Observations and inanities by a second-shift assistant supervisor in the Puppy-Grinding division of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy® (our motto: "Sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!"), your host, Brent Rasmussen.
It's A Free Country - Except For Those Dirty Atheists
Manitowoc County, Wisconsin County Board supervisor in charge of approving or disapproving requests for displays on county land, has settled the hoary old "separation of church and state" issue for good.
Apparently, us atheists don't exist, so we don't get equal time in Manitowoc County.
Screw the Constitution - County Board Supervisor Norbet Vogt has SPOKEN!
Norbert Vogt is a County Board supervisor on the Public Works Committee, which reviews requests to place items on county land. A sketch of the proposed display must accompany the written request.
He said he wouldn't have a problem with other faith communities — such as Jewish, Muslim, Buddhism — seeking to have a religious display at the courthouse. "It's a free country," Vogt said.
However, he would have a problem with atheists putting up a sign declaring, "There is no god."
Vogt said everybody realizes there is a Supreme Being, and it would be unacceptable to have a sign denying that reality.
Ziegelbauer said he thinks the Nativity scene "looks wonderful," though he is not involved in the approval process.
He said non-Christians, including atheists, could request display space, but said, after checking with Public Works Director Jeff Beyer, that none have.
Frackin' know-nothing, petty tinpot dictators. Local government seems to attract the type. Here's his contact page at the Manitowoc County website - you know, in case you'd like to express your opinion about his bigotry towards atheists.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Yes, that pisses me off
Yes, Norbert's statement pisses me off, absolutely. He's a tool. And I agree, it's important to protect the right of people to do say what they like in government-sponsored areas. I'm just saying there's a difference between "right" and "wise", and the two examples given are (in my opinion alone, of course) not wise. I like the approach of putting up pro-atheist signs next to nativity scenes, but I think doing it in a way that comes off as anti-religion rather than pro-"season's sentimentality" is a bad idea.
Wouldn't have a problem if...
There could be a statue, painting, scene, symbol or the like. THAT would be equal time. The Jewish, Christian or Muslim displays are wordless displays, not arguments for their viewpoints like the atheist sign is.
A quibble
I'm going to be contrary today, and say that I kind of have a problem with the behavior of the atheists in the sign-napping story and sympathize a bit with Mr. Vogt in this one.
First of all, come on, the guy's name is Norbert. He deserves your sympathy for that if nothing else.
Second, believe me, I understand the First Amendment issues and I personally am an atheist, but I feel like if you're not going to say something positive in your display then you shouldn't really be making a display. Otherwise it all becomes a debate instead of a celebration, you know? I'd frankly have a problem with someone putting up a "There is no God" sign at Christmas in an area full of mangers or menorahs or whatnot. Throw me something positive and I'm all for it, but otherwise it just comes off as very Grinch-y.
It'd be like someone putting up an anti-war protest sign in an area set aside for Christmas displays. It just doesn't really fit with what the spirit of the law, and is out of place when there are plenty of other avenues you can go to for that sort of debate and posturing.
Give me a "God and Santa are both real in the same way, but not as real as my love for you this holiday season. -- Atheists of America" or something, not just a slam against the people who are actually celebrating something this time of year, you know?
Protecting Speech
I completely understand where you're coming from. Trust me - I've got the non-confrontational, appeasing thing going on myself. In person, I'd rather deflect conflict away with humor, than argue vehemently. I love living life too much to spend it arguing with people in person. (The internet is a different kettle of fish entirely.) Plus, I love Christmas. The lights, the tree, the family get-togethers, giving presents, the songs, Christmas morning, etc.
So again, I understand your position.
However, negative, contrary, hateful, odious, angry, vile speech is the kind of speech that must be protected at all costs. The kind of speech that each and every one of us needs to protect the most, is the speech that is directly opposite to our own opinion, and makes us furious.
If you don't like something that someone has said, or done on government property, then you need to take a step forward, and defend their right to say it - as long as that same right is extended to everyone equally.
That's the whole point of this post. I honestly don't give a rat's ass about the content of the FFRF sign. The point is that in this county, one little petty tinpot dictator wannabee of a man is deciding for everyone in that county that some of them - the atheists - don't have full citizenship, and don't have first amendment rights the same as the "more equal" theists.
I mean, doesn't that piss you off? Who the fuck is Norbert Vogt, and when the fuck did he become Supreme Emperor of the USA with the authority to make solemn proclamations about the nature of reality, and the authority to change the First Amendment to the United States Constitution?
Thinking deeper
On the other hand, if parents practiced a traditional lobotomy on their kids every year at this time, saying "Hey, lobotomizing your kids is a bad idea" would be a pretty positive thing.
Although I do very much like your "God and Santa" idea.