"When atheist billboards and Muslim veils are both under threat, we need secularism"

[bemused_leftist]

"When atheist billboards and Muslim veils are both under threat, we need secularism

Comments

[xiphias]

Well, there are two possibilities. First, Christmas is a purely Christian holiday, in which case, it is inappropriate for a culture in which many people aren't Christian. If this is the case, then it is rude to say "Merry Christmas," rude to have public municipal Christmas trees, rude to have Christmas music in public places, rude to have Christmas programming on the television

[marycatelli]

Only if it's rude for people to have holidays without concealing their very existence from those who are not their coreligionists. Which is not self-evident.

[xiphias]

Oh, if they MENTIONED it once or twice, that would be fine. But it's the way they're SHOVING IT DOWN OUR THROATS all the time that's so frustrating.

[bemused_leftist]

Goal where?

Time wise and limited-context-wise, it might be more accurate to say that the non-Christians are undermining the traditional public Christian statements. Yanno, "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas", no nativity scenes in parks, etc. I don't see that trying to preserve such customs, which have been in effect for decades, is any great threat to Thomas Jefferson, on whom be peace.

The serious threat to our secularism (long may it live) is serious pressure for serious laws -- faith-based welfare; corporations vs Obamacare; federal restrictions on abortion, assisted suicide, etc; lack of standards for home-schooling (where I learned most things I know); etc.

I'll save my General Semantics rant for later. ;-)

[lyonesse]

er, are you seriously asking "threat of what"? the list is straightforward enough: vandalism, verbal harassment, physical attack, forced removal, fines, and imprisonment.

there isn't any justification for the use of the word "abort" in that sentence; it isn't "accurate" at all.

[lyonesse]

/bemused here/

I don't have time to look for the actual text of the atheist statement, but I remember thinking that it would almost describe a nativity scene with everything remaining except the baby. Of course I'm sure that's not what the atheists meant! Still I bet the image would fit a lot of Christians' reactions, especially Palin's rightwing base. So I think she designed a good metaphor for speaking to her crowd.

Also as usual she's getting quoted all over by her opponents, who are spelling her name right. Smart lady (whom I disagree with on most issues).

[lyonesse]

i'm kind of bemused that you equate "accuracy" with "playing to your audience". i wouldn't do that.

[bemused_leftist]

I don't equate 'speaking to ones crowd' with 'playing to an audience' (which suggests insincerity). Maybe I should have phrased it differently. Given the beliefs and attitudes of her group (sincerely including herself I'm sure), it's a good metaphor.

I'm skipping the obvious points here. Anyway, she might well say to us pro-choice people who think abortion is okay, that we shouldn't find the metaphor shocking. So she's making a lot of points with a single word.

[bemused_leftist]

Lyonesse,

I appreciate your comments but am screening some of them because of flamey, confrontational personal jabs. Those are not really part of your points, so it would be easy for you to leave them out.

I'm 1950democrat at gmail