Only In Washington: Freedom Against Religion?
Posted by Corey Burres - December 05, 2008This is a new series I am starting called "Only in Washington". You see, we Washingtonians have the unique luxury of living in a state that provides it's own flavor of "freedom".
Thoughts? Add Comment -
Oops said on Dec 05 2008 at 2:10pm
Apparently the atheist sign was stolen, but thank God -- the State Patrol found it.
Corey Burres said on Dec 05 2008 at 2:51pm
To Oops - How does the state patrol track down a sign and why?
Ryan said on Dec 05 2008 at 3:15pm
Gotta love open forums.
Piper Scott said on Dec 05 2008 at 3:20pm
No truth to the rumor that the sign was found by the Pakistanis in a cave occupied by Osama bin Laden.
No truth at all...
The Piper
walllyo said on Dec 05 2008 at 4:49pm
In the beginning God created heaven and earth. NOTE there was No mention of religion. Thus religion is a product of mans weaknesses and needs for some one to share grief with. NUTs to All religons ! 38000 +/- faiths all claiming to be right
Oops said on Dec 05 2008 at 6:10pm
Corey, I'm not sure. I saw on the news that the atheist display was stolen, and dropped off somewhere in Seattle, and the police had to return it to Oly.
A lurker said on Dec 08 2008 at 2:33pm
Corey, free advice:
You and your troopers have the right to blog whatever the hell you want when you want where you want. Including the Capital building.
These atheists have a right to make jerks of themselves. Just as much as the filthy neo-Nazis that I doubt seriously you raised a voice or hand to, and I'm Jewish.
It's called Freedom.
Nice blog, BTW.
Joseph said on Dec 08 2008 at 4:01pm
New sign idea:
At this season of
Christmas
may freedom prevail.
There is one God.
Believe Him to your benefit,
Deny Him to your peril.
The choice is yours.
Disappointed said on Dec 09 2008 at 1:13am
Touche, A lurker. his blog post is a huge disappointment, since I've followed and admired EFF for many years.
To Corey and others at EFF: Why are you talking about this? I have not known EFF to comment on social issues in the past and that's why I was drawn to you. Now you seem to be just another conservative front group, which I did not believe until this point. Aren't there more important things to talk about without bringing up hollow conflicts like this? Will you please explain how your stance on this issue wins people over to the cause of freedom? What is it that you believe freedom is? Aren't we willing to accept some socially questionable things as a consequence of freedom? Don't the good things about freedom outweigh the bad? Isn't that what you've talked about for all these years? With this blog post, aren't you, in fact, asking government to make a judgment call about what is right and what is wrong (i.e. state censorship)? Are you really willing to open that door to the government? Since government is so bad in so many areas, why are you now asking it to make an important value judgment about what is acceptable speech and what isn't? Isn't it best to err on the side of freedom? Isn't that your middle name? Is Evergreen Freedom Foundation a religious organization? I thought not, but maybe I was wrong.
Please respond. My questions were not rhetorical.
Relax said on Dec 09 2008 at 10:09am
Disappointed are you serious? The EFF a Religious Org??? LOL, ya right. Come on, this issue was obviously highlighted not because of its "religious connotations" but because of the extremes of this state. Remember all the hubbub a couple of years ago about Christmas trees at the airport. Honestly, who cares what atheists or anyone else says. That is what the freedom of speech is all about; even Corey has a right to his opinion. I don’t agree with everything the EFF say’s or does, but at least these guys call it as they see it. That my friend is free speech.
Anyway, I wonder if the state would still support a sign being placed next to a display of the Koran? Hmmm, somehow I think not.
curious said on Dec 09 2008 at 10:35am
Relax,
The Christmas tree incident at SeaTac is indeed comparable to this one. In both cases, one party was upset about a symbol or message that was being placed in a public square and that party demanded removal of the symbol/message. The difference is that most people were upset that the Christmas trees were removed, now most people are upset that the atheist sign will NOT be removed.
Freedom would not err on the side of censorship. The trees should remain, as should the atheist sign. I completely agree with "A lurker."
The atheists have a right to make public jackasses out of themselves like anyone else. I'm unpleasantly surprised at EFF's stance on this issue...or should I say "non-issue." And I'm surprised they're even talking about this...what with the state budget deficit, the release of the governor's budget this month, the start of session next month...Talk about sell out.
Is EFF a policy organization or not? This isn't news and it certainly isn't policy. Come on guys! This is cheap tabloid stuff.
curious said on Dec 09 2008 at 10:42am
And one more thing, though I disagree with Noam Chomsky on almost everything, I will quote him here, since I think EFF needs to read it.
"If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all."
And now, I'll cross EFF's blog off my list of free market blogs and move on to real ones.
A lurker said on Dec 09 2008 at 11:39am
First, thanks for the kindness fellow commentators. I'd still read this blog.
Second, please see http://tinyurl.com/66dm5r for the joint Gregoire-McKenna* statement:
"Last year, after a federal lawsuit was filed against the state of Washington by the Alliance Defense Fund, the state’s Department of General Administration set forth a policy allowing individuals or groups to sponsor a display regardless of that individual’s or group’s views.
"The Legislative Building belongs to all citizens of Washington state, and houses the state Legislature, as well as the offices of several state-elected executives, including the governor. The U.S. Supreme Court has been consistent and clear that, under the Constitution’s First Amendment, once government admits one religious display or viewpoint onto public property, it may not discriminate against the content of other displays, including the viewpoints of non-believers."
Totally concur. I think Corey is also a good man, just misguided. Freedom of speech first, then everything else. Or you get Canada - just see ezralevant.com.
Respectfully;
A lurker
*Both of them are practicing Catholics, as are Mary Lane-Strow and Dino Rossi.
A lurker said on Dec 09 2008 at 11:39am
First, thanks for the kindness fellow commentators. I'd still read this blog.
Second, please see http://tinyurl.com/66dm5r for the joint Gregoire-McKenna* statement:
"Last year, after a federal lawsuit was filed against the state of Washington by the Alliance Defense Fund, the state’s Department of General Administration set forth a policy allowing individuals or groups to sponsor a display regardless of that individual’s or group’s views.
"The Legislative Building belongs to all citizens of Washington state, and houses the state Legislature, as well as the offices of several state-elected executives, including the governor. The U.S. Supreme Court has been consistent and clear that, under the Constitution’s First Amendment, once government admits one religious display or viewpoint onto public property, it may not discriminate against the content of other displays, including the viewpoints of non-believers."
Totally concur. I think Corey is also a good man, just misguided. Freedom of speech first, then everything else. Or you get Canada - just see ezralevant.com.
Respectfully;
A lurker
*Both of them are practicing Catholics, as are Mary Lane-Strow and Dino Rossi.
Corey Burres said on Dec 09 2008 at 11:42am
Just to clarify, this is a blog. We express ideas and opinions on it all the time and I stand by the "Only in Washington" title. I fully believe in "freedom of expression" and I believe everyone has the right to state and freely express their beliefs, however this is political correctness gone mad. I too would be writing this had the Christians put up a sign being antagonistic towards other faiths on a national recognized holiday for their faith.
SouthernRoots said on Dec 10 2008 at 9:17am
To me, allowing this particular display was wrong because of its denigration of all religions.
In the most secular instance, the government is supposed to be neutral towards religion - neither supports it nor attacks it.
By allowing this particular atheist display, the government actually supported and gave standing to an attack on religion.
Would the state have accepted posters from Catholics attacking Protestants, a poster from Muslims attacking Jews, from the religious attacking the unbelievers? Why accept one attacking religions?
This is not a free speech issue. We already know that we do not have the freedom to say anything we want, anywhere we want, or any time we want.
Is it possible for atheists to state their beliefs without attacking religion? Possibly. If they had done that, this would not have been an issue.
I am curious though. Do atheists exchange gifts? Do they get involved in bake sales? Do they enjoy the discounts at the stores? Do they get their picture taken with Santa? Do they enjoy themselves during this season?
Bob Allen said on Dec 14 2008 at 6:40am
Howdy folk,
As far as the wording of the Constitution goes – freedom “of” religion is correct – however, the deeper meaning of freedom “from” religion is what really counts. I’m sure that each religion appreciates being free FROM the encroachment of other religions upon their personal practices. Baptists and Methodists, etc. appreciate protection FROM having their tithing sent to Rome to support the Pope, etc.
Atheists just want one more freedom FROM religion than those of any given other religion – freedom FROM every religion.
I believe that the basic issue with the sign from the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) in the state of Washington is the same issue that created the original wording of a similar sign placed in the capital building for the state of Wisconsin – namely the religious entanglement of church and state.
One would think that with all of the tax-exempt church property all over the place – that there would be plenty of opportunity for religious folk to place “nativity scenes” on private property. The issue is when a “nativity scene” finds placement on public property that the entanglement of church and state ensues. The FFRF would never place one of their signs on a private “nativity scene” on private property.
I fully support what the FFRF is doing with their efforts in breaking up a large number of entanglements between church and state. I am proud to be an Assertive Atheist doing my part in confronting the over zealousness and audacity exhibited by many Theists that believe they have the Right to encroach upon the Public sector – with out and out Propaganda. Although to date, both Theists and Atheists tend to take a provincial view that the contest between Atheism and Theism has only been around for a few thousand years – the truth is that this contest has been going on for better than 2.9 Million years.
Recently, Assertive Atheists finally speak up and place this contest in the larger human picture.
On my new Website of www.assertiveatheistmoments.com I present a different orientation as to what the Epistemology of Atheism covers. The focus is on Symbols and Symbolic Form (ala Cassirer) combined with Symbolic Anthropology (ala Geertz). Roughly, the orientation is that during the evolution from proto-Homo Sapiens to Homo Sapiens, commencing 3 million years ago, the physical brain size and brain mass increased three-fold, due to the use of Symbols and Tools. During this 3 Million year evolutionary process, the Symbols for Atheism and the Symbols for Theism have also evolved.
With the written word being around for no longer than 100,000 years, there is a 2.9 Million period during which we know very little about the evolution of the Symbols of Atheism and the Symbols of Theism. It is during this 2.9 Million year period that the origins of the Symbols of Atheism and the Symbols of Theism begin. Although we know little, we can apply Cassirer’s orientations to Symbols and Symbolic Form to learn and Know more.
This places a totally different take on the notion of Assertive Atheism.
Bob