Atheist uprooting Christmas

[KC9DDI 11]

I've found that most self-identified atheists have only rarely studied science and philosophy. Instead, there's a watery, generic "public atheism" which is intellectually insubstantial but, for some, emotionally gratifying.

 

I've found that most self-identified Christians have only rarely studied science and philosophy and religion and history. Instead, there's a watery, generic "public Christianity" which is intellectually insubstantial but, for some, emotionally gratifying.

[moosetracker 132]

packsaddle - I had rented from Netflix this year "The History of Christmas" put out by the History Channel. It was interesting. I knew it started as a pagen holiday, but always thought at some point in time the Christians took it over renamed it, made it theirs and made it something "Holier then thou".. Then the merchants came in and commercialized it.. But, the way it was depicted, the religion took 12/25 because it was a specific pagan Holiday. Something about winter coming in, and eatting and drinking the food that could not be stored over winter, and they also celebrated fertility on this day.. But the religion was always happy with being a small part of the normal celebrations that went on, they never took it over completely.. Then it got too out of hand, so they did away with all celebration it was against the law to celebrate at all on and around the 25th, but some quietly did some small gatherings of friends.. When it came back was when the retailers revitalized it for commercialism.. After watching it, I was surprised anyone complains about the commercialism of the holiday that upstaged the religion around the holiday.. The religion was never, ever, ever, ever a big thing of this holiday!

 

So Merlyn, do you decorate in "Isaac Newton"? What does an Isaac Newton tree look like? Send out Isaac Newton greeting cards? Anyway "Happy Festivus and Momentous" to you and yours..

 

qwazse - In the show there wasn't a jewish faith turned away from displaying. Just the atheist who wanted the nativity not put up, and the lawyer telling them that either they had to not put it up, or allow other seasonal displays.. The Christians would not even consider the option, no discussion on what other types of displays they would have to open up to..

 

As to Chanukah being done before Christmas, I am not up on that. I know this year it runs from Dec. 20th thru the 27th.. And the Nativity normally is not just displayed on the 25th, but for weeks up to and maybe doesn't get removed until New Years. It definatly runs during the holiday celebrations and should have the right to display around the same times as the Nativity display..

 

Never heard of a St Nicholas day, I doubt many have.. For the world his day is also the 25th because thats when he does he sleigh ride and visits everyone especially me because I have been a good girl all year long!..

 

And I have seen many Winter wonderland displays that are put up for xmas, xmas decorating isn't just the nativity set.. And many many still celebrate the holiday with no belief in the birth of Christ.. Even if they do believe in Christ many opt for the fun of the holiday rather then somber religion.

 

 

 

(This message has been edited by moosetracker)

[packsaddle 753]

"And I have seen many Winter wonderland displays..."

 

Speaking of which I'm going to dabble in a brief hijack here and ask if anyone has a set of online plans for those awful plywood white deer as lawn ornaments? My wife somehow loses all sense of style and taste this time of year (same as when she married me, what the 'mythical place' was she thinking?) and wants me to build a set for her. I am hoping there is a material-optimized design that will limit plywood waste. Thanks in advance.

[Beavah 205]

ask if anyone has a set of online plans for those awful plywood white deer as lawn ornaments?

 

Oh deer.

 

 

[Beavah 205]

Yah, honestly, in a pluralistic society I've always been in favor of celebrating everyone's holiday. So put Menorahs up during Hannukah, put trees and nativity sets up for Christmas, put up crescents and rams for Eid al-Adha, put down drawings of Kolam for Makara Sankranti. Whatever.

 

Da focus should be celebrating with each other, or at least respecting each other's observances, not trying to interfere with each other's celebrations. I think that's what some in each of da various communities, including our atheist colleagues, fail to grasp. Da atheist community in particular is so focused on what they are not that they haven't really developed what they are. A self-image defined only in the negative isn't a productive or positive one at all.

 

Beavah

 

[Twocubdad 665]

Quarzse -- Beautiful! Where can I buy a copy of "Crassly Redacted History of the World"? Can I still order in time for Christmas/Hanukkah/Winter Solstice/Ramadan/Festivus/oh, never mind....

 

Seriously, In my little corner of the world, every town has one town hall. Some are more traditional grand public spaces, most the newer and/or smaller ones are rather undistinguished office buildings. The next town over has a nice town hall AND and really nice town square nearby.

 

But every town has dozens and dozens of churches. Many of the churches occupy more prominent locations that the town halls. Of course there are thousands upon thousands of private homes and businesses.

 

So why the need to plop your religious display on public property? Tradition? Because you can/could? Because it gives your display/religion more importance or standing? Does it imply community if not official support for your faith?

 

I've never understood how the lines in the church-and-state arguments were drawn. In a rational world, I would think the religious groups would be fighting to have their religious symbols removed from secular locations and displayed only on sacred grounds. I would think people of faith would be the ones upset that government officials are leading prayers and teaching religion to their children. I would think the church would be fighting for separation from the state.

 

A world upside down.

 

(Some dolt previously posted this on the OA thread. Go figger.)

[CalicoPenn 729]

One of the athiest displays is a quote by Thomas Jefferson that reads "Religions are all alike - founded on fables and mythologies." I guess I never thought of Thomas Jefferson as a mocker of other people's beliefs.

 

One of the athiest displays is 4 pictures which asks the viewer what myths they see while pointing out that 37 million Americans know a myth when they see it - one of those pictures is Santa, one appears to be a depiction of Poseidon, one is a depiction of Jesus and one is a picture that appears to be a depiction of Satan. I don't see how this mocks anyones religion since it is letting the viewer make their own decisions - it suggests that Jesus is a myth but doesn't try to hit you over the head with it.

 

But, I can accept that some might see that it mocks others beliefs, provided that it be understood that a Nativity Scene could just as easily be seen as mocking other people's beliefs as well. Darn - sure does hurt when that shoe is on your own foot, doesn't it?

 

I read some of the local comments about this "controversy". Most seemed to side with the City, saying it seemed to be an even-handed way of handling the situation, that it was the luck of the draw, and why should that one particular Christian group get all the spaces when their own churches weren't allowed spaces and the nativity folks should quit their griping just because they weren't very lucky this year (Hmmm - I suppose it would be devilish of me to point out that if God really wanted the Christians to have all those spaces, it was well within God's power to rig that lottery). There were some that see it in the same way Moosetracker sees it - and that's ok too. I noticed that there were quite a few who said they were happy with how it turned out because the nativity scenes were old, ratty, tatty, worn-out and ugly and if they were just patched up and repainted, maybe it would be ok to look at them again.

 

The comments that caught my eye the most were those that said Santa Monica should just eliminate the displays completely because for those few weeks of the year, the ugly displays block a great view of the Pacific Ocean, which makes me think about applying for the lottery myself and if I were to win any of the space, have the ugly plywood kiosk thing taken down and replace it with just a small sign that says "This view brought to you this holiday season by Mother Nature" (and it would be just as great if one of the other churches won spots in the lottery and replaced the kiosk with a simple sign saying "This view brought to you this Christmas season by God").

 

But lets get to the meat of the matter - when the Christian churches stand up in a unified fashion and loudly denounce "Black Friday" and tell their congregants that it is a sin in God's eye and a slap to the face of Christianity for people to leave their families at 5pm on Thanksgiving night to line up at (insert your favorite big box store here)to start shopping at midnight, then Christians can start to complain about a war on Christmas. Until that happens (and I'm not going to hold my breath) the war on Christmas has been won - by Big Consumerism and these minor skirmishes like this Santa Monica issue are nothing but distractions from the bigger picture.

[Twocubdad 665]

Shortridge wrote:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...

 

pchadbo: As you can see, the First Amendment does not say that "the Government cannot establish a religion." It says that It says that the law shall not show favor to a particular established religion over another. "

 

To say the least, that is a remarkably unique intrepretation of the Establishment Clause. Correct me if I am wrong, but you take the word "establishment" to mean "a business, organization or large institution"? In other words, you read the First Amendment to say, "Congress shall make no law regarding a religious institution..."?

 

Even accepting that, I would still read it to prohibit THE establishment of A religion, that is, the creation of a religion. Certainly creating a religion would show favoritism toward that religion.

 

A couple hundred years of case law tends to agree with that.

 

[Twocubdad 665]

Or Calico, how about applying for the lottery then showing up with a lawn chair and cooler to enjoy the view yourself. Sounds like a cheap vacation.

 

Put a "Occupy Santa Monica" sign on the back of the chair so the cops won't hassle you.

[Beavah 205]

Put a "Occupy Santa Monica" sign on the back of the chair so the cops won't hassle you.

