............

[albeto.]

:iagree:

 

I never see any of that stuff where I live, but I wouldn't like any of the extremist messages, no matter which "side" they're coming from.

 

Believe what you want to believe, or don't believe in anything, but keep it to yourself. I don't need to hear about it.

 

Does that mean keeping cross necklaces at home? Not wearing yarmulkes in public? Keeping the hajib off? Jesus fish off the cars?

 

People express themselves in all kinds of ways. 

 

Or do you mean billboards and other advertisements? Because people do that to reach out to an intended audience. Or just "extreme" messages, in which case, where do you draw the line between "devout" and "extreme"? 

[Catwoman]

Does that mean keeping cross necklaces at home? Not wearing yarmulkes in public? Keeping the hajib off? Jesus fish off the cars?

 

People express themselves in all kinds of ways.

 

Or do you mean billboards and other advertisements? Because people do that to reach out to an intended audience. Or just "extreme" messages, in which case, where do you draw the line between "devout" and "extreme"?

I was just responding to the posts about the billboards. It would be very rare to see any kind of religious (or atheist) message on a billboard where we live.

 

In all honesty, I don't even notice what kind of jewelry a person is wearing or if they have a fish on the back of their car. And yarmulkes and hijabs are common, too, but no one seems to pay attention to those, either. People are pretty much "live and let live" around here.

[zoobie]

My favorite (sarcasm) area for billboards is along I-75 in south Georgia and north Florida. You get a wide variety of strip clubs, "massage" parlors, hellfiredamnation threats, and fetus pictures. When I see a whackadoodle billboard, I don't assume all [insert the vaguely-associated, larger group] believe whatever they're trying to sell. Similarly, I don't think all cows care whether you eat chikin.

[SKL]

Does that mean keeping cross necklaces at home? Not wearing yarmulkes in public? Keeping the hajib off? Jesus fish off the cars?

 

These symbols are either saying "this is important to me / makes me happy" or is entirely personal, not intended for others to notice in the first place.  Self-expression about one's own belief without reference to another person/group is something that should be tolerated/respected IMO.  When it starts to become a knock on someone else, that's when it crosses the line IMO.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Because of a comment you made earlier, in which you suggested putting the word "myth" over religious images is not respectful, or anti-religious. Because that's a billboard with limited space and time to make a point, I wonder if the concept of teaching a religious idea as mythological is itself disrespectful, or if it's disrespectful to teach the Christian religious idea is mythological.

 

That's what I'm trying to understand - where is the line drawn with regard to teaching facts and inappropriate offense. If it's a personal line, then perhaps you can see why others can't be expected to respect it, not because they don't respect you, but because it's the nature of the beast. To oppose a religious claim is bound to offend people who believe that claim, but it's not a matter of mockery or ridicule to oppose a religious claim. That's what I'm trying to say, and I wonder where we part ways with regard to this issue. 

 

let's look at the billboard again

 

 

 

What I asked was why using religious symbols was necessary. I understand the concept of limited space and wanting to make an impact (I did study journalism in college) My point is that if someone is asking for mutual respect and discourse then one would think the avoidance of any religious symbols would be more conducive to getting a point across.

 

I guess I don't believe that making a fast impact is always the wisest choice, that when one chooses to  rely on offense in order to be succinct then one has taken the "low road." There are different lines of thought on that issue but that happens to be mine.  

[Slartibartfast]

My favorite (sarcasm) area for billboards is along I-75 in south Georgia and north Florida. You get a wide variety of strip clubs, "massage" parlors, hellfiredamnation threats, and fetus pictures. When I see a whackadoodle billboard, I don't assume all [insert the vaguely-associated, larger group] believe whatever they're trying to sell. Similarly, I don't think all cows care whether you eat chikin.

 

 

There is a rather large damnation billboard near the SC/NC border right before a XXX superstore. It's awkward. :lol:

[DragonFaerie]

Seriously, I adore you.  You need to stop being so awesome or my brain is going to explode.  I agree with absolutely everything.  I don't know if the person I'm speaking to celebrates Christmas, Hanukkah, Solstice, Yule or whatever.  They don't know what I celebrate.  I'm just pleased that someone takes a moment to wish me a pleasant holiday.  Goodness knows we need all the wishes we can get during this insane time of the year.  

 

61 posts before anyone mentioned Solstice or Yule.  Thank you for including them. :-)

[unsinkable]

Oh! I just thought of something.........who was saying they didn't like the lack of Christ in the play based on The Little House books?

 

The focus, in the books, was indeed Santa Claus (dear Edwards!) and not Jesus. If the play just had a bible-looking book laying around it would be as true to the story as it could possibly be.

Nobody was saying she didn't like the lack of Christ in the play.

 

I said this:

 

We went to a professional children's theatre production of a Little House of the Prairie Christmas. It never once mentioned Jesus or the birth of Jesus. I'm pretty sure the Ingalls were not celebrating a secular Christmas so I can't figure out why there was no mention of Jesus at all.

But thanks for the answer. I haven't read the most of the books in a while.

