The elaborate Nativity scenes rose in a city park along the oceanfront here every December for nearly six decades. More than a dozen life-size dioramas depicted the Annunciation, Mary and Joseph being turned away at the inn and, of course, the manger.
This always angered Damon Vix, who worked off and on in Santa Monica and considers himself a devout atheist, so to speak. How could it be, he asked himself each year, that the city could condone such an overtly religious message?
So, a few years ago, he petitioned the city and received his own space, using it to put up a sign offering “Reason’s Greetings.” But this year, he wanted more. Mr. Vix gathered a few supporters and applied for dozens of spaces in Palisades Park, a patch of green on a bluff overlooking the sandy beaches that this city is famous for.
What we have is an group, using the law, to legally silence another group with whose worldview they disagree. Now there are plenty of other times in the year they could promote their own, thit is if their aim was to promote their own. However that was not their intent. Their intent was to shut down the Christian Christmas message.
These people are not for the free exchange of ideas in public areas, rather their intent is to drive the Christian worldview out of the public sector, viewpoint discrimination pure and simple, so that only their viewpoint is recognized and heard by the state. They will “tolerate” the Christian worldview so long as it is private and proclaimed on private land, but never on public, while their own may freely use public areas.
Make no mistake, the New Atheism Movement as another micro-minority, is seeking to impose its worldview to the exclusion of all others. Specifically they push hard on the notion of “freedom FROM religion”. And with the increasing secularization of Government, they find increasing sympathy from those who think “separation of church and state” is part of the US Constitution; if they even go so far as to care about the Constitution.
It looks to me like hate speech.
There are times when I wonder if there is any limit to the effort the “out there” atheists will make to fulfill the stereotypical image they have.
Capt Warren:[blockquote]Make no mistake, the New Atheism Movement as another micro-minority, is seeking to impose its worldview to the exclusion of all others. [/blockquote]That is a mistake. Two mistakes, actually. One, New Atheists are more likely to be democrats than fascists. Two, atheism isn’t a worldview, it’s simply a lack of a particular belief – so it’s difficult to see how that could be ‘imposed’ on anyone.
What atheists in the US do want is that the State confines its activities to non-religious affairs, as it is supposed to do by law.
Unless you want the US to have a State religion or to become a theocracy, you should support that.
[i]it’s simply a lack of a particular belief[/i]
No sir, it is the active belief and rule of life that there is no God, no higher power, nothing other than one’s conciousness. That is one’s worldview.
[i]What atheists in the US do want is that the State confines its activities to non-religious affairs, as it is supposed to do by law[/i]
There is no such law as you claim. The US Constitution merely prevents Congress from enacting laws against religion or infringing on one’s freedom of religion. In its silence, the Constitution leaves the matter of religion open to the states. The states may enact a state religion if they wish.
The tradition in Government in the US is very heavily weighted upon and dependent on the Christian religion; during Founding, in early governence, and in sensible education of the population. It is only since the 1947 Everson case before the US Supreme Court that the professional secularists and the atheists have been able to advance their harmful agenda.
A very Merry Christmas to all! May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you for evermore. Amen.
You can argue that agnosticism is simply the absence of a belief. Atheism, however, is an affirmative faith claim: there Is no god.
Atheism is a religion of hate and rage, responsiblefor the murder of 85 to 100 people over the past century. Your claims are drenched in blood, Gnu Ordure, in addition to being patently false. They have no place in civilized discourse.
Capt,
[blockquote]No sir, it is the active belief and rule of life that there is no God [/blockquote]
There are two distinct positions here; there’s a difference between [i]I don’t believe in gods[/i], and [i]I believe that there are no gods[/i].
The former is known as weak atheism, the latter as strong atheism. Strong atheism involves active belief, weak doesn’t. And weak atheists outnumber strong by 4 to 1, approximately. So please don’t lump us all together.
[blockquote] There is no such law as you claim. The US Constitution ….[/blockquote]The law goes beyond the Constitution. There have been numerous SCOTUS decisions upholding the principle of separation, quoting Founding Fathers such as Jefferson and Madison in justification.
Wiki : [i]Jefferson’s metaphor of a wall of separation has been cited repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court. In its 1879 Reynolds v. United States decision, the court allowed that Jefferson’s comments “may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment.” [/i]
[blockquote]The states may enact a state religion if they wish. [/blockquote]Really? I didn’t know that. Have any done so?
[blockquote]A very Merry Christmas to all! [/blockquote]Likewise. And a Happy New Year too.
If a state were to decree that Islam or Zoroastrianism were the official religion, No. 6, would you not feel that the citizens’ constitutional protections had been infringed?
Gnu Ordure, go back and read the Constitution, and this time, [b]read it thoroughly![/b] Hire a constitutional lawyer and have him or her explain it to you, if necessary. [b]There is not one single mention of the U.S. Government having the authority to ban anything religious anywhere in this country via the Constitution.[/b]
Hi Charles,
[blockquote] Atheism, however, is an affirmative faith claim: there Is no god[/blockquote]Please see what I said above to Capt. Warren. Strong atheists make an affirmative claim, weak ones don’t.
[blockquote]You can argue that agnosticism is simply the absence of a belief. [/blockquote]
I wasn’t saying that. I’m saying that absence of belief = weak atheism.
Gnosticsm/Agnosticism concern knowledge; Theism/Atheism concern belief. So they can be an X-axis and a Y-axis, yielding four positions of varying strength, thus:
Gnostic theist: I believe in God, and I know I’m right.
Agnostic theist: I believe in God, but I could be wrong.
Gnostic atheist: I don’t believe in God, and I know I’m right.
Agnostic atheist: I don’t believe in God, but I could be wrong.
Wiki has articles on all four of those categories, if you want further explanation i.e. I’m not making this up.
[blockquote]Atheism is a religion… [/blockquote]No, really, it isn’t. It’s the lack of belief in religion. It’s like saying “Off” is a TV Channel.
[blockquote] …of hate and rage …[/blockquote] I must have missed a meeting.
Possibly you’re confusing or conflating atheism with totalitarian fascism or communism?
[blockquote] … responsible for the murder of 85 to 100 people [sic] over the past century. Your claims are drenched in blood, Gnu Ordure, [/blockquote]Ah, you are confusing or conflating atheism with totalitarian fascism or communism.
Mr. Ordure, I was curious as to why you read an Anglican blog if you are in fact an Atheist?
^^^
Why do Anglicans blog about atheists?
And since they do, surely an atheist can respond?
#9, Thank you, you have touched upon the central tenant of beauty in our Federal Constitutional system.
I live in Mississippi. If the people of the state of Mississippi decided that Isam was to be the state religion, or established religion [something more likely to happen in Michigan than Mississippi by the way], I certainly would not like that. But under our system of states rights, that would be the right of the people. I would be a member of the non-established Christian Church. And if things got difficult for me in that position, I would pull up stakes and head either to Alabama or Louisiana where there are no established religions.
And therein is the beauty of the Constitution: the states by the will of their people are sovereign entitites and can act as such. If you don’t like what your state is doing, then move to a state more to your liking. Great example of this is Glen Beck. He has moved to Texas because he can no longer stand New York.
I asked the question Socratically, no. 14. I appreciate the consistency of your answer, but submit that the establishment of Zoroastrianism (or Christianity, or anything else) as an official religion of a state would unanimously, promptly and without much discussion at all trial and appellate levels be found to be a violation of the First Amendment, as made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. And, while you are comfortable with state established religions under the Constitution, I personally am not, and would be outraged if a state tried to pull such a stunt. I would consider it to be palpably un-American
13. Without question, sir, you can respond. It simply boggled me that an atheist would regularly read and comment on a website such as this.
Anglicans blog about atheists because we want several things: 1) for atheists to see the truth of Christ and him Crucified as Paul says in 1 Corinthians and 2) for atheists to stop attempting to persecute Christians like this Mr. Vix for things that neither persecute nor involve them. If there was some mass persecution by Christians, that is one thing. But for someone to be openly antagonistic for the sake of being antagonistic, that is malicious and should not be tolerated by the government or by the people.
You are more than welcome to comment on this blog. I simply wanted to make sure you were not commenting as a way to anger people who are serious about their faith. If that is not your purpose, then feel free!
Erecting religious symbols outdoors, while it may affect an atheist’s sensibilities, is and should not be a reason for that atheist to register a complaint against the erecting of those symbols. We do have rights in this country, and one of them is the right of open expression…..Freedom of Speech, if you will. So, if something offends you, ignore it and move on……and don’t try to deny anyone their right to express their religious beliefs simply because you claim to not believe in God.
I suppose that there may be atheist complaints about outdoor religious expressions, just as there may be religious community objections to similar expressions of atheist sentiments. The only time, however, that the issue becomes one for the courts is where government facilities are put to use to advance religious themes. If I put a cross on my lawn, atheist may not like it, but he has no constitutional quarrel with it. If I prevail on my town council to put a cross on the front lawn of City Hall, the atheist citizen probably has an actionable gripe.
[i]If I prevail on my town council to put a cross on the front lawn of City Hall, the atheist citizen probably has an actionable gripe[/i]
Sure he/she does in 21st century America after some 60 years of progressive Supreme Court decisions following the very flawed decision in the 1947 Everson case that basically federalized the non-Constitutional notion put forth by a Baptist minister to Jefferson that led to the phrase “separation of church and state”.
This is why elections have consequences. We need a constitutional conservative president(s) to make several conservative, strict-constructionist appointments to SCOTUS and then have them rule on a seminal case to put this atheist/secular genie back in the bottle.
By the same token, our city erects a huge Christmas Tree on the plaza at the end of Main Street, and no one ever complains about it. Ditto for the National Christmas Tree…..and they’re both on public property.
Atheism, may or may not be a complete worldview, but it is certainly part of one. A worldview is how one views the world, it may be true, partly true or false, consistent or inconsistent, and it forms the foundation as to how one views reality. A theist will have a theistic worldview and an atheist will have an aesthetic one. None of these worldviews are neutral or value free.
All government actions will impact those worldviews. Gnu posits that government must confine itself to “non-religious” affairs, yet every action or non action by government will impact everyone’s worldview which includes theistic worldviews–religion.
To not have a prayer before a government meeting is to make the affirmative statement that such prayer is not needed or, is unimportant or improper. To avoid saying a prayer is as much of a value statement as is saying the prayer. You simply can’t have value free values.
Of course no one objects, No. 20. A Christmas tree is not a religious symbol.
[i]A Christmas tree is not a religious symbol[/i]
Depends on who is gazing upon the Christmas Tree. Since atheists, secularists, have attacked them as such, these people obviously believe, along with Christians that Christmas Trees can be religous symbols.
Hi Br Michael:
[blockquote]To not have a prayer before a government meeting is to make the affirmative statement that such prayer is not needed or, is unimportant or improper.[/blockquote]I doubt that all US Government meetings are always preceded by a prayer. So prayers evidently [i]aren’t [/i]necessary for the government to operate.
And the gist of church-state separation is that the State should not endorse or show preference to any particular religion or branch thereof. Which is supposed to safeguard freedom of all religious beliefs. Do you agree with those safeguards, Br Michael?
[blockquote]Gnu posits that government must confine itself to “non-religious†affairs, [/blockquote]That’s what church-state separation means. It’s not a new idea.
[blockquote]Atheism, may or may not be a complete worldview, but it is certainly part of one. [/blockquote]Yes, but it’s a very small part, as it’s a negative characteristic. Any particular atheist would be better characterized by some positive label; they might be described as humanists, fascists, existentialists, Greens, Moral Relativists or Moral Nihilists, democrats or communists or anarchists etc etc – as the case may be.
In other words, atheists aren’t really a homogenous group, as say Episcopalians are. Episcopalians share a credo, atheists don’t. Yet someone like Charles (#7) nevertheless characterizes all atheists as hateful and angry.
jric777:
[blockquote] 13. Without question, sir, you can respond. [/blockquote]Thank you.
[blockquote]It simply boggled me that an atheist would regularly read and comment on a website such as this. [/blockquote]Sorry about that. However, my lawyer informs me that I am not liable for any reactive embogglement to my posts.
[blockquote]Anglicans blog about atheists because we want … snip …atheists to stop attempting to persecute Christians like this Mr. Vix [/blockquote]Since 83% of Americans claim to be religious, it’s difficult to see how atheists are in any position to persecute anyone. And Mr Vix himself hasn’t done anything illegal.
[blockquote]I simply wanted to make sure you were not commenting as a way to anger people [/blockquote]I assure you I have no interest in angering people.