Atheist Fundamentalists

pH

At this time of peace and good well to all men it seems a number of bishops have time on their hands for a good bash and rant.

'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears
The Archbishop of Wales, Dr Barry Morgan, has described a rise in "fundamentalism" as one of the great problems facing the world.

He focused on what he described as "atheistic fundamentalism".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7156783.stm

The free dictionary wrote:

fun·da·men·tal·ism (fnd-mntl-zm)
n.
1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.
2.
a. often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.
b. Adherence to the theology of this movement.

Nice of them to tar us with their brush and all that.

Then he's got some drivel about winterval and the BA cross incident.

Does anyone actually feel that any of this 'political correctness' like Winterval, the BA cross and the banning of nativity plays have anything to do with atheism and secularism? I'd always taken them as avoiding offending other faiths and cultures rather than the atheists are now in charge and are now banning everything religious.

Fanny Cradock

pH wrote: »

I'd always taken them as avoiding offending other faiths and cultures

So celebrating a Christian festival (although I do realise it's meaning has been diluted in general) is insulting to other faiths, non-faiths and cultures? If that is the case, we should then ban all other religious festivals, political marches, group gatherings and parades (unless state approved) for fear of causing insult. Hail O'Duffy!

I'd see this gradual Xing of Christ from Christmas etc. as a deliberate and concerted attempt to secularise our society rather that to avoid any possible offence. I've heard as much.

Pompey Magnus

I think the worst part of the article was the classification of athiests such as Richard Dawkins as being "militant". I really hate that term because of its implied suggestion of violent or physically aggressive behaviour. This was then followed by Rev Edwards comparing athiests to a supposed mass murderer of children, how nice of him.

Anyways I am as annoyed as any religious person is when I hear of cribs being taken down to avoid offending people or Christmas being renamed as Winterval, it really is ridiculous. But to suggest that athiests are becoming "dangerous" is completely unfounded. If athiests start blowing up buses because there is no God then he might have a point but until then he is just trying a nasty tactic in a debate which (in my opinion) his side are losing.

Pompey Magnus

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'd see this gradual Xing of Christ from Christmas etc. as a deliberate and concerted attempt to secularise our society rather that to avoid any possible offence.

X = Chi, the first letter of Christos.

Fanny Cradock

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

X = Chi, the first letter of Christos.

Indeed. But it seems clear to me that the meaning of the X is to cross out Christ, not a handy (?) abbreviation.

Zillah

I have never liked the word fundamentalist. Whatever dictionary definition you want to trot out, every time someone says fundamentalist X it means "the crazier and more worrying kind of X". I have never seen anyone give a consistent and intelligent (and importantly comprehensive) explanation for what they mean by fundamentalist.

In this case its an Archbishop attaching a very popular negative word to atheists he doesn't like. Like Bush and the word terrorist.

JC 2K3

The only fundamental principle in Atheism is the lack of belief in God. Therefore, every atheist is a fundamentalist and it has no bearing on how anti-religion or pro-secularisation they are.

pH

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

So celebrating a Christian festival (although I do realise it's meaning has been diluted in general) is insulting to other faiths, non-faiths and cultures? If that is the case, we should then ban all other religious festivals, political marches, group gatherings and parades (unless state approved) for fear of causing insult. Hail O'Duffy!

I guess it's who's celebrating it that's at issue here.

No one, and I'll repeat that - NO ONE I have every heard is against Christians celebrating Christmas, sending cards, wishing each other Happy Christmas nor does anyone think that it's insulting to other faiths.

If we look at the 2 examples from above.

First British Airways - this started because BA have a ban on all personal jewellery worn by their staff 'in uniform'. It's nothing to to with religion. This woman made it about religion by claiming that because her jewellery was a cross it should be exempt from their dress code because:

"It is important to wear it to express my faith so that other people will know that Jesus loves them."

Ms Eweida said she wanted to be able to do as people of other faiths did and be allowed to wear visible religious symbols.

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FUNDAMENTAL MILITANT ATHEISM!

Secondly 'Winterval' created by Birmingham city council in 1998 and to be honest has hardly taken over the world since then.

The change is being made because city council officials hope to create a more multi-cultural atmosphere in keeping with the city's mix of ethnic groups.

It's mainly about the State, state bodies or companies celebrating/promoting religion and religious events. The desire to tone it down is nothing to do with the fact that they're now run by fundamental atheists bent of the destruction of religion. It's do to with the fact that that if they support one religion's events they really need to support all religions' events (in a spirit of fairness) and they understand this is a practical impossibility.

I wonder what response Christians would have to a Satanist BA employee wanting to wear an inverted cross at the check-in desk?

lostexpectation

is it any surprise that bishops don't factcheck , re winterval, a shopping promotion nothing to do with atheist

Myksyk

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Indeed. But it seems clear to me that the meaning of the X is to cross out Christ, not a handy (?) abbreviation.

Here's some information worth considering.

robindch

Zillah wrote:

I have never seen anyone give a consistent and intelligent (and importantly comprehensive) explanation for what they mean by fundamentalist.

How about

A fundamentalist is somebody who is unable to give any serious consideration to the possibility that they might be wrong.

?

stereoroid

A fundamentalist is somebody who is unable to give any serious consideration to the possibility that they might be wrong.

I think the theist's definition is a bit wider than that. If non-theists are open to the possibility of being wrong, but have standards of evidence that must be met before they will accept a proposition, that's considered uncooperative. What we're supposed to do is accept what the theists say without subjecting it to any kind of scrutiny. If we quibble about such trivial matters as objective physical evidence for their supernatural claims, we're closed-minded fundamentalist atheists. :rolleyes:

Zillah

robindch wrote:

A fundamentalist is somebody who is unable to give any serious consideration to the possibility that they might be wrong.

Yeah, that sounds reasonable. But I doubt its applicable to the majority of instances of its use. For example, if one of those fine people who ran Jesus Camp accepted that they could be wrong, but continued with their ultra-conservative Christian antics, would they no longer be considered fundamentalist? Similarily, if we took a stereotypical "down with the West" Immam, who conceded in a philosophical debate that he could be wrong, but didn't think he was and continued preaching violent destruction of the Western world, is he no longer a fundamentalist? The word fundamentalist seems to be used for those who's views are intolerant and oppressive, rather than how strongly they affirm the correctness of those beliefs. Granted, they often go hand in hand, but not neccessarily.

Zombrex

pH wrote: »

I guess it's who's celebrating it that's at issue here.

No one, and I'll repeat that - NO ONE I have every heard is against Christians celebrating Christmas, sending cards, wishing each other Happy Christmas nor does anyone think that it's insulting to other faiths.

If we look at the 2 examples from above.

First British Airways - this started because BA have a ban on all personal jewellery worn by their staff 'in uniform'. It's nothing to to with religion. This woman made it about religion by claiming that because her jewellery was a cross it should be exempt from their dress code because:

"It is important to wear it to express my faith so that other people will know that Jesus loves them."

Ms Eweida said she wanted to be able to do as people of other faiths did and be allowed to wear visible religious symbols.

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FUNDAMENTAL MILITANT ATHEISM!

Secondly 'Winterval' created by Birmingham city council in 1998 and to be honest has hardly taken over the world since then.

The change is being made because city council officials hope to create a more multi-cultural atmosphere in keeping with the city's mix of ethnic groups.

It's mainly about the State, state bodies or companies celebrating/promoting religion and religious events. The desire to tone it down is nothing to do with the fact that they're now run by fundamental atheists bent of the destruction of religion. It's do to with the fact that that if they support one religion's events they really need to support all religions' events (in a spirit of fairness) and they understand this is a practical impossibility.

I wonder what response Christians would have to a Satanist BA employee wanting to wear an inverted cross at the check-in desk?

Good post

Some theists always seem to interpret things like this as a secular attack on their "rights"

In fact it is the opposite, it is saying that their particular religious beliefs don't give them any more rights than anyone else. Just because the BA woman believed her piece of metal held more significance to her because it was religious doesn't mean that significance was any greater than anyone else's attachment to any of their personal belongings or that she has any more rights to break the official dress code.

The same holds with the Sikhs who wanted to wear a turban to the Gardai.

Its not about saying that religion isn't important.

Its about saying that religion isn't any more important.

Fanny Cradock

Just a small point, but you seem to be confused.

pH wrote: »

I'd always taken them as avoiding offending other faiths and cultures rather than the atheists are now in charge and are now banning everything religious.

pH wrote: »

No one, and I'll repeat that - NO ONE I have every heard is against Christians celebrating Christmas, sending cards, wishing each other Happy Christmas nor does anyone think that it's insulting to other faiths.

Still, that's good to hear

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Just a small point, but you seem to be confused.

Not sure why you are confused.

The first quote pH is talking about companies having uniforms that restrict the wearing of personal jewellery, religious or otherwise.

The second he is talking about Christians celebrating Christmas.

Are you saying that wearing of religious jewellery is necessary to celebrate Christmas?

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Not sure why you are confused.

The first quote pH is talking about companies having uniforms that restrict the wearing of personal jewellery, religious or otherwise.

The second he is talking about Christians celebrating Christmas.

Are you saying that wearing of religious jewellery is necessary to celebrate Christmas?

Two things. First, I never said I was confused. You must be confused about that. It is quite simple; if you look at his two statements they contradict each other. This was only a minor point, however. Secondly, I never mentioned anything about jewellery. So were you would get the notion that I (or other Christians) deem it necessary to wear jewellery to celebrate Christmas is a bit of a mystery. Especially considering neither of the two examples stated by PH make that claim.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Two things. First, I never said I was confused.

Well I am working under the assumption that pH isn't confused (he tends not to be, and his posts appear completely coherent) in which case you must be confused about what his point is.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Secondly, I never mentioned anything about jewellery. So were you would get the notion that I (or other Christians) deem it necessary to wear jewellery to celebrate Christmas is a bit of a mystery. Especially considering neither of the two examples stated by PH make that claim.

pH mentioned jewellery as part of the paragraph that contained your first quote from him. It was said in relation to BA not allowing jewellery, religious or otherwise, as part of the uniform. He gave his interpretation that it is done as to not offend other faiths and to maintain a unified uniform, rather than a push by atheists to ban religion.

His second bit that you quoted, (the bit you appear to be claiming is confused with the first) is saying that no one is saying Christians cannot or should not celebrate Christmas.

So the only way that the 2nd would contradict the 1st (thus pH would be "confused") is if the wearing of the jewellery of the BA staff member some how stopped her, a Christian, from celebrating Christmas.

Since it doesn't the two pieces you quote from pH aren't in conflict with each other, in fact they compliment each other, so clearly he isn't confused.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

pH mentioned jewellery as part of the paragraph that contained your first quote from him. It was said in relation to BA not allowing jewellery, religious or otherwise, as part of the uniform. He gave his interpretation that it is done as to not offend other faiths and to maintain a unified uniform, rather than a push by atheists to ban religion.

Yes, but along with Winterval and BA, pH also mentioned the banning of nativity plays. They are a celebration of Christmas don't ya know? With this in mind, my response was solely in relation to the celebration of Christmas.

Wicknight wrote: »

His second bit that you quoted, (the bit you appear to be claiming is confused with the first) is saying that no one is saying Christians cannot or should not celebrate Christmas.

Great. I am glad to hear that. However, this reply was in direct response to mine, the one that specifically discussed Christmas.

In the first quote pH mentions his understanding behind winterval, BA's jewellery policy and banning nativity plays (remembering that they are celebration of Christmas) as there to avoid offence, and nothing to do with atheism or secularism. Fair enough!

His second quote, whereby no one wants to stop people from celebrating Christmas nor is any offence caused by the celebration of Christmas, would seem would seem to contract the initial understanding.

I merely wanted clarification on these apparently confounding statements from pH. I doubt that I'll hear anything contrary to your rebuttals now. As pH's official spokesman, I'll guess I should just take your word on the matter.

pH

Wicknight wrote: »

Well I am working under the assumption that pH isn't confused (he tends not to be, and his posts appear completely coherent) in which case you must be confused about what his point is.

To be honest Wicknight, Fanny does have a point, I *am* confused ... I have no bloody idea what they're talking about.

In the first quote pH mentions his understanding behind winterval, BA's jewellery policy and banning nativity plays (remembering that they are celebration of Christmas) as there to avoid offence, and nothing to do with atheism or secularism. Fair enough!

It's even more simple than that. BA's policy has nothing to do with religion or offending anyone. They equally don't want someone working on their check-in desk with 20 gold chains, large hoop earrings or lip-piercings. The blanket ban is the only way they can be fair, it's about image and professionalism and nothing at all to do with religion and faith.

This woman chose to make it about religion, by trying to play the "My religion trumps all your rules" card that has been played all too often by theists.

How anyone jumps from this to "fundamental atheism" is beyond me.

Winterval was an attempt by *one* city council to provide an overall theme to all the (mainly) religious celebrations that happen over this period. It was intended to be inclusive of other faiths and traditions, again I fail to see how we get from this to "Atheist's gone Mad II"

The nativity play thing is a little different, there's not much evidence that they are being 'banned'. Let's look at what caused this latest (2007) furore.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/02/nativity102.xml

The story is based on a *survey* which found that this year, 1 in 5 (20%) of schools in the UK will be putting on a nativity play. Whenever reasons are given for this they are invariably "to avoid offending other faiths". Again how you get from this to "OMG YOU ATHEISTS ARE RUINING CHRISTMAS" I have no idea.

His second quote, whereby no one wants to stop people from celebrating Christmas nor is any offence caused by the celebration of Christmas, would seem would seem to contract the initial understanding.

OK let's clear this up then. When I said "No one I've ever heard" I was speaking for me and other atheists, secularists and humanists. Obviously you could probably find *someone* who would like Christmas banned (I'd guess that they'd most like be fundamentalist theists of some type but you could probably find some atheists somewhere who'd like it banned too)

I still think the point still stands, Christians celebrating their Christmas (in appropriate church venues) is not offensive in the least and doing a quick google I cannot find anyone who is campaigning for a ban on Christians celebrating Christmas, it's very rare to find someone who wants it so.

However that *has* to be in the context of a private Christian celebration, where Christians want to impose their celebrations on others (like in a public state funded multi-cultural school) then people do take offence.

This was your comment that I was originally responding to:

So celebrating a Christian festival (although I do realise it's meaning has been diluted in general) is insulting to other faiths, non-faiths and cultures? If that is the case, we should then ban all other religious festivals, political marches, group gatherings and parades (unless state approved) for fear of causing insult. Hail O'Duffy!

You just say "celebrating a Christian festival" - this celebration is *not* insulting when done appropriately, I was pointing out that I have never heard of anyone wanting to ban nativity plays - In churches or church halls - ie in appropriate religious venues.

However if you go into a primary school and insist your religious play takes place then you give both non-religious and parents of other religions a difficult choice, their small children can feel excluded for the process and sit in class while other kids have fun and dress up or they can allow their kids take part in a religious celebration forced on them by this decision. I think in this case some will take offence.

How you find this in contradiction with "Christians celebrating Christmas" I don't fully understand. People in general don't find *Christians* celebrating Christmas offensive, however many non-Christians find Christians forcing *them* to celebrate Christmas offensive.

Is this all cleared up now?

Fanny Cradock

pH wrote: »

To be honest Wicknight, Fanny does have a point, I *am* confused

I stopped reading after this point

pH wrote: »

How you find this in contradiction with "Christians celebrating Christmas" I don't fully understand. People in general don't find *Christians* celebrating Christmas offensive, however many non-Christians find Christians forcing *them* to celebrate Christmas offensive.

Is this all cleared up now?

