The War On Christmas Just Won’t End

[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]

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]

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]

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.

[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.