Fox News Again

[Samson1]

I'm absolutely anti-theist,strong,militant non-believer,... but there are situations where US atheists should approach more tacticaly.There are cultural aspects which should not matter & opposing them would be unreasonable. Things like ''bless you'' when sneeze or using BC/AD. I feel that christmass is in this category. When we argue against important issues like god on money, in the pledge of allegiance etc....Christians don't see the difference (get the point)
There's a big difference. I don't mind using BS/AD say bless you or marry christmass, But I can't stand god on money,court rooms,schools,politics. As a life long atheist from EU-religion was mostly a non-issue, so when I heard ''atheist movement'' for the first time, I thot what nonsense (herding cats) but I see now,that there is a need for activism / movements in america.I think american atheists sometimes loose perspective and can have unreasonable reactions, becouse of the culture they have to endure the whole life.

[Brian37]

I can't stand the whole war on Christmas bullshit myth that the social right likes to perpetrate. No Atheist is trying to get rid of your mangers or marry christmas's. Shut up and stop making things up.

Actually I do think their is a war on Christmas, just not the fascist one the right wants to falsely paint.

There is the battle to keep government from setting up pecking orders where only one religion gets a monopoly on a public venue. But there is no war on the Christmas tree at 30Rock, which is a private building.

There is a war on Christmas, as there should be in stupid claims of virgin births, which is a flat out scientifically absurd claim.

So lets not shy way from the word "war". I would simply clarify the context and call it a competition of reason vs myth.

When we allow them to use the word war, what is really going on is their petulant childish tactic of pretending to be the victim. But if they want to call it a war, sure, just like we had a war on sexism getting women the right to vote, and had a war defending the fact that the earth rotates around the sun.

It is not a literal fascist Hitler war, but a war for the equality of minorities, and the war to combat superstition and promote the value of reason, education and science.

There should be a war on magic baby claims just like we no longer believe the sun is a god, or that the heart does the thinking. But there is no war on their right to believe things we don't believe. "War" is the slur they use to avoid the competition of the free market of ideas. So instead of shying away from that slur, challenge the idiots to prove their claims instead of allowing them to cry like babies and play victim.

Lets take that word they use as a pejorative and have that "war" in the form of debate, challenge, and blasphemey. Lets use it and make it a "war" for equality and protection of science and reason.

"Question with boldness even the existence of a god for if there be one, surely he would pay more homage to reason than to that of blindfolded fear" Thomas Jefferson.

[festive1]

I'm absolutely anti-theist,strong,militant non-believer,... but there are situations where US atheists should approach more tacticaly.There are cultural aspects which should not matter & opposing them would be unreasonable. Things like ''bless you'' when sneeze or using BC/AD. I feel that christmass is in this category.

BC/AD is on it's way out. A lot of academics, museums, etc. have switched to BCE/CE, for before common era and common era respectively. It is not just about atheists, it's culturally sensitive to all groups that are not Christian, including Jews and Muslims. AD, Anno Domini, or the year of our lord... well it's just not relevant to any group who rejects Christ as lord. Though it should be noted that some Christian publications use BCE/CE as well, for before Christian era and Christian era.

As for "bless you" when sneezing, I'm not offended, I just prefer gesundheit, because it's more fun to say...
When someone wishes me, "Merry Christmas!" I'm also not offended, I simply reply, "And a Happy Holiday to you, too!"

[Brian37]

I wont freak out if I overhear someone say "bless you" to someone else, but don't say it to me. To me it is like offering a Jewish friend pork. I don't literally believe my spirit will fly out of my nose, which the stupid incantation started as, just because people have watered it down to secular politeness doesn't mean I like being reminded how superstitious people still are.

If someone wants to express concern when I sneeze to me just say "You ok?". If one wants to say bless you to someone who doesn't mind, that is fine too, but I cant stand it because of it's history and the fact that people are still superstitious even outside that phrase.

[Rayaan]

The Christmas bit in the OP reminded me of some Muslims who devise fatwas on why Muslims shouldn't say "Merry Christmas" to anyone. But to me, it's almost the same as saying "Happy Birthday," "Happy Mother's Day," "Happy New Year" and so on.

The important thing to understand is that people have different reasons for celebrating Christmas and the same applies to saying "Merry Christmas" (depending on whatever their beliefs are). Some atheists, for example, I think celebrate Christmas only as a cultural/social part of their lives, i.e. as a chance to meet each other, have parties, drink, dance, go outside, etc. That's why they are not against saying the phrase "Merry Christmas" either.

Today, Christmas is not exclusively a religious holiday although I do believe that it was originally a religious (and possibly a pagan) holiday as opposed to a cultural one.

[Brian37]

The Christmas bit in the OP reminded me of some Muslims who devise fatwas on why Muslims shouldn't say "Merry Christmas" to anyone. But to me, it's almost the same as saying "Happy Birthday," "Happy Mother's Day," "Happy New Year" and so on.

The important thing to understand is that people have different reasons for celebrating Christmas and the same applies to saying "Merry Christmas" (depending on whatever their beliefs are). Some atheists, for example, I think celebrate Christmas only as a cultural/social part of their lives, i.e. as a chance to meet each other, have parties, drink, dance, go outside, etc. That's why they are not against saying the phrase "Merry Christmas" either.

Today, Christmas is not exclusively a religious holiday although I do believe that it was originally a religious (and possibly a pagan) holiday as opposed to a cultural one.

It WAS a rip off of prior celestial pagan religions. BUT if you think, especially being a Muslim that you have the same rights(not according to the Constitution) but according to the collective mindset of even liberal Christians, you don't.

Christians blasted Muslim Keith Ellison for swearing in on a Koran and not a bible despite "no Religious test" in the oath of office. They'll throw a fit if anything but a baby Jesus or Ten Commandments are displayed on public property and falsely cry oppression if the government says "you either let it all in or you agree to keep it neutral".

You are talking about non government expressions which I am not arguing. But you are a fool if you think you can use government as a billboard to the same degree Christians userpt the Constitution constantly. Do you really believe that "God" in the pledge or on the money is inclusive? Hell no, it was strictly done by Christians to promote Christianity, which is supposed to be banned by the First Amendment.

There certainly is a difference of motives and certainly people can celebrate Christmas without religious motives. Again, not our argument. If you think outside the words of the Constitution, that you can do equally to the same level of display on government property as Christians get away with far too much, try setting up a Ramadan display of equal size on a government lawn and watch the hypoctrites bitch about it.

[Something completely different]

The Christmas bit in the OP reminded me of some Muslims who devise fatwas on why Muslims shouldn't say "Merry Christmas" to anyone. But to me, it's almost the same as saying "Happy Birthday," "Happy Mother's Day," "Happy New Year" and so on.

The important thing to understand is that people have different reasons for celebrating Christmas and the same applies to saying "Merry Christmas" (depending on whatever their beliefs are). Some atheists, for example, I think celebrate Christmas only as a cultural/social part of their lives, i.e. as a chance to meet each other, have parties, drink, dance, go outside, etc. That's why they are not against saying the phrase "Merry Christmas" either.

Today, Christmas is not exclusively a religious holiday although I do believe that it was originally a religious (and possibly a pagan) holiday as opposed to a cultural one.

Most importent of all, everyone defines what is "christmasy" for themselves. To me it sounds not just intrusive and rude but almoust authoritarian to tell people who they should name their holiday, how they should great people on that holiday and how to celebrate their holiday.

When I hear this people speak it remindes me of a german comedy scetch from the 1950s in which the east german way of "in a friendly way" forcing it`s people to celebrate the first of may (workers day) is parodied.

[thesummerqueen]

I've met Dave Silverman. He's a really nice guy. Obviously you can tell because he is very patient when handling these FOXnews cocksuckers. But anyway, I was just in awe of the level of disrespect these assholes showed Dave.

I was lucky enough to have drinks with him when he was down here in Charlotte for the DNC. He's exceptional and very patient. Personally, he shows about 100x more restraint than I would in that situation. My boyfriend saw the video and said "Good on him - I'd have flipped that desk over on him, and I'm not a violent man."

[Angrboda]

Silverman is in a difficult and demanding position as a spokesperson for an organization which represents a hated minority, and devotes much of its time to interposing themselves between those who seek to oppress that minority. That he's out there, and the specific content of his advocacy, are strongly determined by that role. Having served on a board of directors before, I understand how such a role both limits what you can say, how you can say it, and also what you need to say, whether you're into it or not. (i.e. The Show Must Go On) I haven't seen much of him, but he seems to do a very credible job of abetting that role. But just as Bill O'Reilly plays a role for his own purposes, I think you need to separate the role from the man. (Continuing this analogy, Silverman plays that role because he's a tireless defender of a minority. Which, I guess in its own right, is exactly what Bill O'Reilly does; he's a tireless defender of the interests of a minority: himself.)

The only time I've seen Silverman at any great length was at an American Atheists conference, and he seemed fairly relaxed there, but there were still elements of the politician in evidence, even among an auditorium full of like-minded people. I admire anyone who takes on a role such as that, and does it well. Silverman isn't a genius, but he does very well.

[Faith No More]

He did a good job in that interview, and held his composure when the host was clearly trying to antagonize him. The host want him to get riled up, so he could say, "Look at the angry atheist!"

That's the second time I've seen that guy interview Silverman, and he was a condescending prick both times.