Miscellanea Agnostica

Or should I call this the Twelfth Post of Christmas 2009?

Well, it’s official. The “war on Christmas” is over, at least for 2009. We have no less an authority on this than Jan Brewer, Republican governor of Arizona. As reported by the Phoenix New Times:

Governor Brewer Puts the “Christmas” Back in “Christmas Tree,” and Makes it Official: Christmas Celebrates the Birth of Jesus

Governor Jan Brewer made it official today: Christmas celebrates the birth of Jesus, Hanukkah is an eight-day festival of lights, and state employees can celebrate either holiday as they see fit.

Brewer signed Executive Order 2009-11 today, which puts the “Christmas” back in “Christmas tree” for state employees after it was renamed a “holiday tree” by former [Democratic] Governor Janet “the Grinch” Napolitano — sending right-wing bloggers into an anti-gay tirade last year.

As written, Ms Brewer’s executive order makes it sound as if the very existence of the United States utterly depends upon Christmas:

WHEREAS, the spirit of good will which has been found each December has been at the heart of our ability to live as one people despite differing faiths and backgrounds;

Honestly, Governor, I’d had no idea Christmas was so important. You’ve certainly set me straight! It’s the solemn duty of every red-blooded American — of whatever religion, or of none — to worship Christmas! Thanks for that clarification.

OK, enough of the sarcasm. Immediately after this “Christmas-is-our-patriotic-duty” implication, Ms Brewer goes on to completely misrepresent the facts:

WHEREAS, the Constitution does not permit the government to tolerate or engage in hostility toward religion, and the United States Supreme Court has affirmed that the public celebration of religious holidays, and the acknowledgment of religious origins, does not offend the Constitution;

That isn’t at all what the Supreme Court has said … as, for example, when SCOTUS ruled against Ten Commandments monuments in e.g. McCreary Cty v. ACLU of KY. Brewer is overstating her case here. Then she says:

WHEREAS, state and local officials in Arizona (and elsewhere) in the past have attempted to strip both Christmas and Hanukkah of their meaning, including establishment of policies forbidding state employees from placing religious items of celebration at their desks, re-naming of Christmas trees as “holiday” trees, and renaming of Menorahs as “candlesticks;”

Excuse me, but there is no way that either Christmas or Hanukkah can ever be “stripped of their meaning.” Renaming things in no way diminishes their metaphysical nature or their function within Christianity or Judaism. Names are, after all, just names. What something is named, in no way alters its spiritual nature, whatever that might be.

Both of these misrepresentations are enough to place Gov Brewer in my “lying liars for Jesus” club.

At any rate, I’m glad to see that Brewer declared victory for the Religious Right in the ongoing “war on Christmas” trope. Maybe it will put an end to this fake, staged dispute.

Tags: arizona, chanukah, christian right, hanukkah, jan brewer, liars for jesus, lying liars for jesus, merry christmas, religionism, religious right, republican, supreme court, war on christmas, war on christmas 2009

Despite it being based on fraudulent claims, this year’s edition of the fake “war on Christmas” continues apace. There is no controversy, except in the delusional minds of the Religious Right. Yet they keep on lying about it, and those lies are evident even now in this story from CNN:

Who’s winning the war on Christmas?

Republican Rep. Henry Brown of South Carolina introduced a resolution this month asking that the House express support for the use of Christmas symbols and traditions and frown on any attempt to ban references to the holiday.

“Each year, I could see a diminishing value of the spiritual part of Christmas,” Brown said. “It would seem like another group would go from the Christmas spirit to the holiday spirit.”

“What I’m afraid of — if we don’t bring some kind of closure to this continuous change, then in 20 years it will almost be completely different from what we see today … and so we would lose the whole emphasis of what the very early beginnings of Christmas was all about.”

Rep. Brown is lying here. There had been no reduction in the observance of Christmas, anywhere in the country. That this is essentially a fraudulent claim, has been noted:

Barry Lynn, an ordained minister and executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, isn’t keen on the prospect of congressional action.

“Resolutions like this come up because there is this bizarre view by some members of Congress that there is a war on Christmas and that they have to be the generals in some responding army,” he said.

“My advice to the lawmakers would be promote any religion you have through your private acts, and don’t try to ‘help’ the baby Jesus by passing a resolution on his behalf. It is arrogant and ridiculous at the same time,” Lynn said.

