Merry Christmas to Everyone

"Matt Whiting" wrote:
I don't think the issue with atheists is being offended by a
religious expression, they are just jealous because others are happy and
they are miserable. :-)

It is precisely this kind of ignorant smugness that many non-Christians find
so offensive.

As a Jewish friend of mine put it, "I don't care if people want to celebrate
the birth of a blasphemer, but I do care if they try to ram his birthday down
my throat every year and expect me to be of good cheer."
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

In article , "Dan Luke"
wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote:
I don't think the issue with atheists is being offended by a
religious expression, they are just jealous because others are happy and
they are miserable. :-)

It is precisely this kind of ignorant smugness that many non-Christians find
so offensive.

As a Jewish friend of mine put it, "I don't care if people want to celebrate
the birth of a blasphemer, but I do care if they try to ram his birthday down
my throat every year and expect me to be of good cheer."

and this would be different from the smugness from "the Chosen"?

--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like

However, when all the Airedale worshippers on the town council decide
to put a replica of the Holy Airedale on the town green, they've
crossed the line, as far as I'm concerned. I have a feeling a good
number of christians would feel the same, and insist the Holy Airedale
be removed.

Why would I be bothered about a statue of a dog?
We have statues of horses, elephants, bulls, eagles aned a whole host of
other creatures on display in many of the worlds cities.

In November, in London, Princess Anne unveiled a statue of 2 mules, a
horse and a dog. To her, they represent the animals of war.
To some, they may well have some religious significance - so what?

For myself, I suspect that the artist may well be one of the greatest
political commentators of the year.

Tony

Why would I be bothered about a statue of a dog?

Well, if the laws of the land were predicated on what that dog
dictated to people, you might find that a statue of the dog would have
an adverse (though indirect) impact on you.

Jose
r.a. homebuilt and student trimmed
--
Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 19:11:45 GMT, tony roberts
wrote:

Why would I be bothered about a statue of a dog?
We have statues of horses, elephants, bulls, eagles aned a whole host of
other creatures on display in many of the worlds cities.



Well, you probably wouldn't be, until the time the government, when at
last composed solely of Airedale worshippers, insisted that you
observe the "true" religion, and forced you to get on your knees
whenever the Holy Airedale went by.

"Bob Noel" wrote:
and this would be different from the smugness from "the Chosen"?

Religious smugness is offensive wherever one finds it -- particularly in
government.

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 14:08:06 -0500, Bob Noel
wrote:

In article , "Dan Luke"
wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote:
I don't think the issue with atheists is being offended by a
religious expression, they are just jealous because others are happy and
they are miserable. :-)

It is precisely this kind of ignorant smugness that many non-Christians find
so offensive.

As a Jewish friend of mine put it, "I don't care if people want to celebrate
the birth of a blasphemer, but I do care if they try to ram his birthday down
my throat every year and expect me to be of good cheer."

and this would be different from the smugness from "the Chosen"?


Very little differences exist between any of the religions when it
comes to smugly assuming theirs is the only way to achieve "true
happiness", as the poster did.

Let them enjoy their smugness, I say.

It is when they expect me to join in by providing my taxpayer-funded
parks and buildings to help them in their attempts to proseletyze the
world (and therby affirm their assumed right to be smug) that I
object.

Churches, synagogues and mosques are great places for exhibiting
religious smugness of whatever variety.

Parks are for feeding pigeons without religious intrusion.

wrote in message
...
Parks are for feeding pigeons without religious intrusion.

Well, without religious intrusion *by the government* (which is what I think
you meant to say). Its fine for evangelists to come to public areas to try
to persuade others of their views. (Personally, I enjoy trying to convert
them to atheism in response.) It would even be fine for *private* groups to
construct nativity scenes (or whatever) on public land, *provided* that the
land is made available for *any* group to construct advertisements for *any*
opinion, however unpopular or offensive. What's objectionable is when the
government takes sides about religion by granting special privileges for
particular religious expressions on public land.

--Gary

"Dan Luke" wrote in message


As a Jewish friend of mine put it, "I don't care if people want to
celebrate
the birth of a blasphemer, but I do care if they try to ram his birthday
down
my throat every year and expect me to be of good cheer."
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

It sounds like you friend has issues.

Living in any society as a minority, will have times that are difficult. I
doubt you friend has had much "Ramming of the throat" compared to many
countries governments might do.

Your friend is still free to worship as he pleases, and also free to turn
the other way, and not participate. Not too bad a deal, from where I sit.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote:

It sounds like you friend has issues.

Indeed, she does.

Living in any society as a minority, will have times that are difficult.

Living *free* in this society as a minority is precisely what is great about
America. Ever heard the phrase "tyranny of the majority?"

I doubt you friend has had much "Ramming of the throat" compared to many
countries governments might do.

We are not talking about other countries where the ramming is more brutal,
but about the U. S., where it is more subtle but nonetheless real.

Your friend is still free to worship as he pleases, and also free to turn
the other way, and not participate.

My friend is not free to "not participate" if *her government* sponsors or
otherwise fosters religious observances contrary to her beliefs.

Not too bad a deal, from where I sit.

Freedom of religion is indeed a very good deal. For that reason it is worthy
of vigorous defense against those who would enlist government in
proselytizing their particular creeds. The idea is to keep our home-grown
Ayatollahs from achieving the power that those in other countries have
managed to get. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance," remember?
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM