Atheists Love Too?

[MMI]

Are there any other atheists who, like me, are fed up with really gorgeous girls sending me Valentine cards and presents, and forcing their Christianity down my throat every 14th February? I feel really uncomfortable when such shameless acts of affection are openly displayed in the name of a depraved religion. It is an infringement of people's inalienable rights to oblige them to reject such unsought advances. I'll find love my own way.

As a citizen of GB & NI I am entitled to expect religious zealots such as these harlots not to approach me or anyone else who does not share their lustful attitudes. It's downright immoral, that's what it is!

Besides, with the price of cards and chocolates at this time of year, they must have more money than sense.

[Thorne]

Sorry, MMI. Can't honestly say I've had that problem. The only gorgeous girls sending me valentines are my granddaughters.

I'm not sure I understand your problem, though. Gorgeous girls wanting you to be their valentine? Endure a little proselytizing, shove something back down their throats, what's the down side? Just give them a taste of WWJD. With chocolate syrup. Who knows, they might even enjoy a little atheist whoop-ass!

[MMI]

I thought you at least would sympathise with me. It's just like Christmas: you can't get away from it. Religious celebrations should be kept within religious bounds and not forced on everyone else, don't you agree?

Or do you now see that Valentine's Day, Christmas, Easter and so on are not being foisted on the country by religious extremists (or if they are, they are doing it ineffectively), but by Mammon. Money is being made out of these festivities by opportunist capitalists who have no respect for religions or for atheists, and where there is money to be made, other people's rights, moralities and expectations are swept aside.

[denuseri]

Spot on good sir!


... will you be my valentine? lol

[ksst]

Valentine's Day is a great holiday of celebrating love and lust. I don't see God anywhere. I'm not sure St. Valentine is even a real St. anymore. I think he's one of the de-sainted ones.

[MMI]

... will you be my valentine? lol

Anyone else, I would have to say No. But how can I deny you? ;D

[Thorne]

I thought you at least would sympathise with me.

Why ever would you think that? >

Religious celebrations should be kept within religious bounds and not forced on everyone else, don't you agree?

Absolutely. Agreement, not sympathy.

Or do you now see that Valentine's Day, Christmas, Easter and so on are not being foisted on the country by religious extremists (or if they are, they are doing it ineffectively), but by Mammon.

Christmas and Easter, at least, are simply pagan celebrations which were co-opted by religion. They have both religious and secular components. You can celebrate the secular aspects without bothering with the religious ones. Valentine's day, on the other hand is strictly a faux holiday, created by business to boost sales. Not at all religious, despite the name.

Money is being made out of these festivities by opportunist capitalists who have no respect for religions or for atheists, and where there is money to be made, other people's rights, moralities and expectations are swept aside.

Sorry, no sympathy here, either. I see no problem with businesses trying to make money. That's what they are in business for! I don't really care if some corporation "respects" someone's religion, or my lack of it. As a consumer I tend to ignore advertising, ignore commercialism, ignore the hype that these celebrations foster. I don't expect any gifts, nor do I give any. If I need something, I buy it for myself. I don't give a rip what anyone else does for the holidays. As long as they don't try to force me to follow their rules. And it isn't the corporations that are trying to do that!

[thir]

Valentine's Day is a great holiday of celebrating love and lust. I don't see God anywhere. I'm not sure St. Valentine is even a real St. anymore. I think he's one of the de-sainted ones.

I agree with you - time to let go a little ;-) February in Denmark is time for 'fastelavn', which in older times was the one time where you could make fun of authorities - a bit like the Roman Saturnalia. You also make a birch and whipped women with it for fertility, for which service you were supposed to be grateful ;-)

I abhor the commercial element, but do not see anything religious in it. Even school girls and boys give each other cards, boys for boys and girls for girls too, it is a friendship thing.

[lucy]

Are there any other atheists who, like me, are fed up with really gorgeous girls sending me Valentine cards and presents, and forcing their Christianity down my throat every 14th February?

Not really. What I'm fed up with are those hordes of really gorgeous, shameless, oversexed and underfucked girls (women, too!!!) sending lipstick-kisses-covered Valentine cards to my Master/husband. Whether there's a Christian, pagan or commercial background to it is the least of my concerns.

