CE Week #14: “Atheists will post own display”
Sign joins Nativity scene as Capitol fray goes on
|
OLYMPIA – On Monday in the Washington state Capitol, Christians on one side of the rotunda will erect a Nativity scene, with a 3 1/2-foot-tall Joseph and Mary and a baby Jesus in a manger.
On the other side of the echoing dome, members of an atheist group will post their own display: a 4 1/2-foot-tall sign declaring that there is no God and that “religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.”
Welcome to the latest chapter in the annual tussle to stake out a piece of holiday real estate in what lawmakers like to call “the people’s house.”
Things were simpler in 2005, before state Rep. John Ahern, R-Spokane, decided to launch a protest against the long-standing offend-no-one practice of declaring the annual evergreen towering inside the Capitol a “holiday tree.” (The 30-foot trees, surrounded by gifts, are donated by the Association of Washington Business.)
Ahern objected, saying the thing was clearly a Christmas tree. In protest, he gathered with a few dozen supporters on the steps of the Capitol to sing carols that year. Then he tucked a little “Merry Christmas” sign at the base of the tree, along with a shiny cardboard cutout of a Jewish menorah.
And so it began. The next year, bearded orthodox rabbis gathered with Gov. Chris Gregoire to light a large menorah in the rotunda. That triggered a request by Olympia real-estate agent Ron Wesselius to erect the Nativity scene.
State officials balked. Wesselius sued. The state settled, and Wesselius last year was allowed to prop up the figures on the Capitol’s third floor.
As a result, Capitol officials now say they’ll honor virtually any request for a religious or political display.
As long as it’s not disruptive, costs taxpayers nothing and is not seen as the state endorsing any viewpoint, “it’s pretty much wide open,” said Steve Valandra, spokesman for General Administration, the state agency that issues the permits. “It’s free expression.”
After all, he pointed out, state officials had to let about a dozen uniformed neo-Nazis use the Capitol steps for a white-separatist rally in July 2006. Hundreds of state troopers spent the afternoon keeping the Nazis and hundreds of counter-demonstrators separated.
Still, some think the religious expressions go too far.
The Olympian newspaper recently decried the competing displays as “an out-of-control struggle for religious superiority” and “escalating nonsense.”
“How long will it be before the Capitol is filled with competing displays?” the paper asked. “Goat sacrifices?”
Ahern said religion is under attack in popular society, and all major religions should be free to have a display in the Statehouse.
“We are a Judeo-Christian nation, and we need to honor the different times of year for Christians, Jews and even Muslims,” he said.
Christmas trees, menorahs and displays for Ramadan should all be welcomed, Ahern said. But the atheist sign, he said, is a step too far.
“This is bizarre,” he said. “Atheism is not a religion. It doesn’t belong there. And I would definitely not want to see Satanism up there at all.”
The request for the atheists’ display came from the Freedom From Religion Foundation, a Wisconsin-based group that says a local member asked it to put it up. For years, the group has erected a nearly identical sign in the Wisconsin state Capitol in Madison. To protect the sign, the group tapes to it a little note: “Thou shalt not steal.”
Valandra said that so far, things have worked out pretty well. Wesselius erected his Nativity display last year on the third floor, with no complaints.
This year, the only applications for displays were for the Nativity scene and the atheist sign. Both will remain up until Dec. 29.
The closest the state has gotten to turning someone down, Valandra said, was last December, when a Tacoma truck driver announced plans to torch a Mexican flag on the Capitol steps. But as officials mulled it – Would it pollute? Does that require a burn permit? – the man dropped the idea.
As for the specter of some religious group slaughtering goats before horrified tourists and schoolchildren, Valandra said that scene is unlikely.
“I don’t think slaughtering animals on the Capitol campus would be permitted, and you can quote me on that,” he said.
As much as I disagree with the sign put up by the atheist group, “religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.”, I have to admit that their first amendment right protects them. Even though this sign is ridiculous in its statement, Christians need to respect the beliefs of others as well as allow their voice to be heard. A religion is a set of beliefs and practices often organized around supernatural and moral claims, but couldn’t it be argued that atheism is in a way a religion. This subject can be argued for days, but the real fear represented in this article explains the tremendous problem that could come about by every single religion wanting to be represented some how. The space is an issue as well as the boarders of what will be accepted; such as, the slaughtering of animals for sacrifices. Of course this is an exaggeration, but isn’t this the reason that religion is not taught in public schools? What would be taught, and how far in debt explained? As much as I disagree with atheists’ I believe they have the right just as much as we do to display their beliefs.
