Another Christmas season has started and, already, Atheists Christians Jews and every other religion are at each other's throats about which types of Holiday displays are appropriate to put up in front of public buildings. Fox News will probably declare another War on Christmas and church groups will be up in arms at the sight of any non-religious display, any menorahs, or anything they deem to not celebrate the birth of Jesus. After all, this country was founded on religious principles with the notion that all men were to be Christian, all legislation should glorify god, and the American people will just have to tolerate all the heathens that we reluctantly let in. Just kidding. I actually just read the First Amendment and realize that America should be nothing like that.
Have you heard about the controversy in the Illinois (Go Figure) State Capitol Building over allowing a nativity scene, a menorah, and a winter solstice message? The message reads:
"There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."
The same three displays have been put up in the Washington State Capitol building. Bill O'Reilly is pretty upset about all this saying, "This is political correctness gone mad!" For once, I agree with him.
This controversy boils down to different interest groups acting in a combative manner. Christians put up a nativity scene and the Jews want a menorah. The Atheists then feel that their free speech rights are being violated and put up the aforementioned inscription. This will only get worse. The solution is for these governors to understand that the end of December is a time of celebration and holiday for many different groups of people; not just Christians. So throw up a tree, throw up some lights and encourage people to spend time with their families. I think that is an issue that all groups can agree on.
The same three displays have been put up in the Washington State Capitol building. Bill O'Reilly is pretty upset about all this saying, "This is political correctness gone mad!" For once, I agree with him.
This controversy boils down to different interest groups acting in a combative manner. Christians put up a nativity scene and the Jews want a menorah. The Atheists then feel that their free speech rights are being violated and put up the aforementioned inscription. This will only get worse. The solution is for these governors to understand that the end of December is a time of celebration and holiday for many different groups of people; not just Christians. So throw up a tree, throw up some lights and encourage people to spend time with their families. I think that is an issue that all groups can agree on.
10 comments:
First of all, cutting down trees for the Holidays is a terrible tradition that is harming our environment. And the production of faux trees is not entirely better.
Atheism is not a religion. It has no scripture, no places for worship. It is a response/rejection of other religions. Atheists have no creed. No commandments. No deities. It is a logical fallacy to claim otherwise.
The controversy boils down to this...no religious scripture in public places. Period.
Privately, Americans can do as they choose. That is the separation of church and state. And that my friend, solves the controversy.
Cutting down trees for Christmas is harming our environment? Puhleaseeee. I think the congested roadways in our cities and factories spewing harmful toxins into the air is doing much more harm. Pull your head out of your green a*s.
Read the post again. Nowhere did I claim that atheism is a religion.
And your "solution" to the controversy is the same one I put forth in my post. Read it again and this time, come back with something intelligent.
Below is a link regarding the pros and cons of real and artificial trees. It is impossible to argue that either real or artificial trees isn't harmful to our environment. I'm not making a comparative statement there. I'm just analyzing the situation at hand.
Your first sentence; maybe due to poor grammar, reads that atheism is included as a religion. I'm happy to learn you don't view it as such.
I didn't see a solution unless you are referring to 'throw up a tree.' You don't touch base on the issue at hand, which is whether or not these displays should be permitted or not.
http://www.artificialtrees.com/environment.php
Your link is to a website that is selling artificial trees. Of course they will make the case that they are better. Real trees are biodegradable. Fake ones are not. Even though they are recyclable they still must be transported to the recycling place, and transported to your house in the first place, so they still use fuel and spew toxins into the air. My family actually plants our tree every year after we are done. No environmental harm there.
As I stated, Atheism is not a religion, it is simply one of the groups of people who are involved in this dispute at the Capital. That is why they are grouped in the way they are.
My solution was to throw up a tree and lights and leave the scripture out of it- much as you said. There should be no argument here.
The "War on Christmas" debate is on par with congressional hearings over flag-burning. It's a waste of time and a distraction from more serious issues.
Next topic please.
If they bring down the banner then they have to ban religious or atheist tv shows too. They also have to change currency...I still believe in freedom of speech to the full. Freedom to express anything anytime without a government control, I know many would disagree but I mean absolutely anything. Private companies can let those banners against or for the religion and public places should be completely out of it. Society can ridicule such thing but when it comes to defining a law, I think it is impossible to come up with clear borders. I think government has to get out of any religious belief to an extent that expressing such personal matter is treated as incompetency and an effort to gain unfair advantage.
Why would they have to ban TV shows as well? The Tv stations are owned by private entities, and so the government should not be able to ban what they show. I am aware that the FCC does ban, to a certain extent what is shown on TV, and that is why it is a pretty tough topic to decide.
There do have to be some limits to freedom of expression. Threats, for example, are a grey area. That would include saying things like "I'm going to fucking cut you", obviously. But what about Nazi marches in front of synagogues?
I was saying that if somebody wants to ban the banner then a tv show would be next. nothing about speech should be outlawed in my opinion. I don't think there can be a limit for freedom of expression and gray areas are a part of humanity. If it was up to me to define the limits of course I would be ok, but honestly there is no single individual in this planet that I would trust enough to feel safe with letting him make decision about those gray. if the freedom of speech is well established, a Nazi march would be simply ineffective and unimportant act, consisting of a bunch of looser skin heads that are isolated. There were so many real reasons related to economy, fear, and ... that gave rise to Nazis. I know if this ideology rises again, it wouldn't be because of a pathetic Nazi march in 2008 America. But, I would love to see the police kick the shit out of them and the society put them in prison for long year, if at any stage of this process they get physical and invade an innocent person's personal space.
It is a giant gray area as you've both said, and I don't know where to draw the line. That is honestly the issue at hand is where to draw the line on free speech. Do we include all the displays or none of them? It seems that it has to be one of the other. Or maybe just the Christian one since Christmas is a Christian holiday and most American's and residents of Illinois are christian.
Post a Comment