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
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.
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: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
So, in accordance with many here, if something is considered ‘rude, disrespectful & in-your-face critical’ by certain people with unknown and unknowable subjective standards, it should be censored?
LimeyGeek on December 5, 2008 at 2:22 PM
Yes, the solstice was always associate with religion in some form. It was originally a pagan feast. And Hanukkah predates Christianity of course.
ramrocks on December 5, 2008 at 2:24 PM
Or perhaps they we freely expressing their opinion that ‘religion is bunk’. God bless America.
LimeyGeek on December 5, 2008 at 2:24 PM
O’Reilly: Okay, Megyn. What’s your opinion?
Kelly: Well B-
O’Reilly: Blah, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
(Repeat until end of segment. May be used for any guest.)
whitetop on December 5, 2008 at 2:25 PM
The Pilgrims would have sided with the atheists… they viewed Christmas as just a man-made re-write of the Winter Solstice celebrations.
Still, I’m always amazed when atheists (i.e. meaningless chemical concoctions, here by accident, with no purpose) care about anything. Chemicals don’t “steal” from chemicals… all we have here is a stimulus-response reaction which science will soon explain! They had to take the signs, the laws of science cannot be defied.
mankai on December 5, 2008 at 2:26 PM
It should be noted that Hanukkah is a MINOR Jewish festival and has only been elevated to higher status recently in order to “balance out” the Christian influence on the season.
Religious_Zealot on December 5, 2008 at 2:26 PM
Absolutely not.
However, we shouldn’t be terribly SURPRISED when someone of a less than high moral caliber decides to take the law into his or her own hands. It’s wrong, but unsurprising.
Personally, I’m still unconvinced that this Atheist group didn’t do it themselves to generate more press. This was a HEAVY sign. It’s not like you could just walk off with it under your coat. It’s also unlikely that anyone other than the original sign planters wouldn’t be noticed messing with the sign. This just all seems a bit too neat for my tastes.
wearyman on December 5, 2008 at 2:27 PM
F*CK IT! WE’LL DO IT LIVE!
Good Lt on December 5, 2008 at 2:27 PM
Not just anyone. It is clearly not directed at Buddhists, for instance. They were specifically calling out those who believe in gods, angels, devils, heaven and/or hell.
I may share a few things in common with these people in terms of what I do not believe in, but I think it safe to say that they believe in things I do not.
Count to 10 on December 5, 2008 at 2:27 PM
To be fair, I think most are saying that limiting speech in certain venues is acceptable.
The problem with that is, as I noted above, who gets to decide the venue and the limits? The law is clear that such limits, if permissible, must be “content neutral” and cannot disfavor some speech over against other.
The atheists have the right to be jerks and, in this setting, the right to display their jerkiness.
SteveMG on December 5, 2008 at 2:27 PM
I thought BillO made it perfectly clear last night that the Christmas decorations are there more to represent the person of Jesus, not the religion he founded, which is why we don’t worry about having Easter displays up. Allah clearly didn’t even watch the first part of this segment (from yesterday or two days ago, I believe) before writing this up. Doing so would help with the “Klan/MLK” comparison.
Rainsford on December 5, 2008 at 2:28 PM
Just try letting get out at work that you aren’t necessarily a follower.
Or with friends or with, or with…
Prejudice isn’t constrained by anything but the individual.
Speakup on December 5, 2008 at 2:29 PM
I actually agree with Megyn Kelly. The atheists had a right to place their sign where they did, but it was in terribly bad taste and reflects poorly on them — just as the neo-Nazis who marched in Skokie had a Constitutional right to do so even though their decision to march reflected very poorly on them and all sensible people regard them as disgusting.
ramrocks on December 5, 2008 at 2:29 PM
Hey Allah,
Wouldn’t a better title for the link in the update be “Atheist group places sign intending to provoke, then surprised when people are provoked”? or maybe “Jackass insults Billions then whines when people don’t like it”.
And boy is the leader of this group a real jackass…
First he says that Christianity, and by extension Christians, are trying to steal the ultra important “winter solstice” from “humans”. Then he has the audacity to say he’s not intending to attack anyone. And, of course, for good measure while explaining how he isn’t attacking anyone he proceeds to attack the nativity and Christianity in general as “hate speech”.
thecollegepolitico on December 5, 2008 at 2:29 PM
No. The problem with that is, it’s unconstitutional.
