In Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, an atheist group request permission to put up a sign by the Memorial square fountain war memorial. The sign would have been in memory of atheist war veterans, so it would certainly be appropriate, but Christians objected because it would have been near a Christmas nativity scene. The city council was informed that the law required them to either accept signs and displays on a content neutral basis, or not accept any signs and display.
Most government bodies, when faced with this issue, end up accepting multiple displays and signs for the public square. The Chambersburg Borough Council, however, decided that it would be better to have nothing at all rather than allow any displays or signs be seen as equal to the nativity scene.
The sign, which he said has not yet been made, would have had a picture of a sun rising over the words "Celebrating Solstice. Honoring Atheist War Veterans." The sun would have had an italicized "A" in the middle. In response, council decided to replace its existing policy, approved in December 1995, with one that bans all adornments and messages from the square, except for those that do not violate any law.
The nativity, which was placed by the Chambersburg Garden Club, must be taken down as soon as possible. According to Thomas J. Finucane, flowers and the American flag are the only things that meet the new requirements.
Soiurce: Chambersburg Public Opinion
If the Chambersburg Borough Council had decided to ban all display rather than allow Muslims to put up a sign, who wouldn't recognize this as anti-Muslim bigotry? If the Chambersburg Borough Council had decided to ban all displays rather than let a local synagogue erect a menorah, who wouldn't recognize that as anti-Semitism? Well, banning all displays rather than let atheists participate in the public square as full equals alongside Christians is equally bigoted and immoral.
Silverman told council members if they banned all messages on the square, they would be showing "viewpoint discrimination."
"It was not our goal to remove the nativity scene from the public square. Our goal was to add our perspective to the public square and to honor the atheist veterans of the Civil War and other conflicts," he said. "It is a war memorial, and we made an effort to make sure that our sign had a connection to it."
Any time a government opens up some public space to private signs or displays, they create what is known as a public forum. Any public forum must be "viewpoint neutral," which means that the government cannot limit who is allowed to express what opinion in the forum -- all regulations must address factors separate from viewpoints, like size, duration, safety, noise, etc.
This has been an important factor in de-privileging Christianity because Christians can no longer be the sole voices in the public square. The government has to treat everyone equally rather than privileging Christian voices, which means that they must admit all voices equally to the public forum or keep out all voices. Which a government chooses tells you a great deal about the character of the government leaders.
Leaders who support opening the public forum to all voices are leaders who are at least willing to follow the laws that require equality for all, even if their personal beliefs would favor one voice in particular. This demonstrates far more character than what we see in officials who would rather shut down the public square and keep out all voices if that's what's necessary to either prevent some minority from gaining equality or prevent a privileged majority from being seen to lose their special status.
Anti-atheist bigots are, predictably, blaming atheists. Michael Nerozzi, a "Young conservative from rural Pennsylvania currently working as a Research Assistant for the Commonwealth Foundation for Public Policy Alternatives," writes:
This is what really worries me...small town in PA forced to take down Nativity scene due to atheist complaints...
This was decision made by non-atheists to specifically exclude an atheist message, despite atheists arguing against it, and atheists may take legal action to reverse it... so can anyone explain to me how exactly it is that atheists are still to blame here? That's nothing less than hate-mongering, blaming the victims of illegal actions when those illegal actions are halted.
What's worse is that Michael Nerozzi is almost a voice of sanity and reason in comparison to most of the Christians posting in the comments to that article. Despite the fact that the article makes it absolutely clear that the atheists merely wanted to add their voice to the public square, and moreover disagree with scrubbing the square of all displays, the Christian comments are almost unanimous in blaming atheists for infringing upon Christians' free speech and freedom of religion. Christian comments consistently complain that atheists are "ruining it" for everyone else, as if all Christians supported privileging Christians voices.
I don't know what's more painful: reading the grotesque ignorance of the Christian comments or contemplating the dangerous hate-mongering of blaming atheists who dare to ask that the law be followed. All I do know is that neither is going to help anyone who wants to defend Christianity as a reasonable belief system and Christians as generally reasonable, sensible people (at least when it comes to matters that intersect with their religion).
