Another holiday effort from a group of atheists

You can't win by accepting their rules and surrendering, so you might as well raise a ruckus and offend, offend, offend.

And thereby "win"...what, exactly?

Agreed. People don't have the right to not be offended in this country. When Christians say they want atheists to be nice, what they really mean is that they want atheists to shut the hell up and quit saying their religion is wrong.

I almost wish my city was stupid enough to put religious displays on public property, so I could organize something like this.

That idiotic priest was on the Dawkins bbc webcast program the other day, giving excuses for the inquisition and blaming atheism for Hitler and Stalin's regimes.

Since you can't win anything, obviously, you shouldn't even be considering win or lose in what you're going to do. Don't play the game. Stand up for yourself and your personal goals, not the perceived path that you think others want you to take.

Father Morris pretended like Margaret Downey asked him a question when she didn't ask him a question just so he could go ahead and "answer" it out of turn. Way to go Father. Oh well...

Hurrah!

I prefer a Whiskey tree, but this will do.

Yep, that further solidifies my decision to use Fred Phelps as the sole representative of Christianity, unreasonable tho' it may be, until such time as Christians and the rest of that ilk stop insisting that Stalin is the face of Atheism.

The Hitler thing is stupid, Hitler was actually quite religious. And a vegetarian. Loved animals. Didn't drink or smoke. no premarital sex.

So much for individual qualities and a belief in $DEITY$ making you a good person.

"And thereby "win"...what, exactly?"

How about a society where pandering to belief in the existence of god(s) does not happen, and where a holder of such beliefs is treated with as much derision as someone who claims to have been kidnapped by aliens. I nearly said who thinks the earth is a mere 6000 years old but whilst that may be true in Western Europe in clearly is not in the US. After all there is no difference in the mental state of a person who claims to have had a visitation from god and a person who claims to have had one from aliens.

I think it's pathetic that the CCA included "holy books" in their display; otherwise, it sounds nice.

I couldn't care less about any religious sensibilities offended by the CVA display; my problem with that display is that it really, really sucked.

This may seem too facetious a question, but why are religious people, especially religious leaders, authorities, etc. so easily insulted?

I really think the only explanation is that deep down they know, they really know, that all the mystical stuff they adhere to is BS. Didn't an academic write an essay a few years ago pointing out that if you actually judge belief in the supernatural based on what people actually do instead of what they profess to be doing, everyone is an atheist (e.g. even people who believe in heaven will grieve over a loved one's death, etc.)
___________________________

See, this is what you get for trying to "make nice" when you should be getting tough.

When asked what made me lose my faith I truthfully answer that it was reading the Bible. I feel the addition of holy books to the display works on a few levels -- not all of them so polite.

"Father Morris pretended like Margaret Downey asked him a question when she didn't ask him a question just so he could go ahead and "answer" it out of turn."

Don't blame Daddy Morris for this. It's all he knows. It is SOP for the church to provide both the questions and answers. It's easier for them that way :-)

I for one think they weren't inclusive enough. Along with the Bible and Quran I would have included various books of Greek mythology, Norse mythology, etc.. There's nothing wrong with finding value in mythological works, so long as you don't actually believe them.

This may seem too facetious a question, but why are religious people, especially religious leaders, authorities, etc. so easily insulted?

I really think the only explanation is that deep down they know, they really know, that all the mystical stuff they adhere to is BS. Didn't an academic write an essay a few years ago pointing out that if you actually judge belief in the supernatural based on what people actually do instead of what they profess to be doing, everyone is an atheist (e.g. even people who believe in heaven will grieve over a loved one's death, etc.)

Either that or they recognize that they don't really have any good reason for believing, and that any serious challenge to their beliefs may make them unable to do so. Since they so strongly believe in belief, they just don't want to face any such challenge, just in case.

At least, that's my take. And really, I don't see why we should pander to their fear. It's unwarranted, nonsensical, and dangerous.

Fair enough. I certainly agree that atheism is never going to "win," and that our very existence will always be offensive to the deluded. Seems to me, though, that there's offending and then there's offending. There's straightforward, unapologetic statement of rational reality, but then there's intentionally offensive provocation. The former seems imperative, the latter counterproductive. Avoidance of counterproductive in-yer-face, fuck-you, inflammatory, antagonistic rhetoric should not be dissed as "apeasement;" rather, it's rational, goal-oriented psychological tactics. (That should be enough adjectives.) I understand the Overton-window argument, but pissing off the potentially sympathetic on purpose (given that the real enemy, like this paranoid idiot priest, is going to get pissed off no matter what) is going to close, not open, the window. IMO.
I have no problem with this particular display, other than the Holy Boox included--that is appeasement.

Father Morris argued successfully against the beliefs of authoritarian communist atheists. Unfortunately, I missed the bit where he dismissed non-authoritarian non-communist atheists. Can anyone fill me in on what I missed?

"This may seem too facetious a question, but why are religious people, especially religious leaders, authorities, etc. so easily insulted?"

I do not consider that a facetious question but in fact a rather important one. After all if their faith is really so strong then how could someone saying god does not exist upset them ? Some say they are protecting god when they object to people saying he does not exist, which given they think their god is omnipotent seems rather odd. Is their god not capable of sticking up for himself ?

Perhaps, as was mentioned in the other thread, PZ should start up another 'fundraiser' on his blog and we'll use the money to purchase an atheist billboard somewhere.

Either that or they recognize that they don't really have any good reason for believing, and that any serious challenge to their beliefs may make them unable to do so.

I agree. In fact, it could explain why it's usually the religious hierarchy that's mostly bothered by exposure to arguments for disbelief: I assume that to rise within any hierarchical system requires a modicum of intelligence and education, and hence religious leaders are capable of appreciating that it's impossible for them to actually win an argument with a non-believer.

I say, insult away. The fact that it bothers them so is good enough for me.
___________________________

The Freethought Society's "Tree of Knowledge" has been vandalized repeatedly since its erection. Support wires have been disconnected in the apparent hope that the wind would take it down, and the spolights illuminating it have been unplugged.

So much for "peace on earth, goodwill to men."

argh...apeasement, appeasement...one of those must be right

Here's the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_ayqGipdTE

Eh, I'm with the atheists in spirit, but I do think Downey came across as a rude ass, barely letting Morris finish a sentence. Sheesh, let him talk...if you let him make a point he'll probably end up looking more the fool.

Personally, I would have left off the first two listed since they're actually more a source of ignorance than knowledge

There's a case to be made for including the Bible et al. purely for cultural literacy. My kids are confused by references to Noah's ark, Eden, and so on, which are often used metaphorically. I usually have some 'splainin' to do.

@ Sven DiMilo

"Straightforward, unapologetic statement of rational reality" are offensive to some Christians.

You can't base your actions on what others might find offensive.

If you do that you might as well not bother.

I don't see why we should pander to their fear. It's unwarranted, nonsensical, and dangerous.

Ah, much fear in them I see. That way to the dark side of the force leads. (Just been watching StarWars I!)

Hmm... An "atheist", or at least sci-fi-ist, display could consist of all sorts of great quotes. In StarTrek, STNG, DS9 and Voyager, any people whose gods actually make an appearance, rather than merely being token concepts of worship, turn out to be aliens.

One could do quite an arty atheist display by starting with a big red A on a poster (or as a physical frame) and then hanging little baubles (= speech bubbles) of wise quotes off that. It could even still have a star on the top - perhaps as in an A+ or A-star grade. ;-)

"Straightforward, unapologetic statement of rational reality" are offensive to some Christians.

Acknowledged (in my original post, too).

You can't base your actions on what others might find offensive.

Well, you can if you target the "others" worth targeting.

"There's a case to be made for including the Bible et al. purely for cultural literacy. My kids are confused by references to Noah's ark, Eden, and so on, which are often used metaphorically. I usually have some 'splainin' to do."

Richard Dawkins argues that schools should have kids study the bible, not as the word of god or anything, but as the origin of many cultural references in the West. Much of art, literature and music would not make sense without understanding biblical references they contain.

"Tree of Knowledge" is a great idea, but I wouldn't put the Bible or any other fiction on it. I would, however, prominently display the bible verse that condemns Xmas trees as heathen (Jeremiah 10:2-4): "Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not."

Or maybe we could just put that on their trees.

"Well, you can if you target the "others" worth targeting."

Since for me, and PZ and many others that would include all religions just who are you saying we should avoid offending ? Other atheists who do not like us calling the religious deluded ?

Again, what's the goal? To get rid of religion? Good luck! To establish a society more accepting of rationality? In that case, there's a vast middle ground between atheists and fundies that, it seems to me, could either be won over or repelled.