LimeyGeek on December 5, 2008 at 2:29 PM
Good point.
It was an opinion, and not a religious display at all, and so shouldn’t have been portrayed as one. The sign has no business in the the venue in which it was placed, and should not have been placed there.
malclave on December 5, 2008 at 2:29 PM
I don’t think they would have ‘sided’ with the atheists (remember, the atheists weren’t lifting up the winter solstice, they were insulting religion and those that follow it)…
…but they definitely didn’t like the celebration of Christmas (which wasn’t a major religious holiday in the early years of the church).
But the funny/sad thing is that the atheists would have such a problem with a holiday that:
a) promotes the best in people – love and joy and goodness;
b) yet has been overtaken by mass, crass commercialization.
Religious_Zealot on December 5, 2008 at 2:30 PM
The RCC told Obama voters they’d most likely “burn in hell” for their votes… I think that’s a bit more of a threat to the Republic than a Winter Solstice celebration.
mankai on December 5, 2008 at 2:31 PM
Government has no business dictating what people can say and where.
LimeyGeek on December 5, 2008 at 2:31 PM
And Kwaanza is a totally made up bullsh*t holiday created by a felon turned, what else?, professor.
CarolynM on December 5, 2008 at 2:31 PM
Megyn, you ignorant slut.
(SNL reference, for the young people who think I’m being sexist)
justfinethanks on December 5, 2008 at 2:32 PM
Er, that is why I said immediately afterward that:
The law is clear that such limits, if permissible, must be “content neutral” and cannot disfavor some speech over against other.
By “the problem” I was referring to the law.
SteveMG on December 5, 2008 at 2:32 PM
I’m atheist and I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand I consider all religions to be legends and fairytales that people for some odd reason started to take literally and Christianity’s co-opting of a pagan holiday was a deceitful and deplorable act. This religion also has an ugly history with a lot of violence, killing and warfare against progress, science, free thought and other cultures.
On the other hand its Christmas and there’s no need to inject bitterness at this time of year. Even if we all became atheist overnight I’d see nothing wrong with celebrating our traditions like the nativity scene. As long as Christians aren’t trying to impose their views and way of life on the rest of us as muslims are, I have no problem with them.
Atheists have plenty of opportunities to take a stand on substantive issues-they should’ve let this one slide. It only makes them appear more uptight and killjoys by shoving atheism in everybody’s face at every turn, esp. during the this time of year.
I could live with that. In the end its all about well-wishing and being good to each other-regardless of how its expressed or what traditional lores are conjured up to denote the occasion.
thinkagain on December 5, 2008 at 2:32 PM
Gregoire = Potius Pilate…???? At least he avoided hyperbole.
ronsfi on December 5, 2008 at 2:34 PM
Of course it does.
Fighting words, falsely crying fire, copyright protection, national security, slander, public disturbances, et cetera.
There’re lot of legal limits upon what people say and where they can say it.
SteveMG on December 5, 2008 at 2:34 PM
The “so called” Enlightenment? You mean the one that ended religious tyrannies of the Dark Ages? The one that gave birth to some of the finest literature, political philosophy and classical liberal values the world has ever known? The enlightenment that was the precursor, nay, the spark of reason, that founded the US?
Yeah. What a terrible thing that was. Let’s go back to 1655, or better yet, to 450 AD. They had it all figured out back in the good old days.
PS – I’m pretty sure atheists don’t worship the goddess anything. I don’t know about French atheists – maybe the fact that they’re French just makes them predisposed to do weird things :-)
Good Lt on December 5, 2008 at 2:35 PM
Yeah, I was sort of joking about “siding” with them.
Most people don’t realize that Christmas wasn’t celebrated in any measurable way in New England until the late 19th century. The point being that Christians get upset about the silliest things while HUGE matters of consequence are often ignored in the name of some false “unity.”
I think the Pilgrims would be quite puzzled to see themselves referenced by people and groups with whom they would totally reject.
mankai on December 5, 2008 at 2:35 PM
I know several people at my work that are Atheists. Nobody gives them a hard time about it AT ALL.
Indeed, if they did, it would be an instant “HR Issue”.
