Comments

You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name

Your e-mail (optional)

Website (optional)

	My Original Nic Pic-a-Nic Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

Home Front: Culture Wars

âEat Yuletide, You Atheistic Bastard!â

2005-12-03

In 1984, the Supreme Court launched one of Americaâs worst traditions: Christmas Agonistes. This is the ritual where everyone goes batty about what to âdoâ about Christmas. The court invented it in a decision called Lynch vs. Donnelly, the upshot of which was that if someone is offended at a crÃšche or Christmas tree at city hall, they can go whining to a judge about it.

That raises the question of whether those of us who're offended by the bitching, moaning, and whining have any legal recourse.

Just this week, the Capitol performed its own minor Christmas miracle of transubstantiation. At the beginning of the week, House Speaker Denny Hastert unveiled a "holiday tree." But a few days later, after some entirely predictable bah humbugs, he rechristened it a "Christmas" tree. (Similarly, when the city of Boston tried to unveil its official "Holiday tree," the premier of Nova Scotia, which had provided it as a gift, called it a nifty trick since, "when it left Nova Scotia, it was a Christmas tree.") These miracles arenât exactly up there with keeping lamp oil burning for eight days, never mind rising from the dead, but theyâre pretty good for government work.

Personally, I take no offense at the government unveiling a Christmas tree on the grounds of the âpeopleâs house.â Besides, a place that in love with pork is hardly kosher to begin with.

I don't take any offense, either. Holidays and festivals in the Christmas season have been around for a couple thousand years now, and before that as Saturnalia and probably a half dozen other festivals. It's not a coincidence that Christmas and Hanukka fall at approximately the same time. The campaign against it focuses on its religious aspect, but it's actually a campaign to divorce the present from the past. I don't think it will be successful â the Soviets found they couldn't suppress Christmas, and ended up celebrating the new year in approximately the same manner. The Soviets are gone, except for Berkeley and a few similar places, and Christmas is back in Russia.

Lamenting the war on Christmas has become something of a cottage industry for conservatives, just as lamenting the perfidious intrusion of Christianity on the public square is a grand source of fundraising and TV time for segments of the Left. Fox Newsâs John Gibson has even come out with a definitive brief on the war on Christmas aptly titled The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought.

That's because we're at the tipping point with the nonsense. The national patience is running out. We're still feeling Miracle on 34th Street and It's a Wonderful Life, and the disloyal opposition is trying to feed us Battleship Potemkin. When the grinches come out, We the People start thinking pitchforks and torches.

And for some it does seem like Christmas is under siege. Not just Christmas, of course, but religious expression generally. Traditionalists of a certain bent are at a particular disadvantage because they have a handy label to define their morality: religion. And religion has a special status in our society. Secularists, misreading history, claim that the Constitution requires that wherever government and religion intersect, religion must vanish. This is terribly wrongheaded in my opinion, but weâve all heard those arguments before.

Over and over, each and every Christmas season, year after year. The season of Good Will Toward Men is under assault by people with teeny tiny souls, too small to be seen with the naked eye, always assuming souls could be seen, of course.

What I think secularists donât appreciate is how unfair this feels to religious people who believe that the secularists have, for all intents and purposes, a moral faith of their own. For example, back in the Dark Ages when John Ashcroft ruled with an iron fist, and decent people everywhere quaked at the prospect of borrowing Catcher in the Rye from the library lest they land in the gulag under the Patriot Act, Ashcroft was unable to ban a Gay Pride Month celebration at his own Department of Justice. I donât think that celebrating Gay Pride Month would lead to the end of civilization, but I donât think Christian Pride Month would either. And yet we all understand that Christian pride is a nonstarter on government premises.

I'm a lot more uncomfortable with Gay Pride Month than I am with Christmas. What happened to Sluts' Pride Month? When did we start celebrating the things we may or may not do with our pants off with entire months?

The idea that liberalism operates â or should operate â like a secular religion, complete with its own dogmas, rites and customs, has a very old pedigree stretching from ancient Rome to such modern figures as August Comte, Herbert Croly, John Dewey, Thurman Arnold, and up to the liberal philosopher Richard Rorty. Without wading out into those weeds, what I think secular liberals could work harder at understanding is that whether contemporary liberalism is a secular religion or not, for its non-adherents it might as well be one.

I'm as secular as the next guy, but I still like Christmas. I like having time set aside for Peace on Earth and Mercy Mild. I'm usually pretty happy to see the Mannheim Steam Roller put away on December 26th, but that's because we've overdosed on it by then, enough so to last us through until the following November.

Liberals use the state to impose their morality all the time, and they get away with it because their faith isnât called a religion. Yet conservatives should be wary of launching a backlash. Just as it is counterproductive for a secular liberal to take offense at a well-intentioned âMerry Christmas,â it doesnât help if a conservative says âMerry Christmasâ when he really means âEat yuletide, you atheistic bastard!â If youâre putting up a Christmas tree in order to tick off the ACLU, youâve really missed the point.

Is it okay of I just feel a bit of snide self-satisfaction that they're cheezed, even while opening my presents and exuding good cheer?

Of course, none of this would be problem if judges in Washington minded their business to begin with. But thatâs the real heresy for some liberals.

Posted by:Fred

#31 All this over a Christmas tree? Christmas trees have nothing to do with Christianity, btw. disclaimer: I am a C & E Catholic

Posted by: Rafael 2005-12-03 21:44

#30 exactly - check out the "history" of Kwanzaa

Posted by: Frank G 2005-12-03 17:37

#29 were written based on societal mores

right. Which brings us back to Phil_b's point - which I think is a good one, "The issue here is not Christians versus secularists. Its about eroding the cultural basis of society by replacing traditional festivals and their mores with ersatz PC psuedo-festivals that are trying to impose a new (psuedo)morality."

Posted by: 2b 2005-12-03 16:26

#28 OK Moose - so if we have no national (i.e.: economic or security) interests, an ethical President would avoid intervening in a genocide, while a moral (AND ethical) President would? Laws were written based on societal mores (back to my UCSD undergrad humanities: Hobbes, Rousseau, et al)).

I prefer a President of known ethics (naturally....no Republican could make it to the WH with Clinton's Arkansas baggage without a willing and complicit press) and a known morality, as expressed by moral choices they've made in their life. I would expect someone who would fake PH's to get out of the military never to be allowed with a mile of the Presidency, obviously, I was wrong. Don't even start on the TANG lies by the MSM

Posted by: Frank G 2005-12-03 16:00

#27 But beware those whose faith is less moderate.

It's a good post, Moose. But I see a major flaw in it that is made by someone who does not understand the concept of "faith" as experienced by the "moderates" to whom you are referring.

I have faith that the sun will rise every morning. I have faith that if I go to the gym every day and work out, that I will get into better shape. I have faith that if I exercise more and eat less that I will lose weight. I have faith that if I get a good education, I will have an easier time in life than if I do not. And I have faith that if I follow the 10 commandments and Christ's teachings regarding, faith, hope, charity, forgiveness, that, in the end, I will have a more full life. I have faith that there is much more beyond.

I get your point, it's valid - but I think a better word would have been fanatics.

Posted by: 2b 2005-12-03 15:47

#26 Quit with the insults. Aris makes a valid point. Law is an imposition of will, if not morality. If it wasn't, you wouldn't need law in the first place. It seems that some are uncomfortable with the idea that they are imposing on others. You need to get over that. That's how we get ignorant sh*t like "holiday trees" in the first place - somebody complains that they are being imposed upon, and everyone flinches back and says, "Really? I had no idea. Please accept our apologies, and here's a nice $10 billion Womyns Studies Center to go with it."