[IAN 2411]

Not really. What I'm fed up with are those hordes of really gorgeous, shameless, oversexed and underfucked girls (women, too!!!) sending lipstick-kisses-covered Valentine cards to my Master/husband. Whether there's a Christian, pagan or commercial background to it is the least of my concerns.

Do I detect daggers being sharpened? LoL

Be well IAN 2411

[MMI]

Christmas and Easter, at least, are simply pagan celebrations which were co-opted by religion. They have both religious and secular components. You can celebrate the secular aspects without bothering with the religious ones. Valentine's day, on the other hand is strictly a faux holiday, created by business to boost sales. Not at all religious, despite the name.

There can't possibly be any secular aspects of Christmas or Easter to celebrate, unless the secular have adopted and adapted them from the religious celebrations they are. If the non-religious have adopted a religious festival, they cannot be heard to complain that it has been forced down their throat.

Saint Valentine's Day has been associated with the celebration of love since Chaucer's time at least (per wikipedia), and there is no suggestion that it was introduced by mediaeval businesses to boost sales. There may be a question about which St Valentine Chaucer was referring to, but all saints are religious people, so I contend that the festival had more to do with religion than business originally. Now, however, modern business "owns" St Valentine's Day and virtually owns Christmas. Chocolate producers are well on the way to taking over Easter. They are even introducing Christmas into non-Christian countries such as Japan, and that can be for no other reason than to take advantage of the Japanese gift-giving culture.

Originally Posted by MMI
Money is being made out of these festivities by opportunist capitalists who have no respect for religions or for atheists, and where there is money to be made, other people's rights, moralities and expectations are swept aside.

Sorry, no sympathy here, either. I see no problem with businesses trying to make money. That's what they are in business for! I don't really care if some corporation "respects" someone's religion, or my lack of it. As a consumer I tend to ignore advertising, ignore commercialism, ignore the hype that these celebrations foster. I don't expect any gifts, nor do I give any. If I need something, I buy it for myself. I don't give a rip what anyone else does for the holidays. As long as they don't try to force me to follow their rules. And it isn't the corporations that are trying to do that!

I'm sure the Chief Purchasers of the shops and supermarkets you patronise would be delighted to learn that you believe you make your buying choices unaffected by advertising or any other influence. I suggest you buy whatever those shops choose to make available to you, and even if you are immune to the advertising you are subjected to, they are not. They won't stock many goods that the producers aren't willing to promote, because rival items that are actively advertised will move off the shelves faster. Christmas and other religious festivals are the most important times for sales in nearly every kind of business there is, and only a fool would refuse to capitalise on it.

You say you have no problem with business making money out of religious festivals. If the boot was on the other foot, and you wanted to utilise whatever product or service a business provided for your own purposes, you would be made to pay a royalty based on how much use you would be making of it. What royalties does Wallmart pay to the Vatican?

[MMI]

Not really. What I'm fed up with are those hordes of really gorgeous, shameless, oversexed and underfucked girls (women, too!!!) sending lipstick-kisses-covered Valentine cards to my Master/husband. Whether there's a Christian, pagan or commercial background to it is the least of my concerns.

lucy, does your master know you harbour these feelings of envy and possessiveness? He might feel you need to be punished for resenting his good fortune.

But I agree with you, those girls are harlots using a religious festival to distract him, and if he's a good atheist, he'll send them away.

[Thorne]

There can't possibly be any secular aspects of Christmas or Easter to celebrate, unless the secular have adopted and adapted them from the religious celebrations they are. If the non-religious have adopted a religious festival, they cannot be heard to complain that it has been forced down their throat.

They can, and do, make that claim. If the Christians can adapt their holy days from the pagan celebrations that came before them, there's no reason that non-Christians, can't adapt, too. Gift giving, family dinners, sports, Santa Clause, all are secular aspects of the holidays, though gift giving is derived from religious traditions, too. You can't really complain if people choose to give gifts to friends and family, and have meals with them, without bothering with the religious trappings.

Saint Valentine's Day has been associated with the celebration of love since Chaucer's time at least (per wikipedia), and there is no suggestion that it was introduced by mediaeval businesses to boost sales.

You're probably right, but the modern form of celebration is NOT derived from any religious celebration.

I'm sure the Chief Purchasers of the shops and supermarkets you patronise would be delighted to learn that you believe you make your buying choices unaffected by advertising or any other influence.

I never said I was unaffected by advertising. That would be nearly impossible. It's so intrusive, so ubiquitous, that you would have to be a hermit in a cave to completely avoid it. I just try not to pay attention to it, and I do my best to purchase based on what I need, and can afford, rather than on what's being advertised as the latest craze.

I suggest you buy whatever those shops choose to make available to you, and even if you are immune to the advertising you are subjected to, they are not.

Well, it's kind of hard to buy things they DON'T make available! And I'm not immune. I try to avoid it when I can, and take any advertising claims I do see with a hefty dose of salt.

Christmas and other religious festivals are the most important times for sales in nearly every kind of business there is, and only a fool would refuse to capitalise on it.

And only a bigger fool would blame them for doing so.

You say you have no problem with business making money out of religious festivals.

Again, it's not the religious festival that they are making money on, but the more secular trappings which have grown around the religions.

If the boot was on the other foot, and you wanted to utilise whatever product or service a business provided for your own purposes, you would be made to pay a royalty based on how much use you would be making of it. What royalties does Wallmart pay to the Vatican?

What religious product or service has Walmart taken FROM the Vatican? Children's toys? Televisions? Socks and underwear (an annual Xmas gift when I was a kid)? Did Kmart steal Blue Light Specials from the Pope?

If I go into Office Depot and use their copy services for my Xmas cards, say, I would expect to pay a fee. If I buy a printer and print my own, I don't have to pay that fee. I do have to pay for the printer, though. At Walmart perhaps, not Office Depot. Do you think I should still pay Office Depot a fee for printing my own Xmas cards? Maybe I should pay a fee to Hallmark?

[MMI]

Originally Posted by MMI
There can't possibly be any secular aspects of Christmas or Easter to celebrate, unless the secular have adopted and adapted them from the religious celebrations they are. If the non-religious have adopted a religious festival, they cannot be heard to complain that it has been forced down their throat.

Originally Posted by Thorne
They can, and do, make that claim. If the Christians can adapt their holy days from the pagan celebrations that came before them, there's no reason that non-Christians, can't adapt, too. Gift giving, family dinners, sports, Santa Clause, all are secular aspects of the holidays, though gift giving is derived from religious traditions, too. You can't really complain if people choose to give gifts to friends and family, and have meals with them, without bothering with the religious trappings.

No reason at all. I accept that athists give gifts and have family dinners, go to football matches and so on at Christmas. But, having appropriated a religious festival for their secular activities at Christmastime, the non-religious cannot claim that it is religion that is imposing itself on their activities, and that, I believe, is the nub of your complaints.

Originally Posted by MMI
Saint Valentine's Day has been associated with the celebration of love since Chaucer's time at least (per wikipedia), and there is no suggestion that it was introduced by mediaeval businesses to boost sales.

Originally Posted by Thorne
You're probably right, but the modern form of celebration is NOT derived from any religious celebration.

Big business created their own Saint Valentine, and decided to celebrate him on February 14th, which by pure co-incidence only, happens to be the same day that the martyr Valentinus is reverenced by the Catholic Church?

Originally Posted by MMI
You say you have no problem with business making money out of religious festivals.

Originally Posted by Thorne
Again, it's not the religious festival that they are making money on, but the more secular trappings which have grown around the religions.

The nativity scenes you find in stores, on TV, pictured in advertisements etc are all secular?
What about the significance of holly, mistletoe and the colours red and green? Nothing to do with religion, I take it?
The pictures on Christmas cards such as the Magi, Mother and Child, angels, the Christchild … these too are secular?
The quotations from Christmas Carols or the Holy Bible: also secular?
And the broken body of Jesus on the Cross displayed on Easter Cards must be the most secular of all

[Thorne]

But, having appropriated a religious festival for their secular activities at Christmastime, the non-religious cannot claim that it is religion that is imposing itself on their activities, and that, I believe, is the nub of your complaints.

