Atheists Claim to Have Suffered Great Harm From….Seeing An Image

According to the lawsuit filed by the FFRF, four atheists in Lehigh County (all members of the FFRF),  are suffering “irreparable harm” because of a 70+ year old government seal. I kid you not:

As a result of the actions and inactions of Lehigh County, each of the plaintiffs are suffering and will suffer irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law.

Again:

As a result of the actions and inactions of Lehigh County, each of the plaintiffs are suffering and will suffer irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law.

We have already seen there is no evidence the seal is “advancing religion”:  The FFRF’s Vacuous Case Against Lehigh County’s Seal

To date, no atheist on the internet has been able to dispute my arguments.  This underscores my point about the insincerity of Gnu atheist demands for evidence (more on that later). If they are willing to file lawsuits without any supporting evidence, why think evidence is important to them when it comes to other issues?

So next we should ask if there is any evidence these four atheists are indeed “suffering” and have suffered “irreparable harm.”  Given the track record thus far, I didn’t expect to find any.  And I was right:

Mr. Meholic does not want his county government to be represented by a Christian symbol or any other religious symbol. Mr. Meholic is an atheist and opposes the inclusion of a Latin cross on the seal and feels excluded from his community by the county’s use of this Christian symbol. As a resident of Lehigh County, Mr. Meholic has been subjected to viewing the seal, which he finds offensive.

So in this first example, the evidence would be:

  1. The FFRF member “feels excluded from his community.” Subjective feelings do not count as evidence.
  2. The FFRF member “has been subjected to viewing the seal, which he finds offensive.” Having to periodically see a seal that contains something “offensive” to his personal state of mind is hardly evidence that any irreparable harm has been done. What if some ecological extremist was offended by the factories that are part of the seal?  And what if an animal rights extremist was offended by the farm that is part of the seal?  What if somebody who had a phobia of flags was offended by the flag in the seal?

I am personally offended by a lot of things I see and hear.  But that does not mean I was harmed.  And Mr. Meholic provides no evidence he has been harmed.

In the second example, the evidence of “irreparable harm” is:

  1. The FFRF member views the seal as preferential treatment for Christians, yet has no evidence to back up those subjective perceptions.
  2. He wants the cross to be removed as recognition of diversity. A desire is not evidence.
  3. Periodically sees the seal and finds it offensive. Being offended by a seal is not evidence of being harmed.

In the third example, the evidence of “irreparable harm” is:

  1. The FFRF member views the seal as signaling that the county government favors the Christian religion, yet again, the subjective impressions of an FFRF member are not evidence that the county government favors the Christian religion.
  2. Periodically sees the seal and finds it offensive. Being offended by a seal is not evidence of being harmed.

0 for 3. In the final example, the evidence of “irreparable harm” is:

  1. The FFRF member “feels excluded from her community,” but again, subjective feelings do not count as evidence.
  2. She “viewed the seal,” but in this case, it looks like someone forgot to mention she is supposed to be offended by it.

That’s it.  The evidence these four people have been harmed and suffer “irreparable harm” is a) they “feel” excluded; b) they get the subjective impression the government is out there promoting Christianity and c) they see something that offends them.

In other words, there is no evidence harm is involved.  There is no evidence a) is anything other than a feeling that comes from consuming too much anti-religious rhetoric.  There is no evidence b) is anything other than a misguided perception derived from consuming too much anti-religious rhetoric.  And there is no evidence c) is anything other than idiosyncratic hypersensitivity.  The whole notion that these four members of the FFRF are suffering is not supported by any evidence.  After all, why aren’t they seeking psychological therapy?

Again, I think this lawsuit shows us the atheist activist community is not all that sincere about their commitment to evidence.  After surveying the Friendly Atheist’s blog, and the comments section of various news reports, I did not find any atheist on the internet raising the issue of the missing evidence.  In fact, no atheist out there seems to be of the slightest concern that the lawsuit is premised on the feelings and perceptions of four people and not evidence.  On the contrary, what you will find are plenty of examples of atheists cheer-leading for this lawsuit.

What this lawsuit also does is highlight the manner in which there is very little distinction between the Social Justice Atheists and the traditional, Dawkins-like New Atheists.  For here we have New Atheists posturing as delicate flowers, complaining they have been harmed by something they saw on a piece of paper or a web site.  We are supposed to believe they see an image and are psychologically damaged by it, meaning that society is now obligated to tip-toe around their hyper-sensitivities.  Sounds like standard operating procedure for social justice warriors to me.

In the future, we need to look at the New Atheists and their close Social Justice cousins, since the former helped pave the way for the latter.  Both are very similar, in many ways, with differences only when it comes to their chosen targets.

This entry was posted in atheism, atheist activism, Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

54 Responses to Atheists Claim to Have Suffered Great Harm From….Seeing An Image

  1. tildeb says:

    To date, no atheist on the internet has been able to dispute my arguments.

    Yeah sure, what’s one more lie to a liar? You know perfectly well that this atheist has disputed your arguments and shown what a duplicitous piece of… liar for Jesus you really are. Why should you care you break the commandment not to lie; you do it for Jesus so that must make it okay.

    Of course, moderating away legitimate criticisms of your distortions, misrepresentations, straw man posts, cherry picking, and vilification helps you make it appear that you make legitimate points. You don’t. You have to rely on dishonesty and throw away any intellectual integrity to try to make your bullshit smell sweet. That’s a clue, by the way, about the truth value you represent. You defame others and show no shame or remorse. What character you bring into the light.

    Nice.

    What a despicable piece of work you are. A liar and a coward. Your Mom – not mention your Jesus – must be so proud of what you’ve become.

  2. essiep says:

    Sounds to me like the problem lies with the legal system not the atheists.
    Also, you should be careful to avoid making assumptions about all atheists because of the actions of four.

  3. keithnoback says:

    Most religious people hold a view of deity which is incoherent (a non-local psyche, taking acting outside of time, for example).
    So, public religious displays and expressions are largely non-cognitive. They serve as a form of social pressure. It shouldn’t be surprising that the pushed might want to push back.
    I find it better to just ignore pushy people.

  4. Doug says:

    @Keith,
    An odd notion of “coherence” you have there. Anyone who would actually expect a Deity to be a localized psyche or a being limited by time is confused. To be coherent is not to be made in your image.

  5. TFBW says:

    Sounds like these complainants need trigger warnings. Poor darlings.

  6. Kevin says:

    “Sounds to me like the problem lies with the legal system not the atheists.”

    Which law caused irreparable harm to them from seeing a harmless picture?

    The more likely explanation is either these four are so emotionally unstable that they should immediately seek professional help, or they are lying about the harm it is allegedly doing and just trying to score points.

  7. essiep says:

    No, that’s not what I really meant. The US legal system appears to have a problem with excessive litigation. Is the law in the hands of market forces over there?

  8. Ryan says:

    essiep: No, that’s not what I really meant. The US legal system appears to have a problem with excessive litigation. Is the law in the hands of market forces over there?

    Anyone can file a lawsuit. It’s driven by fanatical groups like the FFRF. It is the atheists fault, not the legal system; they are the ones that started the ridiculous lawsuit. But more importantly, as Michael pointed out, the atheist community seems to be cheering on this type of stuff: baseless accusations lacking substantive evidence.

  9. Ryan says:

    So, a premise of the lawsuit is that these atheists are irreparably damaged. The irony.

  10. Crude says:

    So, a premise of the lawsuit is that these atheists are irreparably damaged. The irony.

    It makes more sense if you regard atheists as tremendously superstitious people. When they see a cross, it’s like those people who are convinced they are vampires RL. They scowl and stumble backwards, they moan in agony.

  11. SteveK says:

    The vampire effect that the cross produces doesn’t help the case for atheism.

  12. notabilia says:

    You’ve identified a weakness in this case – congratulations.
    Now, on to the hypocrisy part. Are you also penning a post decrying the butthurt that various faith-adherents seem to suffer all the time – such as with your apologist boys here, whenever their cherished images are “blasphemed” against?
    Oh, the pain over putting the Christ back in the pagan holiday. Oh, the persecuted self-mortification when “Piss-Christ” hit the art world. Oh, the sobs of the apologist crowd when comedy and derision come their way. Oh, the gnashing of apologist teeth when PZ kidnapped that wafer.
    Still, you’ve got that idiotic saying on the money, you can comfort your precious, tremulous selves to see your intonations plastered all over the courts, the sports world, the highways and drunk tanks of this poverty-stricken land.
    After all, we’re just talking about “images,” right?

  13. Crude says:

    “B-b-but we’re just acting the way we say religious people act!” notabilia whimpered.

    “Yes, we know,” came the reply. “That’s the point.”

  14. Kevin says:

    “such as with your apologist boys here, whenever their cherished images are “blasphemed” against?”

    I’m reasonably certain that no one who comments on this blog has ever done what you just said. I thought atheists formed beliefs based on evidence?

  15. SteveK says:

    Adding to Crude’s point, being hurt by these images is rationally consistent with our worldview. No hypocrisy.

  16. TFBW says:

    Adding to SteveK’s point, being offended by the image of a cross is consistent with the New Atheist worldview. The hypocrisy consists not in the being offended, but in the disingenuous assertion that they merely lack belief in God, where in truth they are offended because they hate theistic religion. Such hatred may entail lack of belief in God, but is much more than that. It’s easy to lack belief in God (i.e. be a plain old atheist or apatheist) and be completely unmoved by the image of a cross, but if you hate theistic religion with a passion, as per the New Atheists. then the cross is a rage trigger.

    The hypocrisy consists in the pretence that they are not primarily a movement of hateful bigots, trying to use the courts as a mode of attack. That, and the fact that they claim to be on the side of reason, yet they fill their legal complaints with bullshit rationalisation and fake injury claims to cover up the fact that they’re just raging against the object of their hatred. One hypocrisy leads to another, I guess.

  17. keithnoback says:

    Doug,
    I’m not saying that it’s proper; I’m just saying that it is a commonly held set of inconsistent notions.

  18. Ryan says:

    notabilia: Now, on to the hypocrisy part. Are you also penning a post decrying the butthurt that various faith-adherents seem to suffer all the time – such as with your apologist boys here, whenever their cherished images are “blasphemed” against?

    If they file ridiculous lawsuits over it, then yes, they should be criticized. So, besides the failed tu quoque fallacy, do you have a point?

  19. Doug says:

    @Keith,
    Please demonstrate either the inconsistency or the incoherence?

  20. agrudzinsky says:

    It’s funny how some atheists in their zeal to fight beliefs they don’t share become so much like the religious fundamentalists.

  21. agrudzinsky says:

    On another thought, I’m sure the purpose of the suit is exactly to demonstrate how ridiculous the claims of being offended by images are. So, it’s funny how proving them ridiculous you actually make their point. If their case is thrown out, it will also create a legal precedent to use in similar suits against atheists. It’s much more common for the religious folks to claim being offended by images.

  22. agrudzinsky says:

    So, this suit is not as stupid as it seems.

  23. Kevin says:

    It’s much more common for the religious folks to claim being offended by images.

    For example?

  24. Ryan says:

    agrudzinsky: It’s much more common for the religious folks to claim being offended by images.

    Do you have evidence for this? How much more common? In recent memory it seems that lawsuits targeting anything approaching religious symbolism (x-mas trees, crosses, etc.) has been the trend, not the other way around.

    On another thought, I’m sure the purpose of the suit is exactly to demonstrate how ridiculous the claims of being offended by images are.

    So, you’re sure that the atheists are lying in the suit? Is this “lying for Atheism”?

  25. keithnoback says:

    agrudzinsky: This is really about the role of the jackass in a democratic society. I think that it what characterizes a democratic society: that it has a role for the jackass. It has found a use for the jackass. That is the advantage and the flaw of a democratic society.
    Doug: Please forget I said anything. Believe me, take it on faith if you will, you do not want an exposition on philosophy of mind, nor do I. Tedious, pointless. Never mind.

  26. Ryan says:

    keithnoback: I think that it what characterizes a democratic society: that it has a role for the jackass. It has found a use for the jackass. That is the advantage and the flaw of a democratic society.

    I think I agree with this.

  27. Doug says:

    @Keith,
    I’m a big fan of minds, and philosophy, and (inevitably) philosophy of mind. But only a philosophy of mind sufficient to the phenomenon of mind has the standing to establish “coherence”. And they don’t exist. Pity.

  28. Michael says:

    Sounds to me like the problem lies with the legal system not the atheists.

    No matter how screwy the legal system, the fact remains that these atheists are making claims that are not supported by evidence.

    Also, you should be careful to avoid making assumptions about all atheists because of the actions of four.

    It would help if you actually quoted the place where I was making assumptions about all atheists because of the actions of four.

  29. Michael says:

    So, public religious displays and expressions are largely non-cognitive. They serve as a form of social pressure.

    Almost every public display or expression is largely non-cognitive. For example, if I lived in Chicago, I would probably be seeing a lot of public expressions like this:


    But I myself would not feel any social pressure to be a fan.

  30. Michael says:

    You’ve identified a weakness in this case – congratulations.

    It’s more the a weakness. The case is vacuous nonsense. But it does nicely demonstrate the atheist activists are being dishonest when they claim to value evidence so much.

    Now, on to the hypocrisy part. Are you also penning a post decrying the butthurt that various faith-adherents seem to suffer all the time – such as with your apologist boys here, whenever their cherished images are “blasphemed” against?

    Fail. If you can find an example where a) there is a Christian activist group suing the government because they claim to have been harmed by an image and b) also find me cheerleading for it, then, and only then, will you have shown hypocrisy.

  31. Michael says:

    To date, no atheist on the internet has been able to dispute my arguments.

    Yeah sure, what’s one more lie to a liar? You know perfectly well that this atheist has disputed your arguments and shown what a duplicitous piece of… liar for Jesus you really are. Why should you care you break the commandment not to lie; you do it for Jesus so that must make it okay.

    Of course, moderating away legitimate criticisms of your distortions, misrepresentations, straw man posts, cherry picking, and vilification helps you make it appear that you make legitimate points. You don’t. You have to rely on dishonesty and throw away any intellectual integrity to try to make your bullshit smell sweet. That’s a clue, by the way, about the truth value you represent. You defame others and show no shame or remorse. What character you bring into the light.

    Nice.

    What a despicable piece of work you are. A liar and a coward. Your Mom – not mention your Jesus – must be so proud of what you’ve become.The FFRF’s Vacuous Case Against Lehigh County’s Seal

    Your thinking is clouded by hate. I was referring to the blog entry I linked to – The FFRF’s Vacuous Case Against Lehigh County’s Seal. And it remains true that “To date, no atheist on the internet has been able to dispute my arguments.”

  32. keithnoback says:

    Michael,
    That’s because they are confined to Wrigley field.
    The super-fans aren’t knocking on your door because they have marching orders to convert you.
    Plus, I have lived in Chicago. In certain circumstances, there is social pressure to become a fan.
    Turn down an invitation to watch the Cubs after work. Oppressive, judgey silence will be your reward, and you won’t see that Cubs symbol the same way again.

  33. Ryan says:

    tildeb: liar for Jesus you really are.

    This is always an interesting argument. So, tildeb is suggesting that Michael “lies for Jesus”. This implies that Michael knows that there is no evidence for any of his claims which means that Michael is functionally a non-Christian and an atheist. According to tildeb, Michael knows that there is no evidence for God, or Jesus, etc., but he lies about it presumably for some sort of worldly gain. What tildeb is arguing is that Michael is really an atheist that is hiding his atheism for profit. This applies to arguments about the biblical authors as well: when people argue that the authors of the Bible were knowingly making up stories they are actually suggesting that the authors were functionally atheists using religion as a means of self-profit. (A person that really believed in a final judgement before a righteous God would be terrified to lie about religion). A comical conclusion of this argument is that atheists created all of the world religions, which atheists claim are the source of the world’s problems. Ergo, atheists are the source of the world’s problems.

  34. Ryan says:

    keithnoback: Michael,
    That’s because they are confined to Wrigley field.
    The super-fans aren’t knocking on your door because they have marching orders to convert you.
    Plus, I have lived in Chicago. In certain circumstances, there is social pressure to become a fan.
    Turn down an invitation to watch the Cubs after work. Oppressive, judgey silence will be your reward, and you won’t see that Cubs symbol the same way again.

    This is just life, adults have to learn to deal with. You, however, used this as a justification for frivolous litigation. That’s where I don’t agree.

  35. notabilia says:

    No, the case is far from nonsense. The law is set up in ways that demand that the cases presented adhere to the peculiar standards of the law. Instead of simply doing away with these religious symbols, as they are not to everyone’s liking, they have to be proven to have inflicted a “harm,” and here the great folks at FFRF have performed a contortion to reach that state. Can’t blame them for trying.
    You were shown the cases where professional butthurt Christian apologists shed copious public tears – “Piss Christ,” the “keep Christ” nonsense that comes every year. The “keep our crosses wherever they are ” cryathons that you apologists put on to defend the placement of these images.
    You are a late-bloomer to the Christian hysteria that placed Christian images and rhetoric and phrases all over the public government, from money to the pledge to the courts, but I take it you are not a “cheerleader” for these intrusions, and will be happy to join the fight to remove them.
    After all, we are simply talking about images, images that can be cherished by those that attach some meaning to them, but are meaningless, and therefore unnecessary, to others.
    If you do not join with FFRF on this matter, then yes, you are the king of hypocrisy.

  36. Ryan says:

    notabilia: You are a late-bloomer to the Christian hysteria that placed Christian images and rhetoric and phrases all over the public government, from money to the pledge to the courts

    Christianity is a large part of Western history/culture. That’s simply a historical fact. You can whine about it all you want, but it’s there. Why is this 2016? What is the reference point for our dating system? Oh yeah, Jesus. Should we undo the dating system because it’s Christocentric? Nuts like you are… nuts. This is about abusing the legal system out of irrational hatred. The lawsuit is not based upon evidence, suggesting the atheists involved don’t really care about evidence-based claims.

  37. Kevin says:

    Wow, that was convoluted logic, to say the least.

    I’ve read notabilia’s post multiple times, and can’t figure out where the charge of hypocrisy came from. Perhaps someone could help me out there.

  38. SteveK says:

    I can’t understand it either, Kevin

  39. Doug says:

    The charge of hypocrisy came from hatred. No rationality in play there. Irony.

  40. TFBW says:

    I think that the charge of hypocrisy comes from an underlying assumption that all religious symbols and references are an “intrusion”. No, wait, that doesn’t work. Join with the FFRF or be considered a hypocrite. Hmm. Nope — I got nothing.

  41. Ryan says:

    notabilia starts out saying “No, the case is far from nonsense” and then a couple sentences later seems to be mocking the idea that images can harm people: “You were shown the cases where professional butthurt Christian apologists shed copious public tears – “Piss Christ,” the “keep Christ” nonsense that comes every year.” Senseless rambling.

  42. keithnoback says:

    Ryan,
    I am ambivalent about the case. It may be socially advantageous to put up with this kind of lawsuit in the long run. And can’t we though, if we are adults?:)
    (speaking of non-cognitive statements, the ‘grow up’ rejoinder always is)

  43. SteveK says:

    It’s one thing to “shed copious public tears”. This is a lawsuit.

  44. Ryan says:

    speaking of non-cognitive statements, the ‘grow up’ rejoinder always is

    I disagree. It means simply that there are certain things that children have an excuse for that adults don’t. The legal system itself recognizes this. Claiming that a cross on a symbol is causing “irreparable harm” is childish. “The lawsuit is childish” is basically what I was saying. If that’s still not cognitive enough then I’ll use the technical term: the lawsuit is puerile.

  45. keithnoback says:

    Oh, I am sorry if I left the impression that I thought the lawsuit was a noble crusade. Sure it’s puerile. So was Judge Moore plopping down the 10 commandments monolith (how many tons was that thing?) in a public building.
    It is, nevertheless, understandable (just as the monolith-plopping is understandable), and maybe something we have to put up with. Isn’t that part of being an adult – being able to deal with childishness?

  46. Ryan says:

    It is, nevertheless, understandable (just as the monolith-plopping is understandable), and maybe something we have to put up with. Isn’t that part of being an adult

    Keith, you continue to completely miss the point. Lawsuits are serious things. Complaining about things on a blog is not a lawsuit. Discussing things on blogs like this is exactly what adults do, filing frivolous lawsuits is childish. You continue to compare frivolous litigation with things like arguing about New Atheists on a blog. You can’t see how ridiculous that is?

    and maybe something we have to put up with

    Frivolous litigation should not be “put up with”. We aren’t starting a lawsuit, the atheists are. They are the ones that have an issue with dealing with things.

  47. TFBW says:

    I think Ryan has a point. Puerile art is one thing. A puerile attempt to create legal precedent which can and will be inflicted on society at a larger scale, if successful, is quite another. Not all puerile behaviour is tolerable.

  48. Michael says:

    You are a late-bloomer to the Christian hysteria that placed Christian images and rhetoric and phrases all over the public government, from money to the pledge to the courts, but I take it you are not a “cheerleader” for these intrusions, and will be happy to join the fight to remove them.
    After all, we are simply talking about images, images that can be cherished by those that attach some meaning to them, but are meaningless, and therefore unnecessary, to others.
    If you do not join with FFRF on this matter, then yes, you are the king of hypocrisy.

    LOL! I point out the fact that the FFRF’s lawsuit has no evidence to support it, and nota responds by accusing me of hypocrisy for not supporting the assertion that four atheists are suffering because of an image. Why would I support a miliant anti-religious group that doesn’t care about evidence?

    The issue here is this:

    As a result of the actions and inactions of Lehigh County, each of the plaintiffs are suffering and will suffer irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law.

    Do you agree the plaintiffs are suffering and will suffer irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law?

  49. Michael says:

    I am ambivalent about the case. It may be socially advantageous to put up with this kind of lawsuit in the long run. And can’t we though, if we are adults?:)

    So you are ambivalent about the need to support claims with evidence?

    I’ve noticed this about atheist activists. When it comes to their claims, their beliefs, their agendas, evidence is just not that important. Even though they posture as champions of evidence. What’s up with that?

  50. Ryan says:

    TFBW: A puerile attempt to create legal precedent which can and will be inflicted on society at a larger scale, if successful, is quite another.

    Exactly. The two noteworthy things about a lawsuit like this are: (1) The atheists involved are not concerned with evidence-based claims as Michael has noted (2) The atheists are trying to abuse the legal system to push an agenda. I don’t believe for a second that those involved really feel that they’ve suffered “irreparable harm”. They’re saying that because that’s what must be said to file the lawsuit. They want any semblance of religion removed from society, and since the law doesn’t support such a radical position, they are resorting to whatever means possible to advance that goal.

    “Separation of church and state” is not equivalent to “freedom from religion”. These people really want to eradicate religion from society at large as their name implies. There is absolutely no government imposed religion in the U.S., it’s absurd to suggest there is. Certain communities may be more religious than others, but that is an expected result of a free society. A free society will tend to be quite religious, since humanity itself tends to be quite religious. A society “free from religion” can only be created by imposing constraints on the expression of ordinary people. The vast majority of humanity is religious, so any society that allows people to freely express themselves will be overtly religious. I don’t understand why atheists don’t get this.

  51. Doug says:

    Some atheists are keen on emulating their matron saint for the notoriety she garnered. Unfortunately, they don’t appear to be aware of (or care about?) the price she paid…

  52. TFBW says:

    @Ryan:

    The vast majority of humanity is religious, so any society that allows people to freely express themselves will be overtly religious. I don’t understand why atheists don’t get this.

    What makes you think they don’t?

  53. Dhay says:

    tildeb > … what’s one more lie to a liar? … moderating away legitimate criticisms of your distortions, misrepresentations, straw man posts, cherry picking, and vilification helps you make it appear that you make legitimate points. You don’t. You have to rely on dishonesty and throw away any intellectual integrity to try to make your bullshit smell sweet. That’s a clue, by the way, about the truth value you represent. You defame others and show no shame or remorse. What character you bring into the light. … What a despicable piece of work you are. A liar and a coward. Your Mom – not mention your Jesus – must be so proud of what you’ve become.

    This looks rather similar to your attack on S2L in your response to one of Allallt’s blog posts. I tried to respond on Allallt’s blog to that response, but Allallt evidently decided — in a blog post declaring he was against safe spaces — to provide you with a safe space where you could attack and denigrate S2L and its owner and responders, a safe space where he would prevent me challenging you.

    Because Allallt was sufficiently dishonest and without intellectual integrity that he prevented my response to you from appearing on his blog, I re-posted it here in an appropriate thread:

    https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2016/07/01/atheists-need-safe-zones/#comment-13246

    Perhaps you will view it now and provide an appropriate response — based on evidence and reason, please, none of your usual empty accusations.

  54. Allallt says:

    Thank you, Michael, for the term “Social Justice Atheists”. I can get my head around what that means quite easily and I think it’s a useful term for people like the ones described in this post. I’m not familiar with the case, but as presented I like the term.
    (I’m still not grasping the term ‘New Atheist’.)
    I do, also, think this case (as presented here) is frivolous. There is a big difference between harm and criminal harm and, as I and many others are fond of saying, offence is not criminal harm.
    I’d have thought the better argument would have been that the seal promotes a religion and that is an overstep for a governmental body.

    I do have some disagreements, though. Harm is not just physical or financial. Harm, psychological harm in particular, will appear as subjective claims. I agree that if the claimants had suffered psychological harm, they should have sought help from a psychologist — now seeking financial reparations for that. But I don’t think that should be a pre-requisite of ‘being harmed’.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s