Things that don't help the reasonable athiests

[Zyphlin]

So, I've seen some athiests on the forum comment on how they feel athiests are often treated poorly when they make it known they're athiests. While listening to the radio today I heard about something going on in a local city up in the DC Metro area that highlights, a bit, why some people...even not extremely staunch religious people...may have a negative view of athiests.

The local government has various land around the town that citizens can put in to decorate. For over a decade now apparently one local group has gotten the same spot and put up a nativity scene.

Apparently an athiest group, I believe called "Athiests America" but I can't remember at the moment, waited in line and was first to put in a request, specifically requesting that spot.

And this, I have no issue with. Its apparently a frequently traveled spot during the holidays, in part because its in a good traffic area and in part because people would come for the nativity scene. Still, first come, first serve. Its a LITTLE tactless to specifically try to grab it when you know its a tradition type thing for a group...but that alone I don't think would ruffle too many feathers.

However, what they plan on doing is putting a banner there instead durin christmas that states something along the lines of "Celebrate our constitutional right of seperation of church and state".

This is the kind of thing that gives athiests a bad name, and why many people look at the most outspoken of them no differently than the most outspoken of evangelical christians. You specifically try and get a spot that has became a traditional location for a specific decoration. You then take advantage of this spot to put a decidingly political message up during a largely celebrated holiday season, specifically taking a shot at the thing you just replaced.

Now, I understand some Athiests believe Christmas may be "shoving it in their face", however I would say people must also be reasonable about a tradition in this country that is many many decades if not centuries in the making. If people were putting up some huge "Go to christ or you'll burn in hell as a heathen" banner in the middle of July I'd probably say that's a bit tactless as well. However I think you gotta be a bit reasonable in the acceptance of somewhat religious symbols being around in public during the Christmas season.

But what this is doing IS shoving things in peoples face. You're taking a place that has historically been christmas oriented, places that typically people repeatedly go to as tradition during the holiday season, and turning it into not only a political statement but one that mocks the location that its in.

This kind of stuff does not turn anyone away from religion, it doesn't turn anyone on to athiesm, it doesn't promote people to "think" about the notion of religion, it doesn't make people strive for the "seperation of church and state", all it does is turn those that are somewhat in the middle and don't care that much either way to have an increasingly negative view of Athiests, rightly or wrongly.

Sorry, I know this is a bit of a rant, but hearing the news update a few times talking about it just had me shaking my head thinking "what a bunch of jerks"

 

[ARealConservative]

if it questions the political efficacy of public spaces in general, then I see some benefit.

with that said, allow me to apologize on behalf of fellow atheists. They can be annoying!

 

[roughdraft274]

So, I've seen some athiests on the forum comment on how they feel athiests are often treated poorly when they make it known they're athiests. While listening to the radio today I heard about something going on in a local city up in the DC Metro area that highlights, a bit, why some people...even not extremely staunch religious people...may have a negative view of athiests.

When I had to walk by Christians at my college campus every Wednesday that would yell at people that they're going to hell and holding signs that atheists, gays, lesbians and lascivious women we're going to hell, I didn't assume that they represented even 1% of Christians. Same goes here.

The local government has various land around the town that citizens can put in to decorate. For over a decade now apparently one local group has gotten the same spot and put up a nativity scene.

Apparently an athiest group, I believe called "Athiests America" but I can't remember at the moment, waited in line and was first to put in a request, specifically requesting that spot.

And this, I have no issue with. Its apparently a frequently traveled spot during the holidays, in part because its in a good traffic area and in part because people would come for the nativity scene. Still, first come, first serve. Its a LITTLE tactless to specifically try to grab it when you know its a tradition type thing for a group...but that alone I don't think would ruffle too many feathers.

I disagree. That was a dick move. They shouldn't have done it.

However, what they plan on doing is putting a banner there instead durin christmas that states something along the lines of "Celebrate our constitutional right of seperation of church and state".

This is the kind of thing that gives athiests a bad name, and why many people look at the most outspoken of them no differently than the most outspoken of evangelical christians. You specifically try and get a spot that has became a traditional location for a specific decoration. You then take advantage of this spot to put a decidingly political message up during a largely celebrated holiday season, specifically taking a shot at the thing you just replaced.

I don't see a problem with the sign. Freedom of speech and expression. It's not really degrading anyone either, anymore than saying merry Christmas to someone is disrespecting Jews and atheists. They're just putting they're viewpoint out there. Again, the only bad move I've seen here is that they took the other peoples spot, legitimately of course, but it was rude nonetheless.

Now, I understand some Athiests believe Christmas may be "shoving it in their face", however I would say people must also be reasonable about a tradition in this country that is many many decades if not centuries in the making. If people were putting up some huge "Go to christ or you'll burn in hell as a heathen" banner in the middle of July I'd probably say that's a bit tactless as well. However I think you gotta be a bit reasonable in the acceptance of somewhat religious symbols being around in public during the Christmas season.

But what this is doing IS shoving things in peoples face. You're taking a place that has historically been christmas oriented, places that typically people repeatedly go to as tradition during the holiday season, and turning it into not only a political statement but one that mocks the location that its in.

This kind of stuff does not turn anyone away from religion, it doesn't turn anyone on to athiesm, it doesn't promote people to "think" about the notion of religion, it doesn't make people strive for the "seperation of church and state", all it does is turn those that are somewhat in the middle and don't care that much either way to have an increasingly negative view of Athiests, rightly or wrongly.

Sorry, I know this is a bit of a rant, but hearing the news update a few times talking about it just had me shaking my head thinking "what a bunch of jerks"

I'm quite sure that 99% of atheists don't view Christmas as a time where Christians just sit around trying to shove Jesus down our throat. ****, I'm an atheist and my favorite time of year is Christmas.

I'm fully accepting of religious symbols where ever you want to put them. My only caveat is that I want absolutely no tax dollars going towards them. You can placard the ten commandments on every courthouse in america so long as the judges recognize that this country doesn't abide by the 10 commandments when it comes to the law and as long as some private donor or group paid for and installed the religious symbol. I think that's very reasonable, though I know some atheists don't want anything up on government buildings, which isn't completely unreasonable to me either. There's no real need for them to be there. God isn't going to smite the courthouse if the ten commandments aren't plastered on the wall.

 

[Zyphlin]

As a note...

I don't think the sign in and of itself is rude.

I think the sign, combined with the location, and the time is where the issue comes in that makes the sign rude in my mind. Part of it may be the tone of the guy that was talking, which very much made me think the "celebrate" portion of it was basically a dig at people who would've been coming to see specifically a nativity during christmas time.

 

[Councilman]

So, I've seen some athiests on the forum comment on how they feel athiests are often treated poorly when they make it known they're athiests. While listening to the radio today I heard about something going on in a local city up in the DC Metro area that highlights, a bit, why some people...even not extremely staunch religious people...may have a negative view of athiests.

The local government has various land around the town that citizens can put in to decorate. For over a decade now apparently one local group has gotten the same spot and put up a nativity scene.

Apparently an athiest group, I believe called "Athiests America" but I can't remember at the moment, waited in line and was first to put in a request, specifically requesting that spot.

And this, I have no issue with. Its apparently a frequently traveled spot during the holidays, in part because its in a good traffic area and in part because people would come for the nativity scene. Still, first come, first serve. Its a LITTLE tactless to specifically try to grab it when you know its a tradition type thing for a group...but that alone I don't think would ruffle too many feathers.

However, what they plan on doing is putting a banner there instead durin christmas that states something along the lines of "Celebrate our constitutional right of seperation of church and state".

This is the kind of thing that gives athiests a bad name, and why many people look at the most outspoken of them no differently than the most outspoken of evangelical christians. You specifically try and get a spot that has became a traditional location for a specific decoration. You then take advantage of this spot to put a decidingly political message up during a largely celebrated holiday season, specifically taking a shot at the thing you just replaced.

Now, I understand some Athiests believe Christmas may be "shoving it in their face", however I would say people must also be reasonable about a tradition in this country that is many many decades if not centuries in the making. If people were putting up some huge "Go to christ or you'll burn in hell as a heathen" banner in the middle of July I'd probably say that's a bit tactless as well. However I think you gotta be a bit reasonable in the acceptance of somewhat religious symbols being around in public during the Christmas season.

