As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
Athiests and Offensiveness
Emanon
__BANNED USERS regular
__BANNED USERS regular
So there is controversy this Christmas (Happy Holidays) season regarding atheists sharing their views however the manner they do so has a few people irked, and understandably so.
Next to the nativity scene at the Legislative Building in Olympia, Washington is a sign that in my view is very offensive. To me, it's the equivalent of a sign saying 'All non-Christians will burn in Hell!!' Nothing wrong with that as it's free speech but I don't think either is appropriate in this setting.
I'm agnostic and I don't like anyone telling me my beliefs are wrong and won't push my religious view onto others either. I don't care what religion you are as long you're not hurting anyone really.
Atheists take aim at Christmas
http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/12/05/atheists.christmas/index.html
So, let's discuss. Is this atheist group a new form of dick headed religious fanaticism?
Next to the nativity scene at the Legislative Building in Olympia, Washington is a sign that in my view is very offensive. To me, it's the equivalent of a sign saying 'All non-Christians will burn in Hell!!' Nothing wrong with that as it's free speech but I don't think either is appropriate in this setting.
I'm agnostic and I don't like anyone telling me my beliefs are wrong and won't push my religious view onto others either. I don't care what religion you are as long you're not hurting anyone really.
Atheists take aim at Christmas
http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/12/05/atheists.christmas/index.html
So, let's discuss. Is this atheist group a new form of dick headed religious fanaticism?
Treats Animals Right!
Emanon on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
How could you label that as religious fanaticism? Does the sign make any false statements? No? How about encouraging violence or mistreatment of people? It doesn't do that either? Then don't be such a dick headed religious fanatic.
Then again, what the hell is a nativity scene doing at a legislative building in the capital?
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
do assholes have a higher propensity to believe that there is no one out there who cares what they do?
sure, i could see that.
Now if this was at a church that would be a whole different ballgame. But a nativity scene shouldn't be at a legislative building.
There are plenty of assholes who are religious.
Outside of that, it's an asshole too because the spirit of Christmas is togetherness and peace. Religious back drop or not. Some people need to take a step back and enjoy the good times.
i don't think that's true.
I think that the entirety of all religious fanatics could, in fact, be classified as assholes.
I think it's more accurate to say "assholes by their very nature are more likely to be total shitheads about whatever it is they believe is true"
whether they are atheists or christians or muslims or whatever.
I don't think it's the religion, or lack thereof, that makes them more or less of a douchebag.
That's just the kind of person they are.
Also, that sign is a fucking dickhead thing to do and whoever put it up is a jerk.
That's a complicated Constitutional argument and quite honestly as a non-American, not really something I care a great deal about.
Regardless, even if you believe that having the nativity scene on government property is wrong, it doesn't mean it's preaching hatred or being a douchebag to people who believe differently than you do.
That sign however, is doing exactly that, so the person who put that sign up is the far bigger asshole regardless of anything else.
Hmmm, where did I say the sign was taking aim at Christians? Maybe you should read my post before going on a tirade.
oh yeah i know. im just saying specifically that the mean number of assholes when adjusted for population of the group tends to be more attracted to atheism.
i can only justify it by saying that if i were someone that did terrible things to people and disregarded others feelings i wouldn't likely believe that there is a god out there who is going to judge me on those obviously evil actions. i would be more likely to simply convince myself that there is no one judging me for my actions that i subconsciously would know are evil.
its tenuous but cmon there isnt really an assholometer to base this off of.
People don't really like that, and it makes atheists seem like they're constantly on the attack.
What atheists need to do, and what some have been trying to do, is generate a positive movement rather than simply a negative one - something to unite secular thinkers and give them something to stand for.
Put up a sign with the principles of this movement, not one that attacks another group - regardless of whether that attack is deserved or not, it will not accomplish much. It may get PR, as the guy claims, but it also results in backlash. Backlash is not helpful for the "cause" of secularity.
I agree with the message on the sign, but I have the feeling that it will only please the people who already agree.
I agree with you.
It's something I feel but it's not necessarily bad. Until they start using the nativity scene as a basis to escalate and throwing up crosses in courtrooms and schools.
Statements like this:
That's right, this fucking cumsock considers a nativity scene to be hate speech.
He's so insecure about his beliefs that to even see anything related to religion makes him feel like he's under attack and that has to attack back.
It's exactly how fanatics see the world.
These "Freedom from Religion Foundation" people are a bunch of insecure, whiny douchebags who need to choke on their beloved Christopher Hitchins books.
Speaking as an atheist myself, I strongly disapprove of this sort of religious display on public property.
Well aside from the name of the article being 'Atheists take aim at Christmas', you said:
Why wouldn't you be open to someone telling you your beliefs are wrong? People believe wrong things all the time, and you can't grow if you aren't willing to learn. Unless you're segregating a specific belief in an omnipotent being as separate from rational belief which requires factual basis.
Saying that all religion "hardens hearts and enslaves minds" is pretty fucking hateful, dude, and if you can't see that you're willfully blinding yourself.
Just like religious fanatics do!
Alright, here's how it works. If you put up a nativity scene and all that crap, you're necessarily saying that what you believe (Jesus, Judeo-Christian god, bible, all that crap) you are necessarily saying that your god exists for me, you, and everybody. Now, that's not the explicit message, but it's an absolutely unavoidable message. When an atheist says it explicitly, it suddenly becomes offensive.
It's a simple fact that Judaism and Christianity and Hinduism and Islam are exclusivistic, but while it's not offensive when there's a nativity, it's offensive when atheists make the exact same statement openly?
You know what? There's a valid line of argument to what is bolded there. Should a religious display be on government property? I'm not an American or an expert on the American Constitution, but I would think the answer to that question is no, it should not.
However, the appropriate reaction would be to post a sign giving people pause to question why this religious display is on government property, and call upon them to reject the establishment of a state religion and to keep religion out of state politics.
Not to post a sign directly attacking religion.
There's a severe disconnect between what is wrong with the situation and how to appropriately react to it, and that's the point these Freedom from Religion Foundation people seem to be missing.
The nativity is there because in 2006 the state let a Jewish group put up a menorah. A Christian guy sued to get a nativity allowed as well. I'm sure it won't be long before Xenu and FSM start popping up there too, since apparently Washington considers the Capitol building an equally appropriate place for proselytizing as a random street corner.
The leader of the atheist group is a former evangelical preacher, so I wouldn't be surprised if he was an asshole before he was an atheist.
A nativity scene is not necessarily saying "God absolutely exists", it's just a show of faith. The nativity scene also does not feature anything that implies that atheists should suck down a fat one and burn in Hell, unlike the atheist plaque which charges that religion hardens hearts (not true in all cases) and ensalves minds (this returns us to my argument that people are capable of compartmentalizing, believing irrationally about a God while still maintaining an ability to reason clearly outside of that religious belief) . The atheist plaque is intentionally inflammatory, the group that put it up says so themselves because they are so pissed off at the baby Jesus and his sweet Christmas presents.
And that, I believe, is the heart of the issue.
Ultimately the easy solution is to not have religious displays on government property in the first place, but since they are allowing it, they should allow other religions and beliefs to have their representation as well.
However, the Atheist representation could've been a lot more positive and life-affirming instead of phrasing itself directly as an attack on all religion, and not just Christianity either.
i strongly disapprove of people who CARE whats on display on public property.
its a nativity scene not sections of the bible cut out and pasted on the wall. if you did not know what it was before hand it would not educate you in the religion or tell you anything other than 'heres a bunch of people surrounding a baby'
religious symbolism when used to try to associate a public building with any one religion or anything used to teach about a religion = bad.
but you absolutely can not separate seasonal religious artifacts from holidays.
are you also against having a star on the top of a christmas tree because it symbolizes the star that led the magi to bethlahem?
Frankly when it comes to positive atheist messages I think we should all just follow the Cult of Carl Sagan.
Jesus loves all the little children, Wonder Hippie.
And there are a few secular displays you could find in front of a government building that you could find offensive. Say the middle school made a scene of Washington crossing the Delaware - that would offend pacifists since that implies Washington was fighting for all of us and war is a preferred solution for dealing with the hated British.
Edit: Also one of my posts got bottomfed so I would like people to read it.
Crazy that the sign can be pulled down as an unrecognized form of protest(maybe) since it may not have been approved. Or you could just say "hey this wasn't approved so it has to come down, try being nice next time."
Shit, really? And I just thought it was sort of pretty. I didn't know I was making a political statement.
What sort of exclusivist, hegemonic message am I conveying when I plant daisies in my front yard?
Seriously, though, equating a Christmas decoration with a sign that effectively says, "Dude, fuck you and your Christmas and your phony-baloney God" is sort of... retarded beyond belief.
How is putting up a nativity not saying that Jesus absolutely existed, was divine and the son of the Judeo-Christian god? I could cop out and say that the plaque is just a show of faith to, of "faith" that god doesn't exist, but I'm not, because that's not what it is. If you have faith that Jesus was divine and all that stuff, how is that not also true for me? How can my or any other understanding of the universe coexist with that? You can't hold out one hand and say, "What you believe is fine by me," but close another by believing in an exclusivistic religion.
Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism, while representing the largest chunk of religions in the world, are not the only ones and within those religions are denominations and sects which are not exclusive or "harden hearts and enslave minds".
So that sign is a blatant and over-reactionary attack on everyone religious ever rather than a protest sign against the nativity being on public property or a celebration of the natural world, both of which would've been appropriate Atheist responses to this.
under that arguement christmas should not be a federal holiday.
ill concede that on that day, you cant have religious symbolism pertaining to the holiday on said government property.
Well maybe in your country religion is a personal choice that doesn't cause harm outside the practitioner. In America, religious organizations are a driving force for intolerance and political dickery.
And a nativity scene is a blatant attack on every other religion. "Our mythology is correct." It's not correct for them, it's just correct. It is not compatible with other world views.
By not being a prick.
I believe lots of things some of my friends don't. I have differing religious views than most of them. I have differing political views. I have different tastes in music, film, and art.
I have differing views on controversial subjects like abortion, pornography, execution by the state, military rules of engagement, etc.
On many of these views I believe I am absolutely correct in my viewpoint.
And yet, somehow, I manage to maintain friendships with people who I ultimately believe are wrong about these things.
How do I do that? By not being a prick about it!
It's not even hard. You just have to stop being a whiny, shouting jerk-off everytime someone says or does something you disagree with. And even when you do take the moment to make clear your disagreement, you don't snarl and hiss and over-react, you simply say "Well, that's not what I believe".
But maybe that's just me, dude!