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 3, 2009 at 4:55 pm
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.
December 3, 2009 at 5:32 pm
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.
December 4, 2009 at 12:46 am
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?
December 4, 2009 at 1:02 am
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.
December 4, 2009 at 6:59 pm
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.
December 4, 2009 at 10:27 pm
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.