For the record, I am glad that Barker made the sign blunt.  I think its good that we all hear clearly exactly what folks like the FFRF- and you- believe.  Sugar coating it is deceptive and doesn't allow people to consider the merits of the position.

Of course you do.  You aren't really different from the radicals on the atheist side.  Extremists need each other, because the polarization is what keeps them in business.  Perish the thought that we should all just get along.

I think your latest is a perfect example of the problem. The raw truth is that you don't think 'we should all just get along.' Or, at least, you think we should, but on your terms.   You yourself admitted in this very thread- it is the point of your post- that you agree with the ultimate aims of the FFRF.  And now you're going to cloak it as desiring that we 'all just get along'?  You are a big supporter of the FFRF.  I believe you said once that you were a donor. And what does the FFRF aim to do?  Expressly not get along.

I have never donated to FFRF, although I would be predisposed to if I agreed with their tactics.  Once again, you ignore what I write and create a straw man of my beliefs to make it easier for you to criticize me.  Let me clarify my position once again, since it didn't penetrate that thick bony substance encasing your brain.  I disagree with the tactic of putting hostile language aimed at Christians on a sign.  I agree with the tactic of putting up the sign, since the state chooses to violate my Constitutional right to freedom from religious promotions by putting up religious signs on government property.  Since they allow it, atheists, Hindus, Mormons, Jews, Muslims, animists, satanists, Wiccans, Scientologists, and any other group with a religious idea to promote has a perfect right to advertise their beliefs on public property.  Christians have complained to the governor of the state of Washington about the atheist sign, and with good reason.  It ought not to be in the Capitol Rotunda.  Nor should the Nativity Scene.  But what ought to be on the atheist sign is a wish for all to enjoy the holidays regardless of their religious point of view.  Unfortunately, FFRF chose to weaken their message by attacking the belief system of others.  A nativity scene may presuppose the truth of the Christian myth, but it doesn't specifically attack atheists.

This was a very nice attempt by you to appropriate to yourself all of the beliefs and goals of the 'radicals' but spin yourself as being a nice, gentle lad, who is appalled at all the harsh words that are out there.  Yet you agree with the substance of the harsh words.

So what?  You agree with the substance of equally harsh words said about atheists.  That is beside the point.  I do not believe that such a message should be put on a holiday sign.  It publicly denigrates the beliefs of others, and it is disrespectful of them as people.  Not only is it mean-spirited, but it is counterproductive.  Is there something wrong showing tolerance for people whose views I disagree with?

You may label it however you please, but in my book the more dangerous foe is the one who doesn't come clean about their real beliefs and motives.  I personally believe (and I am not the only one) that so long as Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, and Barker continue to say (or say more directly) what they really think, their 'cause' will eventually sputter out.  But worse are those who hide it, who feign tolerance as they seek to take positions of power and influence, who will implement 'radical' beliefs as quietly as possible hoping no one will notice.

Since you like to tell me what I really think, as opposed to what I actually say I think, I'll return the favor here.  You want me and other atheists to behave as obnoxiously as possible so that it makes it easier for you to 'poison the well' against those who take a public stand against belief in gods.   The fact is that we all say things from time to time that are unkind about those we disagree with.  That is not just true of atheists, but of (gasp!) Christians as well.  You are a master of the ad hominem attack on nonbelievers at the same time that you rail against it when nonbelievers apply it against Christians.  There is really little difference between believers and nonbelievers when it comes to behaving obnoxiously.  Behavior is governed by personality, not conclusions that one comes to about the existence of gods.  It is long past time for you to accept that.  Dan Barker and the FFRF were wrong to put that language on the sign.  They were not wrong to oppose the idea of putting religious signs on government property in the first place.  Good cause, bad tactic.

But you agree with their ultimate aim and purposes, which is precisely all I said.  We all understood that you objected to the 'tactics.'  Far from being a strawman, I did a good job getting you exactly right.   You would be happy to bring about the world that FFRF is trying to bring about.  You just don't think they're doing it the best way.

I agree with their ultimate aim and purpose of creating a religion-neutral government.  That aim and purpose is actually shared by many Christians, as well, although I doubt by the majority.  And you did not get me right at all.  What you intended, and what you got, was an ad hominem attack on me rather than an argument against the separation of church and state.  But this is precisely all you care about--attacking that idea.  Ad hominems are an effort to dismiss an argument on the grounds of bad character of the person making the argument.  Your rhetorical technique relies on ad hominem arguments a lot.

"So what?  You agree with the substance of equally harsh words said about atheists."

Right.  I wasn't condemning you for agreeing with their substance.  I was condemning you for being a poser.  You're trying to claim some sort of moral high ground when in fact you don't.  Your problem isn't with their tactics, per se, but rather with whether or not they have the effect you would like.  If those tactics worked, you'd do them....

That is a false and baseless charge.  It is a little like saying that you would prefer to promote Christianity by murdering all the non-Christians in the world, except that you can't...  You, poser!!!!   

..."but it is counterproductive."

AHA!  The real issue. 

Exactly.  And attempting to murder all the non-Christians in the world would also be counterproductive, which is the only reason that you won't attempt it.    Poser!!!!

"Is there something wrong showing tolerance for people whose views I disagree with?"

No, only being disingenuous about it.  You are not a tolerant person.  Like I said, you'll take tolerance on your terms.  Let's take a case in point:  if a local school board wants to teach ID alongside Darwinism in a science classroom, do you think that the local school board can do that?

No more than they can break other laws.   What galls you is that the law is just, in this case.  Science teachers, not religious groups, should determine the curriculum and content of science course.  That is not showing disrespect or intolerance for ID.  It is still a perfectly valid subject of study in other classes.  I don't believe that they should be studying Bibles in Home Economics classes or singing gospel music in Trigonometry classes, either.  That doesn't make me intolerant of Bible study or singing gospel music in other venues.

"Dan Barker and the FFRF were wrong to put that language on the sign.  They were not wrong to oppose the idea of putting religious signs on government property in the first place.  Good cause, bad tactic."

Wrong?  What is wrong?  There is no such thing as right or wrong.

Sure there is.  You just want to be the one who determines what is right and wrong for everyone else.  On behalf of your God, of course.  Because we all know that God has chosen you to spread that information to the rest of us. 

"Good cause, bad tactic."

What?  What happened to disrespectful and mean-spirited? 

Nothing.  It was a bad tactic precisely because it was disrespectful and mean-spirited.  But I wouldn't expect YOU to come to that conclusion.  Happy holidays, my friend.   

You mean atheist-religion government. If not atheist-religion nation. Which ultimately goes to further prove SJ's point of being quiet and sneaky about your agenda. Or you're just being dishonest with yourself, which given it's you Cop, is more likely.

Take a Civics course, EB.  You might accidentally stumble upon the principles under which your government is constituted.  Not likely, but possible.    I admit that I am engaged in an effort to get the government to obey its own Constitution.  Governor Gregoire understands that point, but she thinks it a good idea to let ALL religious messages be expressed on government property.  Dan Barker's little stunt brought out predictable howls of rage from Christians.  She ought to have the good sense to realize that no such messages are necessary in the public commons.  The government should remain completely neutral with respect to religious opinions.

Sure there is.  You just want to be the one who determines what is right and wrong for everyone else.  On behalf of your God, of course.  Because we all know that God has chosen you to spread that information to the rest of us. 

You seem to mix 'judge' and 'messenger' here. But it's an ultimate sign of your irrationality to explicitly admit there is a right and wrong (that has to transcend human beings), yet don't want to acknowledge the transcendant Being needed for right and wrong to exist.

I have nothing against you and sntjohnny proclaiming yourselves to be messengers from God.  I just don't think that you have the right to use taxpayer-supported facilities to spread that message.  And you delude yourself if you think that the government would be used to spread YOUR religious ideals.  It would be used to spread someone else's version of Christian dogma.

 

How any Government should operate is a difficult task.  Maybe the athiestic side SHOULD push more the idea that they (their government officials) shouldn't say "God..god" at all?  Often when I listen to the news from the US side I hear the word "God,god" coming out of the mouths of those in government.  Why is so important to pick on the Christmas theme?  The answer.. Jesus.. a man.. a God?? 

Shrugs