Connection: This article obviously relates to our first amendment right to freedom of religion and expression, but it also relates to something different we have learned, hyperpluralism, in a sense. With a society acceptance of all these religions in their expressions, society could get out of control with trying to make everyone happy. When will the controversies stop or the competition between religions be limited?
I don’t mind what people put in the capital so long as it’s neutral ground, so that everyone who wants to be can be represented. However,I do feel rather bothered by these rabidly dogmatic atheists. It seems since 9/11 we’ve had people suddenly decide this religion thing needs to go before it kills us all, and they’re basically trying to shout down religion. I’m atheist myself, and frankly, trying to push it the way this group is bothers me. It seems to make a mockery of the holidays by trying to discredit religion on a holiday that has it’s basis in just that. The story of the article is interesting, the history of holiday displays in the capitol is pretty entertaining. I find the stance of not allowing Satanism to be present a little hypocritical, as everyone should have a right to participate in adding their religious represenation, provided it doesn’t intentionally offend. Even those atheists have their rights, as annoying as I find them to be.
Connection: First Amendment- The First Amendment is one of the ten initial amendments to the Constitution contained in the Bill of Rights. The Amendment states, among other things, that government cannot make laws respecting one religion over another. This is why if the Capitol is be open for one particular religion, it has to be open for all of them.
This is getting ridiculous. We need to keep the rights guaranteed by the Constitution in our society, but allowing any and every religion to post whatever they want on government property? Really? The “holiday season” has ALWAYS been a celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ. If Atheists are so sure that there is no God, why do they celebrate these holidays, like CHRISTmas? They say religion “hardens minds” and yet they are the one with the hardened minds… they are simply too blind to see it. I’m not endorsing one religion or another (or in the case of atheism, which isn’t a religion at all), but if we’re all for separating religion from state (which has also been badly twisted by atheists) why do atheists post their displays also? They are encouraging more religions to post their materials on government property. No one religion can prove that they are right; the faith that it takes to believe in one religion is the test of their beliefs. Yet, atheists, who say we should all be tolerant and welcoming of all religions, just about have a heart attack over a Christmas sign being displayed for a Christian holiday. The atheists should be protesting the fact that there is a religiously affiliated sign on government property, not encouraging what they themselves condone.
Connection: The First Amendment and the separation of church and state deal with this topic immensely. The First Amendment says we all should be able to protest and think as we like, yet the media has us believe that the separation of church and state means a bible shouldn’t be allowed in schools but should be allowed in prisons. So don’t worry kids… wait till jail to find your religion. Where’s the fine line? Where can society finally establish rules and guidelines compared to allowing any dang religion the freedom to do whatever they like? I’m not looking forward to cross-burning and bloody displays by the Satanists next year.
Ah the joys of freedom of expression. While I personally would prefer not to have a sign that reads “religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds” anywhere near a Christmas tree, there is no law that prevents it. “Capitol officials now say they’ll honor virtually any request for a religious or political display.” While this statement is fair, many people will probably not like it very much. For example, if the man that wanted to burn the Mexican flag on the capitol steps, citizens of Mexico would have probably been rather upset about the whole thing. “As long as it’s not disruptive, costs taxpayers nothing and is not seen as the state endorsing any viewpoint…” Such a policy certainly seems fair and reasonable. “Christmas trees, menorahs and displays for Ramadan should all be welcomed, Ahern said. But the atheist sign, he said, is a step too far.” I do not agree that an atheist sign is a step too far. If anything, the presence of that sign supports the very purpose of supporting the freedom of expression. Because Ahern is state Representative, he should be familiar with the law of the land. All views on a subject should have the same opportunities to be displayed.
Connection: Bill of Rights. The first ten amendments to the Constitution were and are intended to prevent the national government from limiting personal freedoms. The ability to express one’s opinions is included in the 1st amendment as a personal freedom.