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

I passed by too many posts about hate crimes to pick just one, but here are some real numbers, not from Fox, not from MSNBC, but from the FBI:

 

2012 cumulative religious hate crimes:

 

Of the 1,340 victims of an anti-religious hate crime:

• 62.4 percent were victims of an offender’s anti-Jewish bias.
• 11.6 percent were victims of an anti-Islamic bias.
• 7.5 percent were victims of a bias against groups of individuals of varying religions (anti-multiple religions, group).
• 6.4 percent were victims of an anti-Catholic bias.
• 2.6 percent were victims of an anti-Protestant bias.
• 0.9 percent were victims of an anti-Atheist/Agnostic bias.
• 8.6 percent were victims of a bias against other religions (anti-other religion). 

 

(Original data table)

 

So, yeah.  War on Christmas?  Well, it does sell ad space, doesn't it?  We still have another two-ish months before the next debt ceiling fight, so I suppose it's a worthy, if largely fabricated diversion.  Meanwhile, actual victims of antisemitism are to be forgiven their collective eye rolls. 

 

 

[TracyP]

These symbols are either saying "this is important to me / makes me happy" or is entirely personal, not intended for others to notice in the first place.  Self-expression about one's own belief without reference to another person/group is something that should be tolerated/respected IMO.  When it starts to become a knock on someone else, that's when it crosses the line IMO.

 

 

Not always. I attended a church that encouraged the congregants to wear/use these symbols as a form of evangelism.

[justasque]

I was looking for some kind of Christian-themed wrapping paper. I wasn't picky, but I didn't want santas or snowmen.  We looked at Walmart, Target, Kohl's, Michael's.  Target had ONE--I can't remember exactly what it was, because it didn't work for what I needed.  I went to a Christian bookstore to find it.

 

 

A couple of years ago I was looking for a pair of Christmas pajamas.  I was hoping for something with giant Santas, or Penguins with Christmas hats, or something else very showy and kitschy.  (It was for a stage costume.)  I found that the entire genre seemed to have disappeared.  The reason was that pajamas with a specifically Christmas theme had no selling power if they were left over after Christmas, but something like a green plaid, or blue with snowflakes, could still be sold at more-or-less full price after December 25.  Stores were getting much more careful about their inventory for the Christmas season, so as not to be left with unsellable goods afterwards.

 

Similarly, wrapping paper with trees or snowflakes or red plaid can work for a variety of winter holidays, and appeal to a variety of customers regardless of exactly how they celebrate.  Specifically Christian wrapping paper has a smaller audience of potential customers.  The whole business model of big box stores is to stock those items which have the widest possible appeal, across a diverse geographical and cultural swath of the country.  

 

Often these business decisions have very little to do with any religious or philosophical stance, they're really all about the money.  Which is not, in and of itself, a bad thing.  However, it's also why, if you want your particular belief or philosophy represented in the marketplace, you should strongly consider supporting those businesses which cater specifically to your niche in the marketplace, even if you end up spending more on your wrapping paper.  NOT in the negative sense of purposely boycotting the big box stores or complaining that they don't cater to whatever your market niche is, but in the positive sense of making a point of supporting the businesses that support and cater to your (religious/philosophical/cultural) community.

[Guest]

So, I keep hearing about this "war on Christmas" and the secularizing of Christmas, blah blah blah pretty often, and I just don't get it.

 

We are Christian, Libertarians, kinda middle of the road- a few steps toward the right, but still definitely in the middle.

 

I just don't get what everyone is whining about.

 

We live in Maryland- pretty liberal state. We live close to DC and go there very often. So far, we went to a Christmas parade in Alexandria where they played Christmas carols and shouted "Merry Christmas" -even had signs and stuff. And Santa pulled up the rear in a convertable.

 

We went to an Army band Christmas concert where many Christmas songs, several of them were extremely religious, were sang/played.

 

There are Messiah concerts at The National Cathedral, The Naval Academy, and many others.

 

We saw the Nativity Scene at the National Christmas Tree.

 

We went to the ice! exhibit at the National Harbor and there was a whole room that contained a GORGEOUS Nativity scene made out of ice- and the (biblical) Christmas story was being piped in over head. We also saw a light show in the lobby that played Handels Messiah.

 

Every time we go to a store, or out to eat, we are told Merry Christmas, or Happy Holidiays with a smile. And since Christmas IS one of the holidays being celebrated I respond with a "thank you", or "you too" or "Merry Christmas" and go on about my day.

 

Back to the Beginning with Christiane Amanpour was on CNN last night and it very respectfully talked about the Bible and Jesus, etc.

 

We see Nativity scenes in people's yards, etc. and since we go to church, we do advent stuff every week.

 

I just. do. not. understand. what all these people who are crying "War" are talking about.... I mean, is it different in other places? Are people really waging a hostile war on Christmas? I just don't get it! (And didn't want to vent on Facebook, where I "hear" most of this whining...)

I agree. And I live in Maryland. I haven't checked out the Ice! show, but that does sound amazing! 

