MERRY CHRISTMAS To Intolerant Atheist Pinheads Everywhere!

Right on Chris, I'm with you.

What a bunch of Grinch's...
I hear ya' Chris, take care.

interesting

Please note that the pinheads are attacking ideas, not people.

But it is offensive and though I cannot say they should be prevented expressing that message I think it singularly foolish. Making enemies is almost always the wrong thing to do.

I regret that their stupidity has lessened your enjoyment of Christmas.

If any religious displays are allowed on public ground, then all displays must be allowed.

I believe that no religious (or anti-religion) displays belong on public grounds, and this solves the problem.

BTW, nice use of attacks phrases like Intolerant Atheist Pinheads. I see you have an open mind, but does the breeze tickle your brain?

Yes, love instead of hate is the true spirit of Christmas.

Solstics is a religious holiday.

There is no free speech when other people's free speech is belittled. Either respect people's rights or have no rights. It is up to you.

"Intolerant Atheist Pinheads"

ha ha - isn't it nice the fundamentalist religious folk never fit that bill.

"There ain't no heaven and there ain't no burning hell."--Son House, "My Black Mama"

House gave up the blues for a time and became a minister.

I hadn't seen the test of the sign before. I don't care for it much. I'm not offended but I'd sure be embarrassed if I'd written it. Seems like the group that posted it could have gotten someone who could write to write their message.

Personally I don't think there should be any religious displays, pro or con, on public property.

It's all OK except the last sentence. You're right, that one is gratuitous attacking.

Again, I Demand, "Merry Christmas"


Merry Mass of Christ
riven upon the four-fold way
cut into deity and man
on the crossroads
at the witching hour.
Sing praise of all things holy
Make us see and feel the pain
the horror of wrenching heart
from soul. Of blithely obliging
demonic Angel Fate
that each generation may descend
into fiery pits of degradation
reaching, reaching
into and out of the story, the path.
If Christ is love,
if love is what we worship, eyes closed
in holy communion,
what keeps us riven
on the crossroads?
What keeps us from reaching out
to bind each other's wounds?

(c) December 10, 2006 Laurie Corzett/libramoon

And that is fine, just not in Public Schools or on Public land.

Larry M.,
Are you saying that it is appropriate for the Governor of Washington to approve the use of a religious display are a forum for attacking other religions. It seems to be that if they were touting a true and honest honoring of a special event such as a winter solstice that then their display would reflect the declaration of the event. Unless you are claiming Christopher has misrepresented the display then this is nothing more than the Governor approving an attack on other religious peaceful celebration in the guise of a “religious” display. If you can’t see this difference then you need to help me better understand how the atheist words are honoring the winter solstice.

Joe T.,
I must admit I was under the misimpression that free speech extended to all parties, and somehow it wasn’t limited to you definition of belittling. IN this case I don’t believe the issue is free speech but rather the means the Governor forced the attacks on the public.

Peter J.,
I don’t think anyone has said that there aren’t pinheads of all strife, and I don’t think it takes a religious a conservative to be offended both by the message during this season of sharing and by the means the attacks used.
You may be proud of the Governor of Washington and the acceptance by Washingtonians of this forum and attack.
For this self acknowledged pinhead (that is a much more civil term that many have used on Gather) I am offended and appreciate Christopher’s bring it forward in his article. It gives me one more piece of data about the governor and Washingtonians.

Duane - Do you agree that if we ban this atheists free speech rights that all free speech rights are at risk? I have no problem with the opinions and expressions of those who disagree. I have a big problem with those who believe that it shouldn't be allowed at all. Free speech means just that - free speech - regardless of how others react.

And my seasonal message to you is:

""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.""

Merry fantasies!

atheism is a form of faith in of itself, I'm never quite sure why they bust on others faiths and expect theirs to be treated differently...

"atheism is a form of faith in of itself,"

I've heard that a lot. I don't buy it. Having the opinion that there is no God is a good deal different from belonging to an organized religion or developing your own disorganized religion. The idea is rooted in a semantic problem with the word "belief." Religion generally involves a system of beliefs.

I'm an agnostic, myself, so I don't usually deal with this stuff in the excruciating detail that people tend to get into in these discussions. I'm perfectly happy with the idea that God's existence is unproved. It allows me to focus on other things.