Another lie the R.R. likes to tell about Christmas, can be seen later in the article:

Peter Sprigg, a senior fellow for policy studies with the Family Research Council, which promotes Christian values, said the “pro-Christmas side” has made progress in recent years.

In some circles, he said, “Political correctness is preventing people from even sayings [sic] ‘Merry Christmas.’ “

The problem is, there is no concerted effort being made anywhere in the US to prevent anyone from saying “Merry Christmas.” It is not happening. I dare Mr Sprigg — or anyone else — to document any such campaign has occurred over, say, the last 5 years.

Fact is, he cannot do it … because it didn’t happen, and is not happening now.

Elsewhere, people who adhere to the “war on Christmas” trope are even trotting out the canard that other people not saying “Merry Christmas” to them frequently enough, somehow ruins the holiday for them (as seen, for example, in this story in the Kane Cty (IL) Chronicle):

At this time of year, pastor Brice Quinn does not want to be wished “Happy Holidays.” …

Not acknowledging the specific holiday takes away from its significance, he said.

Well, boo-fucking-hoo. Does Mr Quinn truly believe himself to possess the power to force everyone else he meets to say the words “Merry Christmas” to him, because for them not to do so, ruins his holiday? How insane is this kind of thinking?

Enough already with the steady stream of lies, and the presumption that many Christians like Mr Quinn have, that they possess the authority to force others to say certain things to them … or else!

Tags: americans united, americans united for separation of church and state, barry lynn, brice quinn, christian, christian right, Christianity, christmas, family research council, henry brown, liars for jesus, lying liars for jesus, merry christmas, peter sprigg, religious right, war on christmas, war on christmas 2009

The “war on Christmas” folks have decided it’s not enough just to whine, on their own. They feel it necessary to insert words into the mouth of Jesus himself, as reported by WCPO-TV in Cincinnati:

“I miss hearing you say ‘Merry Christmas.’” That’s what Jesus is telling drivers on southbound I-75.

The billboard greets people between the Norwood Lateral and Mitchell Ave, in Saint Bernard. …

This particular billboard was bought by several women who live in Niles, Ohio.

They say that God has been taken out of the season

The problem, of course, is that people have not, in fact, stopped saying “Merry Christmas.” I’ve been hearing it for the last couple of weeks.

Tags: christ, christmas, cincinnati OH, jesus, jesus christ, merry christmas, niles OH, st bernard OH, war on christmas, war on christmas 2009

Bill O’Reilly has ramped up his war to force every American to observe Christmas just as he does … regardless of whether or not they are Christians. This time, he sent his producer Jesse Watters to interview school officials in Chelmsford, Mass. who have set policies about a “winter holiday fair” which they don’t like. While Watters appears impressed with himself for his Mike Wallace-style “ambush interviews” and O’Reilly claims this ambush was somehow “fair and balanced.” However, neither of them appears to understand some salient facts:

1. In case you didn’t know it, Mr Watters, Chelmsford school officials don’t work for you — really! — and they are not answerable to you. They do not have to talk with you. You cannot presume yourself to possess the power to force them to speak with you. Oh — and Mr Watters — I’ve watched Mike Wallace. I’ve watched him all my life. And trust me, you’re no Mike Wallace.

2. Mr Watters, you say you’re trying to “help the children.” Woops. You’re not. You’re just saying what you want to say and presuming to speak for the children of Chelmsford, so that you can rationalize being there and asking questions of people as though you’re their boss, when you and they know you are not. You don’t even live there, so you have absolutely nothing to say about Chelmsford’s children. To assume that authority is astoundingly irrational of you … and it’s a lie. (So welcome, Mr Watters, to my “lying liars for Jesus” club.)

3. The people at the school board meeting — who are residents of Chelmsford and do have a say in the matter — nevertheless appear to have problems with fallacies. That “80%” of Chelmsford is Christian, does not entitle them to force everyone else to behave like Christians. That’s a philosophy known as majoritarianism, and it’s based on the fallacy known as “appeal to the masses.” It doesn’t grant you veracity. What it does is show that you can use numbers to bully others.

4. Also, that schools don’t allow sales of candy canes within their halls, in no way prevents Chelmsford families — and their children — from celebrating Christmas however they wish, in their homes and churches. It just doesn’t.

5. One parent claimed celebrating Christmas inside the school is “education.” Woops. It’s not. It is, instead, indoctrination and also forced religious observance. Both of these are illegal in US public schools; but even if they weren’t, they would still be thoroughly unethical.

