Oh, so you come from my small Midwestern home town? Its 99.9% white. I think the school has a native american janitor. I never even saw a black person til I went to college.
Its not incorrect. You obviously haven't been to small minded America.
The War on Christmas
- Thread starter sandy
- Start date
Oh, so you come from my small Midwestern home town? Its 99.9% white. I think the school has a native american janitor. I never even saw a black person til I went to college.
Its not incorrect. You obviously haven't been to small minded America.
In this case, it was wrong of them to vote in favor of the Ramadan resolution.
its people like you that finally made me want to convert from christianity
Moderator's Note: This thread has gotten way off-topic. Let's make some attempt to keep it on the topic of the alleged "war on Xmas."
how can you talk about something that doesn't exist
Till Eulenspiegel
Registered Member
“ Originally Posted by Till Eulenspiegel]
This is one of the more ludicrous statements posted in Sciforums. Of course Christians are being attacked. ”
In general this is complete untrue. While there have been isolated "attacks" of an ad hominem nature, I dare say that the numbers do not exceed those of similar ad hominem "attacks" of theists to the rational. What you mistakingly assume to be "attacks on Christians" is no such thing. The are attacks on Christianity, not the individuals that comprise that superstition. If you infer criticism of your cult as "offensive" or as a "personal attack," then it says more about you than it does the critic.
How can something be 'in general' completely untrue? Completely untrue means there is no truth to the it. Generally untrue means there is some truth to it. Your sentence contradicts itself and by its self contradiction says that my statement is true.
“ We are told that extremist Muslims do not represent Islam while at the same time being told that extremist Christians represent Christianity. ”
Perhaps someone *did* tell you that. Perhaps even it was told to you by an atheist, but the rationalist stand point is that extremist Muslims *do* represent Islam. I would never tell you otherwise. Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, etc. are all superstitions and their members and adherents are each culpable for the destruction they cause to society however violent or subtle it may be.
Did I say RATIONALISTS? That is your word not mine. It is also a strawman, creating a sub-category that in your opinion does not apologize for the Muslie faith. If youy have not heard or read comments in which we are told the radical Muslims do not represent Islam you are a member of a minority.
“ No one ever puts extremist atheists forward as representatives of atheisism yet they constantly do exactly that with Christians. ”
I've yet to see an example of what an "extremist atheist" might be. Mostly since atheism isn't a doctrine or dogma that would be expected to have extremist members. Indeed, it would analogous to calling someone an extremist non-golfer. Does this person really, really not golf as apposed to the plain non-golfer who simply doesn't golf?
This argument has been used before and it is no more valid now than it was then. You seem to be of the opinion that you can simply discount extremists who do not believe in a deity, in other words atheists. The leaders of both Communist China and the former Soviet Union were atheists and no rational person would argue that they were not extremists. They were extremist in many actions including their attempts to eradicate religion. Calling someone an extremist atheist would be analogous to calling someone an extremist non-golfer only if that non-golfer went and persecuted golfers.
This is evidence of projection and justification on your part. I think that there are those within the folds of religion that, on some level, recognize the nonsense and irrational nature of their positions, but can't bear to come to terms with this. So they attempt to apply their own faults on their critics: referring to the rational as irrational; calling those that don't believe in their god as "deniers;" inventing definitions that suit their needs since it cannot be accepted that some people simply don't believe in their superstitions; and, most laughable, attempting to assert that "atheism" is, itself, a religion.
Actually, it is a form of denial on your part. You seem to be of the opinion that all who do not deny their faith are somehow irrational or nonsensical. As for calling those who deny the existence of a deity deniers what other term is more fitting? A denier is one who denies. Since atheists deny the existence of a deity the term used to describe them vis a vis people of faith is denier. If someone says global warming is not anthropomorphically caused that person is a denier. If a person says the Atkins Diet doesn't work tht person is a denier. You can't simply decide that a valid word may not be used because you don't like it.
Since your post was addressed to me it would be nice if you addressed what I have said and did not try to make it seem I have said something I have not. I have no said atheism is a religion. I haven't said it because I don't believe it. Rather than being a religion atheism is the antithesis of religion.
I accept the fact that you and others do not believe as I do. Unlike so many non-believers I feel no compunction to be insulting when discussing the issue.
The latter is so clearly a form of acknowledgment that religion is an untenable and silly position to defend that it invokes this sort of special ad hominem known as tu quoque ("you too").
It is nothing of the kind. Your inability to recognize the fact that Christians are attacked by non-Christians is the supreme example of denial.
If you have to explain what a foreign phrase means you should not use it but instead use the English phrase. Using a foreign phrase with an accompanying English translation is akin to typing ASAP (as soon as possible).
“ In Sciforums Chrisians and their beliefs are constantly attacked, often in a vile manner. The God Christians worship is called a rapist, their beliefs are called superstitions, they are called fools and evil. ”
Please PM me with the post # of the comment that directly calls any member a fool. It would be easy for me to miss, but if you don't click the report button, I can't do much about it since I don't know. When I see such abusive ad hominems I delete them and warn the People
Are you honestly trying to say that people posting from a Christian perspective have not been called fools? Are you denying that the Immaculate Conception has been called rape by God? If I was to complain every time a Christian was insulted either directly or indirectly I would have no time to do anything else.
“ The hatred of Christians, especially that exhibited in Sciforums is so pervasive that those who exhibit it can't even recognize that it exist. They are so in deenial that they can post such drivel as, "Nobody is 'attacking' Christians.' ”
Again, you mistake criticism of your superstition and even dislike and discontent with its dogma and doctrine as hatred against you or individuals within that superstition. I'm sure you're a nice person. I have absolutely no ill will that I would wish to you. Indeed, if being Christian or even credulous enough to accept Christianity as legitimate paradigm for living one's life were sufficient for me to "hate" someone, then it would be highly unlikely that I would get along so well with so many people with whom I work. In fact, it would be even less likely that I would bother being charitable to them or willing to assist them in times of need. And yet, I find every reason to help others, be friendly and compassionate and refer to them as friends in spite of their beliefs, however much I disagree with them.
But in a forum such as this, where science and scientific naturalism are the status quo, many religious people -most Christians- come here spoiling for an argument. They make unreasoned claims and hold irrational expectations that their beliefs are to be held as a priori truths when this just isn't the case. And when their beliefs or nonsense is criticized or ridiculed (the nonsense, not the person), they cry foul because the "big, bad atheist wouldn't play nice" and just roll over and accept the cultural taboo that religious beliefs are to be respected, regardless of how silly or irrational they are. And they ARE silly and irrational.
So, when you go on an on, crying about how "I'm being attacked by the big, bad atheist," maybe its time you found a new place to play. Because the victim routine is getting old and the incessant whining about being attacked won't change anything. Irrational bullshit will always be met with criticism and ridicule in this forum as it should be. But none of that ridicule and criticism is about you.
I realize this is a science oriented forum. I first received certification to teach science in 1969 and was in charge of elementary school science in one of the largest suburban school districts in New York State for many years. I have taught science on different levels from kindergarten to adult education and was in charge of educating teachers in the teaching of science. I find nothing in science that conflicts with my Christian beliefs.
I have no problem with you or anyone else not believing in Christianity or in any other religion. I have no problem with you being agnostic or an atheist. I honestly don't care what your personal beliefs are. I do have a problem when people feel their different belief system gives them the right to be nasty. It should be possible for adults to disagree without being disagreeable.
This is one of the more ludicrous statements posted in Sciforums. Of course Christians are being attacked. ”
In general this is complete untrue. While there have been isolated "attacks" of an ad hominem nature, I dare say that the numbers do not exceed those of similar ad hominem "attacks" of theists to the rational. What you mistakingly assume to be "attacks on Christians" is no such thing. The are attacks on Christianity, not the individuals that comprise that superstition. If you infer criticism of your cult as "offensive" or as a "personal attack," then it says more about you than it does the critic.
