Why atheists should quit the 'War on Christmas’

[rug]

December 21st, 2013
10:22 AM ET
Opinion by Chris Stedman, special to CNN

(CNN) - The “War on Christmas:” what — or who—is it good for?

- snip -

Consider this from a recent profile of the David Silverman, president of American Atheists:

“Silverman’s notorious anti-Christmas billboards and subsequent TV appearances have breathed new life into American Atheists and are often followed by an uptick in subscribers and donations. ... According to Silverman, the primary objective of the billboards is to get invitations to talk shows.”

In other words: American Atheists and Fox News - alongside conservatives like Sarah Palin - seem to have discovered a mutually beneficial relationship.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/21/why-atheists-should-quit-the-war-on-christmas/

[cantbeserious]

1. The War On Christmas Is A War On Americans To Liberate Every Last Dollar At The Altar Of Capitalism

eom

[rrneck]

2. In the words of Conrad Brean

in Wag the Dog.

"Can't have a war without an enemy."

[cbayer]

3. As the author says, this billboard does not convey the message

that atheists are not alone, it conveys a negative message about those who do feel Christ is an important part of christmas.

I think it's a mistake and agree with the author that it's just fodder for the RW's faux War on Christmas meme.

[dimbear]

4. Stedman considers Silverman's billboards notorious........

Evidently Stedman himself has a bit of a war going on. A war on the English language.

[uriel1972]

5. As an atheist I am not at war with Christmas...

Why should I be, it is essentially a meaningless festival, gutted of all importance by monied interests, who have succesfuly prosecuted a war on Christmas for many years now.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. What? Over? Did you say "over"?

Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!

[edhopper]

21. The winning post!

I'll add:
"I love the smell of reindeer in the morning, it smells like Christmas"

[LeftishBrit]

7. I do not know anyone who is anti_Christmas through atheism

I do know people who dislike the holiday due to consumerism or simply because it can become too stressful in its modern form. But religious 'war on Christmas' was mainly a policy of the Puritans! Nowadays the Jehovahs Witnesses and probably some other small sects disapprove of Christmas; and of course many Jews and Muslims don't celebrate it (some actually do, in addition to their own religious holidays).

But the idea that atheists are trying to abolish Christmas seems to me to be a right-wing conspiracy theory.

Isn't there a Republican governor who has exhorted citizens to contribute money to his re-election campaign in preference to buying presents for their children?

[cbayer]

8. Well, what do you think of the billboard this group put up?

Do you see that as anti-Christmas?

The point of the article, imo, is that this group is giving credence (or fodder) to those who are screaming about the faux war on christmas.

I agree with him that we should avoid giving them anything that they can use to justify their claims.

[LeftishBrit]

9. Not much.

But probably it was provoked by similar slogans about the need to 'keep Christ in Christmas'.

Personally, I have never seen a billboard or slogan of this nature; though I've heard plenty of people moan, seriously or jokingly, about the consumerism and stress of Christmas.

[cbayer]

10. It was indeed "provoked" by such a sign.

The problem is, imo, that they took the bait.

For me, the Keep the Christ in Christmas message has always been about the consumerism. While some may experience it as an attack on non-believers, that is never what it meant to me.

[Warren Stupidity]

11. "While some may experience it as an attack on non-believers"

so, according to you, we should not interpret the phrase "Keep the Christ in Christmas" as it is clearly and obviously intended to be, an attack on non-christians, a call to de-secularize the holiday and separate it from non-christians, but instead something about "consumerism", a meaning that you would have to read into the phrase, as the phrase itself makes zero mention of anything at all to do with consumerism. On the other hand, according to you, the phrase "who needs christ in christmas, nobody" is obviously an attack on christians, and not, for example making the point that the holiday has become a secularized occasion, celebrated by both christians and non-christians, and is not the exclusive domain of christians.

[cbayer]

12. As I said, I have never interpreted that way.

It was a phrase used during my childhood that meant that we should reject the consumerism and embrace the concepts exemplified by the christ figure.

When Xmas stated replacing Christmas, it exemplified how we had moved to a consumer centered holiday.

I understand, however, that that has changed to some extent and, as I said, understand that some people feel it is an attack on non-christians.

If the sign said, "Everyone needs Christ in Christmas", I would see that as an attack on non-believers, just as I see the "nobody" sign as an attack. To suggest that everyone must be the same is what is offensive. Some people like and want christ in christmas, others don't.

Frankly, I think both billboards are unnecessary and promote nothing positive.

[Warren Stupidity]

13. "both billboards are unnecessary and promote nothing positive"

In the same text you interpret the divisive "keep christ in christmas" as a request to reject consumerism, which I think you would view as a positive message, and then at the end you declare it as "promoting nothing positive".

OK. Glad we could sort that out.

[cbayer]

14. No, I acknowledge that others read it differently than I might

and that they may feel attacked by it.

So the positive message, if there is one, gets lost.

Does that sort it out for you?

[Warren Stupidity]

15. no not really. It seems more like you realized your position was unsupportable.

But whatever.

[cbayer]

16. Well, take the point!

I'm just having a discussion with you, not a contest.

I'm sure you can find some way to trip me up or corner me in almost anything I say, but why would you?

[JoeyT]

17. It doesn't help that liberal Christians are frequently on Fox's side.

The persecuted Christians narrative Fox gets so much mileage out of has plenty of support from the left too.

This is what's referred to as "Tone Trolling". The majority group would love to support the minority group, they just can't stand how combative and angry they always are. The civil rights movement got it, the LGBT movement got it, Atheists are going to get it too. It's convenient because it allows members of the majority to pretend they're TOTALLY not bigots.

[cbayer]

18. Liberal christians are frequently on Fox's side?

Which liberal christians? Do you have any examples of this?

I don't see anything about persecuted christians coming from the religious left, but would be glad to look at some instances of this happening.

The civil rights movement and the LGBT movement have been full of liberal religious individuals and groups. They also have had strong roots in the OWS movement.

Are you calling liberal/progressive religious people bigots?

[JoeyT]

20. Meta was a good place for it.

There was a regularly occurring thread in there about how Christians were totally persecuted on DU. I spent like ten posts in GD telling someone that I didn't know if white guys were persecuted or not because I'm *not* one. Because we're all white dudes, whether we're Caucasian penis owners or not.

I'm not calling all of them bigots, I'm calling all the ones that engage in concern trolling bigots. Do you consider O'Reilly a bigot when he starts the "Well, let me tell you how white men are really the most oppressed group." every time anything happens to anyone that isn't a white person or a man?

It may not be meant that way, but what it comes across as is "Oh stupid minorities, can't you people do anything right? Let a real person tell you how to act.". At least it does to those of us that grew up in ultra-religious areas.

[cbayer]

22. Well, christians and other believers are often treated poorly on DU, but that is not

what you said. I've never seen anyone use the word persecuted, but personally I think a lot of the complaints about the way believers are treated on this site are valid.

You said that liberal religionists are on Fox's side. You didn't limit it to complaints about how things roll on this site or to a small group. The statement was broad and inclusive and really inaccurate.

For the record, atheists in this country demographically are some of the most privileged humans on earth. Other than being non-believers, they tend to hold points of privilege so high, no one comes near them.

Anyway, I am glad you clarified your position and made it more specific. Most liberal/progressive religious people are nothing like what you described, but perhaps having grown up in ultra-religious, and I imagine very conservative, areas, you have not had the opportunity to really know any.

[madrchsod]

19. ?......