Thanks Austin. I commented on the original source.
How depressing.
I think that you have missed the point. I think the council may have realised that if they didnt change their tune they could have ended up with all types of inappropriate signage that would have to be dealt with on a case by case basis. If someone had created a sign encouraging domestic violence and put it in the town square, I dont think you would have a problem with the council ruling.
Except that isn’t a problem in areas where the opposite decision is made. Ergo, that’s not a legitimate reason.
Free speech is free speech.
But just how likely do you think it is that such a sign would be erected?
**If someone had created a sign encouraging domestic violence and put it in the town square, I dont think you would have a problem with the council ruling.**
I would think the council had reserved the right to decline any display that outright encouraged illegal activity. there’s a vast difference between a sign that would encourage spousal abuse (illegal) and a sign which honors atheist veterans.
My guess is that the council anticipated that residents of the community would ultimately blame atheists rather than the council for the removal of all displays. Unfortunately, such a reaction is all too predictable.
Look, I have no idea if there is a God or not, but attacking Christianity under the guise of “honoring” atheist war dead is just obscene. It seems obvious to me that the intent of putting up a sign like this was just to annoy people who believe in a God. Why do you want to piss off your fellow humans? How in the heck does it honor someone to deliberately create a controversy? Maybe said dead atheist would actually be offended by a said sign in close proximity to a nativity scene, who knows? The Christians put up their decorations and nativity scene one month out of the year, why can’t they have that? And don’t tell me you really give a damn about some winter solstice b.s. either. Give me a break. The Christians don’t hate atheists, they hate what they are doing to attack their religion. Grow up.l
And I assume you can explain how Christianity was being “attacked”?
Unless you’re perfect, perhaps what is “obvious” to you isn’t always correct?
Maybe you can answer that question yourself — unless, of course, you have motives others than “pissing off fellow humans” for coming to an atheist site to make assumptions about and attacks on atheists?
Assuming for the sake of argument that at least some of the atheists who died in wars did so to protect freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and equality for all, then it seems to be that creating a controversy on behalf of those principles would honor them quite nicely.
Can you think of many worthwhile things that have been achieved without controversy? You treat “controversy” as if it were necessarily a bad thing, which just makes no sense to me.
Maybe not all Christians would be offended by it, though you seem to act as though they would be.
In fact, it’s Christians who have imposed the ban on the nativity. No atheist has said that they can’t have one.
Oh, wait, that’s not what you mean, is it? What you meant was: why can’t they have exclusive use of the public square for the nativity, right? That is after all the point of contention here, Christians wanting to be the sole, exclusive voice and atheists wanting to participate as equals. Thus you are objecting to atheists participating as equals and asking why Christians can’t be privileged.
Is that really such a hard question to answer?
Well, I didn’t.
Maybe you should learn to stop making so many assumptions.
Right, because your comment — full of attacks and mistaken assumptions, but not a single sincere question or genuine interest in learning anything — is such an great example of how a mature adult approaches a controversy.
I am an atheist and I am in favor of no religious displays on public property. Period. But Carl Silverman, of Pa Nonbelievers was going beyond the usual atheist tactic of pushing for equal time when we really would rather have equal time for no one – it being public land. Keep it secular and non-politicized. I think the best outcome possible happened and we should simply be happy with that. If anything, the greatest crime was that the city council there took the attitude that they would allow it until someone complained like they knew they would. That’s wrong, but why did it go on for twenty years before anyone did? And now Silverman wants some sort of payback for the years he didn’t get to put up a display? Kind of weird.
I just want to see an end to religious entitlement in cases like this. And I think it happened here. Victory. I don’t understand the outrage. If Mr. Silverman would like to honor atheist vets (I’m one – awesome!) he should consider a billboard or something on private land. It’s what we expect from theists.
So…One thing I don’t understand:
“The sign would have been in memory of atheist war veterans, so it would certainly be appropriate, but Christians objected because it would have been near a Christmas nativity scene.”
Putting a sign up in memory of atheist war veterans is HIGHLY inappropriate…
I have seen hundreds of memorials around the country for war veterans. However, I have NEVER seen a memorial for Christian war veterans, or Jewish war veterans, or Muslim war veterans.
Specifying that the memorial is for atheist war veterans insinuates that they are more worthy of remembrance.
I think it is a shame that someone would want to make the distinction. I guarantee you that the church I attend would want to honor the memory of ALL veterans, whether they are a person of faith or not.
Merry Christmas
Why?
1. A number of memorials have religious symbols, like crosses.
2. There is a huge difference between a “memorial” and putting up a “temporary sign near a memorial.” Do you not recognize that?
Except that no one was suggesting saying that any memorial was just for atheist war veterans. Where did you get that idea?
I think it is a shame that someone would make up things that aren’t true.
I guarantee you that you are making up nonsense.
Wow…Great reply.
You guarantee me that I am making up nonsense?
Hilarious.
Oh, by the way, you ask where I got the idea that the memorial would be for atheist war veterans…
From here: “The sign would have been in memory of atheist war veterans”
Thanks.
Yes, because you were making false statements that were complete nonsense.
Notice that the quote specifies that it was a sign, not a memorial. It was supposed to be a temporary sign placed next to a memorial. A memorial is a permanent structure which, when on public ground, has the support and approval of the government; a temporary sign is simply the expression of some sponsoring group and is not necessarily supported or agreed to by the government.
I asked you previously if you could not recognize the difference between a “temporary sign” and a “memorial” and now we have the answer: no, you cannot recognize the difference. This is why your comment was both false and nonsensical.
What’s wrong with this picture is this group is only honoring atheist veterans. I think excluding everyone else who served our country is as dishonorable as a Christian organization choosing to only recognize veterans belonging to the Christian faith.
The fact that many vocal atheists don’t see or have an issue with that is as much a concern about atheism as anyone else promoting an exclusionary religious ideology.
Why is it wrong for an atheist group to honor atheist veterans? Black groups have honored black veterans and women’s groups have honored female veterans.
Please explain why it is dishonorable for a private organization to choose to honor other people who fit the defining characteristics of that organization.
Is it wrong to honor the veterans of just one conflict, ignoring everyone else who served in any other conflict? Is it wrong to honor those who have died in foreign wars, ignoring everyone who didn’t die or who didn’t serve abroad?
Why is it wrong for an atheist group to honor atheist veterans? Black groups have honored black veterans and women’s groups have honored female veterans.
It is not the same thing. This is not at a private venue. And I’m sorry you cannot see the difference in your examples. That simply highlights the concern.
Those recognitions you cited as examples apply to people who have made contributions despite race or sex, not creed or being recognized for their lack thereof. Which is it for atheism again? Recognition due to their “lack of belief” in “something” or their rejection of religion as the distinction for their accomplishments. I’m always forgetting when atheists apply that double standard.
Atheists wanting to put up such a memorial in a Publicly Funded venue recognizing only atheist veterans while excluding others is intentionally discriminatory and exclusionary.
It challenges the The Non-Discrimination Principle. Atheists who do not see this are as big a concern as any other group that wants to descriminate.
So? It’s still a private message, paid for by a private group. According to your reasoning, no private message expressed by any private group in public should ever be less than 100% inclusive.
What difference? My examples presumed a public venue for the private messages. Are you saying that black groups have never, ever honored black veterans in public?
It is recognition that atheists have served in the military, fought in wars, and died in defense of the nation — despite the fact that atheists are accused of being unpatriotic, unAmerica, and lacking any basis for morality.
Exceuse me, but what memorial? I suggest that you read the article more carefully: the memorial is a general one while atheists wanted to place a temporary sign singling out atheists veterans for recognition. The permanent memorial is publicly funded; the temporary sign is privately funded.
