• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Atheists take aim at Christmas

What would you care if I got my "morals and values" from a God or a cracker jack box as long as they don't intefere with anothers rights?

But isn't that one of the exact problems? They do interfere with others rights. And yes, I certainly do have an anti-religious attitude but no actual actionable agenda.
 
But isn't that one of the exact problems? They do interfere with others rights.

Someone believes in God. How does that intefere with your "rights"?


And yes, I certainly do have an anti-religious attitude but no actual actionable agenda.


Kinda like the atheist version of archie bunker eh? :lol:
 
This nation was not founded as nor intended to be a secular nation.

I disagree.

People seem to be of the opinion that it's either secular or theocracy. Fyi: there are more options the 2 most radical extremes in any issue.
Again, I disagree.

The government is secular in that it may not form a federal religion nor give any church municipal power. However, the government is theist in it's recognition of the cultural vestiges of the people on it's buildings, currency and pledges.
Recognizing and giving reverence to the past doesn't make the government theistic.

There's nothing harmful about it.
I strongly disagree.
 
Why do we need teachers who are demonstratably correct on a topic to teach us about that topic?

That can't be a serious question.

Well, I'd rather have an unbiased teacher or rather one who doesn't have a clear political agenda.
 
The fact is that it can be debated back and forth what the founding fathers intended. But until either one of us can get an actual interview or response from one of the founding fathers as to what their original intentions are we aren't going to know. My only point is that the answers aren't going to come from a conservative political commentator or a liberal one for that matter.
The Treaty of Tripoli
Annals of Congress, 5th Congress

Article 1. There is a firm and perpetual peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary, made by the free consent of both parties, and guarantied by the most potent Dey and Regency of Algiers.

Art. 2. If any goods belonging to any nation with which either of the parties is at war, shall be loaded on board of vessels belonging to the other party, they shall pass free, and no attempt shall be made to take or detain them.

Art. 3. If any citizens , subjects, or effects, belonging to either party, shall be found on board a prize vessel taken from an enemy by the other party, such citizens or subjects shall be set at liberty, and the effects restored to the owners.

Art. 4. Proper passports are to be given to all vessels of both parties, by which they are to be known. And considering the distance between the two countries, eighteen months from the date of this treaty, shall be allowed for procuring such passports. During this interval the other papers, belonging to such vessels, shall be sufficient for their protection.

Art. 5. A citizen or subject of either party having bought a prize vessel, condemned by the other party, or by any other nation, the certificates of condemnation and bill of sale shall be a sufficient passport for such vessel for one year; this being a reasonable time for her to procure a proper passport.

Art. 6. Vessels of either party, putting into the ports of the other, and having need of provisions or other supplies, they shall be furnished at the market price. And if any such vessel shall so put in, from a disaster at sea, and have occasion to repair, she shall be at liberty to land and re-embark her cargo without paying any duties. But in case shall she be compelled to the land her cargo.

Art. 7. Should a vessel of either party be cast on the shore of the other, all proper assistance shall be given to her and her people; no pillage shall be allowed; the property shall remain at the disposition of the owners; and the crew protectedand succored till they can be sent to their country.

Art. 8. If a vessel of either party should be attacked by an enemy, within gun-shot of the forts of the other , she shall be defended as much as possible. If she be in port she shall not be seized on or attacked, when it is in the power of the other party to protect her. And when she proceeds to sea, no enemy shall be allowed to pursue her from the same port, within twenty-four hours after her departure.

Art. 9. The commerce between the United States and Tripoli; the protection to be given to merchants, masters of vessels, and seamen; the reciprocal right of the establishing Consuls in each country; and the privileges, immunities, and jurisdiction, to be on the same footing with those of the most favored nations respectively.

Art. 10. The money and presents demanded by the Bey of Tripoli, as a full and satisfactory consideration on his part, and on the part of his subjects, for this treaty of perpetual peace and friendship, are acknowledged to have been received by him previous to his signing the same, according to a receipt which is hereto annexed, except such as part as is promised, on the part of the United States, to be delivered and paid by them on the arrival of their Consul in Tripoli; of which part a note is likewise hereto annexed. And no pretense of any periodical tribute of further payments is ever to be made by either party.

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Art. 12. In case of any dispute, arising from a violation of any of the articles of this treaty, no appeal shall be made to arms; nor shall war be declared on any pretext whatever. But if the Consul, residing at the place where the dispute shall happen, shall not be able to settle the same, an amicable referrence shall be made to the mutual friend of the parties, the Dey of Algiers; the parties hereby engaging to abide by his decision. And he, by virtue of his signature to this treaty, engages for himself and successors to declare the justice of the case, according to the true interpretation of the treaty, and to use all the means in his power to enforce the observance of the same.

Signed and sealed at Tripoli of Barbary the 3d day of Junad in the year of the Hegira 1211— corresponding with the 4th day of November, 1796
 
Please point out this "favoritism" I for one would like to know how I missed out on it. :lol:

All religions in this country get the same treatment under the law.
Well, you're changing my premise a bit. First off I said xians want favoritism for their religion. Next I didn't compare their favoritism to other religions.

