It’s the season of giving, but in Olympia it seems like the only thing being given is grief.
Earlier this month, a ruckus was being unleashed on the Washington State Capital and Governor Christine Gregoire for the displaying of an atheist sign alongside a nativity scene, a menorah, and other religious symbols significant in the holiday season.
Among the concerns from the religious right were the questionable material of the sign, which states, “religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds,” and its secular nature being placed right next to some of the holiest images. The sign originally riled up the right, including Bill O’Reilly who encouraged the viewers of his television show, The O’Reilly Factor, to call the Governor’s office at astounding rates to express dismay over the display. Ultimately, angered activists stole the sign and turned it into a local country radio show host.
The following is a disclaimer; I am an atheist. It isn’t that I hold dissent toward the religious, nor do I see their followings as fallacious, I just have not found belief of any kind. As a practical-American, I fully respect and encourage all peoples to practice whatever non-hateful belief they desire. And that is why, surprisingly, I take serious issue with those who protested the Atheist sign in the Capitol Building.
Sure, to the evangelical community the sign might have been distasteful. Even to the neutral-to-atheist community, which I include myself in, the display is disappointingly standoffish. Yet, there is no reason to not accept it in the Capitol Building, which many have expressed.
Bill O’Reilly referred to the sign as an, “attack on religion,” but in reality, would it have been any different if the Scientologists had put up a showing of their beliefs? In fact, it is a mere showing of the thought processes of a community numbering in the millions around the world. The sign had to be originally approved by the state, which it was, and thus it was able to be displayed among the other, more-traditional signs.
The question of church and state has been asked numerous times in past years. Most notably around the United States this decade was the debate on the constitutionality of showing the Ten Commandments on government property and particularly, in front of courthouses. A June 2005 Supreme Court ruling handed down that the Commandments could not be shown in a religious context but a historical one, in an effort to not favor one religion over another in a government-funded institution.
In essence, the rulings proclaimed the unconstitutionality of a government establishment showing one religion over another. This doesn’t seem to be a problem in Olympia, as any religion (or lack thereof) is allowed to get a position. Yet, the radical evangelical community cried bloody murder at the posting of the atheist sign.
Sure the sign defaces religion that is mere feet away from it. Sure it is distasteful, even to a member of that community. But as Americans, isn’t it our responsibility to protect it? Isn’t it simply insane that the those who consider themselves to be the ultimate Americans, yes, I’m talking to you Bill O’, are the same ones that are calling for Gregoire’s head for showing a sign that is frankly its own form of religion.
When colleges ask an applicant to mark their religion on the application, they don’t have “atheist” or “agnostic” in a completely different field. It is included right in the pack. It is no different than Hinduism, Christianity, or Scientology. People’s beliefs are people’s beliefs, and the fact that they don’t line up with a American, supposed-correct faith is no reason to cry bloody murder.
When it comes right down to it, the essential American idea is the retention of human rights. Our ability to practice whatever religion we choose is the first example given in the First Amendment. Yet unbelievably, there is still an uproar among the religious community nationwide at the showing of an anti-religious sign.
Give up on the noble fight. Let us practice whatever we please. Let the atheist sign stand proud alongside whatever you believe, as in all reality they are no different. Accept a difference in beliefs, don’t resort to a neo-Spanish conquest of other beliefs.
Am I missing something?
Comments
I think it was distasteful. One would think that a minority group would put up a sign that could possibly persuade people to realize “hey they aren’t so bad” instead of just preaching to the choir. (Okay, that analogy was wildly inappropriate for describing secularists but I thought it was funny.) As it stands, they probably got more people to hate atheists, and they should question whether it was worth the controversy.
At the same time, the state should be ideologically blind—with the exception of hate speech—so the sign had a right to be there. Let’s abuse a well-beloved quote from the Enlightenment period from which our nation was borne:
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” -Voltaire
The reaction of the opposing side of this issue was ten times more distasteful than a sign could ever be. Yes I agree the sign was distasteful, offensive to many, unnecessary, and a little over the line (although i agree with the fundamentals of what the sign said), however the United States Constitution states that in this country there is freedom of religion and speech. The sign should be granted the same place in the Capitol Building that a sign promoting religion is granted.
I’m dissapointed when I see a sign like that go up. I understand the frustration that many atheists have, that many minorities have. But the way you present a case has so much to do with how people view it’s validity. Because the sign is offensive, distasteful, and lacks tact, it’s not getting it’s message accross, which is a shame. It’s a shame that that sign is seen as a representation of atheism. It’s a shame that they didn’t find a better way to express their views that maybe other people would have listened to. They had a really good opportunity and I think it was wasted. At the same time, it doesn’t in any way shape or form justify the reaction. I agree with the “Anonymous” comment above, that the reaction was more distasteful than the sign itself. It’s a shame that people are resorting to this. And I mean both the sign and the theft of the sign. After how many years of organized society, we still result to petty insults and theft?
Hello all,
Long time reader, first time poster.
As a single atheist mother (who gave birth to two beautiful children out of wedlock from a married man) that is trying to raise her children with the good old fashion morals of secularism, I was both offended and outraged when those good for nothing religious beatniks began desecrating our most sacred icon at our state’s capital. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Dow for having the courage to stand up against those rotund ruffians and protect the values of our forefathers. I will be sure to continue to read this publication and recommend it to all the gals down at the crack house.
Thank You
Atheists have a sign??
And the someone above me sure has a very sardonic sense of humor, haha
My good friends, let’s all face it, this is not a question about religious freedom. This is, always was, and always will be, a question about progress. As the human race advances and a certain minority group grows bigger and more proactive, change occures. The reason this change takes so long to mold itself into society is because the ruling majority will always resisit it. They do not want to hear they are wrong. Do not want to relinquish the power they hold. I was watching “Bobby” last night (terrible movie, I know). However, one line was surprisingly insightful. Laurence Fishburne said “you must let the whites (the resisiting majority) feel like they are the great emancipators, like it was their right to give in the first place.” That is why I disagree with the atheist sign.
Who would have thought dear Laurence was so perceptive.