The correct answer when somebody tells you that you are imposing your will/morality/ethics/whatever on them is, "Shut up and deal." I impose my will on my six-year-old every time I make the stinky little beast take a bath. If you want your culture to remain the dominant one, you must get over this revulsion toward imposition. Otherwise, you find yourself the one being imposed upon. And the "fundie leftists" aren't going to give a sh*t if your feelings are hurt by Gay Pride Day or anything else.

Posted by: BH 2005-12-03 15:38

#25 let me know what you feel remains to be said on my part.

Good bye would do.

Posted by: Elmoth Shaiting4943 2005-12-03 15:25

#24 A note about the US Constitution and the American culture.

The US was established to be a de jure secular state, not a de facto one. This means that God is set aside temporarily for the Constitution of the US. The assumption is, "That no matter if God exists or not, or in whatever form, the Constitution is written of men, by men, and for men."

That is, the Constitution begins "We the people...", not "God having ordained from above...", the form that was previously used by kings to justify their crown. A very novel idea for the time, that power derives from the ruled, not from heaven.

And this translates into the American culture as the difference between "morality" and "ethics". A subtle definition not seen in the dictionary, but very recognizeable on the American street, in the common man.

When a politician is "ethical", we as a people think that it means he obeys the law. The written law, codified by men. The public is whole heartedly in favor of ethical leaders, save Wm Jefferson Clinton. They are "honest" politicians. They follow the rules in the law books.

When a politician is "moral", however, we have an inherent problem. Whose morality? By our common street definition, morality is obeying religiously provided ethics. Laws written in heaven and either given out via a priest, reverend, rabbi, imam or shaman; or directly interpreted from some scripture. There is little commonality in morality.

So even if we want a "moral" leader, the question remains, "Do I really know what his morals are?", as in "What church does he go to, again?"

And this distinction, more than anything else, really has defined and should define how America approaches religion and government.

We should be suspicious of a politician who is overly concerned with "morality", and mentions it frequently when speaking. Because it is hard for a man to have two masters. Eventually the written laws, of men, by men, and for men, will come into conflict with the dictates of heaven, told to that politician by his holy man. And then what happens?

Does he become "unethical", violating the laws of our republican democracy for his own personal beliefs, or does he become hypocritically "amoral", violating his religious beliefs to perform the job for which he was elected?

For those of you who are of a religious bent, I would also remind you that there are secular philosophies in the world that are almost indistinguishable in their "morality" from religion, as abhorrent to us as their "morality" is.

And I do not wish to offend by comparing, say, communists with the religious, except in one way, that they also obey laws not recognized as laws of our nation, and they, too, have two masters. And all too often, the "morality" of communists is terribly, terribly erosive to our way of life.

So for this reason alone, that their "morality" is insidious, they clarify the distinction between it and ethics.

A religious man in a moderate belief system can be highly ethical. He can participate fully and honorably in our government finding no conflict at all between his faith and his ethical obligation.

But beware those whose faith is less moderate. Until there is some way for them to wear their beliefs on their sleeve, we may only judge from their words and their actions if they will serve all of the people, or if they intend to use the law to force us all to obey the dictates of their idea of God.

Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-12-03 14:36

#23 This in my mind is at the heart of the liberal, progressive world view. NOTHING is better or worse than anything else, so anything goes.

Well, I don't know if you intentionally or accidentally misunderstood my post, so I'll make the correction mildly: I obviously meant that a moral system being traditional or a moral system being new doesn't *inherently* make it inferior or superior.

Namely that other, *moral* criteria need be found to evaluate it.

Now have I answered you completely and filled up the hole you had thought you had discovered and rambled about on and on? If not, let me know what you feel remains to be said on my part.

That being said, I for one KNOW that some cultures, laws and ways of Government are better than others

So I believe also. I'm not a moral relativist, BA, not by far. As you'd have known if you had noted e.g. my repeated condemnation of the torture of innocents.

