I came up with a new analogy

[Cartoonist]

In regards to separation of church and state, many people think that's the way it should be, for obvious reasons. Others can't see why this is obvious, so I came up with a new analogy.

Senator A believes in the existence of Santa Claus. I disagree, but am willing to live and let live. This same senator introduces legislation that would ground all flights on Christmas Eve so that Santa can go about his business in safety. Is there anyone, religious or not, who could support that? Shouldn't we respect his views and go along to get along? Or should we dismiss his proposed legislation on grounds that it violates the First Amendment?

[okasha]

1. Why is belief in Santa Claus religious?

Sorry, your analogy is DOA.

[Cartoonist]

2. He believes

Belief, meaning thinking something is true without evidence. In this instance, the belief is tied to religion because Santa is a manifestation of an agent of a christian god.

[okasha]

3. No, he isn't.

Show me where Santa is actually tied to Christian belief in any way.

Santa is actually the American version of the British Father Christmas/Father Yule, who is himself a direct descdendent of the pagan Green Man or Holly King. Read Gawain and the Green Knight.

Sorry, your analogy is still dead. In fact it died of overwork in this group a long time ago.

[Cartoonist]

6. Santa = Saint

Overworked? I won't ask you to dig up a post, I just don't understand how you can deny the connection between Santa and Christianity. I just did a search for "santa claus origin" and found only references rooted in religion. Specifically Christian. There may have been a legendary gift-giver in other cultures, but Santa is Christian specific. And Kris Kringle is Teutonic. Christkindl.

[okasha]

8. Thank you, I speak Spanish and have a reading knowledge of Latin.

I know what "santa" means.

Santa Claus has a connection to Christmas marketing, not to Christian belief or theology. itself.

And yes, the analogy--as well as analogies to leprechauns, fairies, unicorns, etc..--has been made here ad nauseum. Perhaps you're unaware of that and don't intend to be offensive. Perhaps you're new to this group. If that's the case, I suggest you take a look around before posting something you assume to be new.

And read Gawain.

[Cartoonist]

9. Beatification

Santa has been corrupted for marketing purposes, but his origin is benevolent. Please don't insult my belief that he is part and parcel Christian dogma. I will recognize your disagreement.

This time I will ask you to provide a post, please. Show me where my airplane analogy was used previously.

[Cartoonist]

11. additional reply

Perhaps you're unaware of that and don't intend to be offensive
-
?????
You're taking offense at something I've said. I am flabbergasted. I feel like the one who's been offended. Calling my post DOA is kind of condescending. What struck you as offensive?

[Warren Stupidity]

22. This group is the palace of the perpetually offended

Okasha isn't even a Christian, she claims to practice the "Native American religion", which would make her some sort of animist, which makes her claim that believing in a supernatural being like Santa Claus not a form of religion quite odd.

However, Santa Claus is sort of one dimensional as a demigod. The myth would be richer if, for example, in addition to bringing present to boys and girls around the world, every now and then he declared Shenanigans and slaughtered children wantonly. That would be a deity that people could respect.

[rug]

42. What do you mean she "claims"?

You claim to be an atheist. Should I accept that? Because you're surely not advancing the cause.

[okasha]

52. To reply to two of your posts at once:

Yes, your airplane story is original. It's the use of the Santa figure to disparage religious beliefs and believers that is offensive and hackneyed. If you were unaware of that, then perhaps you should have scouted the terrain a bit better before rushing in to post in an unfamiliar group. If you were aware--par for the course.

About the answer to the good Senator's concern, there are at least two obvious responses that do not breach the wall of separation between religion and the state:

1. Santa can file a flight plan like anyone else; and

2. If Santa is a supernatural being, he ought to have the ability to avoid unpleasant encounters with aircraft without human intervention, just as he's done for the last hundred years of manned flight. Maybe Rudolph's red nose is actually a radar sensor. Maybe he stays below normal flying altitude. After all, how would those reindeer breathe five miles up? Do they carry oxygen tanks?

You say your audience for this little fable of yours
You say your

[okasha]

53. Part 2. Phone acting up.

You say your intended audience for this little fable of yours is believers who want to legislate their religious beliefs into law and impose them on the rest of us. Whatever made you think you'd find any of them here, on a liberal message board?