How can something be 'in general' completely untrue? Completely untrue means there is no truth to the it. Generally untrue means there is some truth to it. Your sentence contradicts itself and by its self contradiction says that my statement is true.
“ We are told that extremist Muslims do not represent Islam while at the same time being told that extremist Christians represent Christianity. ”
Perhaps someone *did* tell you that. Perhaps even it was told to you by an atheist, but the rationalist stand point is that extremist Muslims *do* represent Islam. I would never tell you otherwise. Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, etc. are all superstitions and their members and adherents are each culpable for the destruction they cause to society however violent or subtle it may be.
Did I say RATIONALISTS? That is your word not mine. It is also a strawman, creating a sub-category that in your opinion does not apologize for the Muslie faith. If youy have not heard or read comments in which we are told the radical Muslims do not represent Islam you are a member of a minority.
“ No one ever puts extremist atheists forward as representatives of atheisism yet they constantly do exactly that with Christians. ”
I've yet to see an example of what an "extremist atheist" might be. Mostly since atheism isn't a doctrine or dogma that would be expected to have extremist members. Indeed, it would analogous to calling someone an extremist non-golfer. Does this person really, really not golf as apposed to the plain non-golfer who simply doesn't golf?
This argument has been used before and it is no more valid now than it was then. You seem to be of the opinion that you can simply discount extremists who do not believe in a deity, in other words atheists. The leaders of both Communist China and the former Soviet Union were atheists and no rational person would argue that they were not extremists. They were extremist in many actions including their attempts to eradicate religion. Calling someone an extremist atheist would be analogous to calling someone an extremist non-golfer only if that non-golfer went and persecuted golfers.
This is evidence of projection and justification on your part. I think that there are those within the folds of religion that, on some level, recognize the nonsense and irrational nature of their positions, but can't bear to come to terms with this. So they attempt to apply their own faults on their critics: referring to the rational as irrational; calling those that don't believe in their god as "deniers;" inventing definitions that suit their needs since it cannot be accepted that some people simply don't believe in their superstitions; and, most laughable, attempting to assert that "atheism" is, itself, a religion.
Actually, it is a form of denial on your part. You seem to be of the opinion that all who do not deny their faith are somehow irrational or nonsensical. As for calling those who deny the existence of a deity deniers what other term is more fitting? A denier is one who denies. Since atheists deny the existence of a deity the term used to describe them vis a vis people of faith is denier. If someone says global warming is not anthropomorphically caused that person is a denier. If a person says the Atkins Diet doesn't work tht person is a denier. You can't simply decide that a valid word may not be used because you don't like it.
Since your post was addressed to me it would be nice if you addressed what I have said and did not try to make it seem I have said something I have not. I have no said atheism is a religion. I haven't said it because I don't believe it. Rather than being a religion atheism is the antithesis of religion.
I accept the fact that you and others do not believe as I do. Unlike so many non-believers I feel no compunction to be insulting when discussing the issue.
The latter is so clearly a form of acknowledgment that religion is an untenable and silly position to defend that it invokes this sort of special ad hominem known as tu quoque ("you too").
It is nothing of the kind. Your inability to recognize the fact that Christians are attacked by non-Christians is the supreme example of denial.
If you have to explain what a foreign phrase means you should not use it but instead use the English phrase. Using a foreign phrase with an accompanying English translation is akin to typing ASAP (as soon as possible).
“ In Sciforums Chrisians and their beliefs are constantly attacked, often in a vile manner. The God Christians worship is called a rapist, their beliefs are called superstitions, they are called fools and evil. ”
Please PM me with the post # of the comment that directly calls any member a fool. It would be easy for me to miss, but if you don't click the report button, I can't do much about it since I don't know. When I see such abusive ad hominems I delete them and warn the People
Are you honestly trying to say that people posting from a Christian perspective have not been called fools? Are you denying that the Immaculate Conception has been called rape by God? If I was to complain every time a Christian was insulted either directly or indirectly I would have no time to do anything else.
“ The hatred of Christians, especially that exhibited in Sciforums is so pervasive that those who exhibit it can't even recognize that it exist. They are so in deenial that they can post such drivel as, "Nobody is 'attacking' Christians.' ”
Again, you mistake criticism of your superstition and even dislike and discontent with its dogma and doctrine as hatred against you or individuals within that superstition. I'm sure you're a nice person. I have absolutely no ill will that I would wish to you. Indeed, if being Christian or even credulous enough to accept Christianity as legitimate paradigm for living one's life were sufficient for me to "hate" someone, then it would be highly unlikely that I would get along so well with so many people with whom I work. In fact, it would be even less likely that I would bother being charitable to them or willing to assist them in times of need. And yet, I find every reason to help others, be friendly and compassionate and refer to them as friends in spite of their beliefs, however much I disagree with them.
But in a forum such as this, where science and scientific naturalism are the status quo, many religious people -most Christians- come here spoiling for an argument. They make unreasoned claims and hold irrational expectations that their beliefs are to be held as a priori truths when this just isn't the case. And when their beliefs or nonsense is criticized or ridiculed (the nonsense, not the person), they cry foul because the "big, bad atheist wouldn't play nice" and just roll over and accept the cultural taboo that religious beliefs are to be respected, regardless of how silly or irrational they are. And they ARE silly and irrational.
So, when you go on an on, crying about how "I'm being attacked by the big, bad atheist," maybe its time you found a new place to play. Because the victim routine is getting old and the incessant whining about being attacked won't change anything. Irrational bullshit will always be met with criticism and ridicule in this forum as it should be. But none of that ridicule and criticism is about you.
I realize this is a science oriented forum. I first received certification to teach science in 1969 and was in charge of elementary school science in one of the largest suburban school districts in New York State for many years. I have taught science on different levels from kindergarten to adult education and was in charge of educating teachers in the teaching of science. I find nothing in science that conflicts with my Christian beliefs.
I have no problem with you or anyone else not believing in Christianity or in any other religion. I have no problem with you being agnostic or an atheist. I honestly don't care what your personal beliefs are. I do have a problem when people feel their different belief system gives them the right to be nasty. It should be possible for adults to disagree without being disagreeable.
Nice red herring. Deflect the issue so others don't focus on what is truly the point, which is your alleged "war on christmas" and the claim that Christians are being attacked individually as members and not simply overreacting to those that dare question their superstitions and unsupported claims. But, to address your fallacious point above and, thus, put it to bed, it is not the case that Christians are attacked in this forum generally speaking. I stand by what I said, but if it makes you feel better to remove the word completely, by all means feel free to do so. There may be isolated cases where those that are considered to be atheist have used the direct and abusive form of the ad hominem, but this isn't the case in general. Moreover, it isn't the case that those that would be considered atheists "attack" other members any more than those that would be considered theists do. If you have data that suggests otherwise, please quantify it here. I'm interested to see and willing to revise my position, which is informed by the number of insults and abusive ad hominems I deleted and warn about in this forum.
It *is* my word simply because I have yet to see the term atheist adequately used by the superstitious or those deluded by religious dogma to describe my position on gods. Typically, they assume -quite fallaciously- that atheism implies that their god is being denied. Such ignorance doesn't rise to the occasion and, as such, I don't feel the need to acquiesce to this as a valid definition. Or, if it is valid, then it doesn't describe me. My lack of belief or acceptance of your god (or anyone else's) is informed by rationalism. If a population of irrational people exists that denies that a god exists, states that such an existence is impossible, or makes a positive claim that god doesn't exist, they're on their own and, whatever label they have, they do not share the position that I take which is that a god probably doesn't exist nor have I been presented with enough good reason to accept that one does. I'm not interested in splitting hairs and finding myself a label that meets such a narrow niche since rationalist fits very nicely. Thank you. You call it a strawman, but it is no such thing as we can all now see.
I *have* read those comments. They are continually posted by Muslims. I've yet to see a rationalist (one whom you would call an 'atheist') post such a comment. Perhaps you might link to them? But first, please establish what quantity would be sufficient for the hasty generalization (a logical fallacy, by the way) that is implied in your assertion to have merit. You imply that atheists would have you believe that Muslim extremists are not representative of Islam. I question this assertion and ask that you back it up as a general statement. I'd like the opportunity to debate that point with those "atheists" to demonstrate their irrational positions.
And yet you did nothing to demonstrate why it is invalid. We're to take you, who is apparently skilled at committing one logical fallacy after another, at your word? This, my friend, would be an argument from authority and, while I concede that there are those whose authority is worth considering in an argument, I'm not willing to accept yours at this point.
There is no one denying that these reprehensible people were extremist. I would question whether or not some of them were completely atheists -that is a point, however, that would not easily lend itself to debate, so I'm willing to concede that they were "atheist" for the sake of discussion because it has no bearing on the issue of extremism. Suggesting that their atheism is the cause of their extremism is, yet another, logical fallacy. Indeed, it can easily be argued that one of the characteristics of religion that is the most deleterious to society was instrumental in their success in destroying the lives of so many people. That characteristic is dogma. It could also be argued that these despotic rulers created cults of personality where the rulers themselves became the gods -tribute, tithes, and sacrifices made unto them and worship offered to their likenesses in statuary and portraits required in all government and public places. I see little difference between Stalinistic Russia and medieval Christianity -lots of heretics and disbelievers killed; lots of people coerced into submission through threat of death; property and wealth taken at will; etc.
But that's another thread. Start it if you wish. The result is that you have not a leg to stand on if your position is that atheism informed the extremism of communistic Russia and China. Moreover, such a position is ignorant and fallacious.
I would not disagree. But you have yet to exemplify where it is generally the case that rationalists (or those whom you consider atheists) are "persecuting" Christians. Please, cite us the examples: link to the posts. And don't forget to first quantify what would be sufficient to consider this to be generally the case. If you can't show that it is, you are utterly wrong. And I do mean the word utterly, regardless of whatever red herring you might intend us to follow in the future because one can always find outliers within any population of people.
If that's the working definition of atheist that you prefer, then please do not include me in that definition. Rationalist will do fine. And, as you have now demonstrated for us, my previous use of the term was *not* a "straw man" since it is entirely relevant. I'll accept your apology should you wish to leave it. I deny nothing with regard to your god, Zeus, Wotan, Allah, Ptah, or any of the other thousands of gods that exist now or in the past for humanity. Perhaps there is a god. I just haven't seen good enough reason to accept yours or anyone else's. But my rational reluctance to accept your god as an a priori fact has nothing to do with me denying its existence. Maybe it does exist. The burden is upon those that claim it does to show me. Failing that, you're on your own with that superstition because either Spidegoat or Superluminal is in the line ahead of you with Larry the Leprechaun.
But, hey, if it makes you feel better psychologically to be of the opinion that I'm "denying" your silly god's existence, knock yourself out.
I really could give two shits less what you might like from me in a discussion within this thread. My post wasn't addressed to you, it was in response to your fallacious attempts to offer pseudo-intellectual opinion on atheism and the alleged "attacks" on Christians. At the point above where you take the selfish opinion that this thread and the issues at hand are about you only, I'm addressing the same general nonsense that the superstitious and those deluded by religious dogma continue to assert in this forum time and time again. Get over yourself, pal.
First, my inability to see your examples and citation of the posts that demonstrate this (see above) is a supreme example of you creating an issue where none exists.
Second, you still seem to be stuck on you. Are you that selfish that you can't accept that there are those that visit this forum that are *not* aware of what tu quoque means? Did you really think that this discussion was just between you and I? Please get over yourself. You didn't see me make silly complaints about your atrocious spelling did you?
No. I think if you bother to read, carefully this time, the words I wrote, I'm saying that I haven't seen this and I'm interested in dealing with it as a moderator. Please, cite me the posts that the offenses occurred in (since you *have* apparently seen them) so that I might deal with it. There are literally thousands of posts in this subforum, hundreds within just the last few days. I haven't read them all and, for the ones I have read, I may easily have skimmed past such an insult.
