By Mallory Simon
CNN http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/12/05/atheists.christmas/index.html
Decrease font Decrease font
Enlarge font Enlarge font

(CNN) -- It's beginning to look a lot like -- a war over Christmas.

Alongside a Nativity scene at the Legislative Building in Olympia, Washington, a sign put up by an atheist organization celebrates the winter solstice. But it's the rest of the sign that has some residents and Christian organizations calling atheists Scrooges for attacking the celebration of Jesus Christ's birth.

"Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds," the sign says in part.

Dan Barker, a former evangelical preacher who now heads up the atheist and agnostic Freedom From Religion Foundation, said it was important for atheists to see their viewpoints validated alongside everyone else's.

Barker said the display is especially important given that 25 percent of Washington state residents are unaffiliated with religion or do not believe in God. (A recent survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found 23 percent of Washingtonians said they were unaffiliated with a religion and 7 percent said they didn't believe in God.)

"It's not that we are trying to coerce anyone; in a way our sign is a signal of protest," Barker said. "If there can be a Nativity scene saying that we are all going to hell if we don't bow down to Jesus, we should be at the table to share our views."

He said if anything, it's the Nativity scene that is the intrusion.

"Most people think December is for Christians and view our signs as an intrusion, when actually it's the other way around," he said. "People have been celebrating the winter solstice long before Christmas. We see Christianity as the intruder, trying to steal the holiday from all of us humans."

The scene in Washington state is not unfamiliar. Barker has had signs in Madison, Wisconsin, for 13 years. The placard is often turned around so the message can't be seen, and one year, someone threw acid on it, forcing the group to encase it in Plexiglas.

In Washington, D.C., the American Humanist Association began a bus ad campaign this month questioning belief in God.

"Why believe in a God?" the advertisement asks. "Just be good for goodness sake."

That ad has caused the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority to field hundreds of complaints, the group said, but it has heard just as much positive feedback, said Fred Edwords, the association's spokesman.

Edwords said the ad campaign, which features a shrugging Santa Claus, was not meant to attack Christmas but rather to reach out to an untapped audience.

Edwords maintains the campaign began in December mostly because the group had extra money left over for the year. The connection to Christmas is a coincidence, he said.

"There are a lot of people out there who don't know there are organizations like ours to serve their needs," Edwords said. "The thing is, to reach a minority group, in order to be heard, everyone in the room has to hear you, even when they don't want to."

The ad campaign, Edwords said, is to make people think. He said he doesn't expect to "convert" anyone.

But the Christian Coalition of America is urging members to oppose the advertisements.

"Although a number of humanists and atheists continue to attempt to rid God and Christmas from the public square, the American people are overwhelmingly opposed to such efforts," Roberta Combs, the group's president said in a press release.

"We will ask our millions of supporters to call the city of Washington, D.C., and Congress to stop this un-Godly campaign."

As far as the criticism goes, Edwords said there are far more controversial placards in Washington.

"That's D.C. -- this is a political center," he said. "If I can see a placard with dead fetuses on it, I think someone can look at our question and just think about it."

The anger over the display in Olympia began after it was assembled Monday. The sentiment grew after some national media personalities called upon viewers to flood the phone lines of the governor's office.

The governor's office told The Seattle Times it received more than 200 calls an hour afterward.

"I happen to be a Christian, and I don't agree with the display that is up there," Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire told The Olympian newspaper. "But that doesn't mean that as governor, I have the right to deny their ability to express their free speech."

For some, the issue isn't even that the atheists are putting their thoughts on display, but rather the way in which they are doing it.

"They are shooting themselves in the foot," said iReport contributor Rich Phillips, who describes himself as an atheist. "Everyone's out there for the holidays, trying to represent their religion, their beliefs, and it's a time to be positive."

The atheist message was never intended to attack anyone, Barker said.

"When people ask us, 'Why are you hateful? Why are you putting up something critical of people's holidays? -- we respond that we kind of feel that the Christian message is the hate message," he said. "On that Nativity scene, there is this threat of internal violence if we don't submit to that master. Hate speech goes both ways."

So, what do you folks think? I'll try to keep the pointed questions out of this. Is the placard "hate speech" (whatever the hell that term is supposed to mean), or does it hold equal ground for being displayed as the nativity scene? I can see where both sides are coming from but, honestly, I think the atheists are pulling ahead with the grasp of the celebration of the Winter Solstice which, indeed, has been celebrated much longer than Christianity has held sway over Christmas.

Considering it disrespects more then just Christians. Muslim, Jewish - any one who believes in a higher power should be taking offense at this.

It would be one thing for it to be a separate display - the grounds there in Olympia are large enough for it to be say a good 10 feet away from the nativity. There is no reason other then to cause conflict - in putting it right where the nativity scene is.

But then again its WA state - sadly this is not the first stupid decision their gov has made when it comes to this particular topic

If the grounds are large enough for it be more than 10 feet away from the nativity scene (which is apparently quite close to the legislative building), then what's stopping the nativity scene from being further away?

I'm not trying to pull hairs here, I'm just attempting to make clear that this is obviously a constitutional infringement.

Additionally, your viewing of something as offensive does not mean that it has no place in public display; after all, plenty view the display of the nativity scene (such as myself) in front of a government building as offensive.

seeing as the nativity scene was put up first, I dont see why it should have to be moved. Of course it could be moved now. Just saying that the sign was purposely put in its current location to create news and controversy

I'm not saying that they should move it, I'm just using your logic. o.0

apparently not. My logic is that its a big area - the sign could of been placed somewhere else. The nativity was set up first. Logic says that they put the sign where they did to create issues. but whatever

/facepalm

I'm not trying to pull hairs here, I'm just attempting to make clear that this is obviously a constitutional infringement.

What's in Washington State's constitution which would prohibit them from putting on this display?

It wasn't on the grounds, though, unless you consider inside the building "on the grounds". It was INSIDE the building. I believe on the second floor? It's been so long since I've been there that I can't picture the entire scene.

current pictures and news videos show it sitting outside ;)

Not the pictures I've seen. All of them take place in the rotunda on the second (?) floor.

In this area.........(hope imaging works)

not to mention.. since when do nativity scenes have anything to do with people going to hell?

sorry. cant resist.. Olympia is in Washington STATE not the district of columbia aka DC

Sorry, can't resist: Barker's the one in Washington State, Edwords is the one running the ads in D.C.

Sorryyyy...Can't resist!
The nativity scene is in WA state.
Olympia is Washington STATE'S capital.
Bill O'Reilly was talking a load of ish the other day about our governor, Gregoire, and how it was wrong that she allowed it, and blah blah blah.

:D

Personally I think it's disrespectful. Not because the athiests want to celebrate winter solstice, or put up signs stating their beliefs (which of course they're perfectly entitled to do), but deliberately putting it up right next to a nativity scene to me looks as if they WANT to stir up religious tension. It doesn't look as if the signs have been placed so as to state THEIR beliefs, but rather to knock down the beliefs of others. Which is unnecessary and disrespectful. As Christian I try and be respectful of others beliefs (and see no reason why athiests shouldn't get to celebrate winter solstice... in fact it makes more sense to me that they do that, than celebrate Christmas, despite not really believing in it), it would be nice if athiests could treat Christians with the same respect. And to try and claim that a nativity scene is hateful or a "threat of internal violence if we don't submit to that master" is absolutely ridiculous.

Some athiests like to claim that all Christians attack non-believers, and that all Christians are extremists who want to push everyone to believe as they do (which is far from true). Yet the only people in this story who seem to be displaying anger and hatred are the athiests. The only crime the Christians above have comitted is to put up a nativity scene. How awful of them!

The atheist sign has every right being next to the nativity scene, after all, it is located at a legislative building, i.e. a government-funded public institution. Any other religion that wanted to put a sign or symbolic display there should also be welcome to -- provided it is privately funded. I would not object to seeing also Chanukkah, Kwanzaa, Festivus, or any other displays.

How precisely is the exercise of free speech of one group "disrespectful," yet the other is not? They are both merely stating personal beliefs, only one of which you happen to agree with. What is your stance on the "respectfulness" of displaying the "ten commandments" in front of public courthouses?

Did you even read what I said?

Maybe I didn't say it clearly enough... I said they have every right to state their beliefs. It is attacking others beliefs (e.g. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds) which is disrespectful.

The Christians put up a nativity scene! They didn't put up a sign saying "All athiets are going to hell" (because THAT would be disrespectful). That is the difference. And apparently I missed the first line, so I hadn't realise the signs were outside a legislative building, so I agree, the athiests have as much right to put signs there as anyone else. I would have no problem with Jews, Muslims, or whoever else putting up signs also expressing their own beliefs. Like I've said (several times now), expressing beliefs is OK... attacking others is not.

I think you're so caught up in your personal beliefs that you don't understand the sign is an expression of their own. Remove the fact that you think of it as an attack and view the words/the meaning behind them. It's their view that religion is crap. Does that automatically make it an attack?

If so, then wouldn't the Christian statement that there is most-certainly a higher power be a direct attack against their beliefs?

A little patronising, no? Perhaps you're so caught up in your personal beliefs that you can't see why such a sign IS offensive.

Shall I presume then, that if you feel a sign, one that is simply expressing belief (with no deliberate intention to offend offend or attack others) such as that is acceptable, then you would also feel that it's acceptable for Christians to post a sign saying all athiests are going to hell? (Personally I don't)

It seems to be the regular Christian belief that non-believers go to hell so, no, I wouldn't really have any objection to that. I'd probably just laugh and keep walking, the same thing I'd have done with the pro-atheist sign.

Atheists don't believe in God. So, while it's technically hypocritical of them (since they're an organized religion, in a sense) to say "Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds," it's what they believe to be a golden rule of sorts. Thus, I see it as no less direspectful than a Christian who would say, "There is a God, and he'll eternally damn you for not believing in him."

I agree. I think Christians saying that is just as disrespectful. (Have I not already said that though?) My opinion on this is not about my being Christian (as someone else said, the athiests sign is directed at all religions so is just as likely to offend e.g. Muslims), it is about religious tolerance in general. I think anyone of any religion (or no religion) should be tolerant and respectful of all other religions. And both sides can be guilty of failing to do this.

All Athiest are going to hell though so that while not tasteful is still true.

I feel that there is never any controversy with the nativity scene being put up outside of a legislative building (separation of church and state anyone?) because christians of course are the majority. but just because they are the majority does not mean that they have more of a right to put up a nativity scene. It's like dedicating an entire month to Christmas is the norm because it's so ingrained in our society. The nativity is an expression of their religious belief, the athiests should be able to express their religious belief as well, even if they are a minority.