Christmas: a religious holiday?

[_LCD2YOU]

You are correct about Christ for Christmas but you are incorrect about celebrations.

How am I incorrect about celebrations? Without Christ there would be no Christmas. Without Christmas, you're saying the American populace would have decided to celebrate something anyway during that same period?

Yes. Note how Halloween

This is such nonsense. You guys are hilarious because you're trying so desperately hard to justify your participation in a season that is and has always been religiously based.

Never said it wasn't. Pagan religions are religions,right? Saturnalia is a celebration of the God Saturn.

All this gibberish about how the Christmas tree was from paganism, doesn't detract from the point that Christmas is a religion-based celebration that the rest of the atheistic world decided to join in on for cultural reasons. And that is fine. You can do that. But when you try to completely revamp the cultural landscape of traditional America,

No. I am making sure that religion and government are seperated.

Want a theocracy?

Check out Iran.

simply because you don't feel it should be publicly recognized anymore as a religious holiday, or because you don't feel "included," at that point you lose all respect from me.

Ok. Just to let you know, when you post things that you think are fact and they are not, you lose respect from me.

Check out "Saturnalia". Also, to the Druids and other Pagan religions revered the Winter Solstice. The days started to get longer and that was a real cause for celebration.

The majority of Americans are Christians and they celebrate Christmas because it is a day to celebrate the birth of Christ. Most recognize that this probably isn't his actual birthdate, but that is beside the point. The fact that people take time out to remember him is what's important to the majority of Americans, and you atheists are making that much harder by abusing the "Separation of Church and State" clause for your own purposes.

"Freedom of Religion" also means "Freedom From Religion".

Please note, I am not an atheist, I am agnostic. Please learn the difference.

Hyperbole at it's best.

It is a valid analogy. If all Christmas adjectives should be changed to "holiday" simply because people don't necessarily understand the holiday as Christ related, then by that logic the American flag should be called a holiday flag simply because a minority feels the day has nothing to do with America.

There's Hanahka, Kwanza, Pagan Solstice.

There are certainly plenty of immigrants who do not associate themselves as Americans on any serious level, and thanks to American freedoms, they have the right to reject that association. So should we appease them just the same as we do the minority atheists? If not, then why not?

Well, religion is specifically spelled out in the Constitution. One chooses their religion.

Agnostics, atheists and those who keep their religion private are no asking for special anything. All I want and others is that Christians stop thinking themselves special and that having Christian icons in all of our government buildings infringes on our rights.

So you are wrong. Christians are the ones demanding special rights. What I am saying is that you deserve no such rights and that to claim otherwise is Un American.

If the nature of the US changes to some other religion, I don't care, say Islam, would you rather have them say, "Happy Hollidays" or "Allah Akbar"?

This has nothing to do with the issue. The issue is American identification as a Christian nation.

So you may want to think. Sorry that the reality is very different.

It has always been predominately Christian, and the Judeo-Christian influence has developed this nation into what it is today. Without Christianity, we'd probably be living in a country of slavery, and all the atheistic Thomas Jeffersons wouldn't have lifted a finger to stop it.

That is an out an out falsehood.

The SBC, Southern Baptist Convention, was formed to give "Biblical foundations for slavery"

In the Bible, I can show you how much I can sell my daughter for.
In the Bible, it says what you can do to a slave who misbehaves. You can beat them and if they can get up in three days

One of the things that bothers "atheists" and "agnostics" is the continued belief that the US was founded as a Christian Nation. When 90%+ of its citizens were Christian, then yes, it was a Christian nation.

Not the way you may think. While many were Christian, most were very private in Early America. That means that many people are Christian but they did not reflect in the government.

Even if that percentage eventually drops below 50%, nothing can change the fact that it was founded by Christian civilization and that most of the freedoms and rights we have today are due to that Christian influence. Who can reject this with eyes wide open?

Another misconception. See, I can't understand how anybody who is able to think and reason would come to the incorrect conclusion that this country is based on Christian Principles.

If anything, this country is based on the Roman Republic and the Greek City States. They are religious, but not Christian.

Read Some Thomas Jefferson and his thoughts on religion.

I have. He also felt the black man was inferior intellectually. His use of the phrase "separation between Church and State" doesn't mean what atheists try to extract from it.

Yes he did. Almost all of that era were.

So which Thomas Jefferson was a racist? Was it the "christian" or the "deist"?

But you did not answer the question.

The US is a Secular Nation.

Only in the sense that it isn't a theocracy. If the Christian founding Fathers wanted a theocracy then they would have pushed for one. But they didn't. But that hardly stopped them from opening public and government political meetings with a prayer. You simply don't understand what these men intended with this phrase. The history of America flies in your face and you don't even care.

Oh but you are wrong. I do care. One thing I will never allow as long as I draw breath is the Seperation of Church and State in the US, we see a Theocracy of ANY kind. Right now the religious fundie Christians are beating their chests. Hopefully that is the last gasps of a dying movement that feels persecuted when they don't get their way.

You would have us believe that for centuries our founding fathers as well as their successors were just too stupid to realize what some late 20th century, disgruntled atheists had to point out to us: that religion in all its forms made manifest in any public/government related venue, is unconstitutional. What utter hogwash. One would think that the authors of the constitution had a better grasp on its meaning than late 20th century atheists, most of whom probably have no formal education on American history.

