This is an amusing reversal. Connecticut Valley Atheists put up a Winter Solstice sign in the town square, in the same place that was reserved for Hanukkah displays and nativity scenes, and while some people think it’s just fine and fair, others are freaking out.
On Friday, a town crew erected a larger Christmas tree, 10 feet from the atheists’ three-sided display. Mayor Jason L. McCoy said that the intent was not to block the view of the atheists’ display, but to place a larger Christmas tree in a prominent position in the park. He said he directed town staff to purchase a larger Christmas tree and to “find a spot in the middle of the green. That’s just where it happened to be.”
Asked if placement of the tree was intended to obscure the atheists’ display, McCoy responded, “Of course not.” When told that it appeared to be blocking the display, McCoy said, “Oh, really; that’s unfortunate.”
The mayor says he’s reconsidering the city’s policy. Some of the religious leaders are saying it’s a good thing because it’s making people talk about their faith. The wacky ones are claiming they see a cross in the atheist’s sign.
It’s so darn easy to blow a narrow mind.
There are more photos of the sign at the Connecticut Valley Atheists site.
How did the Winter solstice, a pagan and therefore religious festival, become the rallying point for atheists?
Heh heh. Now that’s how you take it
to the other side!
Making people think on the holidays-
can’t be having that! And the louder the
kneelers get, and the more they try and
shut these people up, the more questions
people ask.
And after the questions are asked- conclusions!
Truth is a beautiful thing…
How did the Winter solstice, a pagan and therefore religious festival, become the rallying point for atheists?
Don’t you think it’s awesome that the christians had to resort
to using a pagan symbol to try and cover it up?
Talk about your mixed messages…
I dunno, I find the sign extremely tacky. I can see why they would want to block it.
Equally tacky is exploiting 9/11. I agree with the sentiment of the sign, but I dunno, I can’t see this going over well with anybody.
I like the idea, it just could have been done better. Maybe an altar to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
How did the Winter solstice, a pagan and therefore religious festival, become the rallying point for atheists?
While the Winter Solstice is commonly observed by pagans/Wiccans/Druids/delete as applicable, many atheists, agnostics, freethinkers and other non-believers have rallied to using the solstice to define their holiday celebrations. It is a natural occurrence defined by natural phenomenon. Therefore, as an atheist, I have no objection in observing a moment of respect for a wonder of the natural world.
Which is, arguably, why the pagans began the ritual ages ago in the first place.
I think the sign is ugly and I don’t blame them for wanting to cover it up. However, I’m glad it’s making people think about the idea that religion is unnecessary and often harmful. A highway billboard would be a better place to put this message.
Yeah, that would be a nice change of pace. I’m sick of those signs that spout some right-wing witticism and then attribute it to God. They make me wish that God did exist so that he could light those blasphemers on fire and send them to Hell where I can play skee ball with their organs for the rest of eternity.
I thought the sign was a little crass for a holiday celebration, especially if the townsfolk were being sincere when they said they wouldn’t mind a non-polemic display. I think a mural of famous heretics would be awesome. Even better, pick the ones who were killed for being heretics. That way, the mural looks nice but when they go home to Google “Michael Servetus” they’ll get a reality check. It’s a lower-key “fuck you” that’s entirely compatible with the holiday spirit of opening that beautiful package under the tree and getting an ugly ass tie.
Very poorly done by someone with no sense of aesthetics or humor. Instead of hijacking the winter solstice, important to multiple religions including Xianity, for a sociopolitical message, they should have something more related to the holiday.
The idea of holidays is to be fun, not grind your axe some more. Maybe the Druids or Wiccans can come up with something better
I am going to go out on a limb here and assert that the Winter Solstice has been a natural event for several million years.
The other solstice is in June, a month that was NOT named after me!
ugh…I agree with many above. This particular display is ugly, in poor taste, and unlikely to accomplish anything good.
Nice try, though, I suppose.
Gary
A highway billboard would certainly be one place to put the sign up; but this place appears to be at least getting a reaction.
raven
Unless, of course, one is christian, whereupon “the holidays” become a time of complaining at the usurping of a pagan religion, usurped by christians, by infidels.
Here’s the true meaning of christmas: everyone, regardless of religion, comes together at this winter solstice in the spirit of fun to grind axes. Christians are grinding axes at the pagans by complaining at the lack of pagan symbols. Christians are grinding axes at christians for putting too many pagan symbols. Christians are grinding axes at everyone because they don’t understand the nativity (the Christians don’t understand the nativity, that is, not the everyone else). And everyone gets upset, of course, because the atheists want people to imagine no religion.
Mathew (of the gospel with the wise men) would be grinding axes with Mark (who didn’t acknowledge the nativity). Mark would be grinding axes with Luke (who introduced the sheep, but forgot about taxes and Egypt). Luke would be grinding axes with John (who also didn’t comment on the tale of the nativity).
Let’s face it. There is nothing more traditional about christmas than pissing on each other’s myths: it’s been documented since the dawn of christianity!
Well, I think it is a good publicity stunt. But, to the CVA, take it down now, it’s done it’s job. Most holiday religious displays don’t send much of a message unless you already observe the customs of the religion. In this case, something informative about the winter solstice would have been cool, but of course wouldn’t have gotten the same attention. They could discuss Milankovich cycles!!
I like it. Fuck religion in its stupid face.
Sven:
And conflating four mutually incompatible stories to create a fairy-tale that kiddies believe to be a genuine portrayal of their parents myth, whilst integrating pagan and Victorian symbols into it, is in good taste? Give me a break.
a.D., your apparent inference is unwarranted.
Isn’t Christmas when Santa Clause stuffed a tree down the chimney thereby causing a fire that burned down the hotel leaving Joseph and Mary homeless so they had to have Jesus in the manger?
but there really does seem to be a cross in the picture. dunno whether it is deliberately there or accidentally.
I don’t envy the city board. They offer equal opportunity for the “various faiths” to put up a display to celebrate the “winter holidays” so that no-one will be offended at a nativity scene and the atheists say the are going to put up a “winter solstice” sign and then they put up a picture of the twin towers and an anti-religion slogan.
I imagine all the towns that do put up nativity scenes without a fuss would be outraged if a nativity scene had a banner “Jesus is Lord” (Or “Jesus died for You” or “Mary chose Life”).
I’d hate to have the head-ache of having to declare holiday decorations have to be positive, non-political, non-controversial (whatever that means) and for gebus’ sake ***relevant*** to the damned holiday in question. (Oh, I get it. The angle of the sun makes the twin towers a modern day stonehenge with which one can determine the solstice.)
But then again by offering “equal time” they are skirting the entire issue as to whether a nativity scene is offensive, why, and whether people have a right to be offended by one; this so-called “winter solstice sign” does offer something maybe only equally offensive.
Still though, it was an under-handed trick abusing the city’s trust and a deliberately hostile act. It’s bad enough the nut-jobs think we liberals are declaring a “war on christmas” without us confirming that in this case, yes, there is.
I’m atheist and I also celebrate Yule. It helps that it’s my birthday, too. :)
Wimps. What do you want? Something inoffensive and uncontroversial, like a smiley faced snowman or a pretty flower? I like the sign. It says more than “we aren’t religious,” it says, “and we think your absurd beliefs are dangerous and wicked, too.”
That’s a message we must make. This movement shouldn’t be about just bland, blah, make-nice innocuous pablum. We are on the offensive. If the sign isn’t a little bit aggressive (and this sign is pretty darned mild), it isn’t doing the job.
My real problem with it is it’s ugly.
Wimps, Naw. The sign doesn’t work. The best friends and most effective atheist recruiters are the Christofascist leaders, Robertson, Dobson, Haggard, Ham, Hovind, and their ready to lie and murder followers. Dawkins, Hitchens and the rest are so far behind they can’t even see the pack. When you overreach, there is always a backlash as people start asking questions like, “Why is it Dark all of the sudden? Weren’t the Dark Ages over like 5 centuries ago? And didn’t we live in a democracy once?
If your message is more Howard Stern shock jock than anything, it gets lost in peoples reactions like “What an ugly sign and don’t these people even have fun on holidays?
You want something artistic, fun, but gets the message across in an effective way.
To make an analogy. You could go to a church and halfway through the service, stand up and shout, “Why are you here? The Big Sky Daddy doesn’t exist and you are wasting time on fairy tales.” So, the audience will immediately see the validity of your points, get up and leave and never come back. Of course not. They will assume you are crazy and call the cops.
I’m not sure what the sign has to do with the winter solstice, but then i’m not familiar with the guidelines.
I find the objections to it for having a political message amusing, as if getting your symbolism erected all over a town doesn’t convey any political message.
… or maybe not.
Does anyone know the back story?
Still, town officials say they are bothered by the tone of the atheists’ message, which they say is political and not consistent with the description listed on their application: “triangular stand displaying information about the winter solstice, Atheism and Human Light observance.”
Here the implication is that the towns was welcoming a display with information about atheism. Hence, they were inviting the atheists to promote atheism. I’d be utterly disgusted if a nativity scene displayed information about Christianity or even the Christmas story. I’m kind of but not very opposed to nativity scenes altogether. (I’d object to a city spending public money for a nativity scene but not if one were donated; I’m opposed to a menorah but only because it would be publicly viewed as a religious symbol, which, technically it isnt.)
Himes said the whole issue became political when the town decided to allow religious displays on town property.
“The original question was whether Vernon would have a nativity scene on church property or town property,” Himes said.
In this light viewing a nativity scene as a religious display *does* kind of give a green light to (anti)religio-political displays.
Actually, re-reading the article it sounds like most of the community is pretty fair-minded about the whole thing.
Sigh. I guess if I were a city council board I’d want yet another committee of bullshit approving and rejecting proposals of displays. You know, “Nativity scene: no crosses, no words indicating Jesus is God, a savior or anything but a cute baby. The more animals, especially camels, the better; halos not to exceed 6″ in diameter. Menorrah: no star of David. Athiest: No insinuating religion is ignorant, no comparing religion to terrorism, positive portrayal of atheism, especially as humanist expression equinymity, encouraged but not at the implied portrayal of religious belief as irrational, intolerant, or outdated– although athiesm as tolerant and modern in itself is acceptable”
This is a case where bullshit does seem to be the answer.
My sign: “Happy Holidays! May your Bullshit be sweet to the smell and smooth to the touch! … seriously … I really hope you have a nice time however you choose to celebrate in this dark and stressful times.”