 

Last night, I went to the Christmas Concert at my dd's private, Christian school. If anything, what I was musing at in my mind was that the stage is all "decked out for Christmas..." in all its pagan glory.  ;)  I love Christmas trees and holly garlands, so I'm not complaining, but the thought did enter my mind. A giant, wooden cross, flanked by two glorious pagan trees!  :p 

 

Also, it annoys me when people say this time of year is too crazy busy and there's too much to do. Who chooses to put these things on the "to do" list? Honestly - if you don't want to bake cookies, don't. If it's too much hassle putting up decorations, don't. If you don't want to send out 100 Christmas cards bragging about your amazing kids and wonderful vacation, don't. If you don't want to go to Aunt Maude's Christmas party, make plans with Amy on the farm that day.  ;)  

 

Some people just like to find something to whine about.  

[Jenny in Florida]

IMO, any of the groups run the risk of slipping into mockery when the focus shifts from their organization and what they espouse/do/etc to the practices of another group with whom they disagree. "He is Risen" is the first, "No, He's Not" is the second. All that tells me is that the second organization has so little good they can find to say about themselves that the only way they feel they can convey their message is to put down someone else, when what someone else believes/does/etc shouldn't really be their concern. If their primary focus is on what's wrong with everyone else, that's a sign of what's wrong with their group in my eyes and a reason to avoid them. Christian groups do this to other Christian groups, Neopagan groups do this to other Neopagan groups, political parties do this to other political parties, citizens of one country do this to citizens of other countries, etc. It's not appealing.

 

Yes, my favorite saying these days is, "Insecurity is loud, but confidence is silent." In other words (or at least as I interpret it), if you are sure you are right, there's no need to try shouting down the folks who disagree with you.

 

Personally, I am much more likely to be swayed by hearing someone speak articulately about what their group believes than I am being forced to listen to someone trying to prove why those who believe something different are wrong.

 

But that may be one reason I don't belong to a lot of groups.

[albeto.]

let's look at the billboard again

 

 

 

What I asked was why using religious symbols was necessary. I understand the concept of limited space and wanting to make an impact (I did study journalism in college) My point is that if someone is asking for mutual respect and discourse then one would think the avoidance of any religious symbols would be more conducive to getting a point across.

 

I guess I don't believe that making a fast impact is always the wisest choice, that when one chooses to  rely on offense in order to be succinct then one has taken the "low road." There are different lines of thought on that issue but that happens to be mine.  

 

So do I understand correctly that for you, the line between teaching facts and inappropriate offense is drawn at using religious imagery because that negates mutual respect and discourse? 

[redsquirrel]

Am I the only Christian who takes Happy Holidays to mean Happy Thanksgiving/Merry Christmas/Happy New Year? I start hearing it every year in November and it usually last until Jan 3rd or so.

 

I think it's a big fuss over nothing. Some people just aren't happy unless they are complaining.

 

And some get paid to talk on the TV machine so they can hear the sound of their own voices and get told that they are very, very important. And they sell books.

 

I think cashing the cheques from the TV station and the publisher is the part that makes them the happiest.

[Slartibartfast]

So do I understand correctly that for you, the line between teaching facts and inappropriate offense is drawn at using religious imagery because that negates mutual respect and discourse? 

 

 

I get that the Christian majority should expect to be the more popular target but it would probably be seen as less kind if it was attached to symbols of other faiths with plays on words in regard to their beliefs. Would it not?

 

In the US comments attacking Christianity aren't really seen as discriminatory because it is the majority and many people who hold that faith have made things difficult for those who do not share that faith.

 

I am not really bothered I am just presenting a different view. I do think they should not rely on cheap tricks but I am not worked up about it.

[Slartibartfast]

And some get paid to talk on the TV machine so they can hear the sound of their own voices and get told that they are very, very important. And they sell books.

 

I think cashing the cheques from the TV station and the publisher is the part that makes them the happiest.

 

 

The Little Red Hen is making the big bucks.

[Library Momma]

I passed by too many posts about hate crimes to pick just one, but here are some real numbers, not from Fox, not from MSNBC, but from the FBI:

 

2012 cumulative religious hate crimes:

 

Of the 1,340 victims of an anti-religious hate crime:

• 62.4 percent were victims of an offender’s anti-Jewish bias.
• 11.6 percent were victims of an anti-Islamic bias.
• 7.5 percent were victims of a bias against groups of individuals of varying religions (anti-multiple religions, group).
• 6.4 percent were victims of an anti-Catholic bias.
• 2.6 percent were victims of an anti-Protestant bias.
• 0.9 percent were victims of an anti-Atheist/Agnostic bias.
• 8.6 percent were victims of a bias against other religions (anti-other religion). 

 

(Original data table)

 

So, yeah.  War on Christmas?  Well, it does sell ad space, doesn't it?  We still have another two-ish months before the next debt ceiling fight, so I suppose it's a worthy, if largely fabricated diversion.  Meanwhile, actual victims of antisemitism are to be forgiven their collective eye rolls. 

 

 

See, It's a war on Hanukkah!

 

 

[Catwoman]

These symbols are either saying "this is important to me / makes me happy" or is entirely personal, not intended for others to notice in the first place.  Self-expression about one's own belief without reference to another person/group is something that should be tolerated/respected IMO.  When it starts to become a knock on someone else, that's when it crosses the line IMO.

 

:iagree:

 

I'm not about to get offended by anyone's choice of jewelry or head covering. Why would I care?

 

It would never have occurred to me that someone would wear a particular piece of jewelry as a way of evangelizing.

[KarenNC]

Not always. I attended a church that encouraged the congregants to wear/use these symbols as a form of evangelism.

 

I can see it. As St. Francis is reputed to have said, "Preach the Gospel at all times, and, when necessary, use words." One's behavior while wearing symbols associating one with a certain faith is a very powerful form of evangelism. It isn't, however, specifically proselytizing, so it's, IMO, much preferable. It's presumably an open invitation to anyone interested to ask more about one's religion, while not shoving it down their throats or attacking them in any way.

 

[Mrs Mungo]

No doubt, but this project is aimed towards an audience that doubts the faith they've been raised to just accept. It confirms and validates their skepticism.

 

In other words, it is proselytizing-sharing your deeply held beliefs and hoping to have others join in your fervor. I don't agree with hellfire billboards or billboards proclaiming religion to be myth, despite the fact that both sides have the right to put up such billboards.

[KarenNC]

So do I understand correctly that for you, the line between teaching facts and inappropriate offense is drawn at using religious imagery because that negates mutual respect and discourse?

 

The line is crossed when it goes from "teaching facts" to "deliberate provocation." Sorry, I don't see how that billboard teaches facts. It's purpose, by timing and imagery and word choice, is to stir up controversy and appeal to emotion, as most ad campaigns are.

 

Also, it is usually not helpful for one group to try to "teach facts" (as they understand them) about the beliefs of another group. It typically does not go well, in large part because Group 1 is not part of Group 2 and therefore likely to miss key elements. Do you find it particularly accurate or helpful to discourse and mutual respect when certain Christian groups "teach facts" about atheism?

[Mrs Mungo]

That's what I'm trying to understand - where is the line drawn with regard to teaching facts and inappropriate offense. If it's a personal line, then perhaps you can see why others can't be expected to respect it, not because they don't respect you, but because it's the nature of the beast. To oppose a religious claim is bound to offend people who believe that claim, but it's not a matter of mockery or ridicule to oppose a religious claim. That's what I'm trying to say, and I wonder where we part ways with regard to this issue.

You disagree that the billboard proclaiming one specific religion to be a myth is mockery? I think using religious imagery and pasting "myth" over it is obnoxious and mockery, no matter which religion is involved.

[TeacherZee]

My favorite (sarcasm) area for billboards is along I-75 in south Georgia and north Florida. You get a wide variety of strip clubs, "massage" parlors, hellfiredamnation threats, and fetus pictures. When I see a whackadoodle billboard, I don't assume all [insert the vaguely-associated, larger group] believe whatever they're trying to sell. Similarly, I don't think all cows care whether you eat chikin.

 

But...but...but...

 

Of COURSE cows care if you eat chikin!!!! They would also prefer it if you eat lamb or turkey ;)

[redsquirrel]

Am I the only Christian who takes Happy Holidays to mean Happy Thanksgiving/Merry Christmas/Happy New Year? I start hearing it every year in November and it usually last until Jan 3rd or so.

 

I think it's a big fuss over nothing. Some people just aren't happy unless they are complaining.

 

And some get paid to talk on the TV machine so they can hear the sound of their own voices and get told that they are very, very important. And they sell books.

 

I think cashing the cheques from the TV station and the publisher is the part that makes them the happiest.

[Guest]

And some get paid to talk on the TV machine so they can hear the sound of their own voices and get told that they are very, very important. And they sell books.

 

I think cashing the cheques from the TV station and the publisher is the part that makes them the happiest.

Now this, I have never seen! A duplicate post several posts apart from its twin? That is bizarre!

[redsquirrel]

Now this, I have never seen! A duplicate post several posts apart from its twin? That is bizarre!

 

Just another example of my finely honed ability to totally muck up any technology. If you build it, I can break it. I have made video games do things people have never seen before. It's a gift.

[albeto.]

I get that the Christian majority should expect to be the more popular target but it would probably be seen as less kind if it was attached to symbols of other faiths with plays on words in regard to their beliefs. Would it not?

I don't think it has anything to do with majority or popularity. After all, most people no long align themselves with the Tea Party, which is often and publicly challenged and even mocked and ridiculed, but they don't represent the majority. I think your next statement explains it better.

 

In the US comments attacking Christianity aren't really seen as discriminatory because it is the majority and many people who hold that faith have made things difficult for those who do not share that faith.

Yeah, okay, so is this a "war on..." or a "rebellion against..."

 

(psst, and also really difficult for people who do/did hold that faith ;))

 

I am not really bothered I am just presenting a different view. I do think they should not rely on cheap tricks but I am not worked up about it.

I totally get this. I've really enjoyed being able to talk with you about this! Thanks for answering my questions as they come up, and for contributing new ideas for me to ponder as well.

 

:)

[twoxcell]

Does anyone else have visions of giant army toys attacking a scene of Christmas trees, Santa, Stars, Angels, and Nativities when they read this topic heading? :leaving:  I think I need to go do something productive.