Why would I deny that? The alleged virgin conception of the mythical figure Mary, as told in the New Testament is told by the anonymous author of the gospel or gospels that detail it that she *was* raped by the alleged being you refer to as God. In no passage of the New Testament does it say that the conception was consensual -that is to say your god consulted with Mary first to make sure it was "okay" that he give her a baby. In my city, we call that rape. Do you call it something different in your culture? Apparently.
I really don't care. I only care that those insults are not abusive ad hominems or similar violations of the rules. Those deluded by their religious dogmas (i.e. those that irrationally accept that virgin conceptions can actually occur) are going to be offended and feel insulted when faced with rational discourse. And I'm sure you'll no doubt be every bit as insulted as the New Ager that posts in a science forum about how he's a "healer and a paranormal expert" and finds his claims ridiculed.
Wow. You've got street creds. My humble apologies. I knew not with whom I was dealing with. Please accept my deepest and most sincere regrets at having dared question your fallacious bullshit to date.
And I've got a problem with religious believers entering a science forum with the expectation that their beliefs will get a free pass and that they'll be able to express whatever nonsense they feel is right about their religion and its superstitious dogma simply because it is impolite to question or criticize religion. I have a problem with believers that cry and whine about clinical use of terms like superstition, cult, and delusion, many of whom wouldn't object to the same terms being applied religions or cultures that held beliefs or traditions that ran contrary to their own. And I have a problem with those that don't seem to like the heat, but can't seem to pull their butts out of the fire. If any of these problems do not apply to you or any one else that is reading this post, feel free to ignore them.
SkinWalker
I think we're probably being unfair to the Christians here. After all, it's the same point we infidels haven't understood for two thousand years. If we don't give them everything they want, submit to their every demand, convert to their religion, and help make sure that nobody ever questions the presuppositions of their superstition, we're oppressing them.
Christians are so accustomed to being in charge of things that even when the faith ruptures and new churches arise, the whole point of escaping oppression, historically, has been to become the oppressors. If we do not empower that oppression, we are oppressing them. Remember, the worst thing in the world for a Christian is to have to be equal to his or her neighbors.
Remember that, historically, one of the first great justifications of Christianity was, "Hey, at least we're not Jews."
With that kind of attitude, there's only one direction to go.
I think we're probably being unfair to the Christians here. After all, it's the same point we infidels haven't understood for two thousand years. If we don't give them everything they want, submit to their every demand, convert to their religion, and help make sure that nobody ever questions the presuppositions of their superstition, we're oppressing them.
Christians are so accustomed to being in charge of things that even when the faith ruptures and new churches arise, the whole point of escaping oppression, historically, has been to become the oppressors. If we do not empower that oppression, we are oppressing them. Remember, the worst thing in the world for a Christian is to have to be equal to his or her neighbors.
Remember that, historically, one of the first great justifications of Christianity was, "Hey, at least we're not Jews."
With that kind of attitude, there's only one direction to go.
Republicans lay siege to Christmas tidings
So now Republicans have mounted a War Against Christmas. As Dan Savage puts it:
And over at Wonkette, Jim Newell notes that this is the National Republican Senatorial Committee's doing, and leads with the headline, "Santa, Jesus killing themselves".
So now Republicans have mounted a War Against Christmas. As Dan Savage puts it:
And over at Wonkette, Jim Newell notes that this is the National Republican Senatorial Committee's doing, and leads with the headline, "Santa, Jesus killing themselves".
Till Eulenspiegel
Registered Member
Skinwalker,
Since no apology is required none will be forthcoming.
You call yourself a rationalist and then attempt to equate that with being an atheist. Yet by your own admission you are not an atheist but an agnostic.
As for your use of a foreign phrase with its English translation, that is an affectation and judging from your posts you do not need affectations. Either use the foreign phrase or the English equivalent. Using both is a simple redundancy. If someone doesn't know the meaning of the foreign phrase they have the choice of either ignoring it or looking up its meaning.
From you perspective there is no war on Christmas. From mine there is such a war. Being a Christian and someone to whom Christmas is probably much more important than it is to you I can see slights and attacks where you perhaps do not. When members of Congress who voted to acknowledge Ramadan as an important event then voted against acknowledging Christmas in the same way I see it as a purposeful slight. When it is okay to display a menorah but not a creche you might not see it as an attack on Christmas but I do. When Fred Phelps is held up as an exemplar of Christianity but Mohammad Atta is not held up as a similar exemplar of Islam you may not see that as an attack on Christianity but I do.
I guess it is a question of who's ox is being gored.
Since no apology is required none will be forthcoming.
You call yourself a rationalist and then attempt to equate that with being an atheist. Yet by your own admission you are not an atheist but an agnostic.
As for your use of a foreign phrase with its English translation, that is an affectation and judging from your posts you do not need affectations. Either use the foreign phrase or the English equivalent. Using both is a simple redundancy. If someone doesn't know the meaning of the foreign phrase they have the choice of either ignoring it or looking up its meaning.
From you perspective there is no war on Christmas. From mine there is such a war. Being a Christian and someone to whom Christmas is probably much more important than it is to you I can see slights and attacks where you perhaps do not. When members of Congress who voted to acknowledge Ramadan as an important event then voted against acknowledging Christmas in the same way I see it as a purposeful slight. When it is okay to display a menorah but not a creche you might not see it as an attack on Christmas but I do. When Fred Phelps is held up as an exemplar of Christianity but Mohammad Atta is not held up as a similar exemplar of Islam you may not see that as an attack on Christianity but I do.
I guess it is a question of who's ox is being gored.
Since when does the celebration of Jesus' birth require display of idols on public property, or acknowledgement by the Congress?
Till Eulenspiegel
Registered Member
Since such displays and acknowledgements by other religions are allowed.
It is the height of hypocricy to acknowledge the importance of Ramadan and then vote to deny the same acknowledgement to Christmas.
It is the height of hypocricy to acknowledge the importance of Ramadan and then vote to deny the same acknowledgement to Christmas.
Like Christians don't have enough churches where they can put any display they want? This is a deliberate effort, not unlike the "intelligent design" movement, to force a wedge into our secular government.
Till Eulenspiegel
Registered Member
Spidergoat,
If you don't want religious symbols displayed on government property I can understand that and even agree with you. The government should be religion neutral.
What I was talking about was members of Congress voting to recognize Ramadan as a significant holiday and then voting to not recognize Christmas as a significant holiday.
If you don't want religious symbols displayed on government property I can understand that and even agree with you. The government should be religion neutral.
What I was talking about was members of Congress voting to recognize Ramadan as a significant holiday and then voting to not recognize Christmas as a significant holiday.
Even the Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, and Human Rights Commission agree secularization has gone too far. They say "put CHRIST back in CHRISTmas."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1212/p06s01-woeu.html
:bravo: :yay:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1212/p06s01-woeu.html
:bravo: :yay:
They should not have voted to endorse any particular religion or religious holiday.
They HAD to say ok to Ramadan. You see what happens when anyone p!sses off some of the Muslims, don't you?
Till Eulenspiegel
Registered Member
The fact that they did illustrates my point that there is a war against Christmas. I don't mean an out and out war but a concerted effort by some segments of society and the government to downgrade Christmas as much as possible.
I can understand not wanting Christmas to be given official government sanction over other religions but when other religious holidays are honored and Christmas is denigrated or ignored, when other religious symbols, ie. menorahs, are allowed and chreches are forbidden that is simply wrong.
I can understand not wanting Christmas to be given official government sanction over other religions but when other religious holidays are honored and Christmas is denigrated or ignored, when other religious symbols, ie. menorahs, are allowed and chreches are forbidden that is simply wrong.
The government cannot wage a war against Christmas (and aren't), because it is constitutionally secular. If Christians themselves are secularizing Christmas, that's their problem. Christmas never did depend on the participation, acknowledgement, or endorsement by any government entity.
In fact, there is a war on our constitutionally secular government by Christians. When we resist, they call themselves the victim.
In fact, there is a war on our constitutionally secular government by Christians. When we resist, they call themselves the victim.