AnonymousRain
Active Member
Ridiculous question.Are religious displays required to be on public property for someone to celebrate Christmas?
You say you are an "atheist"?You say your are a "humanist"?
Upvote
0
Ridiculous question.Are religious displays required to be on public property for someone to celebrate Christmas?
You say you are an "atheist"?You say your are a "humanist"?
Government has no obligation to include atheists or allow atheists to display.If the government refuses to allow any group other than Christians to display their celebratory items, then that's not religious freedom, but religious exclusion.
Government also cannot stop atheists from celebrating whatever holidays they like.Government has no obligation to include atheists or allow atheists to display.
Because atheists do not celebrate the holy days the religious do. Atheists know this.
Government has no obligation to include atheists or allow atheists to display.
Because atheists do not celebrate the holy days the religious do. Atheists know this.
Government also cannot stop atheists from celebrating whatever holidays they like.
Who is going to tell me what I can or cannot celebrate?
What would make you think anyone here is obligated to count the number of times you've admitted you're not an atheist?You are incorrect. Atheists do celebrate the same holy days that others choose to. Their reasons aren't the same. I'm not sure how many times I have to point out that I celebrate Christmas.
Sure, atheism is afforded protections. However, atheism doesn't celebrate religious holy days.The government has taken the position that atheism is deserving of the same protection as religions.
That's not true.Well, yes, that is correct as long as you aren't asking the government to allow you to celebrate your holy day on government property.
Some do. They don't have to believe the story to celebrate the day with family and friends who do believe in the story.Atheists don't celebrate Christ's mass.
Or for the fun of just being around family, friends, enjoying good food and exchanging gifts with loved ones. I don't need to believe in Christ to do any of that.If someone who calls themselves an atheist does celebrate December 25th, they're doing it for the material gain in receiving gifts.
So?Christmas is an exclusive celebration honoring the birth of the Christian's god in the form of the Christ child Jesus.
Not any of its own, no. Atheism has no holy days. Atheists are still free to celebrate any and all holidays they like, though.Sure, atheism is afforded protections. However, atheism doesn't celebrate religious holy days.
That's not true.
Lynch v. Donnelly 1984 via SCOTUS
That's not true.
Lynch v. Donnelly 1984 via SCOTUS
You have to admit though that it is rather strange to celebrate something you do not think is worth celebrating? Christians also do this though. Halloween a celebration of greed, gluttony and pagan beliefs in evil spirits is celebrated by many Christians that would say that all three of those things are bad ideas. New Year is another. So Atheists are not alone in celebrating something for no good reason. Celebrations are usually fun and people like them so no reason necessary, I guess.Some do. They don't have to believe the story to celebrate the day with family and friends who do believe in the story.
I'm going to stop you there.I find the idea laughable that my statement is objectively false simply because 31 years ago the majority of 9 old people in robes ( some perhaps senile at the time)
I'm going to stop you there.
It was a SCOTUS decision concerning a nativity on government property.
I realize you have no respect for that, due to your inflammatory remarks. However, that is what the court said. And since you apparently don't know I'll say this in conclusion; SCOTUS' decisions don't have an expiration date. Unless they overturn their decision it stands. And to my knowledge, they did not overturn this decision.
The court proved your prior proclamation wrong. Therefore, you're expressing a personal bias that has no legal merit.
Laugh. It does a body good.
Wikipedia is not a valid resource. You can easily find this case on a credible site.Indeed -- "The Court ruled that the crèche has a legitimate secular purpose within a larger holiday display to celebrate the season and the origins of Christmas which has long been a part of Western culture." (Wikipedia)
Christianity is the the most popular tradition in western culture. By your argument as pertains to the blanket statement regarding atheists celebrating Christ's mass, atheists also go to church.And since Atheists are also a part of Western Culture, they also celebrate Christmas.
I'm going to stop you there.
It was a SCOTUS decision concerning a nativity on government property.
I realize you have no respect for that, due to your inflammatory remarks. However, that is what the court said. And since you apparently don't know I'll say this in conclusion; SCOTUS' decisions don't have an expiration date. Unless they overturn their decision it stands. And to my knowledge, they did not overturn this decision.
The court proved your prior proclamation wrong. Therefore, you're expressing a personal bias that has no legal merit.
Laugh. It does a body good.
Wikipedia is not a valid resource. You can easily find this case on a credible site.
Christianity is the the most popular tradition in western culture.
By your argument as pertains to the blanket statement regarding atheists celebrating Christ's mass, atheists also go to church.
And Citizens United.Indeed -- long may their decisions on abortion and same sex marriage stand as well...
You appear not to realize when SCOTUS delivered the opinion that a nativity creche does not violate the establishment clause in Lynch v. Donnelly in 1989 , that that means the atheist can't try to force a government office to remove the nativity creche that they may have displayed on government property. Because the court ruled it does not violate the establishment clause.The Court ruled it did not prove. There is a difference you seem to be unaware of. If the Supreme Court ruled that what goes up stays up it would not change the fact of gravity. The Supreme Court merely rules on points of law and nothing more substantial than that. The Supreme courts rulings are called opinions for a reason. You continue to conflate an opinion of the majority of 9 with an objective fact.