@ Sven DiMilo

"Acknowledged (in my original post, too)."

Sorry I missed that. Too little sleep this week.

I have to second Matt penfolds's question about who we should not offend.

If you want to study Western literature, you have to know the Bible. It's damned unavoidable.

It's not all bad, though. I mean.. two she-bears killing forty-two schoolchildren for calling someone bald? That's like the most beautiful story I've ever heard. I have to confess, if I believe God existed and could do anything, I believe he would send two female bears to kill two-and-a-half dozen schoolchildren for his delicious 'Smoothie of Innocents.'

Forget what the religious people think. How about what we think? I'm certainly not offended, but I find it slightly distasteful. It's a visceral reaction; I'm sure I'm not the only atheist who would feel this way.

But on further thought, I like the idea. It's artistic. And I think putting the holy books in there was entirely appropriate. Remember: it's a Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Some of us find that the promotion of faith (belief without evidence) as a positive thing is at the heart of the problem.

These are the "make nice" atheists who are the only ones some readers approve of...but look what it gets them.

Um, air-time on a national network?

[O]ffend, offend, offend.

And thus regress to 10th grade. Huzzah! Hurray for us smart atheists!

"Again, what's the goal? To get rid of religion? Good luck! To establish a society more accepting of rationality? In that case, there's a vast middle ground between atheists and fundies that, it seems to me, could either be won over or repelled."

Let us examine Christianity to avoid complicating this.

Fundamentalist Christians believe is a god for which there is no evidence. Likewise the "moderate" Christians do the same (although there are a few Anglicans about whom that is not true). How is the belief in the "moderate" Christians' god any more rational than belief in the fundamentalist Christians' god ? Sure the more "moderate" Christians may be nicer people to have a around, be opposed to discrimination on the basis of sexuality, accept scientific evidence, want to see the end of poverty etc, but that does it any way make their central belief anymore rational.

The issue is that believing in a supernatural entity called god is delusional behaviour. That there may be other delusions on top of that in the case of the fundamentalists does not mean the "moderates" are any less delusional in their central claims.

I suggest reading "The God Delusion" and "God Is Not Great", both of which address this issue is far more depth.

If it is really a tree of knowledge, then it needs a CRC Handbook.

I agree we should not worry about offending anyone in expressing our views. But, why mimic/mock xian tradition? Does this make us look like the "cranky subculture" that Sam Harris warned about? Or no?

"These are the "make nice" atheists who are the only ones some readers approve of...but look what it gets them.

Um, air-time on a national network?

[O]ffend, offend, offend.

And thus regress to 10th grade. Huzzah! Hurray for us smart atheists!"

Of course if you think of the atheist who has probably had more airtime and media exposure in the last few years then you realise that being one of the "nice" atheists does not mean you get the media rushing to your door. Richard Dawkins is the atheist who has probably had more exposure of late than any other, and he is the arch-nemesis of the so-called "nice" atheists. Dawkins is always civil but civility and politeness are not the same thing. You can be perfectly civil but your message can be very offensive to people. (As an aside I often find some Americans get politeness and civility confused. Witness how a recent troll was treated by some who confused the fact he was civil with thinking that spouting the same old crap was being polite.)

And thus regress to 10th grade. Huzzah! Hurray for us smart atheists!

You seem to be terribly confused over the term "offend": You're conflating schoolyard bullying behavior which is designed to offend by making fun of someone's physical trait or other feature, and the fact that many religious people become offended when someone challenges them to provide a rational explanation of their beliefs.
___________________________

Or maybe we could just put that on their trees.

Rather like the outbreak of disclaimers to be printed and inserted into Bibles (in retaliation to the religious nutters' disclaimers for science books), there could be a version of that verse inside a simple star shape to be printed on silver or gold paper, cut out and then hung on any xmas tree the person happens to come across ...

I don't base my actions on what others might find offensive, so why would I build a display thats really purposefully offensive? Thats exactly why I would stick to something clever and festive and properly representative, cos I'm not a shock jock out to offend.

Despite the crap this group is getting, I do think its better because when compared to them father morris is clearly full of shit and it shows. The fact that CVA hasn't been vandalized only means they're a more tolerant place, with fewer father morris types. Thats what bothers me about it, that they took advantage of a more tolerant place to do it. Although honestly I've lightened up about the CVA display. The more I think about it it is pretty funny to have such an over-the-top sign on the village green along with all those other displays.

"Well, you can [base your actions on what others might find offensive] if you target the "others" worth targeting."

Since for me, and PZ and many others that would include all religions just who are you saying we should avoid offending ?

Keep in mind, though, that you're really not targeting "religions" in the abstract; you're targeting people... and since the people involved differ, it's worth considering different types of "targeting."

This is part of what I was trying to say over in the CVA/Vernon thread: I have no problem with offending the radical, activist fundies of East Bible Thump. Those folks want to tear down the wall between church and state, ban science, and ultimately destroy our society: They deserve to be poked in the eye -- hard -- at every turn.

But there are huge numbers of people who go to church (or temple or mosque) not because they're doctrinaire theists or culture warriors, but just because they did when they were growing up, or because their parents do, or because their neighbors do. Many of these folks think of some level of social religious observance as a given, and generally a good thing, but they're often not really theists in the sense of having given any serious thought to theology. These people are open to reason: If atheists and secularists talk to them in reasonable, inoffensive terms, perhaps they can be persuaded... if not to become atheists, at least to make common cause with them on key issues (e.g., keeping actual science in the science curriculum), and not to be afraid of them. OTOH, if you poke these folks in the eye, their instinctive response will be to be defensive, and then you're driving them right into the arms of the fundies, who will be more than happy to invite them to church and promise to defend them against those commie pinko satanists!

Where there's already a battle going on, obviously we must fight hard... but there may also be situations -- and more of them than the headlines from Florida, Texas, and Kansas would indicate -- where we can best advance the principles we care about by preempting the fight.

Re comment by John C. Welch (#8)
If there's anything that Hitler and Stalin had in common, it was severe physical abuse at the hands of their fathers. This, of course, is a basic "family value" - spare the rod, etc. I don't know about Fred Phelps' upbringing, but he certainly has the reputation of being a brutal father.

Sven said:

Again, what's the goal? To get rid of religion?

Yes, that's the goal.

Good luck!

Why, thank you.

To establish a society more accepting of rationality? In that case, there's a vast middle ground between atheists and fundies that, it seems to me, could either be won over or repelled.

There is no middle ground, there are simply bits of reality some are willing to compromise. You remind me of some people who can't understand why homosexuals are pushing so hard for equal rights. "Why are you trying for something you know you can't achieve?" they ask. "Look for compromise: there's a vast middle ground between the people who want to deny you the right to marry and those who want to stone you to death." The point is, even the "best" option is totally unacceptable, making compromise itself a defeat.

The goal is a rational society, not a society "more accepting" of rationality. And you can't have anything remotely resembling a rational society if it treats religious assertions with deference and respect. The goal is unrealistic, you say? Perhaps. But probably too is a just society, or an equitable one. However, in those cases, people for some reason seem to understand the necessity of striving toward uncorrupted ideals.

why are religious people, especially religious leaders, authorities, etc. so easily insulted?
Because religions have immune systems. One of the antibodies says "simply asking these questions is sacreligious."

Clever little bastards.

I will say that the more inoffensive the symbol, the more ridiculous the authoritarian religious types look when they sputter about it.

In some ways the Chester County Atheist Group's display is more subversive than the Connecticut Valley Atheist Group's display. The Connecticut Valley sign is very obvious and "in your face" - anyone can look at it and understand why believers would feel "attacked" (because they are being attacked). The Chester County symbol, OTOH, is innocuous. And when the authoritarians rail on and on about how it's an "affront" or an "attack" it just points out how ridiculous they are.

Sure their fellow travellers aren't going to see them as ridiculous - but they aren't going to get their minds changed by a sign either. It's the mushy middle that you need to convince in this country, and the mushy middle responds well to seeing figures of authority make fools of themselves (it's an American tradition, after all).

(That said, I like both signs. Both tactics are definitely worthwhile and the "Imagine No Religion" sign makes a clear and obvious signal to young atheists that they aren't alone - even a small reassurance can be a good thing.)

Sorry to be so way off topic, but I thought you'd like to see these squid sculptures (soft cloth). You can even buy them for a rather reasonable $2500!

http://menu.mcleodresidence.com/collections/giant-squid-cassandra-nguyen

Fundamentalist Christians believe is a god for which there is no evidence. Likewise the "moderate" Christians do the same (although there are a few Anglicans about whom that is not true).

Oh, trust me, it's not just the Anglicans (aka Episcopalians here in the U.S.)!