But what this is doing IS shoving things in peoples face. You're taking a place that has historically been christmas oriented, places that typically people repeatedly go to as tradition during the holiday season, and turning it into not only a political statement but one that mocks the location that its in.

This kind of stuff does not turn anyone away from religion, it doesn't turn anyone on to athiesm, it doesn't promote people to "think" about the notion of religion, it doesn't make people strive for the "seperation of church and state", all it does is turn those that are somewhat in the middle and don't care that much either way to have an increasingly negative view of Athiests, rightly or wrongly.

Sorry, I know this is a bit of a rant, but hearing the news update a few times talking about it just had me shaking my head thinking "what a bunch of jerks"

Atheists are extremely insecure in there beliefs or they would not fear Christianity so much.

It's no different if you think about it for a minute than the over whelming response to every post about Gays gets here.

It's all about insecurity. I love the argument they use when they say you can't prove Jesus was anything more than a man.

To that I say, you have missed the point. Christmas is about Peace on Earth Good will toward Men. It's the message every bit as much as the Messenger.

You can take the religion out of the discussion and look only at the message, and I defy anyone to tell me what is wrong with the intent of the following: "And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil."

These are things everyone can either live by or at least aspire to. And if you oppose them you have serious problems that could require more help than we can doll out here.

Most people fear what they do not understand, and many weak mined people tend to lash out when they are faced with something they don't or can't understand because of limited knowledge on a given subject.

By the way "Separation of Church and State" is no where to be found in the Constitution. It has been ruled that it is there but clearly anyone who can read can see it is not there and the intent is not there either.

Atheists are extremely weak minded and have a built in hate for anything that they do not agree with or understand, and it spills over into Liberal thinking in general as well.

 

[roughdraft274]

Atheists are extremely insecure in there beliefs or they would not fear Christianity so much.

Christians are very insecure with their beliefs or else they wouldn't fear Christianity so much. Glenn Beck is extremely insecure in his beliefs because he fears Obama so much. You're argument makes no sense...

It's no different if you think about it for a minute than the over whelming response to every post about Gays gets here.

It's all about insecurity. I love the argument they use when they say you can't prove Jesus was anything more than a man.

To that I say, you have missed the point. Christmas is about Peace on Earth Good will toward Men. It's the message every bit as much as the Messenger.

You can take the religion out of the discussion and look only at the message, and I defy anyone to tell me what is wrong with the intent of the following: "And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil."

I've never heard an atheist say "those damn Christians actually want me to behave in a good manner and treat others the way I want to be treated?

I have heard them complain when Christians try to legislate from the bible and enforce laws that say two gay guys can't have sex, can't get married, that I can't buy alcohol on sundays etc.[/quote]

These are things everyone can either live by or at least aspire to. And if you oppose them you have serious problems that could require more help than we can doll out here.

Most people fear what they do not understand, and many weak mined people tend to lash out when they are faced with something they don't or can't understand because of limited knowledge on a given subject.

By the way "Separation of Church and State" is no where to be found in the Constitution. It has been ruled that it is there but clearly anyone who can read can see it is not there and the intent is not there either.

Atheists are extremely weak minded and have a built in hate for anything that they do not agree with or understand, and it spills over into Liberal thinking in general as well.

The rest of this doesn't even deserve a response. And I'd say the exact same thing if I saw an atheist spout such nonsense about Christians.

 

[Catz Part Deux]

Atheists are extremely insecure in there beliefs or they would not fear Christianity so much.

If Christians were secure in their beliefs, they wouldn't require the assistance and support of the government.

I have zero problems with Christmas. However, we are a pluralistic country. I have Jewish, Muslim, Agnostic, pagan, and Atheist friends. I'm going to wish them happy holidays.

I understand that some people resent our current state of pluralism and want everything to be about them. They should probably get over it.

I'm not going to get bent about a religious display. I'd suggest that Christians learn to not be upset by an atheist banner. Other people's beliefs aren't a personal attack.

 

[Zyphlin]

Was the last line aimed at Councilman or me as the OP? Cause if you read my OP you'll see pretty clearly my issue is not with their beliefs.

 

[Cephus]

Whether you like it or not, something that is wrong is wrong no matter how long it's been going on. Tradition that has been carried out illegally is still illegal. Deal with it.

 

[Cephus]

Atheists are extremely insecure in there beliefs or they would not fear Christianity so much.

We don't fear it at all. We might laugh hysterically at the absurdity of it but we don't fear it at all. The ones who are afraid are the Christians who fear losing their power and control. I think there are a lot of Christians who, deep down, know that what they believe is absolutely ridiculous and the presence of people who are open about thinking that makes them very uncomfortable.

When you've been in de facto charge for decades and suddenly, reality yanks the rug out from under you, I suppose it's only natural to feel insecure.

To that I say, you have missed the point. Christmas is about Peace on Earth Good will toward Men. It's the message every bit as much as the Messenger.

It's nice that you think you can declare what the holiday means, but let's be honest, the early Christians stole it from the pagans and in recent years, it's become a secular holiday, populated by department store Santas, Christmas trees and rampant commercialism. It isn't the same holiday you want to pretend it is. Even most so-called Christians pay the religious aspects little or no heed. You don't get to declare what Christmas is about for anyone but yourself.

You can take the religion out of the discussion and look only at the message, and I defy anyone to tell me what is wrong with the intent of the following: "And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation,but deliver us from evil."

I'll tell you what's wrong with it. There's nobody to forgive us except for the people we trespass against and there's no such thing as objective evil. There's nobody to lead us into temptation, we're pretty good at finding it ourselves. If people would spend more time taking responsibility for their own actions than bowing down before imaginary friends in the sky, maybe the world wouldn't be such a screwed up place.

By the way "Separation of Church and State" is no where to be found in the Constitution. It has been ruled that it is there but clearly anyone who can read can see it is not there and the intent is not there either.

You're right, those specific words do not appear, but they do come from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists where he clarified what was intended by the First Amendment. It was the clear intention of the Founding Fathers when they wrote and signed the Constitution.

By the way, you are aware that words like Trinity aren't in the Bible, right? So I guess that means you reject the Trinity?

Atheists are extremely weak minded and have a built in hate for anything that they do not agree with or understand, and it spills over into Liberal thinking in general as well.

You've been looking in the mirror, it isn't atheists who are out trying to fight against homosexuality, it isn't atheists who used Biblical principles to justify slavery and it certainly isn't atheists who are trying to force absurd beliefs on everyone else. That's you people.

 

[BDBoop]

if it questions the political efficacy of public spaces in general, then I see some benefit.

with that said, allow me to apologize on behalf of fellow atheists. They can be annoying!

I've been blessed in my atheist friendships. We're all respectful of each other's beliefs.

 

[BDBoop]

Most people fear what they do not understand, and many weak mined people tend to lash out when they are faced with something they don't or can't understand because of limited knowledge on a given subject.

I guess if I'm going to wear labels, - I'm a Christian liberal. I believe Jesus was who he said he was, and did what he came to do. But I do need to address your statement. Atheists aren't weak-minded or uneducated. No more so than we who are people of faith are (and I've seen that insult tossed in this direction as well). One of the most brilliant, NO exaggeration, women I know is an atheist. Anybody asks a question, she'll not only answer it but come back with sources and foot notes.

We all see the universe differently. I don't think any one personal belief system trumps any other.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Atheist Atheist Atheist. It's bad enough being defined by a word meaning "not something" without theists so frequently misspelling it. AthEIst. NOT AthIEst. Perhaps it's their affinity to living their lives by rules, but in this case the rule of "I before E except after "C" does not apply.

 

[Anarcho-fascist]

Good for the them. I completely support putting up an unobjectionable sign that both theists and atheists can support. I was amused when you tried to make an analogy with a sign threatening people with unending torture replacing the atheist sign. Since the spot is apparently so popular why shouldn't another group occasionally get it during relevant holidays (in this case patriotic or religious) when there will be lot's of people around. The nativity scene can just be somewhere else this year.

 

[Anarcho-fascist]

Atheist Atheist Atheist. It's bad enough being defined by a word meaning "not something" without theists so frequently misspelling it. AthEIst. NOT AthIEst. Perhaps it's their affinity to living their lives by rules, but in this case the rule of "I before E except after "C" does not apply.

I'm not athiest, but I am athier than most.

 

[molten_dragon]

So, I've seen some athiests on the forum comment on how they feel athiests are often treated poorly when they make it known they're athiests. While listening to the radio today I heard about something going on in a local city up in the DC Metro area that highlights, a bit, why some people...even not extremely staunch religious people...may have a negative view of athiests.

The local government has various land around the town that citizens can put in to decorate. For over a decade now apparently one local group has gotten the same spot and put up a nativity scene.

Apparently an athiest group, I believe called "Athiests America" but I can't remember at the moment, waited in line and was first to put in a request, specifically requesting that spot.

And this, I have no issue with. Its apparently a frequently traveled spot during the holidays, in part because its in a good traffic area and in part because people would come for the nativity scene. Still, first come, first serve. Its a LITTLE tactless to specifically try to grab it when you know its a tradition type thing for a group...but that alone I don't think would ruffle too many feathers.

However, what they plan on doing is putting a banner there instead durin christmas that states something along the lines of "Celebrate our constitutional right of seperation of church and state".

This is the kind of thing that gives athiests a bad name, and why many people look at the most outspoken of them no differently than the most outspoken of evangelical christians. You specifically try and get a spot that has became a traditional location for a specific decoration. You then take advantage of this spot to put a decidingly political message up during a largely celebrated holiday season, specifically taking a shot at the thing you just replaced.

Now, I understand some Athiests believe Christmas may be "shoving it in their face", however I would say people must also be reasonable about a tradition in this country that is many many decades if not centuries in the making. If people were putting up some huge "Go to christ or you'll burn in hell as a heathen" banner in the middle of July I'd probably say that's a bit tactless as well. However I think you gotta be a bit reasonable in the acceptance of somewhat religious symbols being around in public during the Christmas season.

But what this is doing IS shoving things in peoples face. You're taking a place that has historically been christmas oriented, places that typically people repeatedly go to as tradition during the holiday season, and turning it into not only a political statement but one that mocks the location that its in.

This kind of stuff does not turn anyone away from religion, it doesn't turn anyone on to athiesm, it doesn't promote people to "think" about the notion of religion, it doesn't make people strive for the "seperation of church and state", all it does is turn those that are somewhat in the middle and don't care that much either way to have an increasingly negative view of Athiests, rightly or wrongly.

Sorry, I know this is a bit of a rant, but hearing the news update a few times talking about it just had me shaking my head thinking "what a bunch of jerks"

That's definitely kind of a dick move. Personally, I don't really understand the atheists who hate Christmas or feel the need to use it to make political points. I'm an atheist (or close enough) and Christmas is my absolute favorite time of year. I mean let's be honest here, 90% of the modern christmas traditions are not religious. They might have religious roots, but they've all become pretty secular at this point.

I've said it many times, and I'll say it again. People need to quit getting all offended about the way other people celebrate holidays.

 

[Zyphlin]

Whether you like it or not, something that is wrong is wrong no matter how long it's been going on. Tradition that has been carried out illegally is still illegal. Deal with it.

Whether its wrong or not, a tactless dick move is a tactless dick move.

 

[Cephus]

Whether its wrong or not, a tactless dick move is a tactless dick move.

Why is it a tactless dick move? And why is it any worse than the tactless dick moves that Christians have been pulling for decades, if not longer?

 

[Zyphlin]

Sorry, this thread isn't about "tactless dick moves that christians have been pulling for decades". Please don't attempt to derail my thread.

As to why I feel this is a tactless dick move, I explained that already in the Original Post. Perhaps you should read it and respond to the topic rather than attempting to turn the discussion into one that is focused on complaining about Christians.

 

[Dezaad]

If Christians believed in freedom of religion like they should, this wouldn't be a 'dig'. They'd look at the sign and say "yeah, I agree with that."

 

[Zyphlin]

Again, is this a point about a specific poster? If so please identify it.

If its to do with the OP, please explain how this has anything to do with agreeing or not agreeing with the sign? If someone had a banner that said "U.S. Soldiers blood should never be lost in vain" was posted at some random place at some random time the message is good. Despite the good message, if it's posted on a billboard by an anti-war group on D-Day who managed to get a spot to put it by replacing a decade long memorial that would go up on D-Day because they specifically wanted to kick that group out of the spot I'd say the people posting it and the message is tactless even if in general the message is good.

The atheist group went out of their way to take the spot that had been used for over a decade for a continual tradition on the town specifically to further make their political point in the midst of a holiday celebration. Having a good message in a generic sense doesn't trump the context of the how and why that message is being displayed

 

[samsmart]

Whether its wrong or not, a tactless dick move is a tactless dick move.

But to label all atheists for what a single organization of atheists do is just as bad as to label all people of faith for what pedophile religious leaders of one denomination of one religion does. Just as not all people of faith are the same, neither are all atheists.

 

[Zyphlin]

But to label all atheists for what a single organization of atheists do is just as bad as to label all people of faith for what pedophile religious leaders of one denomination of one religion does. Just as not all people of faith are the same, neither are all atheists.

But I'm specifically NOT labeling all atheists.

You'll note my title itself distinguishes a bit by referencing "reasonable atheists". I talk in my post about how the most outspoken of them look akin to evangelical christians, again making a distinction between all athiests and certain extreme ones. I myself am NOT suggesting these people represent all atheists.

What I am suggesting though that much like a few pedophile catholic priests or terrorist muslims can cause the general overall view of the religion to take a generic hit in the minds of many people, that this is the kind of thing that does the same to atheists. Is it fair? No. Is it logical? No. Is it reasonable? No. Does it happen all the time with any grouping of people? Absolutely.

A while back I had a conversation on the forum about Atheists with a few of the more reasonable ones on the forum who were discussing how horrible it is at times to admit publicly you're an atheist and the kind of reactions you get for it. I was pointing out that actions like this group, while not representative of EVERY atheist, IS the type of thing that shades the average persons over all perception of the view point. A shading very similar to how Catholics are shaded by the pedophile thing, or to show you what I mean by ANY grouping, how some people think NBA players are "thugs" or how young people are "hooligans" and such.

But seriously, look at my post and my title and it should be obvious that I myself am not suggesting in any way this is representative of all atheists.

 

[BDBoop]

But to label all atheists for what a single organization of atheists do is just as bad as to label all people of faith for what pedophile religious leaders of one denomination of one religion does. Just as not all people of faith are the same, neither are all atheists.

I didn't read beyond this post, but I didn't see that as being what he was doing. The thread title even specifically said "Things that don't help reasonable atheists."

 

[samsmart]

But I'm specifically NOT labeling all atheists.

You'll note my title itself distinguishes a bit by referencing "reasonable atheists". I talk in my post about how the most outspoken of them look akin to evangelical christians, again making a distinction between all athiests and certain extreme ones. I myself am NOT suggesting these people represent all atheists.

What I am suggesting though that much like a few pedophile catholic priests or terrorist muslims can cause the general overall view of the religion to take a generic hit in the minds of many people, that this is the kind of thing that does the same to atheists. Is it fair? No. Is it logical? No. Is it reasonable? No. Does it happen all the time with any grouping of people? Absolutely.

A while back I had a conversation on the forum about Atheists with a few of the more reasonable ones on the forum who were discussing how horrible it is at times to admit publicly you're an atheist and the kind of reactions you get for it. I was pointing out that actions like this group, while not representative of EVERY atheist, IS the type of thing that shades the average persons over all perception of the view point. A shading very similar to how Catholics are shaded by the pedophile thing, or to show you what I mean by ANY grouping, how some people think NBA players are "thugs" or how young people are "hooligans" and such.

But seriously, look at my post and my title and it should be obvious that I myself am not suggesting in any way this is representative of all atheists.

Right, I understand. But there's very little that those who aren't militant atheists can really do to stop those who are.

And, let's face it, in today's media age I think that those militant atheists who do tactless dick moves are going to be talked about more in the media than those atheists who are pretty reasonable with others and just want to get along with everybody else.

I mean yeah the radio shows are going to talk about the tactless dick moves of a single atheist organization, but would they ever bother to hear about the individual atheists who decide to volunteer their time to help at a food bank during that time?

So I'm not surprised that people tend to have a negative view of atheists when the media tends to highlight the negative aspects of atheists (and, indeed, of anything) for ratings, and when most of the good things that atheists try to do in their eyes are innately politically contentious according to other groups.