Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Obama’s replacement circus and the Blagojevich taint *** UPDATED X1 ***
Next Post: Budget woes and a ray of hope
Posted in:
* I suppose I’ll never quite comprehend why certain people feel it’s so darned necessary to put up religious displays on taxpayer property…
If the placement of a Nativity scene in the Statehouse last week starts a trend at other public places in Illinois, that would be fine with organizers of the display. But they’re not going to force the issue.
“We’re here to be a catalyst towards the goal, but forcing it upon someone does nothing,” said Dan Zanoza of Lincoln, chairman of the Springfield Nativity Scene Committee, which held an unveiling ceremony Tuesday. “Yes, we would like to see a Nativity scene on Christmas in every town, in every hamlet, in every municipality, but that’s if the people of those communities would like it to be.”
Zanoza, his wife Julie, and other members of the committee got the help of the Chicago-based Thomas More Society, a public interest law firm, in organizing the event. The Italian marble figures of baby Jesus and Mary and Joseph cost about $7,000, and the society, at 29 S. LaSalle St., Suite 440, Chicago, IL 60603, is accepting donations to pay for them.
Thomas Brejcha, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Society, made it clear in remarks at the unveiling that the private funding is what made the display appropriate for a public building.
“The legal theory involved here is simple and essential,” Brejcha said. “It’s a free-speech exercise. If you can stand on your soapbox, proclaim your politics in America’s public square, then equally you can proclaim your religious faith and the values that that faith enshrines.”
That sounds reasonable I suppose, but only if they follow through with their reasonableness. Keep reading for the bad news.
* The nativity scene, of course, has prompted a couple of other requests…
White spokesman Dave Druker the office now has a pending request to place a menorah in the building. Sen. Ira Silverstein, D-Chicago, said Chabad of Chicago will sponsor the menorah. The Chabad movement has centers around the world that provide outreach and other activities for Jews. The movement was in the news recently when terrorists targeted a Chabad center in India.
“I think it is important that all religions be represented (in the Capitol),” Silverstein said. “If there is a Nativity scene, the Jewish faith should have something and Muslims, too, if they want.”
There is no pending request from a Muslim group to have a display. However, there is a request pending from one other group, Druker said. The Freedom From Religion Foundation of Madison, Wis., plans to put up a sign as early as next week stating its thoughts.
“We don’t think there should be religion or irreligion in the Capitol,” said co-president Annie Laurie Gaylor. “If the state says it will have a public forum, we want to make sure the non-religious are represented as well.”
Gaylor recited what will be on the sign, which is identical to signs placed in capitols in Washington state and Wisconsin.
“Our message at this season of the winter solstice is may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.”
* And despite saying they’d be fine with other religious displays, Dan Zanoza just sent out a press release this morning which indicates there’s trouble ahead…
An organization from Madison, Wisconsin, which calls itself the Freedom from Religion Foundation, is seeking a permit from the office of Jesse White (the Illinois Secretary of State) and some see this move as an attempt to malign the Nativity scene which was designed and constructed solely with private donations, as would be the case for the Menorah. There has been a national debate over whether the atheist sign in Washington is political dialogue or hate speech.
Hate speech? Oh, boy, here we go. So much for reasonableness.
…ADDING… Try to avoid predigested and preapproved talking points in the discussion. This has the potential to be as goofy as any national political discussion. So, use your own brain and your own words. Thanks.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Dec 8, 08 @ 9:39 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Obama’s replacement circus and the Blagojevich taint *** UPDATED X1 ***
Next Post: Budget woes and a ray of hope
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
“Our message at this season of the winter solstice is may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.”
+1
Comment by Y2D Monday, Dec 8, 08 @ 9:44 am
The Freedom from Religion organization does nothing but preach christophobia.
Comment by Segatari Monday, Dec 8, 08 @ 9:47 am
christophobia?
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Dec 8, 08 @ 9:51 am
The intent of public displays during the holidays is to celebrate the holidays. A sign denouncing the displays or the holidays does not meet the intent and should not be allowed to join them.
And yes, I consider the atheists’ sign hate speech when used in this manner.
I wouldn’t allow a group of anti-war activists to march protesting Veteran’s Day. I wouldn’t allow a KKK group to demonstrate against MLK day. I wouldn’t allow an atheist group to do this either.
It is wrong, they know it, yet they are doing this for the negative publicity.
Comment by VanillaMan Monday, Dec 8, 08 @ 9:56 am
===I wouldn’t allow a group of anti-war activists to march protesting Veteran’s Day. I wouldn’t allow a KKK group to demonstrate against MLK day. I wouldn’t allow an atheist group to do this either.===
Um, what country do we live in again?
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Dec 8, 08 @ 9:57 am
The FFR folks should have stopped at the first line (Merry Solstice?). The rest crosses the line for a “holiday” message.
Comment by Bluefish Monday, Dec 8, 08 @ 10:05 am
That must be why we call you Mr. Exclusion behind your back Tee Hee
I have never understood why any one gets all aroused by this stuff. If you have that much time on your hands go out and help someone, pick up some litter, hug your kids
Comment by Reddbyrd Monday, Dec 8, 08 @ 10:06 am
Rich, as far fetched as VM’s comments seem to be, look what is happening on some high school and college campuses in the name of being “inoffensive” to all. I say let the marketplace of ideas offer all viewpoints, and let the “customer” decide which one(s) they accept for themselves.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Monday, Dec 8, 08 @ 10:06 am
I just don’t understand the desire of the need to display religious symbols on public property. There is far more private property than public property in this state and that is where these symbols belong.
Comment by Just Observing Monday, Dec 8, 08 @ 10:08 am
*I wouldn’t allow a group of anti-war activists to march protesting Veteran’s Day. I wouldn’t allow a KKK group to demonstrate against MLK day. I wouldn’t allow an atheist group to do this either.*
These folks are not yelling fire in a crowded building, they are expressing their views. Regardless of how detestable any of us may find their views, they have every right to do it. “Intent” has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
Comment by montrose Monday, Dec 8, 08 @ 10:10 am
Like cars, we all know what they say about the size of your Christmas display…
Comment by How Ironic Monday, Dec 8, 08 @ 10:11 am
“I think it is important that all religions be represented (in the Capitol),” Silverstein said. “If there is a Nativity scene, the Jewish faith should have something and Muslims, too, if they want.”
All the religions of the world broken down into Coke, Pepsi, and RC by a noted religious scholar.
I love the controversy, but how many people actually go through the capitol this time of year?
Comment by Bob Dernier Monday, Dec 8, 08 @ 10:13 am
I wish the broader Republican Party could rediscover Jeffersonianism. There’s a lot less conflict when the state neither sponsors nor hinders any religious speech. Not to mention, adding a dose of libertarianism to the party would help its image among younger voters.
VMan, I figured you hated Europe. You prefer their anti-1st Amdnt approach?
Comment by Greg Monday, Dec 8, 08 @ 10:14 am
In response to your added instructions, … I’m with you Rich. By that, I mean that I don’t understand why its necessary for those religious folks to force their displays of faith on the rest of us at our public sites. Further, I agree with the FFR group and would volunteer to help them post their message next to the nativity scene at the Capital.
Comment by Y2D Monday, Dec 8, 08 @ 10:17 am
as far as the display of religious symbols on public property, it doesn’t bother me at all if all religions/belief systems are offered an equal opportunity. there are lots more pervasive examples of religion intertwined with public facilities…i.e., the annual Christmas play at grade schools, “holiday” school music programs, etc. I realize it’s a can of worms, but I am generally in favor of a Jeffersonian appoach as alluded to by Greg above.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Monday, Dec 8, 08 @ 10:19 am
I would suggest that such displays be allowed on public property in exchange for an extrememly steep rental charge, say a million dollars. That should end the discussion.
Comment by One of the 35 Monday, Dec 8, 08 @ 10:24 am
So much hate comes out in people when presented with a christmas display. Get over it. Its a christian holiday.
For what its worth, put up muslim displays, or jewish, or whatever, whats the big friggin deal, people really deginerate to the lowest form in these kinds of conversations.
Furthermore, is it possible for an athiest to walk by a nativity scene on public property without getting upset? Maybe this is too simple of an approach, but can’t we all just get along?
Comment by Speaking at Will Monday, Dec 8, 08 @ 10:28 am
Rich, the issue already became “goofy” last week, with Bill O’Reilly spending what seemed like 30 minutes last week on his TV show talking about the similar display in Olympia. The way he was bloviating, you would have thought the Four Horsemen were right behind him!
Comment by cover Monday, Dec 8, 08 @ 10:31 am
This is an all or nothing issue. Either everyone can be represented on taxpayer-supported property, or remove any and all religious symbols from said property.
Comment by Tony Monday, Dec 8, 08 @ 10:34 am
==VMan, I figured you hated Europe. You prefer their anti-1st Amdnt approach?==
Ahem! My education includes a long stint at university there, so I do not hate it.
The purpose of public displays is to celebrate, not to denigrate. The atheists are deliberately provoking everyone else which is rude, stupid, insulting, and mocking.
Would you allow a Bible group to march in a Christmas parade demonstrating against Santa?
Would you allow a pro-choice group to mail “Their mother had the right to abort them”, on birth announcements?
Atheists are not celebrating what everyone else is celebrating. If they decided to put up a display they consider “non-religious” in a celebratory manner, then they can be included. They deliberately went too far.
Comment by VanillaMan Monday, Dec 8, 08 @ 10:44 am
Atheism gets too bad of a rap in this country. All it means is a belief in no higher power.
That said, I’m going to set up a foundation to start accepting donations to erect a Flying Spaghetti Monster next to the Nativity Scene.
All hail his noodly appendage!
Comment by jerry 101 Monday, Dec 8, 08 @ 10:49 am
VM, get back to the subject at hand, please.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Dec 8, 08 @ 10:50 am
The purpose of pushing the limits of the First Amendment is for the people doing the pushing to show that they and their religion are powerful enough to bend the state to their will.
Celebration and honoring the religious holiday are only the erstwhile motivation to create a fig leaf to cover the exercise of power.
Comment by skeptical of organized religion Monday, Dec 8, 08 @ 10:51 am
This is simple. You give equal space to any religion that has a Holiday around this time of year - as long as it’s funded in full by the group and not the state of course. They’ve been doing this in Daley Plaza in Chicago for years. No fuss, no muss.
There’s plenty of U.S. Supreme Court precident on this. You just can’t discriminate AGAINST any religion.
But atheism is not a religion.
It’s because of Christmas for cryin’ out loud that people get a day off from work. Some people need to grow up.
These people who get hysterical over some harmless Christmas display are the same people who lose sleep over “In God We Trust” on our money, and “One Nation under God” in our Pledge of Allegiance.
Get a life!
Comment by GOP'er Monday, Dec 8, 08 @ 10:57 am
===Get a life! ===
Might not the same be said of those who can’t deal with an atheist display?
I truly despise the hate which some people on all sides believe is absolutely necessary to inject into my Christmas celebration. Must everything be overtly, deliberately and divisively politicized?
How about we try a bit of peace, love and understanding? And I mean that for everyone. The atheists’ display is deliberately and unncessarily and stupidly provocative. But the overreaction is also a calculated politicization.
Enough already.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Dec 8, 08 @ 11:04 am
Abortion and religion are no-win stances as far as reasonable discussion…
Comment by Vote Quimby! Monday, Dec 8, 08 @ 11:04 am
maybe iran is not the only theocracy in the world. this country’s neighbors to the north and the south are most decidely “christian” nations, simply meaning a large % of their populations are christian. yet that is not the same, as in say France, where a great number of people who have moved there are Muslim, the riots experienced there recently surely have much to do with their exclusion from french society. i recently met a 16 year old french foreign exchange student, i asked him about the riots and people burning cars. he said, “people come to our country, and they say this is our country too, and we tell them, no, this is not your country.” now that was a young man who said that, and one can only hope that as he grows up, his mind changes and his views soften, undoubtedly one can expect the time he will spend in this country will hopefully spur that change. i present that example as a means of saying, in this country our identity as a “christian” nation is not being challenged on nearly the scale of say France, where immigration patterns are clearly changing the myth as to what constitutes the French nation. but, groups like the anti-religion group presented in the article are simply questioning the idea of the U.S. as a christian nation. when it comes to groups competing for space in the exhibit they have every right to do so, whether one agrees with their tone or not.
Comment by b-dogg Monday, Dec 8, 08 @ 11:05 am
You just can’t discriminate AGAINST any religion.
But atheism is not a religion.
So it’s not OK to discriminate against your belief system, but it is OK to discriminate against belief systems you define as “atheist”?
I stand by my analysis. These displays have nothing to do with belief in Christianity, Judaism or Islam and have everything to do with organized religion showing it has power.
This is the same show of power of politicians who put up yard signs on public right-of-ways knowing the local authorities won’t take action against the campaigns.
Comment by skeptical of organized religion Monday, Dec 8, 08 @ 11:08 am
I see only one way to respond to this post.
I hope of you find the peace and joy you seek during this wonderful holiday season.
Merry Christmas (because that is what I celebrate)
Comment by Jaded Monday, Dec 8, 08 @ 11:08 am
I agree with the idea that you put up displays for all the major religions or you don’t put any at all. Make it educational.
Whatever happened to the idea of seperation of church and state anyway?
Comment by Carnac Monday, Dec 8, 08 @ 11:19 am
Maybe we could solve this by dictating that all displays, regardless of their affiliation, had to include more cowbell. It could be the great equalizer.
Comment by montrose Monday, Dec 8, 08 @ 11:24 am
Did anyone else find it ironic that Mr. Zanoza is blind, rendering him unable to see the nativity scene??
Comment by jagsfan217 Monday, Dec 8, 08 @ 11:37 am
Maybe the Pastafarians ought to have some space too at this shindig? “Pastafarians”? yes the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster http://www.venganza.org/
Scroll down for the FSM Nativity scene, complete with pirates.
Comment by anon Monday, Dec 8, 08 @ 11:41 am
Atheism is not “a belief system.” Deal with it. It’s not a “belief system” or a religion anymore than worshiping Obama would be recognized as such. (Please, no one get any ideas.)
Anyone who has their undies in a bunch over the display of a crèche and a Menorah around this time of year shouldn’t be taking off work on December 25th.
Isn’t having a Holiday on that day (that’s recognized by all levels of government) an improper recognition of religion for the tinfoil hat crowd?
Just seems to me there’s a lot of whining and complaining - until it comes to the benefits.
Comment by GOP'er Monday, Dec 8, 08 @ 11:41 am
Believing that because a property is taxpayer-funded gives it special rights or obligations beyond those that the government agency deems appropriate, is believing in a fiction. If you are a statehouse type and a smoker, you can always find a smoker-friendly office. Just because you are taxpayer does not give you the right to light up in the rotunda, but if you are a legislator or know one, you will find that the no smoking on public property is not an absolute law, just a relative one. So it is with religious symbols on public property or In God We Trust on our currency. Being a taxpayer, in and of itself, offers a person very little in the way of rights or freedom.
Comment by Captain Flume Monday, Dec 8, 08 @ 12:02 pm
Rich, what’s so funny about peace, love and understanding? Ohhhhhhhhhh! Nothing can beat this annual chestnut for laughs.
I’m in favor of a nativity scene being on display year round at the Capitol, Govs. Mansion, City Hall, County Building, Capitol Hill, White House, State Dept., etc.
That way, you can know there will be at least Three Wise Men on the grounds.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Dec 8, 08 @ 12:18 pm
How is breaking the law - whether you’re a legislator or not - relevant? if you’re breaking the law, you’re breaking the law and should be arrested or fined. period. Public officials don’t - and shouldn’t - get special dispensation for speeding, doing drugs, or laundering money either (even if they try).
Comment by anon Monday, Dec 8, 08 @ 12:20 pm
People look to fight about anything just to make the news. And people fighting about the nativity scene display at the Capitol grounds are just looking for media. If anything the Three Wise Men might teach some of people of Springfield what wise men do, and let me tell you Springfield needs some wise men.
Comment by Boscobud Monday, Dec 8, 08 @ 12:31 pm
A look at the bigger picture should cool everyone off. The very term “hoiday” is a contraction of “Holy-Day,” proof enough that the very concept of a time-off festival has a religious origin. And so have they all been until the relatively recent advent of our “secular” nation. We now have our secular “holy-days” for secular concepts and saints, such as Independence Day, Labor Day, and MLK Day. Mixed in with these are the ancient religious festivals, chief among them Christmas.
I passed a sign this morning on the way to work (on private property) “Jesus is the REASON for the CHRISTmas Season.” Which prompted me to recall that this festival is far more ancient than Christianity, coniciding as it does with pagan Yule and Saturnalia. It is a solstice celebration of the returning sun, itself a religous observance harking from the times when religion and governance were one and the same.
To this day, where there are kings, they rule by “divine right.” We are still perfecting our experiment in secular governance.
I have to agree with some of the other posters that an insistence on placing religious symbols on public property is an effort to assert religious ownership of the government. “In God We Trust” was not always on money, it was added as a result of a Christion revival after the Civil War. Likewise, “under God” was added to the Pledge as a counterpoint contrast to “godless communism” during the Cold War. Unchecked, religionists will continue to try to make government work to promote their interests and beliefs. It comes from answering to a “higher power” than the Constitution.
The recent Seventh Appellate Court decision on the “Choose Life” license plate controversy is applicable here. Having chosen to allow the expression of religious views on government property, the Secretary MUST allow other religious views, including those ABOUT religion, in that forum.
Happy Holidays to Everyone!
Comment by Oberon Monday, Dec 8, 08 @ 12:49 pm
The debate over Nativity scenes on public property reminds me of the debates over flag burning and Chief Illinwek: a lot of time and emergy spent on something more symbolic than substantive.
I happen to be a practicing Catholic and a wholehearted celebrator of Christmas. But if putting a Nativity scene on a given parcel of public property is going to cause all kinds of havoc, why bother, when there are plenty of other places it could be placed? How does this promote appreciation for our faith or for the incarnation of Christ? And what does the atheist society have to gain by making such a big deal out of what, to them, is nothing more than a pile of wood and a few statues?
It seems to me that both sides are taking this a little too seriously. It’s enough to make me suggest adopting a Spanish tradition that has found its way into the news lately.
In the Catalonian region of Spain, people tuck a little figure known as the “caganer” into their Nativity scenes. Some caganers depict heads of state or other famous people. A popular caganer this year depicts Barack Obama.
At this point I would encourage everyone who doesn’t know what I’m talking about to google the term “caganer” before you read any further.
I would suggest that its main purpose is to inject a little humor or practicality into an otherwise solemn tableau, and remind us of something ALL people, religious or not, have in common. (Maybe we should have one made of A-Rod:)
Comment by Secret Square Monday, Dec 8, 08 @ 1:03 pm
While living in Arkansas, I saw a sign for a Klan rally so our family went. Five groups were there. Plenty of cops standing around pretty bored, black guys with baseball bats, white guys in Confederate uniforms yelling ‘Tradition not Hatred’, the Klan doing what they do, and yahoos like me watching the show. They all screamed at each other and did chants. After awhile, the yahoo crowd left because the other groups were just terrible. They really had nothing to say except try to convince themselves of their own importance and the same rhetoric you have heard a thousand times, most of it pretty stupid. When the yahoo crowd started to leave, the how thing broke up. My son still talks about it.
Nativity material is in the same arena. If you like it, enjoy it. If you do not, let it go. There is likely something more important to get worked up about.
Here is an idea:
Set up 20 10×10 booths around the Capitol rotunda and lease them out M-F. No audio allowed because of the echo. Assignments balanced by how many booths are rented but clearly religious groups must be seperated by at least one nonreligious group. Not much action at the Capitol now so it would be a great photo op for newspapers.
Comment by zatoichi Monday, Dec 8, 08 @ 1:13 pm
This is really not that complex. Something that gives the appearance of state sponsored or condoned religious practice is wrong.
In a state building or on state property? NO, you can’t do it!
While we are at it, let’s levy property taxes on all the churches and synagogues. Why do these entities get free police and fire protection, streets and san, etc?
Oooops, I went off the reservation…sorry.
How about a December Holiday Festival? Let Secretary White invite all practitioners to have a display in the rotunda, and even invite the atheists and agnostics (good chance to explain the difference).
Dang it, if I want to see a nativity scene I know exactly where to go…the lawn of the church down the street from my home. I don’t want to see one at city hall or in the rotunda.
Comment by Mongo Monday, Dec 8, 08 @ 1:22 pm
===Let Secretary White invite all practitioners to have a display in the rotunda, and even invite the atheists and agnostics===
Isn’t that what is going on now?
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Dec 8, 08 @ 1:24 pm
I don’t mind sectarian, holiday displays as long as they are grouped with other differently sectarian displays. I’m thinking a grouping of a creche, a tree (for Solstice), a menorah, maybe a Diwali display (if the festival falls in December it varies like Hanukkah due to the vagaries of lunar calendars), and yes, even an atheist display. The reason I accept that and not a lone creche is that the grouping represents the diversity of our faith experiences, whereas the lone creche represents a dominance of one faith tradition over all the others.
I find the atheist display to be brilliant, in a honey pot kind of way. If religious dominionist types sue to keep it down, that very ruling could be used as precedent against them in the future. For instance, getting it banned as hate speech, could very well wind up restricting forms of religious proselytising. Or suing to keep it down could very well result in rulings impeding other religious displays. Or, as seems to be the case in Washington state, it could very well be that it will cause the political class to toss up their hands, say a pox on all their houses, and want no religious displays of any kind.
Comment by cermak_rd Monday, Dec 8, 08 @ 2:20 pm
You just can’t discriminate AGAINST any religion.
That’s only half of what the First Amendment says. Here is the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Respecting an establishment of religion means to favor or promote one religion over another. So the Constitution does also protect us from the state discriminating in favor of a religion. (And, other Amendments have been added to the Constitution so that the First Amendment also applies to the states, thus applying to a religious display in the State Capitol). Therefore, either all must be allowed, or (the much easier to manage) none allowed.
Comment by LawMan Monday, Dec 8, 08 @ 2:23 pm
If all religions had a display, you would not be able to walk into the front door, let alone through the building! (Imagine the Church of the Sub-Genius display!)
What I would rather see is a bulletin board in the rotunda where groups can post a card that reads as follows: “In lieu of a display (and follow-up lawsuit), ____________ has donated $____________ to ____________(name of charity).”
These groups can then compete over who gave more money to charity. I am not aware of a nativity scene or other religious display bringing in converts, but a display of real charity might turn a few heads.
I congratulate the Springfield Nativity Scene Committee on spending thousands of $$$ on marble statues instead of frivolously throwing their money away feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and housing the homeless (see Mat.25, v.34-36). As free speech, the nativity scene will certainly send a strong message; I wonder how it will be read.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Monday, Dec 8, 08 @ 2:47 pm
God Rest Ye Silly Atheists - VanillaMan
God bless you silly Atheists,
You offer nothing but dismay,
You thumb your noses in our face
Every Christmas Day;
You claim it’s in your legal power
To make God go away.
Refrain:
O tidings of comfort and joy,
Comfort and joy,
O tidings of comfort and joy!
Throughout the world, in every land,
wherever one is born,
Theistic culture is all around
no matter how you mourn;
We wish you Merry Christmas, but
you reply with hate and scorn.
Refrain
From when you were a little tot
Acting up in school;
You ensured everyone that you knew
How you disapproved of Rule;
How stupid we were to believe
You considered us a fool.
Refrain
So every year you hide behind,
Your lawyers not-so-bright;
To demonstrate your independance
And prove that you’re right,
To free all those who trust in Him
You’ll never stop your fight.”
Refrain
You try to prove a negative
and satisfy your mind,
You look to Reason and Ego
and claim we’re willfully blind,
You worship science as your savior
and claim reality is unkind.
Refrain
So everyday you walk around,
certain that you know,
That the rest of us are ignorant,
Pre-historic stupid drones.
Mislead by Churches, Synagogues,
Democracies and Thrones.
Refrain
God bless you silly Atheists,
For doing your research,
We’re hoping one day you will share;
A pew in our local church.
We see in your blind arrogant pride,
A flailing painful search.
Refrain
God bless these silly Atheists,
who believe that we’re God’s Nerd,
They claim we are victims of
The Theatre of the Absurd;
Yet we know that in afterlife,
They’ll be eating all their words.
Refrain
Comment by VanillaMan Monday, Dec 8, 08 @ 3:03 pm
VM, From your lyrics, it is difficult for me to see how you differ (in demeanor) from the atheists to whom you object. In both cases, an absolute certainty of position (dare I say blind, arrogant pride?) fuels the never-ending fight.
Someone should argue for agnosticism, but they probably lack the certainty necessary to ante up in this fight.
“Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace…”
Note that the lyrics do not say “no god,” just “no religion.” Hmmm.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Monday, Dec 8, 08 @ 3:28 pm
VM,
You can take your Weird Al Yankovic Christmas Carol act out of the oven. It’s smoldering because it was done ten or eleven carols ago.
===Let Secretary White invite all practitioners to have a display in the rotunda, and even invite the atheists and agnostics===
The agnostics aren’t sure if they want a display or not.
Comment by JonShibleyFan Monday, Dec 8, 08 @ 3:29 pm
VM - you’re starting to rank up there with Weird Al on the parodies. How do you have the time?
Comment by Bluefish Monday, Dec 8, 08 @ 3:35 pm
as an atheist who doesn’t really give a care about other people’s religions, and who happily practices the very secular holiday known as christmas, I am quite offended by VanillaMan’s inane rant.
religion is a silly concept for silly people. non-religion (as practiced by zealous athiests) is also a silly concept for silly people.
Jesus said to hide in your closet and pray to God, don’t be like the hypocrites who publicly proclaim their faith.
“christians” who don’t follow that rule should realize they are risking (according to their beliefs) damnation.
atheists should also refrain from noisy evangelism of their non-faith, lest it be seen as faith in and of itself.
I return to my quiet non-faith, my occasional mocking of crazy nutballs of all faiths/non-faiths, and occasional support of the FSM. Because it’s funny to mock the hypocrites.
Comment by jerry 101 Monday, Dec 8, 08 @ 4:28 pm
oh, and merry christmas to all, and to all a good night!
Comment by jerry 101 Monday, Dec 8, 08 @ 4:29 pm
I sing a lot of Christmas carols this time of year for performances. “God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen” was the song I sang all morning. I’ve always had a lot of fun doing parodies, so I think this comes naturally because it didn’t take me long to come up with this.
There are many other unusual mental tasks I perform easily and I don’t know why because I just thought these kinds of things could be done by anyone.
So I don’t think it’s special. Perhaps this is irritating some readers, so maybe I’ll return to my regular postings. I don’t mean to offend anyone. I always enjoy other’s writings of limericks, and parodies, so I wanted to have others enjoy what I come up with.
That’s all.
As to Pot’s comments, yes, perhaps my parody could be interpreted as such, yet it is a parody. My earlier postings are clearer.
The public displays are to celebrate, not denigrate. So in the spirit of celebration, our atheist friends should put up their seasonal display. Instead they want to denigrate everyone else. So their display should not be allowed with the rest. If they want a non-religious greeting, then that would be fine. But they are blowing it with their irreverent insults. They are, guilty in this case, with these words, at this time and place, of hate speech, aren’t they?
Comment by VanillaMan Monday, Dec 8, 08 @ 4:37 pm
PS - I am glad some of you find comfort in John Lennon’s “Imagine”. But the title of this song is “Imagine” not “Strive For”.
Comment by VanillaMan Monday, Dec 8, 08 @ 4:43 pm
I am always amazed at how gloatingly insensitive people are at this time of year. I’m a Christian and I support the 1st amendment. Government should always remain secular. I cherish my religious freedom. The founding fathers were right in maintaining a wall between church and state.
Comment by Emily Booth Monday, Dec 8, 08 @ 6:24 pm
–There are many other unusual mental tasks I perform easily and I don’t know why…–
No doubt, VMan.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Dec 8, 08 @ 7:07 pm
I find it ironic that this aetheist group wants to put up a sign in the Illinos State Capitol Rotunda in Springfield, Illinois during Christmas season. If they are aetheists, why should it matter what time of year they put up a sign or display? I see this as simply antagonistic on their part. However, I suppose they see the religious displays as antagonistic as well so it’s a draw. I agree with a prior poster who said the money for any of the displays would be better spent on feeding a few families instead. The Jesus I believe in surely is not pleased with this.
Comment by Little Egypt Monday, Dec 8, 08 @ 8:44 pm
If the Atheists want to display a symbol — maybe a picture of Bill Maher — let them. But not hate speech. This is common sense!! Merry Christmas to all the atheists — god bless!!!
Comment by payts Monday, Dec 8, 08 @ 10:54 pm
–PS - I am glad some of you find comfort in John Lennon’s “Imagine”. But the title of this song is “Imagine” not “Strive For”.–
Of course it means “strive for.” It’s poetic. Did you think it was meant to be an academic exercise?
John Lennon was interviewed extensively on the song. He was well aware that it was a radical message. He made it soft and sweet, he said, for the same reason “you put a little sugar in medicine.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Dec 9, 08 @ 8:23 am