The War On Christmas Just Won’t End

[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!