ADF would be fine with Holiday displays without a large dollop of Christianity. The line should read: "unless a large dollop of anti-Christianity is added" ...because that is more accurate.
"A large dollop of anti-Christianity?" Like what? "Fuck Jesus," "Priests rape children?" "Xtians are stupid?" I don't think that happens. That's the problem with this debate: Christians, because they're on top, but still want to feel persecuted, have redefined persecution to mean "not explicitly catering to them."
"Religion is but a myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds." If that is not anti-Christian I don't know what it is gustav. Couldn't they have said something positive about non-belief? The basis for the message is attack, attack, attack. Gustav's language is a good example of that.
Gustav has a point Double A, though you might have missed it.
It's laughable that Christians in the US haul out the cloak of victimhood for many, many reason.
1) In the US, "Christians" of one form or another are in the majority
2) There are Christians in the world who are living in very dangerous straits because of their beliefs. The US is not one of those places, not by a longshot. For anyone to claim religious victimhood in these United States in modern times because some clerk says "Happy Holidays" shows a pitiable sense of their own history and is frankly letting loose a long hot stream of piss on the memories of the people who died either for their profession of faith or their lack thereof.
It amounts to lazy faithists griping because their quirk of cognition isn't coddled and confirmed by Mother State. Really, your faith is that weak?
3) The War on Christmas meme has more to do with cultural orthodoxy than religious belief. There are Christians who don't celebrate Xmas on the same date, and there were Christians, MAJORITY Christians in this country who saw fit to ban outright the celebration of Christmas. So, here we have the majority policing how we all should celebrate a holiday that has a variety of meanings for a variety of people. That has NOTHING to do with belief and everything to do with cultivating resentment among people who aren't comfortable with acknowledging that their show aint the only one in town.
4) There are Christians who appeal to the state to protect them from being exposed to culture that does not confirm or celebrate their beliefs. Your belief and your god must be a weak indeed if you have to beg the protections of the government.
I'm sorry. I thought you were referring to the article in its entirety, which dealt more with the campaign to remove creches from public property. That specific message may be unnecessarily combative, but I still think it's a valid respnse to a movement that finds "happy holidays" sacreligious for not explicitly referencing christ.
6 comments:
ADF would be fine with Holiday displays without a large dollop of Christianity. The line should read: "unless a large dollop of anti-Christianity is added" ...because that is more accurate.
"A large dollop of anti-Christianity?" Like what? "Fuck Jesus," "Priests rape children?" "Xtians are stupid?" I don't think that happens. That's the problem with this debate: Christians, because they're on top, but still want to feel persecuted, have redefined persecution to mean "not explicitly catering to them."
"Religion is but a myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."
If that is not anti-Christian I don't know what it is gustav. Couldn't they have said something positive about non-belief? The basis for the message is attack, attack, attack. Gustav's language is a good example of that.
Gustav has a point Double A, though you might have missed it.
It's laughable that Christians in the US haul out the cloak of victimhood for many, many reason.
1) In the US, "Christians" of one form or another are in the majority
2) There are Christians in the world who are living in very dangerous straits because of their beliefs. The US is not one of those places, not by a longshot. For anyone to claim religious victimhood in these United States in modern times because some clerk says "Happy Holidays" shows a pitiable sense of their own history and is frankly letting loose a long hot stream of piss on the memories of the people who died either for their profession of faith or their lack thereof.
It amounts to lazy faithists griping because their quirk of cognition isn't coddled and confirmed by Mother State. Really, your faith is that weak?
3) The War on Christmas meme has more to do with cultural orthodoxy than religious belief. There are Christians who don't celebrate Xmas on the same date, and there were Christians, MAJORITY Christians in this country who saw fit to ban outright the celebration of Christmas. So, here we have the majority policing how we all should celebrate a holiday that has a variety of meanings for a variety of people. That has NOTHING to do with belief and everything to do with cultivating resentment among people who aren't comfortable with acknowledging that their show aint the only one in town.
4) There are Christians who appeal to the state to protect them from being exposed to culture that does not confirm or celebrate their beliefs. Your belief and your god must be a weak indeed if you have to beg the protections of the government.
Merry Christmas.
I'm sorry. I thought you were referring to the article in its entirety, which dealt more with the campaign to remove creches from public property. That specific message may be unnecessarily combative, but I still think it's a valid respnse to a movement that finds "happy holidays" sacreligious for not explicitly referencing christ.
Ironically, I'm posting this while I search for nondenominational presents to put under my Secular Tree. To quote Community: Merry Happy, everyone!
Post a Comment