Then when the definitive proof or disproof comes along I can take a side.

That is a good way to look at it, Nippy. If there is ever proof, a decision can be made. I like that. Thanks!

Joe T.,
I surely have not said anywhere that a person should not be allowed to make the remarks posted. I must have overlooked some other comments in the article, because I don’t recall anyone other than you raising the question about anyone’s right to make the remarks.

My objections is that the Governor deemed the remarks as equivalent to the religious symbols allowed for the holidays and forced them to be post as such.

I am of the group that feels that atheists don’t have a religion so I am trouble by attacks on other religion as being a religious symbol or having a religious holiday to be commemorated alongside those of other formally established religious symbols for this time of year.

Nippy, Mariah W.,
Why shouldn’t religious symbols be allowed on public property?

These people who protest Christmas, dont have anything better to do , than to nitpick and try to ruin what others believe in.
I think Christmas is the most beautiful holiday that we celebrate.. It brings people together, the charities are working hard to help other people... I think we take time to reflect on what is important and its not material things... What a most wonderful time.. I cant imagine not seeing a baby manger or a navity scene placed outside... I am not a Bible thumper.. I havent been to Church in about 10 years... but I would never ever dream or plan or try to disrupt a public display... and I dont care where it sits... It will never defend me....I find joy in being reminded what Christmas is really all about and its not about us arguing over a religious scene... I think we have alot bigger issues to worry about....

"My objections is that the Governor deemed the remarks as equivalent to the religious symbols allowed for the holidays and forced them to be post as such."

The atheist display is equivalent to the religious symbols when placed in the public square, Duane. We have no national religion in this country, so all expressions are on the same footing. Christians get plenty of opportunity to express their religious beliefs in this country. Why is it that when atheists express themselves that the same respect cannot be afforded them?

Vickey,

I'm glad that you enjoy the holiday season. It's important to be thankful to all of those non-Christians who graciously move over and let the Christians literally take over.

The Christmas display does not say "anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus will burn in hell," but that would be a good comparison to the atheists' message. As for my use of the words "intolerant pinheads," it was the least hateful equivalent I could think of. I don't hate the people behind the sign; I pray for them to find the goodness in faith, or at least respect it.

I myself was an atheist for some years, and still see the world through both secular and religious eyes. I often argue the secular pov, to my fiance's religious view. I call it "playing Devil's advocate," but it often upset's her. I have to remind her that I agree with her, on religious grounds, but am trying to point out what atheists, and secularists think.

Back to the point: I have no problem with celebrating winter solstice. As Sharon said, it's a religious holiday, or has a religious history. This makes it an odd choice for an atheist celebration. It also supports the contention that the display's intent is not to celebrate the solstice, but to attack Christmas.

Joe said "We have no national religion in this country." Atheism has been defined as a religion under the law, and yet some people claim that our nation should be governed as an atheist nation. Just a thought, Joe.

Thanks to everyone for the comments!

Joe T.,
Are you suggesting that atheist don’t have plenty of opportunities to express their views?

When you say “The atheist display is equivalent to the religious symbols when placed in the public square,” that seems to imply that atheism is a religion, I would be surprised it the atheists would agree. Do you realy feel that atheism is a religion as referenced in the Constitution?

If an area designated for season religious displays, by your view, is simply an o[en [lace for exercising free speech then how can there be any designated area that people prevents people from voicing/acting out their freedom of personal views? Wouldn’t your criteria that prevent polling places from having no campaigning boundaries within 100’ of voting booths, wouldn’t that prevent laws that deny people access to or within close proximity to public areas such school ( no alcohol sold within 500’ of a school), wouldn’t that prevent smokers from being ban from public places?

I don’t believe anyone is denying atheists the right to speak their views. My objection is that the Governor of Washington has defined their statements as religious and forced she could force them placed next to formally recognized religious displays.

You may feel that people should be offend to ensure there is no illusion of speech control, but in this case it is the Governor actions that are a point of contention. Do you feel the Governor has the authority to define a religion and then place their statements/remarks/symbols where she sees fit?