Note to Mr O’Reilly and Mr Watters: I honestly hope you both keep up your campaign to force each and every American to celebrate Christmas — which is a Christian holiday — regardless of whether or not they are themselves Christian. It just makes clear your goal: The voluntary or involuntary conversion of everyone in the US to Christianity. By all means, continue living down to all my expectations of ardent and furious religionists. With your every word and your every move, you continuously display your complete lack of character, morals, ethics, and integrity, as well as your contempt for freedom and rationality.

Tags: bill o'reilly, candy canes, chelmsford MA, christian, Christianity, christmas, fox news, jesse watters, liar for jesus, liars for jesus, lying liar for jesus, lying liars for jesus, merry christmas, public schools, war on christmas, war on christmas 2009

John Stossel, who recently moved from ABC to Fox Business, posted an entry on his blog, mentioning Bill O’Reilly’s effort to draft him as a soldier in his irrational “war on Christmas.” He makes an interesting point:

Tonight O’Reilly wants me to talk about a website that lets users rate retail stores on how “Christmas-friendly” they are. …

Bill wonders whether companies would make more money by saying “merry Christmas” more. I have no clue. I assume the owners of these companies know how to run them better than I do. Their money is on the line. If Merry Christmas attracts customers, they’ll make sure their employees say it.

We ran some numbers: the website’s 5 most Christmas-y companies increased profits one percentage point over the last year. The lowest 5? They also increased profits by one percentage point.

Stossel gets it: The coercive “say ‘Merry Christmas’ or else” boycott campaigns are ineffective and useless … and moreover, O’Reilly’s assumption that saying “Merry Christmas” boosts sales figures, is unfounded.

It’s about time a reasonable voice was heard on this subject, from deep within the command bunkers of the Fox media empire.

Tags: bill o'reilly, christmas, john stossel, merry christmas, war on christmas, war on christmas 2009

Congressman Henry Brown, a Republican from South Carolina, has decided that Christmas is “under attack” and requires federal intervention to protect it. SCNow.Com reports on his proposed resolution:

Congressman Brown introduces resolution to protect sanctity of Christmas

Congressman Henry Brown (R-SC) introduced a resolution Tuesday in Washington to protect the sanctity of Christmas.

According to a press release, Rep. Brown said “This holiday season, I am perplexed by the mounting discussion surrounding the ‘proper’ way to commemorate December 25th. Why are we hard-pressed to say ‘Season’s Greetings’ or ‘Happy Holidays’ yet, urged to avoid pronouncing the Christmas holiday and steered away from wishing others ‘Merry Christmas’?

As a Christian, I feel it is also important that I have the right to celebrate Christmas and observe its significance as a national holiday and I strongly believe that wishing someone ‘Merry Christmas’ should never be met with disapproval.

Brown has pretty much picked up the O’Reilly line that cashiers saying “Merry Christmas” has been outlawed or something. The truth is that it has not happened, and never will. Put plainly, there is no effort underway to discourage anyone from saying “Merry Christmas.” It is not happening anywhere in the country, and I defy Brown — or O’Reilly or anyone else — to show that it is.

Quite the opposite, though … there is, curiously, a documentable effort underway — by Christians! — to coerce people into saying “Merry Christmas,” even against their will (here’s another example of this). Brown and O’Reilly and the rest of their cohorts are lying when they say “Merry Christmas” is being outlawed. It is not. This makes Brown the newest member of my “lying liars for Jesus” club.

One last thing: I’m not aware that “upholding ‘sanctity’” is a bona fide power given to Congress. It’s not the role of a secular government such as ours, to meddle in “sanctity.” If there are any “sanctity enforcers” in the US, it’s churches, sects, and clergy of whatever sort. Countries which do have governmental “sanctity police,” are places like Saudi Arabia or Iran, which are either explicitly or implicitly theocratic. The US is not yet a theocracy — though I doubt most on the Right would mind if it were one.

Tags: christian, christmas, congress, gop, happy holidays, henry brown, merry christmas, religious right, republican, resolution, right, war on christmas, war on christmas 2009

(Alternate title: War On Christmas 2009, Part 7.)

Bill O’Reilly is the most visible proponent of “the War on Christmas” trope, these days. It’s a battle he’s waged annually for several years. It comes as no surprise, then, that he’s come out against the current spate of freethinkers’ advertising efforts. He attributes this to hatred of “the Baby Jesus”:

Note what O’Reilly says:

Why do they loathe the baby Jesus? He’s just a baby…How do you sell atheism by running down a baby? It’s just a baby.

As usual, O’Reilly has made up his mind about what atheists and other freethinkers are thinking, based on his own subjective determinations. He has no idea what they actually think … and probably could never do so, even if he wanted to. I can’t speak for the “atheists” O’Reilly is railing against, but I can speak for myself, as a supporter of these advertising campaigns:

I can’t “loathe the baby Jesus,” Mr O’Reilly, because I’m not even sure there ever was a baby Jesus! As it turns out, not even you know it with certainty … which is why Christianity can only be taken on faith. Jesus’ existence is not a matter of fact or of history … and barring a major discovery, it never will be. I cannot “loathe” what I don’t even know ever existed.

Second, Mr O’Reilly, when you call the founder of your religion a “baby,” you do him a disservice. If he lived … and if he did even a few of the things Christians have attributed to him over the centuries … then he was definitely no “baby.” He was a man, a teacher, and — again, if Christianity is to be believed — a healer and a redeemer. For you to refer to him casually as a “baby” essentially dismisses all of that, and relegates Jesus Christ to a mere idol … an idol “wrapped in swaddling clothes,” sitting in a manger in Bethlehem. If all he is to you is a “baby,” Mr O’Reilly, then all of his teachings, his parables, the Sermon on the Mount, his healings, the “signs” associated with him, his death, and even his resurrection, all of that, may as well never have happened.

I’m not sure you intended to dismiss the entire career of the founder of your religion … but essentially that’s what you did.

One more thing, Mr O’Reilly … you say “atheists” are “jealous of Christians” because they have a holiday. Well, that isn’t quite true. Thanks to centuries of Christianity, much of it militant — and thanks more recently to your bellicose caterwauling — everyone in the US has Christmas rammed down our throats. Everyone in the US — Christian and otherwise — has Christmas as a holiday. We can’t avoid it. It’s in our faces, for several weeks every year. “Jealous”? How can that be? Because Christians have Christmas and we non-believers don’t? Non-believers do have Christmas — whether we want it or not. And it’s people like you, Mr O’Reilly, who annually ensure we get more of it than we could possibly want!

Note: O’Reilly’s column on this subject may be found here.

Hat tip: Unreasonable Faith and the Friendly Atheist.

Tags: advertising, atheism, atheist, atheist billboards, atheist signs, atheists, baby jesus, bill o'reilly, christmas, fox news, holiday, merry christmas, war on christmas, war on christmas 2009

The Christmas wars this year are becoming pitched battles (metaphorically speaking). A nativity scene in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania is now a point of contention, as reported by WPMT-TV:

Dozens rallied in the borough’s square Saturday afternoon to support a traditional nativity scene that has been placed there for years, but this season is conspicuously missing. …

The borough decided to bar all displays from the square after an atheist, agnostic and secular humanist organization called Pennsylvania Nonbelievers (PAN) asked to set up a 3 ft. by 4 ft. sign reading “Celebrating Solstice — Honoring Atheist War Veterans” in the square. …

Rather than allow the sign to sit near the nativity, Chambersburg’s leaders prohibited all displays.

This is, of course, a petulant and childish decision made in haste and anger … and solely to keep from having to put up the PAN sign. As one would expect — and as I surmise, as Chamberburg’s leaders themselves expected, which was the point of their overreaction — sanctimonious outrage on the part of Christians erupted:

[The ban] was Lisa Blackstock’s call to action. A Chambersburg native and resident of nearby Mercersburg, Blackstock organized Saturday’s rally. She said Christian symbols are under fire nationwide.

Ms Blackstock appears to be fact-deprived. No one “attacked” the nativity. That is not what happened at all. What actually happened is that non-believers wanted to put up a sign of their own. They did not ask for the nativity to be removed. No one vandalized it.

So on the one hand we have a bunch of sniveling children — the folks who run the town of Chambersburg — who in their immaturity could not handle a request to put up a non-believers’ sign. On top of that we have a bunch of sniveling children — i.e. local Christians — who react to that by making false claims and stage rallies. The former set of childish people will now, I suspect, use the bellicose reaction of the latter set of childish people to justify putting the nativity back … and without also putting up PAN’s sign.

Which very likely was the entire point of what they did. A clever maneuver, even if it’s immature and needlessly manipulative.

Isn’t it time people grew up, fercryinoutloud?

Tags: agnostic, atheist, atheist sign, atheist signs, chambersburg PA, christmas, creche, lisa blackstock, nativity, non-believers, PAN, pennsylvania nonbelievers, secular humanist, solstice, town square, war on christmas, war on christmas 2009

This year’s edition of the “war on Christmas” trope continues. This time the complaint is about something that isn’t actually new and isn’t directly connected to Christmas. Rather, it’s about atheist billboards … you know, the ones that have been going up around the US and (in the form of bus advertising, in Europe) for the past few years? Another such campaign is running, and it’s irking Christian religionists, as mentioned in a story in the New York Times (with WebCite cached version):

An unusual holiday message began appearing this week in the nation’s capital on the sides of buses and trains.

“No god? … No problem!” reads the advertisement featuring the smiling faces of people wearing Santa Claus hats. “Be good for goodness’ sake.”

Apparently it’s not acceptable for these to go up around Christmas-time:

“It is the ultimate Grinch to suggest there is no God during a holiday where millions of people around the world celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ,” said Mathew D. Staver, founder and chairman of the Liberty Counsel, a conservative religious law firm, and dean of Liberty University School of Law in Lynchburg, Va. “It is insensitive and mean.”

What Staver wants, then, is to have personal, calendrical approval over atheist billboards; they can only go up at times of the year when Christians won’t perceive them as “mean.” Would he like … following the same line of reasoning … for atheist groups to have personal, calendrical approval over Christian signs? Somehow I doubt it.

Note the gratuitous — yet still fallacious — argumentum ad populum in his comments. “Millions of people celebrate Christmas,” he’s saying — and I paraphrase here — “so knock off the atheist billboards!” Sorry Mr Staver, but the wishes of “millions,” or even “billions,” of people, are not relevant here. They just aren’t. Millions, if not billions, of people through the ages also believed the earth was at the center of the universe — but that turned out not to be true.

What’s really going on here is that religionists have had their way for nearly all of human history. Now that they’re confronted by people who are not religious, who will not become religious, and who are openly expressing their lack of religion, these religionists just cannot handle it. They’re too immature to accept the existence — and openness — of the non-religious. Unfortunately for Mr Staver and the rest of his co-religionists, the time has come for them to finally grow up … perhaps for the first time in their lives.

Tags: argumentum ad populum, atheist billboards, atheists, christmas, good without god, liberty counsel, matthew d staver, merry christmas, no god no problem, religious right, war on christmas, war on christmas 2009

It’s December 1, and already I’m up to 4 postings in the 2009 edition of the annual “war on Christmas” theme. This time, what’s in question is a “Merry Christmas” sign on a firehouse in North Andover, MA. WHDH-7 News out of Boston, tells the story:

Town officials in North Andover have put an end to some long-time holiday traditions causing some controversy among many local groups.

Some say it is sign of the times, but others are accusing the town of acting like Scrooge.

There used to be a Merry Christmas sign hanging on the North Andover Fire Department, but town officials told the firefighters to take it down ending the decades-long holiday custom.

The story of how this decades-long tradition came to an end, is a familiar one which has played out elsewhere, and usually with the same irrational results:

The controversy started when town selectmen told a local rabbi place he could not put a menorah on North Andover Town Common for all eight days of Hanukkah.

The town’s policy only allows displays to stay on the common for one day.

I say this is “irrational” because — well — it is! The town could easily have modified its “policy,” put the menorah up for the holiday and left the “Merry Christmas” in place … but no, that never occurred to them. Instead they chose to stir up the hornets’ nest of the annual “Christmas wars” by putting the kibosh on all such displays.

That said, I note that the only defense for this sign on the firehouse, is “tradition”:

“It’s just a part of the tradition,” said Chief William Martineau, of the North Andover Fire Department. “We have put that up there for many, many years. It has to be close to 40, 50 years.”

Sorry, but that something is “traditional” or has been done for “many, many years,” does not make it right. It was, for example, “traditional” — for thousands of years! — to believe the earth was at the center of the universe. Despite literally ages of “tradition” that told humanity this, we have found out that it’s not true. Appeals to tradition are fallacious.

Tags: appeal to authority, appeal to tradition, Christianity, merry christmas, north andover MA, religious right, war on christmas, war on christmas 2009