To say that “atheism” is always negative isn’t very revealing. Of course it is negative to a theist. It is a concept derived from their own beliefs to identify those who disagree with theistic views. I’m quite certain every individual identified or self-identifying as “atheist” has a set of positive assertions that become the basis for the rejection of the positive assertions of theism. Rather than the theist focusing on skepticism toward their own views, to actually understanding one who believes differently than themselves, they ought to inquire as to what that individual believes to be true versus what they belief to be untrue. The first will be the basis of the second and of much greater relevance. To focus on what another DOES believe rather than what they DON’T believe puts any discussion in a positive direction. Although “theist” is a positive label, the inherent negative nature of “atheist” tells you nothing positive about a person and, in all fairness, that is what you ought to be after in relationships. What kind of silliness is it to relate to anyone based on what they are not versus what they in fact are?

This is a lesson both theists and “atheists” ought to remember.

Here’s the problem: You have interpreted the sign to be read in a specific way. There are many ways to read the sign. Your interpretive tone is the problem, the sign is just a sign. Words, that’s all. It’s in the way you are reading it that’s the issue.

The other problem is the sign being on governmental property in the first place. This action indicates that there is no separation of church and state. I would have the same problem if any religion placed their icons there.

Either put a menorah (Judaism) in there with everyone dressed up in dshikis (Kwanzaa) and add 3 stars to represent Orion’s belt (for the Pagans, you know) or avoid putting it there in the first place.

Don’t confuse that with the love preached by Jesus, I’m talking about the message of hate and bigotry. From radio to TV, newspapers, billboards, even the web, there is an abundance of Christian media constantly condemning non-believers (and others) and gleefully threatening us with hellfire.

I freely admit that we all filter information through our own biases and often don’t notice things that simply don’t affect or bother us- but honestly, when I read stuff like this I wonder if some people live in an alternate universe. Sure, I’ve heard the occasional fundamentalist preacher talk about fire and brimstone, but in Catholicism and most mainstream Protestant churches I’ve visited this is almost NEVER the case (almost to the point that some Catholics feel that we’ve de-emphasized this theological viewpoint too much, so that some believe that anything goes and God will forgive even if we don’t repent.)

But my point is, where are you actually hearing such stuff thrust upon you in the public sphere? On religious broadcasts on obscure TV and radio stations? Turn the dial. Are there more subtle messages on billboards and such? Sure, but then you neglect to consider that the people who spread that message are motivated by caring, not hatred. They’re not condemning atheists, they’re stating their belief that God will condemn nonbelievers and asking people to consider that before dismissing it.

And that’s leaving aside the greater principle- that our First Amendment guarantees the right for people to express such opinions; you have the right to express yours as well, but you don’t have the right to have opinions censored from the public sphere if they offend you. In that sense, I think Jason’s point (echoed by some others here) is very valid- the atheists have every right to post the sign, but as Claudia points out it is tone deaf, and as JayC mentions, it’s the opposite side of the coin of the type of religious message which is ‘in your face’ and condemning of those who disagree.

I personally have no problem with the sign – they can make a 50 foot tall one for all I care. My freedom of speech allows me to tell them what I think and my freedom of choice allows me to not support those organizations.

We could use a whole lot less thin skins.

Overreacting to this is a little like the “War on Christmas”. Yes, “In God We Trust” should not be on the money and “One Nation, Under God” is a late add-on that was never in the original pledge and should not be forced into the current one. But putting a sign up next to a manger scene that invokes negativity is counterproductive. It is not a Ten Commandments stone implying that morality must come from the Bible, it is the re-enactment of the myth of the birth of the human-god of a particular religion. They could have put a sign up with a positive message and I would have been fine with that, but I don’t think that particular sign helps us at all.

Claudia, Assistant Editor :The sign really bugs me. What a bunch of scrooges really. I would have been fine with a “Be good for goodness sake” or “Don’t believe in God? You are not alone” sign. I’m fine with the exercise of free speech and the reminder that if overt religious promotions are to be allowed in government buildings, overtly non-religious displays will have to be treated the same way, but I think this sign is simply unnecessarily offensive. There’s just no need to make this argument in that fashion next so a patently non-aggressive Christmas display, even if it was inside the statehouse.
I understand why they did it, but I think it was tone-deaf and counterproductive.

Offensive? The daily barrage of Christianity intruding into places it doesn’t belong (publicly owned facilities supported by everyone’s taxes, atheists included) is offensive. Frankly, I find the Christian message itself offensive. Don’t confuse that with the love preached by Jesus, I’m talking about the message of hate and bigotry. From radio to TV, newspapers, billboards, even the web, there is an abundance of Christian media constantly condemning non-believers (and others) and gleefully threatening us with hellfire. Not to mention the numerous “news” pundits who like to hop on the anti-atheist bandwagon. But post ONE sign to the contrary, and watch the faithful swarm to attack like enraged hornets. Seriously, is there a severe deficit of churches, businesses, and private property willing to host religious displays? Is a statehouse/courthouse supported by my atheist tax money the ONLY place they can find to display them? There’s obviously a double standard here.

Jay_C wrote: “but In God we trust, etc. is not in and of itself atacking anyone, you just don’t agree with it being there.” Not attacking anyone? When did I suddenly cease to be one of “We The People”? In god YOU trust, (yippee) but neither my government nor my currency should be telling me that _I_ do.

Sasha, the sign is offensive in that it is atacking others. THey havethe right to put the sign out there, free speech and all.. but In God we trust, etc. is not in and of itself atacking anyone, you just don’t agree with it being there. It is an established statement on our currency. Want to change it, fine, bring it to a vote, but don’t complain when the majority of Americans do not follow your lead.

The sign is offensive to some, so what? Oh, the Nativity scene with Jesus is not offensive? Sorry, I didn’t know I was suppose to ignore the fact that Jesus said I will be tortured for all eternity in a lake of fire, just because there isn’t a sign next to the nativity scene saying so. Oops!

Atheists are forced to spend money with “God” on it. Their children are pressured to say “under God” each day during The Pledge in school. Christian TV, radio, music, and even the Bible gets their shots in. Read Psalm 14:1 lately? It insults non-believers and is in bookstores everywhere. Why don’t you write an article about that?

So all that above, what Christians do, is not rude or offensive enough for you to write about, but when some tiny atheist group puts up one tiny sign (which got stolen, essentially proving their point) in the corner of some tiny building, it’s enough to get your panties all in a bunch and write write write protest protest protest. How about some proportionality? Give me a break.