Actually the home-schooled Christians are those of which you speak. They are the ones who re-write the history books to make it what they want to see, not what was.

If you want to argue American History, I'm your huckleberry.

I disagree. Do you have anything information on this or is this your POV?

Provide me with any comparable litigations held by theists. I'm simply putting aside the ridiculous cases brought by atheists and trying to make sense of them.

Which ones are that?

I got one. The psuedo science of Intelligent Design and it's more idiotic sibling "Creationism".

When has an atheist ever sued over a church having a Nativity Scene in a church?

You said they did. Please show me where.

Atheists here try telling me that atheists don't like joining organizations and protesting things about religion. What nonsense. Check out these dozens upon dozens of atheist organizatioons devoted to the destruction of public religious expression in America: http://www.atheists.org/affiliation

I have and what they want is for religion TO GET THE HELL OUT OF THEIR LIVES!

That means no government participation in religious activities. Be them Pagan, Satanist, radical Islam or worse Fundie Christian.

But that is the church property and they have no right. Having it in a government building is a problem.

According to whom?

Oh, the CONSTITUTION!. I thought you were a student of US History.

If you are you must have failed.

Thanks for proving my point to marg, that atheists like you really do exist.

I'm agnostic. What is so hard about grasping that?

I know, you're incomplete and selective learning US History and what the Constitution says spills over into more areas, like when someone tells you point blank they are not an atheist.

You find all of this "problematic." Why? Because you are intolerant of religion and religious persons.

A total lie about me sir. I have nothing against a person being religious. What I have an issue with is when a religious person wants special things and claims "persecution" when they don't get it. I get upset when a person tells me their general brand of religion is what my country is about when that is not ttrue. I get upset when a person claims their religion is "pure and good" when it is obvious that Christianity was spread by the sword.

One must wonder if you follow Penn and refuse to allow 80% of Americans into your home simply because the have faith in something besides science.

Actually my wife is Methodist and one my kids is religious.

And what if she wore a vail across her face?

Wearing a cross and wearing a veil is not exactly the same because a veil conceals the identity of the person. Fredom of religion should be granted to all, but expression shoudl be limited at the point laws are broken. For example, if a Christian thinks it is OK to murder abortion doctors, his religious rights should be taken from him. Likewise, Muslims who think they should be able to veil themselves in Drivers License photos, should not be given the privilege to drive. But this is all irrelevant anyway since the nation is not founded upon Islamic principles. Quite the contrary actually.

Doesn't matter. If she has a viel on you don't like it. why should someone like a cross? As for covering their face, see, I am against it for the very same reasons you stated. So instead of a veil, how about a necklace of a 7 headed Ram?

See I have no problem with either. If a person wants to display their faith, I have no issue. If you're going to put it in the buildings of my government, I will have issues.

Actually, Islam was one of the most progressive religions until religious wackos usurped it. While our ancestors, well most of mine and I am guessing you are mostly European as well, were spanking each other in the dark ages and hiding behind religious superstition and dogma, Islam produced Astronomy, Algebra and started Modern Medicine.

Which religion? Again the US is a Secular Nation. It is pointed out that the US is to have a clear seperation of Church and State.

Which means what exactly? It means the government cannot establish any particular religion as the state religion. They had fresh in their minds the problems experienced in England as well as the rest of Europe state religions became nuisances and impeded progress.

OBTW, the "Founding Fathers" were deists.

Not all of them were, but in any event, a deist believed in a supreme creator of the universe, and they felt acknowledging him whenever possible, even in political venues, was important, which should piss off an atheist just as much as the Christians do.

Actually more than a few felt the deity which created the world, et al, was no longer around. That is not the Christian POV now is it? Many of the Christian ones were also Freemasonists and that religion was a personal thing.

The US is a Secular Nation.

Secular "government," but the "nation" which is comprised of mostly theists, is clearly theistic.

But the government is not. The government is to be free of religion as much as possible.

Read the "Federealist Papers" and perhaps actually read what the framers of the constitution were most worried about creeping into government: Religion.

Well, then if you think they were on the modern atheistic brainwave, then you should be able to point to us their concerns over "In God We Trust" being printed on our money.

WRONG! The phrase "In God We Trust" was first put on coins in 1861. It was a PR stunt.

See here: http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-she ... trust.html

Now, what about the "Federalist Papers" again?

How many prayer meetings were disrupted by the framers who felt as you do? You see we can debate over interpretation over what they said in print, and then we can deal with the more telling factor: their actions, or in this case, lack thereof.

In 1774, while serving in the Virginia Assembly, Thomas Jefferson personally introduced a resolution calling for a Day of Fasting and Prayer. In 1779, as Governor of Virginia, Jefferson decreed a day of “Public and solemn thanksgiving and prayer to Almighty God.” On March 4, 1805, President Jefferson offered “A National Prayer for Peace.”

Which was what any decent politician would do.

OBTW, Satanists pray too.

Now read where in 1785 where the US government wrote to the Pasha of Tripoli where the US was not a Christian Nation.

So given these historic facts regarding Jefferson's actions, can you at least admit Thomas Jefferson, author of the separation clause, did not agree that the clause carries all the baggage that atheists like yourself, infer from it?

Nope. Many of your "facts" are plain wrong.

What about my facts again?

Simple Solution? Keep all religious icons out of City Hall.

Yea, that has "solved" plenty hasn't it? Things were doing just fine before you guys started pitching your fits. The government has never come remotely close to theocracy, and it never will. Why? Because Christianity as a faith is grounded in the principle that religion and state should be separate. The only reason Christianity became a state religion in Roman times was because the Emperor Constantine, a pagan at heart who sought political advantage, made it so.

And people like the leaders of the religious right and their ilk wouldn't mind making the US a theocracy?

Again, read where the South used the Bible to BOLSTER their argument that Slavery was biblical. Read some John C. Calhoun.

You speak of solution without realizing there isn't a problem. Unless you can make a case that Christians are actively trying to take over government, you're really just howling at the moon and hiding behind baseless conspiracy theory. You keep calling this a problem but clearly the founding fathers didn't see it that way or else the numerous religious implementations throughout America's history nevcer would have taken place.

How many non-Christians are running for President?

If a person were to run and say, "I'm Agnostic", what would happen to their presidential run?

There is a defacto litmus test for political office in this country. Just because you may most likely agree with it, one must be Christian, doesn't make it right. It still flys in the face of what the government was supposed to be about.

Now what were you saying about Christians again?

And I'll keep on trying.

Via disinformation and intolerance, no doubt.

After reading your "facts" and replys, I'll say honestly that's you're job and you do it well.

No. Religion is always in the public view. All one needs to do is go to church. It does not need to be part of the city.

"Need" has nothing to do with it. It is about respecting and appreciating traditions and culture of the land.

The land? Does that mean we should go back to animism of the Amerindians?

Christian culture has always been integral to the stuff that made America what it is today. By removing all forms of religious symbolism in government places, you do a disservice to American culture, history and also to the early fathers who clearly had no problem with them.

Nope. It is so sad that you are so ingrained in the distorted US history you preach.

The same holds true for Buddas of Bamyan, which were 1,500 year old statues destroyed by the Taliban. One doesn't need to be a Buddist to appreciate the cultural ornament this provided to Afghanistan's tourism. If they were in America, I suspect atheists like you would have them blown up, just the same as the Taliban did.

And I agree. But in the US government buildings there are no statues to Jesus and there never will be if I have anything to say about it. To put them in is a true disgrace to this country and a slap in the face to what it is to be a real American.

As for the 10 Commandments, they don't belong in any countroom either. If they were built in, leave them. But no new architecture should ever have them incorporated. Also, if any religious artifact are or have been in a government building remove it. Either that or allow the Satanists to put their crap in as well. what is fair is fair, no?

How would you like it if cities across the US started using Mosques and Minarets?

You're having trouble keeping up aren't you? If America was 90%+ Muslim in the 1770's and 80%+ Muslim today, then we would have something to discuss.

No. that is the thing about America and the US Constitution. It protects all from religious persecution. Shoving any religious icon into a US Government building is shoving it down a non-believer's throat.

You would not like it if the court room in your city had prayer mats and had calls to prayer would you?

It doesn't matter WHAT the religion is, the US government is to never acknowledge any. It's citizens may, but as individual citizens, not as government representitives.

Using Public buildings for others' personal beliefs? Nope. And that is is.

Why not? Public places were used when the early politicians opened meetings with prayer, or when the President has a minister or priest open an inauguration with a prayer.

Which is not a thing I want to see repeated. People used to sacrifice goats too. Doesn't make it right.

Don't say your personal beliefs is something I need rammed down my throat.

If you get offended by me saying a prayer while standing somewhere in your vicinity, then you are a weak minded idiot.

And I would agree. You can pray all you want. Just don't try to start it in a government meeting with me doing US and local government business.

What's the matter? You don't have the intellectual fortitude to resist our jedi mind tricks that somehow convert you to theism? There is only one word for this and that is intolerance.

Yes. Saying that someone has to pray the way you do in schools, at the start of government meetings, etc. is intolerance but for the most part, ALL of the Abrahamic religions, Islam, Christianity and Judaism are some of the most blood stained and intolerant of them all.

I don't need your god, goddess or gods to feel pride in my country.

Well you need "a" God to apreciate the historic United States of America, otherwise you're just trying to recreate it in your own image.

I was going to say that was BS but you are correct. Actually the term is "gods". The Greek's ideas of democracy and civilization were built on the actions of Zues. The Romans built their Republic on the Greeks so you're right.

Hail Zues!

Humanity needs no god. I relish the day when like all religions that ever existed, the current ones go away.

And who can deny this? Whether you like it or not, the early leaders did not feel the way you do. The landscape of religious 18th and 19th century America contrasts drastically with the America you and yoru ilk are trying to create for yourselves.

Yeah, it was a lot more brutal, sexist, racist than the one we live in. You'reright it was run by religious hypocrites.

You are culturally deprived and you have appreciation for nothing except your own ego and bigotry.

You throw insults without knowing jack about me. I'm far more cultured and educated than you on US history and most likely science.

The rest of America, no matter how much a majority they are, must step aside and let you waltz through while redesigning America to suit your own personal intolerance.

No, reading your trite diatribe, that is your deal and MO, not mine.

I have heard just the opposite how one can't be a good person if they don't believe in god (preferably the one the speaker is talking about.

You're so full of it. Atheists get away with intellectual murder in the class room in ways no theist ever could. You deny this?

Yup. Look at the Faux, er Fox News service. Read the papers especially Cal Thomas and the other "religious" conservative writers in this country.

As far as "intellectual murder", I call that "home-schooling" or Christian Schools using "religious friendly textbooks" from some Christian bookstore.

As Machiavelli stated, I'll paraphrase, "Even the most corrupt politician can be made Saintly as long as they have the Bible in one arm and a Priest on the other".

It is. By your statements, you show a total lack of concern about others' non religious or not Christian POV

What is there to be concerned about? I think anyone who complains about these things really needs to get a life. Beastie and Marg and others try to pawn you guys off as a benign group of people who maintain a "default" position to religion, and therefore aren't zealous or dogmatic in anything and cannot be compared to religious bigots. But the facts prove otherwise.

In a pig's eye.[/quote]Atheists can be some of the most bigoted people on the planet because they care absolutely nothing about the religious beliefs their fellow citizens hold sacredt.[/quote]And religious people slaughter themselves and other religious peoples since time began

Since you cannot relate or empathize in any way, shape or form,

You know, you are speaking out of your backside as you know nothing about me. So who is the inconsiderate and ignorant person here?

Here's a hint for you, check out whatever looking glass you have in your domicile. Oh yeah, it is a good thing to have the light on. After reading your posts, it is easy to see yo live in the dark.

know nothing about it is easy for you to ridicule and hold us all in contempt.

Actually no. Just those, like yourself, who feel their religion is always under attack and if they can't have their religious icons in government building that represent ALL the people, not just those with whom they agree.

Again, my wife and middle kid are at church. Want to talk about ignorance some more my friend?

I'm not ridiculing atheists. I admire many of them and I find most of them here intellectually stimulating. What I don't appreciate are those who have no appreciation for American culture or tradition. They think they have the right to recreate America in their own image. Eventually they might be able to do that, but you will never understand or appreciate the real America - the America as it existed from its beginning up to that future point. And without that America, your America would never have existed.

Fortunately your idea of America never existed. Re-read the history of the US. It was a violent and bloody place. I am quite aware of the US history.

only when it breaks church/state seperation.

Which you probably do not understand anyway.

I do. It means ALL religions are not recognized by any government entity.

But it doesn't belong in government buildings any more than "God don't exist".

If the founding Fathers were atheists who put "In God we don't trust" on our paper bills, the most you would hear from theists today is an effort to obtain equal rights.

Again, you are completely wrong.

"In God We Trust" was put on US coins in 1861. It didn't make it on US Currency until 1957. Get your facts straight.

Why? Because the move towards granting equal rights in America was not led by atheists, but rather theists.

Theism=/=Christianity.

So your argument falls apart.

If I can do plumbng without mentioning a god, why do we need it in government?

It isn't about "need."

This is about acknowledging and respecting our culture from which this nation was formed. It was most certainly a religious culture.

Again religion is not exclusive to Christianity.

Not a religious "government," but a religious culture. Most atheists cannot even appreciate the advances this world has experienced because of Judeo-Christian principles.

Like Democracy? Oops, Zues worshipping, manly men, who really loved each other in the biblical sense.

Can you? I doubt it. If you don't acknolwedge it, it makes it easier not to appreciate its existence.

I can't acknowledge a history of your own, or some other person who wants to see it their way and you agree with them, imagination that has little to do with real US History.

I mean you got one things right.

1: This is the US

The rest? Well you got it very wrong.

Your score on US history?

F

Check here for some more idea pm what it was really like: http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summ ... cular.html

[_dartagnan]

Yes. Note how Halloween

Halloween is not celebrated on December 25th. What evidence do you have that this date would have become a celebration with the birth of Christ? You have none.

Pagan religions are religions,right? Saturnalia is a celebration of the God Saturn.

Which has nothing to do with the celebration of Christ's birth.

I am making sure that religion and government are seperated.

They are alreadyseparated as the founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, intended them to be separated. The sense of separation you're pushing for is one they never condoned.

Want a theocracy?

No. And I doubt any influential Christian Church wants one either. So your paranoia is based in ignorance.

Just to let you know, when you post things that you think are fact and they are not, you lose respect from me.

Well, unfortunately for you, you have not been able to demonstrate that I am wrong.

"Freedom of Religion" also means "Freedom From Religion".

And you have freedom from religion. Again, you can't seem to get the basic facts into your head. The men who originated these phrases never meant what you wanted them to mean with them.

Please note, I am not an atheist, I am agnostic. Please learn the difference.

This doesn't change the fact that you're ignorant.

That is an out an out falsehood.

Then prove it.

The SBC, Southern Baptist Convention, was formed to give "Biblical foundations for slavery"

I said nothing about the SBC. The SBC strongest opponents were other Christians. Without Christianity, slavery would still exist in the free world. This is a demonstrable fact. No atheist or agnostic origanizations lifted a finger to end it. Even your precious Thomas Jefferson felt it was justified because negros were inferior.

In the Bible, I can show you how much I can sell my daughter for.

Who said anything about the Bible? Try to keep up, please.

That means that many people are Christian but that is not reflected in the government

Are your eally this stupid? If 90% of the citizens are Christian, then it is primarily a Christian "nation" by definition. I said nothing of government. Nation and government are not synonymous.

I can't understand how anybody who is able to think and reason would come to the incorrect conclusion that this country is based on Christian Principles.

That's because you are not someone inclined to think and reason when it comes to the subject of your hatred: religion.

Yes he did. Almost all of that era were.

No he didn't. You obviously do not understand teh context from which that statement was given. Jefferson was guaranteeing minority faiths that government would never take sides in religious matters as it did in Europe. He was not suggesting taht religion be surgically removed from every corner, crack and crevasse of daily government life. If this were true then he would have opposed holding a national day of prayer and fasting, but as President, he called for it. This flies in the face of your assertion that Jefferson intended the separation to be on the same level you and other atheists are demanding today. But since when have any of you cared at all about properly representing history.

But you did not answer the question.

What question? Stop pretending to have scored points. Yours is a lost cause that can only succeed through a campaign of disinformation and a constituency just as bigoted as your cause.

One thing I will never allow as long as I draw breath is the Seperation of Church and State in the US, we see a Theocracy of ANY kind.

I don't want a theocracy either, and neither do Christians. Again, xenophobia is not a strong basis for your cause.

If you want to argue American History, I'm your huckleberry.

Apparently not, since you cannot seem to grasp the rudiments of this issue. You don't understand that Jefferson was no proponent for your cause. You fail to acknolwedge that if he were President today, that you and the ACLU would be protesting him more than you protest Bush.

When has an atheist ever sued over a church having a Nativity Scene in a church?

Not necessarily at a Church, but ANYWHERE that is on public property. Again, Thomas Jefferson and the founding fathers never had any problems with this. Yet, according to you, they support your interpretation of the separation clause. Where is your evidence? You provide none except your own context-free interpretation of what these men said.
Just last week an atheist group refused to drop a lawsuit against the city of Green Bay even thought it removed a nativity scene from its city hall. The fact that this lawsuit was made by atheists and not religious minorities, proves this is not about concern over government endorsing one religion over another. It proves this is not an issue of certain minority faiths feeling excluded. It proves that this is about a bunch of low-life, idiotic atheists who sit around and hate all day. They can't think of anything better to do with their lives, even during holiday season, than to plot attacks on religion. They get their kicks from this.

You said they did. Please show me where.

No I didn't say that. Please learn to comprehend.

I have and what they want is for religion TO GET THE HELL OUT OF THEIR LIVES!

But this is where your logic fails. If by simply looking at a nativity scene or a cross forces religion down your throat, then by that standard you must feel this way every time you drive by a church. Whether private or public property, it shouldn't matter. Therefore, the only possible way you can get religion "the hell out of your life" is to make religion illegal. It seems that theocracy is the last thing we should be concerned with here. I want to know just how you plan to remove religion from a nation of 80%+ religious practitioners.

That means no government participation in religious activities.

Contrary to Thomas Jefferson, your poster boy for the "separation."

Oh, the CONSTITUTION!. I thought you were a student of US History.

Then show us where the constitution prohibits it. So far all you have done is misuse the Jefferson citation. You have demonstrated no capacity to properly understand it at all. You refuse to acknowledge what the authors intended by it because it undermines your own anti-religion agenda.
I know that the constitution has been interpreted incorrectly by radical left-wing judges, yes. But this is obviously a moot point since in 1985, in the case of Wallace v. Jaffree, Justice William Rehnquist noted:

It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of Constitutional history. The establishment clause had been expressly freighted with Jefferson’s misleading metaphor for nearly forty years.... There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the framers intended to build a wall of separation [between church and state]…The recent court decisions are in no way based on either the language or intent of the framers.”

So you will have to seek elsewhere for your objective basis of argument. All that is left is your spite, disrespect and hatred towards religion and theists in general. That is your touchstone; your source of passion and inspiration. Stop pretending you have history on your side. History gave us "God" written all over patriotic songs like "God bless America," "America teh Beautiful," as well as our currency which continues to bear the endorsement of religion.

Actually my wife is Methodist and one my kids is religious.

They have my sympathy.

Doesn't matter. If she has a viel on you don't like it.

Personally, I don't care if someone wants to wear a veil. You're dodging the point again.

why should someone like a cross?

They shouldn't. "Liking" it is no more the issue than "needing" it.

As for covering their face, see, I am against it for the very same reasons you stated. So instead of a veil, how about a necklace of a 7 headed Ram?

You're not going to be able to crawl out of your own hole by trying to be evasive and witty. Stay on topic or at least have the decency to admit you can't make your argument stick.

If a person wants to display their faith, I have no issue. If you're going to put it in the buildings of my government, I will have issues.

So which is it? You want religion the "hell out of your life" or only out of government? You're afraid that nativity scenes on public property has nothing to do with celebrating American culture and everything to do with government trying to endorse Christianity over other faiths, and that this is the first step to a theocracy? This is such an idiotic argument. First of all, Christians don't want a theocracy. Second of all, if that were to happen, it would have happened a long time ago. There is no realistic argument to be made that a theocracy could ever exist in America. Your fear is based on hatred and stupidity, it isn't based on a reasonable cause for fear.

Actually, Islam was one of the most progressive religions until religious wackos usurped it.

No it isn't. The whackos are those who follow Islamic principles to the letter. The philosphers and scientists under Islam were generally those who acted in spite of Islam, not because of it.

Islam produced Astronomy, Algebra and started Modern Medicine.

Good grief, now I have to educate you on this as well? Diophantus of Alexandria (250A.D.) is considered the true father of algebra. Algebra was named after an Muslim (Al-Jabr) mathematician because he was the first to write an entire book on it. The first Arabic-language medical treatise was written by a Christian priest and translated into Arabic by a Jewish doctor in 683. The first hospital was founded in Baghdad, but by a Nestorian Christian, not a Muslim. Later a medical school was founded in Persia by Assyrian Christians. While Muslims certainly made advancements in astronomy, it was Nicolaus Copernicus, a Catholic cleric, who receives credit for identifying the proper heliocentric cosmology of the universe.

Actually they felt the deity which created the world, et al, was no longer around.

Which isn't the point (nice try though); the point is they felt no threat from Christianity by allowing nativity scenes, by allowing a national day of fast and prayer, by permitting prayer during political meetings, etc.

But the government is not. The government is to be free of religion as much as possible.

That is the crux of the issue really. We agree that there is a separation, but what you cannot substantiate is your preferred degree of separation which is, as yous ay, "as much as possible." You will not find that qualifier anywhere in the constitution nor will you find it in the sayings or doings of teh founding fathers. In fact, you'll find plenty in their doings that belie this assertion.

WRONG! The phrase "In God We Trust" was first put on in 1861. It was a PR stunt.

Good point. So allow me to rephrase using applicable examples. If they really believed religion and government should be separated "as much as possible," then how do you explain the following:
1. Presidents of the United States, during their innauguration, are sworn in by placing their hand on the sacred religious text of the Judeo-Christian faith.
Please name the founding fathers who tried to put a stop to this madness. You know, keeping religion and government separate "as much as possible," which is how you understand their mentality.
When "In God we Trust" was added to our currency in the mid-19th century, and when "under God" was inserted into the pledge of allegiance in the mid-20th century, please name the educated constitution scholars who tried to put a stop to this madness. You know, keeping religion and government separate "as much as possible," which is how you understand their mentality.
2. The U.S. Congress starts its daily session with a prayer. The same U.S. Supreme Court that has consistently struck down organized prayer in public schools as unconstitutional opens its public sessions by asking for the blessings of God.
Please name the founding fathers who tried to put a stop to this madness. You know, keeping religion and government separate "as much as possible," which is how you understand their mentality.
3. School prayer. This was the norm in the late 18th century.
Please name the founding fathers who tried to put a stop to this madness. You know, keeping religion and government separate "as much as possible," which is how you understand their mentality.
I wrote: "In 1774, while serving in the Virginia Assembly, Thomas Jefferson personally introduced a resolution calling for a Day of Fasting and Prayer. In 1779, as Governor of Virginia, Jefferson decreed a day of “Public and solemn thanksgiving and prayer to Almighty God.” On March 4, 1805, President Jefferson offered “A National Prayer for Peace.”
To which your esponded:

Which was what any decent politician would do.

That's it? That's all you have to say? What about your claim that these men wanted religion and government separated "as much as possible"? You have no case, just admit it.

Nope. Many of your "facts" are plain wrong.

But conveniently for you, you're unable to demonstrate. All you can do is assert.

What about my facts again?

You'll have to present some first.

And people like the leaders of the religious right and their ilk wouldn't mind making the US a theocracy?

No, you have no evidence that Christians want a theocracy. Even the Confederate states didn't represent a theocracy, when it very well could have been if they were inclined to make it such.

If a person were to run and say, "I'm Agnostic", what would happen to their presidential run?

It depends on what their political motivations, aspirations and commitments were. If the candidate could persuade the citizens that there would be no attempt to attack religion, and that his/her purpose was strictly political, then I don't see why I wouldn't consider voting for him/her, assuming he/she is the best candidate of the lot.

There is a defacto litmus test for political office in this country. Just because you may most likely agree with it, one must be Christian, doesn't make it right. It still flys in the face of what the government was supposed to be about.

Apparently, you don't understand democracy either. Majority rules in more ways than one in this instance, and it is an unfortunate fact for the minorities to grasp, but it is a reality nonetheless. It is the nature of the beast. If the country were 90% atheist, do you think a Christian or Muslim would stand a chance in winning an office? You can deal with it or sit around and pout about persecution for not being able to gain office even though you haven't tried. I suspect that if you don't act like a raging anti-religion idiot, people will overlook your lack of religion. Just look at how many people are overlooking Romney's Mormonism.

But in the US government buildings there are no statues to Jesus and there never will be if I have anything to say about it.

But there have been statues of Moses holding the ten commandments, and while you didn't have anything to say about it, our forefathers did, and they didn't see anything wrong with it, in spite of your claim that they felt religion and government needed to be separate "as much as possible."

To put them in is a true disgrace to this country and a slap in the face to what it is to be a real American.

According to 20th century atheists/agnostics, no doubt. But what you represent is a new America that doesn't exist. It never did. You do not respect the historic America. You're not interested in what the fathers wanted. You're only interested in snagging sound bites to use them for your purposes. Again, explain to me how a President can be sworn in on a Bible if religion and government are separated "as much as possible" in their views?

As for the 10 Commandments, they don't belong in any countroom either. If they were built in, leave them. But no new architecture should ever have them incorporated. Also, if any religious artifact are or have been in a government building remove it. Either that or allow the Satanists to put their crap in as well. what is fair is fair, no?

Stop shifting your ground by pretending you are really concerned about the religious minority failing to gain equality. This is all about you trying to remove religion, theirs included, from public view "as much as possible."

Shoving any religious icon into a US Government building is shoving it down a non-believer's throat.

This is the argument I find fundamentally stupid. How is it that viewing an icon on public property is "shoving" religion down your throat, but the numerous giant crosses, Jesus statues, scripture verses and "Come to Jesus" signs that you pass on your way home from work, are not "shoving" it down your throat? You strike me as a pedantic. You want to remove images of religion where it barely exists when you know you can't do anything about 99% of its displays that are visible to the general public.
This is like someone who fears ants, going out of his way to burn a tiny ant with a magnifying glass, on the other side of his yard, while crawling through several ant hills just to get there. Legally you can't do anything about the ant hills, so you're going to be vindictive about it and try to piss off as many ants as possible by killing the ones you can.

Which is not a thing I want to see repeated. People used to sacrifice goats too.

In my example, there is no "used to" about it. Presidents are still sworn in with Judeo-Christian scripture.

ALL of the Abrahamic religions, Islam, Christianity and Judaism are some of the most blood stained and intolerant of them all.

Actually Christianity is nothing compared to Islam. The Roman Empire and Christainity are separate things. Christianity is extremely tolerant compared to Islam the religion, and it is the backbone for modern human rights, the emancipation, etc.

You throw insults without knowing jack about me. I'm far more cultured and educated than you on US history and most likely science.

Possible, though unlikely, especially given your failure to comprehend what I have said, as well as your failure to reinforce your argument with any sense of reason, let alone documented facts.

Yeah, it was a lot more brutal, sexist, racist than the one we live in. You'reright it was run by religious hypocrites.

So you are admitting I am right, in that these men did not support your notion of "separation"? First you said they supported your ideas and wanted religion and government separate "as much as possible," and now when shown evidence to the contrary, you blow it off by saying they were just religious hypocrites.
Let's engage in a little inductive reasoning here.
What is more likely here?
1) These men knew exactly what they intended to say and you misunderstand them
or
2) The country was founded by complete morons who didn't realize that they were contradicting themselves and it took more than a century before Americans became smart enough to learn what the fathers really meant, even if the fathers themselves didn't.
My point here is that you cannot claim the founding fathers support your agenda. Their own actions make it painfully obvious that they do not. If they were alive today they would not be your vanguard, they would instead be on the receiving end of your angst.

Yup. Look at the Faux, er Fox News service.

I challenge you to produce just one single example of a Christian preaching in a public school, that any student atheists in the vicinity are morons for denying God's existence.
Thanks to FOX news, I know an Atheist 9th grade school teacher slammed Christians for being stupid. If left up to the leftist media alone, this never would have gone beyond the local news.

As far as "intellectual murder", I call that "home-schooling" or Christian Schools using "religious friendly textbooks" from some Christian bookstore.

Gee, and I thought you believed private religious teaching was fine. Now you want to get rid of it, not only from government places, but also in private homes. You're showing your true colors here, which is what I always suspected.

In a pig's eye.

Those four words pretty much wrap up your long-winded counter-argument, which is just a big fat "no it isn't" assertion, for the most part. You've demonstrated nothing of importance or relevance.

You know, you are speaking out of your backside as you know nothing about me.

I can only use your own words to figure out what kind of person you are. If you have a problem with this, then maybe you should reconsider your words.

Just those, like yourself, who feel their religion is always under attack

I don't feel my religion is under attack. Religion in general is under attack. You've said too much already to demonstrate your true agenda, so don't try to backpeddle and play the concerned multiculturalist who simply wants equality amongst all denominations.

It means ALL religions are not recognized by any government entity.

It means no religion is represented by the government in any official way. It was made to protect minority faiths from government abuse as had been seen in contemporary Europe, particularly in England. This was the context in which these statements were made, and to ignore this is to misunderstand history and the intent of the authors. Placing religious relics in government buildings obviously didn't cause any problems for them or their idea of a separation. This is established fact that you have not been able to overcome, and it flat out causes your proposed model to crumble in on itself. So stop trying to enforce your anachronistic sense of separation into history. When you do this you end up with a new product, and it certainly isn't the America that is or was. It is an imaginary America you hope for. One that has no historic sense of itself.

Again religion is not exclusive to Christianity.

It doesn't need to be since this has nothing to do with my argument.

Your score on US history?

From my History professor? I suspect higher than what he would have given you.

Check here for some more idea pm what it was really like

From the title, it seems, again, that you don't comprehend well at all. It refers to the US as a secular "government," which is what I have said all along.

[_EAllusion]

In order for a company to make it policy that forbids an employee to wish someone a Merry Christmas, there has to be something else at stake here besides a sense of sympathy for the silent minority who supposedly feels excluded.

Yes, there does. I thought I already explained the answer. More holidays are celebrated during the holiday season by more people than those that specifically celebrate Christmas. It's an attempt to broaden spending base. It's inclusive. It isn't an attempt to step over everyone to appease a small minority of people. Again, that doesn't make a lick of business sense. It's an attempt to find a way to include as much celebration as possible. Christmas, after all, is a subset of the winter spending splurge.

They thought they could make the changes appear innocuous enough, and hopefully the majority of the population wouldn't care, while successfully appeasing those who were really making a stink about it (atheists). Is there really evidence that companies felt business had declined because customers were being wished a Merry Christmas? Of course not. They don't fix things unless it is broken. There was nothing "broken" about the typical holiday greeting, except in the minds of those who had already been trying to remove all sense of Christianity from public view.

I don't think the idea is to prevent business from declining so much as encouraging it to increase, just like the gift-card push is about extending the spending season rather than stopping business decline. In any case, is there any evidence that there is a influential group of atheists successfully placing pressure on businesses to adopt these policies? No? Has the ACLU ever brought or even threatened to bring a lawsuit, a grossly unconstitutional one that violates their basic views on the first amendment no less, against a private business for its employees saying Merry Christmas? No? To suggest the latter is to not have the slightest idea what the ACLU does or is about. The ACLU routinely sues on behalf of religious groups and individuals whose expression is illicitly threatened. They have no substantial history of attempting to prevent private religious speech. The assertion that fear of lawsuits from the ACLU is driving this can only be made in gross ignorance of what the ACLU actually does. It is the type of assertion you see made by people either so credulous or bigoted that they are willing to believe that the ACLU is an anti-Christian force attempting to squelch religious expression from public life. It is often made by those who can't tell the difference between the government advancing the cause of a religion and simple personal religious expression or those who wish to deliberately conflate the two.

You're dumbing it down as a simple holiday greeting when it clearly goes much deeper than that. Christmas is a federal holiday whether atheists like it or not. They don't like the word mentioned at all and they don't like the fact that it is based on the religious celebration of Jesus' birthday.

You must be getting quite the back-ache with that broad brush you are carrying around. Any evidence for this? I've never met an atheist - and I am one mind you - who does not like the word Christmas mentioned at all. Heck, I see it as a predominately secular holiday with a religious component for those who wish to treat it as such. That's not to say there aren't atheist grinches out there, but your assertion seems to be based in nothing more than the negative things you wish to believe about atheists.

There is nothing to appeal to. Christians have had no problems incoporating "Happy Hanukkah" in with the traditional season.

Again with your massive sized brush. Some Christians most certainly do have a problem with just that. They consider it blasphemous. I've known some. They're Christians who have a problem with Christmas, much less Hanukkah. But your right as far as most not having any problem. Now if only we had some phrases that could succintly wish people well during during the early winter holidays, whatever they may be. Oh, wait...

It is clearly an attempt to avoid lawsuit by idiots toting the ACLU over their shoulders.

Yes, seeing how as the ACLU has never threatened to our actually brought such a lawsuit, such a lawsuit contradicting the stated philosophy of the ACLU on the first amendment, such a lawsuit contradicting decades of established practice by the ACLU, and the ACLU explicitly denying any intent to bring such a lawsuit this clearly is a case of reason on your side.

Oh, here's some examples of the nasty ACLU attempting to destroy religion:

http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfundin ... 60824.html

[_LCD2YOU]

Well dartagnan,


There is a big difference between being a "Christian Country" and having a predominately Christian population. While the majority of early US citizens were Christian, many did not belong to a congregation. For those that did, it was Catholocism. One thing I find so "interesting" about most Christians is the double standards they wave about and ignore the hypocracy completely. We want a secular government in Iraq and Iran (mostly Muslim countries) but it is perfectly ok for them to think of and want this government to be Christian.

There is a big difference between a "Christian Government" and a Government founded by people who were "Chrisitan". Many if not most of the "Founding Fathers" were deist and or Free Masons. Those are private, non-public display of religious beliefs type people and did much to keep the government secular but allow people to worship as they felt best (with reason - a.k.a. no "human sacrifices").

The ideals of the US were not that of Christianity but of pagan Grece and Rome. Only the male citizens of Greece, the Roman Republic of the early US could vote. All of those socieites had slaves.

"Freedom OF Religion" also means "Freedom FROM Religion". What you may feel that things are the "Way they should be" with religion doesn't mean others agree with you. If you believe that setting aside times in school for "moments of silence" so some who want to pray and the others "can just keep their mouths shut", why not allow those who want to pray with dances, rolling on the floor, getting the prayer mat out looking to Mecca or smearing themselves with dung to ward off the evil spirits, is that ok too?

No, keep religion out of schools and government period. Either that or allow ALL forms of worship into schools and government buildings.

[_krose]

I'm late to this topic, but I have some thoughts:

1. The whole "war on Christmas" nonsense was created by Bill O'Reilly and his cohorts so they could have something else to be outraged about and generate some ratings. They created a conflict where none existed before, and now you have these Christmas storm troopers going around saying "merry Christmas" as if it's a challenge or a test of patriotism, and vowing not to shop at a place that doesn't use the proper greeting.

2. There is no reason anyone should take umbrage at an inclusive greeting ("happy holidays") during a time period that includes several holidays, both religious and non-religious. It's not a big deal. Leaving a restaurant because of it is very juvenile. (On the other hand, the greeter should probably have just said, "Thanks. Welcome to...")

3. Last time I checked, Christmas was only one day, not a month and a half. So if you want to wish me a happy Christmas on December 25th (or "have a good Christmas" the last time we part before the 25th), then great; I'll return the wish even though I don't observe that holiday. But if you do it on December 2nd, I'll just look at you funny, as if you were telling me "happy birthday" a month in advance.