Appropriated? Not hardly! Reclaimed, perhaps. Or just blended in with the religious holy days in order to keep from being harassed and tormented by "good" Christians. And I, at least, don't claim that religions are imposing themselves on my activities. I only complain that religious people in governments are using taxpayer dollars to impose their religious symbols on all people, regardless of their religions.

Big business created their own Saint Valentine, and decided to celebrate him on February 14th, which by pure co-incidence only, happens to be the same day that the martyr Valentinus is reverenced by the Catholic Church?

No, big business created Valentine's cards, and heart-shaped boxes of candy, and expensive jewelry to guilt men into buying such things for their wives and/or girlfriends. To my (uncertain) knowledge there was no religious festival for the day, simply a day that the church assigned to one of its saints. I'm quite certain that the Church would not have promoted the sexuality which has become such a big part of the secular celebrations.

The nativity scenes you find in stores, on TV, pictured in advertisements etc are all secular? ... The pictures on Christmas cards such as the Magi, Mother and Child, angels, the Christchild … these too are secular? ... The quotations from Christmas Carols or the Holy Bible: also secular?

Nope. Those are religious, and they are marketed to the religious. Very few atheists buy them, and based upon demographics, very few atheists sell them. Talk to the Christian business owners.

What about the significance of holly, mistletoe and the colours red and green? Nothing to do with religion, I take it?

Well, the pagan religions, perhaps. Which megachurch do we send the royalties to? As for me, those things have no significance at all.

And the broken body of Jesus on the Cross displayed on Easter Cards must be the most secular of all

Sounds to me more like pornography.

The problem is that you are implying that it is atheists who are using these symbols, many of them stolen from the pagan faiths which the Church crushed, to extort money from the faithful. In fact, most of those selling these things are religious people themselves! And you aren't likely to find an atheist complaining about stores displaying religious articles for sale, or stores posting "Merry Christmas" signs. We are only concerned with those Christians, primarily, who insinuate their religions into government agencies in order to spend taxpayer dollars to "impose" their beliefs on everyone. If a city, or state, or federal agency would set aside an area where ALL religions could set up displays, whether they charge for that space or not, as long as government money is not being spent on those displays I have no problems. If the local Jewish leaders, or Muslims, or Pastafarians decide NOT to take advantage, no problem. From my observations, though, it is the "good" Christians who will make objections to the "multicultural" displays, and are more likely to vandalize those of other religions.

[MMI]

Appropriated? Not hardly! Reclaimed, perhaps. Or just blended in with the religious holy days in order to keep from being harassed and tormented by "good" Christians. And I, at least, don't claim that religions are imposing themselves on my activities.

You don't regard being "harassed and tormented by good Christians" as an imposition? I have wronged you!

It would be interesting to learn, however, which non-religious festivals were appropriated by religions, as you imply.

I only complain that religious people in governments are using taxpayer dollars to impose their religious symbols on all people, regardless of their religions.

My mistake. By impose I take it you mean display, or is it something more sinister?

No, big business created Valentine's cards, and heart-shaped boxes of candy, and expensive jewelry to guilt men into buying such things for their wives and/or girlfriends. To my (uncertain) knowledge there was no religious festival for the day, simply a day that the church assigned to one of its saints. I'm quite certain that the Church would not have promoted the sexuality which has become such a big part of the secular celebrations.

I think you are partly right. St Valentine was not the patron saint of lovers: he was a martyr who might have officiated at "illegal" Christian weddings and who is reputed to have restored the sight of a young girl (supposedly the daughter of his judge or of his executioner). The association of his feast day with amourousness seems to have started with Chaucer, and to have continued throughout the centuries culminating with a story put out by an American business that St Valentine himself sent a message to the girl whose sight he had restored and had signed it, from your Valentine. Thus Valentinee's Day has gradually been commercialised by business, and it is these secular entities that are forcing their Valentine's Day products on all and sundry. It is not the Church forcing its faith onto the general public (quite the opposite of the reason why St Valentine was martyred, I would add!).

Nope. Those are religious, and they are marketed to the religious. Very few atheists buy them, and based upon demographics, very few atheists sell them. Talk to the Christian business owners.

I find that hard to credit. It appears to me that atheists buy Christmas cards containing religious depictions/quotations without reservation; and I suspect no atheist business involved in selling Christmas cards would decline to stock such cards

Well, the pagan religions, perhaps...

Religions none the less

Sounds to me more like pornography.

{Chuckle} Yes, it does. And I camer across this 19th Century Valentine's Day message while reading up on Valentine's Day:

R stands for rod,
Which can give a smart crack,
And ought to be used
For a day on your back.

Wish I'd seen it sooner: I could have sent it to den.

+++++++++++++++++++

I am not merely implying that atheists use religious symbols for their own purposed, I am stating it as a fact, which I have illustrated above and in earlier postings. It is true but not relevant that Christianity appropriated pagan symbols for its own purposes: they were still religious symbols and often their original meanings were carried on under a new guise.

However, I now find you stating that atheists do not object to public display of religious symbols, but simply to the misappropriation of public funds to convert non-Christians to the "true faith". If that were true, it is unconstitutional in USA, so take action: enforce your rights. See if you can make a proper case in the courts rather than whingeing about your false impressions of Christian oppression.

As for objecting to "multicultural" displays, how can a Christian festival be anything but a Christian festival unless it is being appropriated, distorted and altered into something completely unChristian?

[Thorne]

You don't regard being "harassed and tormented by good Christians" as an imposition? I have wronged you!

Yes, you have, many times. But I forgive you.

I SAID that they weren't imposing upon ME. I didn't say it wouldn't be an imposition if they WERE harassing and tormenting me, personally.

It would be interesting to learn, however, which non-religious festivals were appropriated by religions, as you imply.

I didn't say that they were, necessarily, non-religious festivals, only that they were once festivals of OTHER religions, which were forced out of existence by the "good" Christians, usually by very violent means.

My mistake. By impose I take it you mean display, or is it something more sinister?

It can be both, actually. They display their religious tokens, which is not against the law. When they use taxpayer money to do so, however, it IS against the law, and is an imposition upon me. My taxes have to be raised to cover the wasted expense, while the churches pay nothing.

and it is these secular entities that are forcing their Valentine's Day products on all and sundry. It is not the Church forcing its faith onto the general public (quite the opposite of the reason why St Valentine was martyred, I would add!).[/QUOTE]
In what way are they FORCING these products upon us? Do they send out cute little imps to con us into spending our money? Do they send out legions of accountants to make sure we are spending our share? Where is the force, here?

I suspect no atheist business involved in selling Christmas cards would decline to stock such cards

Nope. That's not what I said. Given that the number of religious people in the US are roughly 90% of the population, it's fairly safe to extrapolate that only 10% of business owners are non-religious, and not all of those would be atheists. And they would be only a fraction of the number of atheists in the country.

I am not merely implying that atheists use religious symbols for their own purposed, I am stating it as a fact, which I have illustrated above and in earlier postings. It is true but not relevant that Christianity appropriated pagan symbols for its own purposes: they were still religious symbols and often their original meanings were carried on under a new guise.

Why is it not relevant? It's all right for Christians to steal these symbols for their own use, but it's not okay for atheists? You have to remember that religions has been around, in some form or another, for about as long as there have been humans, so just about every symbol ever devised will have had SOME religious significance SOMEWHERE!

However, I now find you stating that atheists do not object to public display of religious symbols, but simply to the misappropriation of public funds to convert non-Christians to the "true faith". If that were true, it is unconstitutional in USA, so take action: enforce your rights. See if you can make a proper case in the courts rather than whingeing about your false impressions of Christian oppression.

Ahh, there's the rub! Damned if we do, and damned if we don't! You might want to read about Jessica Ahlquist, a high school student, who did just that. If you search, you can find where the "good" Christians in her town have threatened her with rape, beatings, even death, all because she had the nerve to point out that they were breaking the law! Or how about the culture of fundamentalist Christianity in the US military that allows high ranking officers to verbally assault their subordinates who may not agree with their faith. Check out the Freedom From Religion Foundation and read about some of the horrors that have been inflicted upon atheists who "make a proper case in the courts". Then show me how we are oppressing the religious.

As for objecting to "multicultural" displays, how can a Christian festival be anything but a Christian festival unless it is being appropriated, distorted and altered into something completely unChristian?

So ONLY Christian holidays are celebrated at those times? What about Hanukkah, or Passover, or Kwanzaa, which are all celebrated around the times of Christian holidays (primarily because the Christians made sure of it!)? Why is it the CHRISTIANS who complain about store displays proclaiming "Happy Holidays" rather than Merry Christmas? They don't want to admit that other religious groups, or non-religious groups, also celebrate around the same times of the year. Everything must be about them!

100,000 years ago, give or take a few thousand years or tens, some terrified men and women sat watching the rising and setting sun and noticed that every day the sun set earlier, and further south. (Sorry, I have a Northern Hemisphere bias. Sue me.) Then, when it reached a certain point on the horizon it, would stop and turn around, rising and setting further north, setting later and later. And one particularly bright individual remembered the same thing happening the year before, and the year before that. And he figured out that, by predicting when the sun would turn around, and claiming that a god had told him of it, he could get others to give him food, rather than having to hunt for himself. And so religions were born. And festivals were developed to celebrate the "mercy" of the gods who brought back the sun, and the first priests grew fat and happy from the gullibility of their flocks.

And we're still allowing the priests to get fat and happy as they gull us with their fairy stories and holy days. I just think it's time we stopped feeding the priests and looked at the world the way it really is. And realize that, if there ARE gods out there, they certainly aren't the gods that the priests have foisted upon us, and they certainly don't intervene in the world we live in. But all the evidence we've managed to gather over these last 100,000 years leads me to believe that there probably are no gods out there at all. So no need for religious holidays.

[MMI]

I think you'll find the true Christian attitude these days (not the attitude of hard-right American Churches that get rich selling tickets to heaven (acknowledgements to Mark Knopfler)) is, if you want to celebrate Hanukkah, go ahead. If you want to participate in Saturnalia, then pray do so.

If you want to celebrate Kwanzaa, then, how can we object ... some of our number might even join in! (Thank-you for, at last, finding a truly secular festivity to compare and contrast with Christmas.)

But what annoys Christians (so far as I can tell) is that atheists have not been celebrating a purely secular festival such as Kwanzaa, or even non-Christian festivities like Saturnalia, Samhain, or the Making of Pasta Dough Day, but Christmas instead. They refer to it as Christmas, they acknowledge it is a religious festival, they give religious icons, such as Christmas cards with holy scenes and biblical quotations to each other. They may even participate in religious ceremonies.

But a few of the more sour ones say, Look here. Celebrating Christmas is an infringement of my rights. I demand it be called Winterval to save my sensibilities from being offended. And drumming up an excuse that a few tax-payers' dollars are being spent to make everyone's life a little bit more cheerful strikes me as petty and mean.

Moving on: A recent court decision in England has held that it is unlawful to hold Prayers as the first part of local councils' proceedings http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-16980025 . The case was brought by an an atheist organisation after a member of that council complained because he felt his rights were being trampled upon by forcing him to participate in something he objected to.

Any comments?

[Thorne]

But what annoys Christians (so far as I can tell) is that atheists have not been celebrating a purely secular festival such as Kwanzaa, or even non-Christian festivities like Saturnalia, Samhain, or the Making of Pasta Dough Day, but Christmas instead. They refer to it as Christmas, they acknowledge it is a religious festival, they give religious icons, such as Christmas cards with holy scenes and biblical quotations to each other. They may even participate in religious ceremonies.

I'm not sure which atheists you are referring to here. Are you talking about atheists, as they define themselves? Or atheists as defined by the Christians who hate them? As for referring to it as Christmas, what SHOULD we refer to it as? The calendar says Christmas. Many companies give their employees Christmas vacations and Christmas bonuses. Should we refuse to make reference to Wednesday because we don't believe in the god Wotan? Or boycott Saturdays because Saturn was an ancient god? Sure, we acknowledge that Christians celebrate a religious festival. No problem. Sending cards with holy scenes? Really? Perhaps to friends who might be religious, but to other atheists? Would you send a Christmas card to a devout Muslim? Or would a holiday card be more appropriate. And yes, there are even atheists who enjoy the pageantry of some religious ceremonies. So what?

But a few of the more sour ones say, Look here. Celebrating Christmas is an infringement of my rights. I demand it be called Winterval to save my sensibilities from being offended.

Yes, they would be sour indeed. I've never heard of such myself, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were people out there who claimed such. They would be wrong, but they would say it.

And drumming up an excuse that a few tax-payers' dollars are being spent to make everyone's life a little bit more cheerful strikes me as petty and mean.

It's not the money that's spent, it's the fact that it is spent to promote a specific religious belief! If they allow ALL religious beliefs to participate, and spend taxpayer money on those, and on atheist displays as well, there's no problem! The law simply forbids the government from promoting a religious belief, it does not suppress anyone's belief. Go ahead, put up that nativity scene on the town square! But when a Satanist group wants to place a display there for one of their holidays, you cannot legally deny them! Yet there would be riots in the streets if you permitted it. Therefore, the prudent route that most city governments take is to prohibit ALL religious displays in favor of generic, secular displays.

Moving on: A recent court decision in England has held that it is unlawful to hold Prayers as the first part of local councils' proceedings http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-16980025 . The case was brought by an an atheist organisation after a member of that council complained because he felt his rights were being trampled upon by forcing him to participate in something he objected to.

Any comments?

I don't know which law in England this would come under, but in the US we have these kinds of lawsuits all the time. The Supreme Court has declared that it is a violation of the Constitution to begin a public, governmental meeting with a prayer. ANY kind of prayer. In THIS country, however, those prayers are almost always Christian, and are interpreted by the Supreme Court as promoting a religion, in violation of the law! So when town councils violate that law, people can, and do, sue. And they usually win.

The real problem is one of privilege, actually. The Christians in the US have had quite a long run controlling such things in this country. It was impossible, in the past, to fight back because more often than not you would be arrested, imprisoned, or killed for doing so. Now, however, they are losing this privilege, and people ARE fighting back. Some Christians don't like this, and they raise a mighty ruckus about it. They threaten, and do worse, because they are no longer allowed to run roughshod over the naysayers. But there are also many theists, not only atheists, who are fighting against religious privilege, because they can see that allowing the religious majority to have control is opening the door to a theocracy, which could wind up with even Christian groups being persecuted simply because the aren't the right KIND of Christians.

Contrary to the rantings of the Christian mouthpieces, atheists are not trying to destroy religious belief in this country. All we want is to keep it out of the governments. To allow ALL religions to worship freely, or not, as they see fit, within the bounds of the law. We want to see the Churches lose their privileged status and be treated like any other business or not-for-profit organization. Sounds evil, doesn't it?

[thir]

Moving on: A recent court decision in England has held that it is unlawful to hold Prayers as the first part of local councils' proceedings http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-16980025 . The case was brought by an an atheist organisation after a member of that council complained because he felt his rights were being trampled upon by forcing him to participate in something he objected to.

Any comments?

Good news. The verdict, that you can hold prayers but not force anyone to join, is the only way as I see it.

[Thorne]

Good news. The verdict, that you can hold prayers but not force anyone to join, is the only way as I see it.

Not really. What do you then do about the bullying that the minority of students who do NOT join in will have to endure from the majority, and possibly from the teachers themselves? When you have a public school which is 80% or more Christian, any Jewish, Muslim or atheist students who do NOT participate, basically paint large targets upon themselves when they opt out.

And what about those schools which may be majority Christian, but have a Jewish teacher leading the class. Will he be able to lead the class in Jewish prayer? What about Muslims? No, the experience here in the US is that prayer in public schools, rather than being a uniting factor, actually divides those schools. It's a bad verdict, as I'm sure you'll eventually find out.