December 19, 2007

Atheists' pyramid joins Nativity scene at Monument Square



There are, as any cursory drive around town will prove, scores of beautiful churches in Racine. The phone book lists more than 150.

The seasonal symbol of their belief sitting in Monument Square for a week now -- the Nativity scene recalling the birth of Christ more than 2,000 years ago -- has been joined by an 8-ft. tall, white-painted plywood pyramid, the work of fewer than a dozen Racine atheists.

"This country was founded on the principle of separation of church and state," said Al Sorenson, 70, who built the pyramid. "The Nativity Scene is a violation that doesn't belong on public property; it's an ancient superstition, based on a myth."

The pyramid's four sides each have a quote opposing the practice of religion. One side says, "There was a time when religion ruled the world. It is known as the dark ages."

Another side says: "The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." That quote, from Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, 1796, which was signed by President John Adams and ratified unanimously by the U.S. Senate, "has been a point of contention regarding the proper interpretation of the doctrine of separation of church and state, says an article on Wikipedia.

David Nelson, 81, another of the half-dozen atheists who helped set the pyramid up on the square Wednesday night -- about six feet from the Nativity Scene -- insisted, "we're trying to educate the American public. The Founding Fathers left too many loopholes in the doctrine of separation of church and state."
Al Sorenson being interviewed by WTMJ

Sorenson, pointing to the Nativity scene last night, said, "If that wasn't here, then this pyramid wouldn't be here either.

"We're fighting against people who try to force their religion on others. The Nativity scene should be on church grounds. Why don't they put it on their own property?"

A lifelong Racine native, Sorenson is aware of the controversy his pyramid will engender. In fact, he was already dealing with it before even bringing it to Monument Square: the company that did the lettering, for $235, wouldn't put its name on the pyramid, for fear of losing business. And the liability insurance the city requires cost him $703.

As for the significance of the pyramid itself: Don't bother trying to figure it out; there isn't any. Sorenson noted that there's a pyramid on the U.S. dollar bill, but said a search of the internet found little information about it. He chose the shape simply because it's very stable (it has cement blocks inside to keep it in one place) and winds won't knock it down.

138 comments:

  1. Well it was bound to happen, when the city opened the doors to one religion, it had to open it up to all religions. Look at it this way, what if the people in power in Racine were for example, Muslim? Would everyone be ok with the city promoting only Muslim holidays? It's always a dangerous situation to allow the government to get involved in religion.
    Any of us could put a nativity scene in our front yard if we want, the churches could do it too, why force this issue on the local government? Out of fairness they HAVE to allow all religions to put up a display, so now we have to deal with an Athiest display. Good job. It should have been left alone.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This article itself is extremely biased, indicating that the nativity represents over 150 area churches but that the pyramid was built by only a handful of people. It would be more accurate to compare the number of people who actually worked to build the nativity (only a handful, I imagine); alternatively, you could try to get an unbiased estimate of the total number of Racine area atheists.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This year there seems to be a lot more attacks on Christmas and the religious importance of it in our society. What has taken so long?!?

    I for one am sick and tired of Christmas being forced upon me every year, and starting earlier and earlier. September barely ends and there's Christmas merchandise and decorations in the stores already! Not everyone in this Country celebrates Christmas!

    ReplyDelete
  4. @ grew up in milwaukee

    I did not get the impression that the nativity display represents 150 churches. My impression was there were at least 150 other spots the nativity display could have been put without controversy.

    I don't think the article is biased, and it's definately not 'extremely biased'. I can't tell if the author is for or against the display for sure, but I'd guess against.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The only problem with putting the pyramid next to the nativity is that you come off as a douchebag. The atheists are probably right, that Christianity is a make-believe myth that can cause people feel all good and faithy inside, and that religion should be separate from government. But, keep in mind that it's that same government (and maybe a forgiving religion) that is keeping you from being lynched.

    Good with the bad, you know?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Whether you believe this or not, Atheism IS a religion, and I am sick of atheists telling me I am a fool for knowing about God. Have a merry Christmas anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  7. And those 150 area churches get to force their beliefs on everyone else? Should atheists not be allowed to express themselves?

    Is Christianity a democracy? What if Christians were a minority in Racine? Would they not be allowed to profess their beliefs in public? Take the Christians in the Arab world, for instance. They're an extreme minority, even in the birthplace of Jesus. Because they're a minority, should they not be allowed to profess their belief in public?

    ReplyDelete
  8. This "secular war on Christmas" story is funny because previously it was a "Christian war on Christmas", because there was nothing in the Bible about it. Churches have struggled with this since it incorporates pagan traditions, that's what conquerors did a long time ago, they absorbed the local religion into theirs to keep people happy and convert them through the back door.

    Here's a good article on Christianity's previous problems with Christmas.
    http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/virginia/dp-religiontoday1214dec14,0,2910292.story

    Connecting it to Christianity in the 20th century was a big win for retailers.

    To bestbard: how do you propose we keep Atheism from violating the separation of church and state?

    ReplyDelete
  9. One of the better articles I've read today. IMO well balanced. Bonus for mentioning the Treaty of Tripoli.

    Big thanks to the guys who built the pyramid for speaking up.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "believe this or not, Atheism IS a religion"

    Keep telling yourself that.
    Radical fundamentalist are finally having a light shine on them. Sure most people think of Muslim extremists but we have our own brand. Americans are waking up to the dangers of religious division and those that perpetrate it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I see nothing wrong with this, except that not all religions are represented. (Atheism being the lack of religion. What theists are perceiving correctly as a religion is actually secular humanism, common to many atheists.) Either promote all religions as well as the lack of religion, or promote none, remaining neutral. Those are the only options for our government as laid out in the constitution.

    ReplyDelete
  12. What I think is most interesting about this pyramid is that the Treaty of Tripoli was the result of Islamic piracy, and how the newly formed United States lacked the naval power to protect merchant shipping in the Med. We signed the treaty with our hat in our hands-and was for all intents and purposes were paying a jizya tax-so we ate it an liked it; until the Muslims broke the treaty by demanding even more tribute.

    Jefferson told them to f**k-off, and that started a low level war that ended in 1815 when the US Navy and Marines kicked their a$$es back to Mecca.

    We beat the Barbary States so bad in fact, that the degenerate, effeminate, post-Napoleonic French were able to colonize much of North Africa after we left.

    -Tommy

    ReplyDelete
  13. Venjanz, that might be interesting, but it has nothing to do with the article

    ReplyDelete
  14. As an atheist I'm happy to see our atheist symbols show up in Christian holidays. You know, Christmas trees, Easter eggs, Easter bunnies, etc.
    I don't see a need to add pyramids to the mix.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The Kenoshan said "As an atheist I'm happy to see our atheist symbols show up in Christian holidays. You know, Christmas trees, Easter eggs, Easter bunnies, etc."

    Pagan is not the same as Atheist.

    As for Christmas = Christian holiday. Look, if you're not down with the whole "Away in a Manger" scene, enjoy the fat guy giving away presents. Enjoy an excuse to get together with family and friends and being good to each other.

    And Greg Barton said "Take the Christians in the Arab world, for instance. They're an extreme minority, even in the birthplace of Jesus. Because they're a minority, should they not be allowed to profess their belief in public?" Here's the difference, over there, you can be killed for stating your beliefs if they are against the majority. The atheists who put up their pyramid absolutely have the right to their opinions, and at least here they're protected in that right to do so.

    Ignore all the "well, he put up his display so I get to put up mine" arguments and be a bigger person. Remember, it's freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. You have the right to speak your mind, not the right to never be offended by someone else's beliefs. So take down your Michael Newdow shrines and get over it. And Christians need to practice a little more "love thine enemy" and stop vilifying anyone who doesn't think as you do.

    ReplyDelete
  16. pagnostaoist said...

    Pagan is not the same as Atheist.

    So chocolate bunnies are a symbol of Wotan? Nah, there is no belief in the supernatural attached to eating easter eggs, or putting up trees at Christmas. Druids were a 19th century invention, stories of "the old religion" are less reliable than the bible.

    It's an atheist conspiracy to promote and infect Christian holidays with this nonsense. Of course we didn't bargain on the religious being so gullible as to incorporate the rubbish and take it as their own.

    What a bunch of mugs

    ReplyDelete
  17. Away with ALL the Idols and Hocus Pocus.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I have nothing against atheists wanting to put up a symbol of their beliefs next to the Nativity, but I wish they would do so out of a spirit of friendship and mutual understanding rather than intolerance. I'm sorry, I don't mean to be a pain about it, but the majority of Americans are Christian. For a local community to put up a religious icon that speaks to the majority of the members of a community during one of their most important celebrations doesn’t seem out of bounds. No one forces atheists to participate in Christmas. No one sends out greeting cards reading "Merry Christmas, Now Carol or Die". If the Atheists had put up this pyramid in the spirit of diversity, I would have applauded them. Unfortunately, they erected this edifice as a poke in the eye to Christians, treating others with the same intolerance they claim to be subject to.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Bunch of Whiners... Good grief...What is wrong with this country anymore? Whatever happened to tolerance and common sense? There are so many other bigger and MORE inportant issues in our country that need our attention. How about we make our representative actually accountable... how about we address REAL issues like poverty, crime, corruption in our gov, social security, etc... Grow up people.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Al - You ROCK! Many thanks from the non-superstitious crowd. Keep up the good work.

    ReplyDelete
  21. If atheism (i.e. the lack of theism) is a religion, then the lack of an apple is also an apple.

    What I hope people take away from this is that religious celebrations are best left in the home and church/synagogue/mosque. If the government ends up having to pay lip service to every single religion in the name of fairness, then sooner or later you've got the Fred Phelps types demanding we put up monuments to God hating our dead troops.

    By all means take part in your religious celebrations. But avoid bringing the government into it. Such actions can only end badly.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "but I wish they would do so out of a spirit of friendship and mutual understanding rather than intolerance. "


    ...what? So you claim that religion, or rather, the religious, are tolerant people? So the Spanish Inquisition,...they were just tolerating then eh? The Crusades too? Tolerating...? Salem witch trials? Tolerating?

    The pyramid was NOT placed to tick people off. It was placed to make a point...one you have just exemplified with flying colors: You want to shove your religion in the faces of those who do not believe? Then we will do what we wish in that regard, and let our own views be known...because no one listens in any other way.

    It's funny how a stupid little pyramid can drive a bunch of idiot whackos into some bizarre insano-realm.

    ReplyDelete
  23. The article was obviously slanted. That's not good when trying to be the other source of news and information in Racine.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I don't believe in pyramids, why should I be forced to look at one?

    ReplyDelete
  25. The article is right down the middle. It's the pyramid that's slanted.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby...

    ReplyDelete
  27. What part of either the pyramid or the nativity scene is forcing any ones beliefs on anyone else? If Muslims want to put up a religious display during their holidays and Jews during theirs, so what it is just a celebration of different beliefs. Everyone have a merry Christmas and whatever other holiday is important to you.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Tommy, Have you lost your fecking feeble mind?

    oh, and nice comment about not-collecting-stamps hobby.

    ReplyDelete
  29. It looks like they left out part of the Treaty of Tripoli quote. Here's the full deal:

    As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

    The purpose of the statement wasn't to proclaim America as an atheist nation, but let the Muslims of Tripoli know that the American government would not create problems because of our differences in religion.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Monument Square is a public square and it reflects all of the people of Racine. One has to be determined to express an alternate point of view (thank you, Al Sorenson) because of the ever present service fees. These fees should be waived for Monument Square when the issue is freedom of speech and of thought because the square is a public square. Freedom of Expression should be free. Charge fees for commerce. Monument Square is not the pulpit for one church or one corporation or for one point of view. It belongs to the public.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I'm sorry but those pyramid people are just angry hateful jerks.

    They choose to be offended, so be it.

    It is a public square and yes they have every right to be there.

    No one is pushing anything on them.

    What they are showing is a complete lack of respect for persons having differing views than they do so they feel some need to respond. It is a big square, they could put their display elsewhere.

    Why not let the season pass and then put up their display? It is a public square and they would be well within their right to do so.

    You see that would take an ounce of class. These militant type athiests have no respect for the beliefs of others.

    This country was founded on freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

    They are showing a complete and total lack of respect for their fellow citizens who happen to believe something different.

    We have a right to do lots of things. That does not mean that they need to be done in a polite and respectful society.

    ReplyDelete
  32. In the interest of full disclosure, I'll start by saying I'm an atheist. However, I have no problem with groups putting up religious displays on public land. As long as non-religious groups can put up displays as well. As long as both groups have to pay the same amount (either nothing or some liability insurance like in this case). As long as the government doesn't spend a single penny on either display. If someone puts up a lighted display, they should have to pay for the electricity. Public land means the public should be able to use it. As long as it's done fairly, I don't really think that a group of citizens putting up a privately funded display represents an endorsement by the government.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Bestbard, congratulations! you won the most ridiculous comment of the year award! "Atheism IS a religion".
    Just cause you capitalize all the letters in a verb doesn't make the statement true. Atheism is "without religion or without concept of god".
    As a hardcore Atheist I must tell you
    my most guarded secret. There is no real debate between those of faith and "rational" Atheists. There is no cognitive basis for discussion.
    Those of faith admit they have absolutely no proof, hence the word "faith", and Atheists don't have to prove anything because there is no evidence of anything to consider. Simply with the Hubble space telescope we can see how galaxies, stars, and planets are formed. The mystery is over. No giant hands flying around space making things, no talking snakes or any other insult to intelligence or assaults on logic and reason.

    ReplyDelete
  34. All displays on government property should have something to do with government. Neither party should have any display, because neither has anything to do with government. Secular government should be uninvolved and uninterested to either position.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Seriously, I wish everyone would just chill out. So much conflict in this country is based on the notion you have to be on one side or the other. Some issues warrant that, but most just generate ill will over something trivial. OMG did he say the Nativity is TRIVIAL?! Yeah. to me it is, so I don't care. Put it up, take it down, whatever. If its truly not trivial to you, then fine, fight for what you believe in. Just don't get all huffy puffy because you think you have to, or because someone who you disagree with is having a shit fit about it. RELAX and, you'lll live longer.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Wasn't Jesus born in March or April, anyway?

    I love seeing Christians try to talk their way out of this one. Generally, it's the, "I don't care when we celebrate his birthday." Jesus was human, I'm human, and I think it'd be really strange if people celebrated my birthday on, say, October 31st.