 

I did want to chime in and say thanks Milovany for sharing on this thread. I was hoping you would. :)

[LucyStoner]

The name "War on Christmas" reminds me of the media habit of naming small events or weather situations in order to hype it up. In my area we have some slight to moderate wind every year. I swear that they get their cameraman and reporter to whichever is the largest blown down tree limb and start blinking "Wind: 2001" on the bottom of the screen. Or "wind apocalypse 2007!!!" The titles just get amped up. Coming soon "The War on Trees". Because obviously wind blowing around a little and reminding people to call their tree service more often has to be an "event" and not just a passing news story. And clearly the wind is doing this to us ON PURPOSE!

[twoxcell]

 

The name "War on Christmas" reminds me of the media habit of naming small events or weather situations in order to hype it up. In my area we have some slight to moderate wind every year. I swear that they get their cameraman and reporter to whichever is the largest blown down tree limb and start blinking "Wind: 2001" on the bottom of the screen. Or "wind apocalypse 2007!!!" The titles just get amped up. Coming soon "The War on Trees". Because obviously wind blowing around a little and reminding people to call their tree service more often has to be an "event" and not just a passing news story.

This is so true every thing is the worst ever and way over blown.

[albeto.]

In other words, it is proselytizing-sharing your deeply held beliefs and hoping to have others join in your fervor. I don't agree with hellfire billboards or billboards proclaiming religion to be myth, despite the fact that both sides have the right to put up such billboards.

 

I don't agree that proselytizing is another word for what the AA organization did with that billboard. For one thing, proselytizing refers to converting one to a religion or belief system, and atheism is identified only by the lack of belief in god/s. For another thing, I interpret it in the same vain as seeing NOH8 images. We know they're dedicated to the LBGTQ, we know within our lifetime anyway someone who publicly identified as LGBTQ could expect to suffer social and possible criminal reprimands, we know people were afraid to share their identity of who they are in public. These billboards are a kind of shout-out to others who are in the same boat - part of a small, marginalized group in a sea of privilege directed against them (albeit to a less dangerous extent than LGBTQ persons). 

 

Further, the idea of warning people that hell exists (or hope against it, in Jesus Christ) is a claim based solely on faith. The idea that the nativity story of Jesus' birth is mythology is a claim based in fact (arguing the facts may be tempting, but the point is, this isn't a claim based on faith). This raises an important question: If a fact is offensive to people who hold a factually erroneous belief, does society have the moral obligation to censor itself for the sake of those who would be offended?

 

That the public has the right to make these claims, in public even, isn't really relevant to the conversation. That it's a matter of poor taste is an interesting side-line (I think). That it's an example of a supposed war on Christmas is the issue. 

[SKL]

I also think it is in very bad taste to put up an anti-[any religion] billboard designed in a way that is attractive to kids.  Even if you think Jesus is as real as Santa Claus, it's kinda rotten to tell other people's little kids that there is no Santa.  In my opinion.

[SunnyDays]

Maybe this whole problem would be solved if people just watched more Charlie Brown Christmas. Yeah, that's my answer and I am sticking to it. The answer is more Charlie Brown!

This is ALWAYS the best answer to any of life's big questions! ;)

[twoxcell]

 

This is ALWAYS the best answer to any of life's big questions! ;)

It airs Thursday night at 8 on ABC. I was getting worried since we had not seen it yet this year.

[SKL]

This raises an important question: If a fact is offensive to people who hold a factually erroneous belief, does society have the moral obligation to censor itself for the sake of those who would be offended?

 

 

Would it be OK for a billboard to show a big fat person in a bathing suit and say, "if your BMI is over ___, no, you are NOT beautiful, and you should be on a diet"?

 

 

[milovany]

I don't agree that proselytizing is another word for what the AA organization did with that billboard. For one thing, proselytizing refers to converting one to a religion or belief system, and atheism is identified only by the lack of belief in god/s. ....

 

A couple of things --

1) Atheism is a belief system.  You believe some things and you share those beliefs with others.  "Belief system" doesn't equal "faith-in-God system." 

2) You said yourself it was proselytization. Your words were "This advertisement is an invitation .... " which is what proselytization is, inviting someone to join your cause/beliefs.  The dictionary uses the word "recruit."  Inviting seems to be related to recruiting, no? 

 

You're just as evangelical with atheism as I am as a Christian, albeto.  And just as passionate about it. At least it comes across that way on the boards.  I don't know what you're like in real life.

 

Probably won't be able to reply, although you're welcome to!  We're off to get our Christmas tree this afternoon so we can put it up on Friday night upon the first mention of a tree in the liturgical services of the Church! 

 

:)

[*lifeoftheparty*]

.

[albeto.]

The line is crossed when it goes from "teaching facts" to "deliberate provocation." Sorry, I don't see how that billboard teaches facts. It's purpose, by timing and imagery and word choice, is to stir up controversy and appeal to emotion, as most ad campaigns are.

 

Also, it is usually not helpful for one group to try to "teach facts" (as they understand them) about the beliefs of another group. It typically does not go well, in large part because Group 1 is not part of Group 2 and therefore likely to miss key elements. Do you find it particularly accurate or helpful to discourse and mutual respect when certain Christian groups "teach facts" about atheism?

