Christians attempt to silence non-religious messages at Christmas

[Agnapostate]

Jonah Goldberg writes a book with a smiley-face on the cover, and look who pretends to be off the hook.

 

[Father Time]

Christmas is an annual holiday celebrated on December 25 that marks and honors the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. It's a Christian holiday.

Not quite through the whole thread yet but this is what I was just thinking about.

Jesus Christ was NOT born on December 25Th, the star of Bethlehem wasn't in the sky in December.


From;
associatedcontent.com/article/1336287/christmas_day_is_june_17_according.html
December 25 was Chosen by the Roman Catholic Church

Astronomers say they have found the original star of Bethlehem, the star that, according to the Christian bible, led the three wise men to the place of birth of Jesus of Nazareth. They also say that Christians have been celebrating Jesus' birth on the wrong day for at least 17 centuries.

Researchers are now saying that the bright star chronicled in the Christian bible was most likely a conjunction between the planets Venus and Jupiter, a visual anomaly that would appear extremely bright in the night sky. Australian astonomer Dave Reneke, according to the Telegraph, used computer software to calculate the stars and the night sky at the time of Jesus' birth. Reneke believes that the 'wise men' noted the anomaly and took it to be the sign of prophecy and followed the star's light to Bethlehem.

Historians generally place the nativity as occurring between 3 BC and 1 AD.

According to Reneke's calculations and using the Gospel of Matthew, the planetary conjunction of Venus and Jupiter occurred on June 17, 2 BC.

Reneke says that the research team is not definitively stating that the conjunction was the star of Bethlehem, but the two planets coming together would have appeared as one bright object in the sky. And the timing is coincidental.

Reneke told the Telegraph, "December is an arbitrary date we have accepted but it doesn't really mean that is when it happened.

"This is not an attempt to decry religion. It's really backing it up as it shows there really was a bright object appearing in the East at the right time.

"Often when we mix science with religion in this kind of forum, it can upset people. In this case, I think this could serve to reinforce people's faith."

Throughout the centuries, several theories have been proffered to explain the 'Christmas star,' or star of Bethlehem. One theory suggested that the star was a brilliant supernova, an exploding star that lit the way for the 'wise men.' Some have suggested a comet.

Reneke believes that the research done by his team is the most compelling to date.


American Atheist Press on one of their Winter Solstice cards;

December 25Th,

by the Julian Calendar, was the winter solstice. This day, originally regarded by the pagans as the day of the nativity of the sun - the shortest day of the year, when the light began it's conquering battle against the darkness - has been celebrated universally throughout human history.

Even being adopted by the Christians as a day on which to celebrate the birth of Jesus, this ancient holiday, set by motions of celestial bodies, survives as a a day of rejoicing that good will and love will have a perpetual rebirth in the minds of all people-even as the sun has a symbolic rebirth yearly.


Now if something like this was displayed by a nativity scene then I think it wouldn't have offended so many. But the main reason for ffrf.org displaying a harshly worded message is because one really big American principal is being broken, IMO, SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!

good info at religioustolerance.org

Well, you're 1/2 right. No one would have complained if the sign had been worded as above, but the principal reason they worded it the way they did was to cause hatred. When called on it being hatred toward religion, the man's reply was that a nativity scene is a symbol of hatred. He didn't defend his sign, he worded it that way on purpose and he as much as admitted that he did it to cause controversy.

How in all holy hell is bashing religion considered hateful? If that's true then by logic anyone who bashes an idea as being stupid and dangerous must also be considered hateful. There goes my license to trash schmucks who wish to rely on the state for everything but we musn't let people bash your ideas.

 

[Father Time]

You don't hate God. You hate people who believe in God, and you see yourself as superior to them in intellect and value. YOu think it is a good thing to desecrate the things that believers hold dear, and ridicule believers, and challenge their faith at every corner.

The religion of atheism is no better than any other religion which has allowed assholes and despots to attack those who believe differently than they do.

I can't think of any religion that doesn't have smug pricks, over preachy morons, or assholes somewhere in it. Tis a shame to.