Atheists, Deists, Christians, Muslims, Jews, all of you: you are fighting over made-up distinctions, words that do not convey to you what they self-evidently say; you just don't get it. There is not Yahweh or Allah or Jehovah, one great sky father sending edicts and laws. There is All, every bit of existence, the universe, the multiverse, all of us including those we never even are aware of. Read the words in this light. Understand. We are all and each our manifestation of the All. The real way to heaven through Jesus is to love each other.

strangling heaven

That's an interesting point of view, liberalmoon, and welcome here. It's true that these things can seem like "petty distinctions." However, this is precisely what makes us human. We can't help it. At least, that's what my faith teaches me, and I've observed it, empirically. Still, you just may be a millenia ahead of your time. Thanks!

As much as I am for freedom of speech, it should never be supported by the government. I have heard time and again people complain about the government supporting Christmas, or nativities. If you are going to remove that then remove all. My problem with the statement is that it is hate speech. I do not tolerate Christian hate speech, and government property is no place to showcase ANY Hate speech. I think your example of believe or go to Hell is a good example. Hate speech in any form should not be tolerated.

There is now a person applying to put up a sign saying "SANTA CLAUS WILL TAKE YOU TO HELL." -And so it goes... on and on...

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/thebigblog/archives/156716.asp

According to the Spokesman Review, the text of the Westboro Baptist Church's message would read:

"You'd better watch out, get ready to cry, You'd better go hide, I'm telling you why 'cuz Santa Claus will take you to hell. He is your favorite idol, you worship at his feet, but when you stand before your God He won't help you take the heat. So get this fact straight: you're feeling God's hate, Santa's to blame for the economy's fate, Santa Claus will take you to hell."

Under what grounds will the governor oppose this piece of "free expression?" Is it "patently offensive," as I labelled the atheists' statement? The Westboro Baptist Church is a well known "hate group," so they have to be "protected" under the governor's "agreement" about free speech in the state capitol, I think.

Way to go, Gov. Chrissy! To think about it, things could be worse: at least you aren't Rod Blago!

As a pagan, I actually find myself agreeing with Christopher. I take offense to someone using MY HOLIDAY as an opening to attack another person's holiday.

The point is, the rights of one person end where the rights of another person begin. You can't yell FIRE in a crowded movie theatre. You can't get in the face of a five year old and call her a fat whore and expect to get away with it. And you certainly should not usurp the religious beliefs of one group and use them as an umbrella to attack the beliefs of another.

Merry Peacemas to all.

We all need a holiday from the stress and strife of daily existence, and since so many cultures seem to have a fevestival around the time of the Northern Hemisphere's winter solstice that seems to be a good choice for all the wish. "Peace to All" and celebrate Peace as goal for which all of us can reach.

Same old argument, same old story. Free speech sucks when you don't agree with the message. That's why it's called free speech. The govenor doesn't own that sign and cannot edit content that expresses an opinion that fits within profanity law.

How about "Blagovich is a dirt bag, aren't you happy in Seattle?" Or "Newt is yesterday's bad news and tomorrow's nightmare." Or "Down with intolerant pinheads of any stripe?" "Peace NOW in Iraq, bring our boys home!" Or "Pray for progressive taxation."

Offensive to some, welcome to others, free speech. I must confess Chris, whenever I see a post of yours I think, "what's that intolerant pinhead up to now?"

Right on, Julie! Our beliefs converge on this point. Thanks for a different angle toward "common sense." I respect the historical origins of Paganism, though it's not my faith. You make many good points, besides agreeing with me!

The real way to heaven through Jesus

You just don't get it Libra, do you?

Man made god in his own image, endowing their god with their own prejudices and hate. Dismissing other beliefs in favor of your own is raw hate (though you are probable blind to this).

Someday, you will see the light, my friend. Sometimes "someday never comes," as well. None of us "know it all," Jersey Joe.

I wonder how offended you'd be if the athiests called you a pinhead? Surely there would be a cry of religious persecution or an uproar about how Christians get no respect. Don't get me wrong, I'm a Christian, but I seriously wonder how you can justify your article and it's title in light of how Jesus Christ treated people.

I suppose that Jesus went around insulting those who disagreed with him, so insulting others is a Christian thing to do.

Of course, I know nothing about Jesus, so I can only guess he was a hateful, small minded moron, based upon the actions of some of his followers.

I wonder how offended you'd be if the athiests called you a pinhead?

First, the poor behavior of one person does not justify the poor behavior of another. Regardless of how you feel about the title of the article, it doesn't change the fact that...in this case...a group of individuals took it upon themselves to use a pagan holiday (Winter Solstice) as an opening to attack other religions. Disagreeing with Chistopher's word choice does not justify the sign. Those are two different issues.

Second, in the context of the article, it is clear to whom he is referring to. The ignorant pinheads are the individuals that put the sign up. It's pretty clear he isn't referring to all atheists in general.

The point is, if a Christian group put up a sign that said "Christ is the only way to salvation and all others are going to hell" on public property my fellow non-Christians would be having a cow and flipping out over separation of Church and State. But just as we don't want Christians forcing their beliefs down our throats, we have the same obligation to THEM not to force our beliefs down theirs. Particularly in such an overt attempt. It's poor form, and frankly, we know better.

Julie, I never said anything about the sign. I disagree with it as well, just for the record. ;) I also disagree with his way of expressing his disagreement. His article is no better than the sign itself.

"Nippy, Mariah W.,
Why shouldn’t religious symbols be allowed on public property? "

Uh, are you asking this seriously? The Constitution requires that government not endorse any religion.

Mariah W. they shouldn't be displayed on public property cause not all of the public is religious. what you do with your private property is your choice, but to force your beliefs on the public on public land is not only against the constitution, but against human rights in general.

as an atheist, or so i've been called, i don't think that statement was correct either.

here is a suggestion, why don't we all keep our religions or lack there of to ourselves and live and let live? there would be a lot less arguing and wars that way.

how about just saying Peace and Joy all year round to everyone regardless of who or what you believe or don't believe in? that would solve a lot.

"how about just saying Peace and Joy all year round to everyone"

CC, that makes too much sense.

"Do you feel the Governor has the authority to define a religion and then place their statements/remarks/symbols where she sees fit?"

No, I don't. But, that's not what the Governor did. She said that it was acceptable speech as is the religious expression. Atheism is not a religion. I know atheists. They do not have a religion. They just don't believe, period. Of course, the display may be displayed if, in fact, there may be other displays in the public square. The fact that the expression goes against the majority does not make it offensive or unacceptable. Everyone in this country has a right to free speech. As soon as you decide that only some kinds of speech are acceptable, you have decided that your kind of speech can be deemed unacceptable. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the Governor's position. But, when what you really want is to have only your rights extended and not other people's rights, you say things like this article says.

Nippy,
First Amendment; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” That seems to say they can’t write laws for a specific religions or prohibiting a specific religion. Nowhere does it say that religious symbols or materials are band from government property.

Simply acknowledging the there is a god doesn’t force others to believe in a god. If all people independent of their believes get the same days “holidays” then it doesn’t seem that anyone is getting special treatment for their beliefs or lack of belief.

Joe T.,
You seemed to miss the question about the authority of the government denying free access to all areas to voice free speech. If the government has the right to deny free speech in certain areas (around polling places, or around schools) then why can they limit free speech in other smaller areas, such as a holiday display for Christmas or Hanukkah?

As far as the Governor’s action, I do believe that the area was designated for religious seasonal displays, by putting the atheist display in that area she was determining that atheist met that criteria, that they have a religion and it was equivalent to all others with displays there.

Duane public property is a function and creation of law. THerefore religion upon public property is default excluded since government shall make no law respecting religion. And you assume "religion" can be defined by your narrow Judeo-Christian limits. Yours is the same tired argument failed upon the rocks of common sense and the Constitution.

MERRY CHRISTMAS WHOEVER AND WHATEVER YOU ARE! (Don't like it? Tough Noogies have a Merry one anyway)

Thanks for posting to Get Out Of My Psychosis
Things That make You Nuts

Our government has the authority to accept or reject any form of free speech on its properties, Duane. I disagree with you about this issue. The Governor did what was lawful. It seems as if you defend any Christian expression and deny all others. Christians are equal to others. Christians are not special and hold no significance in our laws. Christians are part of the citizenry, period. No, Duane, I am not missing any points, here. It is clearly the point of this article that if atheism can somehow be treated as a religion unto its own that its expression doesn't belong in the public square. That is simply wrong. Atheism is what it is. The fact that atheists want to express something against the holiday of Christmas (which is the only religious holiday in our country), has nothing to do with their beliefs or their status as a religion. It simply has to do with their freedom of expression. You are free to express that you disagree or don't like what they have to say. You are not free to deny their rights to express their beliefs. That's the deal with our US Constitution. We are all equal in the eyes of the law. Atheists are equal to Christians in the eyes of the law and share the same freedoms.