If anything it's me who always tries to put forwards moral arguments for the positions I take, while other people often rely to emotional appeals like "How would you feel if your mom was killed by Islamofascists?", non-sequitur truths like "The Greek government is worse!", and ofcourse slurs like calling muslims "moose limbs".

It's supposedly partly for those limbs of moose, that Americans went to fight and die in Iraq, BA. So I suggest not finding such nice little verbal slurs against the "moose limbs", not unless YOU want to diminish the sacrifice American armed forces have suffered there.

And BA, having repeated it a hundred times already, I don't feel the need to continuously repeat that, yes, the Islamofascists are *obviously* worse than the American government. I've repeated it time and again, and I'm repeating it yet again, for clarity's sake. Even when America descended to torture, it still remains better than the genocidal fanatics of Al Qaeda and their ilk.

Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-12-03 14:02

#22 count backward from 20 by threes.

Please, Mom. let me count down by two and then I'll be quiet, I promise.

Posted by: badanov 2005-12-03 13:58

#21 Imposition, et al.: nowhere in the Constitution does it say you have a Right to Not Be Offended. Do I actually have to say Freedom OF, not FROM Religion?

Libertarians, athiests, Aris or whatever, seriously, get over it. Find a job and pay some taxes. Go read our Nation's first public school textbook (the Bible), the one that Thomas Jefferson first recommended for moral education of children. You know, the guy who ordered up the Establishment Clause. Golly, he didn't think that was the Government establishing a religion or a church.

What the Hell is wrong with you revisionists? Do you have any concept of History?

Sorry. But, you people just piss me off sometimes. Drop dead and don't worry about Hell, ya ain't gonna make it that far.

/rant off

Posted by: ArmChair in Sin 2005-12-03 13:54

#20 wow, this actually turned into an interesting thread.

Posted by: 2b 2005-12-03 13:20

#19 Certainly progressives want society to progress (and thus by definition they want to change it) while conservatives want to conserve and thus by definition maintain it. That a morality is "new" doesn't make it either inferior or superior -- the same way that the fact something is traditional doesn't make it inferior or superior.

This in my mind is at the heart of the liberal, progressive world view. NOTHING is better or worse than anything else, so anything goes. I admit, I'm a Christian, I don't like to get into name-calling, especially with those like Aris, but I call you on this one, Greek-boy. I lean toward the Constitutionalist side of the spectrum, meaning I believe in the rule of law (with some libertarian beliefs)! I would have to argue (like others have), that ALL law is based upon moral "standards." So, Aris, you have no problems with gays, with agnostics, supposedly with Christians, and I would assume Muslims. That being said, I for one KNOW that some cultures, laws and ways of Government are better than others. Next time the moose limbs try and take over Greece, let me know if you feel they're any better or worse than you. The logical extension of your arguments is that nothing is better or worse than anything else, so you end up in anarchy. Where does it stop? Laws against murder, rape, theft, etc. (and even your other examples of bigamy, drugs, etc.) are ALL based on a moral reading of society and are thus turned into laws. So, if the muslims come to Greece, and call themselves "progressive", you're o.k. with them installing sharia law?

Posted by: BA 2005-12-03 12:59

#18 We may have the head of goddess Athena on the city flag of the Athens, but not even the people who designed it were believers of the pagan Greek religion.

We're going to do something about that soon as possible.

Posted by: abu to U ACLU 2005-12-03 12:37

#17 I think that Aris was just making a point that "imposition of morality" is a thin reed to base a complaint about a creche on. Unless you are a radical libertarian who wants a total divorce of the state and morality, you're being rather selectively hypocritical on the subject, to say nothing of looking like an easily-offended jackass of the type non-believers flee "religion" to avoid in the first place.

Posted by: Ernest Brown 2005-12-03 11:35

#16 Badanov: count backward from 20 by threes. Take a deep breath. Then read The Letter of James, Chapter 3.

