Atheist messages displace CA park nativity scenes

[BrenDAnn]

http://news.yahoo.com/atheist-messag...194651974.html

I'm surprised no one here has gotten ahold of this one yet. I saw it via a Facebook friend this morning. At first, I thought they had vandalized the scenes, but it turns out they got the spots through some sort of lottery system. Interesting. Opinions?

[fireheart17]

I think in regards to the lottery system it should be 1 for 1, not 1 for 9.

As for the rest of it, it would be nice if they could use it for something more. Like a display about what Wicca actually is! Or what atheism actually involves!

[BrenDAnn]

Agreed, fireheart, they could have been put to better use, rather than doing it just to troll a bunch of Christians. I understand they're doing it to make a statement, really, but there is obvious trolling involved. I myself am sort of in a middle ground--raised Christian, but questioning it in my adult years. Perhaps the Atheist group could have caught the attention of more like myself if they had used those spots to educate people on their views. Just as many people don't understand Atheism as don't understand other religions, I would say.

ETA: Yes the distribution of spots should be more even. It shouldn't all go to one side or the other. If it were more balanced, it wouldn't be such a big deal...unless I'm being incredibly naive.

[Hyena Dandy]

Well, this is fair, at the very least. They were told there was a lottery, they entered the lottery, they put up their signs. Perhaps the lottery will be better structured next time. He followed the rules of the lottery, and while I think he's kind of a dick, well, he should still be allowed to put it up.

I really don't see the point in these signs. They're not going to spread a message that people who don't agree with them already will be swayed by. In fact, I suspect there will be some blowback. Like with Rick Perry's 'Strong' ad, this is to-the-base messaging put up in a place where people who aren't your base are going to see it. It's going to hurt you in the long-run. If someone agrees with you, they'll like you better for being bold enough to put it out. If they don't, they're going to think you're being an ass.

I recall seeing a billboard once which said "It's okay not to believe." That's a very positive message. I LIKE that message. Some people don't believe, for one reason or another. Then they're being told they don't need to feel pressure. Someone who's middling a little will get this message and say "Maybe you're right. Maybe it IS okay not to believe."

If I saw this sort of message, I would feel very hurt. It would really upset my day. Seeing something like "It's okay not to believe" doesn't upset my day. In fact, that makes me happier, that people are able to talk respectfully. And that people who are often overlooked in mainstream culture, or treated as a joke, are getting something too.

Think of the 'standard' use (being to display manger scenes). That's not really an ATTACK on people who don't believe. That's to comfort people who do, and really shouldn't be offensive if you don't. The equivalent to this, I think, would be more along the lines of "You KNOW you're going to hell, right?" That sort of directly attacking the people who disagree with you. Or being condescending.

I would be as offended by that message as I am by these.

That said, he didn't really do anything WRONG. This is kind of dickish, but not really wrong, unless, as I said, he was hiding behind some sort of front to get more entries than he should have.

I think this will just polarize the debate, and prevent people from being able to actually live in peace with each-other. There will always be religion. That's just the way people are. Religion is one way people find purpose. It provides community. It's reassuring. It does a lot of good for people. You won't be able to get everyone to agree on anything. We need to create a society where there is an open exchange of ideas, and where rather than EVERYONE agreeing, we are also able to agree to disagree, and try to avoid hurting those who disagree with us.

[Kheldarson]

I don't disagree with them going into the lottery. Or necessarily with their signs which two of them seem like them being complete and utter asses.

I think the real outrage is that they got the majority of them...and then used three. And didn't even really decorate.

That means 15 cages are standing empty when they're supposed to be decorated for the season in any way the group seems fit. That's not fair to the purpose of the system...or to the citizens of the community. Who wants to look at empty cages?

So instead of getting into the spirit of...whatever, you're going to punish your community by making them look at a couple of banners stating your point and leave them with emptiness for the most part? Way to promote your message guys.

