Raising a ruckus in Arkansas!

[Daynna]

My best friend, Tod Billings, is the head of an organization called, "The Arkansas Society of Freethinkers." It is something we tried to start over a decade ago, but at the time couldn't get enough interest.

They are not having that problem this time around. From what I understand, they have many active members. Anyway, the point of this post is that for the second year in a row they have attempted to have a display put on the lawn of the Arkansas state capitol lawn to counter the usual nativity scene. For the second year in a row their request was denied. This time they are putting up a fight.

http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/arkansasblog/2009/11/access_denied.aspx

Anticipate seeing this on national news soon, as the ACLU is now involved. Maybe Tod will post more about it here.

[David B]

I hope Tod does post here.

I've missed him of late.

Look for PM

David

[David B]

Hey, there's a lot of idiocy and a lot of good points in the comments on your link.

And the staff attorney seems to have got the point.

David

[Daynna]

Ha ha.. UCLA instead of ACLU.. fixed! :D I also like to put UMUC (where I take classes) instead of USMC (where I was enlisted).

[Daynna]

Here is the first article about the incident:
http://www.arktimes.com/Articles/ArticleViewer.aspx?ArticleID=1f0be041-fb41-4f43-8568-fb045294f3d8

[David B]

Cool!

Don't see any comments yet, though.

David

[Daynna]

Here is the local news station coverage:

http://arkansasmatters.com/media_player.php?media_id=439762

[Worldtraveller]

Out of curiosity, why didn't they 'raise a ruckus' last year? If it was last year, they had the decision from Washington state (I can try to look it up if you don't know the one I'm referring to) that would have bolstered their case. As it is, it's pretty much a slam dunk now. The government is pretty much in the position of an all or nothing when it comes to these displays, in order to maintain nuetrality.

[Preno]

Frankly, it looks (http://web.me.com/suzique99/WSD/Winter_Solstice.html) like a heavy-handed piece of "freethought" propaganda rather than a holiday display and I'm not surprised they got denied. What the hell does the genome have to do with the holidays?

Legal aspects aside, it's kind of assholish to use an innocuous cultural tradition to try to propagate your own ideology. And even from a purely pragmatic pov it only reinforces certain stereotypes about atheists. I'd probably be slightly pissed off / amused if someone tried to pull that off in my city, and I'm an atheist, so I'm not really surprised such behaviour upsets believers.

[Daynna]

Out of curiosity, why didn't they 'raise a ruckus' last year?

From what I understand, last year they claimed that they were not given enough information about the proposed display to approve it. This year they were provided with photos and schematics in addition to the detailed written description they were given last year.

I'd probably be slightly pissed off / amused if someone tried to pull that off in my city, and I'm an atheist, so I'm not really surprised such behaviour upsets believers.

Seriously? You would be pissed off if someone tried to put up a different interpretation of the holidays on the same lawn as a nativity scene?

I think it's great that taxpayers can express themselves on state property, as long as it's within the law (not hate speech, etc.). They have previously claimed that the capitol lawn was a "free speech area," which is why they allowed the nativity scene. This is a test of that claim, and they failed.

[Preno]

I'd probably be slightly pissed off / amused if someone tried to pull that off in my city, and I'm an atheist, so I'm not really surprised such behaviour upsets believers. Seriously? You would be pissed off if someone tried to put up a different interpretation of the holidays on the same lawn as a nativity scene?Except it's not an "interpretation of the holidays", it's a transparent piece of propaganda. To reiterate my question, what the hell does the genome have to do with the holidays?

[Christina]

I don't think that it's all that useful to piss people off when you're hoping to educate them so my opinion of it depends on the intent. If the intent was to use their holiday to push generic atheist material and offend them than it's probably a good tactic. If the intent was to frame atheists in a good light so that people would be more receptive to their message then I think that those are the wrong tactics to use and very ineffective. I'd rather see it done at other community events not associated with their holidays.

I wish that the city here would allow any group that was interested to apply for a space on a very wide traffic median to put up a symbol, religious or otherwise, that symbolized the holiday season to them. We could put up a FSM or anything else that we wanted to and it would be fun and way better than fighting about it. As it stands, we could probably do it if we got a permit but no theists could. We're rapidly secular around here when it comes to local government.

[Worldtraveller]

I'd probably be slightly pissed off / amused if someone tried to pull that off in my city, and I'm an atheist, so I'm not really surprised such behaviour upsets believers. Seriously? You would be pissed off if someone tried to put up a different interpretation of the holidays on the same lawn as a nativity scene?Except it's not an "interpretation of the holidays", it's a transparent piece of propaganda. To reiterate my question, what the hell does the genome have to do with the holidays?
Hypothetically (from a Constitutional/legal perspective), it should not matter, as long as the message had some relation to the holiday, however tenuous.

From thier website (http://web.me.com/suzique99/WSD/Winter_Solstice.html), it is tenuous, at best. It's not offensive in any way, although I think it's probably a little silly. Still, silly is in the eye of the beholder, and if a freethought group wants to put something like that up as their intepretation of the 'the season', the state really has no grounds to refuse. They are obligated to be more or less content nuetral, within the very loose guideline of 'holiday related'.

I think they should have gone for something like a yule tree with cards on it that explain all the different traditions, and where the yule tree comes from. I would also include the quotes from Jeremiah (10:1-6) that says having a tree is pagan. :) Or just make a poster sized billboard of this (http://russellsteapot.com/content/view/484/72/).

[Preno]

Hypothetically (from a Constitutional/legal perspective), it should not matter, as long as the message had some relation to the holiday, however tenuous.

From thier website (http://web.me.com/suzique99/WSD/Winter_Solstice.html), it is tenuous, at best. It's not offensive in any way, although I think it's probably a little silly. Still, silly is in the eye of the beholder, and if a freethought group wants to put something like that up as their intepretation of the 'the season', the state really has no grounds to refuse. They are obligated to be more or less content nuetral, within the very loose guideline of 'holiday related'.So if I make a box with informative articles about how the holidays used to be celebrated in the USSR, some Stalinist apologetics and reasons why everyone should become a member of the Communist Party of the USA and demand that it be displayed next to the nativity scene, that's fine and dandy, too (as long as I don't forget to include some festive decorations and lights)?

[Matty]

Sounds like Tod Billings is just askin for his kid to get tazed if y'all ask me ;)

[Worldtraveller]

So if I make a box with informative articles about how the holidays used to be celebrated in the USSR, some Stalinist apologetics and reasons why everyone should become a member of the Communist Party of the USA and demand that it be displayed next to the nativity scene, that's fine and dandy, too (as long as I don't forget to include some festive decorations and lights)?
I'm not a lawyer, but I think so, yes. Legally, the state is bound by the constitution to religious nuetrality. If you can even demonstrate the barest hint of a link to the holiday in question, the state is obligated to allow it.

That's why most states have opted out of these ostentatious and favorable displays of one particular religion. Most of the local govs have realized that it's not worth the hassle to allow everyone access to their public lands, so they ask the churches to move the nativities onto church or similar private, but publicily veiwable, areas.

As it should be.

[BioBeing]

One of the "sides" of the proposed porta-potty was about Winter Solstice. What is not seasonal about that? Although I gotta admit, dense text like that is a great way to turn people off. IHMO, they should have stuck with just the solstice theme, and made it prettier/less textual.

[David B]

I presume this refers to the same thing?:D

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/war_on_christmas_to_be_waged_w.php

Go Tod go:D

David

[Daynna]

I saw the mention on Pharyngula.

I do agree that it was too wordy, but that's just an opinion. As someone mentioned, it shouldn't matter what it says, they have to give equal space or no space to anyone at all.

Some people on Pharyngula commented that neither display should be allowed. I agree, but the way they went about it was much less assholish (a word?) than demanding the nativity be taken down. You have to tread gently in god country if you want to actually promote progress. I hope this brought enough publicity to bring more non-believers out of the woodwork in Arkansas. I'll ask Tod if they gained new members.

[David B]

I saw the mention on Pharyngula.

I do agree that it was too wordy, but that's just an opinion. As someone mentioned, it shouldn't matter what it says, they have to give equal space or no space to anyone at all.

Some people on Pharyngula commented that neither display should be allowed. I agree, but the way they went about it was much less assholish (a word?) than demanding the nativity be taken down. You have to tread gently in god country if you want to actually promote progress. I hope this brought enough publicity to bring more non-believers out of the woodwork in Arkansas. I'll ask Tod if they gained new members.


Yeah, I thought it was too wordy, as well.

However, I'm all in favour of people standing up, and saying 'no more' when Christians have been treating Christianity as in a specially privileged position for decades.

David