Andrew Lanza Keeps On Digging


Remember New York State Sen. Andrew Lanza, who flipped his lid over the American Atheists billboard in Times Square recently? Well he’s now amended that press release he sent out twice, though he keeps that ridiculous Nazi comparison. Apparently he still stands by that one. And now he’s appended one of the most ridiculous not-pologies you’ll ever see:

“I have, for the second time, amended the content of this statement. I’ve done so based upon conversations which I have had with callers describing themselves as atheists. They have expressed concern, based upon misinterpretation, that my original statement can be taken as offensive to atheists based upon their beliefs. This is not only the furthest thing from the truth, it is completely contrary to what I have intended to accomplish with my stand. My opposition to the sign has nothing to do with the beliefs of atheists, it has to do with the belief of many that it is hurtful and hateful toward people of faith at precisely the time they are celebrating what they believe. While our constitution protects such unkind statements, so does it protect my right to denounce them. I extend my apologies to those atheists who might have been offended, even if that is by virtue of misunderstanding. I simply believe that it is wrong to do nothing in the face of hatred. I defend the right not to believe as strongly as the right to have faith. I firmly believe, however, that neither should be used to demean the other. What we need is good will toward each other, and I hope this debate and my position has helped people focus upon that.”

Oh yes, of course. He apologizes if you were offended because you totally misinterpreted his words to be offensive to atheists. I mean, what could possibly be offensive about saying that putting up a billboard expressing your views is what led to Nazi persecution? What could possibly be offensive about saying that atheists “don’t believe in decency, civility and kindness to fellow human kind either”? What could possibly be offensive about saying that “people who do not believe in God are hateful and malicious”? What could possibly be offensive about demanding that American Atheists lose their 501(c)(3) status for being so “hateful and malicious”? You were offended by that? You’re obviously misinterpreting him!

Keep digging, Senator. You’re almost there.

Comments

  1. says

    He apologizes if you were offended because you totally misinterpreted his words to be offensive to atheists.

    On a related note, kudos to him. You’ll find out soon enough, but he’s now advocating that he be taken down and lose his preferential tax status.

     

    What could possibly be offensive about saying that atheists “don’t believe in decency, civility and kindness to fellow human kind either”?

    He was thinking of me. I’m sorry.

     

    What could possibly be offensive about saying that “people who do not believe in God are hateful and malicious”

    Also me.

  2. Wylann says

    Quoth the good (sic) senator:

    I extend my apologies to those atheists who might have been offended, even if that is by virtue of misunderstanding. I simply believe that it is wrong to do nothing in the face of hatred. I defend the right not to believe as strongly as the right to have faith. I firmly believe, however, that neither should be used to demean the other. What we need is good will toward each other, and I hope this debate and my position has helped people focus upon that.

    Well, that’s ok then. Please point us to the various posts on the subject of all those rather hateful religious billboards that you have also disavowed and criticized, since you are defending the non-believers just as much.

    I eagerly await the response……

  3. Freodin says

    Hey, wishing people “Merry CHRISTmas!” is just like the Inquisition, the Crusades and the Bartholomew Night combined! It is slaughter in the making! Persecution of Atheists! Bloody Murder!!!!111eleventy.

    I hope he isn’t offended by such a statement.

  4. Sastra says

    My opposition to the sign has nothing to do with the beliefs of atheists, it has to do with the belief of many that it is hurtful and hateful toward people of faith at precisely the time they are celebrating what they believe.

    If it is “hurtful and hateful” to say that you don’t need Christ in Christmas because Christmas is for everyone then it is also “hurtful and hateful” to say “Keep the Christ in Christmas.” I see those and think “mind your own business, I’ll do what I want.” And so we all shall.

    Defend our right to be atheists? Sure they will. It’s outspoken atheism which is the problem. Our right to not believe in God is for them grounded in a duty to not try to make others not believe in God — as if atheism wasn’t the mean, negative thing they all know it is and a fate worse than death to anyone with sense.

    Lanza never mentions the 2nd and 3rd parts of the sign, which carry the main positive message. No, seeing the word “Christ” x-ed out causes a sort of traumatic blindness.

  5. caseloweraz says

    Andrew Lanza: My opposition to the sign has nothing to do with the beliefs of atheists, it has to do with the belief of many that it is hurtful and hateful toward people of faith at precisely the time they are celebrating what they believe.

    Sure, he’s fine with atheists’ beliefs, he just doesn’t like having those beliefs expressed. At least not at Christmastime. So now that Christmas has passed…?

Leave a Reply