[BlaqueKatt]

We need to create a society where there is an open exchange of ideas, and where rather than EVERYONE agreeing, we are also able to agree to disagree, and try to avoid hurting those who disagree with us.

wow you just used one of the "shut the hell up, that's why" arguments-bad form.

further reading for you-since you equate questioning something, and treating it EXACTLY like any other hypothesis with an attack, why is religion above criticism and questioning?
No, Atheists Don't Have to Show "Respect" for Religion
The Armor of God, or, The Top One Reason Religion Is Harmful
Is It Okay to Mock Religion?
"Evangelical" Atheism, Or, Is It Okay to Try to Change People's Minds?

I think the real outrage is that they got the majority of them...and then used three. And didn't even really decorate.

so it was A-OK for only one view to be displayed for 57 years?(21 nativity scenes-wow that's just tons of variety, and diversity there )

[Duelist925]

wow you just used one of the "shut the hell up, that's why" arguments-bad form.

further reading for you-since you equate questioning something, and treating it EXACTLY like any other hypothesis with an attack, why is religion above criticism and questioning?
No, Atheists Don't Have to Show "Respect" for Religion
The Armor of God, or, The Top One Reason Religion Is Harmful
Is It Okay to Mock Religion?
"Evangelical" Atheism, Or, Is It Okay to Try to Change People's Minds?

I wont touch on most of those links, but I do feel the need to clarify two things: Where does Hyena use a "shut the hell up" argument? Perhaps I'm misreading, but I see a wish for actual discourse, rather than, well, blatant insults.

Which leads me to my second question: How is this set up questioning anything? It says, rather blatantly, "We think your beliefs are myths, and wish to shout that such is the case in the most dickish way possible".

I wouldn't say it "questions" anything so much as "blatantly insults" it.

so it was A-OK for only one view to be displayed for 57 years?(21 nativity scenes-wow that's just tons of variety, and diversity there )

Nope, no in the slightest! Which is why I kinda like this lottery system. I mean, hey, maybe we can have multiple viewpoints! Wicca, kwanzaa, Hanukkah, Even
an atheist view that actually discuss's things rather than insulting others beliefs. Or hey, something pretty to look at.

Instead, we have this, and then a lot of empty cages.

[Kheldarson]

so it was A-OK for only one view to be displayed for 57 years?(21 nativity scenes-wow that's just tons of variety, and diversity there )

I didn't say that. I said that it sucked that they got the chance to decorate with their view...and then didn't. I don't care if they want to decorate with the flying spaghetti monster, just decorate! Don't be a bunch of sticks in the mud and leave an area that is traditionally decorated for the season (yes, yes, with a very non-diverse message, but that's not my point) completely empty. That's just being sour.

[Hyena Dandy]

wow you just used one of the "shut the hell up, that's why" arguments-bad form.

I... Did you actually READ the rest of my post?

I understand I can ramble on a bit. It could have gotten lost in the rambling. If I was unclear, I apologize. I will attempt to clarify.

Paragraph 1: This should be allowed. I think he's kind of being a jerk, but he shouldn't have to take anything down.

Paragraph 2: I explained why I feel these signs are not effective.

Paragraph 3: I explained what I felt would be a better alternative message to put out.

Paragraph 4: I explained that this message feels hurtful, to me, and I am sure to others, whereas the alternative I suggested does not. Included in this is a desire for an open discourse.

Paragraph 5: I explained how I feel that the standard use is not offensive, and how the standard use could have been presented in a way I would object to on the same level.

Paragraph 6: Literally one sentence, re-iterates that an offensive use of the Christian message would upset me the same way.

Paragraph 7: Reiterated that while this may be offensive, it is still legal, and proper. He should not be obliged to change it.

Paragraph 8: I summarized my points, essentially that this is not going to help anyone, and that I want to see open discourse, not attacks.




While it is possible you didn't understand that, it really feels to me like you're just creating an alternate argument that mine vaguely resembles and attacking that instead.


Now I will attempt to explain why religion is not the same as any other hypothesis. The reason is that people do not define their lives by other hypotheses. They do not consider it an intrinsic part of their being, as much as their name or their nationality is. Something they could, hypothetically, change if it no longer fits them. But that it is a part of who they are. Believers don't just believe in God the way they believe in gravity. They believe in it the way they believe in light. It does not just state a fact about the world, it also defines how they see and understand it.

