Post by ignorantianescia on Jul 9, 2013 18:26:53 GMT
In Bradford Country, Florida the American Atheists have made use of their right to build their own monument. So far so good. The interesting part is that it quotes the Bible nine times on punishments for "the" Ten Commandments (there is no punishment listed for coveting), two deists, a Unitarian and some fraudster.
Gordon Haber at Religion Dispatches gives his comments:
www.religiondispatches.org/archive/culture/7181/atheist_monument__proof_of_unintelligent_design/
The coverage of the unveiling has largely been focused on the controversy—the Christians are outraged, the atheists delighted. (As far as I can tell, American Jews, Muslims, Hindus, et al, have not weighed in on the matter.)
I’m just as offended as the Christians, but for different reasons. The right to erect a monument, for any cause, is an opportunity. It’s a chance to lend dignity and consequence to a public space. A monument is also an aesthetic opportunity. It doesn’t have to be beautiful, but a successful monument makes it hard to imagine its setting without it.
The American Atheists monument fails on both counts. When granted the opportunity to memorialize atheism in a public place, American Atheists decided to install a bench. In one sense, this is a clever idea, in that it reflects the utilitarian impulse of American atheism. But a bench is also something that you put your butt on.
Does anybody else find it curious that apparently the first American atheist monument in the public space is such an oppositional relic from the culture war? It would be a bizarre sight in most Western countries.
Gordon Haber at Religion Dispatches gives his comments:
www.religiondispatches.org/archive/culture/7181/atheist_monument__proof_of_unintelligent_design/
The coverage of the unveiling has largely been focused on the controversy—the Christians are outraged, the atheists delighted. (As far as I can tell, American Jews, Muslims, Hindus, et al, have not weighed in on the matter.)
I’m just as offended as the Christians, but for different reasons. The right to erect a monument, for any cause, is an opportunity. It’s a chance to lend dignity and consequence to a public space. A monument is also an aesthetic opportunity. It doesn’t have to be beautiful, but a successful monument makes it hard to imagine its setting without it.
The American Atheists monument fails on both counts. When granted the opportunity to memorialize atheism in a public place, American Atheists decided to install a bench. In one sense, this is a clever idea, in that it reflects the utilitarian impulse of American atheism. But a bench is also something that you put your butt on.
Does anybody else find it curious that apparently the first American atheist monument in the public space is such an oppositional relic from the culture war? It would be a bizarre sight in most Western countries.
