Unintended Consequences

I have a buddy who works for a newspaper. Said newspaper has been covering a bit of a dustup in Pittsburg, Kansas, where some cunt-chafed twatmold decided to lodge a complaint about a banner that had graced the side of the Pittsburg Post Office since shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks on America – a banner that boldly proclaimed “God Bless America.” Postal employees who had served their country decided they wanted to put up the banner, and paid for it using money out of their own pockets to commemorate the lives that were lost on that horrifying day. The banner had been displayed there for the past 15 years.

Until recently.

Enter the aforementioned cunt-chafed twatmold. Its poor little eyes apparently began to burn, and its meat curtains got a particularly nasty rash at the word “God,” so it complained.

…the local branch of the post office received a letter from the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), headquartered in Madison, Wisconsin, citing United States Postal Regulations that “prohibit the display of religious materials, other than stamp art, on postal property.”

Madeline Ziegler, a legal fellow for FFRF, said the complaint originated locally.

“We got a complaint from a Pittsburg resident who uses the post office who wanted some help with a religious sign,” Ziegler said, adding the sign violates the separation of church and state.

The FFRF, whose entire mission seems to be to hassle others on behalf of the perpetually butthurt, swung into action. They bitched. They moaned. They wrote letters.

And eventually, the sign came down.

blessingsBut the story doesn’t end there.

The banner was removed and placed safely in storage, but if you think the cunt-chafed twatmold’s sensitive little eyes will now be safe from ever seeing any mention of a deity, you’d be sadly mistaken.

Thursday morning, a very similar banner appeared on the fence next to local business Jayhawk Signs and Graphics, another at CDL Electric Company and social media marketing by Jake’s Fireworks promised more to come.

More have been ordered, and the company is giving the signs away to anyone who wants them, and today, the sign campaign continues. More than a thousand yard signs, saying “God Bless America” and several hundred banners started appearing all over town, according to The Morning Sun newspaper!

Here’s how you get more than you bargained for.

  1. Get irritated labia over a sign that mentions God – not any particular God, mind you, but simply a deity – paid for by private funds and meant to commemorate a horrifying day in our history.
  2. Get rabid atheist assholes to harass local post office until it takes the banner down.
  3. Piss off entire town, which then puts up signs and banners with that particular message all over the area.
  4. Wind up surrounded by the very thing you wanted to abolish.

Look, I am an atheist, so I’m keenly sensitive about church and state issues. That said, this sign in no way established a government-mandated religion, which is what the First Amendment really prohibits. It was paid for by citizens out of their own pockets. It doesn’t even mention any specific religion – merely a deity. No taxpayer money was spent on said sign. Yes, it mentioned a “God,” but so do many songs, including the one whose title mirrors the sign. Should that song never be sung in a public venue?

This is stupid.

This Freedom from Religion Foundation appears to be dedicated not just to ensuring that no religion is imposed on those who don’t want to exercise it, but to demeaning and belittling those who believe in a God.

“Separation of church and state” – a principle this FFRF organization claims to be dedicated to protecting – is a phrase that was coined by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists to assure them they would be protected from the state nosing in their business.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

Basically, Jefferson told the Baptists, “Hey! See that dictate that says the government will not establish a religion and that it won’t prevent you from exercising it how you see fit? Yeah… it’s like a wall between you guys and the government. Ain’t no one going to make you worship a certain way or forbid you from worshiping how you please.”

Yes, that also means the government won’t prohibit you from not worshiping, as religion “lies solely between Man and his God.”

But you know what it doesn’t mean?

It doesn’t mean your fragile sensibilities should be protected from seeing the word “God” in public.

It doesn’t mean others can’t use their own money to hang a simple sign for which no taxpayer dollars were used on a public building.

It doesn’t mean you can force others to not worship or even display their regard for whatever God they want.

The sign was displayed on that post office for 15 years without a shred of controversy, according to the paper. Now, all of a sudden, some Special Snowflake decided to get offended?

Come on! That’s just stupid.