There is no liberal war on Christmas. There is a conservative war on diversity, which they like to portray as a liberal war on Christmas. This incident, and thousands of others like it, reveals the lie.
So, these people don’t know that the tree has pagan roots? What on earth does the tree have to do with nativity?
As for the nativity scene itself, a quote from The Life of Brian should do it: the wise men walking in, paying their respects to the mother and baby, leaving their gifts and walking out. Only to come back in a couple of minutes, shove the mother aside, re-take the gifts and rush away.
Since they discovered they had gone to the wrong stall.
i can’t believe people here are attacking the CVA display. These people are on *our side,* folks. What is this – a game for you? There are real principles and freedoms at stake here.
So what if the sign doesn’t happen to meet your standard of aesthetics or message purity? Get real: these people are *testifying* in a very brave and public way and deserve our support. I’m not saying one can’t criticize (constructively) and make suggestions, but…
1) criticize in context; and the larger context here is that this is a really brave and magnificent statement, not to mention one that took a lot of time and effort and money; and
2) unless you yourself are making similarly brave and magnificent public statements then your nit-picking criticisms are, at the very least, unseemly. at worse, you look like a wanking keyboard kommando.
their website is http://www.cvatheists.org and they are probably getting a lot of abuse – and probably outright threats. those who are inclined should send them a supportive note…
i *hate* it when well meaning people trash on each other instead of directing their energies constructively at the opposition. c’mon people – show some respect.
Hillary
Well said Hillary! You saved me from writing much the same sentiment. Besides, this story is hilarious. I’m heading over to the cva site to lend whatever encouragement I can.
Wimps. What do you want? Something inoffensive and uncontroversial, like a smiley faced snowman or a pretty flower?
Uh, well. yeah.
Christmas (like the 4th of July and Thanksgiving), is an inoffensive and uncontroversial holiday to display treacly sentiment, to get folks to spend money, and for the public to express mild and blah but ultimately smalls tokens of the appearance of community spirit. A smiley faced snowman or a pretty flower is exactly the type of thing I expect and would want a city to display or allowed displayed.
I like the sign. It says more than “we aren’t religious,” it says, “and we think your absurd beliefs are dangerous and wicked, too.”
And why on earth should anyone be allowed to say that on city provided property during Christmas? The friggin’ Christians should not be allowed to say it.
Well, I guess that’s fair if the city was saying “By allowing, this group to put up a nativity scene we are allowing them to express a religious opinion so we will allow everyone to express a religious opinion”.
And, I guess that is what Connecticut Valley was doing.
I, however, think CV ought to have it’s head examined for openning such a can of worms. What the heck does gaudy display encourage folks to part with menu and sipping warm eggnog have to do with religion? (I’m not being facetious.) If anything I’d think Spring or Summer is a more enjoyable time to engage is a city-sponsered blood-fest.
That’s a message we must make. This movement shouldn’t be about just bland, blah, make-nice innocuous pablum.
Um, then maybe we shouldn’t have applied to make bland, blah, make-nice innocuous pablum as a bland, blah, make-nice innocuous pablum solicitations for a bland, blah, make-nice innocuous pablum holiday?
Maybe wishing folks a “Happy Soltice” isn’t a practical offensive tactic this movement should make.
We are on the offensive.
Are we? For what. Christmas? If so, shouldn’t we be more like xmas resistance? Anti-religion? Then shouldn’t we be addressing religious issues where they matter, such as the school boards, the laws, the president’s policies, etc.
If the sign isn’t a little bit aggressive (and this sign is pretty darned mild), it isn’t doing the job.
Well, that presupposes it’s job is to express an atheist sentiment. And I guess that is what the city approved. However a cursory glance at the article would imply that it’s job was to express a soltice greeting which has as little to do with atheism as it would with christianity (if not less).
Or to put it in terms of “our movement”, our movement doesn’t have time to waste in putting up solstice greetings.
Maybe we should fund a superbowl commercial.
Looks like we might have a repeat, of sorts, in PA.
http://atheistrevolution.blogspot.com/2007/12/atheist-xmas-in-pennsylvania.html
Ehnk.
I don’t like the sign. I think it sends a message of intolerance in what is a tolerant community. I think it’s okay to pull out the big guns when it’s warranted — in backward bible belt places, but I don’t think this particular display does anything good. It’s essentially a big middle finger, has nothing to do with Christmas, and is, honestly, kind of a kill joy. I mean, come on, it’s Christmas. I don’t care if if Jesus was born or if some Maccabees light some candles thousands of years ago. I like carolling, and the trees, and the holly, and egg-nog and the cinnamon, and walking in the snow and the clean bite of the air. I don’t want atheist yelling, “RELIGION CAUSED 9/11!!” at me any more than I want christians yelling, “JESUS DIED FOR YOUR SINS!!” They’re both equally obnoxious.
If atheists want to have a display, I’d be happier with a display about science, or enlightenment, or the wonder of existence sans God, or a fun Flying Spaghetti Monster display that would be humorous. This is just a joyless juvenille prank.
Hillary — CVA has a right to put up the display. I have a right to give my reaction. You have a right to be a militant freak with no perspective. Cheers.
There is no liberal war on Christmas. There is a conservative war on diversity, which they like to portray as a liberal war on Christmas.
I agree absolutely.
This incident, and thousands of others like it, reveals the lie.
Uh, how? The sign had nothing to do with either Christmas or diversity.
Wouldn’t disrupting funerals with civil disobediance and protest be more efficient? People are engaging and blindly applying religious sentiment much more vigorously and sincerely at funerals than at a nativity scene.
So, I guess the next step is for Christians to start to putting up signs about stoning non-believers, and for muslims to put up signs about putting infidels to death. And for Jews to put up signs they are the chosen people. And I’ll have to wear a bullet proof vest next time I go walking in the village green.
No, the ugly is good. It shows that it’s a grass-roots project. Much better than if the ACLU swooped in with some high-end production by a Madison Avenue agency. The many-headed hydra of grass roots expression is more authentic, and harder to disagree with or mount national campaigns against.
Let a million atheist signs flourish out there, on every “public square” that hosts Christmas creche displays. Some will be done better than others, and the diversity of expression will make its own point.
As for creche displays being “non political”…. give me a break. I’ll believe that, when the ENTIRE group of top contenders for the Presidential race in this country isn’t flaunting religion as a political tool. If Christianism wasn’t trying to stick its foot in the door of politics and tell me how to live, I’d feel differently about those supposedly inoffensive “Holiday” displays.
Who are these concern trolls saying we shouldn’t open our mouths, lest we offend someone? Do they ever care about offending us?
Speaking of trolls, woozy has an absolute right to be one-and I would suggest to PZ to ban him.
yeah…sorry, I’m not lining up behind a poorly thought-out eyesore just because it was erected by fellow atheists. Even granting that “we” are a “movement” on the “offensive,” there’s a time and a place for it and a certain amount of class necessary for any effectiveness at all, and this particular display fails on all three criteria, for me. *shrug*
…or a fun Flying Spaghetti Monster display that would be humorous.
Actually, that’d be freakin’ hilarious.
In light of the story and the city giving approval for a sign “about” athiesm, I think this sign is okay and most are taking it in stride. But I do think it’s a little heavy-handed and “not appropriate for “the season”. I mean, sheesh, yes, it’s good to be passionate about a cause but even holy-rollers take time to sleep. It’s a freakin’ innocous plablum holiday. Not everything has to be a battlefield.
and woozy’s no troll.
Sven DiMilo, for committing the heresy of FREE THOUGHT you are hereby banned from the FREE THOUGHT society!
Yay, social movement scholarship comes in to ask a few questions and make a couple comments (that’s my primary are of scholarship).
To ask any movement to act in concert has almost always been like herding cats. It’s the exception rather than the rule. That’s why movements develop so many organizations (yes, movements develop organiations, not the other way around). These different organizations comprise different identity, strategic, ideological, etc., fields, and overlap in strange ways.
One thing, though, that rarely gets discussed is the relationship between tactics and strategy. PZ is clear. His goal is a world in which religion is taken less seriously, or not seriously at all. His strategy is attacking the symbolic privilege of religion whenever possible. Tactics such as those taken in CT–a sign saying religion is responsible for 9/11 during a religious season–are right in line with that.
However, while others are quick to criticize this, I wonder how often they’re thinking in terms such as tactics and strategy. Indeed, I’d guess most people aren’t thinking that way because they don’t consider themselves part of “a movement.”
just a few thoughts.
And still nobody has mentioned Mithras…
And still nobody has mentioned Mithras…
That does it. next year I am gonna work on a nice big sculpture of cthulhu eating a cheerleader.
MAJeff–
I consider myself very much part of this movement and it’s rather cheap of you to imply that I don’t and set up this distracting discussion of motivation and “belonging.”
My problem with this display is that it does exactly what everyone thinks about atheists — they they are eye-poking kill joys who’d smack their dying grandmother if she started to pray.
I’d also point out that by your standards, any display or action is within the movement’s goals and tactics. Where do you draw the line? How about a display that said, “Fuck you. Fuck you and your stupid religion. Right in your stupid fucking faces.” That would also be attacking the symbolic role of religion. So would kidnapping a bishop in full regalia, rolling him in noodles and tomato sauce and dumping him on the steps of the cathedral on Sunday morning. How do you draw the line? Is anything that superficially seems to advance the Cause a Good Thing?
Christ, people are fucking stupid. Especially when there’s a cause involved.
Note that I’m not questioning CVA’s devotion to the cause, just the impact of their message. I’m not asking them to take it down. If anything, I’m offering advice on a different tactic that might generate more good will and be ultimately more effective in getting people to think. This sign is just too crass to sneak under anyone’s radar.
Who are these concern trolls saying we shouldn’t open our mouths, lest we offend someone? Do they ever care about offending us?
Actually, I disapprove of public displays of nativity scenes. Most cities have given this serious thought (or so I have assumed). I don’t see why a city should allow *anyone* to use public space to offend another. Actually, I disapprove of cities using the word “Christmas” which actually surprised me once during a “How the Grinch Stole Christmas”-themed parade in Boulder a decade ago. I was used to cities playing lip service to the idea that not everyone celebrated “Christmas” and the idea of assuming otherwise was patently offensive. (admitted said cities were mostly San Francisco, Berkeley, and San Jose– the last of which I thought was the least ecunymical and really pushing the envelope with its “Christmas in the Park”– {Santa’s village basically} for several square blocks in the downtown)
The best display would be art depicting all those famous atheist composers (Mozart et al) who wrote xmas music and whom Christians *wrongly* think were believers.