    Andy, fyi, I'm not an Atheist.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Perhaps it would be more accurate to label the "pyramid builders" as practitioners of "anti-religion" (or perhaps in many cases "ant-christians"). Since the basic questions supposedly answered by religions are ultimately unknowable and only reachable through faith, it would seem that anyone professing to know the answers (or what are not the answers) has reached those same conclusions on faith, and therefore, they too, practice and preach a kind of religion when they attempt to advance their common cause in the public sphere.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I'd like to start by saying its a good article, regardless of your personal views on religion or lack there-of. although i personally disagree with athiesm, i do agree that in a public area they can put up their icon as long as they do it through the proper channels, like if you need a permit you get one, etc etc. i personally think its rediculous people make a big fuss over christmas, its a time to give and get presents, and to see people you havent seen in a while. the whole baby in a manger scnene, its a tradition that a lot of people adhere too, and no one else has the right to tell them they cant so it wherever they want. just as they have the right to proclaim their thoughts, every one else has the right to not listen. and if some atheists or satanists want to make a tradition during every holidy great, more power to them. i dont have to go, and i dont feel the need to cry that they are forcing their lack of religion in my face, any more than i feel the need to say that christians are forcing religion on me. i have and take my right to not listen, or care what they do. i personally am a christian, but i have athiest friends, satanist friends, wiccan friends, jews, a few muslims, and we can all celibrate each others hollidays no problem, or lack of holidays, and we can all agree to disagree. the problem with people is that the refuse to work together, athiests insist that they are wronged by christians and that christians are wrong, fat headed religous types call every one a sinner and insist they are right, but in the end...if you try to say your philosophy is right and some one elses is wrong, then you are in the wrong at least in this country.

    however, as to this article, i see no problem with them puttin their pyramid there. id probably go read it and take a picture of it. at least they were considerate and painted it white, kinda christmasy and not offensive to the eyes in relation to the surroundings. its in a public place, and as long as they got permission and went through the right channels to put it there, then more power to them and i hope people stop crying about it. its public...so dont look if ya dont like.

    also very good reading material from all the comments. i've enjoyed this article a lot.

    ReplyDelete
  39. To Breakdown --

    What you want to claim as an atheist is actually agnosticism. When you make claims like we looked through a telescope and didn't see God in the universe you are expressing a position of faith. The fact that you didn't see God does not mean it isn't there. The real point is we don't know and therefore cannot say. That is why there is nothing really to discuss between agnostics and deists etc... As soon as you claim that any religion is untrue then you are making assertions of faith, not fact. Belief, in and of itself, is an act of faith be it in science or Jesus. Agnosticism is the only position outside of belief.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I personally think that they both should stand in public square and everyone drive by it on their way home to be with their families for the "holidays". I don't care who's holiday, or what you want to call it. Consider it a nice day off from work to spend with your family and stay out of everyone else's beliefs and business. But this is America and we just gotta be in everyone's business don't we?

    For the record, I'm not Christian or Athiest. I consider myself in the middle.

    Have a happy day.

    ReplyDelete
  41. To Wolfganbos --

    You apple analogy is flawed. Let us assume that we can *know* the existence of apples and (non)presence of apples. Since no faith is involved neither is a religion.

    Try posing a position that requires faith to believe, then posit the opposite -- they are both faith based positions.

    ReplyDelete
  42. “I am now convinced that children should not be subjected to the frightfulness of the Christian religion. ... If the concept of a father who plots to have his own son put to death is presented to children as beautiful and as worthy of society's admiration, what types of human behavior can be presented to them as reprehensible?”
    —Ruth Hurmence Green

    It's about time we start fighting back against the christian madness permiating our society.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Atheism a religion? FFS if you've been educated you can see from the rootwords how idiotic this concept is.

    Theism means a belief in god or gods, and the a- modifier means "without". Atheism means a lack of belief in god or gods. Religion is specifically a set of beliefs based around a given theism, and therefore atheism cannot possibly be a religion - ever.

    Stating that it is such does not make it so, it only makes you look like an undereducated hillbilly who is incapable of escaping your own limited mindset. My hunch is you probably use this moronic idea to insist that those who don't want your religion forced on them (btw, that's part of your doctrine - spreading the word), are somehow in fact forcing their "religion" on you.

    Grow up. They're tired of intellectual midgets such as yourself trying to insist you are pure and they are going to burn.

    Belief in a god is no different than me believing the elf I play in WOW is real. If you disagree, then prove that what you believe is real or kindly take a seat and stop going out of your way to put your religious penis in everyone elses' faces.

    ReplyDelete
  44. bestbard said... "something stupid"

    Atheism is NOT a religion; it is an ASPECT of religion, and in fact many religions. Christianity has the aspect of being a THEISTIC religion, of which their are many. Just as Christianity is a type of theism, mono-theism (although the 3-in-1 makes it look like polytheism [which it is, so all Christians can just get over it or shut up]), these particular atheists are of a type that hold no particular beliefs, nihilistic atheism.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Trust me,
    Since I know Al I do believe that I can make a believe of him with the right calabre or the right size rope. I is quite deferant when the chips are down. I have seen it when fright dirties thier pants.

    ReplyDelete
  46. In response to Real Debate:

    I'm sorry but some Christian people are just angry hateful jerks.

    They choose to be offended, so be it.

    It is a public square and yes they have every right to be there.

    No one is pushing anything on them.

    What they are showing is a complete lack of respect for persons having differing views than they do.

    Why not put up their display on church property? They would be well within their right to do so.

    You see that would take an ounce of class. These militant type Christians have no respect for the beliefs or lack of beliefs of others.

    This country was founded on freedom of religion, and separation of church and state.

    They are showing a complete and total lack of respect for their fellow citizens who happen to believe something different.

    We have a right to do lots of things. That does not mean that they need to be done in a polite and respectful society.

    ReplyDelete
  47. To the person who said atheism IS a religion:

    That would be a yes, only if you also believe that NOT collecting stamps is a hobby.

    ReplyDelete
  48. I can't understand the people who continue to say Atheism is a religion. I believe I know *why* they say it, and to me it's because it's an easy way to attempt to invalidate their entire argument (i.e. you can't argue against something if I make a sweeping semantic argument declaring that your position and my position are actually the same thing).

    From what I know of Atheism, it is that Atheists do not believe in God. Any gods, your god, my god, Vikings' gods, Greek gods, anybody's gods. Atheists group any and all supernatural belief into the same category: they believe it all to be false. I've never met an Atheist who has claimed to have proof against the existence of God. Frequently they say things like, "You can't prove there ISN'T a magical teapot hanging just outside earth's orbit. Doesn't mean I take it on faith that it's there" and things of that nature.

    Why even bother to argue that Atheism is a religion? Theists know where they stand. They don't believe in God. Theists believe in God. Anything else is a nitpicking tangential argument that doesn't really get anywhere.

    Not that an argument about religion ever *has* gotten anywhere.

    ReplyDelete
  49. love how the "christians" attack anyone who doesnt see the "light"

    let it go and stop thumping...

    freedom of speech

    ReplyDelete
  50. I live all the way across the country now, but was born in Illinois. I want to commend the rational people of the Racine area for the courangeous act of displaying a contradiction to the pervasive cult of christianity. Of course christians will whine about the fake 'war on christmas' and continue to want to put their superstitions into the state and federal law and schools and society. At least now athiests and agnostics are gaining a voice in this country and openly opposing the christian right who want to convert the planet to their beliefs. Great job and keep up the good work!

    ReplyDelete
  51. I'm happy to see such a monument. I, for one, am tired of being told that the only way to celebrate the holiday is to give up rational, skeptical thought, blindly follow dogma and spend lots and lots of hard earned money. Worship and Spend or you're a SCROOGE.

    This pyramid stands as a symbol of choice and free speech. What could be more American?

    ReplyDelete
  52. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  53. This pyramid stands as a symbol of choice and free speech. What could be more American?

    How about respecting someone else's belief?

    That is supposed to be American.

    Clue in, you do not have a right to be offended.

    Believe what you believe and let others do their thing.

    It is something called respect.

    Something you know little of.

    ReplyDelete
  54. While I don't mind that an athiest group wanted to prop their views up, I don't think we should be discouraging nativity scenes.

    Christian mythology is slowly becoming just that, mythology. If we name our planets and days of the week after Greek and Roman Gods, why can't we infuse some christian myths into our culture in the form of harmless nativity scenes?

    I don't see a nativity scene as a promotion of religion but rather as a cultural artifact similar to Greek mythological references that we see and experience in every day life.

    Similarly, Christmas needs to continue to be called Christmas, not "happy holidays", just out of tradition. Nobody really celebrates it as some religious prophet's birthday anyway. It is a part of our cultural identity and taking that away is simply being forced to cater to a small, isolated group.

    ReplyDelete
  55. This is kind of fun. Being a native Midwesterner, I knew about the silly religious folks, but the lack of self-awareness is quite humorous.

    By the way folks, my freedom of religion includes the right to be free from yours.

    ReplyDelete
  56. The only time I practice my religion of atheism is when I'm driving around in the Porsche I don't own.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Atheism is not a religion, and neither is secular humanism (gosh, I haven't heard that name since the 80's), just like health is not just another disease. And it's not the atheists but the xians who go around calling other peoples fools for not believing the same way. I wish I had a nickel every time some obnoxious xian quoted "the fool has said in his heart, there is no god" at me. These people ought to read Matthew 5:22 and find out what Jesus says about people who call other people fools.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Go Pack!

    [/religion]

    ReplyDelete
  59. My queston here is why are athiests so "offended" by a nativity display? Sure the Constitution says that the government cannot pass a law respecting an establishment of religion (ie. cannot declare any certain religion to be official), but it also cannot prohibit free exercise of religion. If you take a look, you'll note that the oft cited "seperation of church and state" never appears in the Constitution. Essentially the point is to practice your own religion or beliefs while respecting those of others as well. So while it should be fine to erect a display regarding your religion, why is there a need to do so in direct attack on another religion. Of course as I read here, atheism isn't a religion, so why bother at all? Why not just be confident in your beliefs? Attacking other beliefs with the goal of destroying them is no different from anyone else trying to impose their beliefs on you.

    Christmas just happens to be the biggest holiday for the most practiced religion in the US. (Although it could be argued that Easter is a bigger religious holiday.) Since we never see this sort of animosity toward other religious days, I can only assume that what people are upset about is the scale of it. Of course it is the only holiday of religious origin that is an official federal holiday. President Grant made it so along with New Years Day, 4th of July and Thanksgiving. Honestly though, Halloween isn't far behind in "being forced" upon us every year. Why not this vehement objection for those who don't participate in that?

    Atheism may not be a religion, but it is a set of beliefs just like any other set of beliefs. Is effect, the arguement of atheists that religion is foolish, and everyone should adopt their beliefs, which is no different from the religions they are so offended by.

    Does modern science conflict with traditional religious beliefs? To varying degrees, yes, although, remember that traditional science starts in the middle of time. What is the ever expanding universe expanding into? What was there before the universe? Where did the matter that exploded during the big bang come from? I'm not promoting a religious explanation to these questions, merely suggesting that modern science does not have all the answers either. Science changes like everything else. Used to be people thought the earth was the center of the solar system, and had mathematical models that could accurately track it, until someone proved it wrong. Will science one day answer these questions and win out over religious beliefs? Maybe, but not yet.

    You will never escape the expression of other peoples beliefs. Why not choose to be tolerant rather than spiteful at every turn?

    ReplyDelete
  60. For those who use the argument that since the majority of Americans are Christian its justifiable for our government to favor their beliefs - this country also has a majority of white people. Yeah, we've been thru that argument before...

    ReplyDelete
  61. To obvious_yet_unapparent_guy,

    If theism is a religion, and atheism is the lack of theism, then we cannot conclude (from those two premises alone) that atheism is a religion.

    Now if someone is to take the strong atheist position, that no God(s) exist, then I can see how someone might argue that they are exhibiting a sort of faith (and thus a sort of religion). But if that person takes the weak atheist position, indicating that they lack belief in God(s), then it is patently absurd to claim that their position is a religious one.

    Agnosticism is a whole 'nother bird entirely. Agnosticism is something of a middle ground between strong and weak atheists, and is only concerned with knowledge of God(s). It makes a stronger claim than weak atheists, but a weaker claim than strong atheists.

    Strong Atheist: "No God(s) exist."

    Agnostic: "None of us can know whether God(s) exist."

    Weak Atheist: "I don't know whether God(s) exist, and thus suspend judgement."


    As for my apple analogy, think of it like this. If we accept the premise that I do not have an apple in my hand, then it would be patently absurd for someone to claim (based only upon that premise) that I have a piece of fruit in my hand. And that is what is being claimed by those who suggest that atheism (the lack of theism) is necessarily a kind of religion. Strong atheism, maybe. Weak atheism, definitely not.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Whether you believe this or not, Atheism IS a religion,

    And NOT collecting stamps is a hobby.

    and I am sick of atheists telling me I am a fool for knowing about God.

    Then stop saying foolish things.

    Have a merry Christmas anyway.

    Will do!

    ReplyDelete
  63. I have the right to be offended because I have the right to hold an opinion. Whether or not I can perform certain acts based on that offense is the question.

    What's especially disgusting is all the people defending the monument or demonstrating apathy just seem to have absolutely no concept of ethics, morality, or what it means to be an American. (The last one is running very short in America.)

    Here's a hint: Mob rule, might, and popularity do not take away my rights or negate the Constitution. Read the whole First Amendment. The government is not a person, by the way, so it can't have rights.

    ReplyDelete
  64. "Why not choose to be tolerant rather than spiteful at every turn?"

    Funny how xtians who put up a monument to their beliefs are jsut exercising their rights and yet atheists who do the same thing are being "spiteful"

    Here's a clue - put your stupid mythology displays on church property and you won't have to have your delicate sensibilities dented by the horrible intolerance of those damn dirty atheists.

    And if atheism is a religion, bald is a hair color.

    ReplyDelete
  65. "Whether you believe this or not, Atheism IS a religion"

    Whether you believe this or not, baldness IS a hair color.

    "and I am sick of atheists telling me I am a fool for knowing about God"

    Whether you believe this or not, you are NOT a fool for knowing about God.

    Heh heh.

    ReplyDelete
  66. "the Constitution says that the government cannot pass a law respecting an establishment of religion (ie. cannot declare any certain religion to be official)"

    That "ie" is OBVIOUSLY not what the amendment means. It OBVIOUSLY does mean "Congress cannot establish a religion", else it would say that. "repecting" means "regarding". "an establishment" is a NOUN, not a VERB; an establishment is an institution.

    Christians should stop lying.

    ReplyDelete
  67. "Funny how xtians who put up a monument to their beliefs are jsut exercising their rights and yet atheists who do the same thing are being "spiteful"


    I was actually not implying that putting up a display was spiteful, rather that putting it up six feet directly in front of the other display with the direct intention of detracting from the other display is spiteful.

    Sorry if that didn't seem obvious.

    ReplyDelete
  68. It OBVIOUSLY does mean "Congress cannot establish a religion"

    Make that "OBVIOUSLY does not mean".

    ReplyDelete
  69. I was actually not implying that putting up a display was spiteful, rather that putting it up six feet directly in front of the other display with the direct intention of detracting from the other display is spiteful.


    So If there were a Nazi monument in the square and somene put a holocaust memorial within six feet, that would be "spiteful"? Obviously not, it would be a protest. Here, the protest is against the violation of law.

    Christians should stop lying.