This FFRF organization has done some legitimately good work, including halting public funding of religious studies and other religious activities. Atheists pay their taxes, just like everyone else does, and their tax dollars shouldn’t be used to fund others’ faith.

But this? A banner put up by post office employees at their own expense that does nothing to force anyone to worship in any particular way and doesn’t endorse any kind of specific religion? Maybe it was a violation of the establishment clause. I don’t see how, but I suppose a legal case can be made that it was. But this strikes me as petty – kind of like barring a singer from performing “God Bless America” or the National Anthem, whose last stanza includes the words “In God is our trust” in a public building.

O, thus be it ever when freemen shall stand,
Between their lov’d homes and the war’s desolation;
Blest with vict’ry and peace, may the heav’n-rescued land
Praise the Pow’r that hath made and preserv’d us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause is just,
And this be our motto: “In God is our trust”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Personally, I couldn’t care less if there’s a sign saying “God Bless America” on a post office. Just like I couldn’t care less if our money says “In God We Trust.” I don’t, and that’s fine. Seeing that on a penny isn’t going to all of a sudden force me to go to church. I’m secure in my atheism, my lack of faith isn’t threatened by a word on a banner, and my sensibilities are not offended by that word. There’s no right to be offended, no matter what the social justice warrior howler monkeys may try to tell you.

So if the Special Snowflake is truly offended by that sign, by making a petty mountain out of an inconsequential molehill, it’s now going to be seeing that word a lot more than what it bargained for.

The butthurt Snowflake broke a cardinal rule of living in society: don’t be a dickhead. So now, it’ll have to deal with the consequences.

74 responses

  1. Amen.🙂

    Like

  2. it’s right there in their name. Freedom From Religion. NO WHERE does the Constitution make the claim you are assured a right to freedom FROM religion. They can whine all they want, and a real judge would tell them to go pound sand.
    Someone, actually several someones, need to sue this stupid foundation using their own wording as violations of their actual rights.

    btw, I am an atheist, those fools in the FFRF are religious to the extreme. no one likes a zealot. Don’t want references to god at all? Move to North Korea.

    Like

    1. Except they also have a false god: they just call him “Dear Leader”.

      Like

      1. well, they are religious, no matter what they claim, so they fit right in.’ll

        Liked by 1 person

    2. @ NCT. you’re insulting the second coming of JFK? shocking! simply shocking! *sarcasm off* that being said..I also said yep…he’s being treated as the new messiah…right around the Dem primary in 08.

      Liked by 1 person

    3. Actually, the first right guaranteed in the First amendment is freedom FROM religion, the second one is freedom OF religion: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …

      “respecting an establishment of religion” means Congress cannot make you worship, or join or support a particular church.

      Perhaps what you meant was that the protection against Congress IMPOSING religion on you isn’t the same as not being exposed to religion at all, but if that’s what you meant it wasn’t clear.

      Like

      1. The non-establishment does not mean freedom FROM, it means they cannot say “No Catholics/Jews/Pastafarians will hold this job” and the obvious “We will rule according to the tenets of the Religion of Peace”. It doesn’t prevent people from wishing you a blessed day according to their faith even if they are postal workers.

        Like

  3. And Michael Newdow is at it again, too. He’s going to court, yet again, trying to have “In God We Trust” removed from our currency. He claims it imposes a “substantial burden” to have to carry money with the phrase on it on those who don’t believe in God. He’s lost three times now, I think, but the crapsack keeps showing his ass.

    Me? I’m a born again agnostic. No one has proven anything to me either way. I know it’s hard to prove a negative – as in that there is no God – but that’s the way it is for me.

    Like

    1. So he’s never heard of those little plastic cards?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. don’t you know those are the work of the devil? (~_^)

        Like

    2. Mickey will be fine once he gets his little 666 chip.

      Like

  4. Oh, and I really care less about things like a nativity scene at a City Hall or a Menorah etc, as long as it is at a local level. If folks vote in the funding, so be it. have at it. But that is a Local thing.
    Heck, could care less about the National Christmas Tree. It aint like Jesus was telling folks to kill non-believers.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Thanks for enhancing my vocabulary once more: “cunt-chafed twatmold”, “meat curtains”,…

    Liked by 1 person

  6. I distinguish between atheists (thoughtful, principled people who don’t believe in deities) and anti-theists (vapid, brain-dead, narcissists who attack people of any faith, but especially enjoy showing off their “superior intellect” by calling people names and hoisting atheism’s dogmas like a Falwell-Esque Wacko Fundy.)

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

      Anti-theists is a great term.😀

      Like

    2. Anti-theists don’t attack people of any faith, just the safe to attack ones. Especially they seem to avoid those people who might be inclined to cut their heads off if they think their religion is denigrated.

      Like

      1. Which is why they run from me…not a literal decapitation, but an intellectual one.

        Like

  7. Gee whiz, I guess them there FFRFers are so illiterate they can’t read. The First Amendment says ‘freedom OF religion’. So what’s problem? We all have a choice, right? It says so, right there. What’s the problem?

    OH! I forgot! It’s that diktat mentality that says it has to be their way or the highway.

    Since the banner was the personal property of the employees, paid for by them, It has nothing to do with the Post Office. Does it?

    Gee whiz, Nicki, we could take this nonsense all the way to the Supreme Court and those twatfarts in FFRF still wouldn’t be happy.

    Their failure is to understand the word ‘CHOICE’.

    Like

  8. I think you nailed it here Nicky: “I’m secure in my atheism, my lack of faith isn’t threatened…”

    Honestly, the only reason I can imagine for folks to complain about this is – they’re NOT secure with their belief in the non-existence of a deity, and and so, any mention thereof makes them uncomfortable.

    To that end, I think we should all volunteer to help them divest themselves of Federal Reserve Notes which make some mention of God.

    Oh, they won’t do that? Fucking Special Little Snowflakes (or, how’s about “Spewing Lickspittle Unctuous Twat” (SLUT), for short.) Heck, if you placed a period after each letter – S.L.U.T. – we will now know what you mean, and know it has no sexual connotations. But, Nicki, you’re a really good writer – perhaps you could come up with an acronym for some invective terminology that fits.

    Not that I’d prefer that over your creative language usage – it would just be great if an acronym for some of these fucktards stuck in the Urban Dictionary. I’d love that,

    Like

    1. If, as an atheist, you find the mention of God disturbing, you’re not really an atheist.

      Like

      1. LOL just someone who is mentally fragile and spoiled.

        Like

        1. A lot of those around. Too bad smacking them in the face with a dead-blow mallet is illegal.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. It is???? Oh… Ooops!

          Liked by 1 person

        3. If anyone asks, you were at home watching a movie.

          Like

        4. I was at home watching a movie. I was at home watching a movie. I was at home watching a movie. I was at home watching a movie.🙂

          Like

  9. A perfect definition of the Streisand Effect, right before our eyes. For those who don’t know: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

    Like

  10. I’m a religious person, living with an agnostic, and an atheist who is like you in his atheism. My God is not bothered by their lack of faith, and they’re not bothered by my having any. I regularly run into atheists who I have civil and intelligent conversations with – until they find out I’m religious, and then they start treating me like like I’m brain damaged, insane, and stupid for having a ‘mockworthy belief in absolutely nothing.’

    That said, the atheist in my family is utterly furious at what the Atheism+ and similar yellow-piss snowstains have been doing ‘in his name/his behalf’ – and he sees the stuff that isn’t reported in public or in the news. He is baffled by how these supposed ‘atheists’ are unable to just ignore the other person and go on not believing themselves. He’s angry about how the anti-theists are cowardly about Muslims, but happy to go after Christians (but not Buddhists and Hindus) because ‘racism’. It’s like they forgot along the way how to use their brains and remember that religion isn’t tied to biology or skin color, and go and attack the very culture that allows atheism to exist. He’s still struggling with the concept that these people have taken on atheism itself as a religious/cult to the point that they’re as fanatic as any suicide jihadist because it’s so illogical and stupid. He remarked to me on a few mornings that he finds himself defending religious people against atheists fairly frequently now. I just told him to ‘think of Atheism+ as flawed Borg.’

    Myself, while it would be nice to have a Church wedding, I don’t want Rhys (who’s the agnostic) to convert to marry me when there are secular options. To me that would make his conversion a bit hollow, as he’s converting for my sake, not because of God and he doesn’t mind that I’m raising the children with religious background to give them a grounding so they can decide later on whether they’ll stay so.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Em’s Jewish; I’m Christian, We ended up having a Jewish wedding ceremony because it meant a lot to her and the God I worship doesn’t care.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Rob and I eloped to Vegas. That was fun.

        Like

      2. If we were going to get a church wedding though, it’d be Roman Catholic. Rules require that he converts (I think his parents were Church of England-attached) unless they changed that. But if they haven’t, I’m not interested in kicking up a stink to have my way because I’m not a selfish cuntwaffle.

        I’d actually be fine with a justice of the peace ceremony myself; but Rhys is the one who wants a proper wedding, with wedding dress, walk down the aisle with guests, and all. *smile*

        Like

    2. Nicki:

      re: Eloping to Vegas. But did you do it right, and get married by Elvis ?

      Like

      1. We didn’t. Rob wouldn’t let me. I actually wanted to get married by a midget in a Yoda costume and have a Star Wars wedding, but he vetoed that too.

        Like

    3. Nicki…he vetoed getting married the Star Wars way? But but…that’s just sooo…….he’s working for the emperor on the QT. Gotta be.

      Liked by 1 person

  11. […] FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION GETS A BLOODY NOSE: Unintended Consequences.  (Liberty Zone, language warning, you’ve been […]

    Like

  12. As a former enlisted man before they dragged my ass off to OCS, may I complement you on your impressive command of invective.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Woo hoo! Thank you. Even my fellow NCOs were a bit stunned sometimes by my mouth!

      Like

  13. I’ll bet that lady’s snail mail got even slower. Or perhaps didn’t get delivered at all.

    Like

    1. Is that even possible? LOO

      Like

      1. LOL (stupid phone)

        Like

  14. Simply this: Thank you.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Applause for your well reasoned (if somewhat…….graphical) critique. I find sometimes I find common cause with atheists & agnostics who see the truth in facts in front of us. Bravo, ignorance should be countered by all of good will. As a deeply religious person, I do not condemn anyone for their beliefs. It is up to me to present cogent facts that are worthy of belief. Being a scientist by training with a spit of philosophy thrown in I find myself many times on an island when discussing a) belief and b) facts. The lens you look through alters your view. To the point, there are scientific and philosophical truths that make both believers and unbelievers squirm when the knife is twisted (I’m trying to come up with the scientific/philosophical equivalent to twatmold, but at a loss for words).
    For example the truth of evolution and predictions of quantum theory for believers. The singularity and the qualia of conciousness for unbelievers. It’s a big world out there.
    Please don’t be offended, I am praying for you all.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. In ever offended by prayers. I consider prayers good thoughts, and I would be incredibly callous and ungrateful to shun those.

      Like

  16. We had a case where a “snowflake” decided to go against an engraving “In God We Trust” on the local courthouse. He said he couldn’t stand to see religious references and that it caused him substantial harm.

    The lawsuit didn’t last long, though. Apparently the county DA reminded him politely to reread the signature at the bottom of his form.

    His name was Christianson.

    (Yes, he was viciously mocked. And he deserved it.)

    Liked by 1 person

  17. Political Observer

    While you are correct in stating Jefferson’s view of the separation of church and state, the originator of this concept was Roger Williams of the Providence Plantation and Commonwealth of Rhode Island.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. This Freedom from Religion Foundation appears to be dedicated not just to ensuring that no religion is imposed on those who don’t want to exercise it, but to demeaning and belittling those who believe in a God.

    Indeed. Their ultimate aim appears to be the suppression of religious belief, at least to the extent that religious persons are firmly inhibited against speaking of it or displaying it where others can see.

    Should current trends persist, there will coma point at which FFRF and its fellow-travelers will start nattering about “unwanted externalities:” i.e., the effect on passers-by of the sight of a church, even though on entirely private grounds. Hey, the thing sits beside a public street. It has access to a public road network. Ergo, the government has provided the church a way to influence passers-by through an externality. This shall not be tolerated!

    Unlikely? For the present. Impossible? Think about it.

    Like

  19. Atheism is not lack of faith; agnosticism is. Atheism is faith that God does not exist.

    Like

    1. Not exactly. Agnosticism says that ultimately knowing for sure is not possible. They leave the possibility open that there might be a deity, but they really don’t know. Atheists simply don’t believe in a god, which is different than believing there’s no god. I would also submit that a real atheist doesn’t Just go on faith, but will certainly believe his own senses, logic, rational thought. I do not BELIEVE in a god. But if given scientific evidence of a deity’s existence, I would certainly not deny it.

      Like

  20. If the FFRF were so against any religion being taught using our tax dollars why aren’t they protesting islamic songs being taught in publuc schools and reading of the koran?

    Like

  21. Had there been those two way mirrors in Jefferson’s time he could have better explained his position using the two way mirror as the metaphor instead of the wall. We can see through into governments’ business, they can’t see back into ours.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Oh, I like that!

      Like

  22. “Atheists pay their taxes, just like everyone else does, and their tax dollars shouldn’t be used to fund others’ faith.” — This proves too much. I don’t support X, so tax dollars shouldn’t be used to support X (with X being, e.g., burning forests, teaching socialism, welfare for people who could work, supporting banks, waging war, etc.).

    Like

  23. Smart money is on a new hire at Pittsburg State. However, the asshat in question doesn’t have the intestinal fortitude to actually personally stand up–has to hide behind an out of state group.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. It’s possible. I don’t know enough about the town to make that assessment. That said, it’s incredible to me that someone would get their panties in a was about something so innocuous that was not paid by taxpayer dollars.

      Like

  24. […] today, Instapundit linked to Nicki’s post Unintended Consequences. It’s a great post with a number of points I wish everyone would read and consider. But […]

    Like

  25. Nicki, you instantly went to my favorites page. Your stuff is funnier than Jeb Bush at 2%. I am a believer, but like to tell the door knockers that, God and I have a special relationship, I talk, He listens. End of conversation, and keep your pulp magazine. Have a nice day.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I used to mess with those who tried to save me. Now I just ignore them. Intentions are good, but please…

      Like

  26. You religious idiots obviously don’t get the point. It’s not about religion, it’s about religion on government building. You have to be a hypocritical jackass to not get the point. You religious jackasses would have a s*** fit if a government building had a banner on it that said Jesus eat s***. You would get it then. But I would have no problem with a religious person posting signs on their own property about how much they want to f*** Jesus. Be my guest. It’s your property.But that post office, that is our property. We are on it. You don’t get to put stuff on it that backs your point of view and tell the rest of this that we can just shove it up their asses. You religious people know better.

    Like

    1. You religious idiots obviously don’t get the point.

      I’m an atheist, shitbag.

      It’s not about religion, it’s about religion on government building. You have to be a hypocritical jackass to not get the point.

      Oh, I’m fairly sure they get the point, angry little man. No particular religion was mentioned, and no public funds were used for this sign. No one seemed to have objected for 15 years until some butthurt little snowflake didn’t like the MERE MENTION of the word “God.” No, this is not religion. This is cunt chafed stupid.

      You religious jackasses would have a s*** fit if a government building had a banner on it that said Jesus eat s***. You would get it then.

      I could see they probably would, because that sign would be shitty and nasty and offensive to people. How is the mere mention of a god – not any specific religion – just a general saying kind of like “god bless you” offensive to anyone other than someone with a case of monkey butt?

      But that post office, that is our property. We are on it. You don’t get to put stuff on it that backs your point of view and tell the rest of this that we can just shove it up their asses. You religious people know better

      Was that even English, moron? I’d answer this, if I knew what in the ratfucking hell you were talking about, but since I don’t…

      Like

    2. So you’d dare to say ther same thing if the banner said Allahu Ackbar? Not on this planet you wouldn’t. The simple reason you go after Christians is you figure you’ll stay alive. Time to recalibrate your incentives.

      Like

    3. Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

      So “God Bless America” equals “Jesus eats sh*t” in your mind.

      IMO that says more about you than about the people who didn’t see a problem with the “God Bless America” sign.

      For all that you’re claiming that it is about “Government supporting religion”, you statement shows that you are an anti-religion bigot.

      Like

  27. Wish people would stop calling them “warriors,” call them what they are fascists.

    Like

    1. I totally agree with you there, but unfortunately SJW has become the term. Although, I like “howler monkeys” better.

      Like

    2. Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

      You mean Fascists can’t be Warriors?😈

      Seriously, I consider them more “Whiners” than Warriors.😦

      Like

      1. I thought “howler monkeys” was apropos. Little tiny balls – LOUD voices!

        Like

        1. Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

          Real Howler Monkeys would be insulted by that comparison.😈

          Like

    3. Social Justice Warrior= REMF or Chairborne Ranger. Pretty brave when no one’s fighting back.

      Like

  28. […] interesting issue arose recently when Sarah A. Hoyt linked to my “Unintended Consequences” essay on Instapundit. A commenter with the moniker “Billy Boy” decided to […]

    Like

  29. The more rabid Christian brigades probably would call me an “agnostic” about the possible existence of a singular deity of the sort they think they understand. That doesn’t bother me. “Rational Objectivism,” as opposed to “Ayn Rand Objectivism,” properly understands that logic and reason, however powerful tools they may be for the thinker, are constrained by the limitations of the mind that contemplates itself and what reasonably appears to be on its face an objective reality of some sort. The nature of that objective reality, assuming it exists as such, is always open to question. Perhaps the universe is “merely” an empty collection of physical characteristics devoid of intent, compassion or mercy. Perhaps the Christians are right instead — a Judeo-Christian God is indeed peering down at us puny humans to see who has been naughty and who has been nice. Perhaps Satan and angels exist in reality instead of being anthropomorphic fantasies. My many thoughts and speculations over more than forty years of relative intellectual maturity are no more than that; I cannot speak with certitude on might be the true nature of reality. I do have my own beliefs about infinite light, but they are of absolutely no interest to anyone but myself.

    Regardless of my personal beliefs, the frantic shrieking of militant atheists has always ticked me off. That they also tend to be leftist vermin doesn’t help at all. Don’t they have anything better to do with their time and energy than to annoy the hell out of normal people? Even state-sponsored recognition of the Judeo-Christian traditions of the United States are fine with me as long as it isn’t obnoxious or overbearing. The Ten Commandments may have their flaws, notably the bit about cussing up a blue storm, but they do more or less reflect millennia of a developing moral consensus about looting, murder and suchlike “mala in se” crimes, and the country was evidently founded by … well, Deists from a Christian background. I really don’t see the controversy about recognizing that, and privately funded recognition ought to be respected, period. That it might appear on state-owned property is irrelevant.

    In any case, I don’t have a dog in this hunt, so I’ll just mosey off and be about my own business. This tempest in a teapot can and will continue without any input from distant onlookers. -_-

    Like

    1. “That they also tend to be leftist vermin doesn’t help at all. Don’t they have anything better to do with their time and energy than to annoy the hell out of normal people?”

      They were the first group to come up with the idea of “safe space” where they were entitled never to be reminded that religious people existed.

      Like

  30. By the way, the term “SJW” is likely better parsed as “social justice whiners” or “social justice wackos.” Why dignify the howler-monkey mobs with a great old word like “warriors”?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Personally, I prefer the term “Social Justice Wankers”.

      Like

%d bloggers like this: