The War On Christmas Just Won’t End

[denuseri]

Yep...hypocrites to the last.

They (the atheists) even went so far as to go into some cities (even though none of them live there) and buy up almost all the booths reserved for holiday displays to spread their message of hate and keep all others out.

[Thorne]

What on Earth difference does it make to an atheist whether one religion is preferred by the authorities or another, (or none)?

You're kidding, right? Do you think the US, or the UK, or any other nation, would be better off as a theocracy? Just look at what that's done for the Middle East!

When the government supports only one religion, eventually it becomes against the law to worship any other religion, or to NOT worship any religion. And, as in many Islamic nations, it becomes punishable by death to deny the "truth" of that religion! It's known as a theocracy, and it is specifically forbidden by US law!

Just look at what the people of Texas are having to deal with, just because they have a fundamentalist governor who puts other fundamentalists onto the state school board. They have tried tossing out Evolution, in favor of literal Biblical Creationism. They have tried "editing" history to minimize the contributions of "liberal" founders (Thomas Jefferson, for one). Hell, their governor, who is not trying to become president, called for a prayer weekend to end the drought! Didn't work, of course, but that doesn't stop them.

Think it would be a bad idea for someone like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to get control of nuclear weapons? How about someone who believes in a literal interpretation of Revelations, and just can't WAIT to initiate the Second Coming, and Judgement Day!

As I said before, phoney outrage and posturing.

Nothing phony about it! The outrage is real. The posturing is being done by the Christians who are being "persecuted" by a relative handful of atheists who actually demand evidence for their delusions.

[Thorne]

Yep...hypocrites to the last.

They (the atheists) even went so far as to go into some cities (even though none of them live there) and buy up almost all the booths reserved for holiday displays to spread their message of hate and keep all others out.

Not quite! Unless you have something else, the only one I know about is this one! Like everyone else, atheists added their names to a lottery for the available spaces. There was nothing to "buy up", just a random drawing. "City officials said it turned to the lottery system to make sure the process for distributing the display spaces was fair. City Atty. Marsha Moutrie told the Daily Press that "everyone has equal rights to use the streets and parks for expressive activities.""

And that's what eats at the Christians, the fact that those damned, dirty atheists are being treated as fucking EQUALS, for Christ's sake!

[MMI]

Thorne: You're kidding, right? Do you think the US, or the UK, or any other nation, would be better off as a theocracy? Just look at what that's done for the Middle East!

Nope - not kidding, but not losing my sense of proportion either. We're talking about funding religious celebrations, not imposing some kind of religious dictatorship over the whole nation.

Thorne: When the government supports only one religion, eventually it becomes against the law to worship any other religion, or to NOT worship any religion. And, as in many Islamic nations, it becomes punishable by death to deny the "truth" of that religion! It's known as a theocracy, and it is specifically forbidden by US law!

The government supports the Church of England in England and the Church of Scotland in Scotland ... Things don't seem so bad here. Of course you can cite the worst possible eventuality to try to justify petty-minded sniping, but it doesn't work.

Thorne: Just look at what the people of Texas are having to deal with, just because they have a fundamentalist governor who puts other fundamentalists onto the state school board. They have tried tossing out Evolution, in favor of literal Biblical Creationism. They have tried "editing" history to minimize the contributions of "liberal" founders (Thomas Jefferson, for one). Hell, their governor, who is not trying to become president, called for a prayer weekend to end the drought! Didn't work, of course, but that doesn't stop them.

But they don't succeed do they? Seems that even when fundamentalists have control, they have a hard time imposing their own views, then. I don't think it helps your case against Christmas.

Think it would be a bad idea for someone like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to get control of nuclear weapons? How about someone who believes in a literal interpretation of Revelations, and just can't WAIT to initiate the Second Coming, and Judgement Day!

Well, that's serious. D'you think banning Christmas will really help? Then let's do it!

Nothing phony about it! The outrage is real. The posturing is being done by the Christians who are being "persecuted" by a relative handful of atheists who actually demand evidence for their delusions.

Right.

[Thorne]

Nope - not kidding, but not losing my sense of proportion either. We're talking about funding religious celebrations, not imposing some kind of religious dictatorship over the whole nation.

No, we're talking about funding a PARTICULAR religious celebration while prohibiting others. Baby steps. How would you feel if you were forbidden to say Merry Christmas, or Happy Holidays, and were only allowed to say Happy Hanukkah?

But they don't succeed do they? Seems that even when fundamentalists have control, they have a hard time imposing their own views, then.

They don't succeed because people like me won't LET them succeed. But if you pay any attention to the current crop of Republican presidential candidates you would see that most of them would gladly gut the Constitution to make special provisions for their fundamentalist beliefs. Another baby step.

I don't think it helps your case against Christmas.
D'you think banning Christmas will really help?

I don't have any "case" against Christmas. Only against those who would force it down my throat. I don't want to ban it, just keep it where it belongs. In the churches, in peoples homes, not in the courtrooms or legislatures of the nation.

[denuseri]

The government supports the Church of England in England and the Church of Scotland in Scotland ... Things don't seem so bad here. Of course you can cite the worst possible eventuality to try to justify petty-minded sniping, but it doesn't work.

The Danes and Norway support the Lutherans if I recall correctly too.

[denuseri]

They don't succeed because people like me won't LET them succeed. But if you pay any attention to the current crop of Republican presidential candidates you would see that most of them would gladly gut the Constitution to make special provisions for their fundamentalist beliefs. Another baby step.

Actually a handful of the current candidates on the republic side (mainly Perry) are "trying" to pander to their precieved base with an add that attacks gays in the military, and might mention calling Christmas ....well...Christmas lol. As for what he would do once elected Ive already covered that to death and back in a different thread. (Basically nothing will happen no matter what he promises).

But hey we all know how the atheists like to use sophistry and blow things completely out of proportion. I guess thats how atheists who are asshats all get their rocks off during any holiday with a religious theme...shrugs.

[MMI]

MMI: Nope - not kidding, but not losing my sense of proportion either. We're talking about funding religious celebrations, not imposing some kind of religious dictatorship over the whole nation.

THORNE: No, we're talking about funding a PARTICULAR religious celebration while prohibiting others. Baby steps. How would you feel if you were forbidden to say Merry Christmas, or Happy Holidays, and were only allowed to say Happy Hanukkah?

Let's go back a baby step ... remind me where in America it is illegal to say Happy Holidays/Hanukkah/Diwali/Solstice? Or if it is not illegal anywhere yet, tell me where, realistically, it is likely to become illegal.

MMI: But they don't succeed do they? Seems that even when fundamentalists have control, they have a hard time imposing their own views, then.

THORNE: They don't succeed because people like me won't LET them succeed. But if you pay any attention to the current crop of Republican presidential candidates you would see that most of them would gladly gut the Constitution to make special provisions for their fundamentalist beliefs. Another baby step.

Define "like me". Are you claiming that only grumpy old atheists are protecting the Western World from the excesses of tiny extreme right-wing sects of little or no consequence, or do you agree that middle-of-the-road and even liberal Christians and other religious groups would also resist them? If the former, that's nonsense; if the latter, it's still nonsense, but how does it justify banning Christmas?

THORNE: I don't have any "case" against Christmas ...

Indeed, you don't

THORNE: ... Only against those who would force it down my throat. I don't want to ban it, just keep it where it belongs. In the churches, in peoples homes, not in the courtrooms or legislatures of the nation.

Christmas in the courtrooms? I think we can trust the courts to deal with frivolous litigation in the way it deserves, and the higher courts to protect the system against bad laws. And on the other hand, we can depend upon them to defend our freedoms and liberties, whether we are religious and wish to celebrate religious events, or atheist and wish to celebrate whatever atheists celebrate.

Christmas in the legislatures? I think we can depend upon the state governments to govern their states more or less according to the wishes of the electorate, and upon the Federal government to ensure fundamental liberties guaranteed to all citizens are not eroded by unrepresentative extremists. For example, I doubt it would be within the powers of the New York state legislature to amend the US Constitution so as to prohibit people from wearing crucifixes or other religious symbols and forcing them to celebrate only New Year as Winter begins. So with Texas.

Confining religious celebrations to churches or homes? That's effectively banning it ... as a public celebration anyway. So much for Liberty. Christmas is an open celebration and everyone is invited (not forced) to participate. Restricting it to private places denies Christians the right to express themselves as freely as atheists would wish to be able to. It would be just as oppressive as the supposed Texan ban on non-Christian festivities.

I still refute your claim that Christmas (as a religious celebration) is forced down your throat. I can accept that big business exploits Christmas to extract more money than is necessary from everyone's pockets, but big business is a non-religious organisation. The next time you see a reference to Christmas, look deeper to see whether it is trying to deliver a message of goodwill - in which case it is likely to be religious - or if it is trying to get you to spend money, in which case it is probably nothing at all to do with religion. Christmas, as a religious celebration is forced down people's throats no more than, say New Year, which is a non-religious celebration frequently observed at about this time at considerable public expense.

(Strange how, when I asked what they celebrated, no atheist mentioned New Year. Either they take the public expenditure on that particular non-religious event for granted, or they are so sour they don't even celebrate that.)

[Thorne]

Let's go back a baby step ... remind me where in America it is illegal to say Happy Holidays/Hanukkah/Diwali/Solstice? Or if it is not illegal anywhere yet, tell me where, realistically, it is likely to become illegal.

It's not illegal, yet. But when Christians go on a rant because some politician says Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas, or when they threaten to boycott stores, for the same reason, where do you imagine they are ultimately heading?

Define "like me". Are you claiming that only grumpy old atheists are protecting the Western World from the excesses of tiny extreme right-wing sects of little or no consequence, or do you agree that middle-of-the-road and even liberal Christians and other religious groups would also resist them? If the former, that's nonsense; if the latter, it's still nonsense, but how does it justify banning Christmas?

I'm not a grumpy old.... Well, yeah, I guess I am. But by "like me" I'm speaking of those, of all stripes, who refuse to kowtow to the fundamentalists. And yes, that includes even liberal Christians. And liberal Muslims. And liberal Jews.

And why this constant question about banning Christmas? The only ones who claim that atheists want to ban Christmas are those same fundamentalists who want to ban any other kind of celebrations at this time of the year.

Christmas in the courtrooms? I think we can trust the courts to deal with frivolous litigation in the way it deserves, and the higher courts to protect the system against bad laws. And on the other hand, we can depend upon them to defend our freedoms and liberties, whether we are religious and wish to celebrate religious events, or atheist and wish to celebrate whatever atheists celebrate.

Think so? Ask this father what he thinks about that!

Christmas in the legislatures? I think we can depend upon the state governments to govern their states more or less according to the wishes of the electorate, and upon the Federal government to ensure fundamental liberties guaranteed to all citizens are not eroded by unrepresentative extremists.

Just don't try running for office in these states!

For example, I doubt it would be within the powers of the New York state legislature to amend the US Constitution so as to prohibit people from wearing crucifixes or other religious symbols and forcing them to celebrate only New Year as Winter begins. So with Texas.

No, you're right about that. But given a large enough majority in Congress, theists could (and many would) try to repeal the First Amendment, and set up some sort of religious mandate.

Confining religious celebrations to churches or homes? That's effectively banning it ... as a public celebration anyway.

That was not my intent, though I understand why you think that. No, I don't mean ONLY confining it to private places, but any public celebrations or displays must be universal, not limited to only one religion, whenever they are financed by government funds. In the US, any group can apply for permits for public celebrations, and pay the required fees.

(Strange how, when I asked what they celebrated, no atheist mentioned New Year. Either they take the public expenditure on that particular non-religious event for granted, or they are so sour they don't even celebrate that.)

You asked what atheists celebrate instead of Christmas. New Years is a different holiday. And most people do celebrate it. Personally, I don't 'celebrate' much of anything. I observe some holidays, but I don't do anything special for them. My choice. Doesn't have to be yours.

[Thorne]

Here's a nice little piece which seems appropriate.

The last paragraph says it all: "Let’s recap, shall we? The offence Obama allegedly committed was that he used a generic term to refer to a pagan symbol that Christians have adopted as their own. Instead of abiding by the dictum that everything in America must be done The Christian Way, Obama’s actions implied that other religions (e.g. Judaism) deserve equal respect. This, according to Ben Stein, constitutes “pushing Christians around” and “shoving atheism down our throats.” Because everybody knows that Jews and Muslims don’t believe in the real God—right Ben?"

[MMI]

I cannot accept any of what you say, Thorne, but there's no time to reply in full. I have Christmas celebrations to attend in London. I'll return to the thread if it's still running in the New Year. Meanwhile may everyone have the holiday they wish for, or if their philosophies don't allow wishes, then hope for.

[Thorne]

I cannot accept any of what you say, Thorne, but there's no time to reply in full. I have Christmas celebrations to attend in London. I'll return to the thread if it's still running in the New Year. Meanwhile may everyone have the holiday they wish for, or if their philosophies don't allow wishes, then hope for.

As usual we seem to be bumping our heads together with little to show for it.

Enjoy your holidays, my friend.

[denuseri]

It's not illegal, yet. But when Christians go on a rant because some politician says Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas, or when they threaten to boycott stores, for the same reason, where do you imagine they are ultimately heading?

Or when the atheists go on their rant when the opposite happens?


I'm not a grumpy old.... Well, yeah, I guess I am. But by "like me" I'm speaking of those, of all stripes, who refuse to kowtow to the fundamentalists. And yes, that includes even liberal Christians. And liberal Muslims. And liberal Jews.

It also includes the vast majority of conservative Christians, Jews, Muslims and almost all other groups who love what our country is based upon as well.

And why this constant question about banning Christmas? The only ones who claim that atheists want to ban Christmas are those same fundamentalists who want to ban any other kind of celebrations at this time of the year.

That and the atheists themselves, though when pressed they will dance the hipocracy two step as usual.


Think so? Ask this father what he thinks about that!

There are always two sides to the coin....I'm just betting there are a number of factors other than religious affiliation that influenced that judges decision; despite the one sided article's presentation of it.



But given a large enough majority in Congress, theists could (and many would) try to repeal the First Amendment, and set up some sort of religious mandate.

Like the theist founding fathers who held not only a majority but a monopoly on the entire form of government we use to begin with? Think not...the sophistry of such an approach however subtle still doesnt stand up to any logical scrutiny.



That was not my intent, though I understand why you think that.

Hummm could have to do with the way you said it I suppose, knowing what your true agenda is based upon previous threads on this kind of topic its no stretch.

No, I don't mean ONLY confining it to private places, but any public celebrations or displays must be universal, not limited to only one religion, whenever they are financed by government funds. In the US, any group can apply for permits for public celebrations, and pay the required fees.

So if they do then let them be!


You asked what atheists celebrate instead of Christmas. (the birthday of their atheist sophist savior perhaps? whats his name, oh thats right Hutchinson or something right?) New Years is a different holiday. And most people do celebrate it. Personally, I don't 'celebrate' much of anything. I observe some holidays, but I don't do anything special for them. My choice. Doesn't have to be yours.

Interesting how almost all holidays are either state sanctioned or religious in nature or both huh?

[Thorne]

Or when the atheists go on their rant when the opposite happens?

I haven't heard of any atheists trying to boycott stores for having signs saying Merry Christmas, have you? I think you would have a hard time finding any atheist who would get upset by public employees, at their own expense, decorating their offices with Christmas displays. As long as it's not at public expense, and as long as the guy who puts up the Hanukkah display, or the one who puts up the Muslim display, at their own expense, are allowed to do so as well.

There are always two sides to the coin....I'm just betting there are a number of factors other than religious affiliation that influenced that judges decision; despite the one sided article's presentation of it.

Yes, there were. If you read the Court Order they list 13 different items that the judge base his decision on. Among them:
"8. There was evidence that the Respondent/Mother had left minor children at home alone, did not feed them breakfast, and did not at time buckle them in their car seats."
and "10. Further evidence indicated that the Petitioner/Father did not participate in the same religious training that the Respondent/Mother exercises and that the Petitioner/Father was agnostic."
and "11. There was evidence that the Petitioner/Father did involve himself in the children's activities."
and lastly, "13. There was evidence that the Petitioner/Father did use profanity in the presence of the children and at time failed to control and manage his anger."
My point is, why should his religious affiliation matter in the least? Nothing there said that his anger and profanity were even directed towards the children (likely directed at the mother, would be my guess), while her routinely leaving them home alone, without breakfast, and risking them while driving would certainly make me think twice about trusting them to her care.

In the US, any group can apply for permits for public celebrations, and pay the required fees.
So if they do then let them be!

I challenge you to show me where atheists have disrupted or harassed Christians who were gathering legally for some kind of celebration or event. Yet who are the primary instigators at, for example, LGBT parades, or military funerals?

You asked what atheists celebrate instead of Christmas. (the birthday of their atheist sophist savior perhaps? whats his name, oh thats right Hutchinson or something right?)

I don't even "celebrate" my own birthday! Why would I want to celebrate someone else's?