[NeedKarma]

1] why don't the atheists try to pull that crap in Iran or Pakistan or Indonesia or Saudi Arabia and lets see what kind of reception they get.

Autocratic theocracy.

[jillianleab]

1] why don't the atheists try to pull that crap in Iran or Pakistan or Indonesia or Saudi Arabia and lets see what kind of reception they get.

You know... a statement like that could easily be interpreted as you wishing harm upon those who are different that you. Not very Christ-like, if you ask me

[Synnen]

1] why don't the atheists try to pull that crap in Iran or Pakistan or Indonesia or Saudi Arabia and lets see what kind of reception they get.

Those countries weren't founded with the idea of Freedom of Religion, or the separation of church and state.

Apples to oranges there.

And really---CHRISTIANS wouldnt' get a very good reception in any of those countries, either. Especially since they (the Christians) tend to be very vocal about pushing their belief system on others.

[speechlesstx]

And really---CHRISTIANS wouldnt' get a very good reception in any of those counries, either. Especially since they (the Christians) tend to be very vocal about pushing their belief system on others.

When was the last time a Christian "pushed" their beliefs on you? Anyone? I don't go around "pushing" my beliefs on anyone, I can't think of a single friend among the hundreds of Christians I know that "pushes" their belief systems on others. A nativity scene likewise does not "push" Christianity on others, it's a symbol, it's passive and harmless. The atheist sign is not a symbol, it's openly hostile to religion.

[Synnen]

Oh really? Harmless?

What pagan traditions do you celebrate in your home every year, calling them "Christmas" holidays? Do you even KNOW?

And the whole "In God We Trust" on our money isn't pushing someone's religion on me? What about "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance?

I'll give you a perfect example: I am openly pagan. I am happy with my religion, and completely believe it. I have never made it through a MONTH without someone asking me if I believe in Jesus, or telling me that I'll go to hell, or that I'll be cursed. I've never made it through the holidays without people calling me a hypocrite for celebrating "Christmas", but have been literally spat upon for pointing out that Christmas borrowed almost all of its traditions from other religions--religions that they (the Christians) burned people at the stake for believing.

I have been shunned at work gatherings once people find out my religion. I've been called a baby-sacrificer, a devil-worshipper, a witch, an evil spellcaster, and just plain evil. I've had people spit on me, and throw stones at me, and leave me hate notes. I've had my pagan symbols stolen from my car, or had them defaced.

I've had my religious rites interrupted by people with no respect for them. I've had decapitated rats left outside my front door with notes that stated that if I didn't repent and choose Jesus, I'd see worse.

And, to the best of my knowledge, all of those things were done by Christians. I certainly can't see Muslims or Jews doing it, anyway. Maybe Atheists did it--I don't know for sure--but I somehow doubt it because atheists tend to be a lot more tolerant than Christians.

It was a sign, passive. It wasn't hurting anyone who really had faith. It was a declaration of a belief, just as the nativity was a declaration of belief---just as the sign down the street that says "Jesus is Lord" is a belief.

And Christians responded---not by turning the other cheek and offering love to those who didn't agree with them (which, really, is what Jesus would have done), but by stealing the sign (breaking one of their own Ten Commandments), screaming "hate" when it was just a statement of belief, and basically attacking the atheists, who until that point had just put up a sign that stated their beliefs.

If that sign were TRULY an offense to all religions, why as EVERYTHING I've seen that cries "offense!" been from Christians? Why aren't the pagans and Muslims and Jews and Satanists all screaming "foul!" right along with them, if it were an attach on "religion"?

Probably because this is a tempest in a teacup, and the only people offended are those that are offended simply because they don't have a monopoly on the holiday season anymore.

[Skell]

C'mon Steve... Father Chuck spruiks here all the time that it is a Christians job to spread the word of the Lord and anyone who does not accept him will not be saved blah blah blah... You may not personally push it on people Steve (not directly anyway) but your religion certainly does. To deny that is ignorance to the extreme.

If a simple sign causes this much angst over there than you guys really are a helluva lot more divided than you try and make the rest of the world believe.

[speechlesstx]

Synnen, there's no accounting for idiots like that of any persuasion, and most Christians do not go out of their way to confront others like that. In fact I'd say the majority of Christians in this country rarely if ever talk about their faith with others, and any that don't take the time to care about who they're talking to regardless of their faith or lack of it have seriously missed the boat on what Christianity is about.

