News

Foundation adds to holiday display

Enlarge image

Foundation adds to holiday display

JAKE NAUGHTON/Herald photo

Sharing Tools:

E-mail this article:




Share on:

by Kate Thibault
Wednesday, December 5, 2007 00:23

The Madison-based Freedom From Religion Foundation posted a sign in the Wisconsin state Capitol this week to remind residents that they live in a diverse country.

The sign is located in the same vicinity as the Wisconsin State Capitol Holiday Tree and menorah and reads, "At this season of the Winter Solstice, may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world."

The sign promotes a nonreligious worldview and calls for freedom of beliefs, FFRF co-president Dan Barker said.

"People who disagree with the sign will find it offensive, like how some people [at FFRF] think the nativity scene is offensive," Barker said. "If people think [the sign] is offensive, we're happy with that."

FFRF's sign, Barker added, is not intended to thwart religious messages, but to level the playing field, as a menorah and holiday tree are also displayed in the Capitol each holiday season.

"We would be happy to take down our signs if everyone else took theirs down, too," Barker said.

Barker said the FFRF promotes its views because religion has caused great turmoil and creates walls between people. Practicing religion, he added, causes fierce devotion and has become the source of religious conflict.

"Look at Ireland or Iraq," Barker said. "[These] are good reasons to oppose religion."

Rep. Marlin Schneider, D-Wisconsin Rapids, recently proposed legislation that would change the name of the holiday tree in the Capitol to the Wisconsin State Christmas Tree. He said he is not opposed to the idea of hanging any religious or nonreligious signage inside the Capitol.

"It's a free country, and [the FFRF] can put up whatever they want," Schneider said. "They have a right under the Constitution."

Schneider added he wants to acknowledge religious affiliation by proposing to call the holiday tree a Christmas tree.

"There are a lot of religious affiliated objects in the Capitol," he said. "I don't have any problem. We have prayer here; people get married here. There are all sorts of things to promote or allow happening. It's the nature of a free society."


Feedback
Anonymous (December 5, 2007 @ 4:59am):

Can anyone explain why FFRF members are so hateful? I wish one of the attorneys could show me where in the Constitution of the United States there is a requirement for separation of church and state (by the way, that is a Federal document and limits the power of the Feds over the rights of the states, so even if it has been interpreted at the Federal Level, there is NO SAY at the State level... unless of course you are a hateful group like FFRF, that loves making attorneys rich that feel everyone should feel the hate they have toward Christianity).

Anyhow, too early this morning, but the FFRF should really change their name to the WHCBAORAF (We Hate Christians But All Other Religions Are Fine Foundation)

Anonymous (December 5, 2007 @ 8:20am):

Idiots like Dan Barker make me glad that I no longer live in Madison.

Anonymous (December 5, 2007 @ 9:07am):

8:20
I suppose you wish it was few hundred years ago and you could burn Barker at the stake for blasphemy. I'm glad that the Christians finally got away from that kind of thing, and the witch burning and whatnot.

Here's a thought. You still could murder blasphemers if you convert to Islam and move to a Sharia law country.

Anonymous (December 5, 2007 @ 9:22am):

I like to start the day here:

http://www.ffrf.org/day/

On this date in 1484, Pope Innocent VIII's notorious "Witches Bull" (Bull Summis desiderantes) was issued, officially commencing the witchhunts. Historians estimate that victims put to death as a result ranged from 600,000 to more than 9 million, over the 250 years of the witchhunts.

http://www.ffrf.org/day/?sel=1&day=5&month=12


Maybe the perception of WHCBAORAF is just because they are based in the USA which is very Christian. If they were in Saudi Arabia perhaps they'd be more focused on Islam. Of course then they'd be running for their lives from the death fatwas and the mobs calling for their heads.

Anonymous (December 5, 2007 @ 10:51am):

4:59:
'Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a state religion...'

There you go, Mr. Theocrat.

Anonymous (December 5, 2007 @ 11:00am):

4:59:
'Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a state religion...'

There you go, Mr. Theocrat.

Anonymous (December 5, 2007 @ 11:24am):

From this article, I dont think Dan Barker is an idiot or hateful. If we are to put up a symbol of one religion, all have the right to display something from theirs as well. We can no longer stand back ignorant to others beliefs. For one, I am in complete agreement with what the sign says, but I am not offened by a monorah or a christmas tree, just as others should not be offended I do not believe in a higher power. What people believe in is their opinion, not fact.

Anonymous (December 5, 2007 @ 11:28am):

This is directed at the first person who commented...
Your argument is full of fallacies, to put it simply. By placing their signs in the capitol building, the FFRF is in no way displaying "hate" for Christianity or for Christians. They have every right to place their material there...the same way that Christians have the right to display a tree in the building celebrating Christmas, or the same way that Jewish people have the right to display a menorah in the building celebrating Hanukkah. In effect, your very unwieldy acronym should include Jewish people along with Christians, correct? Point being that the FFRF doesn't "hate" any particular religous group, and that they're using the concept of free speech (just as Christians and Jewish people have used in the capitol building) to state their opinions. If stating your opinion in a public place is wrong and "hateful", then a christmas tree or a menorah may just as well be signs of "hate" towards secularism. As an atheist, I can assure you that there are many people (both atheist and religious)who oppose religion in public places, but DO NOT "hate" religious people themselves. Dan Barker speaks for those of us who oppose religion for reasons other than "hate".

Anonymous (December 5, 2007 @ 12:02pm):

FFRF members are hateful? We are frustrated citizens who have the right just as you do to take our greivences to court. Given the undeserved respect allotted to religion in our government and our tax dollars which go a long way in supporting this nonsense, non-believers have every right to express this grievance. And I might add, contrary to propagandists, this is not, nor has it ever been a Christian Nation. Prove where the constitution says thus.

THe church has plenty of tax-free dollars to lobby our officials on both the state and federal level and that should concern all citizens, theists and non-theists alike. For as the saying goes, the one with the gold makes the rules. And we have been paying the price of allowing the church to dictate the rules for far too long.

Greetings from Delaware!

Anonymous (December 5, 2007 @ 12:42pm):

I don't see what's so "hateful"?

Anonymous (December 5, 2007 @ 2:15pm):

Those who are overly religious ruin the holidays for everyone, not just those who are not religious. We live in a free society, we should be allowed to have all different points of view, without interfearing with others. The best way to end all arguments is to say that, "when I die, I will find out what really happens to me".

Anonymous (December 5, 2007 @ 2:56pm):

Really hateful would be elimination of the HUGE tax breaks that religion gets. They don't pay property taxes, income taxes or sales taxes. Plus people who give them money get a tax break.

No wonder there are so many hokey religions!

Anonymous (December 5, 2007 @ 3:38pm):

FFRF members are not hateful. I would wager the majority of us are humanists, and care deeply for human happiness. We just don't believe in God. We support and defend your freedom to believe in anything you so choose, but ensuring that State and Church remain separate, because that is the only way to guarantee religious freedom for everyone.

Dan Barker is not an idiot. He's actually quite intelligent. Should one call him an idiot because he chooses to use his intelligence instead of faith in evaluating religious claims? Or because he defends the separation of Church and State, which benefits us all, religious or nonreligious. Perhaps it is hard for you to see that because of the bias of belonging to the majority religion. But would it Christians if we put "In Allah We Trust" on our currency? We all know it would. Keeping the separation of powers ensures that our government represents us all. Even if it represented the majority, it still excludes millions of its citizens. Why would anyone who is not hateful advocate that?

And if there is no God, then we won't find out what happens to us when we die (We will cease to experience anything), so waiting until death and ignoring church/state separation violations is not an option.

I implore religious people to think for themselves and look at this logically. Nothing the FFRF does affects how you celebrate the holidays with your loved ones. I for one am glad to see people be happy, no matter how they celebrate the holidays. But mixing government with religion is very scary indeed. Just imagine if it was one of the religions that you don't subscribe to, and you'll see why it would be scary.

Merry Solstice! Peace, love and joy for all!

Shawn Snyder (December 5, 2007 @ 4:20pm):

Not hateful, eh?

"...may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell."

I don't see any words on the Christmas tree that says, "If you're smart, you know there's a God and those that don't are fools."

Anonymous (December 5, 2007 @ 4:47pm):

Obviously those who speak of non-hateful have not had the opportunity to see the Gaylors. I have heard them speak and frankly,it saddens me to see the someone with such an obsession against Christianity.

Oh, by the way, no one has hit on the separation issue. Show me where even the concept of the separation of Church and State is in the Constitution AND where the Feds have the power to infringe on State's rights in this matter. Guess what, ya can't!!

I never said FFRF did not "have the right" to go have their day in court, etc etc etc. But what a waste of taxpayer money! And all to promote their religion!! Yes, athiesm is a religion as well, and the government should not endorse athiesm by banning other religious symbols in the public arena.

Ya know, the great thing about the Christian faith, even if the likes of the Gaylors found themselves down on their luck (as opposed to rich based on their and that of other's obsession against Christianity), they could walk into nearly any Christian Church (or one they do not hate) and they would bend over backwards to help wherever possible.

Anonymous (December 5, 2007 @ 5:05pm):

But I would prefer to imagine no religion, but I guess that's hateful?


Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

Anonymous (December 5, 2007 @ 5:07pm):

Atheist n A person to be pitied in that he is unable to believe things for which there is no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of a convenient means of feeling superior to others. It is difficult, none the less, for the ordinary man to cast off orthodox beliefs, for he is seldom allowed to hear the other side.... Whereas the Christian view is pressed on him day in and day out.
-- Margaret Knight

Anonymous (December 5, 2007 @ 5:13pm):

Hey there Christian, as an Atheist I just beleive in one single god fewer than you do.

Right?

Anonymous (December 5, 2007 @ 5:28pm):

"...may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell."

How exactly is that hateful? It's a simple fact. We could always add to the list and say there are no fairies, no unicorns, ad nauseum. Would that be hateful, too?

"I don't see any words on the Christmas tree that says, 'If you're smart, you know there's a God and those that don't are fools.'"

Have you looked at Psalm 14:1 lately??

Anonymous (December 5, 2007 @ 5:38pm):

It just doesn't seem to me that groups like the FFRF are very open to other opinions than their own or tolerant of the expression of opinions other than their own.

Anonymous (December 5, 2007 @ 5:42pm):

I wouldn't call that hateful at all. A bit pretentious, sure, but not hateful.

Anonymous (December 5, 2007 @ 6:21pm):

//Not hateful, eh?

"...may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell."

I don't see any words on the Christmas tree that says, "If you're smart, you know there's a God and those that don't are fools."//

That's not hateful. They're just expressing their non-belief the same way you express your belief.

Eric Stubbs (December 5, 2007 @ 6:25pm):

I agree with Dan Barker. Unless we get rid of the Christmas tree and other religious items, nobody has a right to question the nonreligious sign.

As an atheist, I love all of you from different religions. However your lack of respect for others is disgusting.

Anonymous (December 5, 2007 @ 7:55pm):

Athieists believe there is no God, Christians believe there is one God, other religions believe in their gods or dieties. The common factor is belief. An athieist can no more prove there is a god than another can "prove" there is one. I would love to get more philisophical, but the bottom line is, athieism is a belief system just as other religions. Many athieists (i.e. FFRF) feel it is their right to push their religion on others and make their religion the "Official Religion of the US Government (recall, the first states, Congress shall pass no law.... by passing laws based solely on athieism, they are indeed promoting and establishing the religion of atheism, which is in direct violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Aaron Brown (December 5, 2007 @ 8:04pm):

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

-Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11. Ratified by the United States on June 10, 1797.

Shawn Snyder (December 5, 2007 @ 8:36pm):

""I don't see any words on the Christmas tree that says, 'If you're smart, you know there's a God and those that don't are fools.'"

Have you looked at Psalm 14:1 lately??"

-it's not on the Christmas tree in the capital building telling everyone they're wrong.

Anonymous (December 5, 2007 @ 9:37pm):

I don't see why a person can't believe in God, *and* support separation of church and state, according to the FFRF. Maybe they're offended by the Christmas tree, but being a dick doesn't seem like a good way to get other people to listen to you.

Anonymous (December 5, 2007 @ 11:05pm):

if they have to call the Christmas tree a "holiday tree" then I say they should have to call the Menorah a "holiday candelabra"

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Anonymous (December 5, 2007 @ 11:57pm):

My problem is that "There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world," doesn't seem to really be consistent with their message. Isn't Freedom from Religion supposed to be about separation of church and state? That quote seems, to me, to be passing a value judgment. Regardless of whether someone agrees or disagrees with the substance of that quote, I still find it is anti-religious and therefore offensive, where as if the sign just said separation between church and state or something to that end, it would seem to me to be more consistent with their message.

Anonymous (December 6, 2007 @ 10:29am):

The FFRF only succeeds in making themselves look like childish fools. It is CHRISTMAS. Does the FFRF know WHY we have CHRISTMAS? It IS RELIGIOUS! You can give presents too, christian or not. But it is a religious holiday. So for the FFRF to put that sign up is completely ridiculous, but then again, as an atheist, they live a ridiculous life.

Anonymous (December 6, 2007 @ 10:33am):

It appears Mr. Baker wasn't hugged enough as a child. Christmas has meaning, and the meaning isn't atheism. The FFRF has no right to have the sign up.

Anonymous (December 6, 2007 @ 11:59am):

Atheism is a religion like baldness is a hair color. Haven't you ever heard that one?

Lack of belief is just that - lack of belief. No creeds, no tithe tax, no hell, no god, and best of all, your Sundays are yours to do with as you will.

Anonymous (December 6, 2007 @ 12:38pm):

This is from Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State" ---Thomas Jefferson

While I grant you the words 'separation of church and state' never appear in the Constitution, it is clearly a secular document and who best to illustrate the spirit of the 1st amendment than one of those founding fathers you hear so much about these days. The establishment clause is the bit of wording you are seeking Anonymous One. Good thing you don't have to dig very far since it's first and all! The fact that it was placed first should make every theist/non-theist pause and consider the potential powder keg the framers understood this issue to be. They understood very well the tyranny of priests and kings.

In matters where there is a question of constitutionality in a court case, actions are brought before the federal supreme court. Their decision, even if found to be in contradiction to the state court's earlier rulings or state law, is what stands as law and superceeds the state law.

Anonymous (December 6, 2007 @ 5:37pm):

Dan Barker was a Baptist minister once upon a time. Thankfully he's free now. He, like many of us posting are your 'friendly neighborhood atheists'. I don't know. We just don't buy virgin births, bodily ascensions to heaven, waters parted with sticks, talking snakes etc. Call us crazy.

Check out the podcasts at FFRF.org. They are fantastic. Hear for yourself what Freedom From Religion Foundation is about.

Christmas - for the upteenth time did not originate as a religious holiday. Like easter, it was a pagan celebration hijacked by the theists. There are plenty of books, and articles confirming these facts. If you want to thank somebody for confusing matters, thank Constantine and all of the popes, ministers and priests over the centuries who conveniently overlook the history of their own religion for their own benefit.

Happy Winter Solstice to all and to all a Good Night!

Anonymous (December 7, 2007 @ 3:50am):

I would like to make a few statements that might just clean up some ideas a few of you have:

1. Athiesm is NOT a religion. It is just the lack of belief or rejection of gods or other mythical creatures based on a lack of emperical evidence. Many of us have different beliefs altogether, but the one thing that ties us under the banner of "Athiesm" is our views on god as pertaining to religion.

2. This message wasn't a message of hate. It was merely a statement of the fact that us athiests are tired of having the fact that we dont believe in god questioned on a daily basis and crammed down our throats during the holidays. Much like you dont believe in Thor or Anubis, we dont believe in God or Allah because of what I stated earlier.

3. Many times, the way you try to offend us is with childish name calling and lame comebacks. Saying that we are "going to hell and will burn" really has no effect since we dont believe in hell anyways. You're not offending anyone.

4. Telling us that we are delusional is just the teapot calling the kettle black. WE arent the ones who chose to base the way we spend our daily lives and the way we treat others on the contradictory word of a badly translated book written thousands of years ago by uneducated people under the guidance of a "celestial spirit".

5. Lastly, Its not up to the athiest to prove that God doesnt exist; its up to the theist to prove that he does. You never hear a scientist say that he can turn lead into gold, then tell you that it isnt his job to prove that he can; rather, that it is your job to prove that he cant.

Well, just putting it out there.

By the way,
Im 18. I may not be older than many of you, but I think that I have made more sense in 5 minutes than some of you have your entire lives. Also, scripture wont offend me either since the bible isn't really the word of God, just some delusional crazies.

Anonymous (December 7, 2007 @ 10:24am):

Atheism a religion? A totally absurd idea. Just because I believe in something does not turn it into a religion.

I believe in stopping when the traffic light turns red.

I believe in wearing a coat when it's cold outside.

Are these religions?

No, they are not. And neither is "I believe god is a superstition."

Anonymous (December 8, 2007 @ 3:07am):

The first amendment is actually a lot more restrictive than what state governments usually get away with - what part of Congress shall pass no law respecting the etablishment of RELIGION is so hard to understand.

Every word of this document was fought over - these men knew what they were saying and they meant NO religion.

The equal protection clause of the 14th amendment is what clearly brings the states into the act when it comes to applying the rights to everyone.

Athesists don't believe in gods, because the evidence isn't in, slightly different from agnostics who say we *can't* really ever know.

Actually axial tilt is the reason for the season. I hope everyone has a wonderfully happy solstice.

As the FFRF says, may reason prevail...

Chris Bingham, WA state.

Anonymous (December 12, 2007 @ 6:45pm):

If you want to hear "hateful", visit www.ffrf.org/radio/podcast/ click on their podcasts archive and listen to the program from Nov. 17, 2007 to hear some "loving messages" left by some "good Christian folks".

Add a comment

We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.

Login...



   Remember me


Not registered? Sign up now.

It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.

...or Post Your Comment Anonymously

Anonymous

Place a shout-out!
Top Classified Ads (view all)

Place your classified ad online and have it show up here. Your ad will hit thousands of viewers a day!

DON'T READ ME! Too late. If you're reading this, guess how many other people are reading it. See... advertising in The Badger Herald does work!

Place a classified ad

Advertising