Yep, It’s the War on Easter

From Fox News, the same people who bring us Bill O’Reilly’s inane crusade every year against the entirely mythical “War on Christmas” comes the War on Easter. And what does that war consist of? A couple signs that say nothing at all about Easter that they claim “demeans” Christianity.

At issue is a display being set up in Chicago’s Daley Plaza of two 8 foot banners featuring the secular views of Thomas Jefferson and President John Adams, with one banner reading ‘In reason, we trust,’ the other reading ‘Keep state and religion separate.’ According to host Anna Kooiman, the banners are being erected to “counter the Jesus” in the plaza; a ten foot tall image of “the resurrected Jesus” and a 19-foot Christian cross, both already on display.

Joining the host was Freedom from Religion Foundation Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor and Faith and Freedom Foundation Deputy National Field Director Virginia Galloway.

After wondering if Easter has “evolved into an occasion to demean religious beliefs and Christianity,” Kooiman asked Gaylor, “If you don’t believe in life after death, if you don’t believe in all of this stuff….why do you care? Why do this?”

“We believe, if our public square is being taken over by a religion, we should be there too,” Gaylor replied.

Turning to Galloway, Kooiman asked, “Virginia, as a Christian, what’s your reaction?”

“Well, I think it is kind of sad, on the week that Christians are celebrating the most significant part of their religion, the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, and Jewish people are celebrating Passover, that we are attacked and denigrated, it doesn’t feel right,” Galloway said.

She goes on to say that, “They have a right to express their opinion, a Constitutional right…” before adding, “It seems without class, like the Westboro crowd and the things that they did.”

Oh yes, it’s just like the Westboro Baptist Church protesting at funerals. I can hardly see a difference. But pray tell, how is a sign promoting separation of church and state and the use of reason “attacking and denigrating” Christians? Lots and lots of Christians are in favor of a strict separation of church and state. And if you’d like to take the position that Christianity is the antithesis of reason and therefore any promotion of the use of reason is an attack on Christianity, be my guest.

POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • busterggi

    “But pray tell, how is a sign promoting separation of church and state and the use of reason “attacking and denigrating” Christians? ”

    Oh no, you know the answer to that! Reason is Satan’s ding-dong.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    EASTER IS A TIME TO COME TOGETHER AS ONE GROUP THATS JUST US AND NOT YOU NOT A TIME TO SPLIT US APART BY RAMMING YOUR EXISTENCE DOWN OUR THROATS!

  • John Pieret

    What next? The war on Woton’s day?

  • D. C. Sessions

    No, John. It’s the campaign to stop drinking on Purim:

    The War on Esther.

  • dugglebogey

    Yes, saying “we’re here too” is the same as “fuck those guys!”

  • timberwoof

    The idea that atheists should not make any public statements during Christianity’s most holy week doesn’t fly either. They would not permit us to make such public statements at other times of the year.

  • mikeyb

    The war on Easter comes primarily from Christians themselves, who greet the holiday increasingly with a great yawn and a nice nap. How many times can you retell resurrection stories and keep them interesting.

  • raven

    The War on Easter and the War on the War on Easter was quite the dissapointment this year. Only Fox NonNews could even bother to make something up.

    1. Usually it is fundies who attack their own holiday. Easter is named after a Pagan goddess, Estre, and the symbols are Pagan as well, eggs and bunnies.

    The brighter among them know this and think it is horrible. There is a move to abolish Easter and replace it with a new name, Resurrection Sunday. Whatever.

    2. In my area, last year, people would put cheap plastic signs on their front lawn advertising Resurrection Sunday or some such. Not many but there were a few. I didn’t see this, this year. Although I didn’t look very hard, having a life and all.

    One of my minor complaints about fundie xian is that their incessant whining about trivia is…boring. They don’t have holidays, they have Wars on Holidays. Speaking of which, we are in the dead zone. The next Holiday War is Halloween.

  • blf

    Great! A new war. The lions are looking a bit peckish and in need of a good chowdown on some xians (albeit the fundies tend to more fat and bile than meat and protein).

  • lofgren

    But pray tell, how is a sign promoting separation of church and state and the use of reason “attacking and denigrating” Christians?

    I don’t think we’re well-served by feigning ignorance of the subtextual conversation that is occurring here. You know very well to whom these messages are targeted. Just a glance at the comments on any blog post on this network that deals with church/state issues will tell you why they should feel attacked. Pointing at the literal words and saying they are not an attack makes us look foolish. This website is called “Dispatches from the Culture War,” for god’s sake. We can’t pretend we have no idea what the culture war is or how it is being fought when it’s convenient for us.

  • raven

    As usual the atheist banners were lacking in seasonality, artistry, and imagination.

    a ten foot tall image of “the resurrected Jesus” and a 19-foot Christian cross, both already on display.

    OTOH, the xians didn’t do any better. According to the bible, 500 Zombies rose up from their tombs on Resurrection Sunday. They could have added some interest to their cliches by tossing in a dozen or so…Zombies. Or FFRF could do it with the relevant bible verse.

  • eric

    Speaking of which, we are in the dead zone. The next Holiday War is Halloween.

    Yeah, the summer solstice kinda got screwed. I always wondered why. Xianity took over winter and spring and complain about anyone paganizing what was pagan to begin with. They didn’t take over autumn, but still complain about the pagan roots of the autumn celebration. Summer? I guess 4th July counts for Americans, and maybe nobody sees the point of having a formal celebratory day because kids are out of school and lots of people take their holidays then anyway. But still, can we get a little holiday love n’ fundie hate for the summer solstice?

  • eric

    lofgren:

    Just a glance at the comments on any blog post on this network that deals with church/state issues will tell you why they should feel attacked. Pointing at the literal words and saying they are not an attack makes us look foolish. This website is called “Dispatches from the Culture War,” for god’s sake.

    I call baloney. You can’t honestly read Ed’s page and think he is attacking Christian’s rights to celebrate or speak their faith. You can’t honestly look at the “wars” over public signage and call them an excuse to denigrate the Christian faith. The main thrust of both Ed’s own personal take on this and the movement to counter Christian holiday signage is that government endorsement is bad and should be fought. THAT is the main and practically whole point of FFRF’s displays, and FSM displays (and in fact the entire reason for FSMism’s existence), and American Atheist stone benches, and so on. Are there outspoken atheists that think Christianity is evil and needs to be done away with? Yes, absolutely. Are the American Atheist benches and FFRF “Keep state and religion separate” signs sending that message? No, absolutely not. That’s not what they ostensibly do, that’s not their hidden or secret meaning, its not their purpose, and it’s not the intention of the people who put them there. These symbols are attacking the idea of Christian legal privilege. They are attacking the idea of government endorsement. Nothing less – but nothing more, either.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1360322113 aaronbaker

    #13:

    Well . . . I think many Christians could plausibly interpret “In Reason We Trust” as a dig at Christianity–or at least at theism. Since I have no problem whatsoever with critiques of Christianity–and since I don’t think Christians should get any break from critique on their “special day,” I’m not bothered by any of this–but I think I can understand why some pious folk would be.

  • iknklast

    I heard a similar argument from a friend of mine, a truly liberal person, who felt that FFRF was a “hate group”. He never saw the irony of that, someone who is a member of the Mormon church referring to Dan and Annie Laurie as a hate group.

  • https://www.facebook.com/ebenezer.arvigenius Ebenezer Arvigenius

    You can’t honestly look at the “wars” over public signage and call them an excuse to denigrate the Christian faith. The main thrust of both Ed’s own personal take on this and the movement to counter Christian holiday signage is that government endorsement is bad and should be fought. … They are attacking the idea of government endorsement. Nothing less – but nothing more, either.

    Oh cmon. Really? I give you the stone benches and I’m as leery of prayer booths in public buildings as the next person but public signage in open spaces with equal access as a form of “government endorsement”. This is just ludicrous.

    Would it really have hurt their message of reason and separation if they had started their display a week later? No. The only reason to do it this way at this time and place was to poke the opposing party in the eye. Any claims to the contrary are just plain ludicrous.

    I mean the guy said so: “We believe, if our public square is being taken over by a religion, we should be there too”.

    They went there with the intention to counter the Christian display. That’s their right and certainly not persecution but a dick move nonetheless. And hiding behind logic and reason won’t polish up that turd any.