If you mock someone's beliefs, that isn't just mocking what their opinion on the matter is. That is mocking something intrinsic to the person. I understand you may not see it that way, but what I want you to understand is that they DO see it that way. That religion deserves to be treated differently because religious beliefs are not held independent of someone's identity. They are not just another hypothesis. If the person holding those beliefs considers what you say to be an attack on them, you need to reconsider what you say. Even if YOU don't see it as an attack on them, they do.

It upsets people. I mean, I was in a great mood, until I read your post, which I feel payed absolutely no attention to what I said, and was very insulting to me. That completely through my mood sour. I am sure I am not the only one who gets upset about this. And I think upsetting people is counter-intuitive.

When people mock my faith, that doesn't make me look at my beliefs in another way, or see how 'ridiculous' they are. All that does is make me angry at the person doing it. If I'm angry at someone, it doesn't matter what they're saying, I'm not going to listen.

In fact, the section you quoted, and earlier in the writing, I said I would like to have an open, honest exchange of ideas. I like to think that we can learn something even from people we disagree with, if we are able to talk to them courteously.

Also, if he (as Kheldarson says, I will have to re-read the article) actually didn't have ANYTHING put in the other cages, that seems very petty to me.

[Andara Bledin]

Ah, yes, more "your beliefs are stupid and so are you for believing them" dickishness from American Atheists.

I'm not at all surprised.

I'm disappointed that he still has this versus attitude with regards to religion, but not at all surprised that he's too small minded to actually practice what he preaches.

^-.-^

[Kheldarson]

Also, if he (as Kheldarson says, I will have to re-read the article) actually didn't have ANYTHING put in the other cages, that seems very petty to me.

I'll quote the relevant part. And a couple of paragraphs earlier the article states that there are 21 cages:

But atheists got all but three of the spaces this year because of a new lottery system. The coalition got two spots to display Jesus, Mary and the wise men. The third went to Isaac Levitansky of Chabad Channukah Menorah.

Adding to the loss, the atheists have used only three of the display areas to promote their message.

[KabeRinnaul]

This isn't sending a message, or challenging the status quo. It's being a spiteful douche. I could totally accept this, or even applaud it, if the people involved in this had actually bothered to say something. This is like the kid on the playground who kicks the ball over the fence when he gets hold of it. It doesn't advance anything or produce any positive result, it just upsets everyone else. And no, that does not count as accomplishing something in and of itself.

So what would have been good uses of the space? Well, rather than wasting the opportunity in the name of giving religion the finger, they could have done some research, and put up presentations on world religions and what they do this time of year (even if it's nothing), and try to educate people. Or maybe displays showing people the non-Christian origins of various Christmas traditions.

You know, provide something educational and alternative to the traditional holiday, rather than just crapping all over it and refusing to do anything out of spite.

[Hyena Dandy]

So what would have been good uses of the space? Well, rather than wasting the opportunity in the name of giving religion the finger, they could have done some research, and put up presentations on world religions and what they do this time of year (even if it's nothing), and try to educate people. Or maybe displays showing people the non-Christian origins of various Christmas traditions.

This I disagree with, actually. While I dislike how they said it, I really don't think they should have to advertise someone they're in competition with.

[Gravekeeper]

Thing is, the ones the original guy put up: The Happy Solstice or ones with info about the seperation of church and state aren't bad. They make a point or are all inclusive. It's the trolling ones that American Atheists put up that are the problem. AA seems to have a habit of just trying to rile up theists instead of doing anything constructive.

[KabeRinnaul]

This I disagree with, actually. While I dislike how they said it, I really don't think they should have to advertise someone they're in competition with.

I'm not saying they should be forced to do this or even to stay on-topic. I'm more saying I wish they'd done something more constructive with their opportunity here, rather than blowing it on a bit or spite, and offered that up as an example or suggestion of a constructive concept they could have picked up on. The point of it being to show that Christianity is not the be-all end-all, and that it doesn't dominate this corner of the calendar, and that it's wrong to think it does.

Less an advertisement for religion and more a reminder that there are people out there who don't believe what the Christians do.