An atheist sign criticizing Christianity that was erected alongside a Nativity scene was taken from the Legislative Building in Olympia, Washington, on Friday and later found in a ditch.
An employee from country radio station KMPS-FM in Seattle told CNN the sign was dropped off at the station by someone who found it in a ditch.
C’mon. Disagree in harmony. I hope no atheists, agnostics, humanists, Jews, Muslims, whathaveyou do this to any Christian display – or any other display, for that matter. It’s petty and juvenile. No group deserves to have its property damaged or stolen, regardless of the justification.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: Atheist sign, Capitol building, Christmas, thou shalt not steal, Washington |
For the Sake of Science 
Actually, until it was stolen, i had not appreciated that the sign was up. It seemed very trollish. Perhaps it was the way in which it was put up: if it had been tacked on the back of say the nativity scene, it would more accurately prortay it for what it was- a disclaimer.
I think it was put up so that this would happen, and then atheists would be justified for the frankly rude display. If it hadn’t been stolen, it would have looked very bad on the atheists, because it is such a bah humbug kind of deal. If they had decided to retell the pagan history of Mithras, that would have been appropriate and would have served to function in the same point: that the whole situation is silly. But anti-theism seems to me a stretch.
they got what they wanted, and in my mind, were asking for. In that sense, the display found its way into legitimacy. IMHO
RickrOll: so, a pagan rival myth is OK, while a sign defending reason and facts is “frankly rude”?
What a strange mind you have.
Too many Christians and other theists have whined that the sign was too “in your face.” Just like in the 1960s too many white people complained that those uppity colored folks were too confrontational.
The right to not be offended is not in the Constitution.
So, prudes AND thieves. I guess they’re not as touchy as I thought, B&E take some minerals.
I really can’t figure out why the Christians have their knickers in a knot over this. It’s just a sign, with words on it. Comprised of letters in the English alphabet. It’s not, say, a picture of an aborted fetus, blown up 50 X actual size, like the one I have to look at every day on the way to work outside the local Woman’s Reproductive Center. It’s a sign with an idea written on it.
The Nativity Scene, on the other hand, is a 3D representation of the birth of a god. A god! Somehow, the birth of a god is entitled to so much respect that a sign, with only words, next to it will inflame Christians so much, that they have to stop what they are doing and organize a mass protest, while Bill O’Reilly calls the juxtaposition of the two an outrage on national TV.
I don’t get it. It seems to me that a more appropriate response would be a refutation of the words on the sign, but it doesn’t seem like anyone’s thought of that. No one has tried to refute them. I wonder why? Could it be they are irrefutable, and that they make Christians…uncomfortable?
Willful delusion cannot be maintained when someone keeps poking holes in the delusion.