Video: O’Reilly and Megyn Kelly yell at each other over atheism; Update: Atheist sign stolen from Capitol; Update: Sign found
posted at 1:17 pm on December 5, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Surprise fireworks as FNC’s most combative anchor tries to explain the First Amendment to its most combative commentator. Good luck, Megyn!
My knowledge of FA jurisprudence is rusty, but isn’t the crucial distinction between the atheism case and O’Reilly’s MLK/KKK hypothetical the fact that one of them touches on religion and the other doesn’t? The Establishment Clause prevents the state from endorsing religion over no religion, but there’s nothing in the Free Speech Clause preventing it from endorsing one non-religious viewpoint over another. The fact that MLK Day is a federal holiday doesn’t mean we have to have Klan Day, for example. (Although good luck applying that reasoning to Christmas.) In other words, whereas the religion clauses set a certain baseline which the state in theory can’t diminish or exceed for any group, the baseline set by the FSC operates only as a floor, not a ceiling. Everyone has a right to protest on public grounds, no one has a right to have an exhibit devoted to their own little pet cause installed in the rotunda of the state Capitol. Or so I understand it. Exit question: If Kelly’s so worried about the state dictating which viewpoints are and aren’t appropriate, why does she seem okay-ish with the “fighting words” doctrine, which lets it criminalize certain types of speech that make people really, really angry? If atheists hold a rally and Christians show up to chant that they’re going to burn in hell, are those “fighting words”? They are in my neighborhood, bro! (But wouldn’t be in court.)
Link: 
Update: Tolerance.
The sign, which celebrated the winter solstice, had some residents and Christian organizations calling atheists Scrooges because they said it was attacking the celebration of Jesus Christ’s birth…
The incident will not stifle the group’s message, Gaylor said, adding that a temporary sign with the same message would be placed in the building’s Rotunda. Gaylor said a note would be attached saying, “Thou shalt not steal.”
“I guess they don’t follow their own commandments,” Gaylor said. “There’s nothing out there with the atheist point of view, and now there is such a firestorm that we have the audacity to exist. And then [whoever took the sign] stifles our speech.”
Update: The sign’s resurfaced at a radio station in Seattle after someone showed up and dropped it off. Smells like an inside job:
State Patrol Sgt. Ted DeHart said the billboard was still on display Thursday evening when the Capitol rotunda building was shut down.
“We have troopers responding to the scene to actually take a look around,” he said.
DeHart said there would be no way someone not authorized to be inside could get in the building after it’s closed at 6 p.m.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 Next »
Yawn.
Mike D. on December 5, 2008 at 1:22 PM
I do not like Megyn’s new hairstyle. It looks really dated.
ctmom on December 5, 2008 at 1:22 PM
Does anyone else notice that Bill often comes up with KKK analogies? Is that all he has in his hat?
Slightly OT: tee-hee, his radio show is over.
Pasalubong on December 5, 2008 at 1:23 PM
Yes.
Plus, Bill-O rarely if ever has a farking clue what he’s yelling about.
To Play Us Out? What does that mean?
WE’LL DO IT LIVE! F*CKING THING SUCKS!
Good Lt on December 5, 2008 at 1:24 PM
Can we please call him Rev. King again? It would have made a better point, I think.
Bill O’Reilly really is Ted Baxter.
emailnuevo on December 5, 2008 at 1:24 PM
By “the state” I am assuming you mean the federal government. The Establishment Clause actually prevents congress from passing a law that favors one religion over another. Since SCOTUS has determined that atheism is a religion, both Christians and atheists would have the same standing under the Constitution.
Harpoon on December 5, 2008 at 1:25 PM
Why does O’Reilly look more natural yelling about something?
kybowexar on December 5, 2008 at 1:25 PM
This is so stupid — honestly, these atheist groups are a bunch of sore losers.
Richard Romano on December 5, 2008 at 1:26 PM
Remember when Ted Baxter was gonna hunt down the one guy who sets oil prices and give him some tough questions? he represents, the folks, you know
lodge on December 5, 2008 at 1:26 PM
“I don’t agree with you analysis of the law at all, but…”
Smart gal.
emailnuevo on December 5, 2008 at 1:28 PM
What if the atheists chant to the Christians that their belief system is retarded and Grandma and her soul were eaten by worms?
I say let everyone piss everyone else off.