Sam C.,
You make a presumption that religion is only Judaism and Christianity. If religion encompasses Hindu, Muslim, etc. then a law that allows all religions is not choosing a single one doesn’t appear to be prohibited by the Constitution. The Country is not selecting a single church or religion type and it surely isn’t creating any special treatment that excludes any religion.

Because if you are suggesting that the government can have no laws that identify religion, then I suspect all zoning laws that prevent “adult” activities within fixed distances of churches would not exist and surely not be enforceable.

Joe T.,
You make presumption that have no basis, as best I can find either here or elsewhere have I said that that Christianity deserves any different legal treatment than any other religion. Personal, I do believe in Christ, however, under the law I don’t believe that Christianity should be treated any different than any other religions. In truth, I don’t think the God I believe in really needs our help, the governments help, or any others that I can think of. I do believe that people have rights and they include honoring each other’s organizations and respective activities. I am resistant when a government official, sets them self apart to overturn established rules and practices without using do process. If an area, such as this case has been designated for religious displays then they should be limited to the approved religion display. A Governor should not usurp the established process by designating some remarks and poster as “religious” so it could be place in a designated area. If the Governor truly believed that atheism is a religion then let the atheists get their religion formally recognized (have them make all the same efforts that others have had to do). In this case it appears the Governor in her infinite wisdom has decided who and what is religion and given the atheists special treatment.

I must admit in Christopher’s original article that the decision may have been because, like you, she felt that Judaism-Christianity, don’t deserve the same treatment and respect as other religions and that say the Muslim religion had a display for a religious holiday she would have force a similar poster next to that display is gaining is seeming much more credible.

I celebrate Christmas as a holiday of my religion. However, I have had friends that are not Christian and they celebrated it by trading gifts at this time of year (even on the specific date with presents from Santa Claus), some have advertise their products for Christmas, had Christmas sales, and in many other ways have made the Christmas season their own. For you to say it is a day solely for Christians may not pass a legal test in our courts. As far as I can tell everyone independent of their religious or lack of religious beliefs still gets it as a holiday. Santa Claus seems to be the icon used for Christmas by so many and I am hard pressed to think of any religion that claims the jolly old elf as their religious symbol.

No one has said that anyone shouldn’t have the right to free speech, the discussion is, should ordinances be enforced equally, due process followed, or should one person such as a Governor have the authority to disregard at their whim all that others have established. Is she any different than the Governor of Illinois? He simply wants to select the best person for to fill the US Senate seat left vacant by the next President of the US, the Governor has simply established a different set of criteria for selecting that person. The Governor of Washington seems to set her own criteria for what should be displayed as a religious display, and the rest of the state be left to their own opinions.

Duane,

We certainly do not agree. It is simply not true that the Governor gave special status to the atheistic display. She followed the US Constitution and allowed expression, which is always allowed. You quibble over whether it is a religious display, but the Governor doesn't. She is allowing for freedom of expression, period. There are no laws about religious displays, Duane. Our US Constitution is silent on the matter. It is not silent about government endorsement of religion. That's why it is the way it is. It isn't an attack on anyone's religion. The atheist who thinks that Christmas should not be celebrated in this country has a right to express that. The Governor is simply giving all of her constituents the right to freedom of expression. She did not set any criteria for the expression. I believe that is what your real problem is. You think that it's about religious expression which the government cannot endorse, ever. It's about freedom of expression which the government must make allowances for, always.

Which statement is more offensive or should be banned:

"Jesus Saves."

"Jesus DOES NOT Save."

"Jesus Saves at COSTCO."

Denying the power of diety is just as valid as endorsing it. It's a matter of opinon or "faith" which famously is the "substance of things hope for and conviction of things unseen." We have one sign proclaim the opinion of faith, one debunking the same. No big deal.

Joe T.,
What about the ordinances that place restriction around churches? You seem to suggest that any law that acknoolwedges or makes consideration for religions (churhces being part of indicudal religioins) and especially those that rstrict the actions of people is unconstitutional. Why hasn't the Governor over ridden those laws if it is simply a fredon of speech issue?

