Stealing Thought

Read all the way to the last line of this CNN report. Very nice.

An atheist sign criticizing Christianity that was erected alongside a Nativity scene was taken from the Legislative Building in Olympia, Washington, on Friday and later found in a ditch. The Freedom from Religion Foundation had a placard up in the Legislative Building in Olympia, Washington. An employee from country radio station KMPS-FM in Seattle told CNN the sign was dropped off at the station by someone who found it in a ditch.

Freedom From Religion Foundation co-founder Annie Laurie Gaylor told CNN earlier Friday. "It's always a shock when your sign is censored or stolen or mutilated. It's not something you get used to." The sign, which celebrates the winter solstice, has had some residents and Christian organizations calling atheists Scrooges because they said it was attacking the celebration of Jesus Christ's birth. ...

The incident will not stifle the group's message, Gaylor said. ... Gaylor said a note would be attached [to the re-erected sign] saying, "Thou shalt not steal."

Here's a previous FFRF sign that vanished.

Comments

[Ken]

I think that people can convince themselves that it is acceptable to do such things in large part because of the increasing popularity that cultural dissenters are "shoving their [lifestyle/religion/ideas] down our throats" -- by which the self-appointed defenders of the default culture usually mean "OMG! they're existing openly and unapologetically!" Once you transform expression, or even mere open existence, into an assault, it's just one step to saying that theft, assault, and vandalism are justified. Hence an overtly atheist sign - or even an uttered "happy holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas" - can be conceptualized as a provocation.

[Phelps]

I would disagree with her. Republicans are no longer shocked when our signs get stolen, and are in fact quite used to it.

[hermesten]

I think these atheists truly do not understand Christians and are terribly confused about God's commandments. The "Commandments" are tribal rules and apply ONLY to members of the tribe. They don't govern the conduct of Christians vis-a-vis non-Christians.

So, those of you who aren't part of the tribe but think your citation of one of their tribal rules is going to shame them into civility are in for a rude awakening.

They were more explicit about this philosophy in the old days when it was openly stated that the indigenous populations of America could only be considered human beings, with rights like not being tortured to death, if they were capable of being converted to Christianity.

[J Mo]

hermesten,

I'd like to know how many Christians even know that. Christians in general have an astonishing lack of knowledge about the faith they so fervently believe in.

[hermesten]

"Christians in general have an astonishing lack of knowledge about the faith they so fervently believe in."

Based on my experience, the term "astonishing lack of knowledge" may be giving them far too much credit. However, I think their tribal sense is instinctive. Most of a particular type of "Christian" immediately seem to grasp that if you're not like them, you either don't count, or you're in league with "Satan."

However, I don't think you can entirely blame their ignorance of history on their religious proclivities. Our schools don't teach real history --only a national hagiography-- and our historical sites do their best to hide it.

For instance, there is an old mission near where I live. The "history" presented there makes it sound like the Natives couldn't wait to help out the Spanish "explorers" in return for the benefits of "civilization." That they were used as slaves, that their families were held hostage to force them to labor for "the Church," and that they were tortured and mutilated on a whim, well, those things go unmentioned. Facts would harsh the good feelings visitors are supposed to have about our history.