Atheist facism in action.

[_MrStakhanovite]

I think it's intended to be as silly as you think it is rather than saying that Emma Goldman was an intellectual giant on par with Einstein or Darwin.

That is not feel I got from the press release:

Our wisepeople depict the atheists and scientific giants Darwin and Einstein who have enlarged human understanding of the natural world far more than the Bible or any “holy books.” They were both nonbelievers as was progressive reformer Emma Goldman, representing wise women everywhere. Irreverent Mark Twain is thrown in for good measure.

Their purpose was this:

FFRF would vastly prefer that government buildings and seats of government be free from religion — and irreligion. It is divisive. The rotunda is getting very cluttered. But if a devotional nativity display is allowed, then there must be “room at the inn” for all points of view, including irreverency and freethought.

If their goal is to get religious displays taken down from government buildings, then the strategy of “We are going to act like you until you act like us” is beyond stupid. We are in a climate where atheists have a real image problem, and this group can’t seem to get past s*** attempts at iconoclasms that aren’t clever.

[_EAllusion]

..

I hadn't read the press release before, but that sounds about right. It's intended to be irreverent, not a serious statement about atheist wisemen. This is intended to take some of the puffery out of nativity displays. Reading about it makes it sound asinine to me. But on the ground it evokes a chuckle.

Regarding your point about this being bad for atheist public relations, I have two points.

First, my sense is this is wrong. Atheists are slightly more well regarded than child molesters by the public at large. The atheists best PR strategy at this point is probably akin to early gay rights activism where simply being in your face was helpful. There's a great onion piece about a gay-pride parade setting gay rights back 20 years. But early on that sort of thing was helpful simply because it emboldened members of the minority to come out of the woodwork into the public sphere with confidence. When your group's name is dirt, "F you, we exist and you can't stop us!" isn't a bad PR strategy. That's what has to happen with atheism - people need to "come out" because it is harder to distrust the known than it is the dark other. The worst possible thing for atheist PR is for atheists to cloister themselves and stay silent. If you regard this as the atheist equivalent of a gay pride parade, then it probably isn't a bad thing.

Second, nativity displays have unfortunately become an issue where Christian groups hope to express their dominance through government endorsement. I think it is perfectly valid to want to counteract this by taking the seriousness out of it.

Finally, I would caution against the danger of viewing every atheist or atheist's groups actions in terms of how it reflects on the status of atheists as a whole. One of the surest signs of bigotry towards a minority is that the actions of individual members of that group are taken to be reflective of the whole, but members of the majority never have to worry about that. If I'm inarticulate, no one is going to generalize my behavior to white people. I do not carry my entire racial group's burden.

I think you would reply that FFRF is an atheist PR organization, so that should be their main concern. But they aren't an atheist PR organization. They're focused on combating government endorsements of religion.

[_why me]

Second, nativity displays have unfortunately become an issue where Christian groups hope to express their dominance through government endorsement. I think it is perfectly valid to want to counteract this by taking the seriousness out of it.

The nativity scene has been there for 60 years. That is quite a long time. Some atheist wanted publicity and decided to kill the christmas tradition of the towns folks who have fond memories of the nativity scene. And he managed to make atheists look like totalitarian idiots.

Here is what they could have done. Ask for equal time when christmas is over by placing their own sign in that same location. But no, they wanted to kill a holiday tradition.

[_EAllusion]

The nativity scene has been there for 60 years. That is quite a long time. Some atheist wanted publicity and decided to kill the christmas tradition of the towns folks who have fond memories of the nativity scene. And he managed to make atheists look like totalitarian idiots.

It's like you are completely oblivious to the fact that anyone can put up nativity scenes on their property all they want and no one can stop them. What we are talking about is nativity scenes on government property. It's unclear to me why you think displaying your religion through the government is such an important tradition, but either you think all groups have equal access to express their point of view through the government or you don't.

It is a simple fact that groups have attempted to create exclusive access for nativity scenes on government property. This has led to legal battles and, per the establishment clause, forced governments to create limited public forums where all groups have equal access or not have them at all. I'm still not certain if you do not favor equal access or you favor it as a formality that no one but Christians should feel ok with taking advantage of. But if no one feels free to take advantage of that access, then it still appears to be an issue of Christian hegemony because the whole thing is informed by the battle over access and government endorsement.

Here is what they could have done. Ask for equal time when christmas is over by placing their own sign in that same location. But no, they wanted to kill a holiday tradition.

Because Christians own the month of December? Why aren't you as disgusted with Jews putting up holiday displays during the Christmas season?

[_Dr. Shades]

EAllusion is correct.

Why do religious people need to display their iconography on government property so badly? Why can't they just display their stuff on private property and let government property remain neutral?

[_ludwigm]

The other side of the card:

Christmas 'is not just for Christians'
Group aims to promote Christmas respect among all faiths, calling for end to scare stories about banning traditions
Haroon Siddique , guardian.co.uk, Saturday 24 December 2011
Photograph: Alamy 'Most Hindus and Muslims that I know actually celebrate Christmas,' says Vidhya Ramalingam.