Joe also misread the original article as if atheists were erecting a public memorial, not simply placing a temporary sign next to a memorial, and I had to explain this a couple of times to him — in excruciating detail. What is it about commentors who misread things in exactly the way necessary to falsely depict atheists in a bad light?
Do you object just as strongly to publicly funded Ten Commandments memorials? How about to ostensible veterans’ memorials centered about religious symbols, like a cross? These are genuine examples of publicly funded religious displays so they should arouse even more condemnation from you.
By that reasoning, any sign or display created to honor black veterans must be “intentionally discriminatory and exclusionary.” I’d like to see you defend this implication.
Please state and explain this “Principle”.
So, when any group singles out members of that group for special recognition, they are a “bit concern” because they “discriminate,” regardless of the circumstances or the group.
Exceuse me, but what memorial? I suggest that you read the article more carefully: the memorial is a general one while atheists wanted to place a temporary sign singling out atheists veterans for recognition.
you mean the part where PAN representatives said
“to honor the atheist veterans”/i>
There’s already a war memorial that doesn’t discriminate or call special recognition based on belief or non-belief.
Please state and explain this “Principle”.
It’s one that applies in both the US and EU and doesn’t allow for discrimination on multiple fronts (wages, collective bargaining, high education, representation in community) resulting from some double standard interpretation of descrimination, exclusion or elitism.
Sorry your bias doesn’t allow you to get that.
Yes, that’s the topic of the sign. It’s not a memorial. Do you not comprehend the difference?
Correct, the memorial is general. The atheist group wants to place a temporary sign to call attention to the fact that atheists have played a part as well.
Would you object to gays placing a sign there drawing attention to the service of gays in the military? How about a sign drawing attention to the black, Hispanic, Native American, or Chinese veterans?
Please explain how an atheist group erecting a temporary sign drawing attention to existence, service, and sacrifices of atheist veterans is a violation of this “Principle.”
Indeed, how is it possible for a private group to “discriminate” at all simply by drawing attention to their existence in this or that sector of society? If atheists put up a sign stating that atheist doctors exist, is that discriminatory? If atheists put up a sign thanking atheist firefighters, is that discrimination?
Oh, I get the importance of not discriminating — what I don’t get is how a sign drawing attention to the existence of atheists who served in the military qualifies as discrimination. Your refusal to even try to explain how or why that’s the case completely undermines the force of your accusation of bias on my part.
What’s more, you ignored several important questions and challenges. Given the nature of your accusations, I can’t and won’t allow that to pass. I’ll repeat them here and must insist that you respond if you are going to continue to comment:
You make claims about atheists erecting memorials in a “Publicly Funded” venue when the truth is that they want to put up a temporary sign. Do you not recognize a distinction or what?
You claim that it’s important that this is “not at a private venue,” but you don’t explain why it’s discriminatory for a private group to express a private message in public.
You don’t address whether you object to publicly funded Ten Commanmdents memorials or veterans’ memorials centered around religious symbols.
You don’t explain how or why it’s “intentionally discriminatory and exclusionary” for members of other minority groups to honor their veterans.
Austin – you crack me up. I don’t know what is funnier – the way you respond to the village idiots with your witty intellect, or your total lack of response to the “special” village idiots who struggle to string a few words together in a comprehensive sentence.
Austin, I love to read your responses to these so-called christians (who I have yet to see do as Jesus taught and “turn the other cheek” when it comes to giving atheists any room to breathe in US culture).
I am an atheist working in the Pentagon, and I can tell you there are LOTS of special permanent memorials and corridors and displays throughout the building dedicated to different parts of the military, one to women, others to various ethnic minorities who have served in the military, but not ONE to any religious organization or belief (though we do have our share of xmas decorations this time of year – but I rather like them as I see Christmas as more a pagan/secular holiday anyway.)
There are also a fair number of atheists here too, so take heart.
I am a WW2 participant. (Have an aversion to “Veteran”).
Also a lifelong atheist.
I only ask one question of the religious bigots.
Do you object to acknowledging that atheists served, were maimed, suffered, and died in the service of our different countries.?
A Memorial should be for all regardless of ethnicity, religion, or class. If the sign had been erected without a distinctive identity there would have been no problem. It was identifiable, and closely so, with an Extreme Christian Sect, using, to my mind, a childishly ridiculous depiction of an event of doubtful authenticity. This, by itself, suggested that only the followers of this particular religion were the participants in wars. Yes better no sign than false advertising.
Go to Google and type in “war veterans”. Then put you cursor back at the beginning and type in “Catholic” or “Jewish” (or “Italian” or “Polish”). They have websites, memorials, museums, and each is just for its individual group (I tried “Hindu” and “Muslim” but they aren’t as big or as organized . . . yet).
Bob.
What was the result when atheist was typed in?
This MJNerozzi has got some nerve. He wrote on Twitter: If you are really concerned about atheists (less than 5% of the pop.) being infringed upon, get them elected to public office
The fraction of the population is irrelevant. The US is a republic, we have rule of law. It is not the Christian mob that rules.
I tried a search for Atheist War Veterans, simply for the decency challenge, and found this page on the top of my Google list. Intriguing.
As for the article itself, I see(and take) no issue with atheists putting up a sign calling attention to a list of persons that served. All of our veterans risked life, limb, and psychological shattering in the conduct of their duties, and most were changed in some significant way by their experiences.
Be they Atheists, Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, whatever. In Combat, every man is your brother.
That said, the Chambersburg Council removing the Nativity scene so they didn’t have to put up the Atheist’s sign is cowardly and crass. If they had half a ball between them, they would have just let it go up, and the local Christians deal with their own crap.
If you don’t *like* it, stop *looking* at it. How hard is that? There are plenty of places where people specifically of one denom or another are sanctified, so why not the Atheists?
When I joined, I couldn’t put “Atheist” on my dogtags (yes, they made them for girls too), They etched “NORELPREF” on them instead. No matter what my views on the matter were.
Mind you, I got the same answer for “Buddhist” as well. In a truly “viewpoint neutral” society, these things would never have happened. There shouldn’t have even been a box for denom, IMO.
All things considered, I think the Council in said town should be taken out back and treated like the spineless dogs they proved themselves to be. A few Christians whine, and you punish everybody?
For shame!
Theists invent a problem, then they pretend to solve it with a personal attack.
‘It’s one that applies in both the US and EU and doesn’t allow for discrimination on multiple fronts (wages, collective bargaining, high education, representation in community) resulting from some double standard interpretation of descrimination, exclusion or elitism.
Sorry your bias doesn’t allow you to get that.’
This is what I find sad, do you notice he didn’t include religion as applicable to that ‘principle’. Not only that, but does this ‘doesn’t allow for discrimination… resulting from some double standard interpretation of descrimination, exclusion or elitism’ give you brain cramps?
I find it interesting that when atheists express their views they’re “attacking religion” and being “offensive,” yet when theists express their views, they’re exercising their freedom.
It seems that some theists don’t understand that the best way to protect their own rights is to protect the rights of others.
There’s a damn good reason to attack religion…all religion. Their tax-exempt status is a good place to start and their ever-increasing influence in government. The stupid Senator from Oklahoma that asked for prayers that one democratic senator not make the vote the night before the critical vote on the health care legislation might be considered another very good reason. He, no doubt, had 94-year-old Senator Byrd in mind. Was that a death wish. Atheists are the most intelligent individuals on the planet and it’s time to declare intellectual war on the religious, otherwise we will not survive.
Atheists initiated the problem.
Atheists aggitated because there was a Christian sign.
If there was no Christian symbol there, the atheists wouldn’t have bothered – but because Christianity had a visible presence, atheists want to intervene and try to reduce the message.
You mean, by expecting to be treated as equal citizens?
And it was unreasonable for them to expect to be treated as equals of Christian?
Because it’s wrong for atheists to be as visible in public as Chrsitians?