The government is obligated to either show displays of every requested religion, or none at all if they truly believe it will cause public disturbances. Both groups, the atheists and the religious have their rights under the first amendment; the right to freedom of expression and the right to freedom of religion. There should not be such a huge commotion about atheists wanting to express their anti-beliefs, and even if their expressions do offend others there is nothing legally that can be done about it; they are completely within their rights. Those who celebrate Christmas have their nativity scene; those who celebrate Hanukah have their menorah, and any other religion that wishes to be represented have been told by the capitol that their insights may be portrayed by their requests. If their faith is truly strong, they can learn to ignore those that they disagree with, look upon only the displays they do agree with, and then continue on with their holidays peacefully. Plus, the accusation that this will get out of hand to the point where we are slaughtering goats in public is absurd. This type of display is very unlikely to happen, and there would probably be several lawsuits by animal activists or other similar authorities.
Connection: First amendment.
Although the whole idea might seem morally corrupt or imposing on several groups views/the majority groups views, atheists are within their rights to express their anti-beliefs. By separation of church and state, the government can’t pick and choose among which religions to display; they either need to display all religions or none at all. There must be a distinct separation of the beliefs, weather it is FOR displaying all of the beliefs or AGAINST displaying all of the beliefs. It has already been decided for quite some time that there can be no middle ground, it’s always going to be one way or none at all.
From my standpoint on this, I think that everyone has gone too far. Yes, I understand that if there is a Christmas tree or a nativity scene at the Capitol, other religions should be allowed to put something there also. However, nothing should have been put up in the first place. There is supposed to be a separation of church and state. When you put a nativity scene, a menorah, or even a “holiday tree” inside of the Capitol, you are combining church and state. If whoever started this had looked at the Constitution beforehand, this controversy wouldn’t have even started.
Seeing as it has happened already, I will say that the atheist sign is going a little too far. Although it isn’t as much of a religion as a lack of, I do think that they should be able to contribute. I just don’t think it is right to put down other religions in the process. All of the other things in the Capitol are ways to recognize the many holidays. The atheist sign is a way to bash all of the nice things that are already there. If they had a holiday and could put up something to remind others of their holiday, as the others do, that would be fine. But they put up a sign instead. Their sign is offending to many people. It isn’t right. They may not believe in any religions, but they should have enough decency to let others do so.
Connection: This has a lot to do with the separation of church and state and how far is too far with it. Separation of church and state says that the government and religious institutions are supposed to be kept separated. When religious holiday symbols begin to show up in the Capitol, it seems to me that those things aren’t so separate anymore.
This Ahern guy said something stupid, “Atheism is not a religion. It doesn’t belong there. And I would definitely not want to see Satanism up there at all.” First of all, who says Atheists don’t have a religion? They don’t believe in gods. Technically, by believing in a lack of gods, they have religion because religion is just a system of beliefs. Then, are Ahern’s “religious” things the only items that are allowed to be displayed during the “holiday season” at the Capitol? Why should whether or not these atheists have Ahern’s definition of “religion” define their right to display their point of view? They are showing what they believe. Just like “religious” people displaying what they believe, including the Christians with their Nativity. It seems to me that any outcry against the Atheist sign should be matched by an outcry against the Nativity. Ahern is a hypocrite. He wants to take something down that he doesn’t agree with, something that explains the beliefs of the Atheists who want it there. Isn’t that the same thing the Nativity is doing? It seems to me that he doesn’t want all people to display their beliefs in the Capitol. He just wants “religious” people to display their beliefs. I kind of feel sorry for this Ahern guy. He used an argument opposite to the argument he used in 2005 to get Christian and Jewish paraphernalia put in Olympia. That’s just bad rhetoric. I would advise him not to contradict himself in the future.
Connection: The first amendment protects the establishment of any religion and the exercises of such an establishment, within reason. A religion is defined as a set of beliefs. The Atheists hold a set of beliefs: they believe there is no god. The first amendment, therefore, protects their rights to exercising their beliefs, just as it protects Christians and their Nativity. Not only does Ahern contradict himself with his statements, he also is trying to infringe on the Constitution. Not a good way to go.
AAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!! “Hardens hearts and enslaves minds,” huh!? And that must be why believers are some of the most generous, loving, open minded individuals on the planet!
My frustration was relieved when the man talked about how atheism doesn’t belong there, because it’s not a religion, which is very true. According to the roots, atheism means Without God, and thus cannot be a religion and does not belong at the Capitol. However, Satanism could be considered a religion due to the fact that they are worshipping something, although I would hate to see the thing put in the Capitol building for people to idolize.
And why on earth do people care about this!? I’m never going to go the Capitol building to look at this, and it’s just bringing out raw emotions in people! The news is so upsetting. If I had never read this article I wouldn’t pissed off like I am now! Curse the news!!
Just take it all down! Nobody wants to see any of that stuff in any public place, if you want to show your religion off, light up you own yard, or go to your own cult and worship your Satan!
Connection: “State officials balked. Wesselius sued. The state settled, and Wesselius last year was allowed to prop up the figures on the Capitol’s third floor.
As a result, Capitol officials now say they’ll honor virtually any request for a religious or political display.” This is a perfect example of litigation in today’s society, although this was done by an individual instead of an interest group. But still, it shows exactly how litigation effects the system. One man brought up to the courts that the Capitol was being discriminatory (much like the NAACP might do, or MALDEF, or others) and the case will be turned toward the individual’s rights, thus enforcing fairness upon the institution. Litigation is clearly a successful tactic, as our book and this article have shown.
This article seems to present two separate yet similar arguments. The first is whether to allow or disallow certain religious displays. I think a line has to be drawn somewhere in this argument. As stated in the article, “Christmas trees, menorahs and displays for Ramadan should all be welcomed, Ahern said. But the atheist sign, he said, is a step too far.” To me, this is a very flawed argument. In my opinion, either allow all signs, displays, and other things that fall under freedom of expression, or don’t allow them at all.
The second, more implied argument, deals with separation of church and state. These displays are being set up on the steps of the Capitol in Olympia. Does this violate the separation of church and state clause? Here we have two rights that somewhat contradict eachother: the freedom of expression and the separation of church and state. So, is it, “Freedom of expression, except on government property,” or is it, “Freedom of expression, wherever you decide to display it.”
These two arguments should probably be simplified and made into one argument. After that is made clearer, it will be easier to have opinions about this article. Anyways, this being said, I disagree with Ahern’s statements that the Atheist sign should be disallowed. If you’re going to disallow the Atheist sign, I believe it is only fair that you name the Christmas tree the Holiday Tree.
This article is frustrating. The first amendment to our rights as America’s is freedom of religion. We should feel free to practice any religion that we want to, and be able to call anything a religion. If you are an athiest, a christian or any other religion under the sun, good for you. That is your right and there is no one that has any merit to tell you that it’s not. We are all wired differently and have totally different belief systems, and the guy in the article saying that atheism is not a religion is just outrageous. As far as the christmas decor that people are putting up and arguing about, who cares? If you are a christian and you love your nativity scene, put it up by all means! If you are an atheist and you have nothing you want to put up, then do exactly that. If you want a menorah on a tree instead of ornaments, do it!!! Its our freedom!! It is called the HOLIDAY season for a reason, its a time to celebrate the holidays, no matter which ones you celebrate.
Connection:
The first Amendment. Includes freedom of religion. We are free and welcome to practice any system of belief that we want to or see fit. And that is the way it will be.
People are so ridiculous. It’s just a little cardboard scene about what someone believes in and that’s all. People put these scenes up everywhere. I understand that people want to have the freedom of speech; the fact that they are making such a huge deal over something that is a basic American tradition is just absurd. I agree with the author, “Atheism isn’t even a religion.” People need to calm down and if they want to create a little “holiday” scene of their own religion, they can do in the peace and quite of their own house. Not everything has to be placed in the Capitol. If that were to happen for every religion, then I don’t think that the people who worked in the building would even be able to move around. People come up with all sorts of beliefs and not all can be represented. The world isn’t fair. That’s a standard lesson the people are taught from when they are kids. Not everything will go your way, and if it does then you are a spoiled little person. People are going to push for their freedom of speech no matter what the government throws at them. These Atheists are going to keep pushing till they win, which they should just suck it up and get over it.
Connection: The obvious answer of the First Amendment. It is kind of self explanatory from reading the article that the First Amendment protects a person’s right to freedom of speech. This amendment also covers the right of religion, so people and push to display their religion through their freedom of speech.
I definitely believe that a statehouse should be able to put up displays of every kind of religion to represent those Americans with that religion. Everybody may not believe in some religions, but they need to just respect the beliefs of others.
“Christmas trees, menorahs and displays for Ramadan should all be welcomed, Ahern said. But the atheist sign, he said, is a step too far.” Why would that be a step too far? They are contradicting themselves when they say that all religions are welcomed. Atheism is technically a religion, so it should be welcomed also. Even though those people do not worship anything, they believe that there is nothing to worship. It makes no sense as to why it would not be welcomed.
“This is bizarre,” he said. “Atheism is not a religion. It doesn’t belong there. And I would definitely not want to see Satanism up there at all.” Oh my gosh! There he goes, contradicting himself once again. I think that just because he doesn’t have those beliefs or respect them, that he is being selfish when saying that they should not be displayed. That is ridiculous.
“To protect the [atheist] sign, the group tapes to it a little note: ‘Thou shalt not steal.’” Hahaha!! I got a kick out of that one. I feel like they got a big slap in their face.
CONNECTION>>> This article connects with the freedom of religion amendment. Everybody should be allowed to put up displays of any kind of religion, unless it does harm to others. But then again, there is the separation of church and state. Should they even be allowed to put any of those displays up? Maybe not…
This article is centered on the first amendment with the freedom of speech. If one group is able to display their religion in the capitol, all groups or religions should be able to do the same. I do not agree with some of the things said in this article like “Atheism is not a religion. It doesn’t belong there. And I would definitely not want to see Satanism up there at all.” A belief is a belief, and I do not agree with Atheism or Satanism, but they are religions as much as Christianity, Judaism, or Muslim. I also think that if nothing can be done to keep the decorations simple and generic they should not be put up in celebration for the holidays in the state capitol. If every religion, or view, was decided to put up its own piece in the Capitol though there would probably be more problems caused by that then the Holiday tree had created. This is especially true if the smaller groups decide to put up a display like Satanism. With all the decorations it is also likely that people would steal or vandalize the opposing beliefs. So the easiest solution is to not have any decoration at all.
Connection: This article is connected to the first amendment with the freedom of speech. If a group is able to display their religion in a public place like the Capitol then the other smaller religions like Atheists should be able to as well.
I have mixed feelings over this article. The Constitution gives us freedom of religion and, contrary to what Ahern said in the article, Atheism is a religion. (Religion is the individual’s belief in how and why the earth was created and exists) Atheists believe there is no god or deities but have a belief in how the earth was formed. Just like evolutionism, atheism is a form of religion. This being said, there is a difference between images of religion and words blatantly against another religion. There is a difference between words and images in general. The Nativity and the menorah and the Christmas tree do not tell people how to think. The atheist sign, on the other hand, proclaims there is no god and is basically belittling the beliefs of any other religion. I can not emphasize this enough; our nation was built on a Christian foundation. The founding fathers meant for this nation to be free from religious oppression, yes, but that did not mean that all religion was to be cut out of everything. The fact that teachers can’t pray in school, or reveal their religion fully to students, and are restricted from practicing their religion in school is unconstitutional. Atheism is a religion and the constitution never states the “separation of church and state”. This is just a slogan people have adopted throughout the states that Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists ensuring them their freedom to practice. The constitution says, and I quote, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress or grievances.” This is open for wide interpretation but it clearly states that government will not support a religion nor will they support the suffocating of it. As to the difference between a “holiday” tree and a “Christmas” tree, it for CHRISTMAS that people put up their trees. Jews do not put up trees for Hanukkah and, to the extent of my knowledge; there is no other major holiday for any of the other religions. No matter if people want to admit it or not, Christmas is the celebration of Christ Jesus’ birth and that is the reason for the season. It is not the presents and the food and the family that make Christmas, it is the celebration of God’s son coming to the earth in the form of a human baby, born in a humble manger and growing up to die for the sins of the world. If people want to celebrate a holiday solely for giving gifts and getting presents and eating food and seeing family, they can get their own day and leave CHRISTmas for the celebration of the Savior who came for the world.
Connection: As I stated earlier, separation of church and state is found no where in the Constitution. We have discussed strict and loose construction in class. This decision by Olympia would be seen as another step in either of the directions. If they decide to let the atheist sign stay, it will be seen as more strict construction, but if the decide to take it down, it will be closer to loose construction.
In response to Alena: I completely and utterly agree with you that atheism is a religion. It is. I don’t agree with you when you talk about the atheist sign in regards to the “holiday season”. The sign has no connection what- so- ever to do with the holiday season. The atheists have no holiday to celebrate during the winter months. Hypocrite is a harsh word. Hypocrite is synonymous with fraud and charlatan. I don’t think Ahern is a fraud or a charlatan. He simply is basing his argument off of something you don’t agree with. I, too, believe his argument is misguided but it is not hypocritical to what he has been saying. He believes atheism is not a religion and as such does not deserve a place next to the religious displays. It would be just as if someone said that the Christian belief as to how the earth was formed is not a science and as such should not be taught in schools. I believe that the Creation of the world is a science and SHOULD be taught in schools but that does not make the person who disagrees with me hypocritical. Atheism is a religion and does deserve a right to speak freely as a religion. Ahern does not believe this because he does not think atheism is a religion. This, my friend, is not hypocritical.
Though the Capitol’s plan of honoring any request is ideal in theory, I believe that it will be very difficult. People are far too protective of their own beliefs. Many people claim to be accepting of other beliefs; however, I think that this is easier said than done. It is the “belief” that makes the concept of “accepting” difficult. They are beliefs for a reason, and it is hard to accept something that you don’t believe in.
People can, however, respect each other’s beliefs. Atheists do have the right to say what they believe in, but they shouldn’t force these views on others. Their sign on the Capitol steps was obviously meant to provoke the Christians. This is unacceptable. The Atheists can express this view without being disrespectful – let them set up a “Holiday Tree” instead.
The same goes for the Christians, or those who are part of any religion, or those who simply say “Merry Christmas” instead of “Happy Holidays”. While these groups may not approve of the Atheist’s beliefs, it’s not like they have to believe in them. For Ahern to say the Atheist sign is a step to far is just as unacceptable as the Atheists provoking sign.
Connection: Pluralism
Like this article states, the displays seem to be a “struggle for religious superiority.” These different groups are each vying for a stonger voice. People are always going to think that their belief system is better, that their system is superior. Like I stated earlier, I think that this is inevitable. If people could simply respect that there are other viewpoints, and perhaps just acknowledge these views, I think that there would be no “struggle.”
“…I would definitely not want to see Satanism up there at all” (Ahern). As much as we all have our own distinct beliefs on religion, how can we say that any one else’s beliefs are invalid. People attain their philosophical, rather than religious, views from certain aspects of their lives, and how they interpret those aspects. If a person’s parents were devout to any philosophy, than that person is likely to have similar views. We cannot say that anyone’s views are wrong, just because we would rather have their views coincide with our own. Displaying our own views is one of our fundamental rights, and is why America is considered the “land of the free”. We are entitled to the ability to believe what we do, and we are entitled to say so. I think that this is a non-issue, and should not be treated any other way (I am sure people will disagree). A thing that Americans do not pay much attention to in the good old Bill of Rights is the right to protest the government. If we think that we are being treated in an unjust way, we are able to appeal to the courts and possibly enact some laws to ensure equality. On a side note, I think that donating gifts to a charity is a great thing to do, but keeping the presents under a “holiday” tree asks for controversy.
Connection: The courts. The courts are there to make the final decision on what will be permitted in their realm of influence. The courts can decide when certain attempts of protest go too far and are then unconstitutional and then disallowed. As long as the courts say that a person is within their rights, there should not be a dispute. Since the Supreme Court is the supreme law of the land, this will not be changed without an amendment to the Constitution.
In response to Renee Davidson, I do not agree that “nothing should have been there in the first place.” Such displays and their presence at those locations are protected by the freedom of expression. I also do not agree that such displays violate separation of church and state. The church is not influencing the state, for it is merely existing within the state’s presence. The funny thing about the people who started this whole thing is that they coordinated with the very people who are required to determine if such matters are in accordance with the law. If someone would like to challenge the ability to place “a nativity scene, a menorah, or even a “holiday tree” within the Capitol, they should do so via the court system in order to establish some kind of ordinance on the matter. I do not agree that the atheist sign has gone too far. “I just don’t think it is right to put down other religions in the process.” Well, in order to prevent that, you would limit their ability to express themselves which would be in violation of their first amendment rights. “The atheist sign is a way to bash all of the nice things that are already there.” I am sure that the atheists that put it there think that it is quite nice and serves their purpose quite well. You may not think that “it isn’t right,” but it is a right!
In response to Kellie Hensley:
You are wrong. Our nation was founded under the idea that there is a god. Everyone knows it. Hence, in our pledge of allegiance, we say, “…One nation, under GOD, indivisible…” People acknowledge there is a God and thus the atheism sign should not be allowed at all in our Capitol. If there is religion that has something to celebrate, then great, put it up at the Capitol. But atheists have nothing to celebrate, nothing to worship. All they have to left is to try to tear down other religions in hopes of making them sinners like the atheists themselves. Atheists crush the spirit of the holiday season. Why not just be happy with a holiday tree up that doesn’t represent the worshipping of anything? Because that is exactly what you all do! You don’t worship anything. Just be happy with your tree and ditch the damned sign. There is no need to tear down those who are in the comfort of a God. Please, go do us all a favor and go find a God to guide your lost souls.