We also have Bhuddists, Muslims, Jews and Hindus here. Nobody cares, everybody takes part in the secular half of the Holiday Season, celebrating in their own way, and nobody gets in anyone else’s face about it.
Then again, nobody gets in anyone else’s face about pretty much anything not work-related. I suppose if the Atheists at work were as in-your-face as some Atheists online are, there might be an issue. But Prejudice like that is almost never seen in the professional workplace anymore. Not anywhere that I’ve worked, anyway.
wearyman on December 5, 2008 at 2:35 PM
I’m glad we’re finally calling atheism a religion. Now, can we trace that to Naturalism and stop the hegemony in the public school system?
Mommypundit on December 5, 2008 at 2:36 PM
Every time I see the moron O’Reilly, I understand why ma nature made breathing an autonomic function. If it wasn’t, idiots like that would suffocate.
Jim708 on December 5, 2008 at 2:37 PM
True. However, this was explicitly a “holiday display”. Since the atheists’ plaque was just an opinion, and not related to any holiday, then there was no reason to allow the plaque to be placed at that time. Fill out the paperwork, and put it up mid-June or something.
In the meantime, the atheists would have been perfectly in their rights to assemble there, hand out pamphlets explaining their beliefs (or lack thereof), and so on.
malclave on December 5, 2008 at 2:37 PM
Therefore…what?
PS – shouting fire in a crowded theater?
You do know, do you not, that the court case that OW Holmes quote came from was to put a group of Yiddish-speaking socialists handing out pamphlets in a language few could read in jail for opposing W. Wilson’s involvement in WWI, right?
Wasn’t exactly shouting fire in a crowded theater, was it?
Good Lt on December 5, 2008 at 2:37 PM
Sigh. Frickin’ Bill O.
The guy is useful sometimes. But dear sweet Saint of Festivus, he’s such a moronic blowhard. He isn’t smart enough for his job by half, and he spends his time blustering and bloviating to try to hide his own lack of intelligence.
Even when I agree with him – which frankly is most of the time – he still ranges from annoying to embarrassing.
Maybe someday liberals will figure out that not all conservatives sound like this putz. For that matter, maybe we’ll realize that not all liberals sound like Rosie O’Donnell.
And for the love of Pete, would you people quit insulting Ted Baxter?
Professor Blather on December 5, 2008 at 2:38 PM
I don’t think getting upset over the ‘attacks’ on Christmas is ‘silly.’
Just like the anti-Prop8 protests, they show an underlying hatred for religion and a wish to eradicate it.
Religious_Zealot on December 5, 2008 at 2:39 PM
Haha.
Good Lt on December 5, 2008 at 2:39 PM
F’ it, I’ll do it live!
Love Megyn!!!
trs on December 5, 2008 at 2:39 PM
Also…
What in the world is so special about the winter solstice? I mean, if you don’t believe in anything supernatural why are you celebrating this holiday?
After all the winter solstice technically only lasts an instant. It is the instant when the Sun’s position in the sky is at its greatest angular distance on the other side of the equatorial plane from the observer. Why is that meaningful for an atheist?
I think its quite clear that this guy and his group are just trying to stick to those darn Christians…
thecollegepolitico on December 5, 2008 at 2:40 PM
Jesus celebrated Hannukah:
John 10:22, “And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter.”
Akzed on December 5, 2008 at 2:40 PM
Sorry, government “dictates” what we can say and where all the time.
We have laws against defamation or public disturbances (try going around your neighborhood at 3:00 a.m. with a bullhorn), national security (publishing atomic secrets or the names of our agents operating in Iran), et cetera, et cetera.
Those limits don’t apply in this case.
SteveMG on December 5, 2008 at 2:40 PM
From one atheist to another, I would suggest that you take a second look. Most of the violence and actions “against progress” have been overblown and distorted. In many ways, the Christian doctrine of one reasonable god is a much better environment for science than the chaos of a pantheon. The same might also be said for morality and governance.
Count to 10 on December 5, 2008 at 2:41 PM
No. There are lots of consequences for certain words. Nobody has a gag over your mouth.
LimeyGeek on December 5, 2008 at 2:41 PM
Defamation (libel/slander), SEC regulations (insider trading), copyright laws, falsely crying fire, making threats, national security laws, FTC limits (false advertising), fighting words, et cetera.
There are a number of limits on our speech.
SteveMG on December 5, 2008 at 2:42 PM
But that doesn’t make Hanukkah a MAJOR Jewish holiday.
The holiest day of the Jewish calendar is Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement).
Probably the next major Jewish holiday would be Passover.
Religious_Zealot on December 5, 2008 at 2:44 PM
DING DING!
WHAT DID I TELL YOU?
People that place signs and displays in the rotunda usually get special permission to access the buildings after hours to service and clean the displays. I’ll bet GOOD MONEY that the ATHEISTS stole the sign THEMSELVES! Why else drop it off at a RADIO STATION other than to feed the media story??
Sigh… I just wish small minded anti-religious bigots like these particular Atheists weren’t so predictable.
wearyman on December 5, 2008 at 2:44 PM
HOLIDAY SIGNGATE TROOF NOW!
Good Lt on December 5, 2008 at 2:44 PM
The completely unintended and apparently unconscious irony in the above statement had me laughing so hard I literally spewed coffee onto my monitor.
Think carefully about what you wrote and why its so funny. If you don’t get it after a while, have somebody explain it to you.
Priceless. Just priceless.
Professor Blather on December 5, 2008 at 2:44 PM
I think it is when real matters of Christian doctrine are attacked regularly.
Does it really matter if Wal-Mart employees say “Merry Christmas” (read: man-made holiday) instead of “Happy Holidays?” Honestly?
Do we demand Wal-Mart take a position on the deity of Christ? The Atonement? The resurrection? Justification?
Of course not, but somehow the faith is under assault if Granny says “Happy Holidays” as we enter the store? Yes, that’s a bit “silly” if you ask me. Entire sects deny (even condemn) the core doctrines of Evangelical Christianity, but we’re too busy hugging them in the doorways of Wal-Mart demanding a “Merry Christmas” from the poor kid making 6 bucks an hour (as though that matters).
mankai on December 5, 2008 at 2:45 PM
Alla,
You need to brush up on your 1st Amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,…
The government shall neither support one religion over another NOR shall the prevent the expression thereof. The atheists can have their damn sign up. Doesn’t bother me in the least. Megyan as far as I am concerned is incorrect in her assessment as was BOR in his. MLK was not releveant to what they were arguing about. I saw the piece and figured BOR wrong last night.
Dr. Dog on December 5, 2008 at 2:45 PM
People must have some funny ideas about what constitutes a ‘religion’.
For my money, a ‘religion’ is a belief system founded on irrational axioms (there is a God).
Atheism, however, ‘believes’ there is no God, for the very rational reason that there is no objective proof of his existence.
Atheism is no more a religion than my non-belief in the tooth fairy.
LimeyGeek on December 5, 2008 at 2:45 PM
So you’re down with a few more then, eh?
Like not allowing criticism of a religious holiday?
Or not? Where are you going with this?
Good Lt on December 5, 2008 at 2:46 PM
Where I work, some level of atheism is assumed.
Count to 10 on December 5, 2008 at 2:47 PM
He was also circumcised and commanded his disciples not to preach the Kingdom to Gentiles… We don’t live in the age in which he came (“I was sent unto none but to the lost sheep of the House of Israel”).
mankai on December 5, 2008 at 2:47 PM
Sorry, that’s wrong. Prior restraint is permitted.
If the government knows, in advance, that a group or an individual – because of their speech – will cause violence to occur, the government may gag that speech. See Chaplinsky.
Likewise, you or I cannot publish the names of our agents working in Iran.
Or disseminate insider information about a company.
Or engage in libel or slander.
Or give grand jury information.
If the government knows, for example, that I will read grand jury testimony, they can prevent me from giving it.
Lots of other examples.
SteveMG on December 5, 2008 at 2:47 PM
Yes, it DOES matter.
It point to a coarsening of secular culture toward religion (oh gawrsh – don’t OFFEND someone by saying the word CHRISTMAS!).
Recognizing such things is very important.
Now, what gets silly is HOW we ‘fight’ back.
But getting upset and noticing that there are some people who really, really, really hate us and would like nothing more than our complete eradication…
…well, there’s nothing silly about that.
