Starting a War on Xmas or a War on Free Speech?

  • Thread starter Joey D
  • 68 comments
  • 2,808 views

Joey D

Premium
47,508
United States
Lakes of the North, MI
GTP_Joey
GTP Joey
CNN.com
Atheists take aim at Christmas

It's beginning to look a lot like -- a war over Christmas.

Alongside a Nativity scene at the Legislative Building in Olympia, Washington, a sign put up by an atheist organization celebrates the winter solstice. But it's the rest of the sign that has some residents and Christian organizations calling atheists Scrooges for attacking the celebration of Jesus Christ's birth.

"Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds," the sign says in part.

Dan Barker, a former evangelical preacher who now heads up the atheist and agnostic Freedom From Religion Foundation, said it was important for atheists to see their viewpoints validated alongside everyone else's.

Barker said the display is especially important given that 25 percent of Washington state residents are unaffiliated with religion or do not believe in God. (A recent survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found 23 percent of Washingtonians said they were unaffiliated with a religion and 7 percent said they didn't believe in God.)

"It's not that we are trying to coerce anyone; in a way our sign is a signal of protest," Barker said. "If there can be a Nativity scene saying that we are all going to hell if we don't bow down to Jesus, we should be at the table to share our views."

He said if anything, it's the Nativity scene that is the intrusion.

"Most people think December is for Christians and view our signs as an intrusion, when actually it's the other way around," he said. "People have been celebrating the winter solstice long before Christmas. We see Christianity as the intruder, trying to steal the holiday from all of us humans."

The scene in Washington state is not unfamiliar. Barker has had signs in Madison, Wisconsin, for 13 years. The placard is often turned around so the message can't be seen, and one year, someone threw acid on it, forcing the group to encase it in Plexiglas.

In Washington, D.C., the American Humanist Association began a bus ad campaign this month questioning belief in God.

"Why believe in a God?" the advertisement asks. "Just be good for goodness sake."

That ad has caused the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority to field hundreds of complaints, the group said, but it has heard just as much positive feedback, said Fred Edwords, the association's spokesman.

Edwords said the ad campaign, which features a shrugging Santa Claus, was not meant to attack Christmas but rather to reach out to an untapped audience.

Edwords maintains the campaign began in December mostly because the group had extra money left over for the year. The connection to Christmas is a coincidence, he said.

"There are a lot of people out there who don't know there are organizations like ours to serve their needs," Edwords said. "The thing is, to reach a minority group, in order to be heard, everyone in the room has to hear you, even when they don't want to."

The ad campaign, Edwords said, is to make people think. He said he doesn't expect to "convert" anyone.

But the Christian Coalition of America feels different and is urging members to oppose the advertisements.

"Although a number of humanists and atheists continue to attempt to rid God and Christmas from the public square, the American people are overwhelmingly opposed to such efforts," Roberta Combs, the group's president said in a press release.

"We will ask our millions of supporters to call the city of Washington, D.C., and Congress to stop this un-Godly campaign."

As far as the criticism goes, Edwords said there are far more controversial placards in Washington.

"That's D.C. -- this is a political center," he said. "If I can see a placard with dead fetuses on it, I think someone can look at our question and just think about it."

The anger over the display in Olympia began after it was assembled Monday. The sentiment grew after some national media personalities called upon viewers to flood the phone lines of the governor's office.

The governor's office told The Seattle Times it received more than 200 calls an hour afterward.

"I happen to be a Christian, and I don't agree with the display that is up there," Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire told The Olympian newspaper. "But that doesn't mean that as governor, I have the right to deny their ability to express their free speech."

For some, the issue isn't even that the atheists are putting their thoughts on display, but rather the way in which they are doing it.

"They are shooting themselves in the foot," said iReport contributor Rich Phillips, who describes himself as an atheist. "Everyone's out there for the holidays, trying to represent their religion, their beliefs, and it's a time to be positive."

The atheist message was never intended to attack anyone, Barker said.

"When people ask us, 'Why are you hateful? Why are you putting up something critical of people's holidays? -- we respond that we kind of feel that the Christian message is the hate message," he said. "On that Nativity scene, there is this threat of internal violence if we don't submit to that master. Hate speech goes both ways."

Source with photos: http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/12/05/atheists.christmas/index.html

So what's people's opinions on this? Is it's a war on xmas? Or is this just a war on free speech?

I think both group should be allowed to display their stuff, if you are Christian and firmly believe the story of Jesus I see no reason not to put up a nativity scene but on the same token Atheist, Agnostics, and other non-religious people should be allowed to put up messages stating that they think xmas is a bunch of hooey. Other religious groups should be allowed to display their things as well.

I do have a problem when a publicly funded building, like a school, government office, etc. puts up any form of religious symbol though as it's not their place to do so.
 
So you have no opinion? Just some political commentators? Do you ever think for yourself?
 
I feel that the ones who go out of their way to go after Christian displays (particularly atheists) are missing the point.
 
I feel that the ones who go out of their way to go after Christian displays (particularly atheists) are missing the point.

Would you say the opposite is true as well? There are many religious people who will go out of their way to attack an atheist display as well, which is mentioned in the article.
 
Source with photos: http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/12/05/atheists.christmas/index.html

So what's people's opinions on this? Is it's a war on xmas? Or is this just a war on free speech?
I think the group would have a much better argument if he wasn't putting spin on things to deliver a hateful message more-so than just an atheist message.

Between this:
"Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds," the sign says in part.

And then him saying this:
"If there can be a Nativity scene saying that we are all going to hell if we don't bow down to Jesus, we should be at the table to share our views."
I think he hurts himself. A nativity scene says nothing, it is a scene, a large diorama, nothing more unless the people who put it up add a message. Looking at the picture of their full sign I think that it would have been fine if they had left the insult off the end.
art.atheist.sign.olympia.jpg


I also have no problem with those "Be goodness for goodness sake" signs. To me those help get past those stereotypes some Christians have that non-Christians can't possibly be good people.

I think both group should be allowed to display their stuff, if you are Christian and firmly believe the story of Jesus I see no reason not to put up a nativity scene but on the same token Atheist, Agnostics, and other non-religious people should be allowed to put up messages stating that they think xmas is a bunch of hooey. Other religious groups should be allowed to display their things as well.
I agree, but as I said, the hateful tone was bit much and is likely the issue of the whole controversy. If the nativity scene actually had a sign that said, "Believe or burn in Hell," then I could see their argument as them being more than just spiteful. They are contributing to the negative stereotypes Christians have of them when they do this.

Of course the group name is Freedom from Religion, which says that they would rather not have any kind of public display of religion allowed. I am think that even if every publicly funded building pulled back they would use the anti-smoking group's lessons and enforce it on private businesses because it is "public."

I do have a problem when a publicly funded building, like a school, government office, etc. puts up any form of religious symbol though as it's not their place to do so.
This I agree with. My voting place is in a church. How that passes I will never know.

Oh, and in other local religion vs government issues, you may also find this interesting:
http://www.kentucky.com/210/story/608229.html
For the record: I believe that should not be allowed. It basically says that an atheist agent cannot do as good of a job as a monotheistic agent
 
Why?

The point that I've been subjected to nativities, crucifixes, and the occasional star of David etc. for my entire life. Those things are intended to promote and display particular religions - something with which I fervently DO NOT agree. I've tolerated them without bitching, starting lynching campaigns, or vandalizing them.

But "Christians" can't do the same thing? I can't promote my social philosophy without getting legislated against?
 
Another stupid nut-job wanting to attack religion during the holiday season? No thanks.

Say what you want, Christmas scene may depict religious figures, and what-not, but I don't see it as an ATTACK on agnostics. I'm OK with them and I'm far from being religious. I have no problem with anything 'religious,' from whatever religion, during the holiday season.

At the same time, I wouldn't mind a 'scene' wishing me a 'Happy Winter Solstice.' In fact, I would like that a lot. These agnostics are being stupid and childish. Wish us all a 'Happy Winter Solstice,' and then shut the hell up.
 
Why?

The point that I've been subjected to nativities, crucifixes, and the occasional star of David etc. for my entire life. Those things are intended to promote and display particular religions - something with which I fervently DO NOT agree. I've tolerated them without bitching, starting lynching campaigns, or vandalizing them.

But "Christians" can't do the same thing? I can't promote my social philosophy without getting legislated against?
Who is promoting legislation against atheists?

I think that any Atheist message should be equally allowed and Christians should be quiet. My only point is that this specific group has taken a hateful tone and it does not help their case any. If the Christian display were some evangelic doom and gloom thing I would understand it, but nothing in a Nativity Scene delivers a hateful message. If you see one you are imposing your own stereotype of Christians on an inanimate scene.
 
Another stupid nut-job wanting to attack religion during the holiday season? No thanks.

Say what you want, Christmas scene may depict religious figures, and what-not, but I don't see it as an ATTACK on agnostics. I'm OK with them and I'm far from being religious. I have no problem with anything 'religious,' from whatever religion, during the holiday season.

