Repost: What are atheist apologists afraid of?

SORRY...DUE TO A TECHNICAL PROBLEM THIS POST WAS ACCIDENTLY DELETED ALONG WITH READER COMMENTS. MY APOLOGIES TO THOSE OF YOU WHO COMMENTED. YOUR INPUT WAS MUCH APPRECIATED AND VALUED, AS ALWAYS.

Hemant Mehta happens to be one of my favorite atheists. I visit his blog “The Friendly Atheist” at least once a day religiously. http://friendlyatheist.com/

The other day he posted an article about a North Carolina atheist group who won the right to post a sign (see above) adjacent to a Christmas display on city property. You can read it more clearly here: http://friendlyatheist.com/page/2/

While most of his readership approved of the sign and commended the organization for it’s commitment to not acquiesce to this Christian need for implicit governmental endorsement by promoting their beliefs on public property; some of them were less than fully supportive. Here are some of those comments:

• “… a lot of those ignorant people will react immediately with anger, not curious thoughtfulness, when they see this” ... “I’m still undecided on how I feel about this.”


• “I like the message on the sign. However, since it mentions “mythological gods” in reference to Jesus, people will be utterly outraged.”


• “… it sounds to me as though it’s saying “No stupid, Jesus isn’t the reason it gets cold in winter – that’s because of the axial tilt”, as if religious people are beyond understanding that (when in fact, it’s not what religious people are saying anyway)). I don’t like it at all.”


• “I think the holiday displays should be inspirational and could do without the lesson.”
  “[atheist’s] confrontational messages can sometimes come across as being snippy or negative….”

Yes, some theists will react with anger. Yes, it implies Jesus is just one of many gods man has honored on Dec 25 and that they are all mythical. Yes, it clearly states Xmas was co-opted from pagan celebrations of the winter solstice. Yes, it could be interpreted as confrontational; and the mindless who intentionally deny history and object to realty may well be offended. So what?

And if Christians need to draw “inspiration” from illuminated plastic statues in a publicly owned arena, then their “faith” is pretty damn weak. I have no obligation to underwrite their inspiration. They can draw their inspiration from plastic religious displays on private property, thank you.

Exactly what are these ambivalent atheists so tentative about? Is documentable truth so painful that it must go on tip toe so as to avoid bruising the sensibilities of the deluded who demand their religion be given special governmental endorsement by singular placement on public property? Is a believer’s potential offense by the secular sign more valued and more worthy of respect and sensitivity than my offense at their religious intrusion on property I pay to support?

Do we really need to worry about appearing “snippy” to theists lest they might think ill of atheists and condemn us as immoral, unethical, godless communists unworthy to hold public office and seeking to destroy the country? Oh, wait… they already do that!

Sure, let the apologizing and accomodating atheists wring their hands over possibly offending the willfully ignorant with a truthful statement on the origin of the holiday season. Maybe when the annual Holocaust denier convention comes around the same weak kneed atheists should scorn any attempts to offset the haters' denial and ignorance with truth and reality, lest it injure the sensibilities of the anti-Semites.

I love that atheist group's sign. There should be one where ever religionists seek to use public property to promote their beliefs. No apologies necessary.