Quote Originally Posted by MMI View Post
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?