The War On Christmas Just Won’t End

[thir]

The war on Christmas

"Christmas is about to swing into high gear. The latest charge comes out of Rhode Island where a state representative is calling Gov. Lincoln Chafee “Governor Grinch” after Chafee defied lawmakers and decided the state would have a ”holiday tree” instead of a “Christmas tree.”

The move has so offended Rep. Doreen Costa that she’s taking matters into her own hands and lighting her own Christmas tree at the state house, and a conservative group of pastors out of Pennsylvania has grabbed onto the story to push the never-ending narrative of Christian oppression during the holiday season.

“This time of year,” says Colin Hanna, president of the Pennsylvania Pastors’ Network and Let Freedom Ring, “some get so wrapped up and wound so tightly about the political correctness of Christmas. We change everything to ‘holiday,’ and are afraid of mentioning anything with ‘Christmas’ in it for fear of offending someone. What about Christians who hold Christmas so dear? Isn’t it offensive to the majority of the U.S. who celebrates this blessed time of Jesus’ birth to take it to such a generic level?”

One reason why state displays with holiday-themed narratives are enacted on a “generic” level is the First Amendment’s prohibition against government-sponsored, backed or endorsed religious activities. A failure of the government not to embrace and promote a specifically Christian world view is not political correctness run amok, it it constitutional fidelity.

Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/the-war-on-christmas-just-wont-end.html#ixzz1fwD75Wcg

I have read about this - problem? - here in UK, whereby Christians oppose violently against public - public, mind - events which may be termed 'Winter Fair' or 'Light festival' or the like.

I get quite angry at that. A city or commune or whatever may call an event what they like, after all they organise and pay for it.

I still do not understand this feeling of these people that everybody needs to follow a person's own particular faith. Why?

But it makes me angry that this is done in the teeth of all attempts to promote 'interfaith', and neutral or more inclusive terms for the festivals common to a lot of people. What happened to 'peace on earth'?

Well, it was just a muttering from here, really.

Merry season ;-)

[Thorne]

Oh, things are even worse than that (http://freethoughtblogs.com/cuttlefish/2011/12/04/ellwood-city-no-atheists-allowed/)!

Anyone can add to the display there, except atheists. Because thinking rationally is an obvious trick to make people into atheists.

But yeah, the celebration of Christ's birth, which most likely happened in the spring, and which was moved to the current date to overshadow the pagan celebrations of the solstice, is the obvious and only reason for the season. It doesn't really matter to these people that there are other religions, or those with no religions, who also celebrate at this time of the year, for completely different reasons. It's only THEIR holiday that matters, and not letting them force feed everyone else with their religious fairy tales is denying them their rights.

Happy Solstice, everyone.

[lucy]

Methinks the war should be waged against Santa Clause. The fucker with his fucking reindeer actually threatens to push our beloved Christkind into oblivion.

Apart from that I couldn't care less about Xmas.

[Thorne]

I think we should PUSH Santa Clause more, especially to younger kids. After all, what would be better than showing them that there's this magic man who watches you all the time, who knows when you are good or bad, and will give you presents if you're good. And then showing them that it's just a story. Just like that story of the magic man in the sky, who watches you all the time, and knows when you are good or bad, and will answer your prayers when you are good (sometimes, maybe) and who will send you to hell to burn forever in a lake of fire if you don't believe in him. Isn't that just what we want our kids to learn?

[Venom]

^^ Not to mention poor Nikolaus, a real Christian figure (Bishop of Myra), who in some regions seems to merge more and more with Father Christmas/Santa Claus.

[thir]

Oh, things are even worse than that (http://freethoughtblogs.com/cuttlefish/2011/12/04/ellwood-city-no-atheists-allowed/)!

"“I believe [the banner] violates the First Amendment. It’s endorsing atheism,” the mayor said. The creche “is a statue. It’s not a doctrinal statement.”"

So there is a limit for freedom of speech, after all..Right.


[quote]
But yeah, the celebration of Christ's birth, which most likely happened in the spring, and which was moved to the current date to overshadow the pagan celebrations of the solstice, is the obvious and only reason for the season.


I think that is pretty much proven. However, let people celebrate what they want, when they want, but give othere the same right!



It doesn't really matter to these people that there are other religions, or those with no religions, who also celebrate at this time of the year, for completely different reasons. It's only THEIR holiday that matters, and not letting them force feed everyone else with their religious fairy tales is denying them their rights.


That is what is SO annoying! Though not, these days, dangerous, happily.



Happy Solstice, everyone.

And to you too :-))
Personally I can't wait for the light to come back, and it is a cause for joy when it starts!!

[ksst]

I'm going to go dance around my solstice tree now :)

If cities are putting up a decorated evergreen tree at this season on public property and calling it a holiday tree it's just wishy washy lying to mollify the other religions/non religions. It's a Christmas tree and they ought to call it a Christmas tree. The real issue is whether they should be endorsing one particular religion over the others, or over no religion. And my answer is no. It ought to be up to people on their private property and churches to celebrate their own religion or not.

[Thorne]

It's a Christmas tree and they ought to call it a Christmas tree.
Except that people were decorating trees long before the Christians took over the holiday. And if you're not Christian, but still want a tree, why should you be forced to call it a Christmas tree, and not a Solstice tree, or a Hanukkah Bush, or almost anything else you can think of! The term Christmas Tree denotes a Christian theme, and is therefor no appropriate for government sponsored displays. Holiday tree is, technically, correct.

[denuseri]

But not culturally and traditionally correct.

Leave Christmas alone and let the people celebrate it the way they wish, (just like Thanksgiving) if one is more into the long pagan history of it or one is wanting more cultural identity and wishes to invent a new holiday or one is simply christian...who cares...you don't see anyone in a tizzy over Ramadan being called what it is, or having a conniption fit over the atheist feeling left out and making their own day etc. Live and let live. In a region where Hanukkah is more predominant guess what one will see plastered all over and no one calling it anything other than...

[Thorne]

Leave Christmas alone and let the people celebrate it the way they wish,
Which is exactly the point I was making. No one is telling Christians they can't celebrate Christmas, or even call it that. Their "War on Christmas" is always about those who are NOT Christians saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas", or a town calling their decorations "Holiday" decorations instead of "Christmas" decorations. Basically, they want everyone to celebrate THEIR holiday, as they see fit, without allowing anyone to celebrate her own holiday as SHE sees fit. No one says that a Church cannot put up a creche in the front of their property. We're only saying you cannot put one up on PUBLIC property, especially at public expense, without also allowing others to put up their own symbols of their faith, at the same public expense. ALL faiths are equal in the law, as are those with no faith.

[MMI]

What is wrong is, not that Christmas, Hunukkah, Saturnalia or whatever are publicly celebrated, but that those who do not participate comment, or those who do celebrate comment on those who don't.

Maybe if we all stopped being so concerned about what others are doing, we could get on with enjoying ourselves, or worshipping, or whatever.

What do festivities do atheists have? Or are they just party poopers?

[MMI]

Here in Leicester, we fund public celebration of Diwali, Hunukkah, Christmas and Chinese New Year quite happily, as well as Sikh and Moslem festivities (well, as happily as anyone who has no choice how our money is spent).

[Thorne]

What is wrong is, not that Christmas, Hunukkah, Saturnalia or whatever are publicly celebrated, but that those who do not participate comment, or those who do celebrate comment on those who don't.
What is wrong is that those who celebrate the birth of their savior cannot tolerate others who have different reasons to celebrate, and cannot understand why having their icons and rituals and beliefs shoved in our faces might be annoying.


Maybe if we all stopped being so concerned about what others are doing, we could get on with enjoying ourselves, or worshipping, or whatever.
Which is my point! You celebrate your way, I'll celebrate mine, and others will celebrate their way. But just because I don't happen to say "Merry Christmas" doesn't mean I'm attacking anyone. Unless you're a Fox News reporter.


What do festivities do atheists have? Or are they just party poopers?
Atheists can still celebrate the season, without all of the religious ritual. It's a time of year for getting together with family and friends, for celebrating the end of one year and the beginning of another. We have dinners, parties, whatever kinds of celebrations we want. Or not. Why does there have to be some religious significance? People were celebrating the solstice long before the Catholics took it over. They'll be celebrating it long after the Christians have gone the way of the Aztec priests.

[Thorne]

Here in Leicester, we fund public celebration of Diwali, Hunukkah, Christmas and Chinese New Year quite happily, as well as Sikh and Moslem festivities (well, as happily as anyone who has no choice how our money is spent).
According to the Supreme Court's interpretation of the American Constitution, public celebrations which are inclusive of ALL are perfectly acceptable. Having public displays featuring all of the different religious and non-religious groups is perfectly acceptable. Even if some of us consider it a waste of money. The supposed "War on Christmas" is a war only in the minds of those Christians who believe that theirs is the ONLY reason for celebrating. Having a Christmas Tree singles out those Christians. Having a Holiday Tree includes everyone.

[MMI]

It's not just Christians, Thorne. Atheists complaint about having to celebrate Xmas when they just want to have a good time. So do Moslems and Jews. I've never heard a Hindu, Sikh or Buddhist complain about any of it, however.

We should all shut up and enjoy ourselves - and yes, I know that's your point, but only part of it

[Thorne]

It's not just Christians, Thorne. Atheists complaint about having to celebrate Xmas
No, atheists complain about being forced to endure Christian displays on public property, and at public expense. It's public officials, using their office, to promote a SPECIFIC religious celebration, rather than a generic, all-inclusive one. Not only that, but in many cases they deliberately exclude some religious groups (like Islam and Judaism) despite their celebrations being at about the same time of the year. And they almost always alienate atheists, prohibiting them from posting their own seasonal messages.

How can someone be forced to celebrate Christmas?


We should all shut up and enjoy ourselves
How can I possibly enjoy myself while having to endure those horrific Xmas songs played incessantly wherever I go?

[ksst]

"what holidays do atheists have?"

Which ever ones they want, at least at our house. It's not actually a requirement to believe in God to celebrate traditions with family.

[thir]

What do festivities do atheists have? Or are they just party poopers?

I personally have celebrated the coming of the light since I was about 11 years old - feverently!

[Thorne]

Just ran across this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T8Y1-VLjGQ&feature=player_embedded). Pretty much explains what we've all been talking about, doesn't it?

[thir]

Just ran across this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T8Y1-VLjGQ&feature=player_embedded). Pretty much explains what we've all been talking about, doesn't it?

Yes, mostly a good overview.

On the theme of why xtians want others to follow their path:

Catholics Protest ‘Blasphemous’ Play in Paris

"Catholic demonstrators in Paris have turned out in force to protest a play they call ‘blasphemous.’"

"Paris’s archbishop, André Vingt-Trois, has called Golgota Picnic, which he had not seen, “deliberately offensive.” Demonstrators who marched on the theatre Sunday bore banners reading ‘France is Christian and must remain so,’ and ‘That’s enough Christianophobia.’"

"Both authorities and art lovers are concerned about a rise in fundamentalist religious protest action against some of France’s most high-profile theatres, including pelting the audience with eggs, letting off stinkbombs and the invasion of the stage of Paris’s esteemed Théâtre de la Ville."

"In 1988, a Paris cinema screening Martin Scorsese’s The Last Temptation of Christ was firebombed. The attack injured 13 people, four of whom were severely burned."

"Earlier this year, photographs including Piss Christ by the New York artist Andres Serrano were destroyed at a gallery in Avignon."

"Authorities are concerned about connections between younger fundamentalists, who have been staging protests all over France, and the far-right. Hardline Christianist groups are believed to have broken with the National Front since it was taken over by Jean-Marie Le Pen’s daughter Marine.

The Théâtre de Rond-Point’s Jean-Michel Ribes said the role of artists was to fight against “suffocating dogma.”

French Culture Minister Frederic Mitterand said that while he was “very attached to the Christian tradition” in France, the right to freedom of thought and the separation of church and state needed to be protected “at all costs.”

Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/catholics-protest-blasphemous-play-in-paris.html#ixzz1gVYU15xU


Fundamentalism can start with grumping about what you call things officially. It should be stopped right there.

[Thorne]

Paris’s archbishop, André Vingt-Trois, has called Golgota Picnic, which he had not seen, “deliberately offensive.”
I love this! How often do we hear about some religious leader condemning something which he has not seen or read, basing his opinion solely on the word of someone else. How does he know it's offensive? Is it offensive to everyone? Or only to him? How does he know the offense was deliberate?

Basically it's the old, "You can't offend me, because I'm one of God's children."

Sorry, Bishop. No one has the right to NOT be offended. If you don't like it, don't go to see it. That doesn't give you the right to prevent others from seeing it if they want.

If your god isn't powerful enough to take care of his own image, why bother to worship him? He's just another wannabe god.

[Ozme52]

I think we should PUSH Santa Clause more, especially to younger kids. After all, what would be better than showing them that there's this magic man who watches you all the time, who knows when you are good or bad, and will give you presents if you're good. And then showing them that it's just a story. Just like that story of the magic man in the sky, who watches you all the time, and knows when you are good or bad, and will answer your prayers when you are good (sometimes, maybe) and who will send you to hell to burn forever in a lake of fire if you don't believe in him. Isn't that just what we want our kids to learn?

OMG - I haven't laughed out loud that long that hard in quite a long time.

Thx Thorne

[Thorne]

OMG - I haven't laughed out loud that long that hard in quite a long time.

Thx Thorne

My pleasure. You've given me plenty of chuckles over the years, too. Especially today.

Happy solstice, my friend.

[Ozme52]

Now for my two cents.

Having actually grown up here in the USA as an impressionable non-Christian child, I was always made uncomfortable in school... being forced to pray to Christ. Yes, you don't realize how it is for non-whatever kids it must be to grow up in a secular state. Sure the Constitution said freedom of religion but until recently that wasn't what was practiced.

And Thorne is, imo, quite right. I don't see many non-Christian complaining about Christian practices. Just the more radical "Christians" objecting to those who want non-denominational celebrations. Why... it's as bad as those radical muslims objecting to anyone who uses islamic imagery to make a point. You know... the terrorists. (A concept that goes back to the Reformation. ;) )

[Ozme52]

PS. If anyone is curious...

Zen Druid. It's ALL about the oak tree that isn't there.

[Venom]

Why does the concept of terrorism go back to the Reformation? And do not bother with the Thirty Years' War -- that was as much about true religion as a bloke with a suicide bomb belt tearing women and children apart.

[ksst]

I think in some ways we are going backwards. When I was in high school we were forbidden to sing Christmas carols in typing class. Other songs were ok. Yes, we really did sing and type. Whatever.

At the public school where my kids go, they sing all sorts of Christmas songs in music class, and celebrate the holiday thoroughly. I thought it was striking when I went to see artwork from Kindergarten and it was all Santa's reindeer except for one horse. My son told me his little friend there doesn't celebrate holidays. Kinda made me want to meet her parents.

[MMI]

Lol

[MMI]

Look. To me it's simple. If you're Christian, you celebrate Christmas. Non-Christians don't. Jews celebrate Hunnukah, non-Jews don't. Moslems, Eid: non-moslems ignore it. Atheists celebrate I don't know what ... Solstice, perhaps (see post 23 above), like pagans, or anything at all (post 17). Non-atheists don't.

If any one of those groups is sufficiently large, they are entitled to have their celebration observed by the relevant authorities at public expense, and anyone who objects is being nothing other than churlish in my opinion. Hang it all - it's a celebration!

But for an atheist to want to change Christmas because it excludes him is just wrong. Of course it excludes him - he's not Christian. Eid excludes non-moslems and so on. A celebration of godlessness would be just as exclusive of religious people, wouldn't it?

But I do agree that it's also wrong for Christians etc to force non-believers to join in and pray. In the schools I went to, pupils would be excused acts of worship if their parents requested it.

[Thorne]

PS. If anyone is curious...

Zen Druid. It's ALL about the oak tree that isn't there.

Last night I saw upon the stair
A little man who wasn’t there
He wasn’t there again today
Oh, how I wish he’d go away

[Thorne]

If any one of those groups is sufficiently large, they are entitled to have their celebration observed by the relevant authorities at public expense, and anyone who objects is being nothing other than churlish in my opinion.
But that's exactly the point. The US Constitution forbids the government from promoting any religion. And paying for Christian displays is promoting a Christian viewpoint. If they wish to pay for holiday displays, they must be inclusive of ALL religions in the community, or generic in nature. Atheists don't object to Christmas, per se, but to government officials promoting Christmas at the expense of other religious groups, while using public funds.


But for an atheist to want to change Christmas because it excludes him is just wrong. Of course it excludes him - he's not Christian. Eid excludes non-moslems and so on. A celebration of godlessness would be just as exclusive of religious people, wouldn't it?
No one is talking about changing Christmas, except those Christians who see ANY arguments against their own point of view as an attack on Christianity. In parts of the US, saying Happy Holidays to someone instead of Merry Christmas is seen as a demonic attack against the Church! But like it or not, there are other things to celebrate at this time of the year, and a mythical being isn't the only one.


But I do agree that it's also wrong for Christians etc to force non-believers to join in and pray.
And in some parts of the US, THAT sentiment would be considered an attack against Christians. THAT is what atheists complain about, non-Christians being forced to participate in strictly Christian activities.


In the schools I went to, pupils would be excused acts of worship if their parents requested it.
I"m curious: Why only if the parents requested it? What if the student didn't wish to participate? After all, acts of worship are not really part of a school curriculum, are they? If they were serving banana pudding in the school cafeteria, would they force a student to eat it if he didn't have a note from his mother?

[thir]

Something positive and totally volutary: All over Sweden and Denmark, there are Lucia parades where children and youngsters, dressed in white, sing the 'lucia' song and other songs about how dark it is (day is from 7-0 hours long right now, depending) and how much we yearn for the light, and the front person have a wreath of candles or electrical lights around her head. Sankta Lucia is a Catholic saint blatantly imposed on the Winter Solstice Pagan celebration of the coming of the light :-)

Here is taste in Swedish if anybody is interested, there are dozens if not more on YouTube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoX6jRUy8lA&feature=related

[thir]

But I do agree that it's also wrong for Christians etc to force non-believers to join in and pray. In the schools I went to, pupils would be excused acts of worship if their parents requested it.

I don't think that is ok - you should not have it autmatically, so you have to request to be 'excused'.

[thir]

If any one of those groups is sufficiently large, they are entitled to have their celebration observed by the relevant authorities at public expense, and anyone who objects is being nothing other than churlish in my opinion. Hang it all - it's a celebration!


It would not be more expensive to take them all in. They do that in many places here, simply have the symbols of various faiths in the decorations, and it looks beautiful. That is also a celebration, not only of the season, but of diversity.

[ksst]

We celebrated Sankta Lucia day when I was little. It was a beautiful celebration.

[Venom]

Look. To me it's simple. If you're Christian, you celebrate Christmas. Non-Christians don't. Jews celebrate Hunnukah, non-Jews don't. Moslems, Eid: non-moslems ignore it. Atheists celebrate I don't know what ... Solstice, perhaps (see post 23 above), like pagans, or anything at all (post 17). Non-atheists don't.

If any one of those groups is sufficiently large, they are entitled to have their celebration observed by the relevant authorities at public expense, and anyone who objects is being nothing other than churlish in my opinion. Hang it all - it's a celebration!

But for an atheist to want to change Christmas because it excludes him is just wrong. Of course it excludes him - he's not Christian. Eid excludes non-moslems and so on. A celebration of godlessness would be just as exclusive of religious people, wouldn't it?

But I do agree that it's also wrong for Christians etc to force non-believers to join in and pray. In the schools I went to, pupils would be excused acts of worship if their parents requested it.

What he said.

[MMI]

ME: In the schools I went to, pupils would be excused acts of worship if their parents requested it.
THORNE: I"m curious: Why only if the parents requested it? What if the student didn't wish to participate? After all, acts of worship are not really part of a school curriculum, are they? If they were serving banana pudding in the school cafeteria, would they force a student to eat it if he didn't have a note from his mother?

In the UK, when I was at school, it was compulsory for schools to hold daily acts of worship. I don't know if that is still the case. Also, Religious Education was compulsory up to O Level. While we were being taught to think for ourselves, we were not expected to actually do so! ;) Besides, if I could get out of anything at school simply by saying I didn't subscribe to whatever was going on, I wouldn't have had any education at all.

I also have memories of being made to stay at the table in the school canteen and not allowed to leave until I had eaten all of the disgusting mess they called a lunch. I don't know if a note would have excused me, my mother had no sympathy for my plight.

As for all the comments about atheists not wanting to destroy Christmas, but to celebrate the holiday season, fine: create your atheist feast day and celebrate that. Otherwise you're doing what you're accusing Christians of doing, hijacking a religious feat and imposing it on everyone. Or, to put it another way (or maybe to answer a different point) if you merge all religious festivals into a non-religious one, you are appealing only to the non-religious and you are destroying the religious elements, not widening them.

My next question is, why aren't folk-dancing groups, ballroom dancers and ballet schools made to have their shows together, and if a non-dancer wants to join in, he can deliver a diatribe against all forms of music and movement without feeling out-of-place and in the expectation that his words will be heard by the dancers with all the respect they deserve? At least he won't feel excluded. Perhaps he will hope to be thanked.

[John_Flux]

This whole war on Christmas thing because people changing everything to holiday I find is actually a large step forward. It shows that more and more people are starting to realize that their faith is not the only one and allows people to celebrate what they wish. I personally dont celebrate Christmas for the religious aspect which seems to piss many off. But I celebrate it to see my family, nothing more matters. I would just hate to see the world get overrun by people who think like Rick Perry.

[denuseri]

The fact is however that people today in democratic societies already celebrate whatever they wish anyways, including making up holidays that never really existed or adoption of and redressing / holidays that different cultures incorporated into Christianity hundreds of years ago as the early Church expanded in the late Roman Imperial Period and beyond.

I see no reason why if the majority of the people in a given region wish to celebrate their predominate common holidays publicly that the community cant display decorations with taxpayer money etc if they wish.

I see no reason whatsoever why everyone else has to stop doing what they do because some numerically inferior fringe subsection/minority of atheist hypocrites want to have a hissy fit whenever anyone mentions anything associated with religion.

[Thorne]

In the UK, when I was at school, it was compulsory for schools to hold daily acts of worship. I don't know if that is still the case. Also, Religious Education was compulsory up to O Level.
I attended Catholic schools for 12 years and, other than daily prayers, along with the Pledge of Allegiance, there were no DAILY acts of worship. But religion class was mandatory, which is to be expected in a religious school. But in a public school, where not all the students will necessarily be Christians, or even religious, that kind of curriculum would violate the US Constitution.


Besides, if I could get out of anything at school simply by saying I didn't subscribe to whatever was going on, I wouldn't have had any education at all.
I know when I went to high school, at least, there were some classes which were electives. Some were mandatory, of course, being required by the state. In public schools, at least, religion classes could (should?) be made electives.


I also have memories of being made to stay at the table in the school canteen and not allowed to leave until I had eaten all of the disgusting mess they called a lunch.
LOL! Tough schools! I remember, as a senior in high school, most of the class decided to boycott the cafeteria, and go out to buy their lunches. There was a sandwich shop around the corner, and many students would buy their lunch there. When the principal changed the policy, forbidding students from leaving the school grounds during lunch, someone convinced the store owner to open before school began, and we bought our sandwiches early. But bringing lunch from home was always an option. They couldn't force you to buy from the cafeteria.


Otherwise you're doing what you're accusing Christians of doing, hijacking a religious feat and imposing it on everyone.
No, we're not! Letting the Christians, or the Jews, or the Muslims, or the Hindus, or whomever, enjoy their holiday festivities is not a problem. It's having people in government use the power of their offices to promote a specific brand of religious festivals, such as a Christian Nativity scene. Churches setting up such displays on their own property, or individuals doing so on their property, are not the problem. It's when these things are set up on public property, at public expense, to the exclusion of all other religious beliefs, that we protest.


Or, to put it another way (or maybe to answer a different point) if you merge all religious festivals into a non-religious one, you are appealing only to the non-religious and you are destroying the religious elements, not widening them.
And again, we aren't talking about merging religious festivals. Only in giving all religious (or non-religious) groups equal opportunity. The state/city allowing Christians to put up holiday displays, or any religious displays, on public property while preventing Muslims, Jews or atheists from doing so is against US law.


My next question is, why aren't folk-dancing groups, ballroom dancers and ballet schools made to have their shows together, and if a non-dancer wants to join in, he can deliver a diatribe against all forms of music and movement without feeling out-of-place and in the expectation that his words will be heard by the dancers with all the respect they deserve?
Now you're just being silly. Are these folk dancers dancing in a public park? With government funds? Are the ballroom dancers being prohibited from dancing in those same parks, with access to the same funds?