Religious_Zealot on December 5, 2008 at 2:48 PM
There are a number of consequences for our speech. The laws you mention are there because of content and intent, and the (sometimes abstract) ways they can cause injury.
These are ‘after-the-fact’ laws. Nobody has a gag over your mouth.
LimeyGeek on December 5, 2008 at 2:49 PM
Might want to look up the meaning of the term -ism
Skywise on December 5, 2008 at 2:49 PM
It is not nessasarily a belief that there is no God (though that might discribe the makers of that plaque).
Count to 10 on December 5, 2008 at 2:49 PM
In light of the rest of what I posted? Do you want Wal-Mart to take a stand on justification before you’ll shop there?
The Pilgrims did just fine with Christmas (as did New England and many of the Founders).
mankai on December 5, 2008 at 2:49 PM
Not really.
LimeyGeek on December 5, 2008 at 2:50 PM
“without Christmas”
mankai on December 5, 2008 at 2:50 PM
I didn’t say it did, but apparently it was MAJOR enough in Jesus’ day to warrant His attendance at the festivities.
Akzed on December 5, 2008 at 2:50 PM
I think you missed my earlier posts.
I was responding to the claim by another poster that the government may not dictate what we say or where.
I pointed out the list of permissible restrictions.
I also said that this case is not one of them. The atheists clearly, to me, have the right to make this speech. Any banning of their speech would violate the “content neutral” requirements that the government must meet.
SteveMG on December 5, 2008 at 2:50 PM
I think it’s useful to question the efficacy of the Enlightenment in Europe when the same people who constructed the “Goddess of Reason” were the revolutionaries who went on to make abundant use of Madame la Guillotine and perpetrated the first genocide in modern history with their mass murder of Catholics in the Vendée.
The French Revolutionaries were the precursors of the Marxist revolutionaries. Both were godless and killed many more than any so-called Christian war.
The idea that the world was peaceful and a pagan utopia before Christian came on the scene is utterly absurd. With Christianity came the birth of the concept of universal human rights. It was a Christian epistle writer and preacher from Tarsus who wrote that with Christ humanity is now no longer divided between men and women, Jews and Gentiles, servants and masters.
But here’s a little test for all you atheists who think Christians are scary. Let’s say your car broke down in a dicey neighborhood at night and a group of young men came walking down the street toward you. Would you feel more comfortable knowing:
A) they just came back from watching the latest action film at the cineplex
or
B) they just got out of their weekly bible study meeting,
and please explain why you have chosen A or B?
ramrocks on December 5, 2008 at 2:51 PM
Sure….my point was that the term “religion” shouldn’t be slapped on simply anything that involves ‘belief’.
LimeyGeek on December 5, 2008 at 2:51 PM
Prior restraint is unconstitutional, Steve.
I’m really sorry.
And you should probably answer what your point is in pointing out that only in the most extreme circumstances can the government limit or suelch certain forms of speech.
Criticizing a religious idea/holiday is not one of them.
Who’s doing this? Who has called for the mass eradication of Christians with this little sign? How is this little sign make people say such ridiculous things?
Come down off the cross, RZ. You’re not a martyr or a victim here.
Good Lt on December 5, 2008 at 2:52 PM
I think, if you put the sign in front of a mosq, that muslims would burn effigies of athiests while chanting anti-American epithets (I know it doesn’t take much). For this reason, I find the sign to be inflammatory. Aren’t Christians supposed to be as fanatical as muslims? Shouldn’t a sign like this validate that supposition? I’m not sure I like the idea of a govenment official pissing on the beliefs of members of their constituency. Mind you, I have nothing against athiests.
jakabok_botch on December 5, 2008 at 2:53 PM
“There is no God but the Christian God, there is no salvation except through Jesus and there is external damnation for all who don’t accept Jesus as Savior”.
–Would those be “fighting words” to Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. and atheists? [This is, to some degree, the Christian equivalent of what was on the sign.]
jim m on December 5, 2008 at 2:53 PM
Sorry, prior restraint is allowed.
If the government learns that the NY Times will be publishing the names of our agents in Iran, they may prevent the Times from publishing those names.
Or if a KKK leader wants to go to a black neighborhood and give an incendiary speech that would lead to riots or violence, the government may forbid that KKK leader from speaking. He will be arrested before he makes his speech.
Prior restraint is much more limited; but permissible.
SteveMG on December 5, 2008 at 2:54 PM
Hilarious!! seriously laughable!! atheism is rational!! BWAAHJAHAHAAHAH
right4life on December 5, 2008 at 2:57 PM
If you’re waving a sword around while saying those words, I might cock the hammer ;)
Otherwise, I’ll just think you’re a harmless loopy fruitcake.
LimeyGeek on December 5, 2008 at 2:57 PM
I’d call AAA and turn the safety off on my gun. ;-)
This is modification of a Dennis Prager challenge, by the way.
Hitchens answered it nicely once (paraphrasing):
I have had this happen. In Belfast, in Bombay, in Bethlehem, in Beirut, in Baghdad. When you see a groups of people coming towards you after religious meetings in any of those places, you know exactly how fast you need to run.
Good Lt on December 5, 2008 at 2:57 PM
Tonight on pinheads and patriots. For standing her ground and sticking to the interpenetration of the law Megyn Kelly is a patriot. For yelling loud and incoherently to intimidate his guests into seeing his biased point Bill O’Rielly is a pinhead.
drjeep on December 5, 2008 at 2:58 PM
No, it’s not.
The requirements are much higher; but the government may engage in it.
If the government learns, for example, that the NY Times will be publishing the names of our agents in Iran or our war plans in Afghanistan, the government may forbid that from being published.
We also, for example, have gag orders on lawyers in trials. Et cetera.
Nice little review here: Prior restraint.
SteveMG on December 5, 2008 at 2:58 PM
I’m with Megyn on this, not because I like the results, but because she is right about the law. But the law allows for discretionary judgment on the part of the governor. Her judgment is what’s the problem, and if the Christian majority in her state has any sense, they will note the fact that she allowed them to be offended.
Of course, if someone put up a sign during Ramadan saying “Islam hardens hearts, et cetera”, well now…
manwithblackhat on December 5, 2008 at 2:59 PM
You forgot “FILM AT ELEVEN.“
Good Lt on December 5, 2008 at 2:59 PM
Repeating your assertion doesn’t make it any less unconstitutional. The 1st-A has no provision for censorship-on-suspicion.
LimeyGeek on December 5, 2008 at 3:00 PM
You’re missing the point.
I’m actually AGREEING with you that in HOW we are going about fighting back is, sometimes, silly.
However, to ignore what is going on is NOT silly – in fact, it is of vital importance.
Often times during this time of the year when Christians get ‘upset’ about ‘holiday’ trees and ‘Winter’ concerts, the reply is “what’s the big deal?”
Well, the ‘big deal’ is that not too long ago they were called ‘Christmas’ trees and ‘Christmas’ concerts.
Thus, what was the ‘big deal’ in changing the name?
There’s nothing illegal about calling it a Christmas vacation or a holiday tree, thus why the change?
What is the underlying current that is pushing this anti-Christian political correctness?
All one has to do to find the answer to that is to read the sign posted in Seattle.
Thus we come to understand (with a bit of helping from the anti-Prop8 thugs) that it isn’t a ‘war’ on Christmas…
…it’s the beginning of a culture ‘war’ on Christians.
Religious_Zealot on December 5, 2008 at 3:00 PM
I celebrate President’s day…
…but that doesn’t make it equal in importance to Easter.
Religious_Zealot on December 5, 2008 at 3:01 PM
The best serious journalism involves yelling and finger-pointing.
Murrow said so; you can look it up.
benny shakar on December 5, 2008 at 3:01 PM
I have no reason to believe in God, so I don’t. What’s irrational about that?
Are you suggesting that rationality is believing in everything?
LimeyGeek on December 5, 2008 at 3:02 PM
Google: prior restraint. Read the caselaw.
SteveMG on December 5, 2008 at 3:03 PM
That`s it, that`s what I`m thinking of now when I see him go off like this!
ThePrez on December 5, 2008 at 3:03 PM
‘Tis the season to be jolly. I could use a good laugh. Let the atheists have their sign. It’s comedy. IMHO, it’s actually funnier than Seinfeld’s Festivus.
You mean, kinda’ like this guy decided to burn down the Christmas trees?
I sincerely hope and pray that we Christians don’t have anyone THAT STUPID in our ranks — but, in all likelihood, I’ll be disappointed yet again.
My collie says:
Could the constrast between the messages and the messengers be any MORE stark. The choice is simple:
“15 But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD.”
— Joshua 24:15
CyberCipher on December 5, 2008 at 3:04 PM
Would that be a Baptist/Catholic/Mormon bible study, or a Liberation Theology Bible study with Rev. “God Damn America” Wright?
This changes the answer.
Count to 10 on December 5, 2008 at 3:04 PM
Excellent . . . I agree. However, If an official representative of the state is saying the words, or, if the words are formally posted in a government facility, then their affect would be entirely different.
rplat on December 5, 2008 at 3:04 PM
One doesn’t need to be on a ‘cross’ to see which way some winds are blowing.
That sign was NOT a celebration of atheism or the winter solstice.
Is was only and solely a false denigration of religion and those that follow it.
One can not put a sign like that up in the spirit of brotherly love.
Religious_Zealot on December 5, 2008 at 3:05 PM
What do you call, for example, gag orders issued by judges that forbid the lawyers from discussing the case?
That’s an example of prior restraint.
A number of other restrictions. Read the caselaw.
SteveMG on December 5, 2008 at 3:06 PM
I’ve asked you this several times, Steve.
THEREFORE WHAT?
What is the point you are making? That the government can step in an prevent a cardboard sign from being displayed on public property because it “angers” you?
Doesn’t seem like the kind of “extreme circumstance” that necessitates prior restraint (which would, of course, be a government authority physically taking the sign from a private citizen engaging in legal behavior to prevent it from being displayed). That is reserved for EXTREME, RARE circumstances.
So what is your point in continuously pointing this out to everyone?
PS – From your Wiki =citation:
Now would you care to tell us why you are trying to justify the government placing limits on speech?
What is the end you’re getting at?
Good Lt on December 5, 2008 at 3:07 PM
Merry Christmas everyone!
Vince on December 5, 2008 at 3:07 PM
it takes a great deal of faith, and hubris, to think that all this just came about without God. in fact, its totally irrational.
evolution is an atheist fairy tale, without evidence or rationality. all driven by a faith that there is no God.
in physics the copernicum principle is breaking down…all that is left is the antrhopic principle.
right4life on December 5, 2008 at 3:08 PM
And if they disagree with your assessment on their intent, which is not the place of the government to determine anyway…?
Good Lt on December 5, 2008 at 3:08 PM
Merry Christmas! Happy New Year!
Good Lt on December 5, 2008 at 3:09 PM
So you’re saying that one can HAVE a heart overflowing with brotherly love and post a sign like that?
Religious_Zealot on December 5, 2008 at 3:10 PM
Google: US Constitution. Read and enjoy.
Judges do not make law – hence their ‘gag orders’ cannot be construed as unconstitutional.
LimeyGeek on December 5, 2008 at 3:10 PM
Then you have no problem with a Nativity Scene in the court house?
Or the 10 commandments?
Skywise on December 5, 2008 at 3:11 PM
I’m saying that it doesn’t matter what their intent was (and further, that nobody appointed you the arbiter of whether that intent is good enough for them to exercise their FA right or not) – they have a right to display a sign just as you have the right to mock it and ignore it.
Yes?
Good Lt on December 5, 2008 at 3:11 PM
As long as you have no problem with Koran verses, atheist tracts or anything else being displayed there…
Good Lt on December 5, 2008 at 3:12 PM
We’re discussing two separate issues.
As I said four times now, I think (based on law and court rulings) that the government may not – NOT – ban the speech of these atheists because to do so would violate the “content neutral” requirements of the law.
I don’t know how much clearer I can make that.
However, as to the issue of whether the governemnt may limit speech, the caselaw clearly shows that the Court does permit limits on speech. Including prior restraint of speech.
But again – for the fourth time – those limits do not apply, in my view, in this case of the atheists poster/speech.
SteveMG on December 5, 2008 at 3:12 PM
No faith. No hubris. My ignorance of the origin of life and the existence of our reality does not compel me to invent a fantasy to fill the void. I am happy to say “I don’t know”. That’s honesty. That’s rationality.
LimeyGeek on December 5, 2008 at 3:12 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »