Originally Posted By gadzuux >> Though I think it's kind of ironic that they're using Santa Claus who evolved from religious traditions to spread the message. << As has been pointed out - christians co-opted pagan traditions which existed long before christianity, and refashioned them for their own purposes.
Originally Posted By utahjosh "So... was it cool for the monks to morph the pagan high cross into the Celtic Cross to use as a tool of conversion?" That case isn't quite as clear cut "in-your-face" as the darwin fish is. I don't really use a cross or the fish as a symbol, anyway.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<That case isn't quite as clear cut "in-your-face" as the darwin fish is.>> Wrong. It's definitely clear cut, because the pagan high cross, representing nature's connection to the sun, was deliberately co-opted by the Christian monks such as St Patrick, to use as a wedge for the conversion of the Druids into Christians. They took a pagan symbol and morphed it ONTO their existing Christian symbol, then claimed it as their own, to demonstrate the similarities between the two religions. The Darwin fish isn't being used by non-Christians in a devious scheme to convert Christians to atheists. It's being hijacked as a statement against specific organized religions which continually mock science and hold to the creationist tales of Genesis as the true origins of man, the same religions which want Christianity declared as the "official" religion of America, want prayer returned to school, and science instruction to be abolished. Taking an existing symbol of an opposing religion and superimposing it upon a symbol of your religion in order to hoodwink the other believers into accepting your religion is morally and ethically wrong. Taking an existing symbol of a religion and transforming it into a protest symbol to highlight the prejudiced and dishonest practices of said religion is totally different, and has been done as a matter of political discourse for eons.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>One is a smple expression of faith. The other is taking that expression, twisting it, and using it to show that you disagree. Very different.<< Which is exactly the point. People of faith have the luxury of starting at a different place, if that makes sense. We immediately start with the assumption that atheism is somehow anti-religious. Let me ask, what symbol or expression of atheism *would* be ok with you, Josh? I'm quite serious. Churches are everywhere, bumper stickers about God abound, crosses are on highways, etc. What expression of lack of faith is an atheist able to do without it smacking of anti-religious?
Originally Posted By utahjosh <Let me ask, what symbol or expression of atheism *would* be ok with you, Josh?> Let the atheists figure that out, without twisting or mocking respected Christian symbols.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox But it's OK for Christians to twist or mock respected symbols from other religions?
Originally Posted By mele I guess I don't understand why someone has to express their lack of faith. It just seems weird to me. Everyone here knows I am not religious in any way...I just don't know why people feel the *need* to express that they don't believe someone's religion. It just seems like a negative thing to do. It's one thing to express the lack of believe when asked, and I guess people feel religion is being rammed down their throats. (I disagree that people's car decor is doing this)...I don't understand the need for a statement.
Originally Posted By utahjosh <But it's OK for Christians to twist or mock respected symbols from other religions?> Actually, I don't like that they did that. I never cared for the Cross as a Christian symbol.
Originally Posted By DAR <<Actually, I don't like that they did that. I never cared for the Cross as a Christian symbol. >> But again to many Christians the cross represents the suffering Jesus went through for mankind.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> I just don't know why people feel the *need* to express that they don't believe someone's religion. It just seems like a negative thing to do. << As you already know - many devout believers exploit the general overall sensitivity that the culture tries to provide to religious people, and they use it to oppress others. They skew the political process to further their own beliefs while simultaneoulsly enjoying their tax free status. They seek taxpayer money to support their churches and schools. They seek to codify their religious beliefs into laws that apply to everybody else. They deny rights to others that they themselves enjoy. And all the while they congratulate themselves on doing the lord's work. But whenever there's any push-back, they're quick to complain that their religious beliefs aren't being respected. So there's some valid reasons for declaring one's self in opposition to the practice of christianity. And to calling them on their own hypocrisy again and again. We're not one big happy family and all uniformly aligned with each other. Some people need to be reminded.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Let the atheists figure that out, without twisting or mocking respected Christian symbols.<< In other words, you don't think there's any acceptable way for an atheist to express how they feel. And that's exactly the problem. I've said this many times on here, and it continues. Christians can be as blunt or in-your-face as they want, and it's "speaking truth to power" or "being bold." They're defiant in their refusal to tone it down. Atheists are expected to walk on eggshells because anything they do is considered to be in "opposition" to the established norm. It's starting at a different place. The very way the conversation begins and is held privileges religion. It's BS.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I still remember my youth minister when I was a teenager pointing out that if Jesus had lived 2000 years later, people would be wearing little electric chairs around their necks.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>The very way the conversation begins and is held privileges religion.<< That may be, but is the answer to that to go all extreme like these ads? Who wins? It winds up with two extreme (or, let's say, very committed) viewpoints dominating the discussion. I think in America right now, THAT'S what directs every social/political conversation more than atheism or religion -- extremism. It's the tea baggers yelling shut up at the president on one side, and saying the GOP wants people to die on the other. The two polar opposites trying to shout each other down, Glenn Beck vs. Keith Olbermann, and few moderate voices can get a word in edgewise. This billboard campaign is like PeTA handing out kids meals containing bloody chicken beaks or an anti-abortionist carrying around photos of aborted babies. And in my view, repels people and entrenches them.
Originally Posted By mele Exactly, and it doesn't exactly give any sort of warm fuzzies. People want warm fuzzies during the holidays.
Originally Posted By utahjosh <In other words, you don't think there's any acceptable way for an atheist to express how they feel. And that's exactly the problem.> Now you are twisting my words. If you are atheist, come up with your own symbol to represent you. Don't twist the opposing viewpoint's symbol.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Don't twist the opposing viewpoint's symbol.<< But that's the problem. Anything atheists do is seen as "opposing" religion. Anything. So you don't want atheists to do anything because it's seen as rude. It's a fair question, Josh, that you've refused to answer. What expression of disbelief or lack of faith would be acceptable to you?
Originally Posted By ecdc >>That may be, but is the answer to that to go all extreme like these ads? Who wins? It winds up with two extreme (or, let's say, very committed) viewpoints dominating the discussion.<< I agree. I don't think the ads are a good idea or conducive to thoughtful discussion. My larger point remains, what is expected of atheists? How can they express their beliefs publicly through symbols without being seen as just "anti-religious?" Again, the issue is we start at an assumption of faith, and then move forward from there. It immediately puts atheists in some "anti" camp and on the defensive. They immediately start at a disadvantage.
