Merry Christmas to Everyone

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 21:14:45 -0500, Matt Whiting
wrote:

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


Matt


And this expression of christian good will reprresents a feeling
of...????

"Jon Kraus" wrote in message
...
I wouldn't call it a "tirade" at all, you did.

Uh, Jon, no one characterizes their own words as a tirade. But Pete's
characterization is accurate. You disparaged Kwanza as "made-up" (as though
any holiday could be other than made-up) and "phony" (because it's not a
native African celebration--even though its celebrants never claimed it
was!).

I don't believe in the "African-American"
bull****. 99% of black folks have never set foot in Africa and have long
been remove from relatives that are from Africa.

The term "African American" refers to black Americans of African ancestry.
It does not mean "people who have visited Africa, or who speak to their
relatives in Africa", contrary to your peculiar objection.

As with the holiday Kwanza, you take the term "African American" and
misrepresent its meaning in order to make it seem illegitimate. What
motivates you to do so?

Jon Kraus (an American not a German-American)

For many Xs, there are some Americans who prefer to call themselves X
Americans, some who prefer to call themselves Americans, and some who prefer
neither. Why is that difference so hard for you to understand or respect?
Why is it "bull****" for someone's preference to differ from yours in that
regard? Why do you feel the need to insult people for making a different
choice than you as to whether to put their ancestry on a par with their
nationality in their self-description?

--Gary

You have to be a Druid.

Blanche wrote:
What about the winter equinox earlier this week?

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

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

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

In article , "Dan Luke"
wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tony

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

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



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

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

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

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

In article , "Dan Luke"
wrote:

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

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

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

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


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

Let them enjoy their smugness, I say.

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

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

Parks are for feeding pigeons without religious intrusion.

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

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

--Gary