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…
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.
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.
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.
December 1, 2009 at 8:39 pm
They are actually misidentified antitheists. They actually do believe in God, they just hate Him.
December 1, 2009 at 9:07 pm
LOL
I know that guy.
Seriously.
December 1, 2009 at 9:15 pm
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!
December 1, 2009 at 11:39 pm
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?
December 1, 2009 at 11:58 pm
Why a display for atheist veterans in December? Is there a connection I'm missing? Didn't we just have Veterans' Day last month?
December 2, 2009 at 12:35 am
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?
December 2, 2009 at 12:38 am
"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.
December 2, 2009 at 1:10 am
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.
December 2, 2009 at 1:57 am
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."
December 2, 2009 at 2:36 am
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?
December 2, 2009 at 2:45 am
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.
December 2, 2009 at 3:06 am
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.
December 2, 2009 at 6:48 am
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.
December 2, 2009 at 1:07 pm
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.
December 2, 2009 at 2:54 pm
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.
December 2, 2009 at 4:50 pm
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.
December 2, 2009 at 5:19 pm
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.
December 2, 2009 at 6:44 pm
At least we don't pa-troll blogs of people we don't like, Julie.
Now have some wine and toast to the intranets.
December 3, 2009 at 1:20 am
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.
December 3, 2009 at 1:59 am
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.