Which bans all displays "not owned by the county" and the find print is that the religious displays were then donated to the county to allow them to go up while excluding our Tree of Knowledge.
Thanks, that is pretty much where we are now. The Freethought Society can't force the other displays off of public property, so we are seeking a place at the table as it were. For the last three years we got that place although it has been a fight every time. Every year the county tries to find new ways to force us and us alone off of the courthouse lawn while trying to preserve the other displays. This year we will probably loose that fight due to the County's new "Regulation 58-10" (cont.)
How about all the symbols and symbolism of statues and architecture? Especially at airports. There are some weird looking statues at airports. Like what are these things? Couldn't those be considered as some kind of symbol of some kind of weird religion by the elite? Inside the Denver international airport they have murals of the apocalypse and promote Masonry. Taking the 1st amendment and dissecting it will in the end be dangerous to our nation.
I don't think that Christmas or Chanukah decorations on public property amount to an endorsement of religion. If there were placards of Christian or Jewish dogma, that would be a different story. As far as I have observed, baby Jesus is never accompanied by a sign that says "I am the Son of God: worship me," that might be the equivalent of the atheist sign asserting that there is no god.
But lest that qualify upside-down, burning crosses to be displayed, it may be best to allow none.
Ha! Interesting thoughts and clever delivery. I'm posting my challenge to Christians (which I'd bet ex-Christians are better at answering than most current Christians) as a response.... I wonder how many people know what's really written in those books in the bible about the "Christmas story"?
Great video, I can't stand the playing of the victim card whenever a religious person in the states sees a message in favor of atheism or in criticism of god/religion.
How fragile must one's belief and faith be to take offense to someone stating an opinion on the existence of god?
Well, I enjoy all of your videos, even when you talk about stuff that I have no education of (such as politics). I will be watching, Keep up the badasseries.
I disagree with just about every thing you said. It lifts people spirits to have a tree in the town square. I loved seeing candles in every window of my old high school. I think it's a stupid waste of time to worry about this stuff. Everyone should be represented because nearly every culture has a holiday at this time of year! That in itself is strong support for decorating! Think of it as a cultural, not religious, holiday because that's what it really is.
I'm all for people's spirits being lifted. Fortunately, there is no shortage of private property here in the United States for all those spirit-lifting decorations to be placed. Thanks.
Thank you for telling me about private property. Who knew? You completely side stepped my culture argument.
There are plenty of real problems to be solved. This is just stupid.
Maybe if the atheists involved had actually offered a decoration instead of some embarrassingly insipid mission statement, there would have been no issue.
"You completely side stepped my culture argument."
It wasn't really an argument as much as it was a claim. Either way, it's irrelevant to the 1st Amendment question, which is what I addressed in this video and you ignored. I know the nation's population is overwhelmingly Christian and that Christmas has entered the culture as a secular celebration in addition to being a religious one. But it remains a religious celebration, and government in this country is to be neutral about such things.
You're a prof? I have to feel for your students - you really need things spelled out for you. You don't think holiday celebrations are cultural? You are probably all alone in that thought. There is nothing religious at all about holly, ivy, christmas trees, mistletoe, figgy pudding santa claus, or reindeer. Again I say - if you win this battle, just what have you won? And neutrality is not achieved only thru saying no to everything. You can accomplish it by saying yes to everything.
"You don't think holiday celebrations are cultural?"
It seems you're the one who needs things spelled out. Did you miss the part of my previous comment where I said that I know "Christmas has entered the culture as a secular celebration in addition to being a religious one"?
Clearly, you're ignorant of First Amendment jurisprudence. Go familiarize yourself with it and then perhaps you'll be able to engage in this discussion intelligently.
My knowledge of the 1st amendment is as comprehensive as anyone's. You have a pedantic knowledge. We are talking about cultural symbols that do nothing to promote a religion. They predate xianity. Acknowledging the end of the darkness and the the lengthening of the day is an ancient ritual that unites us.
"My knowledge of the 1st Amendment is as comprehensive as anyone's."
I'm not sure who this "anyone" is, but it's clear from your comments that 'comprehensive' is *not* the word to describe your knowledge of the 1st Amemdment. Quite the opposite.
Enough of the Atheist vs. Christian debate! I am an agnostic, and therefore neutral, but I must say these Atheists take things too far. Same for the Christians.
You and VenomFangX are a lot alike, differing only in religious beliefs, you are both have closed minds and hard hearts.
The Christians destroy science and culture. While you Atheists preach hate and hypocrisy. Christians deny science to the masses and Atheists deny the First Amendment rights to the religious.
As an atheist, I do have to say the placard's message was decidedly negative, so I can see how it would be offensive. It would be like a birthday card they read "You are one year older although you are no one special and all this celebration means is you are one day closer to death." I fail to see why anyone would not be offended by that. I can only hope the purpose of the placard was to show what the religious displays were doing in kind.
The more I delve into the history the more I realize just how similar Christianity is to almost all other world religions.
Theres really is no evidende whatsoever for the Historical Jesus, at least not the Jesus of which the evangelia speak of. At the very least I think the Gospels are a combination of various peoples that supposedly fit the description of the Messiah and were all agreed upon in the Niccean council when put to a vote, though the Rabbinical council disagreed though.
And almost ever-single Jewish scholar and Rabbi I have ever meet in my life has thoroughly trashed the christians in all their arguments of whether Jesus truly was the Messiah, even by using their own New Testament.
I definitely agree with your take on the Establisment Clause. Really a lot of First Amendment law makes my head hurt ... like why government interference with broadcast has a different test than print.
Hey Prof, as a believer and a civil libererian I agree with the court that the sign should stay, but here is a hypothecal situation for you, in a office block there are rules allowing you to decorate your personal cublical but a athiest takes against a perosn having a decorated crufix on their wall what is the right way to solve that problem? should he be allowed to keep it up or should they reach a compromise of a non decorated (no jesus upon it) crucifix, i awiat your answer.
That you decorate the inside of your cubicle as you wish, but not the outside as that is company property, its is a public entity but as long as the crucifix is not outside then noone can complain, what is the rightn way I personally would put up a non decorated cross and then hope that the person would be satisfied with this.
Ah, well, the policy is problematic then -- particularly, the bit about the outside of the cubicle being "company property" while the inside is not. *Everything* at the workplace except one's personal property, i.e., one's clothing, one's briefcase, is company property. So, that sort of split designation could not be made.
Employers have the authority to make and enforce rules about how employees decorate the space in which they work.
Oh gee you spent a lot of time making and researching this video. I only wish you would take a little time to call me. if we spoke more then our calls would be shorter.
I just want to speak to my good friend so much.
I think all the displays should have been allowed:Christmas, Ramadan, chaunaka, Buddha Including the Solitice sign.
I guess we could all use our own property for I did. It is nice to see Christmas trees around during this holiday of love.
Agreed. I had no issue with the years spent looking at religious displays on public grounds. But if atheists are not afforded the same rights without hate and abuse from religion, then fuck them all.
They want to whine, let them keep their displays to themselves and we will do likewise. Surely though they will still see this as persecution. Go figure! =)
Prof I've gotta disagree with you on this. Though governments should set up strict protocol regarding equal access to all view points in a way that it can avoid these legal costs. Society should work to set up displays for the major holidays of different religions and social groups as a part of proactive inclusiveness.
Thanks for the comment, EuroCntricHipyChrist. What you're proposing isn't the sort of neutrality that I believe the First Amendment demands in an officially secular nation, but I can certainly understand your perspective.
Actually, it's very much not the same thing. Your equating them merely reflects your mistaken belief that keeping religious and religion-related displays off public property = banning speech.
Finally, some sense in an otherwise hectic and bewildered scene of mass hysteria and inanity.
Government money and time, on both state and federal levels, should be spent worrying about and screwing up other things, not touching religion. Just as with the ten commandments in the courthouse, the supreme law of the land once again shows its wisdom.
Also, excellent point bringing out how Christmas is technically a hijacked pagan holiday that has nothing to do with the rest of the myth.
Ummm, how do you figure? Government, as shown in the law of our land, must support or rail against no religion, that's called equality.
Furthermore, look up Saturnalia and the Festival of Yule, and you might just see that my comment was based in objective truth. The church as it was hijacked both holidays and placed Jesus' birthday on December 25th to attract more people to the churches. They figured that capturing the pagan market would be easy by incorporating their holidays.
"Do you regard 'myth' as a hateful term, Raggedy?"
Hi Prof, well sense he couldn't just say what he had to say, and leave it at that, he went the extra mile to try to offend by calling what I believe myth. So yes, the way he used the word myth, I thought it was hateful.
The word 'myth' can be freely used in this context as you have provided no evidence or logical reasoning for the beliefs that you choose to assert as true. Until you can substantiate your claims with evidence or an ontological character for god...it will continue to be 'myth'.
It isn't hateful in the least, it's simply a label for something that fits.
I don't hate your chosen deity either...as I don't even have sufficient proof to believe in him, and hence, cannot hate him.
"Until you can substantiate your claims with evidence or an ontological character for god...it will continue to be 'myth'."
If you don't believe a man named Jesus, who claimed to be the Christ, died on the cross, body missing from the tomb, and had 10 disciples who willingly died terrible deaths because they believed Jesus was the Christ, if you believe they didn't walk the earth you are lying to yourself.
And there is plenty of evidence for God, people like yourself just deny it.
We do not have any substantive evidence for Jesus' existence, and no, the Bible doesn't count, as it's riddled with errors.
I believe he had 12 apostles....or am I mistaken?
How am I lying to myself when the only proof you present is the very belabored idea of truth that you wish your statements to be, backed up by a tome of dubious historicity.
Once again, you are making a claim. You are failing to provide an ontology for your claim, or any clear evidence for it. Your claim is 'myth'.
But if it's ontology you need to believe in God, then you might just be staying a non-believer until death. If we knew God's ontology we then wouldn't be required to live by faith.
If you don't want to believe the Bible that is fine, but if that is the case then why should we believe anything recorded in history? George Washington could just be a "myth".
"If you don't want to believe the Bible that is fine, but if that is the case then why should we believe anything recorded in history? George Washington could just be a 'myth'."
Lots of unspoken and problematic assumptions packed into that statement, Raggedy.
"How is it any different then Mizar calling the Bible a myth?"
I'm not exactly sure what you're asking me here, but I can say that there is no shortage of historical evidence of George Washington's existence. To equate the state of that historical record with questions about the historical accuracy of, e.g., the gospels, is, at best, misguided.
"To equate the state of that historical record with questions about the historical accuracy of, e.g., the gospels, is, at best, misguided."
This is your opinion, Prof. What exactly is the shortage of Christ's existence? Regardless of how inaccurate you feel the gospels are, does not dismiss the existence of Jesus.
I'm not an adherent of the view that the person who's come to be called Jesus Christ did not exist. However, that doesn't mean the gospels are historical documents. The authors were writing good news, not history. They were mythologizing -- and I don't use that term to say they set out to write fiction, rather that they set out to tell stories that conveyed and illustrated what they regarded as theological truths about Jesus. One encounters a bit of the same thing when it comes to George...
...Washington, e.g., the story about his not being able to tell a lie about the cherry tree is unlikely to be a matter of historical fact, but, rather, was a story developed to convey and illustrate the George Washington was person, nay, a *leader* with an impeccable moral character. That said, the degree of mythologizing about George Washington is minute in comparison to the mythologizing about Jesus. Conversely, the historical record about Washington dwarfs the historical record about Jesus.
"That said, the degree of mythologizing about George Washington is minute in comparison to the mythologizing about Jesus. Conversely, the historical record about Washington dwarfs the historical record..."
Again this is your opinion, you have to remember the thousands of first century Christians that died for whom they believed to be the Christ. We can sit here all day and try to find inaccuracies about history, but bottom line is there is overwhelming amount of historical evidence for Jesus.
"Wow, so I guess Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are just a bunch of liars."
I've already addressed this, so I'm not going to repeat myself, but, rather, encourage you to pay attention to what your interlocutor says to you in a discussion. In any case, whatever the authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were, they weren't historians and they didn't produce historical narratives. That's not to say one can't find any history in them, but that doesn't make the books into history books.
I believe there is plenty of evidence to build a historical case for a man named Jesus who claimed He was the Christ. You seem to think there is "exceedingly little" my point was regardless of who thinks there is a little or a lot of evidence, there is still evidence of a man named Jesus.
I did a multi-part video series on this issue, Raggedy. No, I'm not going to rehearse it all in a comment box -- paticularly not in a comment box under a video to which it is utterly irrelevant.
"I did a multi-part video series on this issue, Raggedy. No, I'm not going to rehearse it all in a comment box -- paticularly not in a comment box under a video to which it is utterly irrelevant."
prof. PLEASE DON'T SAY YOUR AGAINST CHRITMAS.You need to hang out with people who are in touch with the Divine so you can also get in touch. Even the Winter soltice was an celebration of a power that people did not understand. So there my excelent friend. call me maybe its late but just call me.
"I quite agree. That doesn't mean the expressions need to be on government property. It's funny how so many conservatives religious people talk about getting the government out of their lives, but when it comes to stuff like this, they very much want the government pushing their viewpoint for them."
1000 percent agree with this comment, it drives me nuts that conservatives do this.
Now hold on...you are talking about "conservative religious people". You are reacting to a minority within religious groups as a whole. Atheists are a minority too, responding mostly to the other minority. I say, let everyone have chalk, and keep the chalk board open for all comments, anywhere. Otherwise you would be serving only the atheists, and that's unfair.
"I say, let everyone have chalk, and keep the chalk board open for all comments, anywhere. Otherwise you would be serving only the atheists, and that's unfair."
I don't see how not letting anyone decorate city hall is serving only the atheist's. Government should deal only with government issue's nothing else. I personally think that is the fairest.
That's just the problem raggedy. You are looking for every reason to prohibit people's expression of religion. It is in fact better to let all beliefs say what they want in any circumstance, because that is most fair. And, if you expect to change other peoples views by keeping thier chalk away from the chalkboard, you are doing an injustice to people's freedom of expression. Let people write, and ignore what you disapprove of.
No xpdnc12, that is what private property and churches are for. Feel free to express whatever you want, it doesn't have to be done on government property.
"You are looking for every reason to prohibit people's expression of religion."
Trust me this is the last thing I want, I just hate the idea that the government should play any part in expressing religious views. Government also has no right in interfering with any religious activity when done in a safe and peaceful way.
Good video...you've touched another nerve. Of course the Government needs to be neutral & secular. A shame the Muslims aren't in this battle to put an orphaned baby Muhammad & his donkey in the mix.
Let's celebrate, just don't have anything that's attached to baby jesus...let's see stuff associated with the original pagan Winter Solstice.
"It's hate speech", they whine. Christian nuts like them have a persecution complex, and need to get a clue. Hate speech is not "your religion is wrong and it is bad for you to believe in it." It is "you all suck and you need to die." But the idea of "hate speech" is pretty much bullshit anyway (see TheAmazingAtheist's video on it).
Given the choice between no displays and a country that looks more like the Soviet Union vs. a vibrant one with multiple beliefs in display, I would choose the latter. Why? Because I can sort all the crap out in my head. It doesn't bother anyone EXCEPT atheists. It is a trivial and silly excercise to erase a chalk board and make it blank in a society that invites everyone with all colors of chalk to write freely. We can figure it out in our own minds.
"Given the choice between no displays and a country that looks more like the Soviet Union vs. a vibrant one with multiple beliefs in display, I would choose the latter."
There needn't be religious and religion-related displays on public property in order for this to be a vibrant country with multiple beliefs on display. As I noted in a comment earlier, New York provides a great example of this. There is a gigantic Christmas tree displayed in Rockefeller Center -- private property -- with...
...lighted, trumpet-blasting angel figures lining the promenade that leads to the tree and ice skating rink below. If one wants to see a tableau of Jesus' birth, one need only cross the street to enter St. Patrick's Cathedral where there is an enormous creche on display. As one crosses the street, one will see the windows and walls of Saks Fifth Avenue vibrating with holiday lights and decorations, not to mention the many other shops and other businesses festooned with symbols of Christmas...
...and other winter holidays. There is, perhaps, no more vibrant scene during the holidays, and not a drop of it is on government property.
"It doesn't bother anyone EXCEPT atheists."
It may please you to be believe this, but it's untrue. E.g., my position on this was precisely the same when I was a believer. I know a number of Christians, not to mention adherents of other religious traditions -- some quite conservative, I might add -- who have the same position.
You know, if you're ignorant of a subject, it's kind of considered rude to try to bluff your way through as if you know what you're talking about.
The First Amendment says the government cannot promote any religion. The US Supreme Court, on many occasions, has stated that this applies to religious displays on government property. In short, we don't NEED to gather petitions or pass a law. James Madison saw to it for us way back in 1789.
Hey we agree on something Prof, no religious symbols on government property. But I don't think a baby Jesus is meant to be offensive as this atheist sign displayed in Washington state. Now if atheist used an atheist symbol that wouldn't be offensive.
What would an atheist "symbol" look like? Would it be a purely self-referential symbol? Perhaps it would not be a symbol at all - therefore prof's recommenation of nothing at all may ring true - hmm!
Fist off, is a symbol a symbol if it doesn't have a referent? Atheists don't beleive in God, so the religious symbols aren't really symbols (since they signify a non-existent).
If Christams trees just mean a celebration of a time of year (the way they seem to do around here) I say toss em up and give the people an excuse to party - on public land!
I have to say that I, too, am completely ambivalent.
On the one hand, I don't believe in Jesus et al. And the Constitution says the state should not promote any specific religion.
On the other hand, the season does have more than just a religious context, O'Reilly et al complaints to the contrary. My atheist family "celebrates" with decorations, gifts, feasts, etc.
I know many atheist Jews who still celebrate Rosh Hoshanna and Yom Kippur. It's cultural, not religious. Any excuse to eat. :-)
Whether the content of the message offends someone is constitutionally irrelevant, Raggedy. In any case, I'm glad we can agree to the proposition that public property is no place for the display of religious symbols.
Christmas is a pagan winter solstice festival that the early Christian church appropriated as the birthday of Jesus.
Across much of northern Europe the winter solstice/new year festival was celebrated with lights and evergreen plants and trees centuries before it became "Christmas". England had a pagan "Father Christmas" spirit with a green and white costume.
I'd lose the nativity scenes and keep the trees and lights. We should change the date to Dec 21 too - the real winter solstice.
Prof- the difference I see in that atheist display is that it is not a display of celebration or commemoration, but rather one in activism. It's unnecessary. Most holiday displays are for commemoration and celebration of an event. Also, do you celebrate Christmas or any holiday for that matter? Which ones? Why?
"Prof- the difference I see in that atheist display is that it is not a display of celebration or commemoration, but rather one in activism. It's unnecessary."
Even if true, it's constitutionally irrelevant, Bberchin. If government is going to permit these holiday displays on public property, it must do so on a content-neutral basis.
"Also, do you celebrate Christmas or any holiday for that matter? Which ones? Why?"
I celebrate Christmas and Easter and all the rest. Unlike...
...when I was a believer, going to church isn't an aspect of the celebrations for me -- although I will go (and have gone) if asked. Most relevant here, I celebrate Christmas because I like it -- always have and, I suspect, always will. I celebrate Thanksgiving, too, the 4th of July, New Year's ... shall I go on? ;-)
I agree that the government should stay out of it, but I don't agree that the government should be neutral, in fact it is impossible for government to be neutral in its legislation. Our government and constitution was founded upon Christian principles and worked well until liberals began to grow the government bigger. Though, I agree that all of these displays should simply be kept to private property (that's been attacked as well). Also, what do your Christmas festivities include?
"I agree that the government should stay out of it, but I don't agree that the government should be neutral, in fact it is impossible for government to be neutral in its legislation."
Why do you say that?
"Our government and constitution was founded upon Christian principles and worked well until liberals began to grow the government bigger."
Actually, our system was founded on the principles of English liberalism as articulated by John Locke and some others.
To be sure, the founders of the republic had a more or less common Protestant heritage and lived in a word with lots of Protestant assumptions, but to say that the United States government was founded on Christian principles is just not historically accurate. John Locke said there was no such thing as a Christian commonwealth, and the founders of the republic agreed.
"Though, I agree that all of these displays should simply be kept to private property (that's been attacked as well)."
I'm glad we agree. What "attacks" on holiday displays on private property are you referring to?
"Also, what do your Christmas festivities include?"
You lookin' for an invitation? ;-) On Christmas Eve we tip a hat to my partner's Italian heritage and do a version of the 7-fish dinner. I say "a version" because my family -- of Irish and German descent -- like their...
...meat and expect it on the table on Christmas Eve. On Christmas Day, my cousin and his spouse and my partner and I rotate hosting: one year it's at their house, the next year it's at ours. My cousin's mother and my mother (twin sisters, both dead now) used to have something of the same arrangement and we've kept it going in their honor. Excellent food, excellent wine, family & good friends -- throw in some lovely decorations & some good music and it's a time to look foward to and remember.
All public space should be private including government space.
TheChristianMystic 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Try to add some Description for Photos not for SEO purpose
but for people. That will
help you.
You can also share in Flickr that may help you rank well.
mr24bd 2 months ago
That dog was just awsome, havent laughed that hard in quite some time.
Grabovsky85 11 months ago
@Grabovsky85 Glad you enjoyed it. ;-)
ProfMTH 11 months ago
We don't have a constitution in Britain, so this never happens :)
DerBlitzStag 1 year ago
I like the meaning and symbolism behind the menorah so I have kept all of my old menorahs as a cultural reminder.
HeyRuka 1 year ago
@HeyRuka I've done the same with the Nativity scene I inherited from my grandmother.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Which bans all displays "not owned by the county" and the find print is that the religious displays were then donated to the county to allow them to go up while excluding our Tree of Knowledge.
DangerousTalk 1 year ago
Thanks, that is pretty much where we are now. The Freethought Society can't force the other displays off of public property, so we are seeking a place at the table as it were. For the last three years we got that place although it has been a fight every time. Every year the county tries to find new ways to force us and us alone off of the courthouse lawn while trying to preserve the other displays. This year we will probably loose that fight due to the County's new "Regulation 58-10" (cont.)
DangerousTalk 1 year ago
How about all the symbols and symbolism of statues and architecture? Especially at airports. There are some weird looking statues at airports. Like what are these things? Couldn't those be considered as some kind of symbol of some kind of weird religion by the elite? Inside the Denver international airport they have murals of the apocalypse and promote Masonry. Taking the 1st amendment and dissecting it will in the end be dangerous to our nation.
jrhd00d84 1 year ago
@jrhd00d84 "Taking the 1st amendment and dissecting it will in the end be dangerous to our nation."
Dissecting it?
ProfMTH 1 year ago
3:13 LMAO
ff621 1 year ago
@ff621 "3:13 LMAO"
;-)
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ff621 I think 3:13 is FOX news in general.
Doomcharger 1 year ago
¡Well said!
Walabio 2 years ago
I don't think that Christmas or Chanukah decorations on public property amount to an endorsement of religion. If there were placards of Christian or Jewish dogma, that would be a different story. As far as I have observed, baby Jesus is never accompanied by a sign that says "I am the Son of God: worship me," that might be the equivalent of the atheist sign asserting that there is no god.
But lest that qualify upside-down, burning crosses to be displayed, it may be best to allow none.
jonathanpaulmayer 2 years ago
Ha! Interesting thoughts and clever delivery. I'm posting my challenge to Christians (which I'd bet ex-Christians are better at answering than most current Christians) as a response.... I wonder how many people know what's really written in those books in the bible about the "Christmas story"?
ReligiousFiction 2 years ago
That sign was put up NOT to make a point so much as to just piss people off. It looks like mission accomplished.
wheelzwheela 2 years ago
@wheelzwheela and you don't think christians do the same?
FlyinSpaghettiMnstr7 1 year ago
Great video, I can't stand the playing of the victim card whenever a religious person in the states sees a message in favor of atheism or in criticism of god/religion.
How fragile must one's belief and faith be to take offense to someone stating an opinion on the existence of god?
twholland1 2 years ago
Indeed. Thanks a lot.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Bravo!!!
Either allow ALL of it, or NONE of it.
PhazonInfuser 2 years ago
Exactly. And the latter is much better.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Favorited.
SaganAppreciationSoc 2 years ago
Thanks.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
The poodle! LOL!
eatingperson 2 years ago
;-)
ProfMTH 2 years ago
You sound like George From NY. Anyway, you have made very good points.
Yesitis808 2 years ago
lol So I've been told. George and I have communicated here on YouTube. Very nice guys.
Thanks.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Cool. Does George have a channel?
Yesitis808 2 years ago
Yes, though I don't believe he makes any videos.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Oh, thanks anyways.
Well, I enjoy all of your videos, even when you talk about stuff that I have no education of (such as politics). I will be watching, Keep up the badasseries.
Yesitis808 2 years ago
I disagree with just about every thing you said. It lifts people spirits to have a tree in the town square. I loved seeing candles in every window of my old high school. I think it's a stupid waste of time to worry about this stuff. Everyone should be represented because nearly every culture has a holiday at this time of year! That in itself is strong support for decorating! Think of it as a cultural, not religious, holiday because that's what it really is.
TheSoSoAgnostic 2 years ago
I'm all for people's spirits being lifted. Fortunately, there is no shortage of private property here in the United States for all those spirit-lifting decorations to be placed. Thanks.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Thank you for telling me about private property. Who knew? You completely side stepped my culture argument.
There are plenty of real problems to be solved. This is just stupid.
Maybe if the atheists involved had actually offered a decoration instead of some embarrassingly insipid mission statement, there would have been no issue.
TheSoSoAgnostic 2 years ago
"You completely side stepped my culture argument."
It wasn't really an argument as much as it was a claim. Either way, it's irrelevant to the 1st Amendment question, which is what I addressed in this video and you ignored. I know the nation's population is overwhelmingly Christian and that Christmas has entered the culture as a secular celebration in addition to being a religious one. But it remains a religious celebration, and government in this country is to be neutral about such things.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
You're a prof? I have to feel for your students - you really need things spelled out for you. You don't think holiday celebrations are cultural? You are probably all alone in that thought. There is nothing religious at all about holly, ivy, christmas trees, mistletoe, figgy pudding santa claus, or reindeer. Again I say - if you win this battle, just what have you won? And neutrality is not achieved only thru saying no to everything. You can accomplish it by saying yes to everything.
TheSoSoAgnostic 2 years ago
"You don't think holiday celebrations are cultural?"
It seems you're the one who needs things spelled out. Did you miss the part of my previous comment where I said that I know "Christmas has entered the culture as a secular celebration in addition to being a religious one"?
Clearly, you're ignorant of First Amendment jurisprudence. Go familiarize yourself with it and then perhaps you'll be able to engage in this discussion intelligently.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
My knowledge of the 1st amendment is as comprehensive as anyone's. You have a pedantic knowledge. We are talking about cultural symbols that do nothing to promote a religion. They predate xianity. Acknowledging the end of the darkness and the the lengthening of the day is an ancient ritual that unites us.
TheSoSoAgnostic 2 years ago
"My knowledge of the 1st Amendment is as comprehensive as anyone's."
I'm not sure who this "anyone" is, but it's clear from your comments that 'comprehensive' is *not* the word to describe your knowledge of the 1st Amemdment. Quite the opposite.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
That dog is speaking in tongues. It must be a born-again christian. After all, all dogs go to heaven, including those in China.
FyFhFr25 2 years ago
LOL that dog clip was just so awesome!!! I agree with you completely :) Keep these videos up I love them :)
TheNocturneMoon 2 years ago
Thanks. Glad you do.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Enough of the Atheist vs. Christian debate! I am an agnostic, and therefore neutral, but I must say these Atheists take things too far. Same for the Christians.
You and VenomFangX are a lot alike, differing only in religious beliefs, you are both have closed minds and hard hearts.
The Christians destroy science and culture. While you Atheists preach hate and hypocrisy. Christians deny science to the masses and Atheists deny the First Amendment rights to the religious.
PaulieRomanov 2 years ago
You're a nut, Paulie. I'm not advocating denying First Amendment rights or any other rights to the religious.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Fuck all holidays holidays suck.
bobbbbbable 2 years ago
As an atheist, I do have to say the placard's message was decidedly negative, so I can see how it would be offensive. It would be like a birthday card they read "You are one year older although you are no one special and all this celebration means is you are one day closer to death." I fail to see why anyone would not be offended by that. I can only hope the purpose of the placard was to show what the religious displays were doing in kind.
jackspencerjr 2 years ago
HERE HERE!!! or is it HEAR HEAR!!!!
anyway....lolol GOOD for you! Good video.
ATHEISTS UNITE!
tamichalak 2 years ago
;-) It's "hear, hear." And thanks very much.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Not the tree. I like the tree.
You seem like a smart man. I must say you are my favorite athiest.
I'd like to recommend my favorite Christian to you on youtube. Now he is RationalRoundTable, he use to be KingThiest.
Like you, underrated and has good points.
DansLookingGlass 2 years ago
Good gawd
I just about keeled over at the dog
Shadizar666 2 years ago
;-)
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Oh look at the pretty Christmas tree! Ahhh it warms my heart....
Wait!What is this!? A sign thats telling me to use my BRAIN!!
How dare you to ask me to start thinking!!This is an outrage!!
LMAO
Celticking36 3 years ago
;-)
ProfMTH 3 years ago
The more I delve into the history the more I realize just how similar Christianity is to almost all other world religions.
Theres really is no evidende whatsoever for the Historical Jesus, at least not the Jesus of which the evangelia speak of. At the very least I think the Gospels are a combination of various peoples that supposedly fit the description of the Messiah and were all agreed upon in the Niccean council when put to a vote, though the Rabbinical council disagreed though.
CommanderSavage 3 years ago
And almost ever-single Jewish scholar and Rabbi I have ever meet in my life has thoroughly trashed the christians in all their arguments of whether Jesus truly was the Messiah, even by using their own New Testament.
CommanderSavage 3 years ago
I definitely agree with your take on the Establisment Clause. Really a lot of First Amendment law makes my head hurt ... like why government interference with broadcast has a different test than print.
iniksbane 3 years ago
Do you mean in the context of defamation law?
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Actually I was thinking in the context of Red Lion v. FCC. Although I haven't kept up on case law, but I don't think it's been eliminated.
iniksbane 2 years ago
Ah. True enough; the case is still good law.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Hahahaha, one of your funnier and more lighthearted videos turns out to be one of your best.
LaCerca 3 years ago
Thanks.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
What the hell's wrong with that dog?
bluelite7x 3 years ago
lol I'm not sure.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
It voted Republican back in Novermber
0FreedomForever0 3 years ago
lol!
bluelite7x 3 years ago
Excellent video. Keep up the great work!
ExmormonFoundation 3 years ago
Thanks very much. Happy New Year.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
I could make a long comment, but I'll simply leave it at "Thank You."
marckrizack 3 years ago
You're welcome. :-)
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Hey Prof, as a believer and a civil libererian I agree with the court that the sign should stay, but here is a hypothecal situation for you, in a office block there are rules allowing you to decorate your personal cublical but a athiest takes against a perosn having a decorated crufix on their wall what is the right way to solve that problem? should he be allowed to keep it up or should they reach a compromise of a non decorated (no jesus upon it) crucifix, i awiat your answer.
bossman103 3 years ago
Is the employer a private or public entity? When you say "rules," do you mean there is a stated, uniformly enforced policy on cubicle decoration?
ProfMTH 3 years ago
That you decorate the inside of your cubicle as you wish, but not the outside as that is company property, its is a public entity but as long as the crucifix is not outside then noone can complain, what is the rightn way I personally would put up a non decorated cross and then hope that the person would be satisfied with this.
bossman103 3 years ago
Ah, well, the policy is problematic then -- particularly, the bit about the outside of the cubicle being "company property" while the inside is not. *Everything* at the workplace except one's personal property, i.e., one's clothing, one's briefcase, is company property. So, that sort of split designation could not be made.
Employers have the authority to make and enforce rules about how employees decorate the space in which they work.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Great Video! :) Happy Winter Solstice to All!
XanderXereus 3 years ago
Thanks, Xander. The same to you and yours.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Oh gee you spent a lot of time making and researching this video. I only wish you would take a little time to call me. if we spoke more then our calls would be shorter.
I just want to speak to my good friend so much.
I think all the displays should have been allowed:Christmas, Ramadan, chaunaka, Buddha Including the Solitice sign.
I guess we could all use our own property for I did. It is nice to see Christmas trees around during this holiday of love.
jam11432 3 years ago
Agreed. I had no issue with the years spent looking at religious displays on public grounds. But if atheists are not afforded the same rights without hate and abuse from religion, then fuck them all.
They want to whine, let them keep their displays to themselves and we will do likewise. Surely though they will still see this as persecution. Go figure! =)
ulthea 3 years ago
Excellent video. Let the first amendment do its job.
nofacespartan 3 years ago
"Let the first amendment do its job."
Indeed. Thanks, Nofacespartan.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Prof I've gotta disagree with you on this. Though governments should set up strict protocol regarding equal access to all view points in a way that it can avoid these legal costs. Society should work to set up displays for the major holidays of different religions and social groups as a part of proactive inclusiveness.
EuroCntricHipyChrist 3 years ago
Thanks for the comment, EuroCntricHipyChrist. What you're proposing isn't the sort of neutrality that I believe the First Amendment demands in an officially secular nation, but I can certainly understand your perspective.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Question: If removing displays from public property is better, than isn't it also better then to ban or censor books from the Public Library?
xpdnc12 3 years ago
No.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Why not Prof? Why not also ban Christmas Parades, Gay Pride Parades and KKK protests that occur on Public Streets? It's the same thing.
xpdnc12 3 years ago
"It's the same thing."
Actually, it's very much not the same thing. Your equating them merely reflects your mistaken belief that keeping religious and religion-related displays off public property = banning speech.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
I agree, no religious symbols on public property.
mdean1215 3 years ago
Excellent.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Finally, some sense in an otherwise hectic and bewildered scene of mass hysteria and inanity.
Government money and time, on both state and federal levels, should be spent worrying about and screwing up other things, not touching religion. Just as with the ten commandments in the courthouse, the supreme law of the land once again shows its wisdom.
Also, excellent point bringing out how Christmas is technically a hijacked pagan holiday that has nothing to do with the rest of the myth.
MizarShadow 3 years ago
Thanks, Mizar.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
"Also, excellent point bringing out how Christmas is technically a hijacked pagan holiday that has nothing to do with the rest of the myth."
Your comment just oozes hatred for the biblical God.
raggedy80 3 years ago
Ummm, how do you figure? Government, as shown in the law of our land, must support or rail against no religion, that's called equality.
Furthermore, look up Saturnalia and the Festival of Yule, and you might just see that my comment was based in objective truth. The church as it was hijacked both holidays and placed Jesus' birthday on December 25th to attract more people to the churches. They figured that capturing the pagan market would be easy by incorporating their holidays.
MizarShadow 3 years ago
I wasn't referring to the festivals, I could careless about that, I was just pointing out how you had to throw the word "myth" into your comment.
raggedy80 3 years ago
Do you regard 'myth' as a hateful term, Raggedy?
ProfMTH 3 years ago
"Do you regard 'myth' as a hateful term, Raggedy?"
Hi Prof, well sense he couldn't just say what he had to say, and leave it at that, he went the extra mile to try to offend by calling what I believe myth. So yes, the way he used the word myth, I thought it was hateful.
raggedy80 3 years ago
The word 'myth' can be freely used in this context as you have provided no evidence or logical reasoning for the beliefs that you choose to assert as true. Until you can substantiate your claims with evidence or an ontological character for god...it will continue to be 'myth'.
It isn't hateful in the least, it's simply a label for something that fits.
I don't hate your chosen deity either...as I don't even have sufficient proof to believe in him, and hence, cannot hate him.
MizarShadow 3 years ago
"Until you can substantiate your claims with evidence or an ontological character for god...it will continue to be 'myth'."
If you don't believe a man named Jesus, who claimed to be the Christ, died on the cross, body missing from the tomb, and had 10 disciples who willingly died terrible deaths because they believed Jesus was the Christ, if you believe they didn't walk the earth you are lying to yourself.
And there is plenty of evidence for God, people like yourself just deny it.
raggedy80 3 years ago
We do not have any substantive evidence for Jesus' existence, and no, the Bible doesn't count, as it's riddled with errors.
I believe he had 12 apostles....or am I mistaken?
How am I lying to myself when the only proof you present is the very belabored idea of truth that you wish your statements to be, backed up by a tome of dubious historicity.
Once again, you are making a claim. You are failing to provide an ontology for your claim, or any clear evidence for it. Your claim is 'myth'.
MizarShadow 3 years ago
"We do not have any substantive evidence for Jesus' existence, and no, the Bible doesn't count, as it's riddled with errors."
Lol, let me ask you something MizarShadow, what year was it 2010 years ago as we know it today?
"I believe he had 12 apostles....or am I mistaken?"
I said 10 because Judas and John weren't martyred.
"You are failing to provide an ontology for your claim, or any clear evidence for it. Your claim is 'myth'."
Lol, I enjoy Prof's videos to Mizar...
raggedy80 3 years ago
But if it's ontology you need to believe in God, then you might just be staying a non-believer until death. If we knew God's ontology we then wouldn't be required to live by faith.
If you don't want to believe the Bible that is fine, but if that is the case then why should we believe anything recorded in history? George Washington could just be a "myth".
raggedy80 3 years ago
"If you don't want to believe the Bible that is fine, but if that is the case then why should we believe anything recorded in history? George Washington could just be a 'myth'."
Lots of unspoken and problematic assumptions packed into that statement, Raggedy.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
"Lots of unspoken and problematic assumptions packed into that statement, Raggedy."
How is it any different then Mizar calling the Bible a myth?
raggedy80 3 years ago
"How is it any different then Mizar calling the Bible a myth?"
I'm not exactly sure what you're asking me here, but I can say that there is no shortage of historical evidence of George Washington's existence. To equate the state of that historical record with questions about the historical accuracy of, e.g., the gospels, is, at best, misguided.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
"To equate the state of that historical record with questions about the historical accuracy of, e.g., the gospels, is, at best, misguided."
This is your opinion, Prof. What exactly is the shortage of Christ's existence? Regardless of how inaccurate you feel the gospels are, does not dismiss the existence of Jesus.
raggedy80 3 years ago
I'm not an adherent of the view that the person who's come to be called Jesus Christ did not exist. However, that doesn't mean the gospels are historical documents. The authors were writing good news, not history. They were mythologizing -- and I don't use that term to say they set out to write fiction, rather that they set out to tell stories that conveyed and illustrated what they regarded as theological truths about Jesus. One encounters a bit of the same thing when it comes to George...
ProfMTH 3 years ago
...Washington, e.g., the story about his not being able to tell a lie about the cherry tree is unlikely to be a matter of historical fact, but, rather, was a story developed to convey and illustrate the George Washington was person, nay, a *leader* with an impeccable moral character. That said, the degree of mythologizing about George Washington is minute in comparison to the mythologizing about Jesus. Conversely, the historical record about Washington dwarfs the historical record about Jesus.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
"That said, the degree of mythologizing about George Washington is minute in comparison to the mythologizing about Jesus. Conversely, the historical record about Washington dwarfs the historical record..."
Again this is your opinion, you have to remember the thousands of first century Christians that died for whom they believed to be the Christ. We can sit here all day and try to find inaccuracies about history, but bottom line is there is overwhelming amount of historical evidence for Jesus.
raggedy80 3 years ago
"Again this is your opinion...."
Actually, Raggedy, it's not merely my opinion. It's a matter of fact.
"...you have to remember the thousands of first century Christians that died for whom they believed to be the Christ."
That's irrelevant to whether the gospels qualify as historical documents.
"...bottom line is there is overwhelming amount of historical evidence for Jesus."
No, there isn't. There's actually exceedingly little historical evidence of Jesus. Sorry.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
"No, there isn't. There's actually exceedingly little historical evidence of Jesus. Sorry."
Lol, keep telling yourself that, Prof
Wow, so I guess Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are just a bunch of liars.
Little or a lot, there is still evidence.
raggedy80 3 years ago
"Wow, so I guess Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are just a bunch of liars."
I've already addressed this, so I'm not going to repeat myself, but, rather, encourage you to pay attention to what your interlocutor says to you in a discussion. In any case, whatever the authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were, they weren't historians and they didn't produce historical narratives. That's not to say one can't find any history in them, but that doesn't make the books into history books.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
"Little or a lot, there is still evidence."
I haven't said otherwise. I've merely noted the paucity of evidence, which seemed to vex you. Now you say it doesn't matter. Fascinating.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
"That's not to say one can't find any history in them, but that doesn't make the books into history books."
What makes any book a historical book, Prof?
"I haven't said otherwise. I've merely noted the paucity of evidence, which seemed to vex you. Now you say it doesn't matter. Fascinating."
I never said "it doesn't matter", you seem to have put words into my mouth, of all people you should know better then that...
raggedy80 3 years ago
I believe there is plenty of evidence to build a historical case for a man named Jesus who claimed He was the Christ. You seem to think there is "exceedingly little" my point was regardless of who thinks there is a little or a lot of evidence, there is still evidence of a man named Jesus.
raggedy80 3 years ago
"What makes any book a historical book, Prof?"
Have a look at my videos on the Bible as history, Raggedy. I address this topic in some detail.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
"Have a look at my videos on the Bible as history, Raggedy. I address this topic in some detail."
You can just answer the question here?
raggedy80 3 years ago
I also wasn't asking why the Bible as history.
I asked what makes any book a historical book?
raggedy80 3 years ago
"You can just answer the question here?"
I did a multi-part video series on this issue, Raggedy. No, I'm not going to rehearse it all in a comment box -- paticularly not in a comment box under a video to which it is utterly irrelevant.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
"I did a multi-part video series on this issue, Raggedy. No, I'm not going to rehearse it all in a comment box -- paticularly not in a comment box under a video to which it is utterly irrelevant."
I see.
raggedy80 3 years ago
prof. PLEASE DON'T SAY YOUR AGAINST CHRITMAS.You need to hang out with people who are in touch with the Divine so you can also get in touch. Even the Winter soltice was an celebration of a power that people did not understand. So there my excelent friend. call me maybe its late but just call me.
jam11432 3 years ago
"PLEASE DON'T SAY YOUR AGAINST CHRISTMAS."
Of course I not against Christmas, Jam.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
anti-christmas Nazi
Matt482942 3 years ago
Right On!
April68Camaro 3 years ago
"Right on!"
:-)
ProfMTH 3 years ago
"I quite agree. That doesn't mean the expressions need to be on government property. It's funny how so many conservatives religious people talk about getting the government out of their lives, but when it comes to stuff like this, they very much want the government pushing their viewpoint for them."
1000 percent agree with this comment, it drives me nuts that conservatives do this.
raggedy80 3 years ago
Now hold on...you are talking about "conservative religious people". You are reacting to a minority within religious groups as a whole. Atheists are a minority too, responding mostly to the other minority. I say, let everyone have chalk, and keep the chalk board open for all comments, anywhere. Otherwise you would be serving only the atheists, and that's unfair.
xpdnc12 3 years ago
"I say, let everyone have chalk, and keep the chalk board open for all comments, anywhere. Otherwise you would be serving only the atheists, and that's unfair."
I don't see how not letting anyone decorate city hall is serving only the atheist's. Government should deal only with government issue's nothing else. I personally think that is the fairest.
raggedy80 3 years ago
That's just the problem raggedy. You are looking for every reason to prohibit people's expression of religion. It is in fact better to let all beliefs say what they want in any circumstance, because that is most fair. And, if you expect to change other peoples views by keeping thier chalk away from the chalkboard, you are doing an injustice to people's freedom of expression. Let people write, and ignore what you disapprove of.
xpdnc12 3 years ago
No xpdnc12, that is what private property and churches are for. Feel free to express whatever you want, it doesn't have to be done on government property.
raggedy80 3 years ago
"You are looking for every reason to prohibit people's expression of religion."
Trust me this is the last thing I want, I just hate the idea that the government should play any part in expressing religious views. Government also has no right in interfering with any religious activity when done in a safe and peaceful way.
raggedy80 3 years ago
"That's just the problem raggedy. You are looking for every reason to prohibit people's expression of religion."
LOL.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
xpdnc12:
I take it by your obvious love for equality that you will be voting FOR gay marriage?
ulthea 3 years ago
Good video...you've touched another nerve. Of course the Government needs to be neutral & secular. A shame the Muslims aren't in this battle to put an orphaned baby Muhammad & his donkey in the mix.
Let's celebrate, just don't have anything that's attached to baby jesus...let's see stuff associated with the original pagan Winter Solstice.
Support the USA Constitution.
kauaikit 3 years ago
Allow everything, I say! Allow a display of Satan as Satan Claus. Merry AntiChristmas, and may the Devil leave hot coals in your stocking.
;-)
Heathenfidel 3 years ago
How about Mr Hankie, the Christmas Poo?
He's my favorite!
middlekk 3 years ago
"It's hate speech", they whine. Christian nuts like them have a persecution complex, and need to get a clue. Hate speech is not "your religion is wrong and it is bad for you to believe in it." It is "you all suck and you need to die." But the idea of "hate speech" is pretty much bullshit anyway (see TheAmazingAtheist's video on it).
Heathenfidel 3 years ago
The dog made me laugh so hard. Its just totally unexpected in the middle of your carefully paced, dour examination of the issue.
Saktoth 3 years ago
Dour?! lol
In any case, I'm glad the dog made you laugh.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Given the choice between no displays and a country that looks more like the Soviet Union vs. a vibrant one with multiple beliefs in display, I would choose the latter. Why? Because I can sort all the crap out in my head. It doesn't bother anyone EXCEPT atheists. It is a trivial and silly excercise to erase a chalk board and make it blank in a society that invites everyone with all colors of chalk to write freely. We can figure it out in our own minds.
xpdnc12 3 years ago
"Given the choice between no displays and a country that looks more like the Soviet Union vs. a vibrant one with multiple beliefs in display, I would choose the latter."
There needn't be religious and religion-related displays on public property in order for this to be a vibrant country with multiple beliefs on display. As I noted in a comment earlier, New York provides a great example of this. There is a gigantic Christmas tree displayed in Rockefeller Center -- private property -- with...
ProfMTH 3 years ago
...lighted, trumpet-blasting angel figures lining the promenade that leads to the tree and ice skating rink below. If one wants to see a tableau of Jesus' birth, one need only cross the street to enter St. Patrick's Cathedral where there is an enormous creche on display. As one crosses the street, one will see the windows and walls of Saks Fifth Avenue vibrating with holiday lights and decorations, not to mention the many other shops and other businesses festooned with symbols of Christmas...
ProfMTH 3 years ago
...and other winter holidays. There is, perhaps, no more vibrant scene during the holidays, and not a drop of it is on government property.
"It doesn't bother anyone EXCEPT atheists."
It may please you to be believe this, but it's untrue. E.g., my position on this was precisely the same when I was a believer. I know a number of Christians, not to mention adherents of other religious traditions -- some quite conservative, I might add -- who have the same position.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
the intent of the first amendment is that everyone shall be free to speak and act as they please without fear of persecution.
803honda 3 years ago
Even "a small minority"?
ProfMTH 3 years ago
sounds like the people of washington dont want that mess in their Capitol building and rightfully so.
the first amendment dosent mean a small minority can demand what is displayed in the state house.
803honda 3 years ago
Clearly, 803Honda, you are ignorant of the intent of the First Amendment and the ways it has been applied.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
if you dont like what is displayed in the state cap you should start gatherin signatures to vote for a law against it.
anything else will just e seen as whinein
803honda 3 years ago
There already is a law against it, namely, the First Amendment -- particularly, the Establishment Clause.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
You know, if you're ignorant of a subject, it's kind of considered rude to try to bluff your way through as if you know what you're talking about.
The First Amendment says the government cannot promote any religion. The US Supreme Court, on many occasions, has stated that this applies to religious displays on government property. In short, we don't NEED to gather petitions or pass a law. James Madison saw to it for us way back in 1789.
The fact that you don't know that is appalling.
middlekk 3 years ago
Mrs. Ingrham said.....ROFL!
D34dH053 3 years ago
;-)
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Poor lille ole xtions
FedupwithR 3 years ago
If people can place nativity scenes why can't we say that god doesn't exist?
qanazir 3 years ago
Hey we agree on something Prof, no religious symbols on government property. But I don't think a baby Jesus is meant to be offensive as this atheist sign displayed in Washington state. Now if atheist used an atheist symbol that wouldn't be offensive.
raggedy80 3 years ago
What would an atheist "symbol" look like? Would it be a purely self-referential symbol? Perhaps it would not be a symbol at all - therefore prof's recommenation of nothing at all may ring true - hmm!
Kierketaard 3 years ago
@kierketaard:
Which, of course, would be in complete accord with the second commandment (no graven images).
I've often said that atheists follow more of the 10Cs than Xtians, with their crosses and nativity scenes, etc.
We don't have any other gods "before" Yahweh, do we?
As long as I can define keeping the Sabbath 'holy' as playing golf or watching football, I get a 100% score. No theist comes close.
middlekk 3 years ago
My feelings about it are pretty mixed.
Fist off, is a symbol a symbol if it doesn't have a referent? Atheists don't beleive in God, so the religious symbols aren't really symbols (since they signify a non-existent).
If Christams trees just mean a celebration of a time of year (the way they seem to do around here) I say toss em up and give the people an excuse to party - on public land!
Kierketaard 3 years ago
I have to say that I, too, am completely ambivalent.
On the one hand, I don't believe in Jesus et al. And the Constitution says the state should not promote any specific religion.
On the other hand, the season does have more than just a religious context, O'Reilly et al complaints to the contrary. My atheist family "celebrates" with decorations, gifts, feasts, etc.
I know many atheist Jews who still celebrate Rosh Hoshanna and Yom Kippur. It's cultural, not religious. Any excuse to eat. :-)
middlekk 3 years ago
Whether the content of the message offends someone is constitutionally irrelevant, Raggedy. In any case, I'm glad we can agree to the proposition that public property is no place for the display of religious symbols.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Christmas is a pagan winter solstice festival that the early Christian church appropriated as the birthday of Jesus.
Across much of northern Europe the winter solstice/new year festival was celebrated with lights and evergreen plants and trees centuries before it became "Christmas". England had a pagan "Father Christmas" spirit with a green and white costume.
I'd lose the nativity scenes and keep the trees and lights. We should change the date to Dec 21 too - the real winter solstice.
plato12000 3 years ago
I could probably live with that.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
the dog was really unexpected and i almost shot egg nog out my nose. hilarious.
narkfly 3 years ago
lol!
bberchin 3 years ago
"the dog was really unexpected and i almost shot egg nog out my nose. hilarious."
;-)
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Prof- the difference I see in that atheist display is that it is not a display of celebration or commemoration, but rather one in activism. It's unnecessary. Most holiday displays are for commemoration and celebration of an event. Also, do you celebrate Christmas or any holiday for that matter? Which ones? Why?
Btw, the dog made me laugh pretty hard.
bberchin 3 years ago
What sort of displays could an atheist put up to celebrate or commemorate something?
ullyeus 3 years ago
Nothing. Get it?
bberchin 3 years ago
"Prof- the difference I see in that atheist display is that it is not a display of celebration or commemoration, but rather one in activism. It's unnecessary."
Even if true, it's constitutionally irrelevant, Bberchin. If government is going to permit these holiday displays on public property, it must do so on a content-neutral basis.
"Also, do you celebrate Christmas or any holiday for that matter? Which ones? Why?"
I celebrate Christmas and Easter and all the rest. Unlike...
ProfMTH 3 years ago
...when I was a believer, going to church isn't an aspect of the celebrations for me -- although I will go (and have gone) if asked. Most relevant here, I celebrate Christmas because I like it -- always have and, I suspect, always will. I celebrate Thanksgiving, too, the 4th of July, New Year's ... shall I go on? ;-)
"Btw, the dog made me laugh pretty hard."
Excellent. I intended it to be for a laugh.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
I agree that the government should stay out of it, but I don't agree that the government should be neutral, in fact it is impossible for government to be neutral in its legislation. Our government and constitution was founded upon Christian principles and worked well until liberals began to grow the government bigger. Though, I agree that all of these displays should simply be kept to private property (that's been attacked as well). Also, what do your Christmas festivities include?
bberchin 3 years ago
"Our government and constitution was founded upon Christian principles"
And what were these principles?
dunwrkn4 3 years ago
Read the preamble to the constitution. Also, the representative form of government is a biblical principle.
bberchin 3 years ago
"I agree that the government should stay out of it, but I don't agree that the government should be neutral, in fact it is impossible for government to be neutral in its legislation."
Why do you say that?
"Our government and constitution was founded upon Christian principles and worked well until liberals began to grow the government bigger."
Actually, our system was founded on the principles of English liberalism as articulated by John Locke and some others.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
To be sure, the founders of the republic had a more or less common Protestant heritage and lived in a word with lots of Protestant assumptions, but to say that the United States government was founded on Christian principles is just not historically accurate. John Locke said there was no such thing as a Christian commonwealth, and the founders of the republic agreed.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
"Though, I agree that all of these displays should simply be kept to private property (that's been attacked as well)."
I'm glad we agree. What "attacks" on holiday displays on private property are you referring to?
"Also, what do your Christmas festivities include?"
You lookin' for an invitation? ;-) On Christmas Eve we tip a hat to my partner's Italian heritage and do a version of the 7-fish dinner. I say "a version" because my family -- of Irish and German descent -- like their...
ProfMTH 3 years ago
...meat and expect it on the table on Christmas Eve. On Christmas Day, my cousin and his spouse and my partner and I rotate hosting: one year it's at their house, the next year it's at ours. My cousin's mother and my mother (twin sisters, both dead now) used to have something of the same arrangement and we've kept it going in their honor. Excellent food, excellent wine, family & good friends -- throw in some lovely decorations & some good music and it's a time to look foward to and remember.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Yule trees should be okay and so should public celebration of winter solstice.
But no nativity scenes!
qanazir 3 years ago
How about prostitutes giving birth in modern day emergency wards? Could soiled blankets because of budget cuts take the place of traditional straw?