Winning the war on Christmas just by showing up

For many years, the borough has allowed a garden club to place a Nativity scene on the ground surrounding the Memorial Fountain. Borough council decided this week to amend its policy and prohibit all displays on the fountain.

The change came after PA Nonbelievers Inc. (PAN), an organization of atheist, agnostic and secular humanists from around the midstate, notified Chambersburg it wanted to erect a sign reading “Celebrating Solstice — Honoring Atheist War Veterans.”

Earlier this month, PAN Capital Area director Carl Silverman of Camp Hill wrote the borough a letter stating its intention to erect the sign. While the group believed it did not need the borough’s permission because the creche required none, it was submitting a proposed design in “the spirit of cooperation,” the letter said.

“We didn’t want to take Jesus out of the public square,” Silverman said. “We want to put atheism in the public square.”

I'm going to suggest that this is the most wonderful thing that has ever happened in the So-Called (they started it!) War on Christmas, ever. The display in favor of a particular religion came down so that the borough is now actually not giving lip service to a particular faith--just the way the "no establishment" clause is supposed to work.

I think the neat problem that asking to be included poses when it comes to atheists, is that it presents a confusing choice: "None of the Above". Take the following signs:



It brings attention to the idea that there is also the pov of "no religions," (although I don't like the idea of sanctifying Darwin--he was just a guy, maybe with a really great scientific idea, but just a guy.)

I think the problem with "Out atheism" is always going to be that it provides a choice. You can stick with the faith of your fathers, or not. You can follow a familiar story, or search for truth. And that would be the problem with atheists wanting equal time in the public square in Chambersburg, or on billboards anywhere.

Which leads me to wonder if certain arguments haven't been argued by atheists the wrong way about--take the "Pledge of Allegiance" argument. The idea was to strip out "under God" and leave it the way its original writer intended. "One nation, indivisible." No mention of God. Instead--why not add two words. Two little words: "or not."

"One nation, under God, or not... indivisible...."

It would include our point of view, and instead of "taking away" the "under God", it would provide a choice.

(This is merely a thought experiment. If this were a real experiment, I'd be arsed to do something. Since I'm not arsed to do anything, this is only a thought experiment. Bourbon was likely involved. No people were hurt during the thought experiment. That's why we only do the thought experiments.)