Quote Originally Posted by MMI View Post
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!