 

Yah, because da cops have been so good about not harassing peaceful "occupy" protesters.

 

Anybody know if da guys who pepper-sprayed the students have been charged yet, or how much da civil rights suit against the University is goin' to be?

 

B

 

[packsaddle 753]

Wanna have an exercise in mocking religion? Put up a crucifix in the Cedarhurst area of Long Island with a sign, "King of the Jews" under it. You'll learn all about mockery in short order.

 

Edit: Now....about those deer....(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[CalicoPenn 729]

The First Amendment reads "Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

 

If the founders wanted to prohibit Congress from establishing a state religion (ala Church of England, Church of Sweden, Church of Norway), they would have said so and it would read respecting the establishment of "A" religion. It doesn't say that. No less than Thomas Jefferson argued that the establishment clause is indeed a separation of church and state clause, a prohibition on recognizing any religion or religious belief for special treatment. In other words, not only can't government create a Church of America, it can't recognize any religion as being an official religion of the United States or treat any religion any more or less equal than any other religion. Contrary to the views of those who say the US is a Christian nation, the Constitution expressly forbids the US to officially declare itself a Christian nation.

 

Of course those who make the claim that it is are perfectly free to make that claim, since it's their right of free exercise thereof - but those statements do not make it official.

 

The Supreme Court has ruled - numerous times already (you would think people would get the hint) that the Government (including State and Local Governments) can't treat any religion any differently than any other religion and that they must be absolutely neutral in religious expression so that there isn't an appearance that one religion is accorded "official" status.(This message has been edited by calicopenn)

[Scoutfish 16]

"One of the athiest displays is 4 pictures which asks the viewer what myths they see while pointing out that 37 million Americans know a myth when they see it - one of those pictures is Santa, one appears to be a depiction of Poseidon, one is a depiction of Jesus and one is a picture that appears to be a depiction of Satan. I don't see how this mocks anyones religion since it is letting the viewer make their own decisions - it suggests that Jesus is a myth but doesn't try to hit you over the head with it. "

 

Hopefully by now, it has been made clear that I am not an athiest. I am a man who believes in God.

 

But I am also a man who believes in fairness and equal treatment to all before personal or religious beliefs.

 

Looking at the above qoute from Packsaddle, I honestly do not see any difference between the above statement any any statement alluding to CHristmas that is publicly displayed in any parade or or in a public forum or govt public forum>

 

Scene of a nativity does indeed promote a groups personal beliefs and ideals.

 

Showing angels and the cross also promote a specific set of beliefs and ideals. I mean, nobody ever confused a nativity scene with Holiday Inn Express did they?

 

You don't see a cross and think that the state chapter of math lovers has left a plus sign on the lawn do you?

 

 

Thing is, atiests have just as much right to promote their own beliefs as we do. They are citizens, they pay taxes, they are covered and protected just as much as we are by the Constitution as we are.

THeir beliefs( in a very short nutshell) are that God and the devil, etc...are myths.

 

Why is that any different than me wanting to put a "John 3:16" sign up in the local park?

 

It is a statement of personal belief . Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Since it really boils down to "We don't want anybody elses beliefs to be posted lest we cry of being offended!" , the town really ought to just disallow any display at all.

 

 

And for the record, I personally hate when people call Christmas trees "Holidy trees" !

What Holiday? Why Christmas!

 

July 4th isn't "Summer vacation Day".

 

The holiday is a specific holiday. Either you are on board with it or not. Be anti Christmas or celebrate Christmas, but drop the holiday tree!

 

If you don't believe in Christmas trees, then don't have a decorated tree during Christmas.

 

I am not Jewish, but I do not have a "Christmas Candelabra" either!

 

It's like people are trying to use a holiday loophole to get around what it really is!

 

Anyways, my point is this: The only reason Christians should complain about poersecution at that park is if ALL OTHER BELIEFS EXCEPT Christianity are allowed.

 

Having to share space is not injustice.

 

 

 

 

[Scoutfish 16]

Ooooops! Musta missed a < I > somewhere!

 

[shortridge 184]

Correct me if I am wrong, but you take the word "establishment" to mean "a business, organization or large institution"?

 

Twocubdad: OK, I'll correct you. You're wrong. I'm not sure how you arrived at that interpretation of what I wrote.

 

But CalicoPenn put it far more eloquently than I did.