BadgerHawk on December 5, 2008 at 1:28 PM
After the segment it looked like Megan needed a hug. I would like to volunteer for the position – where do I send my resume?
savvydude on December 5, 2008 at 1:30 PM
+1
Nobody has a monopoly on self-righteousness, so let’s slug it out, baby!
Good Lt on December 5, 2008 at 1:32 PM
If I had been the governor I would have made the argument that the language of the sign would possibly create to much protest and commotion that would interfere with the official business of the state and that if the atheists wanted to promote their beliefs, they would need to do it in a way that made no derogatory mention of religion in general.
For instance: “ATHEISM IS GOOD. WE DON’T NEED RELIGION TO LIVE MORAL LIVES.”
I think that may have passed FA scrutiny since speech can be restricted if it interferes with a compelling state interest (such as the functioning of government).
Metro on December 5, 2008 at 1:33 PM
Lame-ass atheists…but they have a right to publicly voice their opinion.
LimeyGeek on December 5, 2008 at 1:33 PM
Apparently if the Christian display included a sign that said “Atheism is intolerant and divisive”, that would be Ok?
NellE on December 5, 2008 at 1:34 PM
I’m with you. The time for sensitivity is up.
Let’s get some ba!!$ & shake people up.
That’s when they make mistakes.
Badger40 on December 5, 2008 at 1:35 PM
I’m surprised no one has walked in and torn up that placard yet.
GarandFan on December 5, 2008 at 1:35 PM
The only ones who would want to do that are Christians, and we’re not gripped by the insane rage of the left. Believe me, I want to do it, but I have something called restraint, unlike liberals.
Sir Corky on December 5, 2008 at 1:36 PM
I do.
Was this sign on government property? It is clearly designed to incite.
Spirit of 1776 on December 5, 2008 at 1:37 PM
most of the State Constitutions from the original states declare Christianity as their relgion, and specifically mention Jesus. the First Amendment is only about the Federal Govt. establishing a national religion(i.e. the Church of England) and absolutely nothing else. The founders all prayed before each legislative session and held Christian services on Capital grounds.
its really a bizzare debate, if the Founders were around they’d be disgusted
jp on December 5, 2008 at 1:37 PM
And of course, I had this window open, and wrote my response just as the update was going up. Thanks for making me look like an idiot people.
Sir Corky on December 5, 2008 at 1:39 PM
The nativity scene and the menorah are symbols of the holidays that are celebrated this time of year. The atheist display is not a symbol but rather an attack. I don’t see how it is considered the same. If they could have come up with a display that showed a symbol of the winter solstice than it would have made more sense. But this is clearly an attack on the season, and I don’t see how it is comparable.
Rose on December 5, 2008 at 1:40 PM
Tolerance in action.
Good Lt on December 5, 2008 at 1:40 PM
I’ve sent mine in, so do you think I’m stupid enough to tell you ;)
Megyn rules the (air)waves!
mr.blacksheep on December 5, 2008 at 1:40 PM
I’m trying to figure out what the point of the atheist sign was. All I can come up with is a childish “Nah-ahn!”
Granted, I am unsure what the point of the nativity scene was, but that at least has the benefit of being in season.
The sign seems badly worded, and I find the “hardens the heart” part to be petulant.
Count to 10 on December 5, 2008 at 1:40 PM
Gov. Gregoire is a moron for allowing the anti-Christmas message to be placed in the capital next to the nativity. The MAJORITY “folks” are getting sick and tired of traditional values being pissed on by ever more militant minority groups. Marriage, in God we trust, the Pledge of Allegiance, Christmas….enough is enough. I’m all for live and let live but that’s not the perspective held by most of these spoiled children.
dmann on December 5, 2008 at 1:41 PM
The “Establishment Clause” pertains to Congress. How it’s been morphed over the years into pertaining to every state and every facet of society is beyond me.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
darwin on December 5, 2008 at 1:41 PM
I agree that the a sign on government property displayed right next to a nativity scene could incite anger, and that would possibly be a good defense to stealing the sign.
The line that gets me the most in the sign is “Let reason prevail.” That pretty much calls every Christian an idiot because of who they are. Imagine if the sign called all gays or blacks idiots because of who they are. That’s fighting words.
Sir Corky on December 5, 2008 at 1:42 PM
Thanks for making me look like an idiot people.
Sir Corky on December 5, 2008 at 1:39 PM
No, that wasn’t why – it was your not lack of punctuation.
kybowexar on December 5, 2008 at 1:42 PM
Somehow I’m skeptical about the theft of the atheist sign. Are you sure it didn’t fall over? You know, since it didn’t have a leg to stand on? (Lighten up.)
I won’t get into a discussion of the new covenant vs. old covenant, but I think it’s enough to say: no, atheist, we can’t obey our own commandments. That’s why we have a Savior.
emailnuevo on December 5, 2008 at 1:43 PM
What is the point of the atheist sign? Is atheism a religion or not? If not, what does celebrating winter solstice have to do with anything?
CP on December 5, 2008 at 1:43 PM
This is boring stuff.
lexhamfox on December 5, 2008 at 1:44 PM
O’Reilly presumes to tell a lawyer about the law in the same manner which he presumed to tell an economic expert (Cavuto) about economics.
People who are ignorant but think they know everything are dangerous, not to mention obnoxious.
BTW, I happened to catch Dennis Miller pwning him the other night about the Walmart incident. Is this stuff planned?
baldilocks on December 5, 2008 at 1:44 PM
Moral relativity and political correctness, might as well chant “Death to America”. Time to put up the Christmas lights!
dmann on December 5, 2008 at 1:45 PM
But you know Bill wished loofas were involved.
Of course the first amendment protects speech. I really find this controversy stupid, so the athiests believe that. Big deal. If they are wrong, well I hope they enjoy hell. If they are right, well when you die that is that. Why argue? I would leave nativities and signs like this out of the capitol, but if you bring in nativities and other religious symbols, you have to allow others too.
This is really a silly controversy.
Mr. Joe on December 5, 2008 at 1:45 PM
This is probably telling.
Count to 10 on December 5, 2008 at 1:45 PM
Oh and is O’Reilly still hollering about “speculators” now that gasoline is darn near free?
baldilocks on December 5, 2008 at 1:45 PM
I thought there were protests organized over this sign for today or tomorrow…hmmmm.
I think the Freedom From Religion folks (who apparently have made a state outside of their own their personal mission) ought to try this stuff around a mosque. I wonder why they don’t.
capitalist piglet on December 5, 2008 at 1:46 PM
yeah and every Muslim is a terrorist. Hows that blanket feel Linus?
broker1 on December 5, 2008 at 1:46 PM
This would fall into the stupid and childish category if it weren’t for the fact the the sides keep trying to force their point of view on each other through legal channels. If the militants on both sides went out and found something truly productive to do with their lives, this might stand a chance of ending.
jeanie on December 5, 2008 at 1:46 PM
I’ll play amateur scholar here and argue that any limits on the FA when it comes to public displays or state sanctioned communication must be “content neutral”. That is the state could not permit some critical (or non-critical) speech while banning other critical or non-critical speech.
My guess is that the state of Washington could not forbid anti-religious statements from being made here since that is not “content neutral”. Similarly, if racists wanted to express negative views of Martin Luther King (e.g., he was an adulterer or communist) on a public display commemmorating his birth, that would also have to be permitted since banning those words would violate the “content neutral” rule.
The “fighting words” doctrine can only forbid/bann speech if there is a chance of immediate violence occurring at the time of the speech.
The atheists have the law on their side. So does Kelly.
So sayeth some guy on the internet.
SteveMG on December 5, 2008 at 1:46 PM
An established constitutional principle called “incorporation”.
LimeyGeek on December 5, 2008 at 1:46 PM
Atheist have their holiday, its April 1st
Psalm 14:1 ‘The fool says in his heart, there is no God.’
Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 1:47 PM
That whole soap-opera debacle that ran through many of his shows totally convinced me of what a dunce BO’R really is.
Thicker than pig poop.
LimeyGeek on December 5, 2008 at 1:49 PM
O’Reilly is right on principle, Megyn is right on the law, and O’Reilly should give Megyn the time to explain herself without interrupting.
Of course, there’s another Law above United States Federal law. Good luck when those atheists die and meet their Maker.
“So you think I’m an illusion and don’t exist?” says the Lord. After which there is much weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Steve Z on December 5, 2008 at 1:49 PM
Mass. State constitution, giving Christians rights over Atheist:
same State constitution:
fines and/or Jail up to 1yr for being an Atheist.
These idiots are lucky they didn’t live in Masschusettes during the Founders reign.
jp on December 5, 2008 at 1:50 PM
“The real object of the [First] Amendment was not to countenance, much less advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects.” -Joseph Story, Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court 1811-1845, founder of Harvard Law School, Commentaries on the Constitution, Vol. II, 1871 (1833).
But what’s he know?
Akzed on December 5, 2008 at 1:50 PM
You would think the answer would be “not”, but the events here seem to say otherwise.
Though I am quite willing to learn from the fallacies of other atheists so that I may be a better atheist person myself.
Count to 10 on December 5, 2008 at 1:51 PM
Good lord,O’Reilly is at it again!
O’Reilly has guest on show,check!
O’Reilly wants guest to agree with him,sometimes,check!
O’Reilly becomes a bit agitated at guest,and constantly
interupt’s guest,check!
O’Reilly gets more agitated when guest doesn’t agree,check!
Watching O’Reilly rip guest,after not agreeing,check!
Amazing how guests are besmirched by O’Reilly,and guests
still go back for more besmirchment by O’Reilly,double
check!!(Sarc!).
canopfor on December 5, 2008 at 1:52 PM
How could the phrase “Let Reason Prevail” be interpreted as an insult to anybody other than one who doesn’t want reason to prevail?
Are you suggesting that your belief does not allow reason to prevail, and thus, that the phrase is somehow antithetical to it? Can’t it be congruent with it?
Good Lt on December 5, 2008 at 1:53 PM
Change the camera angle for the picture, AP–Megyn is a LOT nicer to look at than O’Reilly!
Steve Z on December 5, 2008 at 1:53 PM
Gaylor…ehh, just sayin! Most likely they stole their own sign to keep this in the media.
dmann on December 5, 2008 at 1:53 PM
The fact that nothing else in the area was stolen makes a pretty good case that so-called christians stole the sign. Interesting how this is not addressed by the athiest bashers on this forum. Also interesting is how some of the same bashers went bat-sh&t everytime a thread was posted about stolen campaign signs. Once again, the religious zealots flex morality to suit their needs. The sign may have been idiotic but what is worse, some idiot taking the time to make the sign or some other idiot hiding behind religion as rationale for stealing?
grdred944 on December 5, 2008 at 1:53 PM
Not entirely true, though it depends on your definition of atheist. I don’t think it would be that much of a burden on me to obey that law, though I think it is a bad one.
Count to 10 on December 5, 2008 at 1:54 PM
My money’s on an inside job to make Christians look bad. That’ll salvage a little dignity for SirCorky too.
BadgerHawk on December 5, 2008 at 1:55 PM
ROFLMAO!!!
There is no God but there are Commandments?
Texas Gal on December 5, 2008 at 1:55 PM
What? Someone stole a sign? A piece of cardboard with lettering? Big deal. Flip them a buck.
Blake on December 5, 2008 at 1:56 PM
I think it was intended as irony.
But whatevs. Mazel tov!
Good Lt on December 5, 2008 at 1:57 PM
Considering how many fake “hate crimes” we’ve heard of, your theory is not unlikely.
ramrocks on December 5, 2008 at 1:57 PM
Bah – as a quote, that’s lame. Everyone knows that certain select Scriptures
indictbother them a lot more…rhodeymark on December 5, 2008 at 1:57 PM
The cardboard is the replacement. The original sign was a 50 lbs plack.
Count to 10 on December 5, 2008 at 1:57 PM
Atheists have unresolved issues with their fathers. They can no more drop the issue or behave in a civil manner about it than can schizophrenics stop hallucinating. Society has lost cohesion and more kids are poorly parented. So we will have more citizens with unresolved daddy issues thus more atheists attacking whereever they can. Disorder breeds disorder.
snaggletoothie on December 5, 2008 at 1:58 PM
…so print another sign, but leave out the hate speech. How about:
Have a wonderful winter solstice.
That is comparable to the manger scene, eh?
LEBA on December 5, 2008 at 1:58 PM
Both sides should just go back to the mall and start celebrating the birth of our savior the usual way, by fighting to get the best sale items.
pedestrian on December 5, 2008 at 1:58 PM
Why don’t brave atheists and militant gays get together and stage their protests and exercise their free speech at a local mosque?
CarolynM on December 5, 2008 at 1:59 PM
That’s a bit broad, don’t you think?
I was raised by an atheist father, hows that fit in?
Count to 10 on December 5, 2008 at 2:00 PM
“Let reason prevail” are not fighting words. The US Supreme Court upheld that situation only once early this century and has quickly backpedaled on the doctrine in all other circumstances.
jim m on December 5, 2008 at 2:00 PM
That’s a very non-historical way to state it. Alabama was the first state to recognize Christmas as a holiday… in 1836. I’m no fan of Christmas, but the Establishment Clause is just another restriction on the Federal government from imposing something on the citizens… in this case, a particular sectarian organization of some sort.
Why would atheists care? I am a Christian, yet I believe that the concept of “hell” held by most Christians is merely Greek mythology… you can scream that I will “burn in hell” day and night and it wouldn’t bother me in the least.
If they screamed that you’re going to end up being eaten by Orcs would those be “fighting words” too?
mankai on December 5, 2008 at 2:01 PM
The last people who worshiped the “goddess” of Reason were the French revolutionaries of 1789, inspired by the philosphers of the so-called Enlightenment. By 1794 they had decapitated the king, killed thousands of priests and nuns, and were at each other’s throats in what French historians call “the Great Terror”. This was eventually settled by Napoleon Bonaparte, whose conquests led to war throughout most of Europe.
Does this sound “reasonable” to anyone here? Let’s PRAY that it doesn’t happen here!
Steve Z on December 5, 2008 at 2:01 PM
How do we know it was taken by a Christian?
ctmom on December 5, 2008 at 2:01 PM
after watching the vid, it seemed to me that Megyn kept telling Bill how the legal system works.. and Bill kept shouting her down..
btw.. keep the Megyn videos on sevenload.. better quality than you tube :)
DaveC on December 5, 2008 at 2:02 PM
Isn’t it amazing how easily we redefined “free”? :) Our attention span is a fraction of something, for good, and for bad.
Entelechy on December 5, 2008 at 2:02 PM
Are we sure it wasn’t a Christmas miracle?
James on December 5, 2008 at 2:02 PM
Because in America, it ain’t muslims that are corrupting the legislative and political process to F them over.
LimeyGeek on December 5, 2008 at 2:03 PM
What I don’t understand about these atheists is what’s their beef about the Nativity story? I mean, even if they don’t believe it at all, it’s a lovely story. I’m thinking of that line from Evelyn Waugh’s “Brideshead Revisited” where Sebastian tells Charles that he believes because “it’s lovely”. The shepherds, the wise men, the humble stable where the ox and the lamb — it’s a lovely story. Can’t they just take it as a pretty fairy tale if they can’t believe it as faith? Their inability to see this is what leads to believe that these crusading atheists (yes, I used the word crusading deliberately) are extremely petty and bitter people.
ramrocks on December 5, 2008 at 2:04 PM
That’s not all it said.
capitalist piglet on December 5, 2008 at 2:05 PM
Did any of the wording imply violence in any form? I thought it was merely suggesting that people think differently….
LimeyGeek on December 5, 2008 at 2:06 PM
Ah, come on. Can we stop bad mouthing the crusades?
Count to 10 on December 5, 2008 at 2:07 PM
How are Christians “corrupting the legislative and political process”? By voting?
ramrocks on December 5, 2008 at 2:08 PM
I can’t remember what it said word-for-word (probably easy enough to find), but it’s been a big topic on talk radio here (Seattle), and it was very insulting – namecalling, etc. It was far more than “let reason prevail”.
Extremely in-your-face. It really was.
capitalist piglet on December 5, 2008 at 2:08 PM
LOL! I’m Lebanese Christian — my people fought in the Crusades. I have nothing against them.
ramrocks on December 5, 2008 at 2:09 PM
by merely being alive to these atheist wackos.
right4life on December 5, 2008 at 2:09 PM
Hogwash. The sign mentions the solstice and then explicitly attacks religion as “enslavement”.
forest on December 5, 2008 at 2:09 PM
its an insult to the crusaders to call these wackos that.
thank God for the Crusades!!
otherwise we’d all be muslim
right4life on December 5, 2008 at 2:10 PM
I side with Bill O.
diogenes on December 5, 2008 at 2:12 PM
How are atheists and gays being F’d over? Last time I looked, you are allowed to be an atheist here without paying a tax. And gays can live and prosper with no fear of being hanged.
Oh, you must mean that the poor little atheists don’t get to hang their own decorations come holiday time. And the poor little gays can’t play husband and wife just yet.
Now the real reason they don’t mess with Muslims is because Muslims have a tendency to get violent and litiguous or both when their religion is questioned.
Christianity is always the easy target for the latte sipping panty waists.
CarolynM on December 5, 2008 at 2:12 PM
…sense I don’t see the full quotation anywhere here.
Count to 10 on December 5, 2008 at 2:12 PM
“The sign, which celebrated the winter solstice, …”
Nothing says have a great holiday like “You’re totally wrong, Christian scum.” Do they send each other winter solstice cards that say:
“Let’s have reason, unlike the stupid, hateful Christians with their terrible beliefs.
Love,
Aunt Petunia”
Laura in Maryland on December 5, 2008 at 2:13 PM
The sign of the atheists struck me as less than a celebration of their beliefs/nonbeliefs than an attack on religion. Or is that all they believe in?
Does this mean that it would be ok to put a sign on the side of the nativity stating that godless heathens are doomed to go to hell and suffer in torment forever?
katiejane on December 5, 2008 at 2:13 PM
So can Christians put up a sign that says Judaism is wrong because Christ said so?
Is that part of “equal time” with a Christmas display?
Skywise on December 5, 2008 at 2:14 PM
Great minds and all that…
Skywise on December 5, 2008 at 2:14 PM
Let me state again -
there are atheists and then there are anti-theists who claim they are atheists.
These guys are anti-theists. They don’t have anything positive to believe in – they’re entire belief system is based on the OPPOSITE of religion (and in particular, Christianity).
As was stated, their sign does not/did not deserve to be put next to the manger and the menorah in that they were not celebrating their own particular part of the season.
The anti-theist sign was only there to insult religion.
They also need to understand that they lost the battle (Christmas vs. winter solstice) a long, long time ago.
That said, considering how Christ’s birth is now celebrated, they can have December back.
Religious_Zealot on December 5, 2008 at 2:15 PM
Absolutely. My right to my atheistic outlook depended on the forbearance of Christians, and I don’t fancy the idea of leaving it up to the muslems.
Count to 10 on December 5, 2008 at 2:16 PM
I have nothing against the crusaders. As I noted in my post above, my ancestors fought with them. (Though we did switch sides at one point when some of the crusaders turned out to be jerks, but that’s another story… ancient history is rather complicated…)
ramrocks on December 5, 2008 at 2:16 PM
Look,
I totally disagree with whomever decided that STEALING the sign would be a good solution, but you have to admit, that sign was RUDE, DISRESPECTFUL, and INCITEFUL. It’s like the Atheists WANTED someone to steal the sign…
Hmmm…
I wonder. Will the sign be mysteriously found in an Atheists basement? While I doubt your average Atheist is that conspiratorially minded, I wouldn’t put it past the pricks who decided to put something so inflammatory up to steal it to generate more press coverage.
i think the smartest thing now would be for the CHRISTIANS to volunteer to pay for a new sign for the Atheists. Just have one made and place on thier behalf. Something along the lines of:
“Wishing you a happy Winter Solstice and a New Year filled with Reason and Love – The Atheists” (paid for by the -insert Christian group here-)
That would be HILARIOUS and would totally shut the Atheists up, that the CHRISTAINS could put up a better Atheist sign than the Atheists! Heck, I’d be willing to donate to THAT cause. where do I sign up?
wearyman on December 5, 2008 at 2:18 PM
I remember watching the “discusssion” last night and loved it because it puts both positions out there in the “raw” so we can each look and evaluate and make up our own mind how we feel. Wish we had more of this. Love ‘em both….
DL13 on December 5, 2008 at 2:18 PM
Well said.
Of course, there would be no reason to celebrate the winter solstice, except that some other religion celebrated it.
The Greeks were big on that kind of thing. Did the Jews celebrate it?
Count to 10 on December 5, 2008 at 2:20 PM
AWESOME IDEA! How can I donate money to this? Let’s do it!
ramrocks on December 5, 2008 at 2:21 PM
The plaque did not “celebrate” the winter solstice… it merely mentioned the solstice, almost in passing.
The point of the sign was to insult anyone who does not share the same beliefs as the people placing the sign. They are merely exercising their right to worship intolerance.
malclave on December 5, 2008 at 2:21 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 Next »