The Atheist Theist Tension

[carpedm9587]

In order to be consistent carpe oughta shutter himself in his home on December 25th although mumbling and grumbling darkly to himself during that time is entirely optional.

Hardly

[carpedm9587]

I'm not hung up on the word - it is what the document is.

Yes - as the declaration of our intention to be independent from England - it is a founding document. So it is historically significant. And there it ends. It has no further binding authority. As I have said, it was signed by 56 men who represented the existing colonies. Only the constitution has legal force.

What is binding or not has nothing to do with the fact that the Founders grounded human rights in God.

And they were wrong

So God has central role in our Founding, and clearly sets out where they thought rights came from.

God doesn't exist, so has no force at all.

Yet these same men had national days of thanksgiving that referenced not only God but Christ, they instituted church taxes in many states, used federal monies to print and distribute bibles, supported Christian evangelization, use biblical moral law in their state legal codes, imposed Christian morality on the military, instituted the Christian Chaplain service, morning prayer was a staple in the public classroom, as was bible reading, etc, etc, etc... Get over yourself Carp...

The men instituted churches - the government did not - by force of law. This is a national intended by the founders to be one where ALL people could freely exercise their religion - and what is what they wrote into our constitution. That includes those of us with no religion.

[carpedm9587]

It also dates back to at least the end of the second century A.D. and likely earlier given how matter-of-factly it was discussed. While I disagree with the reasoning employed the fact is that it was how the date was arrived at though for the most part it was not considered very important until later (Christians were far more concerned with his death than his birth).

I should note that Britannica errs when they say Sextus Julius Africanus was the first to mention December 25th as Christ's birthday since both Hippolytus of Rome and Irenaeus both mentioned it a couple decades earlier. Further, the myth that it was done in order to usurp the festival for Sol Invictus (Dies Natalis Solis Invicti -- "day of the birth of the unconquered sun") is demonstrable hogwash.

That festival was only moved to December 25th in either 274 or 275 (over a half century after Sextus Julius Africanus' mention) by a Roman Emperor, Aurelian, who was not exactly tolerant of Christianity^[1]. Until that time the festival was celebrated on various days, as I previously noted, including "August 8th and/or the 9th, possibly August 28th, and December 11th -- but never December 25th."

So if anything a case can be made that the pagans tried to usurp Christmas by deciding to celebrate a popular festival on the same day.









1. While at the very beginning of his reign he exhibited a good deal of tolerance that quickly changed

Source: Aurelian

As soon as he was at liberty to carry out his schemes for internal reform Aurelian revived the polity of his predecessor Valerian, threatened to rescind the Edict of Gallienus, and commenced a systematic persecution of the followers of Christ. The exact date of the inauguration of this policy is not known. It is summer of 275 and despatched to the governors of the provinces, but Aurelian was slain before he could put it into execution.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

I've found many religious sites claiming this, including the ones you link to. I'm not finding original support for this anywhere, so I'll withhold judgment.

[carpedm9587]

That's exactly what I've been trying to get at.

Then you apparently not getting the distinction between explicitly handing someone a slogan "In god we trust," and gathering with family to enjoy a holiday that has become increasingly secularized. And, frankly, I admire many of the teachings attributed Jesus of Nazareth. I see him as one of a kind to Martin Luther. We celebrate MLK day, so why not "Christ-mas?" I do not consider him "the Christ" in the religious sense, but I do recognize his contributions to society for the last 2,000 years.

I'm not seeing a problem here. I can celebrate Christmas/Noel/Yule with my family friends without a single mention of god. I cannot hand out a single dollar bill without handing over a slogan that says "I trust in god." I am not part of that "we," so I don't hand out the message.

You guys are making a big deal out of this. It really is getting a lot more attention here than I ever give it...

[carpedm9587]

That's why so many people are trying so hard to get "Christmas Party" changed to "Holiday Party".

My wife's boss told her a few years ago to stop putting "Christmas" on the Christmas Cards they send out - she's in charge of getting that done.
He wanted "Happy Holidays"?

My wife is a pistol - she asked him,

Q) OK, what Holiday is it we're celebrating?
A) He begrudgingly replied "Christmas".
Q) And what kind of songs do we sing at the party?
A) Mumbling - "Christmas"
Q) And what do we call the presents we give?
A) Cold stare
Q) And that tree, what kind of tree do we put the presents under?
A) Slow burn....

