In fact, some Christians act like these neutral laws and regulations exist solely to benefit Christians and Christianity — others shouldn't be permitted to participate. That's what atheists in Connecticut learned when they erected a holiday display in Vernon. The government was forced to accept their submission, but many local Christians complained and "public servants" found a way to undermine what the atheists were doing.
Dennis Himes, a Vernon resident, and member of CT Valley Atheists, says he was tired of seeing Christian displays.
"There are plenty of places to put up nativity scenes in Vernon. The original question that started this controversy was not whether a nativity scene would be put up in Vernon," said Dennis Himes of Vernon. "The question was whether the nativity scene would be put in front of a church or in front of town hall, on government property.
Himes also says that the picture of the Twin Towers is meant to show that without religion, 9-11 wouldn't have happened. A suggestion that has upset Muslims, as well.
Source: WTNH
When the display was erected, it was the only holiday sign in town — the Christian nativity scene was apparently taking too long to build. What infuriated Christians, though, was an image of the Twin Towers and the message that religion contributes to violence. It's hardly a message that can be denied, but it's still not one which Christians in America want to hear. It's much easier to imagine that Islam alone is responsible for violence while "true Christianity" is only responsible for happiness, peace, and puppies.
This Christmas, Martha Chennelle and Amy Houser say Vernon could use a few prayers, considering the sign standing in front of town hall. "We believe that Christ is the reason for Christmas," said Chennelle. "I feel like this is an attack on my beliefs as a religious person," said Houser. ...
Houser says the sign mocks her religion during a holy time of the year. "Imagine no religion is an attack against me, as any person of faith should take it as an attack against them," Houser said.
So, daring to suggest that we can imagine the absence of religion has now become a personal attack? Note that Houser isn't complaining about linking violence and religion, but about merely suggesting that no religion is preferable — or even possible. Is this what American Christians have come to, so sheltered and privileged that they can't stand the presence of people who encourage doubt? Just how sheltered and privileged does a person have to be in order to react so hysterically to atheism?
"We ultimately believe that Christians have been persecuted throughout history," said Houser, "so this is nothing new."
Oh my, Christians in America are being persecuted because they don't have the public square all to themselves. They are being persecuted because they are faced with disagreement and criticism in public. Would anyone like to chip in to send them some cheese to go with all that wine?
I can think of a lot of Christians around the world who would absolutely love to endure this sort of "persecution" instead of what the experience at home. There are Coptic Christians in Egypt who are consistently subjected to discrimination and even terrorism at the hands of Muslims. There are Christians throughout Africa engaged in violent struggles against Muslim neighbors and governments.
There are Palestinian Christians who endure a great deal from the Israeli government but who receive no support or sympathy from conservative evangelicals in Ameirca. Then there are the Christians of Iraq who have been driven underground or out of the country as a consequence of the American invasion which, according some reports, Bush launched on instructions from God.
Persecution? I don’t think Chennelle and Houser have the slightest idea what persecution is. They aren't being "persecuted," they just aren't being permitted to dominate the culture, the community, the conversation, or the public square. They have to share their community — a concept they should have learned to appreciate as children.
Chennelle and Houser have been fighting back with prayer.
Well, if that were all Christians were offering then I'd feel confident that there is no threat to the sign — but even Christians don't rely solely on prayer when faced with challenges to their presumption of superiority. They also use subterfuge:
The town put up a second, larger Christmas tree on the downtown green, blocking motorists' view of an atheist group's sign in Central Park, but there are no plans to revisit or change the new all-inclusive policy for holiday messages, Mayor Jason L. McCoy. ...McCoy said today there was no intent to obscure the sign with the tree's placement.
Source: Journal Inquirer
So, people are supposed to believe that a new, second tree was placed on the green for reasons completely unconnected to the atheist sign and, moreover, that it's purely coincidence that it prevents passers-by from seeing the sign? Is this supposed to be a "holiday miracle," courtesy of the local government? McCoy must think that voters in his town are pretty dumb if he expects them to believe that. Failure to move the tree now that it's been pointed out to him that it blocks the sign should prove beyond all doubt that it's placement was intentional and I think we know that it will stay right where it is.
McCoy had suggested that the town would revisit the policy of permitting anyone to erect a display but now there are no plans to do so. What changed? I think that what changed is that they will use subterfuge to block the view of any display they don't like. The letter of the law is being followed, but there doesn't seem to be any desire or intention of ensuring that the spirit and purpose of the law are fulfilled. Then again, if people believe that the purpose of the law is to promote the interests of Christians, then they may feel that the law is being adequately served.
To all narrow-minded hysterical hypocritical religious devotees:
“Do you feel threatened just by a thought that your religion is only a mere product of a sheep-eating-sheep-sacrificing primitive tribe from 3,500 b.c. and nothing else?”
Yes? By having such a dogma at the basis of understanding of your entire life, I would be too. Very sad.
You stated: “McCoy must think that voters in his town are pretty dumb if he expects them to believe that.”
If that were a question, rather than a statement: Does McCoy think that voters in his town are so dumb he expects them to believe that (the tree was not intended to block the display)?
You answered it yourself: “if people believe that the purpose of the law is to promote the interests of Christians, then they may feel that the law is being adequately served.”
I think McCoy expects his constituents to know it WAS intentional. He’s counting on it in next year’s election. Most of his supporters are not likely atheists to begin with. So what if I obstruct the display and piss off a handful of atheists? The Xians will be happy that I’ve effectively castrated the message and the display that they don’t agree with…and everyone is happy (except those handful of atheists that I don’t need to even worry about since they’re just a minority).
“Chennelle and Houser have been fighting back with prayer. ”
Haahaaaa! One of the funniest straight lines I’ve ever seen in a newspaper. “Persecution” indeed…
For what it’s worth, though, I’m not particularly enamored of the display. I was in the WTC that day, and lost a lot of friends; I’d really rather not see it.
A lot of Christians seem to think that either they dictate the terms to the rest of society or they will be forced to practice their faith underground.
“Imagine no religion is an attack against me, as any person of faith should take it as an attack against them,” Houser said.
Oh, they should take it as an attack? So if other Christians don’t have a persecution complex when faced with opinions different from their own, they’re doing something wrong? Puh-lease!!
Oh, and by the way, I love the song “Imagine”. Wanna hear George W. Bush sing it?
are not really offended about atheism, but rather acting like that this is the sort of thing that they’re supposed to be offended about. It’s like watching a comedy on TV and hearing a joke, and after the punchline was delivered, thinking “Oh, was that funny? Uh, HA HA HA HA!”
Oops, I meant to delete that last line! :p
It’s not a surprising move for them, really. It’s as if there’s always an 11th commandment in their back pocket that allows them to conveniently suspend the more tolerant instructions of their religion until the current “oppression” is dealt with.
John Lenon was correct
Imagine
Imagine there’s no Heaven
It’s easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today….
Imagine no religion…That is easy to do All one has to do is to look at a country that is officially atheistic — take North Korea as an example — and see what kind of a society it is.
I’m not sure any of those countries is a place where Mr. Himes or any of us would like to live.
Great writing, Mr. Cline! A perfect seansonal gift for your readers.
And all good cheer to the Connecticut Valley Atheists, and much respect for their bravery and their articulation skills!
If skepticism is ever a personal attack, I would like to carry a baseball bat as well.
Imagine no religion…That is easy to do All one has to do is to look at a country that is officially atheistic — take North Korea as an example — and see what kind of a society it is.
Non-sequitur.
Kafir, Let me then make the connection. North Korea is an atheistic state. South Korea is not. Same people. Same resources. Same heritage. Two different results. Why the difference?
Then find another country that is atheistic by definition and see what freedom the citizens enjoy or don’t enjoy.
Then find a country which has been built on religious freedom or has come to that place and see what freedom the citizens enjoy.
Which of the countries would you like to live?
“Same resources. Same heritage. Two different results. Why the difference?”
Because one is built on a religious cult of personality where an oppressive dictator is basically deified, and the other is a secular democratic technologically progessive country.
North Korea may not be metaphysically theistic, but it is religious. The John Lennon song does not apply to that country.
I don’t think the issue is whether it’s atheistic, but rather whether it allows civil liberties not under the guise of any sort of dictatorial creed. After all, I don’t think Saudia Arabia, an extreme theocracy, is the kind of place any atheist here, perhaps even many theists in the US would enjoy living in.
Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. Perhaps you can at least take that view Carter.
“Then find another country that is atheistic by definition and see what freedom the citizens enjoy or don’t enjoy.
Then find a country which has been built on religious freedom or has come to that place and see what freedom the citizens enjoy.
Which of the countries would you like to live? ”
I agree that atheist states are wrong. As are theocracies.
Any kind of state that dictates what it’s citizens can or cannot believe is wrong, whether that is atheism or theism.
I don’t see how any atheist leader though automatically makes a state an atheist state, when religious people as leaders can stand up for religious freedom.
I don’t see how any atheist leader though automatically makes a state an atheist state, when religious people as leaders can stand up for religious freedom.
It’s probably the same way theocracies are formed. It happens because ideological extremists make it happen. Interested religious parties coalesce a big enough group of people who want to impose their views on everyone else be they interested in the religion or not, through government with military support. Dissent is slowly eliminated, many times violently, until you have martial dogma where nonbelievers are looked on as infidel heathenistic traitors to ideological law, and voila, you have North Korea, the Roman Empire under Constantine, Stalinist Russia, Hitler Germany, and Saudia Arabia-where the qur’an is the constitution.