Any ordinance that restricts the freedom of speech of a church on church property is unconstitutional, Duane. So, I'm not sure about what you mean. In my neighborhood, churches have signs, symbols, and other assorted displays advertising their beliefs on their property. That is where it belongs, by the way. It doesn't belong on the federal building property, for example. That would be a government endorsement of religion. If you can point to a church that is being banned from expressing itself on its own property, I can show you the makings of a good lawsuit. Now, there are many churches that have sought to restrict free speech within 100 feet of their property. In most cases, they are overreaching. I've never heard of a city or town that is not allowing churches to use their own property as they see fit. I do know of one case where a preacher put something to the effect of saying that Obama's election wasn't acceptable to God. People in the town complained and the sign was removed. Again, that wasn't an infringement on free speech. That was about a preacher invoking his beliefs into our election process which as a representative of a particular religion, he is not allowed to do.

There is no "right" to put up an offensive display such as this on government property. This display does not celebrate winter solstice. It mentions it in passing, but the main body of the message is "there is no God, and religion is bad." What kind of celebration is that?

It's not as if the Christmas dispay says anything offensive to atheists, directly. If the atheists actually had a holiday, I wouldn't have a problem with them putting up a sign to celebrate it. Unfortunately, atheism has no holidays, so they don't (or shouldn't) get to put up any displays.

Atheists have the right to express that for them, there is no God and even that religion is bad, Christopher. Freedom of speech isn't free. We must allow all free speech or there is no freedom of speech. Now, Christopher, you are allowed to express that you disagree or even that you find it offensive. But, you have no legal standing to prevent the display from being erected. Our constitution guarantees the right of free speech to all persons. Atheists qualify as persons.

You don't get to put up a display unless you are celebrating something, Joe. The fact that they use winter solstice a "cover" to put this up proves the deceptive intent. Winter solstice was a religious holiday long before Christmas came around. Do you think this passes muster as a "celebratory" display?

Joe T.,
In the cities and towns I have lived there has always been an ordinance that a business that provides adult entertainment or that sells alcohol cannot be built within 500 feet of a church or school. We just had a case on that ordinance, the Judge ruled the ordinance was lawful.
That seems to mean that the owners of those businesses can’t practice free speech within that area around a church (religious facility). If the Supreme Court feels under our Constitution that governments can recognize religious facilities and can write laws/ordinances that restrict free speech in close proximity to a church, it seems an ordinance or governmental practice that would allow only religious displays during this holiday season would also be Constitutional. Wasn’t the Governor usurping the due process of the courts and forcing where free speech was to be practiced, naming forcing that sign by atheists into a small area designed for religious holiday displays?

I believe that if a minister from the pulpit endorses a specific candidate that the IRS can revoke their tax exemption status of that church, seems like a control of free speech.

Have you look into your wallet lately and read the back of the bills you carry? The bills in my wallet, legal tender, have “In God We Trust” printed on each one. That surely seems to suggest that the Constitution doesn’t prevent the government from acknowledging religion. Do you feel that the Governor should be able to force the atheists free speech also printed on the bills?

I meant "as a cover," in my earlier comment.

PS: Remember that Jesus wanted to reach out to those that didn't have faith in God. In other words, people just like these atheists are most deserving of our forgiveness. "They know not what they do" comes to mind. In the true spirit of Christmas, I wish that all people will have love, and not hate in their hearts during this "winter solstice season." That would be a truly Merry Christmas!

Joe, you are absolutely right. The above display is not a protest, it is an expression of these individuals' beliefs. Christopher, who are we to judge? We cannot force our beliefs on them, nor should we.

I find it ironic that you call others intolerant, when your post and comments show you are intolerant of them. You're sounding pretty angry for someone who professes love, not hate, at Christmastime. But again, who am I to judge?

(Full disclosure: I am Catholic; my husband is agnostic).

Prima Donna,
I am surprised that you feel Christopher is intolerant. He has openly shared what they had to say, as far as I cna tell he has not said that they shold be prvented from saying what they feel, he has simply voiced his opinon about where their remarks were maded and how it was decside they ne placed there.

I have voiced my own disappointments, but no where have I said they shouldn't be able to say what they said.

It almost sounds like you are intolerant of CHristoher's remarks.

