Just a reminder that all those people who came out screaming and crying that their First Amendment rights would be trampled if the Courthouse Lawn were not available for them to display their creches and menorahs now need to suck it up when others use their First Amendment rights to put up other displays on the same lawn.
The First Amendment requires that the government can not play favorites. If the Courthouse lawn is open to any, it must be open to all.
All. Or Nothing at All.
Deal with it.
Travis, thank you for a reasoned reply.
re atheists and “having faith”, that to seems to me a reasonable argument, as the conundrum present in the “is not/is too” of whether or not there is a God or gods is that neither side can furnish conclusive objective incontrovertible proof of their belief.
Absence of either a negative or a positive does not prove the existence of the opposite, an argument often battled here (with varying degrees of double standards, IMO, but that’s a different facet of the same subject).
Anything can be practiced with the zeal often associated with religious faith (and the quality of zeal itself is not necessarily negative–children can play zealously, for instance, with no harm as a result), whether it is a recognized religion, the absence of one, a political position, an environmental or animal rights one, food preferences, and so on.
If it involves taking action to spread one’s preferred position, through demonstration, publications, testimony, advocacy, up to and including making statements of one’s beliefs at meals, at the office, in casual encounter, then one could also be said to be an evangelist for the belief set.
I.e., if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and so on.
I can certainly understand anyone who thinks religion is bunk being annoyed by the use of a perfectly accurate word to describe their advocacy of the opposite, since it may seem to have purely religious connotation and they do not wish to be identified with same, but if one attacks with the same methods and fervor one claims to decry in others, then it doesn’t make much of an argument for being against the practice: one just wants the bahvior reserved for one’s own belief, which has seemed to be one of David’s arguments along the lines of “privilege”.
Barbara,
In response to your second post, I still don’t agree with your opinion that Rick Wingrove’s actions are childish. I favor the banning of displays on the courthouse lawn but I do support the Skeleton Santa and all other permitted displays. I support them because I support free speech not because I hope it will generate a backlash. From what I have read of Rick and his statements I don’t see why he couldn’t have the same attitude as I have as opposed to the one you offer. I guess I’ll call this agree to disagree here.
I was pretty certain that you also felt the vandalism was wrong. I merely mentioned it since you called Rick the most childish as opposed to simply childish. Score that one as an agreement.
In regards to the evangelical comment, I can see how that has non-religious uses and I think you make a point there; however, that is not what I was referring to. I was actually referring to the term “faith” as atheists don’t have a faith. It’s actually one of the few things that most all atheists can agree on. My original intent was not to chastise you for the word but to make a sort of PSA. If you’re having a discussion with an atheist and keep saying they have faith it just starts off the conversation on the wrong foot like offering a vegetarian a slice of bacon. Certainly I’m not saying atheists or anyone else don’t have a few things to learn as well. I’ll just score this as a misunderstanding.
It’s about all of it David. And appending an extra dose of drama adds little to actual discussion or resolution.
Travis, had another thought re evangelical atheism: You do know why the Catholic Church is called that, right? The word “catholic” has a meaning that predates a religious one, and that is “universal”. In Britain some still make the reference “having catholic tastes”, small “c”, and it has zero to do with a hankering for fish on Friday. Same thing with evangelism: it refers to the process of taking a message and actively disseminating it at large. It is not restricted to describing spreading the message of any organized faith, but refers to the practice of spreading a message. Some atheists do indeed evangelize their position, and if they’re irritated by the use of the word, then they either don’t know what it actually means, or are on the modern activist gravy train of manipulating this our living language to make words mean whatever THEY want.
This is no longer about “childishness,” it’s about lawlessness.
Travis, what I find childish is the seeming attempt to get his way through supporting deliberately outlandish display, perhaps in the hope that people will be so disgusted with the spectacle that they will all support NO display of any free speech in the public square at all.
I agree that no one has the right to tear down the display of another, no matter the level of taste displayed.
Your last paragraph is pretty rich. First of all, my intent is not to be “irritating” within earshot of any atheists. Since this is a free speech discussion, I am emtitled to my opinion too, and anyone who finds it irritating has the right to feel that way as well. In addition, I have the right to not lose sleep over their level of irritation.
I am not advocating that anyone be denied the right to publicly express their opinion.
I am simply expressing my own that some of the opinions displayed, and their methods of display, are childish and in poor tatse, which would seem to be at odds with a stated position of adhering to “reason”–the only “reasoning” being displyaed by some (IMO) is to be as vulgar or outre as possible in a means to an end: that of NO displays, including the ones the YES evangelical (as in “spreading the word”) atheists seem to find the most offensive.
They’re entitled, and you and even I are as well.
If you want to believe in leprechauns, have at it. Good luck with them! lol
Barbara,
I don’t claim to know or speak for Mr. Wingrove but I would like to say that I wholly support his position. I would personally prefer no displays either but I do find that the current policy is about as neutral the county can hope to be without an outright ban. I also recognize the importance in allowing citizens to use public land with permit to display popular or unpopular speech even when there is plenty of private land available for such things.
I do have to ask how you can state Mr. Wingrove is “acting most childishly” when he is well within his rights as a citizen and has broken no laws. If you contrast his actions to that of the actions of a person who would physically tear down a display they disagreed with and infringe on someone else’s rights it should be clear who is the most childish.
Lastly, the phrase “in keeping with his faith of evangelical atheism” is probably one of the most irritating things you can say within ear-shot of an atheist. If I believe in leprechauns and support laws that abide by their teachings you are not as deluded as I am in opposing my stance.
I found the quote from Mr. Wingrove in the article very interesting: he wants No displays.
So his method, instead of reasoned suasion (in keeping with his faith of evangelical atheism), is to support the outalndish, and hope it provokes the result that agrees with his wishes?
Yes, all or none, whether one agrees with the sentiments or not.
It’s a shame that some of the folks who claim to be the adults in the room because of their refusal to countenance myth and superstition are the ones acting most childishly.
Ah well!
There was vandalism. It’s front page news on the Loudoun Times website.
Well, they don’t appear to be able to deal with it. I just got a report that some folks who didn’t like one or more of the displays have vandalized at least one of them. In broad daylight. If people are going to behave this way, I don’t see how the policy can be maintained. It will require around the clock security, which I don’t think we can afford. It depends on what people want to prioritize.
Just to state the obvious, the display in question is perfectly lawful, and is private property. Destroying it is a crime, destruction of property. I don’t know, but I hope that the owner has filed a police report and will prosecute to the fullest extent of the law. It’s unfortunate, but if individuals are permitted to take the law into their own hands because they don’t like someone else’s lawful speech or activity, there’s no endpoint. Others will probably respond in kind, and no one (well, except for those who thrive on anger and lawlessness) will be happy with where that leads.
It’s also unfortunate because I suspect that most people who honestly find some of the displays upsetting also understand that using their freedom of speech is the legal and appropriate way to express their dislike. Now they will all be unfairly associated with violent, unlawful behavior.