She just smiled, and then he barked "OK, send out the %$#@#! Christmas Cards!!!!

I use "Merry Christmas" when I know the person in front of me is Christian. I use "Happy Hanukkah" when I know the person in front of me is Jewish. When I don't know, I say "Happy Holidays."

[mossrose]

Then you apparently not getting the distinction between explicitly handing someone a slogan "In god we trust," and gathering with family to enjoy a holiday that has become increasingly secularized. And, frankly, I admire many of the teachings attributed Jesus of Nazareth. I see him as one of a kind to Martin Luther. We celebrate MLK day, so why not "Christ-mas?" I do not consider him "the Christ" in the religious sense, but I do recognize his contributions to society for the last 2,000 years.

I'm not seeing a problem here. I can celebrate Christmas/Noel/Yule with my family friends without a single mention of god. I cannot hand out a single dollar bill without handing over a slogan that says "I trust in god." I am not part of that "we," so I don't hand out the message.

You guys are making a big deal out of this. It really is getting a lot more attention here than I ever give it...

Then why did you start this thread? Seems to me you make more of a big deal out of it than you think you do.

[carpedm9587]

Then why did you start this thread? Seems to me you make more of a big deal out of it than you think you do.

Actually - the OP was prompted by the discussion in another thread - but was not about currency. Currency was simply the context in which the issue came up.

The issue raised by the OP was the more general one about the use of the term "unbeliever" and the general role of government in the context of religion.

My point was that I believe our government is legally (and morally) obligated to be silent on religions - not affirming them, creating them, or endorsing them. We are a "Christian nation" only insofar as we have a majority of Christians living here. We are not a theocracy, nor do we have a constitutional system that permits government to interfere with or endorse religions. Each of us has the right to live, express, and operate within the dictates of our beliefs.

Over time, however, because Christians have predominated, the boundaries between government and religion have eroded. Today, we live in a country where many believe they have a RIGHT to have their Christian beliefs - or even their theistic beliefs - affirmed. The argument "we have had a chaplain in Congress since 177x is meaningless to me. The question is - should we? Why is a government including prayer as a formal part of its formal meetings? Why do we have reference to god on money and in our pledge?

1. A government that is silent about religion imposes on no one.
2. A government that takes a hard atheistic stand abridges the freedom of god-loving people.
3. A government that takes a hard theistic stand abridges the freedom of atheists.

The logic there seems fairly simple. Given our constitution, #1 should be how our government operates, IMO. #2 and #3 abridge religious freedom.

[rogue06]

Hardly

Afraid someone might see you with some eggnog?

[Cow Poke]

Hardly

Afraid someone might see you with some eggnog?

HARD eggnog?

5844.jpg

[carpedm9587]

Afraid someone might see you with some eggnog?

I love eggnog!

[rogue06]

I like my eggnog straight or neat. Nothing in it.


Around here the best that is fairly widely available is probably Mayfield Dairy's

00000000000000ars5c.jpeg

More expensive than the others though

[carpedm9587]

I like my eggnog straight or neat. Nothing in it.

Around here the best that is fairly widely available is probably Mayfield Dairy's

[ATTACH=CONFIG]28045[/ATTACH]

More expensive than the others though

I make my own...

One part egg to three parts nog...

[rogue06]

I have a half gallon in my freezer that I thaw out for Independence Day (4th of July)



Been doing that for years. These (had another ready for my b'day) are dated "December 09" [2018]

A particularly good day. A full and vibrant taste melodiously mingling on your tongue. Not as good as crispy bacon (pre-war). But then, what is?

[carpedm9587]

I have a half gallon in my freezer that I thaw out for Independence Day (4th of July)



Been doing that for years. These (had another ready for my b'day) are dated "December 09" [2018]

A particularly good day. A full and vibrant taste melodiously mingling on your tongue. Not as good as crispy bacon (pre-war). But then, what is?

But still does not compare to a good Bombay Sapphire Martini...just a tad dirty...

[Cerebrum123]

In order to be consistent carpe oughta shutter himself in his home on December 25th although mumbling and grumbling darkly to himself during that time is entirely optional.