    ReplyDelete
  70. no symbolism in the pyramid? I can make a tenuous one: jesus, especially the nativity scene is based on the myth of Horus, the egyptian sun god. If you look it up it's almost a direct plagiarism. born on dec25, heralded by a star, virgin birth (mother named Meri), attended by shepherds, early attempt on his life, called "The good shepherd, the lamb of God, the bread of life, the son of man, the Word, the fisher, the winnower", has a sermon on the mount, he walked on water, cast out demons, healed the sick, restored sight to the blind, was crucified with two thieves and was resurrected in three days...and that's only a tip of the iceberg.

    ReplyDelete
  71. "You apple analogy is flawed. Let us assume that we can *know* the existence of apples and (non)presence of apples. Since no faith is involved neither is a religion.

    Try posing a position that requires faith to believe, then posit the opposite -- they are both faith based positions.


    So your lack of belief in Thor is a faith based position?

    Christians should stop lying.

    ReplyDelete
  72. "the Constitution says that the government cannot pass a law respecting an establishment of religion (ie. cannot declare any certain religion to be official)"

    That "ie" is OBVIOUSLY not what the amendment means. It OBVIOUSLY does mean "Congress cannot establish a religion", else it would say that. "repecting" means "regarding". "an establishment" is a NOUN, not a VERB; an establishment is an institution.

    ----

    Actually it is:

    http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/constitution/amendment.htm

    But then, that's not really the point of the original post.

    ReplyDelete
  73. There you go

    http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/constitution/
    amendment.htm

    ReplyDelete
  74. It's a public square. Whatever is put there is a representation of the public. As an atheist I don't want a religious symbol representing me as a citizen of the community.

    Nobody is saying that Christians can't express their faith. Nobody is saying that the Christians have to take down their nativity scene. People ARE saying that it should never have been put on public property to begin with and I agree with that. But it's already up. So if other groups don't want to be represented by a Christian symbol then they should be allowed to have their own representation without anybody raising too much of a stink.

    If Christians don't want other symbols placed beside their nativity scene then they should put it on church property. No atheist will bug you there.

    ReplyDelete
  75. "So If there were a Nazi monument in the square and somene put a holocaust memorial within six feet, that would be "spiteful"? Obviously not, it would be a protest. Here, the protest is against the violation of law."

    That analogy is in no way equivalent, and if you don't understand that, then is no point in discussing the issue with you.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Both sides have jerks. Both sides have heroes. As is evident in these responses, we all need to calm down and learn to respect the other, even if we don't agree with them. Check out the below.

    http://www.cracked.com/article_15759_10-things-christians-atheists-can-must-agree-on.html

    ReplyDelete
  77. "I was actually not implying that putting up a display was spiteful, rather that putting it up six feet directly in front of the other display with the direct intention of detracting from the other display is spiteful."

    it's not directly in front of the plastic biblical characters, its next to it as the picture clearly shows.

    And since we've all been forced to look at countless nativity displays over countless years, somehow I think whining about the few times the nativity scene does get special privileges is the real spite.

    If faith is so strong and necessary, why do its adherents always act like its fragile and insubstantial?

    ReplyDelete
  78. "I was actually not implying that putting up a display was spiteful, rather that putting it up six feet directly in front of the other display with the direct intention of detracting from the other display is spiteful."

    it's not directly in front of the plastic biblical characters, its next to it as the picture clearly shows.

    And since we've all been forced to look at countless nativity displays over countless years, somehow I think whining about the few times the nativity scene does get special privileges is the real spite.

    If faith is so strong and necessary, why do its adherents always act like its fragile and insubstantial?

    ReplyDelete
  79. "That analogy is in no way equivalent, and if you don't understand that, then is no point in discussing the issue with you."

    The analogy is perfect and the fact that you deny it is absurd.

    ReplyDelete
  80. And since we've all been forced to look at countless nativity displays over countless years, somehow I think whining about the few times the nativity scene does NOT get special privileges is the real spite.

    ReplyDelete
  81. And since we've all been forced to look at countless nativity displays over countless years, somehow I think whining about the few times the nativity scene does NOT get special privileges is the real spite.

    ReplyDelete
  82. To Wolfgangbos --

    Fundamentally, I don't think we are saying different things, we are just saying things differently.

    I view a person as practicing a religion if they have faith in some set of beliefs that in whole or part serve to answer some of the "unknowable" existential questions of import to humans, such as "Where did we come from?", etc... Very often these beliefs are coupled with rituals etc...

    A non-religious person would be a "weak agnostic", in my taxonomy. Although, these categories (weak/strong atheist/agnostic) shift around quite a bit depending on who you talk to.

    In this sense, the (strong) Atheist is clearly religious since they ascribe to a premise based on faith pertaining to these "unknowable" questions. Namely, that there is no god.

    Just as if belief in the presence of an apple were an act of faith (is currently unknowable). Belief in absolute non-presence of an apple must also too be based on faith.

    Using your categories. Most self-identified atheist take a strong position as evidenced by their comments (i.e. it is obvious there is no "god" because x, y, and z etc...) However, they claim to only be professing non-belief. But when one says they don't believe in "god", are they saying the existence of "god" is impossible. Or, are they saying the existence of "god" , in the whole of possibilities, is extremely unlikely, or are they saying that we can't no the answer, or are they simply saying, without implication of probability, that the matter is knowable but presently unknown.

    So, in short *grin* I agree with you that weak-atheists are non-religious. I see only minor differences between weak-atheism and (weak) agnosticism since the difference between whether we can ultimately know or can never know is somewhat arcane -- not to say it wouldn't be of importance to people if we could answer that question.

    ReplyDelete
  83. I think it's ridiculous that there's *anything* on display, religious or athiest or whatever. Except, maybe, the town charter or something. I would hope that the government has more important things to deal with than issues of decoration.

    Does the "150 churches" count include synagogues? I doubt it'd be seen to be representative of them.

    It does sound like the pyramid-builder is, as one commenter put it, "a douchebag", but at the same time it's pretty easy to understand why athiests tend to get a little snippy this time of year. We've already spent the year being told that hey, this is a country of religious tolerance provided of course that you have a religion to be tolerant of - and if you don't you're a traitorous amoral hedonist bent on destroying society. And then at christmastime, the one organization you would hope would be impartial to all of it (the government) starts tacitly endorsing biblical displays. It gets to be a bit much, especially if all you're really trying to say is "hey, maybe we should stop and think about this stuff once in a while, maybe have a nice measured discussion about it over tea?"

    Honestly. I really don't mind the nativity scenes, since after all, someone was employed making them and some people seem to like them. But the wingnuts come out of the walls whenever somebody else says "you know, I don't so much like that" or "I'd like to express my own beliefs" or even "why are my tax dollars paying to light this?"

    I also don't think you need to be a nonbeleiver to see the value of the complete separation of church and state. Unless you have a specific State Church, then it's really in everybody's best interest to have the state just not take any position and be very careful about not even appearing to lean one way or the other.


    (ps my favorite quote about athiesm/religion: "Athiesm is a religion inasmuch as bald is a hair color.")

    ReplyDelete
  84. To Truth Machine --

    Yes, if I absolutely believe that Thor does not exist, that is based on faith, because, ultimately I can't "prove" it. And when we talk about proof and non proof things can get very hairy. Most people assume that premises that they consider to be extremely unlikely can be considered to be false. That can sometimes come back to haunt you in the sense that what seems extremely unlikely today may be probable tomorrow. Look at quantum mechanics. Which seems more or less probable, that there is some kind of god or wave/particle duality? Ask that question of a "rational" man 200 years ago. Many very prominent men of reason of old were also theologians.

    If I believe that I can't know or don't know the answer to the question, THEN I'm appealing to a "higher order" of logic that is "knowing about knowing" and I am not making any claims of belief (truth or non-truth) in anything I can't/don't know.

    FTR, I am not a christian and I fail to see how what I have said in any way supports that position. My pointing out that absolute non-belief in christianity is itself based on knowledge you don't have in no way makes the truth of christianity more or less likely ...

    ReplyDelete
  85. Everyone, read this...

    http://www.cracked.com/article_15759_10-things-christians-atheists-can-must-agree-on.html

    Single-handedly the best Atheism vs. Christian article ever written!

    ReplyDelete
  86. obvious_yet_unapparent_guy,

    Upon reflection, it occurs to me that in my haste I gave something of an inaccurate treatment to weak atheism. Its description should be as follows:

    A weak atheist differs from an agnostic in the sense that the weak atheist lacks belief in God(s). They may lack belief because they are an agnostic, because they are simply unaware of the notion of God(s), because they believe in something else entirely (i.e. some of the more mystical religious traditions that disavow descriptive notions of God), etc...

    Thus, a person can technically be both an atheist and an agnostic at the same time. This is mainly due to atheism having the potential to be merely a negation. It needs not add anything to the equation with regards to beliefs. It can be combined with things like Secular Humanism, Agnosticism, Buddhism, mysticism, and even Christianity (i.e. a person who is a strong atheist regarding the Hindu notion of God, but believes in the Judeo-Christian one).

    That it is not used accurately as such is more the pity, as it could be quite useful as a linguistic tool in some cases.

    As for your comment regarding strong atheism being the dominant variety, I would hesitate to agree. I would agree that it is the most prominent. But prominent does not necessarily equate to numbers of believers. If we were to compare the total number of Fundamentalist Christians versus the non-Fundamentalist Christians, I would bet that the Fundamentalists were greatly in the minority. But it is the fundamentalists that are most noticeable and prominent.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Wow! Thanks for the lively discussion! It's encouraging to see that we can have a debate (and its respectful for the most part) on religion and American values. We need to be careful not to let the majority rule the minority because the minority is usually where the innovative ideas come from and not the same old oppresive rhetoric.

    ReplyDelete
  88. To Wolfgangbos --

    Cogent points all.

    Re: "As for your comment regarding strong atheism being the dominant variety, I would hesitate to agree. ..."

    I believe you are right. I was thinking primarily of those people I see posting and didn't mean to imply that it was the norm at large.

    Best --

    ReplyDelete
  89. To Obvious_Yet_Unapparent_Guy, regarding your comment about "making any claims of belief (truth or non-truth) in anything I can't/don't know," I agree with you in principle, but not in practice. Really, how can I be completely 100% positive I'm physically typing this right now, and that I'm not dreaming it? I'd say I'm 99.9999% positive, but there's always that small component of doubt about everything. If you're completely honest, everything you believe is taken on some small amount of faith. So, in practical conversations, it doesn't do much good to qualify that everything you believe is a matter of faith - you concede that there's some threshold of certainty where you can say it's not really a matter of faith anymore.

    Somebody already mentioned Russel's tea pot, which I think is a great example. If I claim there's a teapot in orbit around Mars, with absolutely no evidence to support my claim, does it take an act of faith for you to disagree with me? I think that is the position of most atheists - there's no convincing evidence for any type of deity, so they probably don't exist.

    Anyway, on topic to the article - ehh... I don't really care. As long as private funds, and not public funds, paid for the displays, I don't really care.

    ReplyDelete
  90. I am not Christian nor am I atheist. But Religion and Atheism when displayed proudly is seen as "pushing their beliefs on everyone" A nativity is beautiful and peaceful and represents hope. Atheism can be dsiplayed in the same way. when atheism is done like this it looks ugly and mean. Why is it whenever someone wants to display something like this someone has to argue against it. I am not christian but love seeing these scenes and decorations. I celebrate Christmas because of the feelings it is supposed to bring love, peace, hopefullness, caring and giving. Yeah its been commercialized but oh well. Muslims, taoists, buddhists could celebrate their holidays also Publically and I hope their decorations bring the same feelings. Im not scared their trying to "convert" me i lvoe learngin about other religions and seeing how they celebrate. I am secure in the fact that I know the truth for myself which may not be the truth for you and I accept and love that fact and love the freedom of that. If you dont want to celebrate in it fine let the ones who do want to display their pride and spread their cheer. We have spent to much time in our history trying to convince each other what we should believe and not believe instead of excepting each other and admiring each other.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Just figured I'd chime in on the atheism = a religion debate.

    While atheism isn't a religion... it is a belief system. It is the belief that a god/higher power does not exist. This seems to be the same to me as Christianity, Islam, whatever in the sense that you need to believe something that can't be proven.

    I understand agnostics. They choose not to pick a side because it can't be proven. But often atheists seem to not understand they're "guilty" of believing something just as much as a religious person is.

    ReplyDelete
  92. " But often atheists seem to not understand they're "guilty" of believing something just as much as a religious person is."

    Oh good, yet another completely wrong strawman.

    Atheism is "there is no evidence to support a belief in gods, therefore, I do not believe in gods".

    Which is vastly different from "there is no god"

    If you don't know what you're talking about, don't talk about it.

    ReplyDelete
  93. um, elephant in the room?
    seems like anyone can put anything there as long as they PAY FOR IT!
    money is lord to us all.

    ReplyDelete
  94. "Actually it is:"

    Actually what is what?

    The fact is that the first amendment in not just about official religions, it is about the entanglement of government with religion at all; that's what "respecting" means. And religious displays on public property, property that is maintained with tax dollars, create such an entanglement.

    ReplyDelete

  95. That analogy is in no way equivalent, and if you don't understand that, then is no point in discussing the issue with you.


    "Naysaying is not an argument."

    You have offered no reason or explanation as to why you think this prima facie valid analogy isn't. "no point in discussing"? You are refusing to discuss, which shows that you're an intellectual coward. But then, what can we expect of the religious, who choose to believe the ridiculous because they're afraid of nonexistence and meaninglessness.

    ReplyDelete

  96. I view a person as practicing a religion if they have faith in some set of beliefs that in whole or part serve to answer some of the "unknowable" existential questions of import to humans, such as "Where did we come from?", etc... Very often these beliefs are coupled with rituals etc...


    That's nice, Humpty Dumpty, but atheists don't claim to answer such questions beyond what science tells us, and they don't have rituals. As for "where did we come from", have you heard of fertilization?

    ReplyDelete
  97. In this sense, the (strong) Atheist is clearly religious since they ascribe to a premise based on faith pertaining to these "unknowable" questions. Namely, that there is no god.

    Strong atheists do not "ascribe to a premise based of faith", they have reasons for thinking there is no god. Kinda the way you have reasons to think that Thor and Loki don't exist; you aren't agnostic on the issue, not really, not honestly.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Yes, if I absolutely believe that Thor does not exist, that is based on faith, because, ultimately I can't "prove" it.

    The negation of "can't prove" is NOT "based on faith", and I don't believe you're REALLY stupid enough to think so.

    Christians should stop lying. No, really.

    ReplyDelete
  99. While atheism isn't a religion... it is a belief system. It is the belief that a god/higher power does not exist.

    A belief is not a belief system. My belief that George Bush and Dick Cheney aren't secretly lovers is not a "belief system", even though I can't prove that either.

    Sheesh.

    ReplyDelete
  100. After reading my previous comment, I realize the end of that first paragraph didn't come out exactly the way I wanted it to. From the part about where it says, "If you're completely honest," I think a better way to put it would be as follows.

    If you're completely honest, everything you believe has at least some small level of uncertainty. So, in practical conversations, it doesn't do much good to qualify every statement with the amount of certainty with which you believe it - you concede that there's some threshold of certainty where you can say something's true beyond a reasonable level of doubt.

