That moron again?

The evil atheist sign-in-question

That was my actual reaction when I first came across this sordid report: William J. Kelly, “conservative activist” (which inherently reads as “self-righteous ideologue”) and candidate for Illinois comptroller, is back at it again. In late December of last year, he took issue with a sign from the Freedom From Religion Foundation (pictured above) that had been put up amongst other religious holiday displays at the Illinois State Capitol, claiming it constituted “hate speech”, and even tried to take it down before being led calmly away by capitol police.

As I said previously, I’m not a big fan of the sign’s phrasing. I agree with the points it makes, but really, I find it to be too confrontational for its purposes. Nonetheless, though, it is perfectly legal and does certainly not constitute hate speech; claiming that it does once again indicates that this Republican simply doesn’t know what the hell “hate speech” is despite swinging it around. To try and take the sign down, whatever his rationalizations may be, is pure vandalism, and I applaud the police for hauling him away before he could do any damage.

However, it seems Kelly hasn’t learned his lesson yet. In typical jilted politician style, he’s suing the state for allowing the sign to be set up, in addition to accusing the Capitol Police of removing him “unjustly”. All together now … “Moran”.

Kelly's complaint does not object to the several holiday displays "celebrating various observances" in the State Capitol. He objects only to the atheists' sign, which, he says, stood near a Nativity scene and next to a decorated Christmas tree.

Kelly claims that for the two weeks the sign was displayed, visitors, including young children, could get the impression that the sign is "endorsed" by the state as an "opposing view to the displays."

He says the state's administrative code demands that displays be approved on the basis of "symbolic expression in the exercise of free speech," but that signs are prohibited.

Kelly claims that by allowing the sign, the state approved expression of "hostility towards religion," which he says is unconstitutional.

*rolls eyes* Yes, because what children think of an atheist sign amongst religious displays, and whether or not they believe it’s state-sanctioned, is very important, obviously. Especially if Kelly’s complaint is that the poor little cherubs are exposed to “opposing views to the displays” – dear God, these kids could actually see things that make them ask questions about their world and their beliefs! What are we to do?!

*sighs*

Unfortunately for pearl-clutchers like Kelly, speech that is hostile towards religion is not unconstitutional or illegal in any way. This isn’t Ireland, now infamous for its absurd and archaic recently enacted blasphemy laws. As long as the sign doesn’t attack people based on their religious views (and attacking religion itself does not constitute attacking religious people for their views), or their ethnicity, sexuality and so on, then it cannot be accused of comprising hate speech, and that’s that. As a result, it is perfectly legal and has every right to be included amongst the other displays at the Capitol building.

Just a few paragraphs below, though, comes this amusing little nugget:

Kelly says he "was forced to come into direct and unwelcomed contact with the sign by carrying out his activities as a citizen of the State of Illinois" while at the State Capitol. So he turned it face down.

Oh noes!! He was forced to come into direct and unwelcomed contact with the evil atheist anti-religious sign as he performed his duties! Of course, the only way he could possibly survive such a rattling encounter was to turn it face-down – he had to spare his poor little eyes and sensitive little heart, after all.

Well, either that, or he’s a self-righteous twit who doesn’t know how to mind his own business. Which do you think is more likely?

(via @religionnews)