So then why all the fuss about the War on Christmas? And why are people getting so up in arms about the use of Happy Holidays, if it's not such a big deal?
Because they are reactionaries. I don't think it's wise to stereotype all Christians this way, nor is it wise to stereotype all atheists this way. There are people with persecution complexes in both camps. Sure, you might say that atheists are a minority in America, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they feel they are persecuted. I think it's just the nature of radicalism that fosters that kind of mindset.
Perhaps it's a cultural thing here in the States? because this line of thinking is not uncommon here. most notably is when people get up in arms concerning the "War on Christmas" meme that gets started up during the Holiday season; apparently by recognizing the fact that other holy days are happening this time of the year.
now of course you have many countries like Sudan where Christians are actually being persecuted and i think the number of people crying persecution in a country where Christianity is the majority, while getting up in arms about a "non-Christian" president is troublesome and takes away attention from serious issues of persecution.
Look, I agree this is a problem, although I think its a wider issue than Christianity, since I dont know when assuming the position of underdog or victim has been the way you mobilise and organise, its not a good thing and has serious unanticipated consequences if you ask me.
If you can express a grievance I'm pretty much prepared to say you're not being persecuted, if you can do it without anticipating or fearing real repercussions or assasination you're not persecuted.
Christians are not the worst example of it and I would hope would not adopt this tact from other groups deploying identity politics in this manner. I can understand the grievances about Christmas but to be honest I think that's a wider issue too, its become virtually impossible to give children the sorts of childhood that their parents had. Which isnt being understood yet as a real fundamental breakdown in the ability of one generation to transmit its learning and wisdom to the next. The crackdown on Christmas is more to do with political correctness, lousy bureaucratic applications of well meant legislation than aggressive secularism.
That said the US is a state established by Masonic Deists with its own set of feast days which are almost on a par with Christian ones, know that's to do with the whole multicultural melting pot thing but you know.
i don't think i'm really making myself clear so i apologize; sure such people exist but it's not nearly to the extent that you see highly publicized protests from people who are displeased by actions that play down Christmas. I know only a few people who do a whole lot more than roll their eyes at "Merry Christmas", but they do exist. However, every year there's some group that's calling for a boycott of some company that failed to use the word Christmas (The Catholic Coalition or the American Family Assoc., to name a couple). I am not currently aware of non-Christian groups doing the same thing.
Yes unfortunately that is the case. The actual meaning behind Christmas has been lost. How and why that has occurred in an interesting discussion in of itself.
It certainly is; personally if i were Christian i think I'd probably be more upset by the fact that an important religious holiday has been twisted for the purposes of consumerism.
While they may overstate the case for being persecuted(certainly in the same sense as in the first century or in the Sudan as you mentioned); nevertheless a legitimate concern can be raised as to why the majority necessarily has to pander to the supposed sensibilities of minorities.
Well, because the War on Christmas happened to be a good example of what I was talking about. what i don't understand is why non-Christians shouldn't see use of the word as a big deal, but when the tables are turned and the word is not used, it becomes a "war" and there are plenty of outraged people who are overstating their persecution. Either it's a big deal or it's not.
That's one interesting way of putting it. It is intriguing to compare how this is done in America as opposed to say Great Britain, for example.
The UK still has issues between Christians, as best evidenced in NI and Scotland, in the North and South of England and Wales attacks on secularism are not simply made by Christians, Jews and Muslims both have attacked it in the past and been in a better position to do so because of how anti-discriminatory and minorities legislation was framed.
Bizarrely there was a Jewish community which wished to erect large walls around their community, the whole thing made me think of some sort of self-imposed ghettoisation and I couldnt believe it but apparently they had a firm sense of identity and conceptualised it as being more like a walled community in the US.
A test case actually existed in the UK for a while in which a strictly observant muslim woman wanted to teach in a primary school in a complete head to foot religiously sanctioned disguise thing but thankfully it was ruled against on the basis that giving the school children who who where not all muslims the message that women and men or women and children could not communicate face to face from such a young age was undesirable. Personally the mind boggles because it was I presume, given that the Taliban would not permit women to learn to read and write, a "liberated" action to be working and teaching in the first place.
If you can express a grievance I'm pretty much prepared to say you're not being persecuted, if you can do it without anticipating or fearing real repercussions or assassination you're not persecuted.
Certainly; i think it's just my problem with it is that this goes both ways. Neither atheists NOR Christians in America are tormented or mistreated nearly to the same degree that they are in extremist Islamic countries...or at all really. Persecution isn't really the right word to describe this.
When I was an atheist, people seemed to be more curious about why I was an atheist. I convinced someone to become an atheist when they asked why I was an atheist. When I became Catholic, people seemed to become argumentative with a "You are a sheep" or a "You are going to hell" and just more offensive in general. That might be due to age differences though.
I would be accepting of my childrens' marriage to an atheist, but I am less accepting of those who are of certainty of either side.
Love wouldn't exist without loneliness to inspire it.
Peach yogurt is made of love. And gnome kidneys. - Domino
I can cope and will cope without polluting my lungs. - Saslou
I'm not sure what "more moral" means. But people who behave decently out of genuine goodness and concern for others rather than out of fear of punishment in the hereafter get my vote.
There are lazy atheists who don't believe in something because they want to be different and don't want to be responsible for their actions. Other atheists arrive at their beliefs through careful consideration and objective assessment, often by reflecting on the universe, it's size, and it's randomness. That same reflection could cause a person to appreciate mankind and form a personal code of ethics to preserve it.
What I don't get, however, is why you think behaving the same way for different reasons (fear of punishment vs. genuine care) really matters. Seems like we should value them the same.