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?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.
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.
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: Now you're just being silly.
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: The problem is that Christians, primarily, are complaining that atheists won't allow them to force others to celebrate the birth of their savior.