🎄 Almost Time For the Santa Monica Christmas Decorations 🎄 (Beverly Hills: living, military)

[highlanderfil]

Originally Posted by Cinema Cat

All displays -- indeed, all communication -- are "a definitive statement of a certain view being 'correct' and all the others being wrong."

Untrue. Staying on the topic of religion for a moment, agnostics, in particular, ask questions rather than make definitive statements. Atheists, admittedly, do not.

Furthermore, there are statements of provable fact which do not include, I'm sorry to say, the existence of a deity.

All these city and school sponsored posters, and student projects, and whatnot, about global warming implies that global warming is a "correct" belief, and if you disagree you are "incorrect." Yet I must live amid all this "climate change" propaganda. And the "drought" propaganda. And all the other "green" propaganda.

And "the Earth is round" propaganda, too, I'm sure.

But when people see (Christian) religious displays, suddenly it's "Oh, not everyone agrees, therefore it's offensive to say that. Keep your (Christian) religious views to yourself!"

Christianity itself has done enough, over the course of centuries, to foster (however unwillingly) those very sentiments.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by highlanderfil

Untrue. Staying on the topic of religion for a moment, agnostics, in particular, ask questions rather than make definitive statements. Atheists, admittedly, do not.

No they do not ask they simply claim thir view is true. This is typical of all ideologies, religious or not.

Furthermore, there are statements of provable fact which do not include, I'm sorry to say, the existence of a deity.

Factually false. There is no way to prove a deity does not exist.

And "the Earth is round" propaganda, too, I'm sure.Christianity itself has done enough, over the course of centuries, to foster (however unwillingly) those very sentiments.

"Christianity" has done a LOT of bad based on the same thing Atheists do, follow the teachings of man.

Christmas trees are from a non Christian source, but people like the way they look so they want them up. Others who do not want anything religious on display, want them down.

[Exitus Acta Probat]

I just want the non-religious decorations over Wilshire like we used to have. I fail to see how imagery of candles, stars, trees, etc. are offensive, since they can easily be taken as symbols of Winter Solstice, the holiday on which Christmas is based. Winter Solstice is the celebration of a changing ecliptic -- how is that offensive?

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by highlanderfil

Really, a piece of half-decade-old news pisses you off? You might want to re-consider where you spend your negative energy, because this particular instance is really not worth it.Uh...

you know what? I think I am one of the most positive people on these threads, but you think what you want I don't care if this was yesterday or 100 years ago, when certain groups start taking away things that do not hurt them because they believe in a different way, yes, it makes me upset. Some things need to be changed as life goes on, everyone knows this, but when something that is enjoyed by many, doesn't hurt anyone and there are those who want to spoil it, is selfish, to say the least.

[highlanderfil]

Originally Posted by nmnita

you know what? I think I am one of the most positive people on these threads, but you think what you want I don't care if this was yesterday or 100 years ago, when certain groups start taking away things that do not hurt them because they believe in a different way, yes, it makes me upset.

You've just described religious zealots (of whatever persuasion) rather accurately. Funny how things look differently when the shoe's on the other foot, isn't it?

Some things need to be changed as life goes on, everyone knows this, but when something that is enjoyed by many, doesn't hurt anyone and there are those who want to spoil it, is selfish, to say the least.

"Doesn't hurt anyone" - highly debatable and one can argue that what the atheist dude did didn't hurt anyone, either. He didn't "take anything away" from anyone - unless, of course, you believe the Christian group to be entitled to their display over and above anyone else and that he, in turn, deprived them of their G-d-given right of putting it up. Unfortunately (for this argument, at least), that's not how things work.

[(901)]

When is the last time a group of Aethist opened a not for profit hospital or orphanage?

[highlanderfil]

Originally Posted by (901)

When is the last time a group of Aethist opened a not for profit hospital or orphanage?

It's "atheist(s)". So glad you asked. This should help answer your question assuming you were actually looking for an answer. So, too, this.

But here's one back at you: when was the last time a religious organization built/sponsored a hospital without attaching its name to the building?

[(901)]

I'm not clicking your link but assume you have your own hospital. Be sure and go there when you're sick

[highlanderfil]

Originally Posted by (901)

I'm not clicking your link but assume you have your own hospital. Be sure and go there when you're sick

Ah, so I was right. It's not facts you're interested in, it's conjecture, provocation and ad hominem attacks. No, thank you.

For the record, the hospital system I call upon when needed is not affiliated with any religious organization and works just fine.

[Cinema Cat]

Originally Posted by highlanderfil

unless, of course, you believe the Christian group to be entitled to their display over and above anyone else and that he, in turn, deprived them of their G-d-given right of putting it up.

It's not a God-given right. It is a Constitutional right, guaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause.

The U.S. has separation of church and state. It does not have separation of church and society. And because a large majority of Americans are Christians, most symbols this time of year will be Christian.

This offends non-Christians, so they pressure private entities (stores, malls, media, etc.) to give equal space and equal time to minority religions, while diluting the religious aspects of Christian displays.

Every year in Santa Monica, I see so many menorahs on store lots, yet no nativity scenes. Even the tree in the Third Street Promenade is called a Holiday Tree, removing all Christian taint, to be more inclusive. Yet the Promenade's Menorah is called a Menorah, which is explicitly Jewish. Why not instead call them Holiday Candles, to be more inclusive?

Originally Posted by highlanderfil

"Doesn't hurt anyone" - highly debatable

Christmas decorations hurt non-Christians?

Well, by that logic, imagine how badly hurt non-Jews feel in Israel. Even government entities -- the flag, military uniforms, national anthem -- privilege Jewish symbols and themes over other religions.

Yet we are told that Israel is a democracy "just like the United States" with "equal rights for all." That's one alleged reason for all the foreign aid (taken from majority Christian taxpayers) given to Israel every year.

But now you tell us that religious symbols are hurtful to minorities? If so, then Israel can't possibly be a democracy "like the United States."

If Israel oppresses its non-Jewish residents so much with Jewish displays, maybe we should demand that Israel adopt American standards toward religious symbols and displays -- and remove the Star of David from all government entities -- as a condition of foreign aid.