 

[Againsheila]

Not quite through the whole thread yet but this is what I was just thinking about.

Jesus Christ was NOT born on December 25Th, the star of Bethlehem wasn't in the sky in December.


From;
associatedcontent.com/article/1336287/christmas_day_is_june_17_according.html
December 25 was Chosen by the Roman Catholic Church

Astronomers say they have found the original star of Bethlehem, the star that, according to the Christian bible, led the three wise men to the place of birth of Jesus of Nazareth. They also say that Christians have been celebrating Jesus' birth on the wrong day for at least 17 centuries.

Researchers are now saying that the bright star chronicled in the Christian bible was most likely a conjunction between the planets Venus and Jupiter, a visual anomaly that would appear extremely bright in the night sky. Australian astonomer Dave Reneke, according to the Telegraph, used computer software to calculate the stars and the night sky at the time of Jesus' birth. Reneke believes that the 'wise men' noted the anomaly and took it to be the sign of prophecy and followed the star's light to Bethlehem.

Historians generally place the nativity as occurring between 3 BC and 1 AD.

According to Reneke's calculations and using the Gospel of Matthew, the planetary conjunction of Venus and Jupiter occurred on June 17, 2 BC.

Reneke says that the research team is not definitively stating that the conjunction was the star of Bethlehem, but the two planets coming together would have appeared as one bright object in the sky. And the timing is coincidental.

Reneke told the Telegraph, "December is an arbitrary date we have accepted but it doesn't really mean that is when it happened.

"This is not an attempt to decry religion. It's really backing it up as it shows there really was a bright object appearing in the East at the right time.

"Often when we mix science with religion in this kind of forum, it can upset people. In this case, I think this could serve to reinforce people's faith."

Throughout the centuries, several theories have been proffered to explain the 'Christmas star,' or star of Bethlehem. One theory suggested that the star was a brilliant supernova, an exploding star that lit the way for the 'wise men.' Some have suggested a comet.

Reneke believes that the research done by his team is the most compelling to date.


American Atheist Press on one of their Winter Solstice cards;

December 25Th,

by the Julian Calendar, was the winter solstice. This day, originally regarded by the pagans as the day of the nativity of the sun - the shortest day of the year, when the light began it's conquering battle against the darkness - has been celebrated universally throughout human history.

Even being adopted by the Christians as a day on which to celebrate the birth of Jesus, this ancient holiday, set by motions of celestial bodies, survives as a a day of rejoicing that good will and love will have a perpetual rebirth in the minds of all people-even as the sun has a symbolic rebirth yearly.


Now if something like this was displayed by a nativity scene then I think it wouldn't have offended so many. But the main reason for ffrf.org displaying a harshly worded message is because one really big American principal is being broken, IMO, SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!

good info at religioustolerance.org

Well, you're 1/2 right. No one would have complained if the sign had been worded as above, but the principal reason they worded it the way they did was to cause hatred. When called on it being hatred toward religion, the man's reply was that a nativity scene is a symbol of hatred. He didn't defend his sign, he worded it that way on purpose and he as much as admitted that he did it to cause controversy.

How in all holy hell is bashing religion considered hateful? If that's true then by logic anyone who bashes an idea as being stupid and dangerous must also be considered hateful. There goes my license to trash schmucks who wish to rely on the state for everything but we musn't let people bash your ideas.

Oh, please,, putting up a sign next to a nativity at Christmas time that says all religion is stupid and hateful isn't exactly appropriate. Now we have a catholic church near there that's been vandalized...their hate speech worked. Happy now?

 

[Father Time]

Oh, please,, putting up a sign next to a nativity at Christmas time that says all religion is stupid and hateful isn't exactly appropriate. Now we have a catholic church near there that's been vandalized...their hate speech worked. Happy now?

There's inappropriate and then there's hateful which is what you accused it of being. Amazing that you're quick to blame the sign for a church being vandalized. What evidence is there that the sign did that?

Do you really think anyone who didn't previously believe that stuff would be convinced by that sign to go spray paint a church?

 

[Patriot2009]

I'm not avoiding the question, I figured that you were smart enough to get your answer from the comment I made. The person in question could be considered to be doing more than just speaking if he is physically handing out flyers and prompting people to participate. As I already said, though, your preacher saying bad things about homosexuality is not crossing that line unless he is doing more than jut speaking. There is a fine line between just speaking and actually participating or inciting others to participate. I'd have to see more specifics to decide one way or the other.

What more would you need beyond the admission by one of the Congressmen who is cosponsoring this bill in the Congressional Committee hearing, that it can be interpreted to apply in exactly the way that I've described here???

Oh, I know. You want him to call you up and explain it to ya himself...

Oh, I should accept a Congressmans word as the one and only truth? You're daft.
I need more specifics on your dogfighting scenario in order to answer your question. It is too vague to answer but then again, that is what you're basing your argument on so it is in our best interest to leave it vague. You're trying to equate illegal actions with free speech.
Maybe you should try debating on a board that doesn't require logic and reasoning. You and the rest of the right wing retards would feel more at home in such a place.

Yes, you should take the word of this particular Congressman. The reason that you should is that he is a sponsor of the bill.

In case you weren't aware, the courts often defer to just such debates in Congress as a means of determining the intent of a given law. So, the debate concerning this bill, having been given during the consideration of the bill in Congress carries great weight as to the intent of the proposed legislation.

But, I’m sure that you were already aware of this. Your problem isn’t that this is a difficult question. It’s that the true answer isn’t consistent with your original premise that there isn’t anybody who is attempting to “muzzle” Christians. To accept the sponsor’s admission that the bill can be interpreted in exactly the way that I’ve presented here is to be forced to concede that there are actually people who are trying to “muzzle” Christians. People, in fact, who are in positions of great power!

So, as I said earlier, I’ll take your refusal to answer the question as your recognition that you would have to abandon your original premise if you did.

 

[YWN666]

You can declare victory all you like but until you recognize the difference between free speech and illegal actions, you will continue to be wrong. I'll take your refusal to recognize that as your own white flag of defeat.

 

[Agnapostate]

Ugh.

 

[AllieBaba]

Scary, isn't it?

 

[Agnapostate]

Another reason to hope that the Discovery Institute burns to the ground. I've never encountered such massive amounts of idiocy.

 

[Patriot2009]

You can declare victory all you like but until you recognize the difference between free speech and illegal actions, you will continue to be wrong. I'll take your refusal to recognize that as your own white flag of defeat.

And, you can evade the question all you like. But, you can't change the fact that the sponsors of the bill have already conceded the point! So, it seems that you're all by yourself in arguing the position that you've taken.

That is, of course, unless there's another yahoo here who thinks that they can do a "better" job than you have thus far...

 

[YWN666]

You can declare victory all you like but until you recognize the difference between free speech and illegal actions, you will continue to be wrong. I'll take your refusal to recognize that as your own white flag of defeat.

And, you can evade the question all you like. But, you can't change the fact that the sponsors of the bill have already conceded the point! So, it seems that you're all by yourself in arguing the position that you've taken.

That is, of course, unless there's another yahoo here who thinks that they can do a "better" job than you have thus far...

If they have conceded my point, then their argument has no merit, you dumbass. Are you paying attention?

 

[KittenKoder]

How the hell has this topic survived ... even the news finally grew bored of the hype.

 

[Patriot2009]

You can declare victory all you like but until you recognize the difference between free speech and illegal actions, you will continue to be wrong. I'll take your refusal to recognize that as your own white flag of defeat.

And, you can evade the question all you like. But, you can't change the fact that the sponsors of the bill have already conceded the point! So, it seems that you're all by yourself in arguing the position that you've taken.

That is, of course, unless there's another yahoo here who thinks that they can do a "better" job than you have thus far...

If they have conceded my point, then their argument has no merit, you dumbass. Are you paying attention?

Still can't make your case on the merits, eh?

 

[Patriot2009]

How the hell has this topic survived ... even the news finally grew bored of the hype.

So...if you're so bored, what are you still doing here?

 

[KittenKoder]

How the hell has this topic survived ... even the news finally grew bored of the hype.

So...if you're so bored, what are you still doing here?

I keep forgetting to unsubscribe to it ...

 

[Patriot2009]

How the hell has this topic survived ... even the news finally grew bored of the hype.

So...if you're so bored, what are you still doing here?

I keep forgetting to unsubscribe to it ...

Good one!

 

[bgn]

It's funny:

Bash gays - hateful
Bash religion - suck it up

Good times!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Atheists take aim at Christmas - CNN.com

What really interests me about this is the way that Christians, who've won the war to have a nativity placed on the state capitol's grounds, are fighting to SILENCE atheist messages.

Interesting. "Free speech, but only for me."

...the Christian Coalition of America is urging members to oppose the advertisements.

"Although a number of humanists and atheists continue to attempt to rid God and Christmas from the public square, the American people are overwhelmingly opposed to such efforts," Roberta Combs, the group's president said in a press release.

"We will ask our millions of supporters to call the city of Washington, D.C., and Congress to stop this un-Godly campaign."

As far as the criticism goes, Edwords said there are far more controversial placards in Washington.

"That's D.C. -- this is a political center," he said. "If I can see a placard with dead fetuses on it, I think someone can look at our question and just think about it."

The anger over the display in Olympia began after it was assembled Monday. The sentiment grew after some national media personalities called upon viewers to flood the phone lines of the governor's office.

The governor's office told The Seattle Times it received more than 200 calls an hour afterward.

"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."

For some, the issue isn't even that the atheists are putting their thoughts on display, but rather the way in which they are doing it.

"They are shooting themselves in the foot," said iReport contributor Rich Phillips, who describes himself as an atheist. "Everyone's out there for the holidays, trying to represent their religion, their beliefs, and it's a time to be positive."

The atheist message was never intended to attack anyone, Barker said.

"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."

Atheism is a lie... it's the personfication of evil... so it needs to be silenced. Athiests are like homosexuals... they're entitled to their lives, but they're not entitled to infect the culture with their deviancy.

 

[Againsheila]

Atheists take aim at Christmas - CNN.com

What really interests me about this is the way that Christians, who've won the war to have a nativity placed on the state capitol's grounds, are fighting to SILENCE atheist messages.

Interesting. "Free speech, but only for me."

...the Christian Coalition of America is urging members to oppose the advertisements.

"Although a number of humanists and atheists continue to attempt to rid God and Christmas from the public square, the American people are overwhelmingly opposed to such efforts," Roberta Combs, the group's president said in a press release.

"We will ask our millions of supporters to call the city of Washington, D.C., and Congress to stop this un-Godly campaign."

As far as the criticism goes, Edwords said there are far more controversial placards in Washington.

"That's D.C. -- this is a political center," he said. "If I can see a placard with dead fetuses on it, I think someone can look at our question and just think about it."

The anger over the display in Olympia began after it was assembled Monday. The sentiment grew after some national media personalities called upon viewers to flood the phone lines of the governor's office.

The governor's office told The Seattle Times it received more than 200 calls an hour afterward.

"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."

For some, the issue isn't even that the atheists are putting their thoughts on display, but rather the way in which they are doing it.

"They are shooting themselves in the foot," said iReport contributor Rich Phillips, who describes himself as an atheist. "Everyone's out there for the holidays, trying to represent their religion, their beliefs, and it's a time to be positive."

The atheist message was never intended to attack anyone, Barker said.

"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."

Atheism is a lie... it's the personfication of evil... so it needs to be silenced. Athiests are like homosexuals... they're entitled to their lives, but they're not entitled to infect the culture with their deviancy.

Now see, THAT would be hate speech, not a simple nativity scene. The hate speech in that case was put up by the atheists who called everyone that believed in religion hateful and stupid.

The governor should have said they could have their sign as long as they skipped that last sentence which was hate speech. I don't think it's a coincidence that a few weeks later, a catholic church near there was attacked by atheists who broke stained glass windows and vandalized the place.