Stories about Christmas being banned because of potential offence to any one ethnic group have become almost as much a part of the festive season as brussels sprouts – but a multi-faith group has decided it is time to put a stop to the tradition.

Concerned about the divisive effect of such stories, the Phoenix inter-community initiative, a group of bloggers, activists and community representatives, have come together to try to demonstrate support and respect for Christmas among different faiths.

Julie Siddiqui, vice-president of the Islamic Society of Britain (ISB), said: "Almost every year for the last few years we see some sort of story in the local or national papers that local authorities have changed the name of Christmas, are not having lights, or have banned it.

"I think it's damaging in terms of community relations. No one is asking for Christmas to be banned, Muslims certainly haven't. The inference is often that it's coming from Muslims."

One of the most notorious examples of scare stories was the widely reported claim that Birmingham city council had banned Christmas, replacing it with Winterval to avoid offending non-Christians, even though it was untrue.

Through it's online Happy Christmas 4ALL campaign, Phoenix hopes to counter such myths, highlighting participation by non-Christians in traditional activities. For example, one of the posts on its Facebook page shows pictures of Muslim students taking part in a nativity play, while others highlight common religious beliefs shared by different faiths.

Phoenix is also encouraging non-Christians to enter into the spirit of goodwill by getting involved in volunteering, particularly on and around Christmas day. While Siddiqui says some Muslims do celebrate Christmas with a tree and a special meal, for others it is a good time for them to put something back into the community. "We should, all of us [volunteer], especially those of us that aren't doing much on Christmas, rather than just those [Christians] who are having to sacrifice their own Christmas."

She is volunteering at her local church in Maidenhead on Christmas Day and said ISB members are helping out at Christian charities or non-faith groups like the homelessness charity Crisis at Christmas. It is simply continuing the tradition over the years of non-Christian professionals in essential professions such as medicine volunteering to work over Christmas to relieve their colleagues, according to Siddiqui.

As well as the ISB, there are representatives from a number of groups involved in Phoenix, including the Jewish group JDC Europe and the Three Faiths Forum. Another member, Vidhya Ramalingam, from the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, said: "The idea is to promote volunteering at Christmas and volunteering to take over the work of some Christian charities.

"It's been done a lot in the US where Jewish, Muslim and Hindu groups will take over Christian charities' work on Christmas day. It's also a time when people feel alone so we also encourage checking up on neighbours and making sure no one feels vulnerable."

Ramalingam, a Hindu, added: "I don't know anyone who actually wants to ban Christmas and most Hindus and Muslims that I know actually celebrate Christmas."

[_why me]

EAllusion is correct.

Why do religious people need to display their iconography on government property so badly? Why can't they just display their stuff on private property and let government property remain neutral?

First, thank you for getting my avatar back. I really appreciate it. :=)

Second, the nativity scene has been there for 60 years. That is a very long time. I think that it would be best to let a tradition live on and not ruin it for other people. When I was boy many town halls had nativity scenes. Not many thought that it was against church and state. But today, every tom, dick and jane want their moment of fame. And they have succeeded making a joke out of separation of church and state.

Also, in the past, The USA was basically a judeo-christian society and so a nativity scene was no big deal when it came to separation of church and state. But now there are many more religious sects and disbelievers in the usa and that has made all the difference, especially in a postmodernist society where every special interest group wants their day in court for recognition.

[_beastie]

First, thank you for getting my avatar back. I really appreciate it. :=)

Second, the nativity scene has been there for 60 years. That is a very long time. I think that it would be best to let a tradition live on and not ruin it for other people. When I was boy many town halls had nativity scenes. Not many thought that it was against church and state. But today, every tom, dick and jane want their moment of fame. And they have succeeded making a joke out of separation of church and state.

Also, in the past, The USA was basically a judeo-christian society and so a nativity scene was no big deal when it came to separation of church and state. But now there are many more religious sects and disbelievers in the usa and that has made all the difference, especially in a postmodernist society where every special interest group wants their day in court for recognition.

So separation of church and state is simply a formality, not meant to be taken seriously? The founding fathers apparently knew Christianity would always be the dominant religion so it wouldn't really matter? As long as the majority gets their way?

[_why me]

So separation of church and state is simply a formality, not meant to be taken seriously? The founding fathers apparently knew Christianity would always be the dominant religion so it wouldn't really matter? As long as the majority gets their way?

For sixty years the nativity scene was there enjoyed by all except by a few party poopers. When I was a boy my town hall had a nativity scene. No problem until the disgrunted postmodernists took offense. The founding fathers wouldn't give a rats piss if a town hall had a nativity scene. The separation of church and state had more to do with something else than a local celebration of Christ's birth. In fact, I am sure that one could find christmas scenes on many post revolutionary town halls.

And is the christmas tree on govenment property when it is lit by the white house. Maybe we should do away with that too. Or people can get a life and just relax.

[_just me]

Sooo, is why me saying that these people who disagree with something should, ah, just keep their mouths shut?

Is that what he is saying?

Excuse me, I think I broke something laughing so hard.