That would be an amazing sight to behold. Talk about controversy!
I am going to go out on a limb here and assert that the Winter Solstice has been a natural event for several million years.
Billions, in fact.
That does it. next year I am gonna work on a nice big sculpture of cthulhu eating a cheerleader.
So long as it’s a Liberty U cheerleader.
Inkadu writes:
How about a display that said, “Fuck you. Fuck you and your stupid religion. Right in your stupid fucking faces.”
That’s great! I’m with you! Let’s do it!
Maybe add another line at the bottom that says “Neener neener I bet you ‘turn the other cheek’ sissies are going to tear this down. U R Pwn3d!”
I’d also point out that by your standards, any display or action is within the movement’s goals and tactics.
Um, no. I’d say these are issues under contention. I’d say that different people have different goals, strategies and tactics…
but thanks for playing.
Yeah, and goal is, but it depends upon which segment of the movement….you seem to think there’s one movement…it’s an umbrella of movements, as well as people who don’t want to be a part of any movement, who claim a post-political identity when the very existence of an atheist identity is politicized in this environment.
Just making several obeservations. Didn’t give any of my prescriptions…perhaps
so, inkadu, the fucking stupidity might be yours.
So who gets to declare what the right, proper, and official one, true strategy is to be?
Get used to it, everyone. There will be appeasers, there will be moderates, there will be revolutionaries. They’re all part of the spectrum.
It looks like the display had two sides, one with the “Imagine No Religion” picture and another with an informational blurb about the winter solstice. Both parts look pretty mild to me.
I’ve grown a touch fond of that “Imagine No Religion” picture. If you pause for a moment and think, it gives you the idea that human life is valuable and its loss a tragedy. Whereas, of course, a Nativity scene is just the prelude to the blood sacrifice of a son to his father; that we can be sentimental over such barbarism speaks volumes as to the state of our wiring.
The sign says a few more things on top of that. It says “a city hall was brave enough to be open to all holiday displays instead of just shutting down and this is what they got in return.” It says “being liberated from religion is dour and unfestive (completely untrue). As an atheist I’m offended by the sign. Therefore I feel no allegiance to the group that put it up.
I guess I see the point that no social movement ever got anywhere until they were offensive and violent even, feminists goals for example were equality but they didn’t get anywhere until they started insulting men and calling them inferior, I guess thats why atheists must go the extra step of pissing all over holiday displays. Whatever. Its a cheap shot worthy of the religious right.
MA Jeff —
I usually like your stuff, but you’re being way too dismissive.
You stated that the goal of the P-Zed movement is:
His strategy is attacking the symbolic privilege of religion whenever possible.
Then you agreed that the sign was in agreement with the tactics: Tactics such as those taken in CT–a sign saying religion is responsible for 9/11 during a religious season–are right in line with that.
I just gave you two examples of other actions that would be in line with that. You didn’t give any guidelines for when something would cross the line. Instead, you accused people who disagree of not thinking they belong to a movement.
However, while others are quick to criticize this, I wonder how often they’re thinking in terms such as tactics and strategy. Indeed, I’d guess most people aren’t thinking that way because they don’t consider themselves part of “a movement.
From this I took that:
a) you don’t have any guidelines for when something becomes neuteral to detrimental to the Cause and
b) anyone who disagrees with a classless tactic must not be serious about the “movement.”
Which is weird, because you start by saying how movements have conflicting tactics, and end by implying some people aren’t really in the movmement. Did you spend last weekend writing Romney’s speech?
Woozy — Yeah. I don’t think Christmas should really be a government thing.I don’t think Government’s should be running parades, but I think it’s OK for government to let their own citizens use public property almost any way they want to. Public space should be public space. As long as nobody gets special treatment. And as Vernon has shown, anybody can put up a display.
Marcus – I like your Cthulhu eating cheerleader display idea better. Plus maybe some posters from “Dagon” and “Merry Squidmas.”
One thing, though, that rarely gets discussed is the relationship between tactics and strategy. PZ is clear. His goal is a world in which religion is taken less seriously, or not seriously at all.
And no one is objecting to his goals or his tactics.
But one thing for every member of a movement is how much one specifically is going to act. Is this dollar fifty going to go for a cup of coffee and a newspaper or to send three letters to my congressman? Am I going to go to the park on my day off or am I going to spill my blood on the train tracks? Am I going to send non-denominational holiday cards or am I going to stand outside macy’s with a “Boycott Christmas” placard? When I walk across the stage to recieve my bachelor’s diploma should I walk quietly and shake the provosts hand, or should I wave my motorboard and shout “Hi Mom! Hi Dad!” while blowing soap bubbles, or should I scream “Religion is Poison”, or should I flash the audience?
To read this story on a cursory glance it sounds like the city gave free reign to all community groups to put up a “season’s greeting” display. In light of that introduction, it seemed just a *weeeeeee* tad jarring to see this taken as a movement oppurtunity. It’s a bit like the guy who dresses up as George Bush with blood on his hands *every* halloween and gets annoyed when people show appreciation for another “inoffensive” costume.
I looked at the sign and my first thought is “this is three months late.” This sign would have been perfect around Sept. 11th. As it is, it’s a math lesson in literature class. What should have been there is a message of equal force, but actually relevant to the season (and perhaps a little less forward, but that’s just a matter of personal aesthetic preference). A short bit about secular celebration of the holidays, and maybe a calling for a bit of unity in our common nature as human beings would be good, something that is welcoming and inclusive that contrasts the elitism of religious messages, preferably drawing copious attention to that fact. This sign is ok, it just lacks relevance to the context of its presentation.
Some of the things that I see on this thread just blow me off.
I can’t imagine them coming from anyone other than trolls.
For example, if abusive words were used in the sign…or better, if anyone were kidnapped…it would not help…
Except that nothing like that happened.
It just says in a world with no religion, the towers would still be standing. Which is absolutely true.
Gee, we can never turn our head without seeing a religious sign. Whether we approve or not.
And this one thing is “too much”?
If Lennon were to listen to you guys he could not sing “Imagine”.
We have kept a low profile long enough. Has done us no good.
PZ- Yep. I’m in agreement with you there. There’s different approaches, different philosophies, etc. However, telling fellow atheist to shut the fuck up or accusing them of not being atheist enough isn’t anything I’m really going to get behind. I think we can handle a little criticism. I don’t like the sign and think it sends the right message. So sue me. If I wanted to ignore what I thought to get along with people, I sure as shit wouldn’t be an atheist.
Karey – I don’t know about “offensive.” I think the idea that women should vote was offensive enough. Atheists who are unashamed is quite offensive enough. Pointing out the obvious about religion is offensive enough. You really don’t need to go the extra mile whne you’re an atheist in order to piss people off.
Gee, we can never turn our head without seeing a religious sign. Whether we approve or not.
And I get exceedingly pissed off if they are government approved. *Exceedingly* pissed off.
Oh yeah, that is a really offensive sign isn’t it. How sensitive are you people. Tasteless, how so? All it does is use a roughly two by three foot poster from RDF which asks the viewer to try to imagine a world with no religion and validly linking the question with religious fundamentalism. While the other side has a brief piece about the mid winter solstice and its importance in many cultures down the ages. Perhaps if it was twenty foot high or similar then maybe there would be a point, but 7 foot or so high with the actual so called offensive part maybe two by three feet. Ironically, the pastor and the priest interviewed see no problem with it, appearing almost thankful that it may make some people actually think about their belief. Though I can see how that very prospect could upset those of a more fundamentalist bent. If this is the most offensive thing that a group of atheists put up this pudmas I don’t think we have much to worry about. Except of course for those who always look for and find offense everywhere, but we will never satisfy them until we go back and hide under our rock and let them walk all over us.
Strange; the sign reports that the solstice is due to the motion of the sun. Since when?
I just saw the other side to the sign about the winter solstice. That bit is pretty good, drawing attention to human progress past the need for supreme beings while remaining relevant to the season. Had the other side had that same relevance, I’d be void of any complaints.
I’d still like to see that “Imagine” bit displayed on 9/11, though, preferably on a billboard. It’d be a much more effective presentation, in my opinion.
John Phillips
Tasteless, how so? All it does is use a roughly two by three foot poster from RDF which asks the viewer to try to imagine a world with no religion and validly linking the question with religious fundamentalism.
Um, yes, and a not insignifcant detail is that it’s a picture of the twin towers. Granted, it’s just a picture of the twin towers. Everytime I even think of the twin towers, I imagine a plane smashing into it, then another plane, then people jumping out of buildings from several stories, then the buildings collapsing in a cloud of dust, taking everyone inside down with them, and a several-story hole in the ground where two buildings used to be.
It’s not a day I appreciate anyone reminding me about. I don’t have any trouble remmebering it. Maybe I’m just sensitive. Maybe, despite being an atheist, I think there are some images that are just too visceral — too sacred — to play politics with.
I like the sign.
As for all the people complaining about the sign’s presentation and/or aesthetics, wouldn’t it be nice if we had some symbols to denote atheism, like a Christmas tree or nativity scene for Christians? Then nobody would be saying, “I appreciate the intent, but I would really have liked it if they had done such and such and such.” Too bad we were never able to decide on a symbol.
inkadu write (see #31 above)
Exactly! Not every religious person is a nutjob that wants to shove their particular perspective on life down one’s throat. Frankly, I think it would be cool to see displays that everyone could appreciate, that reflect joyous, not confrontational situations. I am an atheist and I’m not insulted or disgusted by a nativity scene or a menorah or by candlelight representing Dewali (yeah, I know that’s late October, but heck – what’s a month or two).
We may be very different in what we believe and we are a lot alike in our enjoyment of celebrating this interesting natural event of the winter solstice. So why can’t we just “party” ?
I vote for a Tree of Life display. That concept is glorious!
Yeah, I know what you mean. You seem to be mentally ill but you could just be a troll. Or a mentally ill troll. Or maybe you are just drunk on saturday. Please fix your anger and hostility issues before you go to a shopping mall.
Some Xians are such disgraceful trolls that they make the religion seem worthless. Some atheists are such trolls that they make religionist look good. I guess trolldom is universal and atheists can be slackjawed morons too.
The sign doesn’t work on many, many levels. It is juvenile and inappropriate for the site and time and isn’t going to convince anyone of anything except that atheists lack judgement, humor, and ability to have fun.
It is counterproductive. If that is the level of sophistication of the freethinker movement, Dobson and the Pope can send them thank you notes and get a good nights sleep. It isn’t going to have a positive impact on anyone and will have a negative impact on lots of people.