It doesn't fully clear it up, but I appreciate you taking the time to answer.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

In the first quote pH mentions his understanding behind winterval, BA's jewellery policy and banning nativity plays (remembering that they are celebration of Christmas) as there to avoid offence, and nothing to do with atheism or secularism. Fair enough!

His second quote, whereby no one wants to stop people from celebrating Christmas nor is any offence caused by the celebration of Christmas, would seem would seem to contract the initial understanding.

Fair enought. But where are you getting this idea that these things are necessary to allow you to celebrate Christmas?

If I am a 10 year old Jewish, Hindu or atheist boy, why is it necessary that my school put on your nativity play so you can celebrate Christmas? That isn't you celebrating Christmas, its the school celebrating Christmas.

I think the problem here is how you define "celebrate Christmas"

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Fair enought. But where are you getting this idea that these things are necessary to allow you to celebrate Christmas?

Huzza!

Anyway, I don't at all believe that displaying jewellery is essential to celebrate Christmas. I'm not overly familiar with the BA case, but I remembered at the time believing this was discrimination by BA.

I can take on board that idea that a nativity play could cause offence to some. That said, I've personally never hear of anyone being offended by such a thing (I think pH's infamous *in dramatic voice* second quote would corroborate what I'm saying there). If this is the case why get rid of them in the first place? I'm sure there are satisfactory solutions to the potential problem of causing offence. However, I do fear that the gradual abolition of celebrating a Christian Christmas outside churches etc. will become more pronounced in years to come.

As for the notion behind winterval - it seems completely preposterous (and thinly veiled) to me. Christmas is predominately associated with the birth of Jesus. It is an important Christian festival. If this aspect bothers anyone they wont celebrate the meaning behind it. Take the holidays, see your friends and family, eat too much, watch the rubbish TV (is it just me or is this year particularly bad?) and have a few drinks. I believe this is how you would choose to look upon it, Wicknight. Fantastic stuff! I don't tell anyone how they should celebrate my religions festival. But I do take exception to the relabelling of that same festival. As was pointed out, this was only one council, but again I think this is the shape of things to come.

Fallen Seraph

In a similar vein to the original to the OP, the priest at the church near where I was spending this christmas thought that christmas day mass sermon was the perfect time to launch a tirade about atheists.

If that isn't missing the point of christmas, then I don't know what is...

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

As for the notion behind winterval - it seems completely preposterous (and thinly veiled) to me.

You do understand that "winterval" incorporates a number of holidays around the same time as Christmas, not just Christmas?

For example Winterval in Birmingham, that caused the local Christians to drum up so much controversy, actually ran from October to January.

TBH I think Christians just don't get that other faiths and beliefs have other holidays. I appreciate that this is one of the most important days for Christians, but at the same time not everyone is Christian. Christians don't have an exclusive right to holidays in winter.

pH

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

If this is the case why get rid of them in the first place? I'm sure there are satisfactory solutions to the potential problem of causing offence. However, I do fear that the gradual abolition of celebrating a Christian Christmas outside churches etc. will become more pronounced in years to come.

What evidence have you got that this is happening? The recent nativity play furore is because of a *survey* that says 20% of schools have one. What evidence do you have that any of the schools not having one have been banned or prevented or had theirs abolished?, and anyway what would you consider a correct percentage of schools having a nativity play? Given current religious observance rates in the UK, 20% seems right (or a little on the high side).

But I do take exception to the relabelling of that same festival. As was pointed out, this was only one council, but again I think this is the shape of things to come.

Why do you care what non-Christians call it? As long as you can call it Christmas why are you concerned with what people who don't believe in Jesus call this time of year? Are you really saying that non-Christians have no right to call this time of year something else? Why on earth would you take exception to what people who don't believe in your God call a few days in the year?

Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

As for the notion behind winterval - it seems completely preposterous (and thinly veiled) to me. Christmas is predominately associated with the birth of Jesus. It is an important Christian festival. If this aspect bothers anyone they wont celebrate the meaning behind it. Take the holidays, see your friends and family, eat too much, watch the rubbish TV (is it just me or is this year particularly bad?) and have a few drinks. I believe this is how you would choose to look upon it, Wicknight. Fantastic stuff! I don't tell anyone how they should celebrate my religions festival. But I do take exception to the relabelling of that same festival. As was pointed out, this was only one council, but again I think this is the shape of things to come.

Informational point: "Winterval" was a shopping drive to get people into the city centre - where the council had done all the usual things they do at Christmas, such as draping an enormous "Happy Christmas" sign over the Town Hall, outside which was a publicly sponsored nativity scene. Also snowmen, Christmas trees, carol singing, lots of all that.

I phoned Birmingham Council's Information Office to check this, last year. I still have the number somewhere, or it's on their website, if anyone wants to do their own fact-checking.

happy Midwinter,
Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock

pH wrote: »

What evidence have you got that this is happening?

I merely stated my opinion as a matter of personal belief regarding things yet to pass. I wasn't aware that I need to provide evidence for this. The only figures I have to hand (I'm not greatly bothered to look for more) come from the Telegraph link you provided. It states that in a similar survey conducted in 2004 found that ~14 % of schools didn't have a nativity play. As my beef isn't with the lack of these plays per say, I don't really wish to discuss them in any further detail. However, I do think that it is just one example of what I regard (from a Christian perspective) as a wider agenda.

pH wrote: »

Why do you care what non-Christians call it? As long as you can call it Christmas why are you concerned with what people who don't believe in Jesus call this time of year? Are you really saying that non-Christians have no right to call this time of year something else? Why on earth would you take exception to what people who don't believe in your God call a few days in the year?

Why? Because that is it's name. If I turned on the BBC news tomorrow and found that they had started referring to Ireland as 'The Green Isle' because some unionists didn't wish to be associated with the Republic, I would be miffed. This despite the fact that I'm not greatly nationalistic. In like manner, I wouldn't see any point in changing the name of the World Cup because there so happens to be a tennis championship on at the same time.

Bearing in mind that you said yourself that Christmas doesn't cause offence to anyone (and I realise that you use the term 'anyone' loosely) there should be absolutely no reason to change the name. Can you tell me why there is a need for a name change if no one is offended by Christmas? The only reason I can think of people not calling Christmas Christmas is because they do have a problem with it and there is an agenda at play. I see Xmas and winterval as part of that agenda.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

But I do take exception to the relabelling of that same festival.

I hereby declare the period around the 25th of December "The Best Excuse for a Piss-up Since Paddy's Day" and take exception to anyone relabeling it christmas.

Fanny Cradock

Sean_K wrote: »

I hereby declare the period around the 25th of December "The Best Excuse for a Piss-up Since Paddy's Day" and take exception to anyone relabeling it christmas.

Good man, Keevey!

Know the one that's one too many, though.

pH

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Bearing in mind that you said yourself that Christmas doesn't cause offence to anyone (and I realise that you use the term 'anyone' loosely) there should be absolutely no reason to change the name. Can you tell me why there is a need for a name change if no one is offended by Christmas? The only reason I can think of people not calling Christmas Christmas is because they do have a problem with it and there is an agenda at play. I see Xmas and winterval as part of that agenda.

You're just making yourself look silly now! When do you think that the term 'Xmas' dates from?

"The Oxford English Dictionary documents the use of this abbreviation back to 1551, 50 years before the first English colonists arrived in North America and 60 years before the King James Version of the Bible was completed."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xmas

And Winterval has been explained to you time and time again, you continue to argue against something that just isn't happening.

Weekly religious attendance in the UK is now in single figure percentages, there is no evil secular agenda stopping good Christians from celebrating Christmas, it's just the vast majority want to get on with a religion-free winter holiday.

And having a problem with what non-Christians call a time of year is bordering on the ridiculous, I don't have to call whatever time of year ramadan falls in ramadan, nor do I have to call the 25th December Christmas - if I don't want to - as long as *you* are free to call it Christmas, attend church services on the day and bring your children to participate in a nativity play - I honestly cannot see that you have anything to complain about.