The War On Christmas Just Won’t End

[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=OoX6j...eature=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.
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. "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 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 the governor of Rhode Island calling their tree a "Holiday Tree" is also telling.

[Venom]

A quick scan of Wikipedia seems to indicate 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=athe...ient=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.

Or how about this one?

And another one.
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.