For a moment I thought about "it is an expression of these individuals' beliefs." is that an equivalent of faith, then I realized that beliefs is applicable for everything we hope as a truth, whether it be the cause of global warming, how to raise kids, how we should spend our money so their remarks didn;t reach the threshold of a religious expression.

What do you think of Christpher's suposition that if it had been a Muslim religious symbol the GOvernor would have done the same thing?

Again, there is nothing for them to celebrate, Donna. This day is the same as any other, for atheists. If this was just some non-denominational "free-speech zone," where anybody could display their beliefs, I wouln't have a problem with it.

However, it is a specific day of celebration for Christians, as the solstice is for Pagans, and several days of Chanukah is for Jews. Again, none of these religions needs to tear down the others, in their displays. The Christmas display doesn't say "all other beliefs are wrong," does it? Of course most Christians believe that, but we don't need to put that in our Christmas display.

I got a chuckle out of being called intolerant. As I commented earlier, I was an atheist for some years, and have the utmost respect for their point of view, while I no longer share it. I also respected religious people, and their beliefs, when I did not have any religion. Of course, I rolled my eyes when people preached to me, but I wasn't going to tell them that they SHOULDN'T believe in God. I just told them that I didn't.

Do you get the difference, Donna? Would you say the atheists' sign expresses love, or hate? There are several rational grounds to oppose this display, none of which have anything to do with hate. By the way, calling people "pinheads" is not hateful. It means "a very dull or stupid person." I clearly do not hate these people, I just think they are stupid.

Duane, I would hope that the governor would allow expressions of faith from all groups, whether they are Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, pagan or anyone else. In my opinion, government buildings should steer clear of religion, but there is a long tradition of sacred art in murals, tiles, and statues in public buildings throughout our country.

What I find humorous, Duane, is Christopher's name-calling headline. Don't you think it's the least bit hypocritical to criticize a group for expressing their beliefs as "Intolerant Atheist Pinheads?"

Maybe Christopher is just exhibiting the behavior you typically see from reformed smokers, weight watchers enthusiasts, and born-again Christians who rail against their former transgressions.

"Nothing for them to celebrate?" Your comment shows how insular we have all become, in that we don't take time to get to know others' beliefs. The Winter Solstice does indeed have its own celebration and ancient traditions.

By the way, calling someone an "intolerant pinhead" is not a sign of respect.

I was just showing the atheists behind the display the same amount of respect that they showed my beliefs. I'm not Jesus, and I was using sarcasm. "Winter solstice" is a holiday of Pagans, who had many gods and devils. They (atheists) are the hypocrites, if they celebrate it. They could have just wrote "happy shortest day of the year," and left it at that, Donna.

And we could all say Merry Christmas and forget the manger scene. Who are we to tell them how to celebrate?

But I am spending far too much time arguing when this should be a happy, peaceful season.

Only positive thoughts from me from now on ...

Come to think of it, why didn't they say "In this christmas season," instead of "In this season of winter solstice?" See, their statement DOESN'T actually "celebrate" ANYTHING. It's just a rip on people who do have something to celebrate.

I'm trying to explain this in a reasoned manner. I didn't start the negative feelings here, the pinheads did. I'm happy to wish atheists a happy solstice, but I don't appreciate being called "hard hearted," and told I have an "enslaved mind."

Peace, Donna, and do have a Merry Christmas. I'm sorry if my rant upset you. It only was meant to make you think about this issue.

Prima Donna.,
I guess it is a person's point of reference. "Pinhead" to me is a rather poltie way for someone to esptess ther frustrrations with out using a crude or vugar term, that can be much more offensive. It can almost conjure up images of someone with a head so small the it would not have room of enough brains to figure out whatever. Enve by some of the comments I have seen on Gather it is very tame.

I will agree that it isn;t a sing of respect, but I ma not sure evryone deserves respect. To me, people can be given it out of curosity until they do domething that is so disapointing that they loose the respect. It person hs their threshold of actions for respect. As an example the GOvenor of Illinois has lost my respect. In fact pinhead seems very appropriate to describe him and his actions.

BTW: Thanks, Duane! I appreciate your support, sir.

Fascinating discussion and comments. And I appreciate the (largely) civil nature of the discussion. There is too much to comment on since I'm late in the game for this post, but I'll add a few thoughts anyway:

It is the Washington State Constititutional First Amendment that drives the policy, not the US First Amendment. It is:

“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 non-believers."

