Fox News Again

[SkyMutt]

To me, the phrase "War on Christmas" is a fatuous rhetorical conceit, the same as "War on Poverty," War on Drugs," and "War on Terrorism." I don't buy into any of those, and find the way that they cheapen the true horror of war to be rather repugnant. When Bozo O'Reilly and the other buffoons at Fox first started their pet meme, I found it mildly amusing, but it's gone past tiresome right to the same level as the rest of the content there--unadulterated dross. I say that as somebody who is a fairly regular viewer of Fox News.

As far as Silverman goes, I accept that he's a nice fellow in person. However, I don't admire his willingness to cater to the Fox News crowd, appearing on their broadcasts apparently nearly any time they want. I think there's a reason they like to have him on, and it's because while he's fairly articulate, in his appearances he often seems to fit the stereotype of the somewhat smug, overbearing and self-important atheist. He plays right into their narrative.

I find pretty much all of the signs that his organization puts up to be lame--both the graphics and the content. Once again, they seem to go out of their way to enhance the stereotype of the smug, obnoxious atheist who repays intolerance with intolerance.

[Brian37]

To me, the phrase "War on Christmas" is a fatuous rhetorical conceit, the same as "War on Poverty," War on Drugs," and "War on Terrorism." I don't buy into any of those, and find the way that they cheapen the true horror of war to be rather repugnant. When Bozo O'Reilly and the other buffoons at Fox first started their pet meme, I found it mildly amusing, but it's gone past tiresome right to the same level as the rest of the content there--unadulterated dross. I say that as somebody who is a fairly regular viewer of Fox News.

As far as Silverman goes, I accept that he's a nice fellow in person. However, I don't admire his willingness to cater to the Fox News crowd, appearing on their broadcasts apparently nearly any time they want. I think there's a reason they like to have him on, and it's because while he's fairly articulate, in his appearances he often seems to fit the stereotype of the somewhat smug, overbearing and self-important atheist. He plays right into their narrative.

I find pretty much all of the signs that his organization puts up to be lame--both the graphics and the content. Once again, they seem to go out of their way to enhance the stereotype of the smug, obnoxious atheist who repays intolerance with intolerance.

I disagree, I am thrilled when atheists go over there and take them on. It shows possible closet atheists that they don't have to hide, and it also can potentially appeal to the more moderate or non religious economic people who watch that channel.

But if you think it is all "dross", which it is, then why are you a regular viewer?

It is easy to stay on your home field and pat like minded people on the back. I welcome atheists taking the free market battle to them. I do not think it makes us look "smug", even if that might be the goal of the host.

[SkyMutt]

. . .

But if you think it is all "dross", which it is, then why are you a regular viewer?

Fox News shapes (and reflects) the opinions of a sizable segment of American society. I like to have some idea of what's in the minds of those around me. Also, Fox News can be entertaining if one approaches it as a venue for comedy.

It is easy to stay on your home field and pat like minded people on the back. I welcome atheists taking the free market battle to them. I do not think it makes us look "smug", even if that might be the goal of the host.

I'm all for joining in the free market of ideas, and atheists getting onto the airwaves, even at a place like Fox.

Edit: What I find disagreeable is the "character" that Silverman has adopted for his appearances on Fox, assuming that such is the case. I suppose I can't really fault him for apparently jumping at any and every chance to get his face on national television--it's probably in his job description. I still don't admire what I see as a willingness to pander to that network.

[thesummerqueen]

You're arguing from the point of fairness, Rayaan, not from the point of view of most of the people who put up Christmas displays.

Well yeah, I'm arguing from my own point of view. So what?

There's nothing wrong with your view, sweetheart. We're only pointing out that most of the people who insist on putting up Christmas displays don't do it to celebrate diversity. They do it because they think we're dirty atheists, and you're a terrorist muslim and we better be taught how civilized people act by having a glowing baby Jesus right in our faces. And if you tried to celebrate diversity by having a different display up as well, then you're demoralizing America and persecuting them.

[Cato]

Fuck the war on Christmas. I enjoy Christmas too much to allow it to be ruined by 'jesus is the reason for the season' bullshit. This is why I recommend that everyone has some Gary Hoey on hand for the holidays. If you're not familar, go to YouTube and search for 'gary hoey christmas' and enjoy.

[Brian37]

Well yeah, I'm arguing from my own point of view. So what?

There's nothing wrong with your view, sweetheart. We're only pointing out that most of the people who insist on putting up Christmas displays don't do it to celebrate diversity. They do it because they think we're dirty atheists, and you're a terrorist muslim and we better be taught how civilized people act by having a glowing baby Jesus right in our faces. And if you tried to celebrate diversity by having a different display up as well, then you're demoralizing America and persecuting them.

Yea, that about sums it up. We don't even care if they put a baby Jesus on their front lawn of a private home on private property, or on a lawn of a church. But when they insist on doing it on public property, you will see how hypocritical they become if you do it too displaying your own positions.

Saying "you let it all in, or agree to keep that public venue neutral" is not an attack on their rights. There is plenty of private property(which does not mean out of view) just merely not on the government dime.

[Rayaan]

There's nothing wrong with your view, sweetheart.

Yess!

We're only pointing out that most of the people who insist on putting up Christmas displays don't do it to celebrate diversity.

Which is something I already know.

I said:

The important thing to understand is that people have different reasons for celebrating Christmas and the same applies to saying "Merry Christmas" [...]

Link to my post

They do it because they think we're dirty atheists, and you're a terrorist muslim and we better be taught how civilized people act by having a glowing baby Jesus right in our faces.

So ... per your comments above, Christians think that:

a) You guys are dirty atheists.
b) I'm a terrorist Muslim.
c) We better be taught how civilized people act.

Those are the actual and specific reasons that Christians put up Christmas displays?
[insert "Seriously?" meme here]

And if you tried to celebrate diversity by having a different display up as well, then you're demoralizing America and persecuting them.

You can't celebrate diversity itself. Celebrations are tied with certain events or dates.

I wasn't even arguing that diversity is the reason why anyone should put up religious displays. If you think that I implied that, then explain to me how or where I implied that. And that being said, I think it's totally fine to put up holiday displays just for the purpose of our own little celebrations - whether it is secular or religious - and not merely for the sake of "diversity." I never said that anywhere.

Let's look at my quote again:

I think that people should have at least some freedom to talk and display things that represent their religion or their lack thereof. Why not honor the diversity?

That comment was a general comment, but it doesn't mean "Hey, guys, let's all put up different displays on purpose just to create more diversity!"

Rather, I wrote that comment to mean more like - "People should have at least some freedom to talk and display things that represent their religion or their lack thereof (in terms of celebration), and everyone else should honor or respect those different celebrations." That is all. And you can disagree. I didn't precisely word it that way, but that is what I meant to say.

I made a similar comment in this post in a different thread.


Get it now?

[thesummerqueen]

Er, I think you're seeing an argument where there isn't one.

---

everyone else should honor or respect those different celebrations

This is the part of your posts that we're only stating that people who fight about this crap and claim there's a war on Christmas completely lack.

[Rayaan]

Er, I think you're seeing an argument where there isn't one.

Then what was the point of this post of yours, then?

Did you intend to tell me something that I didn't know, something that you disagree with, or to add something additional to my comments.

I'm just wondering why you would pick on the diversity thing the most out of my other statements in the same post.

everyone else should honor or respect those different celebrations

This is the part of your posts that we're only stating that people who fight about this crap and claim there's a war on Christmas completely lack.

I agree.

[Creed of Heresy]