But how much of this actually due to atheists? Who sued and when, what law got passed? Or is this something that militant theists overblow in order to make the appearance of the big bad atheist? Did companies start moving to Happy Holidays to include more of their customers? Has "Happy Holidays" simply always existed as a general greeting for this time of year?
In short, is there any proof and evidence what so ever that this perceived increase in "Happy Holidays" is A) an actual real increase in the use of the words AND B) the result of atheist action?
I fear that people hear things of this sort and automatically assume that it is the atheists doing something. It was just like the other thread where the town cancelled the display on public grounds and people jumped up and down and said "Look at what the atheists did!!!" and for anyone with half a functioning brain and the ability to read English realized that it was the vandalism to the atheist displays which caused the cancellation, not the atheists themselves. The knee jerk reactionary "it's all the atheists fault!" is becoming a very suspect rallying cry.
If my post implied anything other than what I stated, I apologize. I wasn't trying to blame atheists for a move to a more PC holiday. I was merely making an observation on the increasingly present argument I see from some atheists (i.e. those who enjoy playing the victim) that they are somehow being discriminated against or that religion is intentionally trying to offend them merely by existing. That was in direct response to the OP's challenge that the existence of a church is somehow offensive or deserving of censure by atheists.
I am an atheist, but I do not condemn the existence of faith. Everybody copes with life in the method they find most successful for them. Religious
faith (not religious institutions) is much less harmful than many other coping methods people choose to utilize. As such, I see no reason to ambush or castigate the religious merely for existing and living the life they feel best embodies the dictates of their chosen religion. That doesn't mean I must refrain from condemning those who act harmfully in the name of religion...but I hardly see a free standing church or a nativity scene as an inherently harmful action. Nor do I think that a religious person remarking that they will pray for me to be an act of forceful indoctrination. Hell, I don't even feel particularly violated by my grandmother's mandate that we say grace before a family meal.
That's what I'm arguing against when I call out the "victimized atheist"....those who would seek to claim harm in otherwise innocuous activities.
As far as the "war on religion" or "war on atheism"...I think it's all hyperbolic nonsense from both sides. Atheists are gonna have to accept that they are a significant minority as this point in time and understand that they're not going to "convert" 94% of the world population to anti-theism overnight. Christians are gonna have to accept that a significant portion of the planet are not christian...same with Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and every other variant of religious belief and do not intend to convert.
The challenge is, most religions exist on the tenant that you must convert non-believers. Atheism has no tenants. So when you have a firmly held core belief that salvation is dependent on spreading the word of your savior, you're going to end up "offending" those who do not hold such beliefs, or those who belief in a different savior. Atheists would do well to rise above the situation and accept that innocent evangelizing harms nobody, and politely decline to participate in the conversation. It really serves no practical purpose to go on a which hunt against the religious for doing what they truly believe is right, so long as their actions are not
inherently harmful (i.e. killing those who refuse to convert).