At the same time, I wouldn't mind a 'scene' wishing me a 'Happy Winter Solstice.' In fact, I would like that a lot. These agnostics are being stupid and childish. Wish us all a 'Happy Winter Solstice,' and then shut the hell up.

So the stupid nut-jobs that attack atheist, agnositcs, and other non-religious people year around are exempt? Seriously, I never tell a Christian, or any religious person for that matter, they are flat out wrong for believing what they believe since there is no way to prove or disprove anything. Why should it be OK for religious people belittle me for having a non-belief? Why should it be OK for them to "save" me? Why don't religious people just shut the hell up?
 
Say what you want, Christmas scene may depict religious figures, and what-not, but I don't see it as an ATTACK on agnostics. I'm OK with them and I'm far from being religious. I have no problem with anything 'religious,' from whatever religion, during the holiday season.

At the same time, I wouldn't mind a 'scene' wishing me a 'Happy Winter Solstice.' In fact, I would like that a lot. These agnostics are being stupid and childish. Wish us all a 'Happy Winter Solstice,' and then shut the hell up.

I agree - I think it is pretty silly and all a bit pointless, although they have the right to say what they want - I just think it is a waste of time and energy, very possibly counterproductive and likely to achieve nothing more than an argument. What's next, a couple of parents picketing Santa's Grotto with a big sign saying "There Is No Santa! It's Us You Stupid Kids!" ?. And the reaction from us non-Santa believing folks (sometimes slanderously labelled "grown-ups")... "Well, duh...". Honestly, who cares?
 
So the stupid nut-jobs that attack atheist, agnositcs, and other non-religious people year around are exempt? Seriously, I never tell a Christian, or any religious person for that matter, they are flat out wrong for believing what they believe since there is no way to prove or disprove anything. Why should it be OK for religious people belittle me for having a non-belief? Why should it be OK for them to "save" me? Why don't religious people just shut the hell up?

Not the issue here. It's about agnostics attacking religion during the holiday season.

Again, I'm fine whatever they want to display, so long it's not attacking anything else. If agnostics don't like being attacked for their beliefs, then why wait for the holiday season to be defensive?
 
Not the issue here. It's about agnostics attacking religion during the holiday season.

Again, I'm fine whatever they want to display, so long it's not attacking anything else. If agnostics don't like being attacked for their beliefs, then why wait for the holiday season to be defensive?

The issue is actually with atheist, there is a BIG difference between an atheist and an agnostic.

You also make it seem like Christian are good people who never attack anyone ever, which is false. Read the article and you can even see an example of it.

CNN Article
The scene in Washington state is not unfamiliar. Barker has had signs in Madison, Wisconsin, for 13 years. The placard is often turned around so the message can't be seen, and one year, someone threw acid on it, forcing the group to encase it in Plexiglas.

You are suggesting the the non-religious just ignore the display, I'm suggesting the religious side do the same thing.
 
Why should it be OK for religious people belittle me for having a non-belief?
It shouldn't be.

Why should it be OK for them to "save" me?
While this is annoying, it is no more hateful than your mother harping on you about seeing a doctor, eating proper meals, or whatever annoying nagging she chooses to do because she loves you and is concerned.

A Christian trying to save you (note: big difference between this and scare you) is doing it out of love and compassion.

The issue is actually with atheist, there is a BIG difference between an atheist and an agnostic.
Actually it is an atheist and agnostic group. Minor detail though.

You are suggesting the the non-religious just ignore the display, I'm suggesting the religious side do the same thing.
I don't know what he is suggesting but I'm suggesting the non-religious quit trying to purposely piss of the religious, as their sign here is doing. The Christian reactions are what they were going for. They wanted to get the Christians angry so they could go, "See, this is the true face of Christians."

Can you honestly tell me that there was a positive message in their sign? Those bus stop signs also shown have a positive tone. It can be done and the fact that it has been done shows that this group is purposely being inflammatory.
 
The issue is actually with atheist, there is a BIG difference between an atheist and an agnostic.

True, but I lumped in agnostics since I feel it's not only atheists who are supporting this campaign. Was that fair or accurate? Probably not, but I bet I'm not far off the mark.

You also make it seem like Christian are good people who never attack anyone ever, which is false.

I said nothing of the sort to support such an assumption. If people believe this, they're being victimized by their own BS.
 
While this is annoying, it is no more hateful than your mother harping on you about seeing a doctor, eating proper meals, or whatever annoying nagging she chooses to do because she loves you and is concerned.

A Christian trying to save you (note: big difference between this and scare you) is doing it out of love and compassion.

And I hate those things too. I also hate it when atheist try to convert people to their side as well. I know I'm guilty of it and I really make an effort to show my side of thinking without trying to make it seem like I'm forcing it on someone else.

I don't know what he is suggesting but I'm suggesting the non-religious quit trying to purposely piss of the religious, as their sign here is doing. The Christian reactions are what they were going for. They wanted to get the Christians angry so they could go, "See, this is the true face of Christians."

I think both sides should quit trying to piss one another off, yes I agree non-religious people do this quite a bit but the religious side does it just as much.

From what I read in his post, he is suggesting that the non-religious just ignore the religious symbols around the holidays. I'm suggesting the religious side just ignore the signs from the non-religious side instead of vandalising them (i.e. the acid).

Can you honestly tell me that there was a positive message in their sign? Those bus stop signs also shown have a positive tone. It can be done and the fact that it has been done shows that this group is purposely being inflammatory.

The message in that sign has a similar message to "Praise the Lord, the King has come", "Jesus is the reason for the season", etc. And it's not like the religious side doesn't come up with some humdingers themselves. I constantly see people holding up signs at school that say things ten times more offensive then that which I will not retype on grounds it will get me busted by the mods.

There are extremist on both sides and I hate it when people can't admit that.

True, but I lumped in agnostics since I feel it's not only atheists who are supporting this campaign. Was that fair or accurate? Probably not, but I bet I'm not far off the mark.

I think you are using to many preconceived notions which are false. I don't support that campaign and I'm a self proclaimed agnostic and I'm proud of it.

I said nothing of the sort to support such an assumption. If people believe this, they're being victimized by their own BS.

You didn't say it flat out but I really got that impression from your post which is why I responded the way I did.
 
Why does anyone actually care?

With no disrespect to Joey D or his thread I read the story and didn't have any real thought towards it. If you don't like it, just ignore it.

I've been handed leaflets, seen billboards, read articles promoting a certain religious view which I simply ignored because it's something I don't believe in and don't care about.

It's almost as if people believe a Christian will read the sign and then suddenly convert to being an atheist. (which even if they did would be nobody else's business). This is just a group of people who are promoting there side of a particular view about Christmas. I don't think there is any intent to damage Christmas as a celebration, but to show people that there is an alternative view of it.

I can't help but think that religious groups are like gangs fighting over turf.
 
With no disrespect to Joey D or his thread I read the story and didn't have any real thought towards it. If you don't like it, just ignore it.

No disrespect taken. I agree fully with what you are saying, my only issue is that it seems like more often then not non-religious people are told to ignore something when they see something religious. But on the flip side when a non-religious person sees something against religion it's the end of the world.

I can't help but think that religious groups are like gangs fighting over turf.

I fully agree with this as well.
 
I know I'm guilty of it
I haven't noticed if you are.

I think both sides should quit trying to piss one another off
Agreed.

, yes I agree non-religious people do this quite a bit but the religious side does it just as much.
Yes, but this sign was not posted next to some evangelical street preacher or some church sign saying everyone else are just evil sinners.

I'm suggesting the religious side just ignore the signs from the non-religious side instead of vandalising them (i.e. the acid).
Sometimes it is hard to ignore a sign that is purposely offensive, but I agree it should have been ignored as the reaction was likely the goal of this group.

The message in that sign has a similar message to "Praise the Lord, the King has come", "Jesus is the reason for the season", etc.
I agree with you right up until the last sentence:
"Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds,"
Correct me if I am wrong, but that is calling religious people hateful, stupid sheep, yes?

Honestly, without that line the sign would be fine. Although, I am iffy on the "Reason will prevail" line.

And it's not like the religious side doesn't come up with some humdingers themselves. I constantly see people holding up signs at school that say things ten times more offensive then that which I will not retype on grounds it will get me busted by the mods.
I know, I have seen it too, but a Nativity Scene is not one of these instances. This group is failing to confront the people who are truly the problem and have attacked a relatively innocent display, and even gone as far as claim it delivers a hateful message.

It sounds to me as if this specific group is no better than the people they are complaining about.

There are extremist on both sides and I hate it when people can't admit that.
I agree, and I believe that the extremists are also a bunch of cowards as they never attack the other extremists. No, they attack nativity scenes and funerals.
 
No disrespect taken. I agree fully with what you are saying, my only issue is that it seems like more often then not non-religious people are told to ignore something when they see something religious. But on the flip side when a non-religious person sees something against religion it's the end of the world.

There are extremes on both sides. Both sides shouldn't need any form of promotion, people should be allowed to decide on there beliefs from free will. We should also be encouraged to find our beliefs from education not from manipulative advertising or preaching. I would ban advertising from a religious and non-religious point of view, although I guess that invalidates free speech.
 
I haven't noticed if you are.

Not so much on the internet, I tend to have some pretty interesting discussion with people I know outside the e-world.

Correct me if I am wrong, but that is calling religious people hateful, stupid sheep, yes?

Honestly, without that line the sign would be fine. Although, I am iffy on the "Reason will prevail" line.

I agree that isn't right, but neither is religious groups going around saying all non-religious people are evil people who will ruin the world. Where they put it wasn't the ideal place, but the message that the nativity scene represents might be their goal.

And reason isn't ever going to prevail...from either side.

I know, I have seen it too, but a Nativity Scene is not one of these instances. This group is failing to confront the people who are truly the problem and have attacked a relatively innocent display, and even gone as far as claim it delivers a hateful message.

Agreed.

There are extremes on both sides. Both sides shouldn't need any form of promotion, people should be allowed to decide on there beliefs from free will. We should also be encouraged to find our beliefs from education not from manipulative advertising or preaching. I would ban advertising from a religious and non-religious point of view, although I guess that invalidates free speech.

I agree with this as well and as much as I would like to rid the world of non-sense being advertised from both sides it would indeed limit our speech on the issue...which I'm not cool with.
 
I think you are using to many preconceived notions which are false. I don't support that campaign and I'm a self proclaimed agnostic and I'm proud of it.

No, you're just thinking incorrectly; I haven't used any "preconceived notions." I'm an agnostic, yet I see both atheists and agnostics supporting this effort. I think it's quite obvious and clear.
 
Why does anyone actually care?

Its a slow news season and the talking heads need ratings?

I don't know. I think its outrageous that we're even fighting about it. Like it or not, its Christmas time. People are going to say things like "Merry Christmas," "Happy Hanukkah," or "Happy Kwanzaa." Or... God forbid... "Happy Holidays." Please.

Who really cares? Not me. It doesn't infringe on my rights for anyone to tell me any of those things.

BTW:

bustedteesfestivus.jpg
 
I thought I would give my 2 cents on this. I am atheistic for reference. I am mostly in agreement fk on this.

My stance is pretty straight forward on this actually;

Christians advertising their religious views in a pleasant, non-offensive way is perfectly fine, I have no problem with.

atheists/agnostics advertising their non-religious views in a pleasant, non-offensive way is perfectly fine, I have no problem with.

Christians advertising their religious views in a non-pleasant, offensive way, I do have a problem with, however it is no right of mine to prevent such advertisement.

Atheists/agnostics advertising their non-religious views in a non-pleasant, offensive way, I do have a problem with, however it is no right of mine to prevent such advertisement.

Simply put, I think its out of order when either 'side' takes swings at each other, however I don't think they should be prevented at taking swings at each other through advertisement even if the message offends people.

@ at Solid Fro: I would recommend voicing your own opinion but since you haven't I must say I strongly disagree with your spokesperson and I find the 'no spin' comment in the first second of play highly ironic.
 
Simply put, I think its out of order when either 'side' takes swings at each other, however I don't think they should be prevented at taking swings at each other through advertisement even if the message offends people.
Honestly, I say let them. It only hurts their own cause.
 
"We will ask our millions of supporters to call the city of Washington, D.C., and Congress to stop this un-Godly campaign."
Interesting line from the article.

I don't want to stereotype, but I would not be the least bit surprised if this man is merely asking Christian followers to do this just so he can try and force the Christian God to renain a presence instead of actually wanting the signs remove and turning the other cheek.

But, I can be wrong. This whole article and what these Christians are doing just raise too many stereotypes about them to me. :indiff:
 
Reventón;3235579
But, I can be wrong. This whole article and what these Christians are doing just raise too many stereotypes about them to me. :indiff:
In all honesty both sides are reinforcing stereotypes.
 
Honestly, I say let them. It only hurts their own cause.

Your right both 'sides' are let down by a few idiots who seem to enjoy mudslinging and only seem to reinforce stereotypes as you say, while it can be humorous (in a sad way) seeing them make idiots out of themselves, I would rather not see the mudslinging since it tends to drag people into the stand-offs who normally wouldn't involve themselves in such inane shouting matches, I guess the fact that there is a GTP thread on this rather silly matter kind of backs up my point.
 
Back