CBS Outdoor: Keep Atheism Away from Schools, Churches
CBS Outdoor refused to grant the FFRF space near schools or churches. They won't say why, but I suppose they think that freethought would be corrupting to the youth and offensive to the religious. Those would not be unusual beliefs in America today, but it's always sad to see such bigotry and even worse to see it having practical, negative consequences on the ability of nonbelievers to act as freely as believers. You just know that billboards promoting belief in the Christian god would not have been subjected to the same restrictions, but somehow it's always the atheists who are really the intolerant ones.
Phoenix will be the first city to have as many as five signs. But getting the billboards up did not come without hurdles. The five sites chosen by the organization were changed after CBS Outdoor said they had to be 1,000 feet from any schools or churches, Gaylor said. The site locations were finalized late last week, and CBS Outdoor was not available for comment over the weekend.
Source: AZ Central
What's sadly ironic is that religious believers wouldn't necessarily be offended by the signs. Some, at least, don't have a problem with atheists expressing themselves on an equal basis alongside believers and hope that such equality might lead to productive conversation.
Bob Mitchell, senior pastor at Central United Methodist Church, on Central Avenue near McDowell Road, said he's also noticed an increase in atheist activism. "I don't have a problem with people expressing their points of view in public," Mitchell, whose congregation has around 420 members, said.
Mitchell said he hoped there would be no backlash against the billboards but wouldn't be surprised if there was. "I would prefer that there was serious tolerant dialogue that might emerge from this publicity campaign because it is much needed," he said.
But state Sen. Linda Gray, who represents the Northwest Valley, was more critical of the organization and its billboard ads.
Gray, a Republican, thinks the signs will be offensive to those who believe in God. "The FFRF fails to acknowledge history which recognized the strong Christian commitment of those who attended the Constitutional Convention," she wrote in an e-mail.
So, the pastor isn't offended but the politician is certain the people will be offended — and offended at what? They will be offended at atheists simply suggesting that we humans would be better off without religion. In other words, Linda Gray thinks that people who believe in her god just can't handle it when others suggest that they are wrong — perhaps she thinks that believers would prefer to be protected in a cocoon where they won't have to encounter contrary, contradictory ideas. Funny, but I'd call that far more offensive, wouldn't you?
Why is it that not everyone recognizes the painfully obvious fact that so long as one party is denied the ability for full and equal expression, then they can't be equal partners in any conversation and, therefore, that if conversations occur they can't be very meaningful and productive? Bob Mitchell seems to get it, but Linda Gray doesn't; then again, maybe Linda Gray just isn't interested in atheists being treated as equals or in conversations with people who disagree with her. I wonder how atheists in her district feel being represented by her?
One of the painful things about watching situations like this is the fact that conservative Christians so often complain that church/state cases are brought to court by people who are merely "offended" by religious expression and that "offense" isn't a valid basis for preventing the government from endorsing or promoting any religious beliefs. This is false, because whether a person is offended or not is irrelevant to whether the government has the authority to do what is being challenged, but right here we see over and over again cases where conservative believers — primarily Christians in America, but also other religions elsewhere in the world — are trying to silence others solely on the same basis that they deride in others: personal offense.
Consider this example from California:
As she headed for a line to pick up a Social Security card for her son, Gilbert was stopped by a guard who said her T-shirt, naming an educational and resource Web site for gay women, was offensive. She said the guard, who works for a private company hired by the Department of Homeland Security, demanded that she leave the building or face arrest. "As an African-American and a lesbian, I haven't been through one day without facing some sort of discrimination ... but this is just shocking," said Gilbert, 31.
A security guard identified by Lapriss Gilbert as the one who told her to leave declined to comment. The guard cited the document, The Rules and Regulations Governing Conduct on Federal Property, as proof of his jurisdiction over Gilbert's attire, she said. The document does not specifically address what type of clothing is allowed in federal buildings.
Source: Los Angeles Daily News
I know, the story doesn't mention the guard's religion or any religious motivations, but this event didn't happen isolated from everything else that's occurring in America. Who has a history of trying to suppress any favorable or even neutral expressions towards homosexuality? Who has been working hard to make life harder for gays? It's not Buddhists. It's not secular atheists. It's not Hindus. No, in America these problems are consistently a product of conservative Christianity.
We can't pretend that the guard's actions are somehow isolated from all the bigotry and discrimination towards gays generally in America or that this is unconnected with the fact that many conservative Christians have expressed the desire that atheists also not express themselves so forcefully in the criticisms of religion. These problems are all related and stem from deep currents of authoritarianism, intolerance, and even fear that run through conservative evangelical and fundamentalist Christianity in America.
Comments
Senator Gray should be impeached and removed from office, and that security guard should be fired. Gray needs a refresher course on the meaning of “separation of church and state” and why the government has no authority to privilege one religious viewpoint over another.
In the Lapriss Gilbert case, according to ABC News the guard company said “Action will be taken against the guard. We do not condone this type of behavior.”
The t-shirt incident appears be a criminal violation of civil rights under color of law, for which one should consider making a complaint under 18 USC 242. Probably violates state criminal law, too. See a discussion at http://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/civright/107/
A tort action also should be considered. Might make a good project for a third-year law student team in a clinical project. Is Bernie Segal still teaching at Golden Gate U. L.S. in San Francisco? Give him a call.
Someone reading “Imagine No Religion” on a billboard will note there is no answer given. One is left to ones own conclusion, and it is quite possible that one could come up with the answer: Without religion, the world would be a dystopia. So, I suspect that the fear in some generated by the message is that many, even believers, would come to the conclusion that the world would be a better place without religion. And surely, if these people and certainly impressionable young people come to believe this, then they may start to question other types of authority and associated beliefs. They will want things to change. We can’t have this in a free country. I am surprised that Homeland Security allowed the message to be posted.
You’d think the rare billboard with a philosophical or social message dis-attached from any commercial agenda would be praised, and especially ripe for placement near schools and churches, as these are places where people specifically gather to discuss ideas and values, and where participating in the orgy of consumerism is–for a moment–not the primary goal.
I’m glad that Austin mentioned simple fear near the end of the essay, as that elemental and primitive emotion is at the very heart of this issue. I believe that most of these “faithful” types are, way deep down, absolutely terrified that their comforting, cherished beliefs can in no way bear close scrutiny, and so must be protected from that scrutiny at all costs.
They seem precisely like a bunch of children who just will not, not, not be told that there’s no Santa, and so try to separate themselves from other kids who don’t believe in Santa, and also to mute their voices lest they convincingly speak The Terrible Thing.
Maybe the sign should read “Imagine America with more religion”. I wonder what Linda Gray would have said then?
As to the woman who was accosted by the “overly zealous” guard. She could have made herself a bundle of money in a law suit by quietly refusing to comply. (of course, so would her lawyer).