Angry Atheists Win and Then Sue
Lending yet even more credence to the image of the angry atheist, a group that calls themselves "Pa. Nonbelievers" won their fight against a small town in Pennsylvania. And now they're threatening to sue. Make sense?
The little atheist club was angry about a nativity scene on government property. (Funny, you really don't ever hear about happy atheist groups) So they harrumphed and used the strategy right out of the ACLU handbook "How to Destroy America in a Few Easy Steps" and announced they wanted to put up their own atheist display honoring atheist veterans right next to the Nativity set. (Didn't they ever hear there are no atheists in foxholes?)
So over 100 people came out to rally in support of the nativity set. But the township did what all townships do when faced with a group of a few litigious atheists. They folded. Yup. Jesus got booted off township property over to the lawn of the Methodist church.
The township now only allows American flags on the property. (Hey, what about flags from other countries?!)
But instead of doing a touchdown dance and splurging for potato skins and Coronas at Applebees, this atheist group couldn't find it in themselves to be happy even for a moment so they decided to sue. That's right. They won. And they're suing.
So to sum up:
1) Atheists were angry that Christian nativity was on government property.
2) Nativity was taken down.
3) Atheists are still angry.
WHTM reports:
Carl Silverman, capital-area director of the group Pa. Nonbelievers, says the group met Sunday and has decided to pursue legal action against the borough council. He says "doing nothing" would imply that having the nativity removed was the group’s main goal, which is not the case...Methinks this is a case of a few guys who got a little taste of the celebrity bug and now they're milking it for all its worth. Next, they'll be posing next to Levi Johnston in a Hustler spread.
Silverman says although the nativity was removed, the group's right to put up a display was still denied. He says he will not talk about exactly what legal action his group will be taking until all the paperwork is filed later this week.
But really, why not have something commemorating all veterans instead of just "atheist veterans" anyway? Why not be inclusive? And why did they have to put it up during Christmas season? All those questions are rhetorical by the way.
One thing I never did get was the need to join clubs based on what I don't believe. I don't believe in Bigfoot but I haven't joined any clubs about it. These evangelizing atheists talk about God more than most Christians I know. Except they're angrier. And very litigious.
26 comments:
They are actually misidentified antitheists. They actually do believe in God, they just hate Him.
LOL
I know that guy.
Seriously.
What I don't get is they wanted them to take down the nativity set - which they complied, but are suing to have their own display put up. I hope the township folk stick to their guns and say if we can't have one, we can't have the other!
I would not be too quick to laugh this off. If they won and they are still stomping their boots into our faces, where will they stop? when they march us into the ovens?
Why a display for atheist veterans in December? Is there a connection I'm missing? Didn't we just have Veterans' Day last month?
Who can know their minds? Their thoughts are so far above our thoughts as the heavens are above the earth. Who among us hath been their counselor? Were we there when life as we know it evolved out of absolutely nothing?
"Lending yet even more credence to the image of the angry atheist, a group that calls themselves "Pa. Nonbelievers" won their fight against a small town in Pennsylvania. And now they're threatening to sue. Make sense?"
No, because you aren't summarizing it accurately.
You quote it yourself later, but apparently didn't read it:
"Silverman says although the nativity was removed, the group's right to put up a display was still denied."
If, every time an atheist wants to use a public forum, the forum is closed down, that means atheists can never use public forums. THAT'S why they're suing.
And, of course, if they win, both atheists and Christians get equal access.
"But really, why not have something commemorating all veterans instead of just "atheist veterans" anyway? "
Probably because of people like yourself, who continue to perpetuate the "no atheists in foxholes" lie.
Actually, I'd like to see what they come up with for a display. Maybe I'm not creative enough but all I can imagine is a bunch of guys standing around with signs that say, "we don't believe in God". Big deal.
From http://www.publicopiniononline.com/localnews/ci_13854798
"The sign, which he said has not yet been made, would have had a picture of a sun rising over the words "Celebrating Solstice. Honoring Atheist War Veterans." The sun would have had an italicized "A" in the middle."
To Brian Westley:
Not believing in an afterlife and then offering yourself up for the greater good is irrational nonsense.
What of your sacrifice? Nothing. Congratulations, you terminated your life in probably an unimaginably painful manner, after which you ceased to exist forever, and you did this to save a world that cannot be saved, to protect ideals which are meaningless, arbitrary products of the merciless drone of cosmic gears, and to keep "loved" ones (you only perceive them as this due to certain biochemical reactions that cause you to bond with other members of your species to increase the likelihood of the survival of your offspring) alive just a little while longer before they plunge into eternal night.
"But I can't live without them! I can't imagine losing them. All I want is their good, not mine!"
Ah, a noble sentiment! If only there were a God...as it stands, these are just ancient memes, that just happen to be because, well, they just happen to be and others do not. Other sentiments died out, and this particular collection has a knack at reasserting itself and rearing its ugly head at every twist and turn.
After you're dead, it won't matter to you; there will be no you for it to matter to. And the feelings of your family, how they will view you after you are gone? Pssssh, you can't be serious? Why does it matter whether you leave a good or a bad legacy? It won't bother you (what would it even mean for something to bother "you" after death?); it might bother you in this present moment, but fighting against imaginary pain is boxing at shadows.
Truth is, you could probably learn to do without your "loved" ones easily, if you faced the truth they are just sacks of chemicals, your attachment to which is governed by whether or not they give you a certain amount pleasure. There are always more pleasure sacks lying around, should your current ones give out.
"You think only of self-interest!"
Yes? And? Let me guess...I shouldn't because...it would be in my self-interest to fool others into thinking I believe in a greater good while at the same time, in various manners, undermining belief in that very same greater good for the attainment of my own lesser goods, usually of a sexual nature?
I can see the wisdom in that. Fool others into acting contrary to their own self-interest by acting contrary to yours in tiny ways, so that they'll be your slaves when big problems come along.
Bravo. Clever indeed.
In your world, we are all chained tigers, ravenous to devour one another, but too fearful to pounce lest we ourselves be devoured.
And no doubt, you will protest all this. But Nietzsche and his kind are the wise and strong among you, and in time you will be convinced of their sayings. If not you, then your children.
And I would heed their words in an instant, if there was no God, because I'm governed primarily by logic, not emotion.
I would be a terrible person, an absolute monster, an unrestrained madman without God, because that is the most reasonable, indeed imminently reasonable, course of action.
If there be no justice or truth, why be just and true?
Atheists celebrate Solstice? Why would atheists celebrate a pagan ritual? Maybe they ought to have a disembodied head of Nietzsche floating overhead with the words "Festivus For the Rest of us" under it instead.
Does it really end there, though? A "Celebrating Solstice" display is not religious, because atheism is not a "religion." So you'd only have the "Not religious" display shown.
It's not. Really, atheism isn't. Shut up, I know what you're thinking: Atheism is a worldview that attempts to explain the afterlife by denying it, taking on faith that all of those that believe in religion are slathering morons. It's not just scrooge the Buddist. Shut it. Where are you coming from? Crazy.
So you get a tacky guy praising nothingness in front of a kindergarten sun instead of a deeply inspiring religious message. Prooogress.
Geez. At least be a man enough atheist to worship America. If we were hanging Christmas ornaments from the Constitution every year, it'd be dumb, but at least it'd be patriotic. And make some kind of sense.
Silverman, eh? Hmmmmm.
Actually, I think a veteran is a veteran, regardless of their faith. If they excercised valor in battle, then let them be recognized. Maybe the city can charge them for their display and make money on them.
Hey, Brian, I am genuinely curious about something. I am from the area, and none of the news coverage seemed to suggest to me that the group was fighting for equal access until after the fact. You said that the Christians and Atheists would have equal coverage. Was that really more the point? As in, if the Nativity had been left up, but the atheistic display allowed as well, would that have made the group happy? Or is it that the Nativity is NOT ok because it is religious and yet the vets display IS ok because it is not religious? I am genuinely curious, because, as I said, none of the news coverage seemed to angle in that direction.
Well, I was going to quote the previous comment about public fora, but for some reason I can't paste into this comment box.
But re: that comment, it's not entirely clear that this is a public forum case. And even if it were a true public forum case, the government doesn't have an obligation to provide public fora, much less any one particular public forum. If this group files a lawsuit, it will be meritless---unfortunately not because the pointless claims of lunatics aren't judicially cognizable, but because failure to maintain a public forum simply isn't a constitutional violation.
As to Rachel's question, the legal objection to the creche would be that it was religious (in a nutshell). Whether or not the Athiests' display counts as "religious" or not is not really clear under current law.
Either way, the claim will have even less merit than it already does if the city can prove that the athiests didn't seek permission to erect their own display until after the creche had been removed.
Which goes to show that they should have stuck to their guns in the first place. This is about freedom of religion and culture. This is where Pope John Paul put his sword in the ground and said to the communists (Gandalf-like); "you shall not pass!" and he won. We are entitled to express our religion and culture. We must be willing to fight for it.
You know, I'm an atheist, but I'm going to pray now.
Oh god, please be a troll, please be a troll. Please let this journal be one big satirical caricature of Catholics and Wingnuts in general.
Because otherwise you're making the baby Jesus cry.
PS: the article you're quoting is wrong in claiming that Silverman said his group was suing, and a retraction has been made.
At least we don't pa-troll blogs of people we don't like, Julie.
Now have some wine and toast to the intranets.
Geoffrey Miller writes:
"Not believing in an afterlife and then offering yourself up for the greater good is irrational nonsense."
Oh good, another theist telling an atheist what "nonsense" is.
Soldiers don't "offer themselves up" as if they're being sacrificed. Gods demand that sort of idiocy.
Soldiers risk their lives for what they believe in; sometimes they get killed. That's the nature of risk.
Try your nonsense over at maaf.info, where you'll find plenty of atheists in the US military.
"I would be a terrible person, an absolute monster, an unrestrained madman without God, because that is the most reasonable, indeed imminently reasonable, course of action."
Yes, for closet sociopaths like yourself, it's better for everyone if you believe in an invisible punishing daddy to stop you from acting out your pathological impulses. But your "analysis" of what's reasonable without your imaginary friend is laughably pathetic.
One day, every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus is Lord.
As a friend said, it doesn't really matter if you believe it's true. If it's true, it's true. Hopefully and sincerely, not your loss.
Yes, for closet sociopaths like yourself, it's better for everyone if you believe in an invisible punishing daddy to stop you from acting out your pathological impulses. But your "analysis" of what's reasonable without your imaginary friend is laughably pathetic.
I may have missed something... but we already have a test case for what happens in the natural world, operating without any spiritual value at all: the rest of nautre. What Geoffrey describes is the primary rule of the wild. It's eat or be eaten; brutal survival or miserable death. They bear new generations only on instinct, to propagate their kind.
Now, if it were not a compulsion - if the brutes had the power of rational thought as we humans do - would they do it? It detracts from the survival of the adult to carry and feed and protect the young; the young themselves are unlikely to ever reach adulthood, and can only look forward to a tough and most-likely brief struggle for survival. The animals may well conclude (were they capable of it) that they shouldn't really bother.
Then we apply that test case to the post-Christian West, and see that our own birth rates are in shocking decline. Those that adhere most to your worldview are acting exactly like animals with rational thought, instead of creatures meant for eternity - they take the exact position outlined above. Since they cannot escape the instinctive push, however, they frustrate the act while performing it, or murder their own young before birth if all else fails.
We don't call the animals pathological because they literally can't help themselves. We can. Hence Geoffrey's point: we do have spirits, and to live intelligently, we require spiritual good as well as material good. To omit or deny the spirit results ultimately in madness. It is the slow sickening unto death of our humanity, and with that, the end of culture, art, community, valor, and kindness.
Now, sometimes the symptoms don't really show until the very end. This is why individual athiests are often cultured, lettered, brave, and decent, who raise families and make good neighbors. I can only reply that their philosophy hinders them. According to pure materialism they can have at best only utilitarian motives for these things; and if the circumstances change they are by those motives equally justified in punching complete strangers and making terrors of themselves to all around.
Scoff at the "Imaginary Friend" all you like, but there's something to be said about the "idiocy" of sacrifice - of being kind or brave even when it costs you something, or everything. When followed faithfully it proves itself to be a solid idea - in fact, you show you understand it well when you say that soldiers fight for what they believe in. No Christian is guaranteed a hero's death any more than a soldier in war. Both the believer and the soldier go to fight, not to die. Both are armed against their enemy for that fight. Both know very well that the odds are stacked against them because of their service, and the tougher the battle the worse the odds. The Bible has all that martial imagery for good reason.
You are thus wrong to conclude that God demands our death. He has no need for it. He already did all the dying that is necessary. All He asks is that we make as good a fight as we can while we're here, and in that He is not unlike any earthly general worth his stars.
In a sense, they better be careful what they ask for. If they win their suit to put up an "atheist" display, seems they would have to concede the Christmas (and any other display) should get to go up to.
nightfly writes:
"I may have missed something... but we already have a test case for what happens in the natural world, operating without any spiritual value at all: the rest of nautre. What Geoffrey describes is the primary rule of the wild. It's eat or be eaten"
Not among members of their own species. And if Geoffrey Miller was right, we shouldn't observe, say, cooperation in bonobos, but should instead observe constant rape and murder. But that isn't how bonobos act.
"You are thus wrong to conclude that God demands our death."
You are wrong to say I ever said such a thing.
"In a sense, they better be careful what they ask for. If they win their suit to put up an "atheist" display, seems they would have to concede the Christmas (and any other display) should get to go up to."
They DO. They've been saying that ALL ALONG. Why don't you know this?
As a member of the board of PA Nonbelievers, I must say that most of those commenting on our intentions are flat out making it up.
Mr. Silverman went before the Cburg board as a rep for our organization which approved applying to put up a sign *consistent with their approved procedure*. He explained it was not to have the creche removed, just add another celebrating veterans. The suit was made possible because a post-facto change of policy is not legally permitted. No doubt the solicitor knew that, but didn't expect us to pursue further action. So he advised the board only partially.
Funny, isn't it, we supposedly are made in the image and likeness of a supernatural being, who gave us intelligence and reason. But we're supposed to abandon those and accept the hypothetical musings of people from millennia past.
Brian -
It's eat or be eaten, but not among members of the same species? Lions will destroy all the cubs of the previous head of the pride when they take over, in order to bring the females into heat quickly and perpetuate his own genes. Animals of the same kind will savagely compete over available territory or mating possibilities, and have been observed to cannibalize their mates or young. Even critters as small as hamsters will fight to the death rather than coexist in the same cage. And there are many examples in the animal kingdom of receptivity to the opposite sex, and mating, that last barely as long as the actual deed before one partner will drive off the other. Forcible copulation is not unknown either. In fact, "humping" as an expression of dominance is so common among animals that females as well as males will engage in it.
Even in the species that avoid being quite so red in tooth and claw, we see scant evidence of any spiritual influences. To borrow a little Chesterton, no primitive or modern lion has ever sketched out a picture of a gazelle, admiring its prey for its grace and speed. I'm happy for the bonobos in their cooperation, but there's nothing to suggest that they ever philosophize with each other about it, or decry the decline in civility among their younger generation, pining for the good old days of bonobo malt shops and sock hops.
"You are thus wrong to conclude that God demands our death."
You are wrong to say I ever said such a thing.
Oh, no. You said quite specifically: "Soldiers don't "offer themselves up" as if they're being sacrificed. Gods demand that sort of idiocy." Then you contrasted it by saying that soldiers only risk their lives, that they are only sometimes killed. It's no stretch to conclude from this that you think that God requires us to die as sacrfice. You don't get to sidestep what your words mean because you didn't type the exact phrase verbatim.
It's eat or be eaten, but not among members of the same species?
Species generally don't practice cannibalism under normal circumstances. Of course, in desperate circumstances, even humans will do so, and religions (such as Judaism) even say it's OK.
Again, if Geoffrey Miller was right, we would never see cooperatino anywhere. Any example shows he's wrong, so you can't dismiss bonobos.
"You are thus wrong to conclude that God demands our death."
You are wrong to say I ever said such a thing.
Oh, no. You said quite specifically: "Soldiers don't "offer themselves up" as if they're being sacrificed. Gods demand that sort of idiocy."
And notice that the two statements are not the same.
"God demands our death" is a general, universal statement stating that god demands everyone's death.
I was referring to things like the Christian myothos where god demands Isaac to be sacrificed. Notice god didn't demand everyone's death, just one specific one.
Of course, all this still goes back to Geoffrey Miller's statements, which bizarrely implied that soldiers "offer themselves up", and I was just pointing out that soldiers are risking their lives, not offering themselves up.
Now, since Carl is a member of PA Nonbelievers, I'm sure he'll have a lot of information, but it doesn't look like many commenters in this thread are interesting in accurate information about the situation.
Post a Comment