Raven, I think you are wrong. That is precisely what people said about Dawkins. Without him, no one would ever know we exist.
As for my anger…well, PZ has received similar advice. I have met him personally and he never struck me as the angry type. Believe me, in my line of work I see plenty of them.
And who is the troll? I will leave that for PZ to decide. After all, it’s his blog.
Here’s a constructive suggestion: all the people who dislike the sign can tell us all about the tasteful, enlightening seasonal displays they have put up in cooperation with their local pro-atheist group. Set an example!
That particular photo has been used frequently by Christians because of the cross effect of the lighting.
Not being a US citizen, I don’t relate to the image in the visceral manner that most Americans might, so I’m afraid I see it as an overused melodramatic photo that doesn’t connect with an atheist solstice celebration at all. I see the point of the sign, of course, as it is an extremely obvious one.
Secular Solstice parties are popular around here, especially winter Solstice parties. It’s dark and cold, and knowing (love that science) that the longest night is behind you is the best message of hope any Canadian atheist may experience. It’s also an opportunity for friends to gather and celebrate before having to pack up and spend Christmas with families.
So I’m somewhat on the side of people here who don’t like the sign. It is ugly. It is heavy handedly political. It would go down better in September, maybe, when Americans are memorialising 9/11 with enormous prayerfests all over the place, and the slogan ‘Imagine no Religion’ would be more significant.
I think it’s great that atheist groups might have a Solstice display, but I’d go for pointing out the ‘true meaning of the season’, which is the joyous fact of days getting longer and hope of spring coming round eventually before us cold northerners all commit seasonal affective disorder fueled suicide.
As for all the people complaining about the sign’s presentation and/or aesthetics, wouldn’t it be nice if we had some symbols to denote atheism, like a Christmas tree or nativity scene for Christians?
Well, part of the problem may be that we don’t have any atheist winter solstice holiday. We don’t have *any* holidays.
So what’s a Christian sentiment for a solstice holiday: “Uh, God Bless You? I guess, Have a Merry Christmas, and uh, I guess if I have to get preachy I could add just as Christ offers eternal life after death, in the dead of winter keep faith that spring will come again.”
Okay, now a Jewish sentiment for a solstice holiday: “What? We’re supposed to pretend we’re like Christians and come up with some silly catch phrase like ‘Happy Channuka’? Well, Okay, um, Happy Channuka. Keep the lights burning in the darkness, and always keep hope alive? Will that do?”
Okay, now an atheist sentiment for a solstice holiday: “Fuck you, religion! Fuck you in your stupid face! It’s you guys responsible for 9/11! Oh, and something about the nights getting longer. And Fuck you!”
Okay, I kid. But what do you expect; I am a troll after all….
As for all the people complaining about the sign’s presentation and/or aesthetics, wouldn’t it be nice if we had some symbols to denote atheism, like a Christmas tree or nativity scene for Christians?
Well, part of the problem may be that we don’t have any atheist winter solstice holiday. We don’t have *any* holidays.
So what’s a Christian sentiment for a solstice holiday: “Uh, God Bless You? I guess, Have a Merry Christmas, and uh, I guess if I have to get preachy I could add just as Christ offers eternal life after death, in the dead of winter keep faith that spring will come again.”
Okay, now a Jewish sentiment for a solstice holiday: “What? We’re supposed to pretend we’re like Christians and come up with some silly catch phrase like ‘Happy Channuka’? Well, Okay, um, Happy Channuka. Keep the lights burning in the darkness, and always keep hope alive? Will that do?”
Okay, now an atheist sentiment for a solstice holiday: “Fuck you, religion! Fuck you in your stupid face! It’s you guys responsible for 9/11! Oh, and something about the nights getting longer. And Fuck you!”
Okay, I kid. But what do you expect; I am a troll after all….
I’ve been reading a book called “Wrigleyville” which is a history of the Chicago Cubs. It seems that William Wrigley (after whom the park was named) was an unbeliever! Apparently he went around and asked people “so, what superstition do you subscribe to?”.
This is enough reason for all Aethists to be Cubs fans!
I’m not holding my breath, PZ…
Hillary
Fair enough and what I was thinking, not about doing but how it could be made to work in the context of a holiday nativity scene. My bias is to enjoy the holidays not because they are religious (they are mostly secular anyway) but because it is the year end party-family have fun time.
This has almost exhausted my artistic advertising exec. talents. Some of the suggestions on the thread have possibilities such as the Tree of Life or flying spaghetti monster.
1. Maybe just some generic holiday symbols, the conifer Tree of Life. With something about the sun. The winter solstice is the shortest day of the year. Message, Happy Holidays from the CVAtheists. The subtext here, atheists are just normal people who celebrate the usual holidays in a secular way and have fun. Not ideologue wackos out to send your kids to reeducation camps. Toss in a wreath and a snowman as well. A Darwin fish holding a drink in its left hand with a santa hat on.
2. The Flying Spaghetti Monster touching her noodly appendage to a child’s head as she reads a book. Message. Nothing wrong with thinking and becoming educated and enlightened. Going to have to explain that one in a short paragraph, hardly anyone has ever heard of the FSM. Toss in a conifer Tree of Life and a Darwin fish in a santa hat for seasonality.
The religious have an advantage. They’ve been doing these for thousands of years. Tradition. All they have to do is follow the directions. Atheists will have to come up with their own formulas. Not claiming any of these are good, what you get in 5 minutes on saturday night.
all the people who dislike the sign can tell us all about the tasteful, enlightening seasonal displays they have put up in cooperation with their local pro-atheist group. Set an example!
Ooh, Nice zing! (I mean that, too.)
Well, a display of atheist christmas composers (uh, other than Mozart….?) as suggested above is nice. And display of progress and humanity and reason, is good. And what on earth could possibly be a *better* symbol for atheism and rationality than a light in the darkness? I mean, hello!! a *light* in the *darkness*. Silver platter here!… being handed to you! .. oh, you’re going to abuse a national tragedy in a “we can do it, too” approach, uh, I guess so but if you change your mind …. it’s a freakin’ light!!!! in the mother-fuckin’ darkness!!! I mean, it’s not like it was tailor made for you or anything, except, .. Oh yeah … IT WAS!!!!!
Well, I just leave it here if you change your mind…
[The troll schlumps off to his bridge mumbling… “In the sites… just had to pull the trigger… right there … “]
Initially I was thinking, “Let’s not try to spoil people’s fun.”
But then I started thinking about Christmas, and how I get subtly pressured to conform by my religious family in order to be included more during the holidays. Then I thought about how much worse other atheists must have it.
I think the CVA is trying to send the message that religious people don’t have a monopoly on the winter holidays. And they’re being honest about their views. If they tried to sugar-coat their message, religious people would probably just write them off as trying to be sneaky.
Maybe this is actually the best way to do it. You come out, you say what you really think, and eventually people realize that you’re not some evil boogey-man, you’re just yet another kind of regular person. Maybe they even start to listen to you.
I guess the bottom line is, the poster made me think, so it must be doing something right.
Umm, no. You aren’t quite answering the question. I’m not asking about what you would hypothetically do, I’m asking what you have done. You know, like the CVA has actually, really, done right here on planet Earth.
i actually think the sign gets a lot of things right:
1) concise, coherent message conveyed economically (in terms of graphics and words) and powerfully
2) john lennon’s words – give credibility and softens an otherwise very edgy message
3) the clear local (Connecticut) messaging (conveyed in words and graphics) – this is SO key
4) the patriotic, red white and blue motif
I wouldn’t be surprised, actually, if a professional ad person designed it.
The real test is whether it accomplishes what it was intended to do. if it was to increase the profile of atheists in the community, and get people thinking/talking about the dangers of religious zealoutry, I suspect it’s been a resounding success. I’ll even bet CVA gets a lot more members and membership $$.
I’ll bet it’s actually a huge success.
Hillary
courant.com quotes:
As much as I revel in an atheist sign being erected and applaud CVA’s efforts, I don’t think CVA should be deceptive about it. That’s stooping to fundie tactics. We’d be all over them for that.
And for all those commenters who are demanding that we toe the line and not make any complaints, I didn’t know atheism was developing a religious-like orthodoxy.
Does anyone know if there a third poster on the display that isn’t shown in the pictures? The display looks like it has three sides.
Four sided placard:
Side 1: Eerily beautiful crisp B&W photo of a still and utterly silent landscape scene at night.
Side 2: Words to the effect: “In this days of shortening days and encroaching cold, good people turn inward and are comforted knowing that as surely as the earth spins longer days will come again. In these still times, may we all have lights in the darkness and see the world for what it is and see that with light and the potential of ourselves and our neighbors, that the winter is nothing to fear and beautiful in its crisp splendour. With light we will see ourselves through.” Or some other crap like that.
Side 3: Colorful warm winter bonfire utterly secular drawing of winter bachanals. I had a rather nice christmas card a few years ago of wind in the willows like animals dancing by a fire but what I liked about it was how utterly wild and sharp all their teeth were. Then again I had another of coyotes in a desert snow gathering under the moon with some silly poetry about “… and there in the light of the new moon, they gathered together and somethin’ er-other er other” Anything rather festive, unsentimental, but involving light in dark or warmth in the snow.
Side 4: Drawing and depiction of the astrological mechanics of the solstice. Some images of solstice rituals in the past, and an arrow pointing to where the sun will set on Dec. 21 and some markers to measure against to note the shortening/lengthening days as they occur.
Other than fight the creos and MD assassins for years, nothing about the holidays. AFAIK, where I am (WC) there aren’t nativity scenes on public property although no one pays much attention so maybe there is.
That is irrelevant. The sign definitely doesn’t work. It is counterproductive. An opinion but one that many other posters presumably who are atheists or sympathetic share. I outlined some simple minded constructive suggestions that are admittedly probably not all that great. They would still work better.
If one wants to give brownie points for trying, the CVA gets them. Deduct points for alienating more than they reach. Add points for a display that works better.
From another life (the peace movement), we learned not to alienate a potential audience before reaching out to them. Much more effective.
Did someone say tacky?
Please disregard post #78, I only looked at the CVA website. The news article says the display is three sided, two sides with twin towers. PZ, maybe delete this post and #78? Sorry.
FFRF has been doing this for 12 years.
http://ffrf.org/news/2007/12thsolsticesign.php
My suggestion is a tall 6-8 ft. stylized atheist “A” in red foil (or something shiny) wrapped with white stripes to look like a candy cane. A placard could have the name of the group at the foot of the sculpture. Everyone might actually get a good-hearted chuckle out of something like that. I’m really not trying to be sarcastic or offensive, I’m not an atheist so my opinion probably doesn’t count.
I wouldn’t be surprised, actually, if a professional ad person designed it.
Then I take it you didn’t read the fourth paragraph of the prefix of “The God Delusion”?
No, I don’t like bad-mouthing and criticising my fellow athiest but for once, just one, could we do something other than patting ourselves on the back and repeating the same arguments to each other over and over again with a saintly air of self-righteousness? The first time I read Dawkins quoting Lenon and saying imagine no 9/11 (Dec. 25, 2006 as “The God Delusion” was a Christmas present from my sister) I thought it was a bit high-falutin’ but, gosh yes! if those fundies can abuse a national tragedy and make me wince but I take it as their standard b.s. tactics then why *can’t* we. It was kind of bracing to see how jarred I got when one of my own does the same. Made me realize just how complacent I’ve gotten– But as for an actual argument, my god!, it’s as cheap and dishonest as anything Jerry Falwell ever tried to pull! Now to see every athiest group trot out this argument verbatem and chortle at how self-righteous they are… Well, it’s simply embarrassing.
How do you know it’s counterproductive and alienating? Have you asked around? How terrible if it is. Maybe we should be more appeasing and help put up some nativity scenes? Or how about some displays of the 10 commandments? That would be so much less alienating and much more productive (at least in terms of helping the Christianists continue their stranglehold over our society). After all, it’s Christmastime and we don’t want to offend those who worship the baby Jesus. Sheesh.
Good catch, I just saw that side of the sign on the http://www.cvatheists.org/ site. That’s pretty lame in terms of science education. Would it have been too much trouble to say “apparent motion?”
Maybe they were intentionally ducking the actual celestial mechanics, and appealing to what the Average Joe thinks about the Sun. I’m not making excuses for the poor presentation, but I have spent some time doing public outreach for a local astronomy club, and the actual mechanics of the solstice and equinox aren’t all that easy to present to the average member of the public. Almost everyone “knows” the earth rotates and not the sun, and this causes the apparent motion in the sky. But start talking about axial tilt and how it affects the seasons… using hand motions and everything… and eyes glaze over.
That would be so much less alienating and much more productive (at least in terms of helping the Christianists continue their stranglehold over our society).
Ah, yes, kudos to the CVA for bravely fighting the sranglehold Christianity has over Tolland County, Connecticut.
Sheesh, being an atiest in Vernon, Conn. is about as brave as being a liberal in Berkeley, Ca. (which is why I haven’t done anything for my local pro-athiest group; the are all pro-athiest groups.)
If you are referring to the fact that the link you posted
shows the largest religious demographis in Vernon to be “unclaimed”, you should also note that the same is true for every county on that site, and indeed the entire country.
Here’s some info about the data used
Yeah, but did y’all see the pics of the CVA crew standing in front of their, uh, thingy? They are so happy!
While this is not the most tasteful display, let’s just say we indeed do have a spectrum of folks of atheist or agnostic leanings, and along with that…finer aesthetic appreciation to the funkier artistic senses. Some may not want to be reminded of a national tragedy, but unfortunately when I am cruising through the channels, there are evangelists still claiming that the reason we were attacked on 9-11 was due to our nation’s godlessness. So while the subject wouldn’t have been my first choice to put on a display, they decided that was right for them.
As for what Christianists think of it, who cares?
Though I think humor would get the point across much better, imo. Northwest tree octopi, anyone? I’ll get the lemon…
As an athiest I try to be as intolerant as the next person. However, there are limits to what even the most rabid religion-hater can object to. I’m afraid this story is simply below my threshold of intolerance.
Let’s review so we can see if we’ve got this straight.
====
A relatively wealthy and relatively (by American standards) secular town takes it upon itself, to decide whether they are right in allowing a private collection of churches to put up a nativity scene in the town square. No one objects but the town figures its only fair to ask the public for permission. The town figures if they do allow the church they should allow all denominations equal access so the synagogue and the local athiest groups oblige the town by permitting for a display which the city council leaps at to approve.
The athiest group claimed in the permit their display will be “triangular stand displaying information about the winter solstice, Atheism and Human Light observance.”
They lied. The display had two sides depicting the world trade center and the slogan “Imagine No Religion” the third side contains the following information presumably about the winter solstice, Atheism and Human Light observance:
(Let’s take a moment to compose ourselves after reading that heartfelt and moving sentiment, shall we?)
As a result this placard has, according to a local newspaper trying to write up an interesting story, “generated some calls, a few of them angry, to town hall”, but otherwise the response has been fairly positive. The angered party ” are not offended the atheists have something up there, and they’re not offended by whatever they celebrate. ..[but]… troubled by .. [their] religion [being] equated with being involved in terrorism.”
In response the CVA said the image of the world trade center was “simply emphasize an advantage of atheism, something good about atheism.” Yes, I suppose that when asked to name a good thing about one’s life philosophy the fact that we are not insane mass murderers is a good thing although I’m not sure it would quite be the very first one to come to my mind. Ah, well, as the touching[*] and scientificly accurate[**], historically deep[***], and Correctly Punctuated[****] tribute to the Winter Solstice showed, just because they are atheists doesn’t mean they are smart.
So “generated some calls, a few of them angry” is evidence of “freaking out” and it being “so darned easy to blow a narrow mind”.
Well, I suppose the CVA now have a first-hand experience what Daffyd “I am the only gay in the village” Thomas feels.
[*] Yep, the days get shorter. Mmm-hmmm. Yep, that’s deep, that is.
[**] Sun moves by natural causes?
[***] People used to believe gods moved the sun across the sky? All people? Were there any organized or formal thought believing this or just a few scattered folk legends. Wouldn’t it be more accurate to claim people believed the sun was a god or set in motion by the god or gods. Appollo’s chariot and Thor’s goat-cart are the only accounts I know of gods moving the sun across the sky (and what does moving the sun across the sky have to do with the days getting shorter?) Despite popularity in folklore anthologies, this legends don’t seem to have been ever literally been formally believed.
[****] Since when has the “Winter Solstice” been a proper event celebrated since time immemorial. Face it: These just plain aren’t the bulbiest brights in the bunch.
As for what Christianists think of it, who cares?
Uh, who is the placard for if not Christianists?
Look, let’s face it. Not everything all athiests do is brilliant and biting and not every response is a bunch of brain-dead wingnuts flying off the handle. In this case we stumbled into a small town journalist trying to drum up a local interest article about a few tepid athiests fighting the good fight in a not very intolerant community and we all picked up on it because we *looove* stories about lone rationalists in a sea of wingnut rabidity. Unfortunately, this story, while not being utterly insubstantial, is tepid as day old dish-water at best.
Let’s take a look at the sign:
Only true for half of the planet, but grammatically atrocious no matter where you are when you read it.
Ditto.
Because the winter solstice is the winter solstice, people have celebrated the winter solstice? Ugh…
Some used to, some still do.
No matter how confident we are that that is the case, we can’t claim to know that it is.
Yes, it does, but that has nothing to do with the winter solstice.
I’ve never known anyone to celebrate either.
Ugly, brazen logo in Dr.Seuss/Comic Sans hybrid? *nausea*
This thing is an affront to language, truth, logic, and aesthetics, and some people think we shouldn’t be criticizing it? Head spinning… feeling… woozy… and raven.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:SouzaXcard05.jpg
:)
Head spinning… feeling… woozy… and raven.
Hey! Buy me dinner first, at least!
Yeah, that bit kind of reminds me of a rushed 7th grade homework assignment.
Hey woozy, just a thought: somebody who claims to be an atheist, but can´t even spell the bloody word correctly maybe shouldn´t call others stupid so fast, right?
From the courant article:
Would the park float away without it? ;-)
Wow, I can’t understand why any atheists would find the CVA display offensive to themselves, and I can’t imagine why they would think that any public expression of atheism would not be considered offensive by the vast majority of the theistic flock in the US.
Kudos to the CVA for having the balls to thumb their noses at the pious majority. Until atheism becomes as uncontroversial in the US as it is in certain other parts of the world (like here in France), such nosethumbing is a healthy sign, IMO.
I’ve lost interest in this thread so here is my last design for a more effective display.
One wants to fit in with the other displays, be fun, and yet get a message across.
Title Winter Solstice
Two pictures of the sun, one sunset, dark, sun almost gone. The other of the sun rising, over the horizon, bright. A message linking the longer, brighter days after the winter solstice with enlightenment of mankind. Something like what JMyers critiqued in #93 fixed for accuracy and meaning.
In front, a conifer Tree of Life. A Xmas type tree decorated maybe with a secular humanist-atheist slant whatever that may be. The tree was a pagan symbol stolen by the Xians. It was then stolen by merchants to sell stuff in a commercial shopping frenzy. It is secular these days. Then a Darwin fish in a santa hat making a snowman.
Maybe somewhere, another side, a short paragraph explaining what atheists (don’t) believe and why.
The message, Happy Holidays from the CVAtheists. The subtext, atheists are just normal people who celebrate secular holidays like everyone else. They aren’t going to burn down your churches and send your kids to reeducation camp.
This time of the year you want to engage people in an entertaining, nonthreatening fun way to look at your message. If something is out of place and jarring, anyone not already sympathetic will just mutter, “buncha humorless ding dongs”, and then ignore it.
I’m sure someone with more artistic advertising exec. skills than myself can come up with something better. The advantage of coming up with something that “works” (IMO of course) is that then one can use it year after year. That Xians have been doing the same with nativity scenes for centuries. After seeing a few thousand over the years, they are boring.
I don’t like the sign either. All I was thinking when I was reading it was, “you people know the earth moves around the sun, and not vice-versa, right?”
Beth, the movement they are referring to is the apparent daily movement of the sun across the sky, i.e. with respect to a certain frame of reference.
And by the way, that apparent movement is not caused by the earth moving around the sun (at least not in any large measure). Shoot again.
So it seems that taste is a matter of…taste. huh.
I have to agree (again) with JMyers (#93) and raven (multiple posts)–this particular display is ugly, amateurish, and very unlikely to have any effectiveness at all. It may even be counterproductive, as argued sufficiently above.
Thanks, Bill (#83), for posting a better example. It’s mininal, true, but it’s not “appeasing.” It’s thought-provoking, accurate, and unapologetic without being in-yer-face antagonistic. Much better approach.
Now that’s trollin’. Nothing like the ol’ false dichotomy/excluded middle, eh?
For whatever record there might be, I oppose ALL religious and anti-religious displays on public/government property. I don’t consider decorated trees (depending, of course, on the decorations) religious.
Well, truth is I’m unaware of any local pro-atheist groups, and I’m not much of a joiner anyhow. My house is decorated with a few lights–green ones, with personal symbolism and I really don’t care if anybody else gets it–and a tree with completely secular ornaments, including lots of birds and turtles, Jerry Garcia, the Simpsons, and a variety of snowflakes & snowmen made by my daughter. It’s a private nuclear family thing and I’m pretty much uninterested in messing with anybody else’s chosen family celebration. *another shrug*
It’s time for an Alien-themed nativity scene. Now that was a birth to remember.
Beth, the movement they are referring to is the apparent daily movement of the sun across the sky, i.e. with respect to a certain frame of reference.
And, perhaps, Beth was refering to the annual year. Shoot again.
I can’t understand why any atheists would find the CVA display offensive to themselves
Um, because it is poorly written, factually inaccurate, and exploitive?
just a thought: somebody who claims to be an atheist, but can´t even spell the bloody word correctly maybe shouldn´t call others stupid so fast, right?
It’s called dyslexia.
Another thought: maybe folks who praise folks who rely on borrowed arguments, exploiting emotions of 9/11, lie to authorities to get permits, give regurgitated and utterly innacurate science, and thrive an few angry phone calls as having the balls to thumb their noses at an non-existance pious majority; perhaps folks who praise these folks simply because they are on the same side shouldn’t be so quick to call others unthinking herding conformist sheep.
And what do you mean “quick” to call others stupid. It wasn’t until post #91, my sixth or seventh post on the subject, before I called them stupid.
I thought long and hard before I called any-one stupid.
Now you are perfectly welcome to argue that
is brilliant and smart if you want. So far as I can tell it doesn’t have any spelling errors so that’s one thing in its favor, I suppose.
Well there’s the reasons I explained above already for why it offended me even as an atheist. Another reason is frankly I don’t even see its relevance as an athiest display, this is more the anti-theist sort of thing. For all the destruction religious beliefs have wracked on humanity, thats neither here nor there with reference to the truth of whether gods exist or not, its more an argument of compassion away from religion.
This is precisely the point, despite PZ and others views on the matter. **They** use these kinds of tactics all the time, and everyone here jeers, curses and rants about all the stupid appeasers that don’t lift a finger to stop it, or object to such asshole behavior. Now, the same people that would protest, loudly and openly about Christians supporting some raving lunatic on the far right using this tactic and telling *us* to play nice, ignore the offense, show understanding and good will towards the fools that opted to use the tactic, etc. Bullshit!!!! You can’t have it both ways. We can’t be apologists and appeasers for the fools one our side that would use crass, stupid and pointless attacks, and then whine about people on the other side doing the same thing. We spend about half our time here talking about these kinds of apologists and appeasers, saying they are fools, etc., and lambasting them for not getting it, then we do what? Become the same thing when one of our own decide to do something equally stupid and pointless?
Some people here need to get their heads out of their backsides and pay attention to just what that **really** says about us. Because its not pretty, and it undermines *every* claim we have ever made about those that do the same thing for their church groups, and the tactics those people are willing to use against people they don’t like.
You can’t complain about *them* defending crass idiots, then defend your own crass idiots, and insist that its OK for us to do it, but not them. Its 100% identical to the hypocrisy they show all the time. There are better ways, and times to be offensive, which don’t require making ourselves look like a left wing version of some right wing idiot.
Hmmm. It’s a line from a John Lennon song promoting peace, with a picture of a pair of buildings that were destroyed by religious zealotry. For this they’re getting called assholes and fools, stupid and pointless, and getting compared to raving lunatics of the far right? Get some perspective. This is a sign that makes a valid point. It highlights a specific incident and makes it clear that atheists oppose terrorism and deplore religion.
On the day atheists declare that they want to use violence to silence the religious, I’ll join you in cussing out the idiots. This is the opposite.
And, perhaps, Beth was refering to the annual year.
Well, if it’s a year, I hope it’s annual.
…the balls to thumb their noses at an non-existance pious majority
I guess you mean “non-existent”. You mean the majority is not pious in the U.S.? This is big news.
lol – let me clarify my earlier comment. Reading the sign, how it’s talking about how the sun moves by natural causes, seems to imply that the sun is moving around the earth. At least, that’s how I read it.
You mean the majority is not pious in the U.S.? This is big news.
No, I mean the majority of Vernon, Conn, which on the whole supported the display with only a few angry calls, is not pious.
Although now that you mention it, I’m not sure I’d assume the majority of the U.S. is pious. The pious are certainly vocal and the theocracy has a stranglehold on rational thought but are the pious the majority? I won’t say no but I won’t say yes either.
I guess you mean “non-existent”.
I’m dyslexic. So what? “Joe Bob” is an ugly name but I don’t go out of my way to point that out.
“Joe Bob” is an ugly name
I am deeply distressed that the lovely, lilting sound of my ironical pseudonym fails to please your auditory circuitry.
Joe Bob is a simple man with a simple mind that cannot grasp his fellow ‘mericans obstinate rejection of evolution on theistic grounds.
>–>–>Joe Bob is a simple man with a simple mind>–>–>
||
:=::=::=::=::=::=::=::=::=::=::=:
legend:
>–>–>–> (straight line)
:=: (pole; 1 foot)
|| (parellel, i.e. not touching)
that cannot grasp his fellow ‘mericans obstinate rejection of evolution on theistic grounds.
Well, neither can I. (Although it was a damned effective on the part of the folks who are anti-evolution for whatever their danged reasons were. Most people don’t believe whatever science they are told is the conscense and think nothing more of. Rain comes for clouds which get filled up with water which turns on the rain? Sure, okay. Stuff is made up of a bunch of hard little billard ball like atoms? Yeah, okay. People came from apes and animals change when they need to turn into something else? Okay, sure. But if they somehow get the idea that they can’t have their dumb religion and their dumb science both they’ll choose their dumb religion. I’m pretty sure evolution wasn’t as controversial {although the fundies where still there} twenty years ago; I think a large number of the current opponents aren’t fundies but simply religious folks who now feel they have to choose religion over evolution which they didn’t feel twenty years ago}. I maybe we naively assumed americans weren’t that stupid. Now tell me, honestly, in France, which I do believe is more rational and tolerant than the U.S., do you believe the majority are athiests {believing there is no god, not even the absent/impotent God of the diests, er, deists? Or merely rationalists have think biblical literalism is just ridicullously outdated? I mean, there are still churches in France and they still have congregations, don’t they? I’m not being facetious; I would be interested in the religio-ratio mindset of the average French. Especially that of the average ‘merican is so totally bizaar. Uh, my cousin is in France right now. And he’s got the family cynacism and scoff factor {Of which, I’ve probably tempered to softest of all my family}! You aren’t my beloved cousin are you?)
(end parenthesis)
…cannot grasp his fellow ‘mericans obstinate …
Neither can I.
But I don’t see what that has to do with a city given patch of public ground to express a solstice message.
Arrgh! My sloppy typing is sometimes out and out unreadable (readible?? I can’t spell worth beans.)
Take 2:
(Although it was a damned effective on the part of the folks who are anti-evolution (for whatever their danged reasons are). Most people will believe whatever science they are told and think nothing more of it.
Rain comes clouds which get filled up with water which turns on the rain? Sure, okay.
Stuff is made up of a bunch of hard little billard ball like atoms? Yeah, okay.
People came from monkeys and animals change when they need to turn into something else? Okay, sure.
But if they somehow get the idea that they can’t have their dumb religion and their dumb science both, they’ll choose their dumb religion. I’m pretty sure evolution wasn’t as controversial twenty years ago {although it still had the same vocal oppenents then as now}. I think a large number of the current opponents aren’t fundies but simply moderately religious folks who now feel they have to choose religion over evolution. Twenty years ago, I believe it wasn’t seen as such a dichotomy. Or maybe we just naively assumed americans weren’t that stupid.
Now tell me, honestly: in France, which I do believe is more rational and tolerant than the U.S., do you believe the majority are athiests {an “atheist” being someone who actively believes there is no God, not even a vague absent/impotent god of deists}, or is the majority merely rationalists who believe biblical literalism ridiculous and outdated. I mean, there are still churches in France and they still have congregations, don’t they? I’m not being facetious; I would be interested in knowing what the religio-ratio mindset of the average French is, especially when that of the average ‘merican is so totally bizaar.
Uh, my cousin is in France right now! And he’s got my family cynacism and scoff factor. {Of which, I’ve probably tempered mine to the softest of all my family.} You aren’t my beloved cousin are you?)
Now tell me, honestly: in France, which I do believe is more rational and tolerant than the U.S., do you believe the majority are athiests {an “atheist” being someone who actively believes there is no God, not even a vague absent/impotent god of deists}, or is the majority merely rationalists who believe biblical literalism ridiculous and outdated.
According to this recent survey, http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html, about half the French population has no god belief, and I would guess that’s probably about correct. Most of the theistic half is ostensibly Catholic, but many (most?) who identify as such rarely attend church services. The Muslim minority is probably more mosque-going than the Catholics are church-going.
I came to France a long time ago thinking I would only stay for a couple of years. One of the things that keeps me here is that I feel a lot more comfortable about my world-view, part of which is non-belief in such things as deities and life after death. Nobody here thinks I’m strange for not believing.
Inkadu, I can to some extent understand the mix of emotions the twin towers ignite in many Americans. From the worry that some outsiders can ‘invade’ their space to perpetuate such an act, i.e. the symbolic aspect, to the horror at its outcome. However, having been in the forces I have seen much more horrible things first hand, such as the bodies of men women and children rent apart by weapons of one kind or another and pictures of the twin towers destruction aren’t even in the same league. Apart, possibly, from the scenes of people choosing, if choosing is the correct word in such a situation, to jump to escape the flames.
As to sacred, there again I disagree with you even while I understand the emotions it might evoke in you. As I don’t accept that anything in that sense is sacred, however offensive some might find it. As with religion, the sacred argument is, in my opinion, simply used in an attempt to shut up those who disagree. I thought atheists had learned many times over that according a hands off policy to what some consider sacred is one of the reasons that we are in the mess we are due to religion.
As to those who make the argument that this is similar to the fundies who argue that the Twin Towers is the result of a godless America. But sorry no it is not, for this is in my opinion a nonsensical argument for the simple reason that religion, however twisted, was actually a major factor. So at worst, some might consider it crass to point that out, but unlike the fundies bleating about a godless America as the cause, our point is based on the facts.
As to woozy’s argument that they lied because this says nothing about atheism. How more ‘atheistic’ can it be than to ask someone to imagine no religion while highlighting one of the many recent costs to humanity of the disconnect with reality that religion is so often responsible for.
I admit I am going more off of what others have said when I made the statements I did. No, this doesn’t rise to the level of stupid and absurd that *anyone* on the right might do, but that is missing my point, which is that its bloody stupid to chew out people that think it wasn’t appropriate on our side, and in doing so act exactly like the people we complain about on the other side, who are perpetually blind to the the rights mistakes, or the fact that they make themselves look like fools for defending it.
We claim to be better than that, but what happens the moment people say, “You know, this wasn’t a good way, or a good situation, to do this in, it makes us look bad.”? We get told that its OK, as long as it serves the purpose of getting our point across. Any exaggeration I used, while I admit it hindered **my** intended message, is irrelevant. And the fact that using overblown language, and name calling **did** get my central message ignored, in favor of pointing out the triviality of the language used, proves my point. It wasn’t an appropriate time to employ it. But, sorry PZ, I don’t agree that you have to rise to the level of actually blowing something up, or killing people before you have crossed a line and started acting, to some degree, precisely like the people that we are ***supposed*** to be avoiding emulation of.
That said, I did blow my own statements out of proportion to what was reasonable, but I was just a bit annoyed at what I was seeing happening.
As to woozy’s argument that they lied because this says nothing about atheism. How more ‘atheistic’ can it be than to ask someone to imagine no religion while highlighting one of the many recent costs to humanity of the disconnect with reality that religion is so often responsible for.
They claimed their display would be a “triangular stand displaying information about the winter solstice, Atheism and Human Light observance.”
The only information about the winter solstice was a comment that the days are shorter in winter. There was no information about “Human Light observance” (whatever that is). There was no information about atheism (unless you think “Today we know that there are no gods, and the sun moves by natural causes” is information about athiesm). A slogan and a logo is not information.
Let’s face it. It’s just not a very good display. Just because “our side” did it doesn’t mean it was noteworthy. Likewise, just because there were a few angry calls (“Gee… no shit?”) doesn’t mean the CVA are fighting bravely against a sea of rabid mindless wingnuts. (Or are you all upset that it didn’t succeed in getting more people upset?)
Asking to imagine a world without religion isn’t particularly aetheistic in that it doesn’t imagine a world where one decides to not believe in a god, but to imagine a world where religion simply ceases to exist. Without religion the world trade centers wouldn’t have been terrorized (although one assumes Stalin would still have killed millions) but they wouldn’t have been been terrorized if the world had en masse converted to fundamental islamism, either. Likewise we can rid the world of *all* conflict by imagining a world with no free thinkers. Or by imagining a world without hate. A world with peace. To imagine a world with the towers still standing and attribute it as something atheism is solely capible of producing is to imply, it is something believers can not; i.e. the virtues the believers believe they have (love, peace, etc.) can not. In actuality, neither of us are going to be make religious conflict disappear. John Lennon wasn’t singing about a strategy to reduce conflict– convert everyone to your thinking– but a call to imagine a perfect world and to live your life as if it were here.
It was a cheap shot exploiting evisceral emotion having nothing to do with the winter soltice and only self-righteous gloating to commemorate atheism.
Are we sure that the sign’s premise about the towers being intact if there were no religion is correct?
I suppose it stands to reason that al-queda wouldn’t exist, but it doesn’t strictly follow that an absence of religion must lead to a cessation of war and terrorism.
Or does it. (I’m thinking Soviet Union, red China…)
[QUOTE]Here’s a constructive suggestion: all the people who dislike the sign can tell us all about the tasteful, enlightening seasonal displays they have put up in cooperation with their local pro-atheist group. Set an example![/QUOTE]
Tell me you didn’t just offer the ‘don’t you dare criticize unless you’ve done better’ defense. That’s just lame, PZ. And no, we don’t have to be cheerleader for every move ‘our side’ makes. If it’s really all about strategies and tactics, some are naturally going to be better than others. To me, this one was witless, cliched (quoting from *Imagine* — can we have a moratorium on that please?) and puerile…the sort of mawkish display I’d expect from the Jebus crowd. It’s an opportunity botched. It looks AMATEURISH.
And those snarking about ‘concern trolls’ on this one can go fuck themselves.
I also think that the sign is pretty ugly. It’s confrontational in a way that’s great in the right context, but I agree with a lot of the others here that this is the wrong context for something blunt rather than elegant. Why?
Because I don’t see the existance of religious holidays as a problem.
Religious intolerance is a problem. The surrender of reason to dogma and faith and superstition is a problem. Religious intrusion into public policy and education is a problem.
But folks gathering around seasonal decorations with their families, singing songs and telling old stories from their cultures? Not a problem. In fact, it’s pretty nice.
Also, trees and lights are pretty.
Re: PZ, #67 – you’re basically saying “So this is Christmas. What have you done?”
Well, if conversation turns to superstition, I offer my views without pulling rhetorical punches. Same thing as the rest of the time, but a bit more shopping and time with the family.
Jebus! There’s finally a Pharyngula thread concerning which I have some actual knowledge, and I almost miss it (I’ve been feeling ill, and thus away from my keyboard, for the last few days):
I dunno if either BlockStacker or woozy live in Vernon, but as it happens, I do! I’m afraid y’all are falling into a false dichotomy. If by “pious” you mean passionate commitment to right-wing bible-thumping fundamentalism… well, in that case, we’re not particularly “pious” in my town. But it’s hardly the atheist version of Berkeley, either: The town is well stocked with mainstream churches (including three Catholic parishes, two of which operate schools; at least one Episcopal parish; at least two Congregationalist churches; etc.), not to mention notable Jewish and Muslim communities.
I was involved in the just-completed municipal elections, and maybe this will give you some sense of the situation: Candidates noted their church membership (or didn’t) as just another bullet on their resumes, and religion wasn’t on the radar screen as a campaign issue (those would be taxes, town services, education, and growth)… but I think it would’ve been fatally toxic for an candidate to explicitly self-identify as an atheist. We tend to think in terms of battlegrounds between activist fundamentalists and activist secularists/atheists… but I suspect the majority of the country is like my town: Places where people don’t see themselves as involved in a culture war, but where many participate in some form of religious observance for a variety of personal and social reasons, and few feel comfortable publicly denouncing religion, regardless of their private feelings.
So it may not have been “brave” to put up the display, but it certainly wasn’t entirely pointless: It may be more important to innoculate noncombatants from recruitment by the fundies than to try to win over those already committed to battle. If I’m right, it means displays in towns like mine are important, even if they don’t seem “brave”… but it also means such displays may be counterproductive if they strike the uncommitted as obnoxious (and I’ll let all the previous commentary stand on that point… I have opinions of my own, but nothing that someone hasn’t already said).
BTW, y’all should know that CVA is not strictly a Vernon organization, but a regional one. I’m not sure to what extent Vernon townspeople are even represented in CVA’s membership. My guess is they chose our town for their display because [a] it’s the county seat; [b] the park in question is newly renovated, and right in front of Town Hall; and [c] our explicitly inclusive written policy made it a target of opportunity.
FWIW, I’m glad we have a midwinter festival during which we take some time off, exchange gifts, eat and drink extravagantly, and make music together. The solstice strikes me as as good an excuse as any: I suspect it’s no accident that so many cultures and traditions have had some sort of solstice feast.
Thank you very much, Bill. A local eye-witness is worth a thousand of us armchair quarterbacks.
I dunno if either BlockStacker or woozy live in Vernon, but as it happens, I do!
It should be pretty clear I don’t. My impressions were based entirely on the statistic page I linked to (which may not be as indicative as I first thought) and the quoted news article which said there were a few angry phone calls and an attempt to put a christmas tree in such a way as to obstruct the view and a somewhat unsympathetic mayor. To my reading between the lines and to the fact that Vernon discussed the issue of a nativity scene and decided that they would grant space to all groups, I figured Vernon is probably your average albeit slightly whiter (88.9%), slightly more educated (75% some college), and slightly more wealthy (45k average household, 5.9% unemployment, 2.9% poverty) mostly tolerant community.
But it’s hardly the atheist version of Berkeley, either
I was using hyperbole for comic effect. I live in Berkeley. It’s not particularly atheistic as a sort of new age conglomeration of getting in touch with your personal cosmos whether it be God or zen muffin seems to be the expected norm. Atheism is considered just a tad abrassive and such firm decissiveness is considered somewhat rude although it is never actually said so. However a march of athiests or an athiest holiday scene would never get any protests. Needless to say I’ve only once seen a public nativity scene in my life and that was in San Jose and I thought nothing of it as it was a thirty year old tradition that a pharmisist had been doing in which he covers blocks upon blocks of the downtown with tacky santa claus animatronics (gaudy and in bad taste but so over the top it’s funny; in one corner was a very small nativity scene on fake snow).
If I’m right, it means displays in towns like mine are important, even if they don’t seem “brave”… but it also means such displays may be counterproductive if they strike the uncommitted as obnoxious (and I’ll let all the previous commentary stand on that point
I highly doubt anyone is claiming athiests shouldn’t put up holiday or even, shudder, Christmas display, or a display expressing athiests sentiments. I apologize if you were a participent in the display and you can take me criticism (which I don’t recind) as constructive criticism. Yes, I agree it is important to express and acknowledge that atheism and atheists exist and that they are every bit as human and a part of the community as any-one else. And it’s probably not a bad thing to let folks know that athiestic ideas are sane, rational, and sensible and, ahem, others maybe not so much. But, cmon, it *is* christmas and the point is to be festive.
Anyhow, as a resident, can you give some background information? What has been the real reaction. Is everyone scandalized? Is no-one scandalized? This christmas tree incident, Is it really blocking the view? And what’s the mayor really like?
Had there been complaints in the past about the nativity scenes? By whom? Or did the decission to give access come as a result of the proposal of the jewish display.
What’s the real story?
I didn’t think you were making any such claim. I did, however, take your comment about “bravery” as questioning the value of placing such a display specfically in a town like Vernon, because it’s not necessarily an “opposition” stronghold.
I take another view: A moderate, modestly churched, reasonably rational (except WRT property taxes… but I digress) community like mine might well be open to persuasion. I’m not suggesting that large numbers of my neighbors are likely to “convert” to atheism, but they can probably be persuaded to support the issues that atheists champion, such as protecting secular public education and the separation of church and state. They might, however, also be vulnerable to persuasion by the Christian soldiers of East Bible Thump, who themselves are certainly not subject to persuasion by atheists and secularists.
I think the winning strategy might be to win the sympathy of the vast majority of the country that isn’t already radicalized (i.e., in communities like Vernon), rather than to fight the fundies on their own turf. We have to get to the sane people first, before the fundies have a chance to infect them with their insanity.
I was not a participant… in fact, I didn’t even know CVA existed until this issue came up. Even if I had known of them, I wouldn’t have become a member: Howevermuch I may sympathize with their aims, publicly proclaiming myself an atheist would undermine my ability to work for local candidates and causes I’m passionate about. Vernon isn’t, as you’ve pointed out, a primary battleground in the fundy war, but we’ve got plenty of other battles worth fighting, and I’m keeping my powder dry for those.
As to the criticisms (and frankly, after reading through >120 posts, I lose track of which were yours), I tend to agree that this display was unnecessarily (counterproductively, in fact) combative and political… because Vernon is a moderate town: Vinegar is fine for East Bible Thump; Vernon could’ve benefitted from some honey instead.
Some of the other criticisms strike me as quibbling: In context, for instance, it’s obvious that they meant the sun’s position in the sky moves, and not that they were promoting some daft pre-Copernican cosmology. And so what if our winter solstice is only the shortest day in the northern hemisphere? Last I looked, Connecticut is in the northern hemisphere, so discussing conditions in Tasmania or Patagonia would’ve been a bit of a red herring.
As to the last question first, I don’t know the new mayor personally, but by all accounts he’s petulant and ambitious, but neither particularly bright nor diligent. Of course, I spent a large fraction of the year working on the opposing campaign, so you can’t really expect objectivity from me!
I haven’t talked to too many people about the display, but I’m not aware of any general hue and cry over it. I know at least a couple people who are quietly in sympathy with the idea of an atheist display, but also a few (including my wife, who’s somewhat more religious than I) who are dismayed by its overtly political nature (esp. the Twin Towers picture).
It strikes me that there’s an inherent difficulty: Because atheism isn’t a religion, an atheist display can’t posssibly be a wordless, ostensibly politically neutral bit of religious iconography, in the way that a creche or menorah can. Simlarly, there’s no immediately visually recognizable atheist symbol of the season similar to snowmen and reindeer and elves (of the North Pole variety, I mean; not Elrond, et al.), so if a display is to make any statement at all, it must be in words.
It’s not a problem unique to an atheist display, necessarily: If somebody wanted to put up a Kwaanza (sp?) exhibit, it would naturally have to include some explanatory text (because there’s no universally recognizable Kwaanza iconography), and that text would inevitably be seen by some as a political message. Now you and I may agree that even wordless, ostensibly neutral Christian displays are political, too, but they don’t seem political to the general public in the same way that the text on this display does.
One final aside re “Imagine no religion…”: It may surprise you to hear that Ned Lamont, who actually defeated Joe Lieberman in last year’s Democratic primary for U.S. Senate (before, sadly, losing in the general election), actually sang “Imagine” in public. He’s an amateur pianist, and sat in with a band at a street festival in Willamantic. I was there (my daughter and her friend were Lamont campaign volunteers), and it was very cool. I was surprised and impressed that a mainstream candidate would dare sing what many view as a not only atheist but communist anthem… but AFAIK there was no negative fallout over it. Go figure, eh?
I did, however, take your comment about “bravery” as questioning the value of placing such a display specfically in a town like Vernon, because it’s not necessarily an “opposition” stronghold.
A bit… As I pointed out, we love our stories of lone rational atheists standing bravely against a sea of wingnuts. A lot of the responses here have been of the “yeah! fuck religion and rub it in their fucking faces” and any criticism of the display has been “hey, there on our side; if anything the sign wasn’t confrontational enough; any thumbing of the noses at the pious majority is a good thing.” I just felt this wasn’t really one of those us braving them stories.
Not that atheist shouldn’t put up a display. Either everyone or no-one should be able to put up a merry christmas/happy chanuka/krazy kwanszai/rockin’ rommadahn/tasteful tet message.
Some of the other criticisms strike me as quibbling:
Well, yeah… but it seems like the thrust of the permit was to imply “let us put up an atheist holiday greeting to talk about the solstice and human light observence” to which the response is, not surprisingly, “Okay, sounds cool.” In the result it seems the holiday greeting and the talk about the solstice and human light observence was restricted to an afterthought only tossed in and rather poorly done as a cover for the real point of a confrontational message.
It strikes me that there’s an inherent difficulty: Because atheism isn’t a religion
Well, the town I thought had the right idea. They figured if the churches wished together to display a well meaning nativity scene, then all groups should be welcome to display a holiday greeting. The display isn’t nescessarily to say I’m a christian/jew/muslim/atheist and this is what the holiday means to me and what I wish to say to you (although it could) but really just an “oh, I want to get to say merry christmas/happy chanuka/krazy kwanszai/rockin’ rommadahn/tasteful tet!”
If somebody wanted to put up a Kwaanza (sp?) exhibit, it would naturally have to include some explanatory text … and that text would inevitably be seen by some as a political message.
Well, there’d be the usual P.C.-backlash grumbling refusing to believe anyone actually isn’t white middle-american but that’s dismissible. I mean how political is a comment saying Kwanzai is an eight day observance with a theme each day celebrating, the family on day, the community another, heritage and so on and symbolized by various objects and colors?
We don’t have a holiday and I’m not very certain the implication is supposed to be “this is the christmas display, and this is the chanuka display, and the is the atheist winter day display” so much as “well, these are the three displays of the first three permits”. But if our statement was a display about the solstice and athiest thoughts there were suggestions above. In any case the wording can be secular and rational and an expression of well wishing or whatever.
I was surprised and impressed that a mainstream candidate would dare sing what many view as a not only atheist but communist anthem…
I didn’t think anyone thought Imagine was an atheist anthem. It’s a bit left-wing and idealist of the take it to the streets and burn your draft card type but thirty years later these radicals *are* the moderate democrats. It might raise some red flags among the advisors who want to avoid all possible controversy but for the most part I’d think most democrats would find it idealistic and nostalgic, a bit like an elementary school ensemble singing “this land is your land” not raising any eyebrows despite it being a socialist and anti-capitalism anthem.
Anyway, thanks for the news from the front.
So the CVA has responded to complaints that their display was in appropriate. Here is their response which is every bit as well writen as the “information about the solstice, Athiesm, and Human Light observance.
Let’s think about this, shall we.
Al Qaeda is not an evil organization which happens to be religious (such as the Nazis were), but rather an organization whose evil is directly caused by its religious beliefs.
So, in a world without religion we’d have still have had the Nazis. Not to mention the Soviet death camps the evil of which some would claim was directly caused by its athiest beliefs. What!? I said “claim”.
To claim some of the evils of the world wouldn’t exist without religion seems a bit underwhelming doesn’t it.
If its members were Atheists instead the WTC would still be intact.
Don’t they mean “if there were no Al Queda”? They just claimed Al Queda was a religious organization so it’d be impossible if for the members to be atheist. However as the hijackers spent the week before drinking and going to strip clubs in Vegas we can assume the religious fanaticism was used as a rallying call but not the basis of their joining Al Queda.
There’s no reason for people to be offended because a display promoting Atheism touts what would be an advantage of Atheism
To consider not being an insane mass murderer to be an advantage unique to athiesm or to consider athiesm to be immune to insane mass murder and thus other believes are more compatible to insane mass murder seems kind of offensive to me.
We would not be offended if a religious group put up a sign showing the intact WTC with the text, “Imagine all religions relying on absolute moral principles and rejecting the idea that morality is derived from the will of God as revealed by holy scripture.”,
Riiiight… And as a Democrat I would not be offended if the Republicans were to put up a sign saying “George Bush is a Douche-bag”. So if I’m not offended with Republicans putting up such a sign insulting their guy then they shouldn’t be offended by me putting up a sign insulting their guy either. That’s balanced.
To equate the situation the sign should read “What would Christ do” or “Imagine the TRUE religion; Jesus says to love your neighbor as yourself” or “Imagine Hate against your fellow man were replaced with Love for God”
Now, does the CVA wish to claim they would not be offended by those? I sure as hell would be!
Bill, I disagree that the other criticisms constitute mere “quibbling”… if we want to discuss what is “obvious,” I would say it’s obvious that religion is a bunch of made-up nonsense, and our winter festivities should be devoid of such themes altogether. If we want to discuss what would pass as a half-decent representation of atheism on one of the rare occasions that such a thing can be peaceably rendered in the town square, I say the CVAs should at least manage to cobble together a sign that doesn’t have a notable flaw in every single line of text. I find the twin towers photo to be in poor taste; I find the verbiage a bit embarrassing.
I like it!
It says to me, “If there were no religion, the Twin Towers would most probably still be standing. The space where they used to stand is a stark demonstration of the destructive power of religion”.
It’s saying: Look, if you want to believe about heaven and angels and singing hymns, you’d better remember what’s around the other side of the coin, you know, plagues, hellfire, death to unbelievers and stuff, ’cause there’s just no way to separate them. Oh, and as far as those you call unbelievers are concerned, you *are* an unbeliever.
Ultimately it is religion itself, and not the denouncement of it, that really makes some people feel uncomfortable.
The Winter Solstice is a natural, observable event: the day of the year with the fewest hours of daylight. What we sometimes forget is that people weren’t stupid in the past. Hunter-gatherers and early farmers (you know, the people the bible says didn’t exist) needed to know the seasons (no 24-hour Tesco to nip to when you feel a bit peckish) and beside which, when you weren’t struggling to stay alive, there was precious little else to do except watch the seasons go by.
Besides which, most modern pagans know their gods aren’t real. Someone who genuinely believed thunder and lightning were literally caused by Thor banging about with his hammer would not be considered a devout believer. They’d be considered a fruitcake.
Look, when you apply to your community for a permit to use public land for a display, and your community grants you to use the public display, it’s simply *rude* and bad sportsmanship to put up a sign that says “We are better than you are”. The image of the world trade center says “Religious people destroyed the world trade center; athiests wouldn’t do that; ergo we are better than you.” That’s just plain bad manners!
The problem with this sign:
http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2007/12/connecticut-valley-atheists-imagine.html