 

The idea about teaching facts wasn't directed toward the billboard, but toward teaching children (an earlier exchange between Sis and I). I don't think the function of that billboard was to teach anything but, like you say, to grab attention, as most ad campaigns are. 

 

I'm not sure what you mean by missing key elements of a faith when teaching facts. Either Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and a giant star shone over his birth place as the Christian faith has long taught, or he was not. That's not a key element of the faith, but a specific detail assumed to be true. I don't keep up with archaeological news by any means, but the last time I heard something about this, Bethlehem in Judaea (the accepted birth-place of Jesus) likely did not exist as a functioning town between 7 and 4 BCE, when Jesus is said to have been born. A virgin giving birth is an even more extraordinary claim that has no basis or support in fact. Clearly these are available for debate, and I won't defend or deny them in this thread, I only offer these points as examples of what I mean by teaching facts. 

 

In this context, teaching facts about the claims made by the Christian faith, in your opinion do you think it is disrespectful or offensive to share facts that do not corroborate the claims made? If these facts are eventually accepted by the historical community, would it be offensive to talk about them in earshot of those who still believe? Would this kind of thing constitute an example of waging a "war" on this faith?

[Mrs Mungo]

I don't agree that proselytizing is another word for what the AA organization did with that billboard. For one thing, proselytizing refers to converting one to a religion or belief system, and atheism is identified only by the lack of belief in god/s.

For people who bother to buy a billboard proclaiming their lack of faith? I think it's pretty clear that their lack of belief is a deeply held belief that they want to share with others. Putting down others while promoting your own beliefs=proselytizing, IMO, you certainly aren't required to agree.

 

 

For another thing, I interpret it in the same vain as seeing NOH8 images.

I completely disagree. Putting down a belief just because someone holds it is much different than promoting equality. I think putting down belief systems is actually intended to promote intolerance, not tolerance. Understand, I *don't* agree that there is a "war on Christmas" or anything like that. But, I cannot agree that these things are in any way equivalent.

 

 

We know they're dedicated to the LBGTQ, we know within our lifetime anyway someone who publicly identified as LGBTQ could expect to suffer social and possible criminal reprimands, we know people were afraid to share their identity of who they are in public. These billboards are a kind of shout-out to others who are in the same boat - part of a small, marginalized group in a sea of privilege directed against them (albeit to a less dangerous extent than LGBTQ persons).

You don't have to put down or marginalize another group in order to make your group "more equal."

 

 

Further, the idea of warning people that hell exists (or hope against it, in Jesus Christ) is a claim based solely on faith. The idea that the nativity story of Jesus' birth is mythology is a claim based in fact (arguing the facts may be tempting, but the point is, this isn't a claim based on faith).

It's based on faith or lack thereof, but you cannot prove God doesn't exist any more than someone can prove God does. Neither is a *fact* in the truest sense of the word.

 

 

This raises an important question: If a fact is offensive to people who hold a factually erroneous belief, does society have the moral obligation to censor itself for the sake of those who would be offended?

Because neither of the belief systems (a belief that God does exist versus a firmly held belief that God does not exist) are *fact*, then I think there *is* a moral obligation not to be obnoxious. I don't make fun of people who believe in other forms of spirituality that I don't nor do I feel the need to advertise my belief they are wrong on a billboard.

 

 

That the public has the right to make these claims, in public even, isn't really relevant to the conversation. That it's a matter of poor taste is an interesting side-line (I think). That it's an example of a supposed war on Christmas is the issue.

I don't think there is a "war on Christmas" but I believe *those sorts of Atheists* (not all sorts) are fighting to marginalize Christians instead of fighting to make everyone equal.

[Guest]

The name "War on Christmas" reminds me of the media habit of naming small events or weather situations in order to hype it up. In my area we have some slight to moderate wind every year. I swear that they get their cameraman and reporter to whichever is the largest blown down tree limb and start blinking "Wind: 2001" on the bottom of the screen. Or "wind apocalypse 2007!!!" The titles just get amped up. Coming soon "The War on Trees". Because obviously wind blowing around a little and reminding people to call their tree service more often has to be an "event" and not just a passing news story. And clearly the wind is doing this to us ON PURPOSE!

 

Totally true. Dh and I were just talking about this, since the meteorologists are apparently now naming everything that exists. 

"Winter Storm Electra!" wth? We get a couple inches of snow and we have already made it up to "E"? And the more they hype it, the more the grocery stores look like we're preparing for Y2K. It's just bread, people. You'll make it a couple of days.  :glare:

[MFG]

Would it be OK for a billboard to show a big fat person in a bathing suit and say, "if your BMI is over ___, no, you are NOT beautiful, and you should be on a diet"?

 

 

Totally unrelated but on the highway near here there is a billboard for the local sex toy chain. It shows a woman in a sexy Santa suit. The trouble is, she is wearing long red gloves and the way she is posed makes here look twice as big as she really is. Dh and I both looked and said, "Why do they have a fat chick on their billboard?" It doesn't look to me like a successful advertising campaign.

[SKL]

 

 

In this context, teaching facts about the claims made by the Christian faith, in your opinion do you think it is disrespectful or offensive to share facts that do not corroborate the claims made? If these facts are eventually accepted by the historical community, would it be offensive to talk about them in earshot of those who still believe? Would this kind of thing constitute an example of waging a "war" on this faith?

 

Obviously any adult of any faith is aware that faith is unproven and unprovable and goes against hard, cold facts.  I can't imagine any benefit to be gained by telling someone that there is no proof that angels sang in the sky that night.  It would come across as baiting at best, which is not a great conversational technique if you care to have any kind of relationship with the person.

 

I mean, do you go up to people and say "you're fat.  You're old.  You're dumb.  You're clumsy."  Do you really help a person by stating the obvious?  Do you go up to children practicing a sport and say "give up, you'll never be any good"?  How about patients diagnosed with terminal cancer - do you say "it's pretty dumb of you to talk about the future like you're gonna be here."  How about, "your child is dying, why don't you get on with the funeral plans instead of trying another procedure?

[albeto.]

You disagree that the billboard proclaiming one specific religion to be a myth is mockery? I think using religious imagery and pasting "myth" over it is obnoxious and mockery, no matter which religion is involved.

 

The bible warns against "false prophets."  In your opinion, warning is okay as long as it's not proclaiming the false prophet to be a myth? Or only in public? As an advertisement? What about the religions we have collectively identified as being mythology only, like the Greek and Norse gods?  I'm not sure what the difference is other than it hits a personal nerve. I don't mean to tease you about this, but I'm trying to understand your opinion as to where the line is drawn, with all things being equal; what's not okay in either direction. 

[albeto.]

Would it be OK for a billboard to show a big fat person in a bathing suit and say, "if your BMI is over ___, no, you are NOT beautiful, and you should be on a diet"?

 

 

Beautiful cannot be determined by facts, but is a subjective opinion. I saw a sign over a gym (through my facebook feed) that read something like, "Fat and Ugly? Join Our Gym and Just Be Ugly."

 

So, yeah, I think this kind of idea gets a pass, generally speaking. 

[SKL]

Beautiful cannot be determined by facts, but is a subjective opinion. I saw a sign over a gym (through my facebook feed) that read something like, "Fat and Ugly? Join Our Gym and Just Be Ugly."

 

So, yeah, I think this kind of idea gets a pass, generally speaking. 

 

In my opinion, beauty is also a matter of faith/hope for some people.

[Mom in High Heels]

Well dang I wanna come. I need a drink like nobody's business! ;-p

 

Absolutely, but we must leave out all discussions that will set the drinks on fire.  Unless of course you like flaming drinks.  I find them scary.

 

I certainly am open to being wrong.

 

But wasn't the date of Christmas not Jesus' birthday at all, but made to coincide with the pagan holiday of winter solstice?   Was there a Christmas tree and gift giving in the early church?

 

Can you please point me to something that says otherwise?  All my google searches are telling me that the early church did not celebrate Christmas.

 

This.  The tree is certainly a pagan tradition.  Romans celebrated Saturnalia predates Christianity by a long time.  Mithra was celebrated in Persia long before Christianity, during December.  His associated to a Roman god, called the Unconquerable Sun, who was celebrated on Dec. 25th.

 

That reminds me. I love the Persian tradition of saving a watermelon in straw to eat on Yalda (winter solstice).  It's a reminder of summer to come on one of the longest, coldest nights of the year.  Way cool IMHO.

 

WHAT?  This is super clever.  How does that work?  How do they save it?

 

We love Christmas at our house.

 

BEST DAY OF THE YEAR!!! :hurray:

 

Other people can have all the "wars" they want about it, but it's not going to have any effect on the way we celebrate.

 

My son knows the Christian part of Christmas, but we mainly do the big, flashy commercialized version with lots of decorations and tons of presents.

 

It's fun. :)

 

Us too.  We study Jesus as a historical figure, because he was alive and had a peaceful, loving message (something many Christians should remember), but not as a holy entity.  With regards to religion, we treat Christianity just like we treat the ancient Greek, Roman, Persian, etc. religions.

 

And yet our faith sees it the other way around (see linked article referenced above).  It doesn't matter to me how/why/if people celebrate Christmas.  But our reasons, as Orthodox Christians, for choosing to are not based on pagan practices.  At all. 

 

Your personal celebrations may not be based on actual pagan practices, but if you use many of the popular symbols, then you are using aspects of the pagan religion.

 

Why would Percy Jackson ridicule Poseidon? That's his father.

 

I think she meant the book Percy Jackson, not the character, being based on the Greek gods.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

I wanted to like this, but apparently I am already out of Likes for the day.

 

 

You LIKE wh*re!

 

61 posts before anyone mentioned Solstice or Yule.  Thank you for including them. :-)

 

No worries!  I was rather surprised that they hadn't been mentioned before.  They are holidays, IMO.  Granted, they aren't exactly mainstream, but there are people who celebrate them.

 

 

I do not like the Atheist or the Christian billboards.  I think they're both trying to incite "the other side," but as they too are allowed freedom of speech, I generally ignore them or just roll my eyes when I see them.

[TracyP]

It airs Thursday night at 8 on ABC. I was getting worried since we had not seen it yet this year.

 

It aired a couple weeks ago, but we missed it the first time around. You just made my day. :)

[HS Mom in NC]

I'm a conservative Christian and a registered Libertarian who celebrates Christmas as a religious holiday and family celebration knowing full well there are no Biblical commands to do so-it's completely optional.   I have no problem at all with other people celebrating Christmas as a secular, cultural, or family celebration. I would have to be clinically insane to expect non-believers to celebrate Christmas as a religious holiday.

I don't see a war on Christmas.  I see the individuals in US becoming increasingly secular. So what? I think some professing Christians are having a very hard time with that cultural shift and frankly, some are throwing fits about it. I'm often stunned by people who are religious being upset when non-religious people openly and passionately disagree with their views. Imagine! Some non-believers don't just sit silently and passively by when the topic of religion comes up!

 

Unless your civil rights have been violated, I won't listen your whining. I've actually read Foxe's Book of Martyrs, so I know what a real Christian martyr looks like. Someone arguing with your speech is NOT the same as your freedom of speech being violated no matter the topic. I haven't seen one in the US yet-please provide links if you have them.

 

I don't want the government involved in what people wear in public as long as their clothing covers their g3nitals and breasts. (Breastfeeding in public is OK with me.)  Do I think there are things that do cover the g3nitals and breasts that are inappropriate? Yes.  Do I want government intervention?  No.

 

As a Christian I'm shocked how many people are offended by "The Holidays" as opposed to "Christmas." From the way I see it ,God really did perform a miracle that we now remember as Hanukkah (happening between the time the OT ended and the NT began) and Jesus is really God in human flesh.  Both those holidays celebrated historically bring glory to the God that I worship.  How could anyone be offended by giving Him full credit for BOTH?

Would I be offended if a Jew said, "Happy Hanukkah!" to me?  Of course not.  I think people being polite and kind should be responded to with genuine appreciation. If a Muslim said something roughly equivalent to that about a holiday they celebrate, again, I wouldn't be at all offended or upset.  If you expect people to not be offended by your "Merry Christmas!" then don't whine about their "Happy/Merry/Good/Joyous _______________________!" Does that mean I'm soft of doctrine?  Absolutely not.  I'm just civil and socially competent. 

 

Let's remember that Proverbs tell us, " A wise man over looks and insult." (Real or perceived.) And Paul told us it's the weaker brother who takes offense.  Don't volunteer to be foolish or weak.

 

 

[albeto.]

A couple of things --

1) Atheism is a belief system.  You believe some things and you share those beliefs with others.  "Belief system" doesn't equal "faith-in-God system."

Almost. Atheism is, by definition, the lack of belief in a god or gods. Full stop. The words are directly descended from the Greek "a" meaning without, and "theos" meaning god. Any shared belief is in addition to that, and is therefore separate from the identity of atheist. Rosie identifies herself as an atheist pagan. For the life of me, I can't figure that out, but I trust she knows what she's talking about! ;) ) She's an atheist (does not hold a belief in a god or gods) and so am I. In that, we have a commonality. Beyond that, her beliefs differ from mine. Ergo, we do not share the same belief system (sorry to pick on you, Rosie! I'll get yer drink next, okay?). I agree with you that belief system doesn't equal "faith-in-God" system. One can have a belief system predicated on the claims of astronomy, no belief in a god or gods necessary. But atheism in and of itself simply refers to the lack of belief in a god or gods. There's nothing more to the definition of atheism, even if atheists share different belief systems.

 

2) You said yourself it was proselytization. Your words were "This advertisement is an invitation .... " which is what proselytization is, inviting someone to join your cause/beliefs.  The dictionary uses the word "recruit."  Inviting seems to be related to recruiting, no?

Your first premise is flawed, which makes this one irrelevant (I don't mean to sound mean, just factual). There's no more cause or belief in lacking a belief in a god or gods than there is a cause or belief lacking a belief in the power of Saturn in the winter sky, or a lack of belief in leprechauns.

 

You're just as evangelical with atheism as I am as a Christian, albeto.  And just as passionate about it. At least it comes across that way on the boards.  I don't know what you're like in real life.

Respectfully, your perception of my intent is based on misunderstandings and faulty ideas. My personal opinions about religion and its effect on individuals and societies are my beliefs based on conclusions made from arguments presented. The arguments I present, support, or challenge on this forum are based, to the best of my ability, on information and a critical analysis of that information One of the reasons I enjoy this format is because I get more information! But I have no motivation to convert anyone to any community of like-minded believers-in-something.

 

Probably won't be able to reply, although you're welcome to!  We're off to get our Christmas tree this afternoon so we can put it up on Friday night upon the first mention of a tree in the liturgical services of the Church! 

 

:)

When I was first married, my mother in law would put up the Christmas tree on Christmas Eve and I never understood why. Well, she's Catholic and I grew up in a Quaker home. Only once I joined and embraced the Catholic faith did I understand the liturgical calendar, and the sweet joy of seeing the Christmas tree decorated on Christmas morning, the first day of Christmas in the Catholic calendar. So enjoy! I know you'll savor this experience with your family. :)