I think it’s something new for atheists, yet they do indeed have a right to have these holiday trees.
Are you kidding? He was the only guy who had the guts to make sure jesus did what he was supposed to do, When jesus expressed fear of dying judas took steps to make sure he could not back out. I don’t know why christians get all bent about judas he made sure the job that had to get done, got done. He demonstrated the most wisdom of them all.
The forgoing is simply a literary analysis not a statement of my belief.
I guess now we know you are not an atheist, just sayin…
Indeed. We researched the most touted examples of the WoC, and they all fell through on close examination. The last one to fall actually involved a poster who sent a letter to the parties involved to gain clarity on what had happened; it turned out to be much ado over nothing. It was one of the better threads on the straight dope, IMO.
Daniel
I never claimed to be an atheist… I’m a christian.
And what if they don’t want them? How generous that they have a “right” to them.
:rolleyes:
you’re being pedant now… of course they want holiday trees; or some type of celebration and acknowledgement of their relevance. That’s what the whole discussion was about this morning. … at least this small group of atheists do.
Johnny, here is that old thread. You’d do well to read the entire thing before making another post i this thread.
Daniel
You have yet to provide a cite. I already said I am an atheist and have absolutely no desire for some type of “Holiday Tree” The Christmas tree is fine with me.
I think this thread has proved its point. There is a great deal of intolerance in this world. One man’s sacred beliefs are another’s mythocal nonsense. Yes, this is true, and a millions reasons can be found for being intolerant of another. Toleration comes with wisdom, and knowledge of others. A Wiccan might say “Do as you will, but cause no harm to others.” But then it is necessary to know what harm your thoughts and actions cause others. Hence the wise are tolerant, others are still learning.
Hardly. The Christian opposition to gay marriage and the campaign against sex education comes to mind, the war against abortion, and the lies about condoms the Catholic Church spreads in the Third World, and so on. Hurting other people for God is the norm, not the exception.
How about I put up a tax-funded Nativity scene topped by a sign saying “BEHOLD THE BIRTH OF EVIL” ? I bet those Christians will suddenly become much more concerned about taxes funding public displays about religion then.
As for public Christmas displays of religion, I’m probably the most militant atheist on the SDMB, and I’m not offended by Christmas trees or Santa; they have little if anything to do with religion. And if someone wants to put up a nativity scene on their own property that’s their business, disgusting as it is to me. I don’t want my tax money to go to funding propaganda symbols for something that I consider history’s greatest evil, however. To me, there isn’t any difference between a Nativity scene and a giant swastika on display; neither has any practical effect, but they symbolize something I consider evil, and I don’t want my tax money going to it.
The fact that prayer was allowed for so long because of the political power of Christianity, and because Jefferson was too dead to object. Were you under the delusion that Jefferson was some sort of immortal god-king and in charge the whole time ?
She was the one who had the guts to drag it into court no matter what.
Yes, but is 'Well, it’s the same idea …" going to be a valid legal argument?
I don’t want to get into a whole historical-constitutional debate (though I would love to read one) but if the ammendment speaks to ‘the establishment of a religion’ how could that apply to atheism?
I just don’t know how the legal argument could be phrased …
askeptic, why would you protest an Atheists’ Tree? How do you see the connection between atheism and religion? (I’m asking you, because your post started this train of thought.
Oh, and that tree in the report I linked to was intended as an Atheists’ Tree, but I didn’t find the original article.
The same reason I would protest publicly funded cross display. I have no problem with a tree itself or a christmas tree, but the minute you label it an “Atheist Tree” it stops being a symbol for all people and promotes the message that god does not exist. While I happen to agree that god does not exist I don’t think the government should be supporting one message over another.
Nor do I like the current solution of multiple displays. It is not the business of the government to promote any religious position. Many atheists take the position that GOD DOES NOT EXIST, though I am atheist I do not make that assertion, just that I personally do not believe in god whether he actually exists is unknown to me. (No that does not make me an agnostic please please please lets not have that conversation again) but anyone labeling a “Atheist Tree” is making a claim about religion and that’s not the governments place. I don’t want my taxes supporting crosses menorahs what have you and I don’t want the taxes of others supporting my beliefs.
my thread isn’t specifically about a war on christmas or even atheism … it’s about intolerance.
I said what I thought, and your linked thread has nothing to do with my feeling the way I do.
Like I said, political correctness = intolerance. That’s the way I perceive it.
Then maybe a simple statement in IMHO or MPSIMS would have suited you better.
Thanks for the reply.
I don’t think I agree with you. I think there are government supported symbols that do not speak for ‘all the people.’
However, I now realize that an Atheists’ Tree does make a profound statement about religion, and, therefore, the establishment of religion. Thanks for the help.
(But I don’t see why people can’t be happy with calling it a ‘Holiday’ tree.)
That’s fine. If you want to argue that, you can put together a coherent post explaining why that might be considered true. Since you opened this thread as your own humble opinion*, I can understand why you did not have an actual thesis to promote. However, over half the posts on the first page are the result of other posters trying to figure out what you are saying and you responding with vague platitudes.
That is a sure fire recipe for a trainwreck and I am not going to wait until it runs off the rails.
If you want a debate, put together an argument and come back with an actual thesis** in a new thread. This thread is closed.
- (Despite your claim in post #23, this thread originated in IMHO and was never moved out of GD.)
** (A thesis is more than an unsupported personal opinion.)
[ /Moderating ]