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

  • Thread starter Joey D
  • 68 comments
  • 2,808 views
Whoops... let me fix that... I meant Paleontologists.

Well, some paleontologists believe in god, they are just less likely to literally believe in creation story's such as genesis, thank goodness (for goodness sake ;))

I agree with almost everything you said niky, though Joey knows i object to you calling yourself an agnostic :D

I did not see you bring forth an example where superstition is ever a good thing, but that was expected :P

'spiritual' is a very loose definition, i consider myself to be spiritual too, but i do not believe in anything supernatural.

Metaphysical, well, i guess we use different definitions, if i take wikipedia's definition, it reads (at some point).
Thus the original situation of metaphysics being integral with (Aristotelian) physics and science, has, in the West, become reversed so that scientists generally consider metaphysics antithetical to the empirical sciences.

Now, i'm really not sure Einstein and Darwin should be listed as 'believers' of the metaphysical, actually, i'm reasonably comfortable in claiming they both do not (at least not if metaphysics is indeed antithetical to the empirical sciences).

i'm happy to read you are against ID.
Two wrongs do not make a right, correct, however, my point was:
There is a difference between publishing an opinion and legislating i.e. a ban on euthanasia.
Christians seem to position themselves as victims, which is strange considering they are the majority in the US and they are actively imposing their beliefs onto others via legislation.
Now i am not too happy with the wording of the plaque either, but in the end it is just words, perhaps hurting words, but it's not our fault reality does not match up with what some believe, the facts are the facts. (ofcourse it is very generalizing, which is my main objection. It does cause quite a stir and i think that is a good thing.

It seems the timing or the place is deemed inappropriate, would it have been more appropriate to put up a sign that describes the history of x-mas, together with why a tree is present, why it is on the date it is, and the pagan religion that actually 'owns' the 'copyright' to x-mas?

No, i applaud the fact that that plaque was not removed.

I mean, there is at least one court with 'the 10 commandments' banners in it, is there not (in texas for 1, in utah in a public park)
That seems a lot more ridiculous to me, sure, two wrongs don't make a right, however, to get 'biblical' "don't try to remove a splinter from someones eye while a log is inside your own" does seem to be very appropriate to all those protesting christians.

How about me claiming a 'jesus x-mas crib' in a government building is in fact a violation of your first amendment? Am i technically wrong with that claim?
If i am not, then having the FFRF banner next to it, in fact, re leaves the crib from being a violation, as not a single religion/viewpoint is endorsed anymore :D



"Everyone has their unshakeable abstract belief ... how you and society evolve and develop over time."
That seems contradictory, either it is an unshakable belief, or it evolves.

Unshakable beliefs seem more in the realm of religion :)

Ah well, thanks for your inputs, very interesting.
 
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.
No matter how I say it, this is sure to make someone angry, so I won't bother sugar coating it: I don't find Christmas to be a particularly religious holiday, and a semester of college history has only reinforced that belief. Therefore, I find it somewhat ridiculous for atheists to pull a silly stunt like what was seen in the article, because it seems to me like it goes against the very thing they are against.
 
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?

OK, Duke. Now you and I have met in person and we're cool. However, there is a difference between putting up a nativity scene (completely positive) and saying relition is evil(completely negative).

It's like getting offended at someone wishing you Merry Christmas. It's a wishing of wellness and happiness. You may not like Christmas or celebrate it. But to get angry at that is like getting angry at someone saying, "have a nice day"

Now, if they had a symbol up there instead of a hateful statement. Even a pictue of Darwin or something like that.

Also, in the law that they came up with there, the govenor has discrection on the decorum of what's displayed. This clearly isn't going along with the season. Except for the first line. So that's why I think it needs to come down. Not because it's atheistic, but because it's hateful and against the decorum of the season.
 
So in other words, Christians who insist "Jesus is the reason for the season" and who boycott WalMart for putting up signs saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" are not being negative towards non-Christians?

I agree that the message should be positive... but I do not agree that the other side plays fair.
 
So in other words, Christians who insist "Jesus is the reason for the season" and who boycott WalMart for putting up signs saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" are not being negative towards non-Christians?

I agree that the message should be positive... but I do not agree that the other side plays fair.

Boycotting a private companies policy that forces it's employess not to say merry christmas when it's a Federal holiday is not the same as saying "You suck if you don't like Jesus!" That's what the sign says. Basically stating that only idiots believe in God and they casue all the problems.

So boycotting something isn't negative. Calling them hard hearted for not accepting Jesus would be.
 
I really don't get why so many people have a problem anyways, it's not like your being forced to celebrate something. I know people of different faiths who still come over to my place and we do a gift exchange and just have some fun. It's not like im offended when I see a "Happy Chanukah"(actual spelling) sign. I have an ability to do something nobody else can, called ignore it. Plus Christmas, like every other holiday has become so commercialized that nobody knows what it's actually about anymore.
 
I really don't get why so many people have a problem anyways, it's not like your being forced to celebrate something. I know people of different faiths who still come over to my place and we do a gift exchange and just have some fun. It's not like im offended when I see a "Happy Chanukah"(actual spelling) sign. I have an ability to do something nobody else can, called ignore it. Plus Christmas, like every other holiday has become so commercialized that nobody knows what it's actually about anymore.
We all know that it has become commercialized but the fact is that certain group of people are going against another group of people for just the spelling of it. Though that a person may have a specific reason for this season but people have the problem because sometimes they think of what is right is actually right.
 
Back