This effectively means that any display must be accepted, not just religious displays, but it explicitly says that "non-believers" statements are also allowed. Some above have suggested that atheism is in itself religious and that is not true. Atheism is by definition the disbelief in any religion. But Washington's First Amendment is written in such a way that it doesn't differentiate between religious belief and other US First Amendment rights to free speech. Thus, it essentially requires the governor to approve all displays.

The exception, while not written explicitly in the amendment but presumed by societal values, is that they can refuse anything that society has deemed offensive. For example, this would include things like hate speech toward particular people, profanity, and pornography. To many the anti-God language in the atheists' sign would be "hate speech" but I suspect that wouldn't be held true in a court of law. Hate speech must be directed at a particular person or group of persons. The atheist sign says that their is no God, so if anyone would have a complaint it would be God (and I'm not sure denial of existence meets the threshold of "hate speech"). In any case, no one other than God would have legal standing to challenge the sign.

So despite the ant-religious nature of the sign, and the difficulty of it being in the proximity of religious displays, it appears that the governor would have no legal way to stop it. In fact, the only way to stop it would be to not allow any religious displays on government property.

So another way to look at this is that the state first amendment was written expressly to allow religious displays in the capitol. Unfortunately for those who wanted this, it also means that non-religious displays must be allowed.

Which gets to the intolerance part. It seems quite intolerant that the atheists cannot accept the right of others to believe in God. It seems equally intolerant that the believers cannot accept the right of atheists not to believe in God. The atheists may have lost sight of general societal values of respect and consideration for your neighbors, and Christians may have lost sight of the message of love and respect for all men and women that Jesus represents.

We could all use a little more common sense.

Merry Christmas Christopher and Joe and Prima and Duane and all the rest. Best wishes for a fruitful and debate-filled new year.

However it is treated under Washington's constitution, the display goes well beyond professing atheism, David. You make a well-reasoned argument, though, which requires some thought. Thanks!

"PS: Remember that Jesus wanted to reach out to those that didn't have faith in God. In other words, people just like these atheists are most deserving of our forgiveness. "They know not what they do" comes to mind. "

I find YOUR words to be patently offensive and condecending. Try practicing what you so bombastically preach.

Right on Sheryl O.

As we agnostics like to say, Have a happy or merry whatever everyone.

Jesus forgives you too, Sheryl and Robert. That's what he's all about.

"Jesus forgives you too, Sheryl and Robert. That's what he's all about.
Christopher K. Leavitt, Dec 23, 2008, 1:07am EST"

Well Chris I disagree with that statement in it's entirity but I guess if we agreed on everything we would only have one religion rather than a hand full major ones with endless variations within each. Of course each variation has it's faithful adherents who swear that only they have access to the true God and that everyone else is doomed the the great pit of fire.

"And The Beat Goes On". Those of us who grew up during the sixties will readily recognize that lyric from a song by Sonny and Cher. But it seems to apply as much now as it did then. Of course,I am talking about the never-ending debate of the issue of church and state. Governor Gregoire probably should have put up a secular display(such as a Christmas Tree) to mark the holiday,but chose to put up the creche. What's done is done. The creche was put up to mark a specific event (the birth of christ);but I feel that far from providing a counterpoint to the Christmas holiday,the Atheist's display was put up for one reason-PURE SPITE!-Norman

Here are some other web sites I go too...thought I'd share them with you....it's not a total listing of atheist groups on line...just some

http://www.atheistnexus.org/
http://www.infidelrevolution.com/
http://www.thinkatheist.com/
http://atheistpenpals.ning.com/
http://www.gather.com/
http://www.vox.com/
http://www.livejournal.com/
http://goddamnatheist.blogspot.com/
http://www.examiner.com/
http://loljesus.com/
http://www.atheist-community.org/
http://www.plurk.com/goddamnathiest/invite
http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html
http://www.myspace.com/goddamnatheist

Thank you for sharing, GDA! I hope the Christmas spirit fills your Winter Solstice. Just kidding! Your comment brought this post back to my attention, just in time for the Christmas season. I'll probably post it to my FB page, now, so thanks, again!

You're welcome. A lot of atheists and such are not aware of these groups.