Although the first amendment is a great amendment, there are many a time that I hate it. It grants too much leeway for some. The only thing that’s preventing me from going down there and tearing down that sign myself is the fact that if it were the other way around, and that our nation was primarily atheist and I wanted to put up a nativity scene, then I would be very upset if I couldn’t.
It is always the few that ruins it for the rest of us. Personally, I think that there should not be a piece of religious evidence to be found in the Capitol, because I sure as hell don’t want to see Satanism be a part of that building.
In response to Cole:
First of all, the holiday season did not start as a celebration of Christ’s birth. It may interest you to know that Christ was not born December 25. The date he was actually born is unknown, though it is suspected to be as many as seven years later than what many people think today. The holiday season, wintertime, was originally a celebratory time for the Pagans, with their holiday of winter solstice. The Catholic Church, wanting to convert the Pagans of Europe to Christianity, made a holiday on December 25 to replace the winter solstice. So don’t say the “holiday season” started off to celebrate the birth of Christ. He wasn’t even born in the winter.
Second, Atheism is a religion: a religion is a system of beliefs, Atheism is a system of beliefs, ergo Atheism is a religion. Separating religion from state was not the atheists’ idea. It was everyone’s idea. Why would you want the church to control the government? In the past, when that has occurred, the people who do not believe in the state religion are persecuted, sometimes murdered. Separation of church and state protects everyone and their views.
Third, Atheists never said we should be tolerant and welcoming of all religions; Universalist Unitarians said that. Atheists said anyone who believes in the existence of gods is a moron. They say gods are not real. That’s why Atheists aren’t having heart attacks over the Christmas sign. They just want their own. That’s why the atheists aren’t protesting the Christmas sign. They don’t care what the Christians do.
Lastly, I agree with the atheists when they say that religion “hardens minds.” It does. It divides people. It makes people hurt and kill people who disagree them (and, by the way, Christians, you all had your crusades in the Middle Ages, your people were guilty of murder, too). Religion messes people up, because many religious people think belief and knowing are the same.
The atheists deserve to display their beliefs as much as anyone else. First amendment. End of story.
In response to Alexa:
I agree with what you had to say. I don’t think it would be very difficult to honor any and all requests, however. As long as they are able to put up something themselves, it wouldn’t be too hard. It might start to take up too much space if too many religions begin to participate. It would be people’s reactions to the displays that would create a problem, which is what I think you were trying to get at. Just like many of us felt when we read this article and saw what the Atheist sign said, it is very possible that other religions may be offended by a Christmas tree, even if it is only the Atheists. I agree with you that people need to respect other’s beliefs, however, and I do think that the Atheist sign did go a little too far when it comes to being disrespectful of others beliefs. It isn’t right to tell people that what you believe in is right and it is the only thing that is right, especially at a time of the year when so many people celebrate because of what they believe in.
I understand what you mean when you say that it is offending to say “Merry Christmas” instead of “Happy Holidays”, but I don’t think that it is nearly as offending as saying that “there is no god”. Besides, some people may say Merry Christmas to a complete stranger, they don’t know what religion they are, they are just trying to be nice. I don’t think that that should seem offending to people.
Connection: This has a lot to do with freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Different people have different religions, and it is our constitutional right to do so. If we say Merry Christmas instead of Happy Holidays we are allowed through freedom of speech, and the people who say it only say it because they celebrate Christmas instead of other holidays.
In response to Rachel Damiano:
Rachel, in agree with you when you say atheism is a religion, because anything dealing with God (or the lack of) is a religion. I also agree with you about the atheist sign. While the Christmas tree or a menorah is just an expression equivalent to saying “this religion exists”, the atheists are basically saying “shut up, God doesn’t exist, so stop talking about it”. This probably wouldn’t be as controversial as it would be if the atheists had a less abrasive sign up. However, I disagree with you on several other things. First of all, I wouldn’t call evolutionism a religion, because there is nothing about it that deals with God, it is just science. Also, about the teachers in schools, you are wrong about that. Teachers can pray all they want in schools as long as they do it privately; they can’t lead a class in prayer. While there has been no formal amendment about that, there have been informal ones preventing teacher lead prayer in schools (some private schools should be noted for the exception to this). They also cannot lead prayer in school because not everyone is Christian. That is how the informal amendments can to be was when teachers leading prayers tried to make non-Christian students participate. And the whole point of having teachers not fully reveal there religions is because they don’t want the teachers expression of their beliefs to influence how the teacher teaches and how the students learned. It is a form of protection to make sure that the subject matter is not altered in any way that might impair a student’s knowledge. This, too, is enforced by informal amendments. And there IS a separation of church and state, even if it is not stated like that. And I strongly agree that America has a Christian foundation, but I personally think it is better not to have church and state joined. That wouldn’t be beneficial to the American society. Our founders saw that as well when the allowed for free religious expression. Look at Saudi Arabia for an example of what a theocratic government gone wrong can do. Allowing atheists to express their beliefs next to Christmas trees can keep that from happening. However, that sign, attacking religion like it is, is going too far.
I would have to agree with everybody that has posted on this article, that yes this is a perfect example of our freedom of speech being used. I personally do not have a problem with having different religions post stuff at the Capitol. But unlike Rebecca Rathbun’s comment, for some reason I do have a problem with the atheist’s sign and I do think that it is one step too far. There is one major difference between the atheist sign and the Christmas tree and Nativity scene. The Christmas tree and Nativity scene are peaceful and are holiday objects that everyone is used to seeing around this time of year. However, the sign that declares “religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds,” blatantly pushes somebody’s viewpoints onto other people. I mean I hardly doubt that when someone sees a Christmas tree they think that the person that set up the tree is trying to push Christianity onto them. But a sign that drastic is definitely trying to cause a scene, especially because they just so happened to post it directly opposite of the Nativity scene. Although I believe that we should have the freedom of expression, we also need to be careful of what we put out there.
In response to Kathrine Kruse:
“They are contradicting themselves when they say that all religions are welcomed. Atheism is technically a religion, so it should be welcomed also. Even though those people do not worship anything, they believe that there is nothing to worship. It makes no sense as to why it would not be welcomed (Kathrine).” Technically, this is the untrue statement if you look at what the definition of religion is. In Webster’s Dictionary the definition of religion is: the service and worship of God or the supernatural, commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance, a personal set of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices. And then the definition of atheist and atheism is: the doctrine that there is no deity and one that denies the existence of God. With these definitions I would not go calling Ahern a hypocrite and I believe it is safe to say that atheism is not a religion. So he Ahern is not contradicting himself when he says that atheism is not a religion and just because he doesn’t believe the way they do doesn’t mean he is being selfish. He’s just stating the facts. Really all he is most likely getting at is that Christmas has always been about Christ’s birth and he wants it to stay that way.
In response to Kathrine Kruse:
Yea, they put that message on there about how “Thou Shalt Not Steal”. Want to know what happened? It got stolen. Why? Because people feel strongly about religion and where and how they can be put on display publicly. The holiday season is not just a holiday season. It is a celebration of Christ’s birthday and New Year’s. While the new year holiday is obviously not religious, the whole term “holiday season” is just something some hippy made up to turn a religious holiday into a nonreligious one, because apparently that supports what our forefathers wanted when they said we should have church and state separated (don’t even get me started on that one). If the atheists want to come up with their own holiday – the birth of the earth or something like that (which I don’t even know how its possible to make something out of nothing, but that’s just me) – then so be it. Display their sign at the Capitol and do what they can under what is guaranteed in the Constitution. But don’t ruin the sanctity and religious expression of Christmas. Don’t term it some day that the nation gets off work. Christmas is the celebration of Christ’s birth, not the celebration of how religion “hardens hearts” – which sounds very spiteful in and of itself.
In response to Dave:
I disagree with you when you say Atheism is not a religion. “Dictionary.com” says that Atheism is the doctrine or belief that there is no God. It also says that religion is, “a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies.” Sure, Atheists do not believe in “superhuman agencies” (e.g. God), but they do have certain beliefs “concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.” Because Atheists do not believe in God and creationism, the only other logical explanation for the creation of the world is through science and evolution. So, it doesn’t matter if they believe in a god or not. Atheists have beliefs about how the world was created, thus making it a religion.
That being said, I do agree with you in that people who wish to display their religion should be respectful to the rest of the public and do it privately. I don’t think it is necessary to display your religion for everyone to see. To me, it seems almost as if they are advertising and promoting their religions. Next thing you know, we’ll be seeing Bible verses on billboards and Atheist Super Bowl commercials.