But let's start with Taxes. The religion (the church) doesn't pay them even though it is the wealthiest business on the planet. How about religious holidays? How about an office of faith based initiatives... I could go on but why, if you don't think that religion, as an organization, gets favoritism then you are either a xian who doesn't want to admit it or a hermit who as little to know interaction with the rest of the country... or just looking for an argument.
 
Well, you're changing my premise a bit. First off I said xians want favoritism for their religion. Next I didn't compare their favoritism to other religions.

But let's start with Taxes. The religion (the church) doesn't pay them even though it is the wealthiest business on the planet. How about religious holidays? How about an office of faith based initiatives... I could go on but why, if you don't think that religion, as an organization, gets favoritism then you are either a xian who doesn't want to admit it or a hermit who as little to know interaction with the rest of the country... or just looking for an argument.


So you want separation of church and state to be a one sided affair?:roll:
 
:lol: at treaties with muslim pirates.

Right, because England, France, Spain... never condoned piracy... er... I mean "privateering". Will you never learn? :roll: You should just put me on ignore so that I don't have to make you look foolish every time.
 
Last edited:
So you want separation of church and state to be a one sided affair?:roll:
Was that an actual question you were seeking an answer to or just another failed attempt at catching me saying something wrong?

Answer: Nope and I never made any such claim. In fact I have stated quite clearly in the past that if the religious would keep their religion to themselves and church property, I'd have little to complain about.
 
Was that an actual question you were seeking an answer to or just another failed attempt at catching me saying something wrong?

Answer: Nope and I never made any such claim. In fact I have stated quite clearly in the past that if the religious would keep their religion to themselves and church property, I'd have little to complain about.




Somehow I doubt that. You demonstrate an irrational bigoted hatred for others beliefs. ARe you now trying to snake it into something else?


Can you tell me which amendment prevents putting a nativity scene in the town square for Christmas?
 
Somehow I doubt that. You demonstrate an irrational bigoted hatred for others beliefs. ARe you now trying to snake it into something else?


Can you tell me which amendment prevents putting a nativity scene in the town square for Christmas?
Not at all. My hatred is not irrational. I have plenty of good rational reasons to be bigoted against xianity. :2wave:
 
Well, you're changing my premise a bit. First off I said xians want favoritism for their religion. Next I didn't compare their favoritism to other religions.

You said...

"This has been argued endlessly and seems to be an open debate only among xians who want favoritism for their religion, which they get anyway." - Slippery Slope

You are saying specifically Christians want favoritism, and are getting it anyway. So no, I have not changed your premise in any way.

But let's start with Taxes. The religion (the church) doesn't pay them even though it is the wealthiest business on the planet.

All established legal religions in this country pay no property taxes. So this is not any kind of special Christian treatment.

How about religious holidays?

Here is a list of all National holidays...

January 1, 2009 - New Year's Day

January 19, 2009 - Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday (observed)

February 16, 2009 - President's Day

May 25, 2009 - Memorial Day (observed)

June 14, 2009 - Flag Day

July 4, 2009 - Independence Day

September 7, 2009 - Labor Day

October 12, 2009 - Columbus Day (United States)

November 11, 2009 - Veteran's Day

November 26, 2009 - Thanksgiving

December 25, 2008 - Christmas | December 25, 2009


Hmmm looks like those "holidays" don't exist according to the US government.

Your premise for this one is ridicules at best.

How about an office of faith based initiatives...

You mean the initiative that gives Federal funding to all religious aid organizations? You mean the same government funds that go to secular aid organizations?

Again not just for Christians here.

I could go on but why, if you don't think that religion, as an organization, gets favoritism then you are either a xian who doesn't want to admit it or a hermit who as little to know interaction with the rest of the country... or just looking for an argument.

So far you have proved little and said much of nothing. You are going to have to try much harder post more than a few biased and silly examples.
 
All humans are hypocrites. This is a fact of life.

The Christian faith is indeed a rip off of others. Explain why most major Xtian Holidays are pagan based!

The first Good V/S Bad Concept does stem from Zorasterism and that is all the Christian Faith consist of: good v/s bad.

You make the claim, but you don't back it up.

Most Christian holidays are NOT pagan based. Just because they happen at the same time of year, that doesn't mean that they are the basis for it. Heck, you could have a Christian holiday at ANY time of year, and make some fictitious pagan connection to it.

Are you claiming that Zorasterism is older than Judaism? Even if so, the notion that good v. evil supposedly comes from Zorasterism, this now means that only that religion can legitimately hold to it? Are you so closed minded to think that God can't work through other cultures, and other faith systems to reveal His ultimate truths?
 
I disagree.


Again, I disagree.


Recognizing and giving reverence to the past doesn't make the government theistic.


I strongly disagree.

Ok, well, I disagree with your disagreement, so there :2razz:
 
What about the Pagan festival of the son of Isis? That is where Christmas comes from!! What about Yule? Also where do you think the idea of the Xmas tree came from?

Think about when you go to church: all you do is perform Pagan rituals. Even the simple act of a prayer is pagan based because you are doing a ritual! :rofl

I don't know what Isis is. What is the connection?

CHristmas tree didn't enter into the Christmas celebration until well more than 1000 years after the selection of the December 25th date.

Many Catholic rituals have Jewish antecedents.
 
Back
Top Bottom