The War On Christmas Just Won’t End

[MMI]

ME: Otherwise you're doing what you're accusing Christians of doing, hijacking a religious feat and imposing it on everyone.

THORNE: No, we're not! Letting the Christians, or the Jews, or the Muslims, or the Hindus, or whomever, enjoy their holiday festivities is not a problem. It's having people in government use the power of their offices to promote a specific brand of religious festivals, such as a Christian Nativity scene. Churches setting up such displays on their own property, or individuals doing so on their property, are not the problem. It's when these things are set up on public property, at public expense, to the exclusion of all other religious beliefs, that we protest.

Which way do you want it: Christians can celebrate Christmas at public expense and atheists can celebrate nothing (that's what they think gods are) at public expense. Or no-one can celebrate anything at public expense?

Looks like atheists can't win either way. So what say we just spoil whatever other parties are going on?

Why the hell (if that place exists) can't atheists just join in and enjoy the fantasy. It actually is inspiring. (As my RC wife and my RC children - who have both lapsed, following their father's beliefs - have not been to Midnight Mass for many years, I myself suggested that we go this Christmas as I find it the most enjoyable religious ceremony there is, and it's not the same on television. Why don't you and your family go, too? (You won't have to actually pray!)

Some posters above have suggested merging the religous festivities into some kind of Winterval so that the authorities can fund them without breaking the law. Well I call that a bad law. I have said before that I live in Leicester, the most ethnically diverse city in Britain. Our local authority funds all kinds of ethnic and religious celebrations and I have not heard anyone object. We have Caribbean Carnivals, Chinese New Year, Sikh, Moslem, Jewish and Christian festivals, and if atheists had anything to celebrate and wanted to do so, I'm sure the authorities would be happy to accommodate them too.

THORNE: Now you're just being silly.

I think not: I am serious. Folk dancers frequently dance on public property with the consent of the authorities. Ballroom dancing is often held in public halls. Many such groups receive public funding, from local authorities and from arts councils etc (as well as from private sources) I doubt many ballet companies would be able to survive without some form of public support, being such a minority interest. Folk dancing troupes will often obtain funding from regional authorities anxious to promote their local identities in order to attract tourists, and I imagine any good Secretary or Treasurer of a ballroom dancing society will not neglect to find out what support he can get from the local government. Why should someone who disapproves of dancing be allowed to stop this?

THORNE: The problem is that Christians, primarily, are complaining that atheists won't allow them to force others to celebrate the birth of their savior.

Calling me silly is one thing, but, Thorne, that really is a perverse argument! First, Christians are not complaining that they are not being allowed to force others into celebrating Christ's nativity. If I am wrong, show me. If they are complaining it is because they are not being allowed to celebrate the Nativity openly: atheists want them to do it behind closed doors, where as Christianity is about celebrating Christ, not hiding Him away. Celebrating Christ is NOT forcing Him upon others, just like advertising Coca Cola is not forcing anyone to drink the stuff. Secondly, you talk about siphoning public money ... as if it is being embezzled or something - you'd better substantiate that. Finally you talk about the inequitable tax treatment Christians receive: they can deduct their donations from their taxable income. Can't atheists deduct charitable contributions too? Is your attitude different about countries like Germany and Austria who charge a tax on people who belong to particular Christian Faiths - Catholics and Lutherans mostly, I believe - but who do not charge atheists anything in that regard?

[Thorne]

Which way do you want it: Christians can celebrate Christmas at public expense and atheists can celebrate nothing (that's what they think gods are) at public expense. Or no-one can celebrate anything at public expense?

Again you misrepresent. I don't say NO one can celebrate at public expense. I simply say that if public funds are used for any, they must be made available to all. If a city government funds decorations for a Christian holiday, they must also be willing to fund decorations for Jewish holidays, or Muslim holidays, or any other religious group which wants it. Including atheists, although they technically aren't a religious organization.

Why the hell (if that place exists) can't atheists just join in and enjoy the fantasy.

Which fantasy? Yours? The Pope's? The Rabbi's? Why don't theists just forget their fantasies and join atheists in celebrating reason?

Why don't you and your family go, too? (You won't have to actually pray!)

I spent too many years of my life going to mass. I don't find it inspiring, I find it boring. I don't care for the music, or the ritual. Don't get me wrong. I don't care if anyone else goes. Just not interested myself.

Our local authority funds all kinds of ethnic and religious celebrations and I have not heard anyone object. We have Caribbean Carnivals, Chinese New Year, Sikh, Moslem, Jewish and Christian festivals, and if atheists had anything to celebrate and wanted to do so, I'm sure the authorities would be happy to accommodate them too.

Which is precisely what I have been saying! As long as everyone is treated equally, there's not a problem. Here in the US some towns and cities do the same thing. Others only promote one religious holiday, the Christian one. Any others who object are automatically considered to be attacking Christmas and Christians, when all they are seeking is the equality which the law guarantees!

I think not: I am serious. Folk dancers frequently dance on public property with the consent of the authorities. Ballroom dancing is often held in public halls. Many such groups receive public funding, from local authorities and from arts councils etc (as well as from private sources) I doubt many ballet companies would be able to survive without some form of public support, being such a minority interest. Folk dancing troupes will often obtain funding from regional authorities anxious to promote their local identities in order to attract tourists, and I imagine any good Secretary or Treasurer of a ballroom dancing society will not neglect to find out what support he can get from the local government.

And again, you make my point for me! The authorities fund all kinds of troupes: ballroom, tap, ballet, etc. They don't fund just ballroom dancers, for example, and claim that tap dancers are pagan heretics and undeserving. Treat all equally! That's all atheists are asking for!

First, Christians are not complaining that they are not being allowed to force others into celebrating Christ's nativity. If I am wrong, show me.

See this article.
A relevant quote: "Walgreens is the latest store to return to explicit references to Christmas, switching its position a day after some Christian groups threatened to boycott over its generic holiday wording."

Or, from the other side of the story. "Stores no longer held “Christmas sales.” Businesses, and soon after, individuals, ceased to hold “Christmas parties.” And on and on. “Christmas” became a dirty word, and was replaced by “holiday.” The War on Christmas had begun."

Doesn't that sound like celebrating something besides Christmas is considered an attack on Christmas? Don't Christians understand that others celebrate the season too? Apparently not!

If they are complaining it is because they are not being allowed to celebrate the Nativity openly: atheists want them to do it behind closed doors, where as Christianity is about celebrating Christ, not hiding Him away.

No, we are NOT saying they have to hide it away! Just don't force others to celebrate it, as shown above! And don't claim exclusive rights to set up decorations, on public property. A Church can have the biggest, baddest Nativity scene in history, as long as it's on THEIR property. Inside or outside, makes no difference. Just THEIR property, and THEIR money.

Celebrating Christ is NOT forcing Him upon others, just like advertising Coca Cola is not forcing anyone to drink the stuff.

Advertising Coca Cola while forbidding anyone to advertise Pepsi IS forcing.

Finally you talk about the inequitable tax treatment Christians receive: they can deduct their donations from their taxable income. Can't atheists deduct charitable contributions too?

Sure they can! But how much of the money churches collect actually goes to charity? How much of it really goes to maintaining the church, paying the priests/ministers? Churches should be treated like any other business. And THEY can deduct for any charitable work they do.

Is your attitude different about countries like Germany and Austria who charge a tax on people who belong to particular Christian Faiths - Catholics and Lutherans mostly, I believe - but who do not charge atheists anything in that regard?

I'm not aware of this. First I've heard of it. My first question would be, Why? Is there some justification for this tax? If it is simply a tax because of their religion, then no, I don't condone it. That would be just as bad as taxing atheists because they DON'T believe.

A quick scan of Wikipedia seems to indicate that the lion's share of this tax actually goes to pay for the churches' expenses! Sounds more like forced "tithing", though at a much lower rate. "Some communities refuse to administer marriages and burials of (former) members who had declared to leave it." Which sounds like the church itself is ultimately responsible for this tax. Personally, I think this is wrong. Churches, as I said, should be treated like any other business, paying property taxes and collecting money from their "customers". After all, isn't putting the fear of God into people so they'll turn over their money what they do?

[Venom]

A quick scan of Wikipedia seems to indicate that the lion's share of this tax actually goes to pay for the churches' expenses!

Who else shall pay for it? You yourself wrote earlier: "Atheists don't object to Christmas, per se, but to government officials promoting Christmas at the expense of other religious groups, while using public funds."
And we have to remember: a considerable part of that tax money (not all of it, alas) goes back to society in form of social work like hospitals, kindergartens, women's refuges etc, and not only within those countries, but also in regions of the Third World.

[Thorne]

Who else shall pay for it? You yourself wrote earlier: "Atheists don't object to Christmas, per se, but to government officials promoting Christmas at the expense of other religious groups, while using public funds."
And we have to remember: a considerable part of that tax money (not all of it, alas) goes back to society in form of social work like hospitals, kindergartens, women's refuges etc, and not only within those countries, but also in regions of the Third World.

Actually, the way these taxes are done isn't what's bothering me. I agree, those who attend those churches should be responsible for their costs. And taxing those who attend those churches is one way to do it. That let's those who do NOT attend off the hook, not having to pay for the churches'. I just don't like the idea of forcing church members, through a government run tax scam, to pay a particular amount. I always thought that people donated to the church of their choice, and were not forced to pay a fee to be a member.

Here it sounds like the governments are collecting this tax for individual churches, skimming some off the top (to cover their own "costs", no doubt) and then paying the money to the churches. Why not let the churches collect their own funds, the way they do here in the US? Then tax the churches on their income, with deductions for charitable works, which the churches would have to document themselves. Basically treat them just like any business, leaving them with the burden of keeping the records, paying their taxes, or being seized and sold off to cover their tax debt.

[Venom]

Here it sounds like the governments are collecting this tax for individual churches, skimming some off the top (to cover their own "costs", no doubt) and then paying the money to the churches. Why not let the churches collect their own funds, the way they do here in the US?

The church tax is not a fix amount, it's a percentage of the income tax (in Germany, for example, 8 respectively 9%, depending in which federal state one lives). Since tax information comes under data protection, it cannot be given to the churches to collect the money.

And letting everybody, rich and poor alike, pay the same total amount is considered unfair, so said tax information is needed.

[Thorne]

Since tax information comes under data protection, it cannot be given to the churches to collect the money.

No, that's not what I was suggesting. Rather, let the churches collect from their constituents whatever the people wish to donate, rather than as a tax. Having the government collect the tax FOR the churches seems rather archaic. A holdover of the feudal system, perhaps?

And letting everybody, rich and poor alike, pay the same total amount is considered unfair, so said tax information is needed.

But forcing people to pay to attend a church? That just doesn't seem right. You either pay because you believe, and believe it is right for you to pay, or you don't pay at all. This seems to me to be a way to make certain that the churches collect enough money to keep from going bankrupt. Unless you do the same for other businesses it just seems wrong.

[MMI]

As I type this, I am listening to a peal of church bells on Radio 4 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006sgsh/episodes/2011). I enjoy listening to the broadcast almost every Sunday. Something quintessentially English about them, and I don't think that, although they come from Christian Churches, they cause anyone any offence. There is the "off" button after all.

I don't think I have misrepresented anyone, but if I have, perhaps it's because the arguments I am trying to counter seem to shift. Christians are attacking atheists for not celebrating Christmas, or the authorities are not handing out public funds to promote atheism?

As you point out, no atheistic organisation can maintain a claim to be a religious body, so why does it want the money set aside for religious purposes? What sort of special pleading is it that equates atheism with religion when it comes to dipping into the public purse, but separates it when it comes to allowing religious festivities to take place? Such a claim can only be unreasonable - something I'm sure they would immediately dissociate themselves from.


Atheists are not alone in celebrating reason, and it is crass arrogance to suggest they are. It's just that atheists' "reason" is a restricted version, hobbled by the idea that people are not allowed to base their philosophies on something they cannot prove (while all the while being unable to prove the fundamental assumptions underpinning their own convictions).


Where we do agree is that everyone should be treated equally, and if there really are US laws that discriminate in favour of Christianity and against all other religions, that is shameful and unworthy of the freedom-for-all ideals that Americans proclaim as their birthright. We begin to diverge when you point out that some towns and cities only promote one religious holiday. If a town is full of Christians, then why should it promote any other religion; if there is a tiny minority of (say) Jews in that town, then any public celebration of Hunnekah can be expected to be minimal - focused on those who would appreciate it most - the Jews of that town - and therefore seemingly overlooked by the rest of the population. But you're right - equal claims deserve equal public support.


My "dancers" metaphor seems to have been misunderstood. The point is not that the authorities fund various kinds of dance organisations according to their needs, but that they do not fund organisations set up to undermine all forms of dance ... at least, not with monies set aside for promoting dance. So with religion, all faiths should be treated according to their needs, but atheists should not be supported out of that particular pot. Maybe there is reason for public authorities to promote atheism: then let the atheists make their case.

The first thing I noticed about the quote you gave was about Fox News, and I was ready to capitulate entirely. But then I thought, this isn't about public funding of religion, it's about an unspeakable capitalist organisation devoted to narrow-minded conservatism manipulating public opinion against another unspeakable capitalist organisation, who for reasons of profit alone, decided to surrender to Fox's shenannigans and adopt a presentation of its wares more acceptable to the blackmailers and their dupes. Who are these "Christian groups" Fox applauds? A bunch of Christian loonies, who represent no-one but themselves, I expect. Certainly not Christians as a whole, and, certainly not public authorities. Does Fox News fund them?

So that does not convince me that Christians are being prevented from forcing Christianity, or Christmas, on everyone else. Maybe a lunatic fringe is trying to, but not Christians as a whole. I still refute the original claim on the basis that there is no evidence (now I sound like Thorne!).

Your other example laments the disappearance of "Christmas" from Christmas celebrations. I do too. As an atheist, I take part in traditional Christmas celebrations and I feel that they are diminished when they are called something else. It's suppression and it's insidious. It strikes me as a bad-tempered attempt to spoil the fun for everyone. What this other example does not do is show that Christians are forcing Christmas on everyone else.

I reject that example, too.


You ask, don't Christians understand that others celebrate the season too? and answer your own question with a resounding Apparently not!. That is so untrue. Christians are aware of Diwali, which sometimes falls around Christmas, Hunnekah (Jewish), the Winter Solstice (pagans), and although they may not approve of what some of those religions espouse, I don't believe they try to make the adherents celebrate Christmas instead.

I asked what atheists celebrate and you posted three examples. All three seemed to me to be saying what I have been saying all along, we haven't got anything of our own to celebrate, but we're thinking about adopting Winter Solstice, but until that happens, join in and have fun [and stop whingeing - my addition]. Go for it!




Finally, so far as I'm aware, the Cocal Cola Company does not prohibit people from drinking Pepsi.

[Thorne]

As I type this, I am listening to a peal of church bells on Radio 4 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006sgsh/episodes/2011). I enjoy listening to the broadcast almost every Sunday. Something quintessentially English about them, and I don't think that, although they come from Christian Churches, they cause anyone any offence. There is the "off" button after all.

Absolutely true. Nothing wrong with a commercial radio station playing whatever kind of programming they wish.

I don't think I have misrepresented anyone, but if I have, perhaps it's because the arguments I am trying to counter seem to shift. Christians are attacking atheists for not celebrating Christmas, or the authorities are not handing out public funds to promote atheism?

As you point out, no atheistic organisation can maintain a claim to be a religious body, so why does it want the money set aside for religious purposes? What sort of special pleading is it that equates atheism with religion when it comes to dipping into the public purse, but separates it when it comes to allowing religious festivities to take place? Such a claim can only be unreasonable - something I'm sure they would immediately dissociate themselves from.

No, it's not that we want any money to promote atheism. It's that we do NOT want our governments spending money to promote ANY religion, but most especially, we do not want them spending money to promote ONE PARTICULAR religion.

atheists' "reason" is a restricted version, hobbled by the idea that people are not allowed to base their philosophies on something they cannot prove (while all the while being unable to prove the fundamental assumptions underpinning their own convictions).

I have no quarrel with someone basing their philosophy on anything they desire! I DO have a problem with them trying to force that philosophy into the schools. I do have a problem with them placing advertisements for THEIR philosophy while prohibiting ads for a competing philosophy. And I most especially have a problem with the government endorsing such actions.

Where we do agree is that everyone should be treated equally, and if there really are US laws that discriminate in favour of Christianity and against all other religions, that is shameful and unworthy of the freedom-for-all ideals that Americans proclaim as their birthright.

The laws do NOT, generally, discriminate. It's those who decide whether or not to follow the laws, or completely ignore them because the laws restrict their ability to stifle other peoples rights, that create the problem.

So with religion, all faiths should be treated according to their needs, but atheists should not be supported out of that particular pot. Maybe there is reason for public authorities to promote atheism: then let the atheists make their case.

This is basically the same thing that I've been saying, and this is where the basic problem lies. Far too many towns in the US will only allow Christian displays, or Christian ads, whether paid for by the Christians or by the towns. All I'm saying is that, if you provide funds for any, you MUST provide funds for all. If your town pays funds to build a Christian holiday display, they should also pay funds for any other kind of holiday display, even if it's an atheist sign which denies the Christian faith.

So that does not convince me that Christians are being prevented from forcing Christianity, or Christmas, on everyone else. Maybe a lunatic fringe is trying to, but not Christians as a whole.

Again, you agree with what I've said. It's not ALL Christians, but it is a small, vocal group of fundamentalists. They protest any efforts by other religious groups, including other Christian groups in some places, to publicly celebrate their holidays.

Your other example laments the disappearance of "Christmas" from Christmas celebrations. I do too. As an atheist, I take part in traditional Christmas celebrations and I feel that they are diminished when they are called something else.

You take the narrow view. Again, no one is saying you cannot have Christmas celebrations, or even call them Christmas celebrations. What you cannot do, and what some fundamentalists are trying to do, is to pass laws forbidding others from saying "Happy Holidays" instead of Merry Christmas. Or by protesting when town officials place generic holiday displays instead of blatantly Christian displays.

Christians are aware of Diwali, which sometimes falls around Christmas, Hunnekah (Jewish), the Winter Solstice (pagans), and although they may not approve of what some of those religions espouse, I don't believe they try to make the adherents celebrate Christmas instead.

Again, we are talking about a vocal minority, and while they may not specifically try to force others to celebrate Christmas (yet!) they are trying to prevent those others from PUBLICLY celebrating any holidays BUT Christmas at this time of the year.

Finally, so far as I'm aware, the Cocal Cola Company does not prohibit people from drinking Pepsi.

They would if they could!

[thir]

First, Christians are not complaining that they are not being allowed to force others into celebrating Christ's nativity. If I am wrong, show me.

Actually, yes they are. That is what started this thread.