Mike has analized Newdow's thinking quite well.

Posted by: mom 2005-12-03 11:09

#15 2b, a supposed-Christian calls me "arrogant f*cker" and "Hellnic bastard" (all in the spirit of Christmas I gather), while Frank calls me "Know-nothing": when I'd levelled no insults towards anyone at all in this thread.

Nothing in my faith says I have to fight and behave the way people like you the way you think I should. So STFU and take it like a man or go run home and toss some Greek Salad.

Posted by: badanov 2005-12-03 10:56

#14 Aris has a point here, and it's a good one:

There are much earlier and thus well-established examples of "imposition of morality" as efforts at gender equality, and opposition to racial discrimination. There's also "imposition of morality" when you are banning drug use or put age limits on the lawful consumption of alcohol. That the state allows marriage but doesn't allow bigamy. If you ban public nudity or public sex: that's an imposition of morality. If you ban prostitution: an imposition of morality.

I'm not making any point as to whether such impositions are positive, negative, productive or counterproductive. I'm just saying they're as common as air and supported by both sides of the political spectrum.

In short, laws usually embody moral judgments. I think that's a point everyone here can agree with.

Let me take this to the next step, if you don't mind. When someone like Michael Newdow complains about "imposition of morality by the state," what he's really saying is "you're advocating a political position on the basis of a morality I don't share, but rather than debate you on the merits and try to persuade people--a fight I can't win--I'm going to accuse you of 'moralizing' and rely on the secularization of the public square to do my dirty work for me." That trick has worked, more often than not, for quite some time because we've had an opinion elite which is not-so-openly hostile to religion and all that goes with it, and has been working for decades to drive religion out of the public square. However, as Fred said, we seem to be reaching a tipping point.

Posted by: Mike 2005-12-03 10:18

#13 2b, a supposed-Christian calls me "arrogant f*cker" and "Hellnic bastard" (all in the spirit of Christmas I gather), while Frank calls me "Know-nothing": when I'd levelled no insults towards anyone at all in this thread.

Thus of course you, with your tremendous moral clarity, blame me for turning this thread personal. Congrats, 2b. You are really praiseworthy at how you can pinpoint responsibility so accurately. This achievement of yours is only overshadowed by the way you managed at post #5 to read everything I said 180 degrees reversed from their actual content. Such complete misunderstanding must have really taken effort.

Its about eroding the cultural basis of society by replacing traditional festivals and their mores with ersatz PC psuedo-festivals that are trying to impose a new (psuedo)morality.

Certainly progressives want society to progress (and thus by definition they want to change it) while conservatives want to conserve and thus by definition maintain it. That a morality is "new" doesn't make it either inferior or superior -- the same way that the fact something is traditional doesn't make it inferior or superior.

Other than that I also feel that it'd be a much worthier battle to fight against the religious lunatics that oppose the teaching of evolution, rather than go against harmless trappings of religions.

Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-12-03 10:12

#12 The old debate was the imposition of religion with the help of government. I've known people who were at Indiana University when Kinsey was invited in, with the intention of provoking the religious-government that had ruled the place for years. That was, by doing profane research about !sex! in the middle of the bible belt. Horrors. It had the desired effect of showing that the emperor had no clothes, and busted up the old partnership.

This old debate still continues, for example the recent efforts by that University in Kansas to have a theology class on the mythology of "Intelligent Design" compared to other religious myths, openly with the intent to fight back against those trying to integrate such nonsense into science curriculum.

The new debate, as has been suggested, is not to oppose the forced imposition of beliefs by one person on others, but to corrupt the beliefs of those who believe such things.

This new debate uses some interesting tactics. At first, it complained about Xmas being too "materialistic". Why should Christian materialism trouble a non-Christian? It was an effort to make Xmas less public; that people should just celebrate it quietly in their homes, with no outward display. Hand-in-hand to this was complaints about all the public trappings of Xmas, from music and decorations, to Santa in shopping malls.

But of late, there is a great pressure to downgrade the holiday. If you go to a store looking for Xmas cards, you'll note that only a few still have "Merry Christmas" written on them, thought there are plenty "Happy Hannukah" and "Feliz Navidad" cards. This shows a corporate infiltration of the anti-holiday effort.

In a way, the anti-Xmas efforts are the mirror image of the old religious-government oppression. Except now it is an effort to attack the icons and traditions of Christianity. Especially in entertainment, Hollywood and the art crowd feel free to desecrate all the trappings of one particular religion. Not in any way to protect themselves, but to oppress others.

And as before, government is also used as a tool to oppress others.

Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-12-03 09:04

#11 Phil_b said: The issue here is not Christians versus secularists. Its about eroding the cultural basis of society by replacing traditional festivals and their mores with ersatz PC psuedo-festivals that are trying to impose a new (psuedo)morality.

Spoken as an athiest and utilitarian (almost a libertarian).

That's a great comment phil.

Posted by: 2b 2005-12-03 08:31

#10 Aris: As for your claims that "I made it all about Aris" I never referred to my self at all in the first post in this thread -- I discussed the *issue*. After which the personal attacks ofcourse, began.

And at which point the thread became "All About Aris". That's what I was talking about. I'm going to resist the urge to respond to your other comments, though it's tempting to set the record straight. However your posting is some sort of wierd ~~masturbation~~
self-gratification for you which is quite frankly, kind of creepy. So, thanks for the offer, but I'm not into doing Aris.

Posted by: 2b 2005-12-03 08:27

#9 The issue here is not Christians versus secularists. Its about eroding the cultural basis of society by replacing traditional festivals and their mores with ersatz PC psuedo-festivals that are trying to impose a new (psuedo)morality.

Spoken as an athiest and utilitarian (almost a libertarian).

Posted by: phil_b 2005-12-03 06:51

#8 Aris isn't that far off from the truth. Don't agree with everything he's saying, but he's purdy damn close.

My problem is with people like Newdow, who are trying to get their religious point of view passed off as the established religious viewpoint of the government. They will never admit that, but it is exactly what he is trying to do.

What Aris is saying isn't far off from this. No need to knock him on this matter.

I'm an astute Libertarian. All should be able to express and worship as they see fit, and none should be able to hinder that right. At the same time, the Athiest should be free to refrain from being forced to admit anything to God. I don't see the Atheist being forced to do anything. The Atheist shouldn't force the rest of the nation to bow down to his ideals as well.

Posted by: Thoth 2005-12-03 03:12

#7 So far, it's three people here that are clearly determined to read their own preconception into my words and didn't actually read a thing I said (the definition of non-sentient debaters yet again).

As for your claims that "I made it all about Aris" I never referred to my self at all in the first post in this thread -- I discussed the *issue*. After which the personal attacks ofcourse, began.

That's teh great thing about the Christian faith, Aris. I get to believe and worship my Savior without worrying about what smarmy, pencil dick know-it-alls like you say.

And when your saviour puts you on His left hand, and says "I was a fellow forum debater and you unjustifiably insulted me.", what are you gonna say?

Why does it not surprise me that you decorate a tree with a nary a thought in your Aris head about deeper meaning

Oh, I celebrate the deeper meanings of "Good Will Toward Men" and "Peace on Earth and Mercy Mild". I'm sorry that it so terribly offends you that I can be celebrating positive messages of Christmas without actually being a believer in the Christian religion.

and a reason to ponder how others are "forcing you" to shove their morality down your throat. you are such a prissy victim.

*rolls eyes* You really didn't read a word I said. In the whole thread I've NOT been arguing in favour of the idea of victimhood, but against it. Poor little conservatives victimised by Gay Pride Parades. Poor little secularists victimized by Christmas trees. (Poor little alcoholics victimised by drinking age limits, poor little deadbeat dads victimized by child support laws, poor little nudists victimized by public decency codes, etc, etc)

Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-12-03 02:38

#6 That's teh great thing about the Christian faith, Aris. I get to believe and worship my Savior without worrying about what smarmy, pencil dick know-it-alls like you say.

Posted by: badanov 2005-12-03 02:14

#5 sheesh, Aris. Only you could take a baisically fun article and turn it into an "all about Aris" thread.

Why does it not surprise me that you decorate a tree with a nary a thought in your Aris head about deeper meaning noted by Fred and you only manage to see in it your own decorating skills and a reason to ponder how others are "forcing you" to shove their morality down your throat.

you are such a prissy victim.

Posted by: 2b 2005-12-03 01:47

#4 Aris, you arrogant f*cker.

Why thank you.

When you use the word 'imposition' you have taken a stand.

I have? So, should I use "enforcement of morality" perhaps, as a more neutral word? "Promotion of morality"? What replacement in vocabulary would you recommend, you being a native speaker that understands all the nuances, and me not being one?

Stop pissing on our country and us, and telling us its our fault we're wet, you Hellnic bastard

You've gone off the deep end, haven't you? What did I do now? Tear down one of your favourite myths, namely that supposedly only liberals try to shove their morality down other people's throats? Poor little conservatives.

On my part, I've no problem with the state being used to "promote" (since the word "impose" irks you) several moral ideas -- including democracy, freedom, racial and religious tolerance, gender equality, gay acceptance and parental responsibility.

And if you disagree with that, if you feel that the state *shouldn't* promote the concepts of freedom and democracy for example, that has just made you an enemy of the Bush policy in the Middle East.

Frank> I've stopped thinking you'll ever start responding with non-sequiturs. But as you seem to want it, here's my opinion on the issue of festivities: I've no problem with labelling Christmas trees as "Christmas trees", especially since, coming from Greece, I know how you can honour a tradition without promoting the religion it derived from. We may have the head of goddess Athena on the city flag of the Athens, but not even the people who designed it were believers of the pagan Greek religion.

Likewise you may fill the city with Christmas trees, and it can just be a festival tradition that promotes in reality no religion. (after all I also decorate a Christmas tree and am not religious either -- same as Santa Claus, the Christmas tree has become very secular in mood)

Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-12-03 01:26

#3 Aris, you arrogant f*cker. When you use the word 'imposition' you have taken a stand.

Stop pissing on our country and us, and telling us its our fault we're wet, you Hellnic bastard.

Posted by: badanov 2005-12-03 00:16

#2 Kwanzaa's real big in Athens, huh? Know-nothing's are apparently on the comeback from a long political exile

Posted by: Frank G 2005-12-02 19:12

#1 Liberals use the state to impose their morality all the time, and they get away with it because their faith isnât called a religion.

Yes. But "Gay Pride month" is just the tip of the iceberg, a tiny issue only noticeable because it's still a point of controversy between liberals and many conservatives.

There are much earlier and thus well-established examples of "imposition of morality" as efforts at gender equality, and opposition to racial discrimination. There's also "imposition of morality" when you are banning drug use or put age limits on the lawful consumption of alcohol. That the state allows marriage but doesn't allow bigamy. If you ban public nudity or public sex: that's an imposition of morality. If you ban prostitution: an imposition of morality.

I'm not making any point as to whether such impositions are positive, negative, productive or counterproductive. I'm just saying they're as common as air and supported by both sides of the political spectrum. To talk about Gay Pride Month as such an "imposition", pfft... just a tiny example in the midst of many much more prevalent ones.

Only libertarians are seeking a wall of separation between state and *morality*. Neither most liberals nor most conservatives do. (And ofcourse the libertarians also have their own moral articles of faith, e.g. that property is something satrosanct rather than a social construct, or their acceptance of contracts as binding and enforceable by the state)

Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-12-02 19:07

00:00