Atheist facism in action.

[_cafe crema]

Sorry, i normally don't do this but..."facism"? Is that a political belief based on attractiveness?

Don't worry, I do that all the time. No, facism is a form of rebellion against talking to the hand.

I hate the "talk to the hand" I'm behind the "facism". Or is it still rebellious if I'm behind it? I'm not sure because I'm behind the hand if I say "talk to the hand" am I somehow ironic or amusing this way. I don't want to be ironic or amusing, right?

[_MrStakhanovite]

In fairness, this comes off more as irreverent and funny than asinine in person. Reading about it is like reading an internet post where you can't tell if they're being sarcastic or not.

Come on EA…Emma Goldman next to Einstein and Darwin?

[_Bond James Bond]

Let's all take a step back here folks. I posit that the "atheist" (read: pro-infant life!) group's primary concern is the continued advocacy against religious groups putting small children into the food trays of animals. Today, yes, it's just a plastic doll. But tomorrow it will be a real child if the atheists do not nip in the bud any promotion of infants being placed near animal fodder.

You will rue the day religion-ites if you sit idly by while mangers (what a quaint euphemism for a feed trough!) continue to be put forward as suitable bedding for infants. The animals put their faces right in the manger! Sure cows and camels aren't carnivorous but can you truly trust an animal? One herbivore predisposed toward omnivorous behavior and you'll regret it. Won't you please think of the babies! While the overt debate concerns religious freedom, we must combat the underlying madness of placing children near the razor sharp teeth of cows and sheep.

[_Hoops]

Let them burn witches, apostates, nonbelievers, anybody they don't like. Such is freedom.

No it isn't, and no one believes such. But your feeble attempt to brand Christians yet again is noted... and dismissed for what it is.

[_Hoops]

To be on the same wavelength, the atheists should have displayed an arrangement of vacuum cleaners.

And most people I know would support their right to do so.

[_Hoops]

So because Christians failed to use the government to exclusively promote their religion because an atheist was given equal access to the public forum, this means the atheist was attempting to stifle free speech? Unless the atheist shuts up and lets the government create an explicitly Christian forum, then the atheist is stifling free speech? Is that how you imagine it?

Let's remember that the atheists were not satisfied with mere equal access. their intention was to (or became) stifle the Christian message of Christmas.

As for me, I would welcome the atheist's message along side the Christian message. Please do. Every chance you can. I am confident that most people will recognize how empty the atheist message is.

[_EAllusion]

Come on EA…Emma Goldman next to Einstein and Darwin?

I think it's intended to be as silly as you think it is rather than saying that Emma Goldman was an intellectual giant on par with Einstein or Darwin.

[_EAllusion]

Let's remember that the atheists were not satisfied with mere equal access. their intention was to (or became) stifle the Christian message of Christmas.

I'm not sure where you are getting that. Did you misread the article to say that the atheists were trying to win all possible display spots so no religious displays could exist? Because that's not what it said.

As for me, I would welcome the atheist's message along side the Christian message. Please do. Every chance you can. I am confident that most people will recognize how empty the atheist message is.

There isn't any sound reason to believe gods exist. You shouldn't worry about it.

[_EAllusion]

No it isn't, and no one believes such. But your feeble attempt to brand Christians yet again is noted... and dismissed for what it is.

Why me's argument is that Christians should be allowed to have their traditions in order to preserve freedom. He portrays not giving them exclusive access to a government forum as not letting them celebrate Christmas as if that somehow is integral to what Christmas is. The "tradition" in this case is using the civil government to promote their religion. You see, why me doesn't think the government should create a limited public forum where any group can express their views on the holiday season. No, he thinks everyone but Christians should shut up and let them use the government, rather than their own property, to promote their religious message. If he favors a public forum, he does so only as a legal formality because he thinks everyone should stand out of the Christians way. Though, I bet if we were to press him, he wouldn't say everyone. The Jews can't put up a display? No, he'd probably be Ok with that. He probably draws the line at atheists, pagans, wiccans, and so forth.

This is mocked by ludwigm by pointing out that traditions aren't to be respected when they infringe on others rights.

[Guest]

I'm not sure where you are getting that. Did you misread the article to say that the atheists were trying to win all possible display spots so no religious displays could exist? Because that's not what it said.

they rigged the game to get as many displays as possible. With the clear intention of making unavailable any other messages. It wasn't good enough to have their message stand next to a Christian message.

There isn't any sound reason to believe gods exist. You shouldn't worry about it.

There are plenty. So I'm not worried at all.