Comments on: Help Washington State Ban Displays of Faith in the Capitol Building

By: Spiritual

Spiritual — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 06:09:06 +0000

You know, at least a Nativity Scene doesen’t mock people’s beliefs in some plaq. Self-satisfied, smug little shits. Apparently you people are smarter than everyone else for being atheist.

By the way, if Government Property is Public Property: Send a letter to the White House. Take out that Christmas Tree. The Obama’s just recieved their Christmas Tree. Well the Christmas Tree has pre-christian spiritual connotations, as well as the fact that “Christmas Tree” has the name Christ in it. Write a letter to the White House. Be sure to remind the Obama’s that they live on PUBLIC Property. Tell them to take down that tree!

Then write a letter to any US Military members who lives on a Military base. Be sure to remind the Base Exchange, base housing, and all those that decide to display holiday decor: THAT IS PUBLIC PROPERTY. YOU CANNOT DO THIS!

Then satisfy yourself with thoughts of activism, and mocking religion. Then realize you are smarter than everyone else in the world, because: you are Atheist. Good job! Smug shits.

By: Jessica Sideways

Jessica Sideways — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 03:37:17 +0000

I would, but I do not live in Washington and I think that a letter to Governor Ritter might not have the same impact, even if I do cite the problem in Washington.

By: echoecho

echoecho — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:37:01 +0000

Hemant says: The government must either endorse no belief system or allow for all beliefs systems to host their own display. The latter would lead to chaos as it did last year.

Sackbut says: and allowing all comers is not only ridiculous but likely to be offensive.

I disagree. I can see how that particular sign would certainly have caused chaos – it’s only reasonable that a sign designed to pick a fight would, well, get a fight. Not to mention all kinds of crazy-hijinks on the capital lawn.

But letting many faiths and opinions be represented on the lawn, and installing a lottery system if there proved to be too many requests for space, would be a fair way to be non-discriminatory without eliminating the holiday displays.

If this were done beforehand, and explained rationally, rather than created in the middle of a controversy, people would be less likely to game the system, because it would be more likely to be seen as fair.

The sign was mean-spirited and did more harm than good. I think this would have been a time when a more positive message would have been more powerful, and left everyone who came to the capitol with the impression that the state, as a community that included atheists, was enjoying the holiday season and hoping they were too.

By: Heidi

Heidi — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:37:03 +0000

The “its religion — keep it out of the state” statement is kind of nonsensical (or atleast, shortsighted). The constitution adopts a policy of nondiscrimination, not abstinence. It would be just as silly to requiring government workers to not have public religious beliefs.

What is ridiculous is trying to equate someone’s personal beliefs, practiced on their own time, with public displays in government buildings.

By: TXatheist

TXatheist — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 12:41:35 +0000

Thanks for the heads up on this Hemant, love to be an activist.

By: selfification

selfification — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 05:02:49 +0000

I saw comments along the lines of “It’s government property — not some public space”. Guys… “government property” *is* public space. Free speech is *especially* important in public space. Now, it is entirely reasonable to say “We have had too much commotion in this building and it affected government officers’ ability to work. Hence, no displays”. After all, you don’t have some inherent right to go party in the state capitol. The “its religion — keep it out of the state” statement is kind of nonsensical (or atleast, shortsighted). The constitution adopts a policy of nondiscrimination, not abstinence. It would be just as silly to requiring government workers to not have public religious beliefs.

Personally, I would want to see celebrations and holiday displays on the capitol. Its a great way to celebrate the solstice. Simply have each group fund their own “booth” or display and enforce crowd control using the fire code and other business regulations. This way, when the capitol run out of room to put up displays, it’s not an act of discrimination. It is simply an application of safety procedures. If groups feel that the safety code was applied unjustly, this can be argued in a court of law.

By: muggle

muggle — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 21:19:53 +0000

Done. This is what I commented:

“The capital should make all citizens welcome. To display religious icons alienates and divides. The only solution is to remain neutral as the Constitution asks government to do. This is not hostile to religion. Making a statement that there is no God would be hostile to religion and just as wrong as displays of Christianity or any other religion. Saying nothing is the no comment position.”

I admit I sent it anomyously.

As for displays of all religions being cohesive, not on public grounds, they’re not. In their own homes, places of worship, schools, etc., they are. My city has a large Catholic hospital right next to our largest synagogue. Not only is it beautiful every December when they have Christmas trimmings, including a manger scene and the synagogue has a large lit menorah, it makes me feel American to see it and good to be here. A creche at the post office or town hall has the opposite affect. Makes me feel excluded and outcast.

Sigh, now if only more places besides Madison had Freethought Halls so we could have blending of some reason’s greetings displays too.

By: ursulamajor

ursulamajor — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 20:25:58 +0000

This is way off topic, but in response to a post on PZ’s blog, I started a World of Warcraft guild called “The Friendly Pharyngula” in honor of my 2 favorite bloggers. There were a bunch of WoW players over there, so I know some must be lingering around here too.
Server: Kael’thas
Faction: Horde
GM: Atheistgal
Officer: Pharyngula
Officer: Blastula (non-other than the tentacled one himself)

5G in startup Gold for mentioing this ad!
Come join us.

By: BrettH

BrettH — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 20:11:38 +0000

Thanks for posting that link, Sackbut. I still don’t like what the FFRF did there though. I think this quote from Gaylor is pretty much where my problem is: “Our purpose wasn’t to promote the winter solstice or atheist views about Xmas.” The problem is that every other display there WAS there to promote a positive holiday message and spread the views of a cultural or religious group about their favorite winter holiday. Even though to outcome was a positive one, the tactics used to achieve it. Getting religion out of the capital by being a mean spirited jackass is going to make it a bit harder next time someone tries to argue against the mistaken believe that atheists are selfish and immoral. I would have preferred if the FFRF or a group like it just encouraged everyone they knew to but up their own displays about the FSM, atheism, Yoda, etc. They would have had to ban religious displays just to make sure they still had room to use the capitol building for governing.

(I’m an atheist living in Washington, just for the record.)

By: Sackbut

Sackbut — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 19:37:39 +0000

I don't see anything wrong with religious holiday displays. I do, however, see something wrong with religious holiday displays on government property. Government is not supposed to show favoritism toward any religion, and allowing all comers is not only ridiculous but likely to be offensive. Popular public places is one thing, government property is another. It is worth reading Trina Hoaks' essay on how she missed the point of the sign. The sign on the Capitol grounds was intentionally provocative, because it was aimed at making a point about church-state separation. The FFRF placed other more "jolly" signs elsewhere around town.