I think what's missing in this whole discussion is the realization that "believe" has a huge range of meanings in this context. Lots of nominal Christians (regardless of denomination) attend church for social, family, or traditional reasons, without giving a whole lot of thought to theology. Those folks would no doubt say they "believe in God," because that's part of the package... but by no stretch of the imagination do they mean the same thing the fundies (or, for that matter, true believers of any stripe) do when they say it.

I stipulate that the notion of God is delusional on its face, but in practice that does not mean that every individual who makes any sort of profession of belief is personally delusional (certainly not all equally so). Belief that the apparent position of the stars and planets at the moment of one's birth can somehow influence/predict the day-to-day events of one's life is certainly delusional... but does that really mean everyone who glances at a horoscope, no matter how casually, is just as delusional as a committed astrologer?

There's enormous range in how nominal theists actually think about God; there ought to be a correspondingly enormous range in the way nontheists talk to them about their belief. IMHO, of course...

Actually, I should clarify. The goal is not to "get rid of religion," if by that one means ending religion by force. The goal is to get to a point where religion whithers away due to its intrinsic failings.

Sorry Bill, but they DO mean the same thing. Anglican dogma really does say there is an all-knowing and all-powerful god. And when Anglicans tell us that they believe in this god, I think we should accept they are being honest with us.

Any person who thinks there is a supernatural god is delusional. And every week in church Anglicans, Methodists, Baptists, Catholics et al make declarations they they believe such a god exists. Either these people mean what they say or they are dishonest.

However if there really are the large number of "nominal" theists you claim there is, why do you think that Richard Dawkins et al are going to send them off into the arms of the fundamentalists ? If there is essentially nothing behind their protestations of faith then surely they would be as likely, if not more so, to reject that faith and become an atheist. It also seems to be rather patronising to say to all these people "I think what you believe is silly and delusional but if I go on about it you will not be able to cope".

"Actually, I should clarify. The goal is not to "get rid of religion," if by that one means ending religion by force. The goal is to get to a point where religion whithers away due to its intrinsic failings."

As Richard Dawkins has put it, he wants to reach a stage where belief in god is considered to be very very odd behaviour indeed.

> Father Jonathan ... appeared to be trying to make the
> point that he supports free speech

Yes, free speech for him but not for anyone who disagrees with him.

> why are religious people ... so easily insulted?

Because they haven't grown up? They still need their religious crutch, as a child needs its blanket, and they can't cope when someone (tries to) kick it out from under them.

ISTM these people need to learn two things:

1. Despite what we might like, life isn't fair. Deal with it.

2. Free speech is for everyone; not just for me; not just for the people who agree with me. And we should all be prepared to defned that to the death.

Having grasped those take to heart the words of Abraham Lincoln: "Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them."

I definitely wouldn't include any of their "holy" books. Being positive is good, compromising on principle is not.

There's this weird tendency I've noticed among certain quarters to make noise about various holy books containing some wisdom, some literary value, so on. I often find myself thinking: yes... sure, you'd expect they'd have some of that... I mean, they contain some actually complete sentences, a few halfway complete narratives of some human interest, which, so long as you don't take 'em too seriously (nor expect too much of a standard of logical coherence within and across them, nor, for that matter, much in the way of a decent, involving dramatic structure), do, I suppose, have some merit... Insofar as there may actually be things less worth reading.

But then, you can probably say more or less the same thing about the December copy of Penthouse Letters. Some wisdom. Some literary merit. So long as we're not talking about how much, exactly, it sounds impressive. The point is, without some estimate of the actual quantities thereof involved, it's not much of a standard to hold them to.

I conclude, therefore, when people talk about some literary merit, and some wisdom with regard to these works, perhaps they mean to damn them with faint praise. Which, actually, is probably entirely appropriate.

A.J Milne,

With regards the bible I think literary merit can be claimed for it in two regards.

1. As said earlier much of western cultural contains Christian references and it would be very hard to understand much art, music and literature without knowing the bible.
2. In the King James Version of least there are some rather poetic passages that stand on their own as literature. I somehow doubt that would be the case for more modern translations.

The best way to make an atheist is to expose people to both the biblical claims and the arguments against the biblical claims.

Religious people have mild mental handicaps in the first place because they self-expose themselves to only one source of information, backed by authority, not investigation.

Including the holy books is a better idea because it sends a message that true knowledge comes from empirical investigation, not an authoritative source. If a person considers the substance of those books without a conformational bias, a world free of superstition and ruled by scientific inquiry just makes more sense in your PFC(prefrontal cortex).

Trees and books sound more tastefully festive than 9/11 exploitation posters. I'd like to see photos.

Still, I maintain my position that holidays are generally nice things, and usually represent the innocuous, community/family bonding aspect of religion, as opposed to the divisive, anti-reason aspects of religion.

I think that confrontational messages are important at times, such as when religious groups attempt to sabotage education. But I think a holiday is a better opportunity for positive messages. How about "May you and your loved ones have a safe and happy winter season. -Some Atheist Organization" or "Peace on Earth, goodwill to men. - Christopher Hitchens."

I put these holiday issues in a similar category to the morality issue. We can get the message out that religion is not needed in order to behave compassionately or to treasure your family. Sometimes that conversation should begin with saying "God is a fiction", other times it need not.

I guess I'm advocating something closer to Kwanzaa - not trying to crush other holidays, just saying that we can take time to reflect upon important things without religion. On the other hand, Kwanzaa has too much artificiality and ritual for my taste, and I disagree with some of the principles. Still, I appreciate that they're expressed in a positive manner.

#38:
I agree we should not worry about offending anyone in expressing our views. But, why mimic/mock xian tradition? Does this make us look like the "cranky subculture" that Sam Harris warned about? Or no?

Well, it's an indirect attack at best. The solstice celebration, the tree, etc. were pagan traditions appropriated by Christians. That makes the tree fair game, I think. And it doesn't jerk as many chains as some other things might, like "alternative" creche displays. Many atheists set up secular Christmas trees (no angel on top) as a family tradition during the holidays. This is a nice extension of that tradition into the public square, as long as towns are going to allow that sort of thing on public property.

One thing is obvious from the reports of what's happening with that Chester County tree -- these displays need to be designed with the assumption that they'll be vandalized. Maybe they should be heavy steel sculptures, or something else that's bulletproof and can't be set on fire.

SEF,

Rather like the outbreak of disclaimers to be printed and inserted into Bibles (in retaliation to the religious nutters' disclaimers for science books), there could be a version of that verse inside a simple star shape to be printed on silver or gold paper, cut out and then hung on any xmas tree the person happens to come across ...

Yes, except the ornaments should be little gold and silver trees, not stars.

Well, what's the "reason for the season"? Right-o, winter solstice it is. Why not address this aspect? Have a great time, love your family, be nice to everyone, because the days will start getting longer again. Fascinating phenomenon, used by many primitive societies as a calendar marker, and incorporated into many superstitions, in many guises.

How about using religious texts as decorations, then top the tree with a copy of "The God Delusion" (blown up to a size people could see from the ground), or whatever other freethinker books you can think of?

Or, if the solstice is your thing, how about a sculpture that will capitalize on the sun's movements; sort of a mini-Stonehenge? If you don't want to insult them, you can try to distract from them.

In the King James Version of least there are some rather poetic passages that stand on their own as literature.

Most of which, by the way, were taken over bodily from the earlier work of Tyndale, who commanded one of the great prose styles in the history of English.

Actually, though not on Tyndale's level, Robert Alter's ongoing series of translations of various books of the Hebrew Bible also have considerable literary merit.

Re 'it would be very hard to understand much art, music and literature without knowing the bible', this is a step removed from saying it's worth reading on its own merits, though, clearly. Too much that's awful gets referenced. It doesn't speak to its intrinsic merit. It speaks to its popularity. No one gets 'All your base' references, either, if they've never heard of the phenomenon before. Doesn't make 'Mobilize all zig' deeply meaningful, nor moving, all on its own.

And as to the claim:

In the King James Version of least there are some rather poetic passages that stand on their own as literature.

... I've heard this one before, and again, I must simply ask: really? To what degree, then? And where? Song of Solomon, as certain critics are so fond of citing? I don't buy it. Comparing a woman's breasts to gazelles? Positively florid, if you ask me. Chandler woulda found it flowery; Eliot woulda found it too... well... weird. Streets that follow like an argument of insidious intent, I get that. But I have never, in all my born days, found myself thinking of juvenile ungulates during a session of heavy petting. Just sayin'.

Job? Naw. Dialogue heavy. The fire and brimstone desert nutbars? Too over the top. And no real development of sympathetic character. Does anyone actually like these guys? So they do some good pyrotechnics. Great. So can Michael Bay. That doesn't make it art.

And Penthouse Letters, those do character development, y'ask me. Well... relative to the biblical stuff, anyway. 'To my great surprise, she had mirrors on the ceiling!' See, that says something about a character right there, and no need just directly to say something like: 'He was a man or righteous character' as they do of Noah in Genesis, nor 'She was an oversexed minx', as they don't need to say in letters. You get that and some good scene description, all in one! It's implicit. So, not bad, that Penthouse stuff... Those anonymous authors of the allegedly holy books, they coulda learned a thing or two, right there.

I am getting really pissed off by these Johnny come lately christians! They hi-jack Saturnalia, Mithras's birthday and Yule and then have the cheek to call it "their" religious holiday!

The part that weirded me out was this line:

Applicants had to pitch design ideas that would not give the impression the county was endorsing a particular religion.

What would you call a menorah, a créche, and a Christmas tree, then? I think those are pretty much endorsing particular religions. Just because they happen to be the dominant ones in our country doesn't mean it's OK to endorse them. :P

Why is it that every time I see that someone has erected a "Tree of Knowledge," I have the overwhelming urge to go stand next to it and offer free apples to passers-by?

the ornaments should be little gold and silver trees, not stars.

Yes trees (at least the usual xmas evergreen type!) have a good shape to dangle too and would fit the verse better.

The stars could work well with the contradictory verses about using the lights in the sky for signs and the later prohibition against doing exactly that! Perhaps one on each side of the paper/card if the printer is up to it.

Better? *Much* better!

One) It's original and not trite and poorly cobbled.
Two) It's festive and positive and inspirational to all.

and for those who think we should be confrontational

Three) It's confrontational but defendably so and is only confrontational to those who would admit athiest shouldn't observe Christmas or athiesm is anti-christmas. Thus rather than going out of ones way to pick a fight, it's standing firmly for itself cooperatively and refusing to back down from a fight from those too narrow minded to accept it.

And what does it get us? People are still offended? Yes, but now they've brought the fight to us. Their offence is unjustifiable and thus we are in the right.

Case 1:
CVA: If there were no religion the wtc would still be standing.
community: hey, you're saying religion is equivalent to terrorism. That's offensive and intolerant.
result: stalemate. overall impression: athiests are bullies but no-one wants to say so

Case 2:
Community: Hey, that trees promotes athiesm and we don't like it cause Christmas is a religious holiday.
CCA: Christmas is a universal holiday and we athiest observe it to. In this you are simply wrong.
result: our win. overall impression: athiests make us nervous but we can't really say why. Their worst enemies are self-righteous holy-roller bullies who believe Christmas is a religious holiday only for christians which isn't any fun so I can tolerate a christmas tree with scary sounding book titles.

Can somebody who has one of these open nativity displays in their town please do the obvious Muhammad teddy bear tree?

SEF,

And a sword shape with the bit about not coming to bring peace, but a sword.

And a rod for the one about beating a slave to death with a rod and not being punished if the slave takes more than a day or two to die (the loss of property is punishment enough).

And ...

Matt:

Sorry Bill, but they DO mean the same thing. Anglican dogma really does say there is an all-knowing and all-powerful god.

Of course that's what church dogma says; who claimed it wasn't? But...

...when Anglicans tell us that they believe in this god, I think we should accept they are being honest with us.

...every week in church Anglicans, Methodists, Baptists, Catholics et al make declarations they they believe such a god exists. Either these people mean what they say or they are dishonest.

...this is a false dichotomy.

It's funny that you chose the word "dogma" above, because it seems to me that you're being (surprisingly, I must say) dogmatic about this. There is another possibility, between "they mean what they say" and "they are dishonest," and that is that they just haven't thought too hard about what "what they say" actually means... or perhaps just that this particular item of belief isn't as important to them as it is to others. Do you really think every profession of faith is emotionally and intellectually equivalent to every other profession of faith? That everyone who says "I believe in God" means the same thing as everyone else who says it, and with the same degree of personal commitment? That the freshly "saved" person sweating and wailing at the prayer rail of a tent revival is no different from the fellow glancing at his watch as he mutters his way through the Nicene Creed on Sunday? Wow, that's dogmatic.

Any person who thinks there is a supernatural god is delusional.

Nope, sorry: A casual belief in one irrational thing doesn't define a whole person as delusional. Devoting one's life to the militant drive to reshape society in the image of one's irrational belief, OTOH, does.

Ultimately, of course, it doesn't really matter what people believe, so much as what they want to do about it. Do you really think someone who goes to church for an hour on Sunday and then doesn't think another thing about it all week poses the same threat (or even the same order of magnitude of threat) to liberty and secular society that the Pat Robertsons and Rick Warrens of the world do?

However if there really are the large number of "nominal" theists you claim there is, why do you think that Richard Dawkins et al are going to send them off into the arms of the fundamentalists?

When did I say any such thing about Dawkins? I actually think Dawkins is a pretty good model for how to talk to moderate, relatively rational, nominal believers. I've never understood (and I've said this here before) what people think is so "rude" about The God Delusion (except maybe that title! [g]). I think it's fine to say, in calm, professorial terms, "come, let us talk reasonably about this thing you say you believe," and I think one very possible outcome of that conversation is "gee, I never thought about it that way before." That's progress. It's hard for me to imagine how grabbing the same people by the collar and yelling "you're either crazy or a liar!" could possibly lead to any good outcome.

My specific problem with the CVA display (which I generally support, on principle) was that the combination of the Twin Towers and the phrase "imagine no religion" communicates the message that religious fanaticism fosters terrorism. That's true, and it's an important point to make... but I'm not convinced it's really a relevant or persuasive way to talk to this particular community, which really isn't made up of fanatics or incipient terrorists. Presumably the display is about more than just rhetorical masturbation: Presumably it's intended to change people's minds... or at least make them think a bit harder. I'm just suggesting that not every audience responds to (or needs to hear) exactly the same message.

It also seems to be rather patronising to say to all these people "I think what you believe is silly and delusional but if I go on about it you will not be able to cope".

It's not about whether people can "cope" or not; it's about offering them new ways of thinking about what they think they believe. It's also not about appeasement; it's about cold, hard self-interest: I think my interests as a secularist are better served by reasoning with moderates than by condemning them out of hand.

The rabid theists who already hate secularism, OTOH, are a whole 'nother kettle of horses of another color!

Hot Air blog is already considering this vindication that atheists are "spiteful, antagonistic morons".

What's up with these neocons?

I have no problem with monotheistic texts being included in a "Tree of Knowledge" as long as they also include Gilgamesh, Homer, Diogenes, the Mahabarata, the Prajnaparamitra Sutras, the Eddas, etc.

The false choice is presented as Abrahamic Monotheism vs. Atheism. The choice is far greater then that. Even if the final result is the same; that Atheism contains a much more correct description & explanation of reality then do all of the others.

For those willfully ignorant atheists who doubt the value of reading the dominant religious texts of your own society, let me point out that your contributions are as one-sided as those of the religious fundamentalists who only read their own materials. A more useful dichotomy is the one between the ignorant and the knowledgeable atheist than the polite and offensive atheist.

If you're going to offend for anything other than your own ego gratification, then you need to be knowledgeable. It is not only more effective but a lot more fun to offend monotheists by using their own beliefs & concepts against them.

What seems missing from the discussion is the fact that all these displays are on public property. The continuing lie is that "secular progressives" (as opposed to the complaining religious right-wing theocrats) want to take religion out of the public square. This is nonsense.

This is about taking religion out of government-sponsored or subsidized activities. There are plenty of churches, private residences and commercial properties where such displays can be erected, but that just isn't good enough apparently.

So here, to pass constitutional muster, the public entity must allow all displays to be shown to avoid endorsing a particular religion. Athists put up their display along with the others and that is considered offensive and sabatoging "their holiday."

So here's the (rhetorical) question: if there is no athiest display, wouldn't and shouldn't aethiests be offended at seeing purely religious displays on public property? The answer to all of this is just too obvious: stop with the religious displays on public property. Separation of church and state actually works for everybody but those who want a theocracy and hypocrites.

See, this is what you get for trying to "make nice" when you should be getting tough.

This is what we get? Attention and an argument in which we are clearly in the right; an argument in which the "other side" has to face up to the fact that they simply don't think athiest should exist rather than some belief that they are somehow more moral?

What's wrong with that? If our mere existance is going to cause a fight, then we'd better make sure that we are in the right and those fighting us will appear the closed-minded bullies they are.

"Tree of Knowledge" is a great idea, but I wouldn't put the Bible or any other fiction on it.

Not even Voltaire's Candide? I'd make it nearly entirely fictional works. Yes, the bible is pure appeasement but I consider it a pre-emptive defense. Potential Complaint: "You athiest are self-righteously promoting yourself." once deflated by a single bible the only complaint is "You're, you're athiests! ... sputter ... athiest shouldn't be allowed to celebrate Christmas ... sputter .... sputter ..."

Hence it is confrontational *and* balanced.

So Father John wants to use public property to advertise his religious holiday and doesn't want any competition? Fuck him. And Chester County Courthouse is where they had the years-long battle (shoot, it might still be going on) about having a prominent display of the Ten Commandments.

Yep, that further solidifies my decision to use Fred Phelps as the sole representative of Christianity, unreasonable tho' it may be, until such time as Christians and the rest of that ilk stop insisting that Stalin is the face of Atheism.

Hmm...gives me an idea for a bumper sticker. Something like:

" If this is an atheist
This is a deist "

This Father Jonathan Morris is the same dimwit that was on the BBC to talk about the pilgrimage to Lourdes. He claimed that "indulgences" do work.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_7130000/newsid_7131600/7131670…

As you can see the from the bbc video and the youtube link, Father Morris is so absolutely not gay.

Fox News had a program on the display, pitting Margaret Downey against some wanker, Father Jonathan Morris.

Wanker indeed. Father John Morris is on the record with this gem:

Have you ever met a really happy kid who is an atheist? I mean, give me a break.

Have you ever met a really happy kid who is an atheist? I mean, give me a break.

My daughter- who has a more cheerful disposition and fewer problems than almost any of her friends- will be amused by that one.

How does that old poem go?

I will not go quietly into that good night
Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Now there's what I want to see. Truth at war with falsehood to the knife.

From Wikipedia :

The Christmas tree is often explained as a Christianization of pagan tradition and ritual surrounding the Winter Solstice, which included the use of evergreen boughs, and an adaptation of pagan tree worship. The English language phrase "Christmas tree" is first recorded in 1835 and represents an importation from the German language. The modern Christmas tree tradition is believed to have begun in Germany in the 18th century though many argue that Martin Luther began the tradition in the 16th century. From Germany the custom was introduced to England, first via Queen Charlotte, wife of George III, and then more successfully by Prince Albert during the reign of Queen Victoria. Around the same time, German immigrants introduced the custom into the United States. Christmas trees may be decorated with lights and ornaments.

My two cents : I don't find these book covers very decorative elements, whatever books they are. I stick with lights, and Father Jonathan, as usual, has no idea what he is talking about.

And light is a very nice symbol for wisdom and knowledge.

... this is a deist.

Be sure to take note of the difference between a theist and a deist. Fred Phelps is no deist.

BTW : the best position for the books is UNDER the tree, as gifts for your friends and family.

I'm offering "the God Delusion" to my dad this Christmas, and that means more to me than seeing the empty cover on a tree...

Bernarda (#80) wrote: "As you can see the from the bbc video and the youtube link, Father Morris is so absolutely not gay."

I'm totally grateful for the support of our straight allies, we wouldn't be where we are without you. However, statements like that give the impression that at least some of our straight allies seriously need a clue: we're not all flamers, nor are all effeminate men gay.

The dumbest thing I've heard in a while is "Much of art, literature and music would not make sense without understanding biblical references they contain.".

The vast majority of people haven't read the bible and they understand the day to day literature, art, and music they encounter just fine. In fact most people would be hard pressed to find any of that of importance they couldn't understand without a knowledge of the bible. I for one cannot think of a single work of art, literature, or music of any significance for which an understanding of the bible would be helpful. Saying the bible is any sort of important literature is an overstatement of epic proportions - it contains virtually nothing of value, and yes I have read it.

For the record, I mostly agree with woozy. Because it's Christmas, you see.

Nevertheless, I would like it if someone put up a Festivus pole. But we could still keep the airing of grievances in private.

Randi #88,

if you can't think of one single such piece of art that's probably because you have never been to an art museum (below 19th century), visited cathedrals or churches, listenned to pieces of Bach, Mozart or Verdi...

Can someone explain to me why we should care about offending the religious, as they have not fucking problem offending us?

Negentropyeater said "if you can't think of one single such piece of art that's probably because you have never been to an art museum (below 19th century), visited cathedrals or churches, listenned to pieces of Bach, Mozart or Verdi..."

And neither have the vast marjority of people and our lives certainly aren't impoverished in any way. One certainly doesn't need to know any biblical references to appreciate classical music if that's your cup of tea, no does one need to know any biblical references to appreciate beautiful art - that's just bullshit plain and simple.

Wanker indeed. Father John Morris is on the record with this gem:
Have you ever met a really happy kid who is an atheist? I mean, give me a break.

I have two of them - unlike their mother who grew up being terrified of Satan and demons, and terribly confused by the conflict between the idea of a loving God and what was going on around her.

Does he really think that children are plagued with existentialist doubt without belief in a skyfairy? I attribute dumb statements like his to a basic failure of the imagination.

I have no obejction to your being a happy philistine, Randi, just be aware that you come off as an ignorant ass to non-philistines. (I doubt that bothers you).

By the way, negentropyeater (perhaps out of kindness) neglected to mention literature. Huge swathes of European literature require familiarity with BOTH the Bible AND classical mythology to make any sense at all. Naturally philistines are unable to imagine what's missing from their lives, so I won't attempt to explain it.

Negentropyeater #90

Randi #88,

if you can't think of one single such piece of art that's probably because you have never been to an art museum (below 19th century), visited cathedrals or churches, listenned to pieces of Bach, Mozart or Verdi...

You misunderstand her/him. She doesn't need to know the bible to understand or to enjoy Bach, Mozart or Verdi... or to understand or to enjoy pre-19th century art.

The bible is a cultural reference as much as anything else but... well ... it is pretty much what it is. I keep copies as reference books. I don't think anyone needs a doctorate education in influences of western art in order to look at a painting or listen to a piece of music. "Magpie at the Gallows" is still a beautiful painting even if you aren't intimately aquainted with the trial of Jesus. I think the (non)sacrifice of Isaac and Jacob wrestling an Angel are historically interesting and interpretting what they might have meant to the classical painters is illuminating, but I don't think ignorance in these matters turns an observer into a Philistine. ("D'uhhhh, a what? Me so dumb, me nevr red a bibul so me not no whut a philistine are, D'errrr")

I would, however, prominently display the bible verse that condemns Xmas trees as heathen (Jeremiah 10:2-4): "Thus saith the LORD...

Hmm. Lets go one farther and put the sign on a *live* potted tree. I would have found the prior atheist sign as pointless if they had done something like that. It would have been relative to the season, instead of just about totally irrelevant, and its far more productive to say, "You are an idiot and here is exactly why!", than to just slap them in the face and scream, "You're a pooty head!!", at them. The original sign we all discussed **barely** rose above the later in its content, or relevance. But my real objection was in how some people reacted to other atheists pointing out how it made no fracking sense to them to put such a display up, since it did not much more than make us look like assholes, and how tacky and cheap it was besides.

There is a right way and a wrong way to shove these pious idiots faces in reality and try to get them to **see** it.

Randi,

there is a difference between appreciation and understanding.

The vast majority of people appreciate the benefits of science, but don't understand it.

Steve Labonne said " Huge swathes of European literature require familiarity with BOTH the Bible AND classical mythology to make any sense at all.".

The vast vast majority of literature will be unread by any person. Not being able to understand huge swathes of crap doesn't impoverish anyone in anyway. Pray tell what of this swathe would be of any immediate value to a computer scientist like me living in a modern world, pray tell, which literature requiring knowledge of the bible is relevant and significant in my day to day life?!

Mind you, looking up the context of the passage, a Christmas tree only qualifies as ungodly if it becomes an idol of worship, which is the original context of those lines. However, I can imagine one of those stupid Christmas cards, with a bunch of children around it, in prayer to the angel on the top of the tree, having those lines as the caption. lol

More Randi

And neither have the vast marjority of people and our lives certainly aren't impoverished in any way.

Well, I'm a cynic and I believe "most" people live lifes of pathetic and ingnorant futility, but that's just a point of view.

One certainly doesn't need to know any biblical references to appreciate classical music if that's your cup of tea, no does one need to know any biblical references to appreciate beautiful art - that's just bullshit plain and simple.

Well, the art and classical music are often based on biblical references so being aware or knowledgable of them will always be illuminating (as would being aware of the politics of period, the philosophical believes of the period, and so on). I'm sure there are people who know a *lot* more about Napolean than I do and I'm sure there are a lot of people who know less. I'd be pretty pissed if someone said I am incapible of listening to Bethoven's 3rd Symphony just because I don't know enough about Napolean. (When and why did he declare himself emperor anyway?)

Besides, when watching the erotic rose petal on the bed scene of Francis if I found my thoughts drifting to Napolean I'd be kind of ... perverted.

Negentropyeater, there are klingon to english dictionaries I don't understand either and my appreciation and understanding of star trek isn't depreciated in any substantial way due to this. Ditto for your bible

The vast vast majority of literature will be unread by any person. Not being able to understand huge swathes of crap doesn't impoverish anyone in anyway. Pray tell what of this swathe would be of any immediate value to a computer scientist like me living in a modern world...

This comment is almost too sad to bear. I suppose one of the signature aspects of poverty is that if it's all you've ever known, you don't even know you're impoverished.

I just don't know what else to say...

The vast vast majority of literature will be unread by any person. Not being able to understand huge swathes of crap doesn't impoverish anyone in anyway. Pray tell what of this swathe would be of any immediate value to a computer scientist like me living in a modern world, pray tell, which literature requiring knowledge of the bible is relevant and significant in my day to day life?!

Randi!

I'm trying to defend you but you seem rather insistant on making yourself appear an ignoramous. "If I don't understand it, it's useless and can't do me any good" is the rallying cry of the ignorant and proud to be ignorant, who in my mind or the ugliest and most pathetic people on earth. Sure you can live your life day to day and never think of anything but your job and food and where to poop, but that is such a waste! Hamlet despite being shoved down poor high school students throat is an excellent rumination of human existentialism and valuable to anyone. etc. etc. To dismiss the great works of art as "crap" simply because they have a reference to a nomadic bunch of goat-sacrificers and concluding the are irrelevant is ... grossly ingorant.

Now, you don't need to be intimate with the bible (or the life of Napolean, or Aristotle, or whatever) to appreciate them. With that I agree (or feel it's a matter of personal and pragmatic degree). But to dismiss it as "crap". Well, that's just crass.

woozy:

Well, the art and classical music are often based on biblical references so being aware or knowledgable of them will always be illuminating...

What I take from Randi's comment @98 is not so much that s/he (sorry... gender-neutral first name) doesn't think the Bible is important to understanding art, but rather that understanding art is itself not important. Dog knows I hope I'm wrong about that; I can't imagine going through this vale of tears without the consolation of the arts.

Woozy, I studied Hamlet and Shakespeare in school and it was most definitely crap. If I hadn't read it I'd most certainly be no worse off. There's never been any instance in my life where I've thought, gee, its good that I read Hamlet/bible because now I understand this important thing - never. And I'm certain that's the case with the vast majority of people. You don't need to know the bible to understand biology, chemistry, geography, geology, mathematics, architecture,environmental science, computers, and on and on. There's so much beyond one's job, food and where to poop that has absolutely nothing to do with the bible no one is going to miss it in anyway in their day to day life.

I am a she by the way.

Just as a fr'instance, one of my favorite novels, Light in August, by William Faulkner, is an "anti-gospel," following somewhat the plot and themes of the Gospel of John, even unto having 21 chapters and a protagonist with the intials J.C.

I have read it several times, both before and after this aspect of the book came to my attention. And I would say that my appreciation of it is enhanced by this knowledge, but not that this knowledge is essential to enjoying it or respecting Faulkner's acheivement in writing it. (My wife loves the book and she couldn't give a rat's ass about the Gospels.) It's a matter of cultural context, is all. Understanding the concerns and themes that the author was working with give deeper understanding of what he was trying to accomplish, whether or not the source material is compelling on its own.

Bill Dauphin, you are correct, I don't feel the slightest concern about "understanding" art. Either it appeals to you visually or it doesn't, any "understanding" of it is virtually irrelevant to the value it might add to your life. As for your need for the consolation of the arts you are decidely in the minority - there are far more people who'd rather watch a good football game then mentally masturbate over some ancient art. Give me a good display of figure skating and I find more art and beauty that brings tears of appreciation to my eye than any ancient painter ever could remotely hope to have done.

Either it appeals to you visually or it doesn't, any "understanding" of it is virtually irrelevant to the value it might add to your life.
Speak for yourself.

CJO, claims that you need to know the bible to understand much of art, music, and literature are no more compelling than my feeling that you must understand figure skating to appreciate beauty in life. Just because you think its important doesn't mean anybody else does and even most Christians haven't read the bible - if they had most of them wouldn't be Christians.

I don't really care whether understanding art floats your boat or not. Honestly. I am merely pointing out that you are the one now making prescriptive assertions about others' values.

claims that you need to know the bible to understand much of art, music, and literature are no more compelling than my feeling that you must understand figure skating to appreciate beauty in life.

The difference is that figure skating, wonderful as it is, isn't one of ancient sources for the great cultures of the world.

Look, nobody here (least of all here) is arguing that the Bible is important because it's divine; only because it is (indisputably) cultural source material... in much the same way that Greek and Norse mythology are.

Suppose you're watching an ice dance routine based on the story of Leda and the Swan, or pairs skate based on Salome, or a men's free skate to Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries? You might well be able to enjoy the sights and sounds on their own merits... but you'll enjoy them more, and more deeply, if you understand what they're about, as well.

If you say otherwise, I think you're confessing to a certain sort of blindness.

PS: FWIW, There's absolutely no conflict between loving football and enjoying the arts... including figure skating!

Bill Dauphin said "Suppose you're watching an ice dance routine based on the story of Leda and the Swan, or pairs skate based on Salome, or a men's free skate to Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries? You might well be able to enjoy the sights and sounds on their own merits... but you'll enjoy them more, and more deeply, if you understand what they're about, as well.".

As CJO said, speak for yourself. Frankly the music is part of figure skating that I don't care for, I usually turn the sound off when I'm watching. And I sincerely doubt that understanding the story of Leda and the Swan is going to enhance my appreciation of what I consider to be the ultimate display of femininity and beauty.

Did you notice the name of the West Chester paper? The Daily Local News That's my hometown paper, and I've always really liked its name. Dave Barry used to work there, and shares my enthusiasm for the name.

The "War on Christmas" folks are fools. They completely missed the boat. Christmas today is a secular holiday, just like Halloween. Sure, some folks still pay attention to its religious roots, but ask anybody what Christmas means... a tree and presents, Santa and his reindeer, mistletoe and holly, the big family dinner. Religious connections are pretty far down on most people's list.

The War on Christmas is over.

Willful ignorance is willful ignorance, whether it is willful ignorance of Newton, Darwin and Einstein or willful ignorance of Homer, Shakespeare, Picasso and the bibles.

The Jewish bible in particular is a powerful record of human behavior through history. This in no way implies it is a good model for how to behave: it is an excellent record of how people do behave.

Please feel free to continue to stick your head in the sand and ignore anything but your own ideas & feelings. Just realize that it is a sign of ignorance rather than intelligence. It is exactly the same behavior that the monotheistic fundamentalists exhibit.

Just don't pretend to be better/smarter than they are when you view the world in the same way as they do.

The War on Christmas is over.

It was over before it started. Either Christmas is a religious holiday or it isn't. If it is (and there are good arguments to argue that it is) than it is illegal to have it be a federal holiday, to have public observance of it, or mention it in schools. At any rate, Christmas as a religious holiday is nothing any one is entitled to even if 100% of the population were to observe it.

If Christmas isn't a religious holiday (and considering it is beloved by the vast majory and a huge economic backbone of this country, it's probably best to see it as communal and universal) well, than it's secualar and all goes and all are allowed to participate.

Why is it that every time I see that someone has erected a "Tree of Knowledge," I have the overwhelming urge to go stand next to it and offer free apples to passers-by?

Are you going to dress up like a snake while you hand out the apples? LOL.

Better not, Xians have no sense of humor and can get violent .

The talking snake also had legs. So what was an ambulatory, smart ass snake doing in the garden with the first two people? IMO, there was a whole other story here which has been ruthlessly suppressed for millenia. Who knew and when? One of the great scandals of Xianity.

The other great coverup. Noah screwed up bigtime. We now know that 99% of all terrestrial life is extinct. A salvage operation with that high a failure rate is disgraceful.

The Jewish bible in particular is a powerful record of human behavior through history. This in no way implies it is a good model for how to behave: it is an excellent record of how people do behave.

I agree. But there is a rather insidious slippery slope argument I'm sure most here have experienced first hand. First, the theophiles, say the bible is an important social record and influence, then it's *the* most influentual, then it reflects all good in our culture, then it is very good, then it is great literature, then it is the greatest story ever told, then even if not literally true its a perfect ideal and story for man and society to observe, then it's it doesn't have to be just a stroy as faith isn't about facts, then its surely anyone sane would strive to be a Christian in spirit, than such spirit wouldn't be so compelling if it wasn't true.

It's an insidious and false argument. Still, the bible *is* one of the most influentual books in western history and culture. It's an existential fact. Make of it what you will.

Damn, I love Shakespeare and Bach. Dang, I hate football. But Dali and the Oz books! Heaven.

I wouldn't usually pipe up in discussions like this and there is nothing I despise more (excepting religion) than cultural elitism but Randi you are a philistine. Here's a couple Google definitions of philistine for some context (I'll leave it to you to categorise yourself)
- of or relating to ancient Philistia or the culture of the Philistines
- a member of an Aegean people who settled ancient Philistia around the 12th century BC
- a person who is uninterested in intellectual pursuits
- anti-intellectual: smug and ignorant and indifferent or hostile to artistic and cultural values

Ancient art is mental masturbation? Literature is crap? Figure skating without music? WTF.
Football (any code) is art btw - narrative, dance, drama, conflict...

I think the display only makes sense in the greater context of the "War on Christmas". Basically the root cause is that some people believe that America is a Christian nation. The rest of us might be allowed to live here, but we'd better remember our place. To Christianists, a courthouse nativity scene serves exactly the same function as any other gang tag. It tells people, "Yo, this is our turf!"

Naturally there's been a backlash to this, and the courts wound up ruling that if you have a courthouse nativity scene, you have to allow menorahs and Kwanzaa symbols and completely secular icons like Frosty the Snowman. What happens next depends on the community. Some places will just have a nice inclusive holiday display. In other places, the Christianists will decide that they don't want to be next to other people's symbols. So they'll get the town council to shut down the public holiday display, and they'll move the nativity scene to turf that they actually own.

If there's a holiday display on the courthouse lawn, then certainly atheists should be allowed to join in the fun. They don't have a set of established Winter Solstice traditions, but traditions have to start somewhere!

I like this Tree of Wisdom tradition, because I think it emphasizes our shared humanity. The common thread between all the books is that they deal with morality. They might differ on trivial details, but there are a lot of places where they all agree: "Don't kill people, unless they deserve it." "Don't take other people's stuff, unless you're entitled to it." "Don't eat pork unless you're sure that it's been cooked long enough to kill parasites. If you're still worried, you don't have to eat pork at all."

I think it's a wonderful thing that we all hold these beliefs in common, regardless of race, religion, or nationality. And I think it's good to take one day a year for us all to contemplate that. December 25th seems like a good day, because most people are off work then.

I am on the Board of the Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia (FSGP). There is no "CCA" or "Chester County Atheists;" the Winter Holiday "Tree of Knowledge" was created by the FSGP.

The reason why we included some religious texts on our tree is that we know of many people who became atheists after reading such "holy" texts as the Bible. We encourage people to examine the Bible carefully, and think about it rationally.

We also want to show that many nontheists do celebrate the winter holidays, and we want to be included in displays on public property. Just because I am an atheist does not mean that I don't celebrate Christmas! Christmas means Santa Claus, Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer, Frosty the Snowman, and the beginning of longer, sunnier days. It means family, friends, and feasting. We want to share our celebratory mood with our fellow local citizens. We also want to share the gift of knowledge, by encouraging people to read freethought books.

The Connecticut Valley Atheists display doesn't seem very festive to me. I guess we each celebrate in our own way.

The Bible is indeed an important touchstone for Western culture, but as others have alluded to, Greek and Roman mythology has had a similarly profound influence, and ditto to more "modern" works such as Dante and Milton (both of which also arguably contributed more to the lay view of theology than any academics), and Shakespeare, and Goethe, etc. etc. etc. The Bible may be significant in terms of its cultural influence, but it is by no means the most important. If folks want to teach relevant Bible stories along with Greek and Roman myths and Hamlet, that's fine with me. But when Christians make the "cultural importance" argument, I get antsy.

Figure skating without music?

Well the original figure part of figure-skating neither had nor needed music. However, they've ditched that part entirely in the past couple of decades. Now it's just the later stages which remain - albeit built on and still hinting at those basic figure skills.

It was over before it started.

Absolutely - in the US at any rate, were the religious proponents of xmas even remotely honest (which of course they're not!). However, it's not so simple in the UK. There it would be allowed even if it were establishing religion in the public arena.

I like the idea of the "Tree of Knowledge".

First of all most of us non-theists think that pursuing and testing knowledge is a worthwhile enterprise (as for that matter do many theists).

Second it pulls from the European cultural heritage in that the Bible refers to the tree of knowledge of good and evil from which Adam and Eve ate and their eyes were opened. From a rational non-Christian point of view the obvious question is why is this bad? (I think there are some Christian theologies that also considered this ultimately good but not for the same reason.)

Ideally the knowledge on the tree should be broad so yes the Bible and other widely used religious books (and there counters) but also other works of significance. The Origin of Species, The History of the Peloponnesian War (arguably the first History), Translations from the Chinese (by Waley, one could use a Chinese book but Waley's translations of Chinese poems are works of art in their own right, see The Red Cockatoo by Po Chu-i, Journey to the West would be another choice and is more likely to appeal to kids), The Illiad, US Constitution.... Admittedly books on the whole aren't very decorative tree ornaments. Perhaps models of scientific instruments such as telescope, microscope, compass (both types)... Associate it with contributing fun educational books (e.g., a kids book on dinosaurs) and toys to Toys for Tots or similar charity (perhaps a flyer listing suggestions).

It would be positive (pursue knowledge), adaptive (trees are already associated with this holiday season), and contributing.

Randi wrote:

I studied Hamlet and Shakespeare in school and it was most definitely crap.

Which is all you need to know about Randi. Next topic?

Second it pulls from the European cultural heritage in that the Bible refers to the tree of knowledge of good and evil from which Adam and Eve ate and their eyes were opened. From a rational non-Christian point of view the obvious question is why is this bad?

It's an intriguing myth. Had I run across it in another culture (rather than the uptight religion of the brain dead anti-intellictuals or my culture) I'd find it a fascinating. Knowledge and sophistication are "good" things in that they are powerful and expanding but they come at a huge cost in that to be knowledgable we must lose our innocence and our ignorance of suffering. It the same melancholy sadness of looking at a beautiful innocent baby and knowing he must grow, become calloused and work and lose his sweetness in being just an average joe blow and ultimately die. This is pretty common in all mythologies. The budha was raised a sheltered life so that he'd never know the existence of suffering and it wasn't until he saw three sights of suffering that he realized his mission. Most of these mythologies usually take it for granted that innocence must be lost in due course and mankind in a knowledgable and somewhat suffering state is the inevitable norm. Christianity is a bit unusual, in my opinion, in taking "the fall" literal and believing in a redeemer. A redeemer as something coming at the end of days is nothing unique in universal myths but in this case he came and went so we have the weird idea that todays christians can actually leave the existential suffering of day to day life by being cleansed and that therefore the fault (or "sin") of the actual fall is something will still live with and in our control. Thus we are still sinful just for existing. So far as I know, IMHO, that is unique to Christianity.

I'm sure we can all come up with our personal favorites for a tree of knowledge. (Is there a list of all the books chosen.) I think it's a brilliant idea and even if the theme of "forbidden fruit" is a bit risque for the pious it's still within range and a decent and fair point of philosophical debate. It *does* say we disagree with your religion but not in an obnoxious and insulting way. Also it highlights what we think is a positive point of athiesm (we value knowledge) without claiming "you guys do *not*". (Which in my view "athiest are not mass murdering lunatics" either implies that thiests are, or we are immune and thiests aren't both of which are insulting. "We value knowledge" doesn't mean we are the only ones or that we are more prone to but instead points out "Hey, this is one of our values. Maybe you share it too. See we aren't monsters.")

I hear on a regular basis that there ar these really great people who just go to church for the social aspect, or because that is what mom and dad did.
Let us put that in perspective for a moment. There are people who waste time listening to sermons, waste money in donations to their church, allow this crap to be taught to their children as fact, etc. so that they can have friends?
Or they do all of this for the sake of family tradition?

All the while never turning a critical eye on their beliefs or rationally questioning what they claim to be.

What if they are just going along with this, so as not to make waves? Then they are cowards, they are sheeple.

Is this the group you hope to make nice with? Why? So what if you find a middle ground with these people. They are useless as allies. When the fundies want to limit our rights or violate the constitution [USA]these "good church goin' folk" are going to follow along like a good little flock.

Dont kid yourself that there are tons of nice liberal churches around, full of people that dont care if you believe or not. These are few and very far between.

Stand up and be proud. Aye!

Just to clarify--the Tree of Knowledge display is in Chester County, but it is a project of the Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia. Margaret Downey is the president of that group as well as AAI. We were also slightly confused as to why those books would be included, and when we asked her about it, she explained that it was an effort to get people to actually READ them, since most believers are lax in that area. The Holey Babble may be the greatest tool we have when conversing with theists and the parts of the bible that get left out of catechism classes are great for demonstrating the terrible monstrosity that they worship.

Let us put that in perspective for a moment. There are people who waste time listening to sermons, waste money in donations to their church, allow this crap to be taught to their children as fact, etc. so that they can have friends?
Or they do all of this for the sake of family tradition?

Right... and I'm sure you do a relentlessly cost-benefit analysis of every aspect of your life, and you never do anything without a deep philosophical understanding of why you're doing it? No doubt you never do anything just because it's what you're used to, or because it's what your family or community typically does?

Well if so, good on ye', mate... but don't kid yourself that you're typical: People in general do all sorts of things more or less unthinkingly, out of some sort of tradition... from trivial things like what sort of clothes they wear or what sports they play to important things like what they study in college or whether they enlist in the military or whether they go to church. It's nice to imagine that most people think hard and make rational decisions about everything they do, such that you could be sure that anyone you saw coming out of a Christian church was a true washed-in-the-blood, die-for-Jesus believer... but it just ain't so. I real life, people do the things they do for a wild variety of reasons, including sometimes for no discernible reason at all, and they similarly attach wildly varying degrees of importance to the things they do.

When the fundies want to limit our rights or violate the constitution [USA]these "good church goin' folk" are going to follow along like a good little flock.

Nope. Many mainstream churches officially take stands on social-justice issues that are diametrically opposed to fundie positions, and almost all of the sane ones see separation of church and state as key to protecting their rights, in addition to the rights of secular folk. Heck, in my town of Vernon, CT, the pastor of the downtown Congregational church that directly overlooks the park containing the CVA display said he had no problems with the atheists having a display; he welcomed it.

More to my earlier points, though, regardless of the positions the churches take as institutions, many of the folks in the pews simply don't see themselves as being involved in any theo/ideological struggle. They leave church, go out for a nice lunch with the family, and then get on with their lives, often not thinking about God again 'til the following Sunday. (This fact actually drives the fundies crazy: If you want to hear real fire and brimstone, listen to a fundie evangelist preach on the topic of lukewarm, Sunday-only Christians!)

This is true, BTW, in other arenas besides religion: Committed opponents on both ends of a spectrum of philosophical struggle tend to forget how many of the people in the vast middle don't see themselves as involved in a struggle at all. In our case, since the fundamental principles of a secular society are already present in the Constitution, just keeping that vast middle out of the fight will go a long way toward protecting our freedom from religion. Denying recruits to the other side is a nontrivial victory. (Which is not to say, BTW, that we shouldn't fight hard when there's fightin' to do.)

Dont kid yourself that there are tons of nice liberal churches around, full of people that dont care if you believe or not. These are few and very far between.

Depends on where you live (demographically as well as geographically), I suppose: Every community I've ever lived in has had more mainstream Episcopal, Lutheran, Presbyterian (sp?), Methodist, and Catholic than it has Baptist churches and nondenominational churches with fundie codewords like "Grace" and "Full Gospel" and "Temple" in their names. I suppose it varies from place to place, but in my experience these folks are generally into holding the occasional picnic or ice cream social, and not at all into attacking the science curriculum or screaming "God Hates Fags" at military funerals.

Whether you want to recognize it or not, not all church members are "theists" in any active sense, and not all theists are equal in their beliefs or level of passion. Under the heading of "know thine enemy," I think it behooves us to recognize the differences, so we can align both our resources and our tactics with the actual folks out there.

YMMV, of course.

"It's funny that you chose the word "dogma" above, because it seems to me that you're being (surprisingly, I must say) dogmatic about this. There is another possibility, between "they mean what they say" and "they are dishonest," and that is that they just haven't thought too hard about what "what they say" actually means... or perhaps just that this particular item of belief isn't as important to them as it is to others."

I think you will find that making claims you have not thought about much about comes under dishonesty.

How is the belief in the "moderate" Christians' god any more rational than belief in the fundamentalist Christians' god ?

[Not having read past comment #38]: It's not. I am talking about culture-war tactics, not changing peoples' beliefs. If that happens too, bonus. "We're here; we don't share your beliefs; get used to it; please keep your religion out of the public sphere, especially science, science policy, and science education; no, really, we insist" versus "Hahaha! Your religion is stupid and so are you so shut the fuck up."

If your goals are different, OK, but I don't want your actions in support of your goals (which I might consider unrealistic) to compromise my goals, which might be achievable (maybe). Reaching my goals, it seems to me, will require allies with some delusions. That's all.
But what do I know--I'm going to shut up now and read the rest of the comments.

You remind me of some people who can't understand why homosexuals are pushing so hard for equal rights

Oh, OK, one more:
Bite me, Humbert.

I think you will find that making claims you have not thought about much about comes under dishonesty.

I'd be more likely to call it thoughtlessness than dishonesty... but the more salient point is that the people I'm talking about don't see themselves as "making claims." They're doing a personal thing -- attending church -- for personal reasons; the fact that you take it on yourself to infer from that personal act some sort of public claim, which you then judge to be false, does not (IMHO, at least) make them "dishonest." By your standard, it'd be awfully hard to find an honest person anywhere, because most of us do something that we haven't thought through in deep and specific detail.

But if you insist on thinking of what I'll call the casually churched as "dishonest," so be it; it doesn't change the fact that they exist and they vote and sit on Town Councils and Boards of Education and Zoning Boards and we have to deal with them. All I'm saying is that we should deal who they really are, rather than who we wish they were. Not every churchmember is Fred Phelps; it's inappropriate and counterproductive to treat them all the same.

OK, I've had my say here, and now I'm out.

"I'd be more likely to call it thoughtlessness than dishonesty... but the more salient point is that the people I'm talking about don't see themselves as "making claims." They're doing a personal thing -- attending church -- for personal reasons; the fact that you take it on yourself to infer from that personal act some sort of public claim, which you then judge to be false, does not (IMHO, at least) make them "dishonest." By your standard, it'd be awfully hard to find an honest person anywhere, because most of us do something that we haven't thought through in deep and specific detail."

The thing is they DO make such claims. Something in excess of 40% of Americans think the earth is a mere 6000 years old if we accept the polling data, and do so because of their religious beliefs. If, as you claim, they had not thought about it much then they have no business making such claim. Either they really do think the earth is only a few thousand years old or they do not, but say they do. The latter is dishonesty from where I sit.

If a religious person is a public official but keeps their religious beliefs separate from their public duties then there is no problem with how they discharge their duties. I may think them deluded but only in respect of their private beliefs. If a religious person decides that their religious views should inform their public functions then there is a problem, and "being nice" to them is unlikely to change that. Such people need to be held up for ridicule and scorn and when they try to implement policies based on their religious view rather than sound thinking they need to be ignored.

I think I'll give shakespeare another go. I tended to agree with Randi that from the small exposure I had of Shakespeare, while showing mastery of the language, his writing was a bit tedious and made for poor casual reading. All these cries of "philistine!" makes me feel like a poo-flinging-ape-hobo, so I think I'll shamble off to the library, find a nice, thick hardcover and beat some culture into myself. Also, how old do you have to be not having read any Shakespeare before an intellectual who has can call you a philistine without fear of rebuttal?

Sven, consider yourself bitten.

Reaching my goals, it seems to me, will require allies with some delusions.

Sellout.

Selling out refers to the compromising of one's integrity, morality and principles in exchange for money, 'success' or other personal gain.

-'kipedia, but any definition will do.

My position is that we atheists heve nothing to gain by intentionally alienating the large population of not-really-religious people. Since by refraining from pissing such people off when possible I would not have to compromise any morality or principles, and would gain nothing in terms of money or success for myself, I conclude that you're a dick who's full of shit. My goal is a better world for my (atheist) daughter. I am willing to work for such a world in concert with people that don't share exactly my worldview. And for that you're questioning my integrity?

My goal is a better world for my (atheist) daughter. I am willing to work for such a world in concert with people that don't share exactly my worldview. And for that you're questioning my integrity?

Thanks, Sven! This is exactly the POV I've been trying to express in this thread, but your formulation is much more direct and succinct. It seems that even among us rationalists, there's a tendency to assume that "people that don't exactly share my worldview" are invariably either deluded or evil; thanks for standing up for a non-binary approach.

OTOH...

you're a dick who's full of shit

...perhaps you could take a moment to review human physiology! ;^)