    ReplyDelete
  101. But often atheists seem to not understand they're "guilty" of believing something just as much as a religious person is.

    There's nothing wrong with believing things. Sheesh. It's believing things that are obviously, blatantly, false but were written in a book by a bunch of nomads thousands of years ago that is questionable. It's forcing children to believe things under threat of eternal torment that is questionable.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Good for you, Messrs. Sorenson and Nelson.

    ReplyDelete
  103. If you're completely honest, everything you believe has at least some small level of uncertainty.

    That's much better. Recognizing that your beliefs as uncertain and conditional is not faith, quite the opposite. Faith is commitment to a belief regardless of evidence or reason.

    Even that icon of strong atheism, Richard Dawkins, says in "The God Delusion" that he's technically an agnostic, but "I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden".

    ReplyDelete
  104. Whether atheism is religious, or requires faith is irrelevant to the question of the appropriateness of government-endorsed religious displays.

    Stay on point.

    ReplyDelete
  105. As per the actions yes it does seem to be an attempt to slap christains in the face. As for the poster, it seems more to be a slap in the fact to everyone to wake up and realize that what many less fanatical people don't realize. That state contually sanctions the popular religion.

    Lets completely take this post out of the picture. Should a muslim presentation be placed there as well then it would start to become a collection of religious beliefs. Lets put all the displays in one location in the city, including lack of religion.

    Think about that....a peace that really isn't all that far off. Several religions idols all in the same place reguardless of their contradictions to one another. That was what America was founded on. Not a single religious moral code.

    The only reason this is a slap in the face is because it is the only 2 at this particular location. Had the atheist pryamid been placed there first then the cristian display would be a slap in the face of the athiests. Making the athiest pyramid seem morbid and unfavorable. While the christian display seems cheery, hopeful, and "holy"

    For my foot on this whole debockle, I am an agnostic leaning slightly towards athiesm. the "probably not" athiest. But I do believe in some of the things athiest believe that religion is dangerous...Only I feel it CAN be dangerous.

    Just like a priest/rabbi/whatever can be as the name implies...a church however can be a power dangerous weapon. In other words a religious person can do many good things. Religious people can do many bad things.

    ReplyDelete
  106. One has to know what the general definition of a God is in order to have a lack of belief in one. You can’t argue that God doesn’t exist if you don’t know a definition of one.

    Most Atheists, I've noticed, talk more about God than Christians do.

    FYI, I'm not a Christian, nor an Atheist. But I will protect my right to freedoms, including those of Religion, (or lack thereof), until my last breath.

    It’s called “Public” for a reason, by the way. It consists of all of us, regardless of belief.

    You want a monument to an apple in the town square? Pay the insurance and put one up, but don’t fault the rest of the public for complaining about it once you do.

    Seems like this country has turned into a bunch of whiners, victims, and special rights groups to me lately.

    Did anyone even ask if the city pays the electricity bill for the place?

    And why doesn’t the pyramid have any lights on it if they do?

    ReplyDelete
  107. Just so everyone's clear on this - while you go around defining "strong" or "weak" atheism as per your whim, the simple fact is that most atheists fall under the "weak" atheism, as you've defined.

    They (and I) think that God is just as likely as Santa, Thor, or a teapot in orbit on the opposite side of the sun. To whatever extent you "believe" in the non-existence of Thor, that is how 99% of atheists feel about any god.

    I have never met an atheist who completely discounted the possibility of god - or held a belief strong enough that it could be called "religious". They always make the allowance that he's got the same chance of existing as Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or ghosts.

    So to those of you who argue that atheism is a religion, please recognize that you're arguing against a tiny minority. Most atheists ("no belief in god") are also agnostic ("no way of knowing one way or the other").

    ReplyDelete
  108. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  109. How very...Christian of you, sanata.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Oh my post got deleted....to real for you eh? I better erect a pyramid to fight for my freedom of expression. Have a politically correct, neutered environmentally safe holdiay that in now way should offend anyone.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Keep it real, Carlos.

    ReplyDelete
  112. I am terribly saddened that the man used a pyramid as a symbol for his protest. It could very well also be a symbol for the ancient Egyptian religion. Too bad he did not use a more contemporary symbol, say an orbiting teacup, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the the Invisible Pink Unicorn. That certainly would have all the xtions running for Google.

    ReplyDelete
  113. To Fatboy --

    Re: "If you're completely honest, everything you believe is taken on some small amount of faith. So, in practical conversations, it doesn't do much good to qualify that everything you believe is a matter of faith - you concede that there's some threshold of certainty where you can say it's not really a matter of faith anymore."

    Yes this is of course the case but it still matters nonetheless. If you choose to portray christians as being very unsophisticated about their beliefs relative to the perceived evidence then it easy to make claims that their views fall into the teapot trap. I for one, pragmatically speaking, find strict fundamentalist views of christianity to be very non-probable. However, in the wider world of chrisitan thought there are very sophisticated views that admit such things as "a book written by men" etc... These folks sound much more "reasonable" to folks that claim positions of reason are king.

    The teapot argument (pardon the pun) is a crock. The power of the argument is that it uses pedestrian objects placed in situations that are very clearly logically possible yet appear absurdly unlikely due to the imagined chain of events required to result in the assertion being true.

    Questions like "Where do we come from?" are so powerful because most of us imagine there must be some explanation in the end. The very literal of us, like Truth_Machine, have a quick and humorous answer approximating "redneck wit." However, if reduced to using only reason and evidence in the sense of Truth_Machine's world view, you will quickly come to a place where reason falls off into a void. Whereas, teapots orbiting Jupiter, (or fairies in a garden for Dawkins) are easily imagined to be false because they posit a very unlikely chain of events. A better example to the teapot would be that I believe there is at least one object orbiting Jupiter that originated from Earth and appeared at Jupiter within the last thousand years. (excepting space probes of course).

    ReplyDelete
  114. "...what? So you claim that religion, or rather, the religious, are tolerant people? So the Spanish Inquisition,...they were just tolerating then eh? The Crusades too? Tolerating...? Salem witch trials? Tolerating?"

    Oh, dear, this old thing again, or rather, things. First off, no intelligent person in the religious community will deny that these were dark periods in Christianity's history, but to be fair, there was another side fighting in the Crusades and being just as intolerant as the Crusaders. Sorry, I do not think I need to mention which side that was. Further, the Spanish Inquisition and the Salem Witch trials used Christianity more as an EXCUSE, not a basis. The basis of these activities, especially with the Salem witch trials, was CLASS FRICTION. Further, the whole "separation of Church and State" thing was actually meant as a deterrent to a state/country-controlled religion, such as the Church of England. This is one of the MOST misinterpreted clauses of the US Constitution. In a nutshell, intolerance is intolerance, and it comes from all sides, not just fundamentalists. The atheists, among other groups, are just a guilty.

    ReplyDelete
  115. I believe in molecules and the transformation of matter to energy.

    There's no need to personify science, some people just feel more comfortable thinking that "someone" out there cares about them.

    But... a metaphysical papa? erm, no.

    ReplyDelete
  116. A lot of other religions don't feel like their December holidays would be well accepted in Racine. That is the real shame of this debate, we don't even talk about them. Everyone is welcome is not true. And, I think most of you know that, even if you don't admit it.
    The 22nd of Dec is the Winter Solstice and I know there are Pagans in Racine who would like to-but won't put up a display for fear of being ridiculed and other passive aggressive responses.

    Hanukkah ran from the 4th till the 12th and no Menorah on Monument Square. Why is that?

    The Muslim holiday of Eid Al Ahda was Dec. 19th. It's celebrated particulary by giving food to the poor. Look at this controversy and it's obvious why they don't want to be involved.

    And, if I remember correctly this whole thing with the Nativity started with one man, not a big group of Christians. One man wanting to make a point about "his faith".

    I'm not so much concerned about the Nativity as I am with the lack of other displays. And, the motivation behind the man who put up the Nativity in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  117. bestbard said...
    Whether you believe this or not, Atheism IS a religion, and I am sick of atheists telling me I am a fool for knowing about God. Have a merry Christmas anyway.

    atheism is the lack of a belief ina god or gods. There is no ritual, there is no church, there is no supernatual belief. It isn't a religion, sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Kay-

    There was no menorah because no one put one there. It would not have been rejected.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Kay, they are all welcome to under the rules of this public square.

    If they didn't, so be it ask a pagan why.

    ReplyDelete
  120. I welcome the pyramid of atheism. However, I would like to comment on several quotes from the article.

    "If that wasn't here, then this pyramid wouldn't be here either."

    Then this is clearly a protest of religion, not a "holiday display". The Nativity Scene would be there regardless of what else was there. This would also be true for a Menorah. Kwanzaa also has a holiday this time of year and the Hajj just ended so a Muslim monument would be appropriate too. The Wiccan celebration of the winter solstice means they should be welcome too. I don't know what the holidays are for Satanists but if they have a holiday right now they should be welcome as well. Anyone else who has a holiday right now should be allowed there too. Having said this, the square should be open for displays whenever a religious group has a holiday, not just around the time of the Christian holidays.

    “Sorenson is aware of the controversy his pyramid will engender.”

    Translated: Sorenson welcomes/expects/craves the controversy. The folks who set up the Nativity Scene were not interviewed on TV and should not have expected to be. In addition, with the Monument Square approaching (I estimate) one acre, it was pretty low rent top put the pyramid six feet away from the Nativity Scene. The pyramid should stand on its own, not require proximity to another monument to validate its own existence - I suspect that people would have more respect for it if it were “alone” on the square.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Kay...I read in a RJT story that the Knights of Columbus is responsible for the Nativity scene. This just drips of politics not Christmas. Shame on those Catholic men for poking the fires on this holiday to make their political points. The reason why they didn't place it on private property is because there wouldn't have been any reaction to it. Why keep things peaceful especially around Christmas...right?

    ReplyDelete
  122. Venjanz, you're factually incorrect. We went to war to get our hostages back, then we wound up paying ransom to get them back after all. Just because the Marine hymn mentions Tripoli doesn't mean we "kicked their a$$es" and certainly paying a ransom isn't the same as telling them to f**k-off.

    Read some American history.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Bestbard "Whether you believe this or not, Atheism IS a religion, and I am sick of atheists telling me I am a fool for knowing about God."

    Main Entry: re·li·gion

    1 a: the state of a religious .a nun in her 20th year of religion .b (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
    2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices.

    Atheism is not a religion but a belief. It has no common practices or dogma, nor does it require faith, just reasoning. Further you are not a fool for believing in a God, but you may be being fooled by whatever institutional brand of worship you belong to.

    So you know, I don't really care one way or another if there is a God or Gods or a higher power or whatever. What I do care about is others who do have this kind of blind faith trying to impose it on me.

    ReplyDelete
  124. Happy Festivus everyone!

    ReplyDelete
  125. Nuke Racine, kill 'em all and let's see who is right.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Don't do that ^^^^ I live there. What do you mean "see who is right"? Are you implying that there is a god if we get nuked? Either I do not understand you, or you have written the most ignorant comment I have ever read.

    ReplyDelete
  127. Fuck Christmas and all of you!

    ReplyDelete
  128. The person who keeps saying I'm neither an atheist nor a Christian... Do you think there's some point there? Because there's not.

    I'm an atheist. Why? Because I don't have any evidence for the existence os even one God, and I've looked for them... They aren't there.

    But the opposite of an atheist is NOT a Christian, unless all people with a religious belief are Christian, and they are not.

    I am an atheist. And it comforts me, because I can look into the sky and wonder "how"; I don't expect answers without work, and my life is too short to work out much. Why would I spend that in the Lord's house?

    ReplyDelete
  129. I dont see why this even qualifies as news, or is even worth reporting on for that matter. The christian appropriates public land to push his faith which he knows will offend others and the atheist takes the opportunity to push his smug arrogance back in his face by being just as offensive. Its still petty and immature no matter which side of the fence your on. Both the religious and the non-religious should agree that despite the religious emphasis on the holiday its a time for family and a time to relax, its not about which side can be more offensive and divisive.

    ReplyDelete
  130. How dare Drop Zone say F>>uck Christmas and all of you! Isn't this the guy who wanted to run for aldermen, also do a charity work raffling off some cheap euro gun. Why isn't this guy banned from blogging?? What kind of nut case is this guy!

    ReplyDelete
  131. I don't mind the atheists making a point but that thing is so ugly and cheap looking...a total eyesore to monument square...
    MERRY CHRISTMAS EVERYONE!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  132. Monument Square has been promoted as the central public square for the City of Racine.

    It takes all kinds of people to make a city.

    Exchange of viewpoints is healthy in a democracy. It is what made this country great.

    ReplyDelete
  133. Most of the "whining" here seems to be from the atheist crowd as being victims of christianity. Go to Pakistan and live publicly as an atheist and then tell whine about how they are imposing islam on you.

    The only objection I have of the pyramid is that its intent is to act as a sort of graffiti for the manger scene. They could have installed it in January, or at least on the other end of the square. If they could have, they would have put it directly in front of the manger. I wonder if I pay for a permit to ask the city to put up a white sheet representing paganism that happens to be placed in between the two displays obscuring one from the other. I doubt it.

    ReplyDelete
  134. As far as the whole concept of atheism being a religion or not, consider the following...
    God cannot be proved nor disproved; therefore faith is required to believe in God; but also, faith is required to believe the universal laws are not based upon god. Quantum theory suggests that during and before the big bang, the laws of science as we know them where completely different and even changed during the act of the "big bang". This suggests, as any true scientist knows, that science is not based upon unchanging fact or truth. Science is a constant change of paradigms and search for truth. If the atheists in this crowd believe in "science" then they are only acknowledging that they are searching for the truth. Science is not absolute truth; which suggests that it is a matter of faith to accept science as truth, just as it is a matter of faith to accept the God is the absolute truth. Therefore atheism is based upon faith.

    ReplyDelete
  135. "Most of the "whining" here seems to be from the atheist crowd as being victims of christianity. Go to Pakistan and live publicly as an atheist and then tell whine about how they are imposing islam on you."

    Um... I think that's the point. Many people here in the US don't want our country to BECOME like Pakistan or any other authoritarian theocracy. They fight for the American value of freedom FROM religion.

    ReplyDelete
  136. "God cannot be proved nor disproved; therefore faith is required to believe in God; but also, faith is required to believe the universal laws are not based upon god."

    You should go back and study the scientific method and the philosophy of science again. Scientists don't know what happened before the Big Bang and they admit that. No faith there. They have guesses based on direct and indirect observations, but that's it. The one thing you got right here is they search for the "truth", but the way they search for it has nothing to do with "faith", at least not in the way religionists use the word.

    Also, you are equating "science" (a method of study)and "atheism" (a condition of not believing in a deity) which are very different things.

    Happy Solstice!

    ReplyDelete
  137. Christmas is over and no liberal politically correct crap stopped it...so everybody who wants to make a noise and get in the paper and be heard...sharpen your pencils for Easter.

    ReplyDelete
  138. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete