the hardest, are the very people who have ZERO belief in the mythology and the dogma.

They continue to play the world for a bunch of suckers.

The more the masses resist to being suckers, the more pissed off they become.

[jeff30997]

300. O'Reilly = Whore and parasite n/t

[liberal1973]

343. I like the sign, and I'm glad the sign is there.

Billo O'Reilly has proven once again that he's a far right extremist and un-American.

[Rhiannon12866]

348. K&R. KO talked about this, no big surprise...

Then he showed the text of an earlier show when O'Reilly was pontificating on the separation of church and state. The man's a loon...:crazy:

[ManiacJoe]

353. Sign stolen then recovered.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008470773_webatheist05m.html