Madison, Wisconsin:

The Freedom From Religious Foundation (FFRF) aims to stir up controversy at the Wisconsin State Capitol this holiday season by posting an anti-religious sign near the holiday tree and menorah. The Madison-based educational group, made up of atheist and agnostic “free thinkers,” works to secure separation of church and state.

The sign reads: “At this season of the Winter Solstice, may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world.” FFRF co-president Dan Barker said they will be happy if the sign does offend people: “We would be happy to take down our signs if everyone else took theirs down, too.”

Are signs with preachy messages now symbols of faith? Do I now get to put up a sign amidst all government religious displays which tells people to write checks payable to the "Church of Tim", at a given URL/PO BOX? Why not?

Sometimes law just can't capture the nuances which constitute common sense.

In some ways, "atheism" can be a conflicted and contradictory belief system. And that's much to its credit, since it can be "interpreted" in directly opposite ways, as needed. For example, some atheists will insist that atheism teaches nothing, has no creeds, etc. So then how can it express those non-creeds in a religious display?

Indeed, Dan Barker's flavor seems to have nothing positive to offer. They don't want to have their own party, their own teachings, their own traditions. They just get annoyed that other people have theirs.

If I can draw an analogy: School rooms can be rented or used by religious groups in the community. Imagine a group of Baptists wanted to rent the gym on Sunday morning for a worship service. Now if a group of Jews or Jehovah's Witnesses wanted to have a service also, they just rent the same room at another time, or rent another room at the same time.

Yet, to draw the analogy, what Barker is doing is a bit like demanding that he rent the same room, at the exact same time that another group is meeting. Perhaps they'd run a parallel service in which they'd crank up the Motley Crue and play Richard Dawkins videos over the hymn singing and prayers. They don't want to have their own service: they just want to piggyback their anti-message on someone else's positive one.

Can I found a church of anti-Islam? I mean, we have no other unifying belief other than that Islam is wrong. We get to put up signs saying Islam is a bad religion on the Eid, right next to their religious displays. We want our own anti-Islamic stamps. Or, not to pick on Islam, we could start another group which says that Jews are bad. We could put up signs decrying the impact of practicing religious Jews have had on Western civ.

Think the government would recognize that as a religion? Somehow, I don't think so. I think it should, but then again I think that all statements of religious values are ... well, religious. Even negative ones. Yet the arguments are two-sided: atheism is a "religion" at Christmas, but when trying to force government to adopt the no-god view, it's no longer a specific religious stance.

How terribly convenient -- though it doesn't reflect much regard for Truth.

My point isn't that atheists shouldn't be allowed to express themselves. Am I'm deeply amused that so many different groups feel a need to put some kind of holiday (or even mere expression) as close before December 25th as possible. (It's an amazing co-incidence that the same week keeps coming up, no?) My point is only that many people would find their stance more credible if it came across as wanting to offer something positive. (Perhaps they could put up a display honoring famous atheists in October or on May 1st.)

As it is, Barker & crew come across as a bunch of sour puritans who are trying to horn in on, and shout down, a little kid's birthday party.