I'll grant you this, nobody said we had the right to not be offended and that goes for both of us. You choose what offends you just as we do, but we can argue the same to you. "In God we trust" and one nation "under God" isn't really hurting anyone either if they're secure in their beliefs. I've already said I have no problem with them having "a place at the table" as they said, but you can't whitewash the fact that the sign is an openly hostile anti-religious statement. There's nothing about it that fits your description of the season as being about "goodwill and generosity," "spreading love instead of hate" or "kindness instead of pettyness." "

[Skell]

"In God we trust" and one nation "under God" isn't really hurting anyone either if they're secure in their beliefs.

Just the same that a gift certificate to PP shouldn't offend Christians if they are secure in their beliefs..

No??

[inthebox]

Autocratic theocracy.

Exactly. The fact that atheists can have the right to free expression, offending whoever, is proof that the US is NOT a theocracy despite the atheist paranoia.

The challenge to atheists about spreading their gospel and belief that god does not exist, in Iran or Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, is the fact that atheists know they can take advantage of the US legal system to spread their own gospel. The stereotype is that we Christians are intolerant bigoted hate mongers, but the proof is that they can do this here in this country because they know Christians are not intolerant or hate mongers or bigots. If this were a Christian autocratic theocracy, then the consequences for what they attempt, would be no different than in Iran or Pakistan or Saudi Arabia.





g&p

[speechlesstx]

C'mon Steve..... Father Chuck spruiks here all the time that it is a Christians job to spread the word of the Lord and anyone who does not accept him will not be saved blah blah blah..... You may not personally push it on people Steve (not directly anyway) but your religion certainly does. To deny that is ignorance to the extreme.

If a simple sign causes this much angst over there than you guys really are a helluva lot more divided than you try and make the rest of the world believe.

It's really very simple Skell, we are to 'offer' our faith to others, we are to give a 'testimony' of our faith, we are to lovingly 'encourage' others to believe, but in spite of what 'some' do we were never commissioned to "push" our beliefs on others and whether we do or not has nothing to do with our salvation no matter what Father Chuck says. I am in no way suffering from denial, but I do think all this talk about "pushing" and "forcing" is in most cases greatly exaggerated.

As for the sign, I've already said I don't care if atheists feel that way and say so publicly, but it is not appropriate for the state to endorse hostility toward religion no matter what any of you say.

[Synnen]

How about the state endorsing "In God We Trust" on our money, then? I mean, really---I believe in a Goddess, and some people believe in the FSM. Isn't THAT the government condoning the pushing of religion onto people?

And see it how you like--when you're in the minority, and have the majority CONSTANTLY get their way on these things, even though there should be a separation of church and state--you DO feel as if it's being pushed.

The sign hurt no one, really--yet it was stolen. It's been flipped around. Its message is blown out of proportion. How would you feel if someone stole the Jesus out of that nativity? Or turned him over every time they walked by so that he was butt-up? What if they put a mustache on him? Wouldn't THAT be more hateful than just ignoring it?

This would have never reached the proportions it had if someone hadn't gotten mad that a belief so opposite their own had the SAME right to be their as a nativity scene.

I, personally, am offended every time I see a religious symbol of ANY kind on state property. The Christmas tree in the Capitol building in Washington, DC bothers me. I do, however, just put up with it, because everyone should be able to put up symbols in recognition of their beliefs.

I ask yet again: What would Jesus have done about it? *I* think he would have shaken his head, and walked away, knowing that a sign couldn't hurt him, and that he would love those who didn't believe as much as those who did--because that's what Christianity is about, isn't it? Loving and forgiving those who don't deserve to be loved and forgiven?

[speechlesstx]

Again Synnen, this separation of church FROM state is nowhere in our constitution, "in God we trust" is entirely consistent as a part of this nation's heritage from its inception and is not intentionally, openly, defiantly hostile to others. Feel free to mark it out on all your money, I won't get offended. The atheist sign IS intentionally, openly, defiantly hostile toward others. For I think the third time now I've allowed for an atheist display, why the heck can't it be one in good taste instead of telling people their faith "enslaves" their minds? I still don't see how that fits in the spirit of the season as you describe it.

[jillianleab]

speech, did you happen to miss my post below?

Missing atheist sign found in Washington state - CNN.com

According to this article the sign was stolen. It was recovered, and now has an addition - "Thou Shalt Not Steal".

Here's what to Gov. said:

"I happen to be a Christian, and I don't agree with the display that is up there," Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire told The Olympian newspaper. "But that doesn't mean that as governor, I have the right to deny their ability to express their free speech."

That is what this is about. Free speech.

And to all of you who say a nativity scene is innocuous, here's how the FFR feels:

"When people ask us, 'Why are you hateful? Why are you putting up something critical of people's holidays? -- we respond that we kind of feel that the Christian message is the hate message," he said. "On that Nativity scene, there is this threat of internal violence if we don't submit to that master. Hate speech goes both ways."

You may not agree, but this organization feels the nativity scene is an attack. So there is another question that must be asked now - how come Christians can attack non-Christians in their display? How come the state approved such a message of hate?
See? It goes both ways.

You are saying the nativity scene isn't an attack, that it's just a symbol, but there are people who don't feel that way. These people feel the Christians are attacking them - it's the same thing on both sides. BOTH sides feel attacked. The difference is the Christians have resorted to theft and destruction of property, while the atheists have put up a sign. To them, the nativity scene is an "openly hostile anti-atheist statement".

I'll grant you that a lot of claims of "pushing" religion are exaggerated, but, if what Synnen says is true (and I have no reason to think she's lying), she's not exaggerating one bit. Think of the public faces of Christianity - how many of them lead a life that would attract an outsider? How many preach intolerance and hate (WBC), how many are hypocrites (Ted Haggard)? Wiki has a list of evangelical scandals, if you'd care to read the history (dating back to the 1920's).

Not all Christians are like those people. Most that I encounter aren't, in fact. It seems as long as you stay off the topics of religion and politics, people get along just fine. But there are those who won't stay away from those topics, they instigate. They use those topics as a platform to push their agenda/religion/way of life. But really, to ignore what those public figures do, and what those who Synnen has encountered do, that's just... well...

[speechlesstx]

You are saying the nativity scene isn't an attack, that it's just a symbol, but there are people who don't feel that way. These people feel the Christians are attacking them - it's the same thing on both sides. BOTH sides feel attacked. The difference is the Christians have resorted to theft and destruction of property, while the atheists have put up a sign. To them, the nativity scene is an "openly hostile anti-atheist statement".

Jillian, come on now, if people "feel" attacked by shepherds, sheep and a baby in a manger they have bigger problems to deal with. But coming right out and telling me emphatically in words that religion "enslaves" me is a whole different ball game. Show me some of that peace, love, forgiveness and tolerance Synnen keeps talking about, but don't intentionally insult me.

I'll grant you that a lot of claims of "pushing" religion are exaggerated, but, if what Synnen says is true (and I have no reason to think she's lying), she's not exaggerating one bit. Think of the public faces of Christianity - how many of them lead a life that would attract an outsider? How many preach intolerance and hate (WBC), how many are hypocrites (Ted Haggard)? Wiki has a list of evangelical scandals, if you'd care to read the history (dating back to the 1920's).

I don't think Synnen is lying, in fact I don't doubt it one bit. I have no excuse or use for such supposed Christians. But these "public faces" of Christianity do not represent the whole. They give us a bad name and I'm tired of defending myself based on THEIR behavior and the behavior of a minority of other confrontational idiots.

Not all Christians are like those people. Most that I encounter aren't, in fact. It seems as long as you stay off the topics of religion and politics, people get along just fine.

This is what I'm saying. I've said it before about conservatives, most people would never know one if they were sitting across the table having lunch together. It's the same for most Christians, we're just people trying to get along the best we know how.

But there are those who won't stay away from those topics, they instigate. They use those topics as a platform to push their agenda/religion/way of life.

I acknowledged those already.

But really, to ignore what those public figures do, and what those who Synnen has encountered do, that's just... well...

Who's ignored them? I haven't, I condemned them - twice now in this thread. What more do you guys want?

[jillianleab]

Jillian, come on now, if people "feel" attacked by shepherds, sheep and a baby in a manger they have bigger problems to deal with. But coming right out and telling me emphatically in words that religion "enslaves" me is a whole different ball game. Show me some of that peace, love, forgiveness and tolerance Synnen keeps talking about, but don't intentionally insult me.

Maybe they have bigger problems to deal with, but the same argument can be said for those who are up in arms over words on a sign. But beyond that, perhaps this group doesn't adhere to the things Synnen is talking about - you acknowledge not all Christians think and act the same way, why must all atheists? It would be better if their sign wasn't so aggressive, but it doesn't reflect the POV of every non-believer out there, the same way that the WBC signs don't reflect the views of every Christian. Maybe asking for this group to put up a non-aggressive sign is like asking WBC to back off - it just ain't going to happen. But either way, BOTH groups (all groups) have a right to say what they want.

I don't think Synnen is lying, in fact I don't doubt it one bit. I have no excuse or use for such supposed Christians. But these "public faces" of Christianity do not represent the whole. They give us a bad name and I'm tired of defending myself based on THEIR behavior and the behavior of a minority of other confrontational idiots.

I hope I didn't indicate you thought she was lying, I didn't mean to if it came out that way. And yes, these public faces of Christianity give the good ones a bad name, but the point is, they are still the face that a lot of people see. So maybe from the perspective of this particular atheist group, they are seeing minds being enslaved (people giving money to people who mismanage it, or who go off and have sex with men when they say homosexuality is a sin). In that sense, their minds are enslaved. These people are pushy and aggressive. The actions of a few vocal people have a stronger impression than the actions of those who are less vocal - look at this site for clear evidence of that!

This is what I'm saying. I've said it before about conservatives, most people would never know one if they were sitting across the table having lunch together. It's the same for most Christians, we're just people trying to get along the best we know how.

I agree, many of you are. But the ones who are stealing signs and defacing property aren't trying to get along the best that they know how. They're aggressors, and again, their actions taint the rest of the group.

Who's ignored them? I haven't, I condemned them - twice now in this thread. What more do you guys want?

Your post to skell, where you said, "we are to 'offer' our faith to others, we are to give a 'testimony' of our faith, we are to lovingly 'encourage' others to believe, but in spite of what 'some' do we were never commissioned to "push" our beliefs on others" read to me like you were ignoring what others do in the name of Christianity. Perhaps it was your use of quotations around key words - that reads with a bit of sarcasm. I accept you probably didn't intend it that way.

[speechlesstx]

But either way, BOTH groups (all groups) have a right to say what they want.

Agreed, but not state approved attacks.

Your post to skell, where you said, "we are to 'offer' our faith to others, we are to give a 'testimony' of our faith, we are to lovingly 'encourage' others to believe, but in spite of what 'some' do we were never commissioned to "push" our beliefs on others" read to me like you were ignoring what others do in the name of Christianity. Perhaps it was your use of quotations around key words - that reads with a bit of sarcasm. I accept you probably didn't intend it that way.

No sarcasm, just alternatives to "push."

[jillianleab]

Agreed, but not state approved attacks.

You're still missing the point. The atheist group sees the nativity as an attack - a state approved attack. It doesn't matter if everyone agrees (not everyone sees the atheist sign as an attack, after all) that it is or isn't. Both groups feel attacked.

[Skell]

My friend has recently become a born again. He loves it. It makes him happy. It fills a hole in his life. Im happy for him. But he isn't the friend I once knew. His mind is enslaved. He struggles to make house repayments yet still he gives 10% of his wage to his Christian church / leader.

He can't put petrol in his car yet his church leader drives a Porsche.

He asks me all the time to go to church with him. He wants me to see how great it is. He thinks I need to learn to love myself. He pushes. His mind is enslaved. As are all his friends from church. And from what I see this a is a pretty common trait amongst all the so called "new age" christian groups. Not at all really with the Catholics and Anglicans I know. And from what I see in the United States its even more so the case.

[speechlesstx]

You're still missing the point. The atheist group sees the nativity as an attack - a state approved attack. It doesn't matter if everyone agrees (not everyone sees the atheist sign as an attack, after all) that it is or isn't. Both groups feel attacked.

No Jillian, I most definitely am not the one missing the point. I've acknowledged that some people "feel" attacked, but only one IS an attack.

[Synnen]

No Jillian, I most definitely am not the one missing the point. I've acknowledged that some people "feel" attacked, but only one IS an attack.

Yup. The nativity.

It's caused wars, crusades, inquisitions, stake-burnings, annihilation of native peoples in the new world, and generations of people who think that because THEY believe it, everyone ELSE should believe it, and if they don't, they have bad things happen to them.

It's caused splinter sects of weirdos that perpetuate horrible things in the name of "God". It can really be accused of promoting sexism--until this century, women could not serve as lay people with most churches, and many STILL do not allow it. It causes people to go off the deep end at abortion clinics, gay pride marches, and Wiccan rituals.

Yeah---that sign from the atheists has NOTHING on what the "signs" from Christianity has done over the years.

You really do NOT get it. Christian symbols ARE an attack to some people, just the way you see the sign as an attack, or that Jews would see a swastika as an attack. Actually, that's probably the BEST analogy---the known meanings behind Christian symbols ARE an attack on those who have suffered because of the misdeeds of some Christians. Therefore, the nativity is JUST as much an "attack" as the sign. EQUAL.

You think your religion's symbol is harmless. They think their sign is a statement of their beliefs. NEITHER are meant to attack the other, but BOTH are felt as attacks by the opposite side.