The problem is that Christians, primarily, are complaining that atheists won't allow them to force others to celebrate the birth of their savior. They complain because they cannot siphon public money to put up their religious displays without allowing atheists to siphon the same money to put up their own displays. Atheists pay taxes as well as Christians. In fact, since churches don't pay taxes and those who donate to the churches can deduct those donations from their income, it can be argued that, dollar for dollar, atheists pay more in taxes than comparable church-goers. Yet asking for equal access is somehow an attack on Faith?

[Thorne]

I see no reason why if the majority of the people in a given region wish to celebrate their predominate common holidays publicly that the community cant display decorations with taxpayer money etc if they wish.
Primarily because it's against the law! The whole point of establishing the Constitution as it was done was to prevent the majority from overpowering the minorities.


I see no reason whatsoever why everyone else has to stop doing what they do because some numerically inferior fringe subsection/minority of atheist hypocrites want to have a hissy fit whenever anyone mentions anything associated with religion.
I suggest you read about the atheist bus ads campaigns, or the atheist billboard campaigns, or look up the recent fiasco on Twitter regarding the trending of the "God Is Not Great" discussion. It's not the atheists who are having hissy fits!

[MMI]

ME: Otherwise you're doing what you're accusing Christians of doing, hijacking a religious feat and imposing it on everyone.

THORNE: No, we're not! Letting the Christians, or the Jews, or the Muslims, or the Hindus, or whomever, enjoy their holiday festivities is not a problem. It's having people in government use the power of their offices to promote a specific brand of religious festivals, such as a Christian Nativity scene. Churches setting up such displays on their own property, or individuals doing so on their property, are not the problem. It's when these things are set up on public property, at public expense, to the exclusion of all other religious beliefs, that we protest.


Which way do you want it: Christians can celebrate Christmas at public expense and atheists can celebrate nothing (that's what they think gods are) at public expense. Or no-one can celebrate anything at public expense?

Looks like atheists can't win either way. So what say we just spoil whatever other parties are going on?

Why the hell (if that place exists) can't atheists just join in and enjoy the fantasy. It actually is inspiring. (As my RC wife and my RC children - who have both lapsed, following their father's beliefs - have not been to Midnight Mass for many years, I myself suggested that we go this Christmas as I find it the most enjoyable religious ceremony there is, and it's not the same on television. Why don't you and your family go, too? (You won't have to actually pray!)

Some posters above have suggested merging the religous festivities into some kind of Winterval so that the authorities can fund them without breaking the law. Well I call that a bad law. I have said before that I live in Leicester, the most ethnically diverse city in Britain. Our local authority funds all kinds of ethnic and religious celebrations and I have not heard anyone object. We have Caribbean Carnivals, Chinese New Year, Sikh, Moslem, Jewish and Christian festivals, and if atheists had anything to celebrate and wanted to do so, I'm sure the authorities would be happy to accommodate them too.



THORNE: Now you're just being silly.

I think not: I am serious. Folk dancers frequently dance on public property with the consent of the authorities. Ballroom dancing is often held in public halls. Many such groups receive public funding, from local authorities and from arts councils etc (as well as from private sources) I doubt many ballet companies would be able to survive without some form of public support, being such a minority interest. Folk dancing troupes will often obtain funding from regional authorities anxious to promote their local identities in order to attract tourists, and I imagine any good Secretary or Treasurer of a ballroom dancing society will not neglect to find out what support he can get from the local government. Why should someone who disapproves of dancing be allowed to stop this?


THORNE: The problem is that Christians, primarily, are complaining that atheists won't allow them to force others to celebrate the birth of their savior.

Calling me silly is one thing, but, Thorne, that really is a perverse argument! First, Christians are not complaining that they are not being allowed to force others into celebrating Christ's nativity. If I am wrong, show me. If they are complaining it is because they are not being allowed to celebrate the Nativity openly: atheists want them to do it behind closed doors, where as Christianity is about celebrating Christ, not hiding Him away. Celebrating Christ is NOT forcing Him upon others, just like advertising Coca Cola is not forcing anyone to drink the stuff. Secondly, you talk about siphoning public money ... as if it is being embezzled or something - you'd better substantiate that. Finally you talk about the inequitable tax treatment Christians receive: they can deduct their donations from their taxable income. Can't atheists deduct charitable contributions too? Is your attitude different about countries like Germany and Austria who charge a tax on people who belong to particular Christian Faiths - Catholics and Lutherans mostly, I believe - but who do not charge atheists anything in that regard?

[Thorne]

Which way do you want it: Christians can celebrate Christmas at public expense and atheists can celebrate nothing (that's what they think gods are) at public expense. Or no-one can celebrate anything at public expense?
Again you misrepresent. I don't say NO one can celebrate at public expense. I simply say that if public funds are used for any, they must be made available to all. If a city government funds decorations for a Christian holiday, they must also be willing to fund decorations for Jewish holidays, or Muslim holidays, or any other religious group which wants it. Including atheists, although they technically aren't a religious organization.


Why the hell (if that place exists) can't atheists just join in and enjoy the fantasy.
Which fantasy? Yours? The Pope's? The Rabbi's? Why don't theists just forget their fantasies and join atheists in celebrating reason?


Why don't you and your family go, too? (You won't have to actually pray!)
I spent too many years of my life going to mass. I don't find it inspiring, I find it boring. I don't care for the music, or the ritual. Don't get me wrong. I don't care if anyone else goes. Just not interested myself.


Our local authority funds all kinds of ethnic and religious celebrations and I have not heard anyone object. We have Caribbean Carnivals, Chinese New Year, Sikh, Moslem, Jewish and Christian festivals, and if atheists had anything to celebrate and wanted to do so, I'm sure the authorities would be happy to accommodate them too.
Which is precisely what I have been saying! As long as everyone is treated equally, there's not a problem. Here in the US some towns and cities do the same thing. Others only promote one religious holiday, the Christian one. Any others who object are automatically considered to be attacking Christmas and Christians, when all they are seeking is the equality which the law guarantees!


I think not: I am serious. Folk dancers frequently dance on public property with the consent of the authorities. Ballroom dancing is often held in public halls. Many such groups receive public funding, from local authorities and from arts councils etc (as well as from private sources) I doubt many ballet companies would be able to survive without some form of public support, being such a minority interest. Folk dancing troupes will often obtain funding from regional authorities anxious to promote their local identities in order to attract tourists, and I imagine any good Secretary or Treasurer of a ballroom dancing society will not neglect to find out what support he can get from the local government.
And again, you make my point for me! The authorities fund all kinds of troupes: ballroom, tap, ballet, etc. They don't fund just ballroom dancers, for example, and claim that tap dancers are pagan heretics and undeserving. Treat all equally! That's all atheists are asking for!


First, Christians are not complaining that they are not being allowed to force others into celebrating Christ's nativity. If I am wrong, show me.
See this article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/derek-flood/the-real-war-on-christmas_b_1128864.html).
A relevant quote: "Walgreens is the latest store to return to explicit references to Christmas, switching its position a day after some Christian groups threatened to boycott over its generic holiday wording."

Or, from the other side of the story (http://www.waronchristmas.com/). "Stores no longer held “Christmas sales.” Businesses, and soon after, individuals, ceased to hold “Christmas parties.” And on and on. “Christmas” became a dirty word, and was replaced by “holiday.” The War on Christmas had begun."

Doesn't that sound like celebrating something besides Christmas is considered an attack on Christmas? Don't Christians understand that others celebrate the season too? Apparently not!


If they are complaining it is because they are not being allowed to celebrate the Nativity openly: atheists want them to do it behind closed doors, where as Christianity is about celebrating Christ, not hiding Him away.
No, we are NOT saying they have to hide it away! Just don't force others to celebrate it, as shown above! And don't claim exclusive rights to set up decorations, on public property. A Church can have the biggest, baddest Nativity scene in history, as long as it's on THEIR property. Inside or outside, makes no difference. Just THEIR property, and THEIR money.


Celebrating Christ is NOT forcing Him upon others, just like advertising Coca Cola is not forcing anyone to drink the stuff.
Advertising Coca Cola while forbidding anyone to advertise Pepsi IS forcing.


Finally you talk about the inequitable tax treatment Christians receive: they can deduct their donations from their taxable income. Can't atheists deduct charitable contributions too?
Sure they can! But how much of the money churches collect actually goes to charity? How much of it really goes to maintaining the church, paying the priests/ministers? Churches should be treated like any other business. And THEY can deduct for any charitable work they do.


Is your attitude different about countries like Germany and Austria who charge a tax on people who belong to particular Christian Faiths - Catholics and Lutherans mostly, I believe - but who do not charge atheists anything in that regard?
I'm not aware of this. First I've heard of it. My first question would be, Why? Is there some justification for this tax? If it is simply a tax because of their religion, then no, I don't condone it. That would be just as bad as taxing atheists because they DON'T believe.

A quick scan of Wikipedia seems to indicate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_tax)that the lion's share of this tax actually goes to pay for the churches' expenses! Sounds more like forced "tithing", though at a much lower rate. "Some communities refuse to administer marriages and burials of (former) members who had declared to leave it." Which sounds like the church itself is ultimately responsible for this tax. Personally, I think this is wrong. Churches, as I said, should be treated like any other business, paying property taxes and collecting money from their "customers". After all, isn't putting the fear of God into people so they'll turn over their money what they do?

[ksst]

Just an example for our state. The gov't spent an estimated 100,000 on the purchase, care and protection of a Christmas tree this year. And the governor had his gatherings/worship and photo ops in front of it. Nothing was spent on symbols of other religions, or rational non belief expressions of ideology.

To me this seems like trying to establish a state religion to the exclusion of other faiths and non faiths.

No matter how I feel about my own personal celebration and enjoyment of my own Christmas tree, it doesn't seem right to impose on others from the top down by the government that way.

[Thorne]

My point exactly, ksst. And the uproar about (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/6/providences-holiday-tree-controversy-takes-root/)the governor of Rhode Island calling their tree a "Holiday Tree" is also telling.

[Venom]

A quick scan of Wikipedia seems to indicate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_tax)that the lion's share of this tax actually goes to pay for the churches' expenses!

Who else shall pay for it? You yourself wrote earlier: "Atheists don't object to Christmas, per se, but to government officials promoting Christmas at the expense of other religious groups, while using public funds."
And we have to remember: a considerable part of that tax money (not all of it, alas) goes back to society in form of social work like hospitals, kindergartens, women's refuges etc, and not only within those countries, but also in regions of the Third World.

[Thorne]

Who else shall pay for it? You yourself wrote earlier: "Atheists don't object to Christmas, per se, but to government officials promoting Christmas at the expense of other religious groups, while using public funds."
And we have to remember: a considerable part of that tax money (not all of it, alas) goes back to society in form of social work like hospitals, kindergartens, women's refuges etc, and not only within those countries, but also in regions of the Third World.
Actually, the way these taxes are done isn't what's bothering me. I agree, those who attend those churches should be responsible for their costs. And taxing those who attend those churches is one way to do it. That let's those who do NOT attend off the hook, not having to pay for the churches'. I just don't like the idea of forcing church members, through a government run tax scam, to pay a particular amount. I always thought that people donated to the church of their choice, and were not forced to pay a fee to be a member.

Here it sounds like the governments are collecting this tax for individual churches, skimming some off the top (to cover their own "costs", no doubt) and then paying the money to the churches. Why not let the churches collect their own funds, the way they do here in the US? Then tax the churches on their income, with deductions for charitable works, which the churches would have to document themselves. Basically treat them just like any business, leaving them with the burden of keeping the records, paying their taxes, or being seized and sold off to cover their tax debt.

[MMI]

Speaking as an atheist, I simply do not recognise any compulsion by the authorities or the Church for non-Christians to participate in Christmas. All I see are invitations. It's all phoney outrage and posturing.

Just what, exactly, are you wanting to celebrate as an atheist anyway? Nothing! How much doe sit cost to celebrate nothing? Nothing! Where are the laws that prevent you celebrating nothing at public expense? There isn't one ... not a single law, byelaw or regulation that I know of. So stop whining until you have your genuine application for a festive celebration turned down on discriminatory grounds.

[MMI]

Nothing was spent on symbols of other religions, or rational non belief expressions of ideology.
.

I wonder ... did anyone ask?

[ksst]

double post

[ksst]

Yes, they did I think, ask to put up a non religious banner. My memory is little fuzzy on where and when but they were turned down. I guess I could google.

https://www.google.com/search?q=atheists+banner+turned+down&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Seems to be a bunch of examples there.

[Thorne]

Just what, exactly, are you wanting to celebrate as an atheist anyway?
Here's one man's answer. (mwillett.org/atheism/atheistchristmas.htm)

Or how about this one? (http://www.atheists.org/press_releases/It%26%238217%3Bs_Not_Just_%26%238220%3BChristmas%2 6%238221%3B_%26%238211%3B_Winter_Solstice_Celebrat ions_a_Growing_Tradition)

And another one. (http://atheists.org/press_releases/war_on_solstice%3F__celebrate!)
One relevant passage from this last one: "A small, well-funded, and vocal minority of Christians are unhappy with
the fact that their holiday has not totally eclipsed all others. They
want all other celebrations squashed out, in an effort to make the
season uniquely Christian, and organize protests and boycotts against
any company which promotes an all-encompassing tolerant attitude ("Happy
Holidays" vs "Merry Christmas"). American Atheists acknowledges that
such views are only shared by an ignorant and bigoted minority of
Christians, but at the same time we look to the more tolerant Christians
to quell this attitude. As it is with Islam, the health and growth of
Christianity depends on those within the church."

[Venom]

Here it sounds like the governments are collecting this tax for individual churches, skimming some off the top (to cover their own "costs", no doubt) and then paying the money to the churches. Why not let the churches collect their own funds, the way they do here in the US?

The church tax is not a fix amount, it's a percentage of the income tax (in Germany, for example, 8 respectively 9%, depending in which federal state one lives). Since tax information comes under data protection, it cannot be given to the churches to collect the money.

And letting everybody, rich and poor alike, pay the same total amount is considered unfair, so said tax information is needed.

[thir]

I also have memories of being made to stay at the table in the school canteen and not allowed to leave until I had eaten all of the disgusting mess they called a lunch. I don't know if a note would have excused me, my mother had no sympathy for my plight.


We ate in the class room but same problem - AUGHH - disgusting!!



As for all the comments about atheists not wanting to destroy Christmas, but to celebrate the holiday season, fine: create your atheist feast day and celebrate that. Otherwise you're doing what you're accusing Christians of doing, hijacking a religious feat and imposing it on everyone.


Nonsense, calling your own holiday what you want is not the same as blocking what others do.



Or, to put it another way (or maybe to answer a different point) if you merge all religious festivals into a non-religious one, you are appealing only to the non-religious and you are destroying the religious elements, not widening them.


Now that is an interesting perspective: more than one religious symbol, and they cancell each other out and become non-religious??? That must be black magic ;-)

[thir]

We celebrated Sankta Lucia day when I was little. It was a beautiful celebration.

Same here :-))

[thir]

First, Christians are not complaining that they are not being allowed to force others into celebrating Christ's nativity. If I am wrong, show me.

Actually, yes they are. That is what started this thread.

[Thorne]

Since tax information comes under data protection, it cannot be given to the churches to collect the money.
No, that's not what I was suggesting. Rather, let the churches collect from their constituents whatever the people wish to donate, rather than as a tax. Having the government collect the tax FOR the churches seems rather archaic. A holdover of the feudal system, perhaps?


And letting everybody, rich and poor alike, pay the same total amount is considered unfair, so said tax information is needed.
But forcing people to pay to attend a church? That just doesn't seem right. You either pay because you believe, and believe it is right for you to pay, or you don't pay at all. This seems to me to be a way to make certain that the churches collect enough money to keep from going bankrupt. Unless you do the same for other businesses it just seems wrong.

[MMI]

As I type this, I am listening to a peal of church bells on Radio 4 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006sgsh/episodes/2011). I enjoy listening to the broadcast almost every Sunday. Something quintessentially English about them, and I don't think that, although they come from Christian Churches, they cause anyone any offence. There is the "off" button after all.

I don't think I have misrepresented anyone, but if I have, perhaps it's because the arguments I am trying to counter seem to shift. Christians are attacking atheists for not celebrating Christmas, or the authorities are not handing out public funds to promote atheism?

As you point out, no atheistic organisation can maintain a claim to be a religious body, so why does it want the money set aside for religious purposes? What sort of special pleading is it that equates atheism with religion when it comes to dipping into the public purse, but separates it when it comes to allowing religious festivities to take place? Such a claim can only be unreasonable - something I'm sure they would immediately dissociate themselves from.


Atheists are not alone in celebrating reason, and it is crass arrogance to suggest they are. It's just that atheists' "reason" is a restricted version, hobbled by the idea that people are not allowed to base their philosophies on something they cannot prove (while all the while being unable to prove the fundamental assumptions underpinning their own convictions).


Where we do agree is that everyone should be treated equally, and if there really are US laws that discriminate in favour of Christianity and against all other religions, that is shameful and unworthy of the freedom-for-all ideals that Americans proclaim as their birthright. We begin to diverge when you point out that some towns and cities only promote one religious holiday. If a town is full of Christians, then why should it promote any other religion; if there is a tiny minority of (say) Jews in that town, then any public celebration of Hunnekah can be expected to be minimal - focused on those who would appreciate it most - the Jews of that town - and therefore seemingly overlooked by the rest of the population. But you're right - equal claims deserve equal public support.


My "dancers" metaphor seems to have been misunderstood. The point is not that the authorities fund various kinds of dance organisations according to their needs, but that they do not fund organisations set up to undermine all forms of dance ... at least, not with monies set aside for promoting dance. So with religion, all faiths should be treated according to their needs, but atheists should not be supported out of that particular pot. Maybe there is reason for public authorities to promote atheism: then let the atheists make their case.

The first thing I noticed about the quote you gave was about Fox News, and I was ready to capitulate entirely. But then I thought, this isn't about public funding of religion, it's about an unspeakable capitalist organisation devoted to narrow-minded conservatism manipulating public opinion against another unspeakable capitalist organisation, who for reasons of profit alone, decided to surrender to Fox's shenannigans and adopt a presentation of its wares more acceptable to the blackmailers and their dupes. Who are these "Christian groups" Fox applauds? A bunch of Christian loonies, who represent no-one but themselves, I expect. Certainly not Christians as a whole, and, certainly not public authorities. Does Fox News fund them?

So that does not convince me that Christians are being prevented from forcing Christianity, or Christmas, on everyone else. Maybe a lunatic fringe is trying to, but not Christians as a whole. I still refute the original claim on the basis that there is no evidence (now I sound like Thorne!).

Your other example laments the disappearance of "Christmas" from Christmas celebrations. I do too. As an atheist, I take part in traditional Christmas celebrations and I feel that they are diminished when they are called something else. It's suppression and it's insidious. It strikes me as a bad-tempered attempt to spoil the fun for everyone. What this other example does not do is show that Christians are forcing Christmas on everyone else.

I reject that example, too.


You ask, don't Christians understand that others celebrate the season too? and answer your own question with a resounding Apparently not!. That is so untrue. Christians are aware of Diwali, which sometimes falls around Christmas, Hunnekah (Jewish), the Winter Solstice (pagans), and although they may not approve of what some of those religions espouse, I don't believe they try to make the adherents celebrate Christmas instead.

I asked what atheists celebrate and you posted three examples. All three seemed to me to be saying what I have been saying all along, we haven't got anything of our own to celebrate, but we're thinking about adopting Winter Solstice, but until that happens, join in and have fun [and stop whingeing - my addition]. Go for it!




Finally, so far as I'm aware, the Cocal Cola Company does not prohibit people from drinking Pepsi.

[Thorne]

As I type this, I am listening to a peal of church bells on Radio 4 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006sgsh/episodes/2011). I enjoy listening to the broadcast almost every Sunday. Something quintessentially English about them, and I don't think that, although they come from Christian Churches, they cause anyone any offence. There is the "off" button after all.
Absolutely true. Nothing wrong with a commercial radio station playing whatever kind of programming they wish.


I don't think I have misrepresented anyone, but if I have, perhaps it's because the arguments I am trying to counter seem to shift. Christians are attacking atheists for not celebrating Christmas, or the authorities are not handing out public funds to promote atheism?

As you point out, no atheistic organisation can maintain a claim to be a religious body, so why does it want the money set aside for religious purposes? What sort of special pleading is it that equates atheism with religion when it comes to dipping into the public purse, but separates it when it comes to allowing religious festivities to take place? Such a claim can only be unreasonable - something I'm sure they would immediately dissociate themselves from.
No, it's not that we want any money to promote atheism. It's that we do NOT want our governments spending money to promote ANY religion, but most especially, we do not want them spending money to promote ONE PARTICULAR religion.


atheists' "reason" is a restricted version, hobbled by the idea that people are not allowed to base their philosophies on something they cannot prove (while all the while being unable to prove the fundamental assumptions underpinning their own convictions).
I have no quarrel with someone basing their philosophy on anything they desire! I DO have a problem with them trying to force that philosophy into the schools. I do have a problem with them placing advertisements for THEIR philosophy while prohibiting ads for a competing philosophy. And I most especially have a problem with the government endorsing such actions.


Where we do agree is that everyone should be treated equally, and if there really are US laws that discriminate in favour of Christianity and against all other religions, that is shameful and unworthy of the freedom-for-all ideals that Americans proclaim as their birthright.
The laws do NOT, generally, discriminate. It's those who decide whether or not to follow the laws, or completely ignore them because the laws restrict their ability to stifle other peoples rights, that create the problem.


So with religion, all faiths should be treated according to their needs, but atheists should not be supported out of that particular pot. Maybe there is reason for public authorities to promote atheism: then let the atheists make their case.
This is basically the same thing that I've been saying, and this is where the basic problem lies. Far too many towns in the US will only allow Christian displays, or Christian ads, whether paid for by the Christians or by the towns. All I'm saying is that, if you provide funds for any, you MUST provide funds for all. If your town pays funds to build a Christian holiday display, they should also pay funds for any other kind of holiday display, even if it's an atheist sign which denies the Christian faith.


So that does not convince me that Christians are being prevented from forcing Christianity, or Christmas, on everyone else. Maybe a lunatic fringe is trying to, but not Christians as a whole.
Again, you agree with what I've said. It's not ALL Christians, but it is a small, vocal group of fundamentalists. They protest any efforts by other religious groups, including other Christian groups in some places, to publicly celebrate their holidays.


Your other example laments the disappearance of "Christmas" from Christmas celebrations. I do too. As an atheist, I take part in traditional Christmas celebrations and I feel that they are diminished when they are called something else.
You take the narrow view. Again, no one is saying you cannot have Christmas celebrations, or even call them Christmas celebrations. What you cannot do, and what some fundamentalists are trying to do, is to pass laws forbidding others from saying "Happy Holidays" instead of Merry Christmas. Or by protesting when town officials place generic holiday displays instead of blatantly Christian displays.


Christians are aware of Diwali, which sometimes falls around Christmas, Hunnekah (Jewish), the Winter Solstice (pagans), and although they may not approve of what some of those religions espouse, I don't believe they try to make the adherents celebrate Christmas instead.
Again, we are talking about a vocal minority, and while they may not specifically try to force others to celebrate Christmas (yet!) they are trying to prevent those others from PUBLICLY celebrating any holidays BUT Christmas at this time of the year.


Finally, so far as I'm aware, the Cocal Cola Company does not prohibit people from drinking Pepsi.
They would if they could!

[MMI]

What on Earth difference does it make to an atheist whether one religion is preferred by the authorities or another, (or none)?

As I said before, phoney outrage and posturing.

[denuseri]

Yep...hypocrites to the last.

They (the atheists) even went so far as to go into some cities (even though none of them live there) and buy up almost all the booths reserved for holiday displays to spread their message of hate and keep all others out.

[Thorne]

What on Earth difference does it make to an atheist whether one religion is preferred by the authorities or another, (or none)?
You're kidding, right? Do you think the US, or the UK, or any other nation, would be better off as a theocracy? Just look at what that's done for the Middle East!

When the government supports only one religion, eventually it becomes against the law to worship any other religion, or to NOT worship any religion. And, as in many Islamic nations, it becomes punishable by death to deny the "truth" of that religion! It's known as a theocracy, and it is specifically forbidden by US law!

Just look at what the people of Texas are having to deal with, just because they have a fundamentalist governor who puts other fundamentalists onto the state school board. They have tried tossing out Evolution, in favor of literal Biblical Creationism. They have tried "editing" history to minimize the contributions of "liberal" founders (Thomas Jefferson, for one). Hell, their governor, who is not trying to become president, called for a prayer weekend to end the drought! Didn't work, of course, but that doesn't stop them.

Think it would be a bad idea for someone like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to get control of nuclear weapons? How about someone who believes in a literal interpretation of Revelations, and just can't WAIT to initiate the Second Coming, and Judgement Day!


As I said before, phoney outrage and posturing.
Nothing phony about it! The outrage is real. The posturing is being done by the Christians who are being "persecuted" by a relative handful of atheists who actually demand evidence for their delusions.

[Thorne]

Yep...hypocrites to the last.

They (the atheists) even went so far as to go into some cities (even though none of them live there) and buy up almost all the booths reserved for holiday displays to spread their message of hate and keep all others out.

Not quite! Unless you have something else, the only one I know about is this one! (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/12/atheists-takes-santa-monica-nativity-scenes-spots-in-park.html) Like everyone else, atheists added their names to a lottery for the available spaces. There was nothing to "buy up", just a random drawing. "City officials said it turned to the lottery system to make sure the process for distributing the display spaces was fair. City Atty. Marsha Moutrie told the Daily Press that "everyone has equal rights to use the streets and parks for expressive activities.""

And that's what eats at the Christians, the fact that those damned, dirty atheists are being treated as fucking EQUALS, for Christ's sake!

[MMI]

Thorne: You're kidding, right? Do you think the US, or the UK, or any other nation, would be better off as a theocracy? Just look at what that's done for the Middle East!

Nope - not kidding, but not losing my sense of proportion either. We're talking about funding religious celebrations, not imposing some kind of religious dictatorship over the whole nation.


Thorne: When the government supports only one religion, eventually it becomes against the law to worship any other religion, or to NOT worship any religion. And, as in many Islamic nations, it becomes punishable by death to deny the "truth" of that religion! It's known as a theocracy, and it is specifically forbidden by US law!

The government supports the Church of England in England and the Church of Scotland in Scotland ... Things don't seem so bad here. Of course you can cite the worst possible eventuality to try to justify petty-minded sniping, but it doesn't work.


Thorne: Just look at what the people of Texas are having to deal with, just because they have a fundamentalist governor who puts other fundamentalists onto the state school board. They have tried tossing out Evolution, in favor of literal Biblical Creationism. They have tried "editing" history to minimize the contributions of "liberal" founders (Thomas Jefferson, for one). Hell, their governor, who is not trying to become president, called for a prayer weekend to end the drought! Didn't work, of course, but that doesn't stop them.

But they don't succeed do they? Seems that even when fundamentalists have control, they have a hard time imposing their own views, then. I don't think it helps your case against Christmas.


Think it would be a bad idea for someone like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to get control of nuclear weapons? How about someone who believes in a literal interpretation of Revelations, and just can't WAIT to initiate the Second Coming, and Judgement Day!

Well, that's serious. D'you think banning Christmas will really help? Then let's do it!


Nothing phony about it! The outrage is real. The posturing is being done by the Christians who are being "persecuted" by a relative handful of atheists who actually demand evidence for their delusions.

Right.

[Thorne]

Nope - not kidding, but not losing my sense of proportion either. We're talking about funding religious celebrations, not imposing some kind of religious dictatorship over the whole nation.
No, we're talking about funding a PARTICULAR religious celebration while prohibiting others. Baby steps. How would you feel if you were forbidden to say Merry Christmas, or Happy Holidays, and were only allowed to say Happy Hanukkah?


But they don't succeed do they? Seems that even when fundamentalists have control, they have a hard time imposing their own views, then.
They don't succeed because people like me won't LET them succeed. But if you pay any attention to the current crop of Republican presidential candidates you would see that most of them would gladly gut the Constitution to make special provisions for their fundamentalist beliefs. Another baby step.


I don't think it helps your case against Christmas.
D'you think banning Christmas will really help?
I don't have any "case" against Christmas. Only against those who would force it down my throat. I don't want to ban it, just keep it where it belongs. In the churches, in peoples homes, not in the courtrooms or legislatures of the nation.

[denuseri]

The government supports the Church of England in England and the Church of Scotland in Scotland ... Things don't seem so bad here. Of course you can cite the worst possible eventuality to try to justify petty-minded sniping, but it doesn't work.







The Danes and Norway support the Lutherans if I recall correctly too.

[denuseri]

They don't succeed because people like me won't LET them succeed. But if you pay any attention to the current crop of Republican presidential candidates you would see that most of them would gladly gut the Constitution to make special provisions for their fundamentalist beliefs. Another baby step.




Actually a handful of the current candidates on the republic side (mainly Perry) are "trying" to pander to their precieved base with an add that attacks gays in the military, and might mention calling Christmas ....well...Christmas lol. As for what he would do once elected Ive already covered that to death and back in a different thread. (Basically nothing will happen no matter what he promises).

But hey we all know how the atheists like to use sophistry and blow things completely out of proportion. I guess thats how atheists who are asshats all get their rocks off during any holiday with a religious theme...shrugs.

[MMI]

MMI: Nope - not kidding, but not losing my sense of proportion either. We're talking about funding religious celebrations, not imposing some kind of religious dictatorship over the whole nation.

THORNE: No, we're talking about funding a PARTICULAR religious celebration while prohibiting others. Baby steps. How would you feel if you were forbidden to say Merry Christmas, or Happy Holidays, and were only allowed to say Happy Hanukkah?

Let's go back a baby step ... remind me where in America it is illegal to say Happy Holidays/Hanukkah/Diwali/Solstice? Or if it is not illegal anywhere yet, tell me where, realistically, it is likely to become illegal.


MMI: But they don't succeed do they? Seems that even when fundamentalists have control, they have a hard time imposing their own views, then.

THORNE: They don't succeed because people like me won't LET them succeed. But if you pay any attention to the current crop of Republican presidential candidates you would see that most of them would gladly gut the Constitution to make special provisions for their fundamentalist beliefs. Another baby step.

Define "like me". Are you claiming that only grumpy old atheists are protecting the Western World from the excesses of tiny extreme right-wing sects of little or no consequence, or do you agree that middle-of-the-road and even liberal Christians and other religious groups would also resist them? If the former, that's nonsense; if the latter, it's still nonsense, but how does it justify banning Christmas?



THORNE: I don't have any "case" against Christmas ...

Indeed, you don't


THORNE: ... Only against those who would force it down my throat. I don't want to ban it, just keep it where it belongs. In the churches, in peoples homes, not in the courtrooms or legislatures of the nation.

Christmas in the courtrooms? I think we can trust the courts to deal with frivolous litigation in the way it deserves, and the higher courts to protect the system against bad laws. And on the other hand, we can depend upon them to defend our freedoms and liberties, whether we are religious and wish to celebrate religious events, or atheist and wish to celebrate whatever atheists celebrate.

Christmas in the legislatures? I think we can depend upon the state governments to govern their states more or less according to the wishes of the electorate, and upon the Federal government to ensure fundamental liberties guaranteed to all citizens are not eroded by unrepresentative extremists. For example, I doubt it would be within the powers of the New York state legislature to amend the US Constitution so as to prohibit people from wearing crucifixes or other religious symbols and forcing them to celebrate only New Year as Winter begins. So with Texas.

Confining religious celebrations to churches or homes? That's effectively banning it ... as a public celebration anyway. So much for Liberty. Christmas is an open celebration and everyone is invited (not forced) to participate. Restricting it to private places denies Christians the right to express themselves as freely as atheists would wish to be able to. It would be just as oppressive as the supposed Texan ban on non-Christian festivities.

I still refute your claim that Christmas (as a religious celebration) is forced down your throat. I can accept that big business exploits Christmas to extract more money than is necessary from everyone's pockets, but big business is a non-religious organisation. The next time you see a reference to Christmas, look deeper to see whether it is trying to deliver a message of goodwill - in which case it is likely to be religious - or if it is trying to get you to spend money, in which case it is probably nothing at all to do with religion. Christmas, as a religious celebration is forced down people's throats no more than, say New Year, which is a non-religious celebration frequently observed at about this time at considerable public expense.

(Strange how, when I asked what they celebrated, no atheist mentioned New Year. Either they take the public expenditure on that particular non-religious event for granted, or they are so sour they don't even celebrate that.)

[Thorne]

Let's go back a baby step ... remind me where in America it is illegal to say Happy Holidays/Hanukkah/Diwali/Solstice? Or if it is not illegal anywhere yet, tell me where, realistically, it is likely to become illegal.
It's not illegal, yet. But when Christians go on a rant because some politician says Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas, or when they threaten to boycott stores, for the same reason, where do you imagine they are ultimately heading?


Define "like me". Are you claiming that only grumpy old atheists are protecting the Western World from the excesses of tiny extreme right-wing sects of little or no consequence, or do you agree that middle-of-the-road and even liberal Christians and other religious groups would also resist them? If the former, that's nonsense; if the latter, it's still nonsense, but how does it justify banning Christmas?
I'm not a grumpy old.... Well, yeah, I guess I am. But by "like me" I'm speaking of those, of all stripes, who refuse to kowtow to the fundamentalists. And yes, that includes even liberal Christians. And liberal Muslims. And liberal Jews.

And why this constant question about banning Christmas? The only ones who claim that atheists want to ban Christmas are those same fundamentalists who want to ban any other kind of celebrations at this time of the year.


Christmas in the courtrooms? I think we can trust the courts to deal with frivolous litigation in the way it deserves, and the higher courts to protect the system against bad laws. And on the other hand, we can depend upon them to defend our freedoms and liberties, whether we are religious and wish to celebrate religious events, or atheist and wish to celebrate whatever atheists celebrate.
Think so? Ask this father (http://heraldbulletin.com/local/x1897758594/Father-says-his-faith-cost-his-custody) what he thinks about that!


Christmas in the legislatures? I think we can depend upon the state governments to govern their states more or less according to the wishes of the electorate, and upon the Federal government to ensure fundamental liberties guaranteed to all citizens are not eroded by unrepresentative extremists.
Just don't try running for office in these states (http://tacomaatheists.com/archives/831)!


For example, I doubt it would be within the powers of the New York state legislature to amend the US Constitution so as to prohibit people from wearing crucifixes or other religious symbols and forcing them to celebrate only New Year as Winter begins. So with Texas.
No, you're right about that. But given a large enough majority in Congress, theists could (and many would) try to repeal the First Amendment, and set up some sort of religious mandate.


Confining religious celebrations to churches or homes? That's effectively banning it ... as a public celebration anyway.
That was not my intent, though I understand why you think that. No, I don't mean ONLY confining it to private places, but any public celebrations or displays must be universal, not limited to only one religion, whenever they are financed by government funds. In the US, any group can apply for permits for public celebrations, and pay the required fees.


(Strange how, when I asked what they celebrated, no atheist mentioned New Year. Either they take the public expenditure on that particular non-religious event for granted, or they are so sour they don't even celebrate that.)
You asked what atheists celebrate instead of Christmas. New Years is a different holiday. And most people do celebrate it. Personally, I don't 'celebrate' much of anything. I observe some holidays, but I don't do anything special for them. My choice. Doesn't have to be yours.

[Thorne]

Here's a nice little piece (http://freethoughtblogs.com/alethianworldview/2011/12/22/ben-stein-on-christmas-trees/) which seems appropriate.

The last paragraph says it all: "Let’s recap, shall we? The offence Obama allegedly committed was that he used a generic term to refer to a pagan symbol that Christians have adopted as their own. Instead of abiding by the dictum that everything in America must be done The Christian Way, Obama’s actions implied that other religions (e.g. Judaism) deserve equal respect. This, according to Ben Stein, constitutes “pushing Christians around” and “shoving atheism down our throats.” Because everybody knows that Jews and Muslims don’t believe in the real God—right Ben?"

[MMI]

I cannot accept any of what you say, Thorne, but there's no time to reply in full. I have Christmas celebrations to attend in London. I'll return to the thread if it's still running in the New Year. Meanwhile may everyone have the holiday they wish for, or if their philosophies don't allow wishes, then hope for.

[Thorne]

I cannot accept any of what you say, Thorne, but there's no time to reply in full. I have Christmas celebrations to attend in London. I'll return to the thread if it's still running in the New Year. Meanwhile may everyone have the holiday they wish for, or if their philosophies don't allow wishes, then hope for.
As usual we seem to be bumping our heads together with little to show for it.

Enjoy your holidays, my friend.

[denuseri]

It's not illegal, yet. But when Christians go on a rant because some politician says Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas, or when they threaten to boycott stores, for the same reason, where do you imagine they are ultimately heading?

Or when the atheists go on their rant when the opposite happens?


I'm not a grumpy old.... Well, yeah, I guess I am. But by "like me" I'm speaking of those, of all stripes, who refuse to kowtow to the fundamentalists. And yes, that includes even liberal Christians. And liberal Muslims. And liberal Jews.

It also includes the vast majority of conservative Christians, Jews, Muslims and almost all other groups who love what our country is based upon as well.

And why this constant question about banning Christmas? The only ones who claim that atheists want to ban Christmas are those same fundamentalists who want to ban any other kind of celebrations at this time of the year.

That and the atheists themselves, though when pressed they will dance the hipocracy two step as usual.


Think so? Ask this father (http://heraldbulletin.com/local/x1897758594/Father-says-his-faith-cost-his-custody) what he thinks about that!

There are always two sides to the coin....I'm just betting there are a number of factors other than religious affiliation that influenced that judges decision; despite the one sided article's presentation of it.



But given a large enough majority in Congress, theists could (and many would) try to repeal the First Amendment, and set up some sort of religious mandate.

Like the theist founding fathers who held not only a majority but a monopoly on the entire form of government we use to begin with? Think not...the sophistry of such an approach however subtle still doesnt stand up to any logical scrutiny.



That was not my intent, though I understand why you think that.

Hummm could have to do with the way you said it I suppose, knowing what your true agenda is based upon previous threads on this kind of topic its no stretch.

No, I don't mean ONLY confining it to private places, but any public celebrations or displays must be universal, not limited to only one religion, whenever they are financed by government funds. In the US, any group can apply for permits for public celebrations, and pay the required fees.

So if they do then let them be!


You asked what atheists celebrate instead of Christmas. (the birthday of their atheist sophist savior perhaps? whats his name, oh thats right Hutchinson or something right?) New Years is a different holiday. And most people do celebrate it. Personally, I don't 'celebrate' much of anything. I observe some holidays, but I don't do anything special for them. My choice. Doesn't have to be yours.

Interesting how almost all holidays are either state sanctioned or religious in nature or both huh?

[Thorne]

Or when the atheists go on their rant when the opposite happens?
I haven't heard of any atheists trying to boycott stores for having signs saying Merry Christmas, have you? I think you would have a hard time finding any atheist who would get upset by public employees, at their own expense, decorating their offices with Christmas displays. As long as it's not at public expense, and as long as the guy who puts up the Hanukkah display, or the one who puts up the Muslim display, at their own expense, are allowed to do so as well.


There are always two sides to the coin....I'm just betting there are a number of factors other than religious affiliation that influenced that judges decision; despite the one sided article's presentation of it.
Yes, there were. If you read the Court Order (http://static.cnhi.zope.net/heraldbulletin/flashpromo/docs/1120scarberry.pdf) they list 13 different items that the judge base his decision on. Among them:
"8. There was evidence that the Respondent/Mother had left minor children at home alone, did not feed them breakfast, and did not at time buckle them in their car seats."
and "10. Further evidence indicated that the Petitioner/Father did not participate in the same religious training that the Respondent/Mother exercises and that the Petitioner/Father was agnostic."
and "11. There was evidence that the Petitioner/Father did involve himself in the children's activities."
and lastly, "13. There was evidence that the Petitioner/Father did use profanity in the presence of the children and at time failed to control and manage his anger."
My point is, why should his religious affiliation matter in the least? Nothing there said that his anger and profanity were even directed towards the children (likely directed at the mother, would be my guess), while her routinely leaving them home alone, without breakfast, and risking them while driving would certainly make me think twice about trusting them to her care.


In the US, any group can apply for permits for public celebrations, and pay the required fees.
So if they do then let them be!
I challenge you to show me where atheists have disrupted or harassed Christians who were gathering legally for some kind of celebration or event. Yet who are the primary instigators at, for example, LGBT parades (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Seattle_gay_parade-protesters.jpg), or military funerals (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/12/9-worst-funeral-protests-_n_1005958.html)?


You asked what atheists celebrate instead of Christmas. (the birthday of their atheist sophist savior perhaps? whats his name, oh thats right Hutchinson or something right?)
I don't even "celebrate" my own birthday! Why would I want to celebrate someone else's?