  • http://dontlinkmebro F [i’m not here, i’m gone]

    I think it’s about time that I meet the claims and expectations of these sorts, and any time I hear a a complaint that something is demeaning to their religion, I’ll have to say, “Hey, I don’t know whether or not that is an insult to your faith, but just to make sure you are getting the most mileage from your outrage: Fuck your religion”.

  • http://dontlinkmebro F [i’m not here, i’m gone]

    Hi Ebenezer. Seriously,

    a ten foot tall image of “the resurrected Jesus” and a 19-foot Christian cross

    is

    public signage in open spaces with equal access

    ? Really?

    And whatever banners were gotten up as a counter-idea are not “a war on Easter”. I you think displaying these is “a dick move”, then all public displays of religion are “a dick move” too. Just because they are habituated to getting their way, and have the privilege, and maybe a majority, doesn’t mean they need to put up this stuff, or do it unopposed, or without displays from other religions or atheists, humanists, or freethinkers at the same time.

    Please, just let me have all the privilege (legal or not) to which I am accustomed, unmolested. Waaah.

  • raven

    I heard a similar argument from a friend of mine, a truly liberal person, who felt that FFRF was a “hate group”.

    Xian privilege is so entrenched in our culture that they have a hard time seeing it.

    Until it is pointed out to them.

    That is OK. It’s not all that hard to untrench it. Just not being a xian or an ex-xian is enough to send them into screaming fits of cognitive dissonance. Most of them will get over it. Some of them, like most of us will just drop the religion like a worn out primitive superstition.

    someone who is a member of the Mormon church …

    A hyper-tribalistic hate group. According to official Mormon theology, the first xian died on the cross. The religion promptly died for 2,000 years because god is so powerful. It was rediscovered by…Joseph Smith. They teach that they are the only True Xians and the other 42,000 sects are Fake and wasting their time. There is no such thing as an ecumenical Mormon.

    They do not play well with other people.

  • Sastra

    Perhaps the atheist and humanist groups should put up signs with the Easter Bunny, baby chicks, and colored eggs saying “Happy Bunny Day” or even “Happy Easter!” Let the Christians distance themselves from the inclusive, secular version of the holiday and moan on in a corner about their Good Friday and Resurrection Sunday with its gruesome blood sacrifice as honor payment for sins.

    We’ll take the chocolate.

  • tfkreference

    Eb: “They went there with the intention to counter the Christian display.”

    Yes, notice that the noun is “display,” and the religious reference is the adjective.

    Hitchens’s pride in the secular nature of the US Constitution clearly came from his biewa as an anti-theist, as his writings and speeches support. Your comment (and lofgren’s) seem like projection – are YOU for secularism because it suppresses religion?

  • lofgren

    I call baloney. You can’t honestly read Ed’s page and think he is attacking Christian’s rights to celebrate or speak their faith. You can’t honestly look at the “wars” over public signage and call them an excuse to denigrate the Christian faith. The main thrust of both Ed’s own personal take on this and the movement to counter Christian holiday signage is that government endorsement is bad and should be fought. THAT is the main and practically whole point of FFRF’s displays, and FSM displays (and in fact the entire reason for FSMism’s existence), and American Atheist stone benches, and so on. Are there outspoken atheists that think Christianity is evil and needs to be done away with? Yes, absolutely. Are the American Atheist benches and FFRF “Keep state and religion separate” signs sending that message? No, absolutely not. That’s not what they ostensibly do, that’s not their hidden or secret meaning, its not their purpose, and it’s not the intention of the people who put them there. These symbols are attacking the idea of Christian legal privilege. They are attacking the idea of government endorsement. Nothing less – but nothing more, either.

    This is perhaps the most impressive example of goal post shifting I have ever seen.

  • lofgren

    To go a little bit more in depth:

    You can’t honestly read Ed’s page and think he is attacking Christian’s rights to celebrate or speak their faith.

    If that was how I read Ed’s page, then I would have said so. I didn’t. I don’t. You’re right, there is no reason to think that. There’s a whole list of things that you can’t honestly read into what is read. Should we write them all down? You can’t honestly read Batman comics and think they are an endorsement of Jainism. You can’t honestly read Tom Sawyer and think it is an attack on post-Vietnam colonialism through the experience of a Russian soldier. You can’t honestly read the menu at Arby’s as a treatise on the value of preserved natural spaces in post-industrial America. Christ, this is going to take a while. Let’s just stipulate that all of this is totally fucking irrelevant.

    These symbols are attacking the idea of Christian legal privilege. They are attacking the idea of government endorsement. Nothing less – but nothing more, either.

    All that sand must taste unpleasant. Spit it out, pick your head up, and look around you.

    Unlike Ebenezier I am not judging whether or not the displays are dickish. But to pretend that they are not deliberately targeted messages at the local Christians in particular and Christians in general is just dumb. There is a conversation happening here about the role and place of religion and the role and place of secularism, about how and when it is appropriate to express one’s religious beliefs, and about how those beliefs are characterized. I’m not saying which side of the battle I’m on, I’m only saying if you lob a grenade into the enemy’s camp you should have the balls to stand up and say, “Yeah, that’s my grenade.” Ed seems to be taking the position of “Hey, we didn’t blow up everybody in your camp. Also, what grenade?”

    The words “In reason we trust” weren’t chosen by random chance. There is an implicit statement being made here, through juxtaposition, about the reasonableness of Christianity. To pretend that just because the sign doesn’t explicitly say “Easter” it’s not an attack is like claiming that an “I’m with stupid” t-shirt isn’t an insult because it doesn’t have the name of the guy you’re standing next to written on it.

    I’m not saying the displays shouldn’t be used. I’m just saying you don’t have to add an extra layer of “Who, me?” Fucking own it.

    I recognize that Ed’s innocent naif pose is useful here. He doesn’t want secularists to look like bad guys by deliberately attacking somebody. But if you have to pretend to be oblivious to the broader cultural context of what you are doing in order to avoid looking like the bad guy, maybe you should reconsider what you’re doing in the first place.

    “Why are you so upset about us saying we trust reason? Don’t you trust reason? Lot’s of Christians trust reason. You shouldn’t be offended by this sign that says we trust reason. Honestly, it’s just a coincidence that the broader context makes the inference that you are unreasoned, unreasonable, and unreasoning unavoidable. That’s totally not what we intended!”

    “Why are you so upset about us advocating for the separation of church and state? Don’t you want the separation of church and state? Lots of Christians want the separation of church and state. I certainly never intended to imply that you exercising your legal right to erect displays celebrating your faith during a holy week on public, equally accessible land constitutes some kind of violation of that separation. Honestly, I didn’t even notice that this week had some particular significance to you! What a weird coincidence! But we’ll go ahead and leave our sign here anyway, despite the obvious passive aggressive smear.”

    At least the person who actually put up the sign was willing to be more honest about it.

  • dingojack

    Lofgren – The people who put up a 10′ image of the resurrected Christ and a 19′ foot cross sure don’t come across as bullying, insecure, passive-aggressive asshats, no not a bit of it.

    Why won’t ‘the war on [fill-in CHRISTIAN festival here*]’ types simply say exactly what they mean:

    ‘Yep, you secularists and pagans, you’re all invisible and irrelevant**. We own this country, this government and this time of year, you don’t to get to say anything of which we disapprove’.

    Ball’s in their court.

    Dingo

    ——–

    * ever hear about the ‘war on Ramadan’? How the ‘war on Makar Sankranti’? Or the ‘war on Vesak’?

    ** I’d bet back in ’67 they were saying ‘isn’t it a shame that Negros aren’t content to meekly sit at the back of the bus, like all good house-niggers should?’ @@

  • https://www.facebook.com/ebenezer.arvigenius Ebenezer Arvigenius

    Both you and Raven are missing the point.

    It doesn’t matter if you like their message or the way they are expressing it. If the public square is available to anyone under the same rules there is no government preference involved. At that point you can start complaining about the particulars (Waaah. 9 feet. Waaah), but that’s not a question of the separation of state and church but rather one of aesthetics.

    You don’t have to like their message but if you really want to run the “I feel oppressed by their freedom of speech” routine while at the same time mocking them for doing the same you probably should question if you are really on the side of “reason” or just playing team sports.

    The whole “I bet they are racists too” also does not really add to an impression of reasonableness.

    In the end, it’s just like Lofgren said. Regardless of whether you can or should run directly opposing messages on “holy days”, playing coy about it (“no no officer, I went home to get my ‘all cops are bastards’ shirt before talking to you but that’s really just coincidence and was not aimed at you at all”) is both ridiculous and dishonest. It neither furthers the rationalist cause nor does it make it look especially good.

  • marcus

    Fuck the fucking Christians and their pervasive privilege. No “waah” here. There “message’ deserves a counter if only for the fact that it is stupid and destructive. If not countered you wouldn’t be able to take a piss without doing so on some religious icon (and not a bad idea.)

  • Reginald Selkirk

    Keep Oestre in Easter.

  • http://polrant@blogspot.com democommie

    “They went there with the intention to counter the Christian display. That’s their right and certainly not persecution but a dick move nonetheless. And hiding behind logic and reason won’t polish up that turd any.

    Just like them uppity coons in Selma, AL. If they hadn’t been so damned provocative Bull Connor woulda never had to use the dogs, billy clubs and water cannons.

    I can walk into any civic building in the U.S. for ANY meeting of government officials that is open to the public and have a way better than even chance of having to listen to some insincere asshole drone on about JESUS or the Skydaddy before getting down to gummint business. And the atheist/free thinkers’ signs on Easter are a “dick move”. Exfuckingscuse us.

  • lofgren

    Lofgren – The people who put up a 10′ image of the resurrected Christ and a 19′ foot cross sure don’t come across as bullying, insecure, passive-aggressive asshats, no not a bit of it.

    Not to me they don’t, but I don’t know the place very well. That would depend on context. It’s irrelevant either way. I’m not talking to them, I’m talking to you. Them being assholes doesn’t justify us being assholes. And I’m not even saying don’t be an asshole. Sometimes being an asshole is not only appropriate, it’s absolutely required. I’m just saying don’t pretend like you don’t know just what you are doing.

    Why won’t ‘the war on [fill-in CHRISTIAN festival here*]‘ types simply say exactly what they mean:

    ‘Yep, you secularists and pagans, you’re all invisible and irrelevant**. We own this country, this government and this time of year, you don’t to get to say anything of which we disapprove’.

    So when a Christian puts a display on public property, it’s an attempt to make atheists feel irrelevant, but when an atheist does it Christians are just whiners. Got it.

  • dingojack

    lofgren – Psst! Dude, you might wanna zip it up, your privilege is showing!

    Dingo

  • lofgren

    Dude, you might wanna zip it up, your privilege is showing!

    Please explain.

  • caseloweraz

    Funny how the Christian guest gets to throw out some distortions of FFRF’s position and activities and the host then says, “We’ve got to leave it there. God bless you both.”

  • dingojack

    If you seriously think that Christians and atheists are groups with equal power then I can only assume that some kind of blindness is going on there.

    Dingo

    ——-

    Or putting more in the way you might phrase it:

    When Christians put up a stonking great display of their beliefs, atheist have got to go meekly and silently to the back of the bus.

    But when atheists put up a sign defining what we hold as values, Christians can have a full three-siren waaaaaaambluance all the way home.

    Got it.

  • https://www.facebook.com/ebenezer.arvigenius Ebenezer Arvigenius

    Mate, as long as you fail that badly at basic reading comprehension no one is going to be very impressed by your arguments.

  • lofgren

    If you seriously think that Christians and atheists are groups with equal power then I can only assume that some kind of blindness is going on there.

    I agree! There would have to be some kind of blindness going on there! Now I’m honestly curious: which of my comments did you interpret to mean that I believe that?

    Unless… you just saw somebody say “you’re privilege is showing” in order to shut down a debate once before and thought it was cool, didn’t you?

    When Christians put up a stonking great display of their beliefs, atheist have got to go meekly and silently to the back of the bus.

    A private group putting up a temporary, privately maintained display in an equal access forum celebrating their beliefs during their holy week is EXACTLY LIKE de jure institutional segregation of public transportation.

    But when atheists put up a sign defining what we hold as values, Christians can have a full three-siren waaaaaaambluance all the way home.

    Seems to me that atheists are doing a pretty good job at calling the waambulance themselves.

  • eric

    Ebenezer @16:

    Would it really have hurt their message of reason and separation if they had started their display a week later?

    Very obviously yes. Because the point of their message was to counter perceived government endorsement of a Christian Easter message Putting signage up after Easter is over doesn’t counter the endorsement.

    Lofgren @23:

    But to pretend that they are not deliberately targeted messages at the local Christians in particular and Christians in general is just dumb.

    Of course they are targeted at Christians. The signs are a giant “hey you – you Christians. You don’t own the government and your religion is not the state.”

    The words “In reason we trust” weren’t chosen by random chance.

    And neither is the timing or location. Both of which were chosen because, by putting up a giant cross at Easter time in a public space, it sure looks like the government is endorsing Christianity. Now yes, that particular sign is implying god-belief is not reason. Its a twofer. But it would never have been put up at all if the cross wasn’t there in the first place. And that’s because the purpose of putting it up was to fight perceived government endorsement of religion. Had there been no perceived endorsement, then there would’ve been no sign.

    Back to Ebenezer:

    Regardless of whether you can or should run directly opposing messages on “holy days”, playing coy about it (“no no officer, I went home to get my ‘all cops are bastards’ shirt before talking to you but that’s really just coincidence and was not aimed at you at all”) is both ridiculous and dishonest. It neither furthers the rationalist cause nor does it make it look especially good.

    How exactly does it counter the perception of government endorsement by allowing a cross and only a cross to be put up in a city public space at Easter time? You want atheists to counter perceived government endorsement by not speaking when and where Christians choose to speak? Seems to me it is entirely appropriate to speak in the public square exactly when and where Christians are seeking to monopolize it.

  • lofgren

    Both of which were chosen because, by putting up a giant cross at Easter time in a public space, it sure looks like the government is endorsing Christianity.

    OK, you’ll have to explain this part to me. As far as I know, this is pretty much settled law. As long as the forum is freely available to all, it’s not government endorsement. It doesn’t look like government endorsement to me, not even if I squint.

    Now yes, that particular sign is implying god-belief is not reason. Its a twofer

    Exactly my point, and exactly why Ed makes himself look like a dumbass by pretending that the sign’s placement and message are some fluke coincidence. Thank you for agreeing with me.

    But it would never have been put up at all if the cross wasn’t there in the first place.

    And back to the part that confuses me. What’s wrong with the cross being there? If it was a permanent monument, or had been placed there by the state, or was maintained by the state, or if local atheists had previously been denied their rights to place a similar monument, then I could understand the reasoning. But as far as I know, none of those assaults on our rights are being alleged here. What we have is a situation where Christians were exercising their rights to celebrate their religion, and atheists got all pissy about it for no good reason.

    Here’s a similar scenario:

    Imagine that Muslims were celebrating a holiday – It doesn’t matter much which, but let’s stipulate it’s a holiday that doesn’t share the calendar with any Christian holidays. The Muslims put up a display featuring quotes from the Quran. Nothing too offensive, generic “Love thy neighbor” stuff. Christians, in retaliation, put up a display that says “Beware of False Prophets.” Already that seems like dickery, but their argument is that the Muslim display makes it appear that the government is endorsing Islam, an argument we already know that you agree with, so the dickery is justified.

    However, when called out for putting up a sign that pointedly insults Muslims who are innocently trying to spread the word about their religion on a holiday (something that seems like a perfectly reasonable use of an open forum to me), the Christians respond “Hey, it just says to beware of false prophets. Don’t you want to beware of false prophets? I mean, their false right? Lots of other Muslims want to beware of false prophets. I certainly have no idea why you would feel insulted by this.” THAT level of dickery is totally unjustified. If the Christians feel the need to outright deny why they are doing what they are doing, to the point that they have to actually pretend to be utterly ignorant morons like Ed is doing here, then it seems to me that they are not completely confident that what they did is the right thing after all.

    If we are convinced that challenging these Christian displays with our own is the proper course of action, we should be able to be honest about it.

  • lofgren

    You want atheists to counter perceived government endorsement by not speaking when and where Christians choose to speak?

    It seems to me that it would effectively counter perceived government endorsement by putting up an atheist display before or after the Christians were using the space. If there is a Christian display this week and an atheist display next week, how does that create the perception of government endorsement? It seems like everybody is equal to me.

    Seems to me it is entirely appropriate to speak in the public square exactly when and where Christians are seeking to monopolize it.

    Who said anything about seeking to monopolize the space? It seems perfectly reasonable to me that a local group should want to put up a display without another group putting up a counterdisplay that pointedly insults them. Nobody, so far as I know, is attempting to curb the atheists’ rights to place their display. That doesn’t mean that Christians have to be happy about it.