[Cartoonist]

56. That would be offensive

It's the use of the Santa figure to disparage religious beliefs and believers that is offensive and hackneyed.
-
But that is not what I am doing. You may see it that way, but you would not be correct. I am well aware of the Santa hypothesis and how it is sometimes used to lower the level of debate, but I am using it to contrast, not include believers. I am trying to get the specific believers in religion who have no qualms about writing faith based laws, to see their stance from another angle. I would have chosen the Scorpion King if I could have thought up a piece of legislation one of his followers might propose that would be equally ridiculous


Whatever made you think you'd find any of them here, on a liberal message board?
-
I intended this as just a thought experiment as another member here saw right away. I'm not looking for possible converts here, I just wanted to run this up the flag pole and see if anyone thought it might have merit. If the response was positive, then I might bring it up with the intended audience when the time came.

Yes the notion is absurd, but so is the idea of having Santa file a flight plan. It is just this absurdity, on which just about everybody can agree is absurd, that shows the absurdity of writing religious laws. I think it is absurd to deny gays the right to marry because it would destroy the institution of marriage.

[okasha]

59. Laws that attempt to breach the First Amendment

guarantee of separation between church and state are not "absurd." They're unconstitutional. It's not "absurdity" that's brought down anti-equal marriage laws all over the country; it's their denial of equal protection under the law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

[okasha]

63. Is it okay if I "insult" creationism?

Unlike creationism, your belief that Santa is "part and parcel Christian dogma" should be easily proven if true:

1. Name the Pope, Patriarch or Archbishop who canonized him. Give the date.

2. Cite the Church Fathers and later Christian theologians who have written about him.

3. What day is designated "the Feast of Santa Claus?" What is the liturgical color for the Feast? Quote the appropriate Collect and identify the designated Gospel and Epistle readings.

4. Identify individual parishes named for him. Where might we find a Catholic, Anglican or Lutheran church of Santa Claus?

Oh, and 5. Show some sign that you know what "dogma" means.

[Cartoonist]

65. Santa rules

This also answers your other post.
-
I don't know what you have against Santa or where you came from, but here in the United States, Santa is the Man! Do you really think kids who grew up with such a jolly figure would retain their Christianity for an image of a man brutally nailed to a cross who never gave them anything? In your other post you acknowledged that Pat Robertson owes a chunk of his bottom line to Santa. How much money is plunked into those barrels monitored by some guy in a red suit?

If Santa was completely removed from the holiday season, more than just Wall Street would see their revenues dip. I went to a Catholic school for seven years. Every Christmas we were told about the three kings and how they brought gifts, and how that morphed into Santa Claus. Santa is linked inextricably to Christmas. He was ordained by the public, fuck the Vatican. If the pope doesn't recognize Santa, then why doesn't he disown him? Go ahead and ask him, and if he says Santa has nothing to do with the benevolence of the Lord, then I'll eat my keyboard. If he juggles the letters and calls him Satan, I'll eat the monitor as well.

Dogma - Merriam-Webster Online
a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted.

Maybe you don't accept it, but millions of kids do.

[Cartoonist]

66. Breaking news

https://www.facebook.com/SantaClausUnitedMethodistChurch

I can't get the photo link to work. Too long probably.

[cbayer]

105. I just want to make sure that you realize that this church is in a town called Santa Claus.

You do know that, right?

[Cartoonist]

108. So?

If you go to the site you will see a picture of Santa at the pulpit or somesuch. It looks like he's holding service. In any case, okasha was revealed as being clueless about the power and majesty of Santa Claus, and her attempt to distance Santa from Christianity is an epic fail.

[cbayer]

114. The name of the town is Santa Claus.

It the name of the town were reindeer, they would probably have a picture of reindeer somewhere on their site.

You will never, ever "reveal" Okasha as been clueless, and in doing so, you might want to tread carefully.

It is not she who has failed. But maybe if you get a bit more strident, it will come true…. kind of like tinker bell.

[Cartoonist]

118. If the name of the town was Hell

I doubt if a Christian church would call itself Hell Lutheran Church.

http://www.answers.com/Q/Are_there_any_churches_in_Hell_Michigan

[cbayer]

123. I don't get your link, since it gives absolutely no information whatsoever and

there don't appear to be any churches at all in Hell, Michigan.

So what is your point?

[Cartoonist]

126. That there is a town called Hell

but no churches named Hell United Methodist Church.
No one is requiring anyone to name their church Santa Claus United Methodist Church. It is a conscious choice made by the head honcho of that church.

[cbayer]

131. Uh, there are no churches in that town.

It is very, very common to name churches, schools, etc after the town they are in.

You need a better example. Really.

[okasha]

135. Oh, good grief.

I cannot believe you actually think this means anything or responds to the question. You poor thing, I had no idea. . . .

Wishing you a speedy recovery.

[okasha]

67. Thanks for admitting, albeit obliquely and by deflection,

that you have no support for your assertions. Bombast does not equal rational argument.

Carry on-- in both senses of the expression.

[Cartoonist]

68. See my new post

You lose.

[okasha]

136. I finally saw it.

As above, I hope you feel better soon.

[Lordquinton]

70. It's stunning how american centric this board is, considering we're talking world religions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Nicholas

He's the guy who inspired the American Santa Claus, so question answered, now stop being offended, because it's bordering on offensive now.

[okasha]

73. Cartoonist's posts

are US-centric, not American-centric.

[Cartoonist]

76. Well, . . . duh.

See the OP. This thread is about writing laws that are faith based. Writing of USA laws. Central and South America have nothing to do with it.

[okasha]

77. So complain to "Lord" quinton.

He's the one who noticed the provincial.nature of your posts. I merely pointed out to him that America and the US are not equivalent.

[trotsky]

101. It's a common shorthand that many people use, okasha.

America = USA. We all understood what was meant so address the point instead of distracting. "Santa Claus" is indeed based on a "real" saint and is a valid religious figure.

[Starboard Tack]

175. " America = USA"

Really? Are you sure USA doesn't mean "World"? Such arrogance.

[Lordquinton]

182. what does this have to do with the topic?

Why are you trying to derail the conversation?

[Starboard Tack]

192. Ask your buddy Trotsky

Why are you participating in his derailment?

[Goblinmonger]

184. So when I was going into Spain and Tangiers last summer

and the customs people at both places from those countries asked me if I was from "America," I should have responded with, "shut your mouth, you arrogant bastard"?

[Starboard Tack]

191. I think you got it bass akwards.

The rest of the world is used to the arrogance. Plus the fact that they know you will understand at least one word. Must be nice to think you own or think you represent an entire continent.
Customs are usually aware of where you come from having seen your passport. For us Europeans, they say "Ah, you are European!" But none of us have the arrogance to declare ourselves as the "United States of Europe". Mexico and Brazil both hve official names as "The United States of Brazil/Mexico", without claiming the continent.

[Dont call me Shirley]

128. Ok, the Christians stole Santa from the pagans so they could sell them the Christianity.

So much like the ruling elite does today, steal symbols of goodness and then twist the meanings of the symbols to mean the complete opposite.

Like Santas original meaning was true generosity of spirit, the RE have turned it into shop till you drop.

[okasha]

138. Well, kind of.

The Santa Claus we know only appeared in the nineteenth century, when North America and Britain had been Christian for centuries. His Green Man antecedent did in fact embody true generosity of spirit, even to giving his life for others or the land.

I try to avoid shopping for anything except groceries during the "season." One of the great things about being a potter is that I can make all my Solstice presents, and the recipients won't walk into some department store and see 50 more just like them.

[Dont call me Shirley]

161. Thanks for the history lesson. Keep up your art :-)

[trotsky]

20. It's a thought experiment, okasha.

Try to imagine if there were adults who really did believe in the Santa Claus story. How would we view their attempts to get legislation passed that affects the rest of us?

[Warren Stupidity]

21. belief in supernatural beings is a form of religious belief

even if they are just jolly fat men bring presents to children all around the world. Religion is not restricted to belief in a supreme overlord master of the universe deity. You should know that. Many animist religions believe in all sorts of supernatural beings that do not rise to the level of supreme overlord.

[okasha]

54. Wrong.

There are no cult observances or shamanic priesthoods for Santa, hobgoblins, leprechauns, brownies, etc. The exception is trolls, who do tend to worship themselves.

[Warren Stupidity]

55. There pretty much is "cult worship" of santa claus.

It is in fact rather pervasive every December. It is such an integrated part of our culture that perhaps you can't see it for what it is. There are other similar demigods, or saints if you prefer, within the Christian religion, many of whom also have their cults and rituals and celebrations quite distinct from the Yahweh Big Three in One. Of course the Christians, and especially the Catholics tend to get a bit bent out of shape over suggestions that their traditions are polytheistic, but just hang out in or around an Italian neighborhood in any major city and tell me that there is only one god in that religion.

[okasha]

61. That's not Santa they're worshipping.

It's the god whose sacred symbol is $.

[Warren Stupidity]

62. I understand you have to continue to disagree,

and you can characterize the cult of santa anyway you like, but there most certainly is a cult and old saint nick is some sort of demigod in the Christian religion.

[okasha]

64. See my post #63.

Answer those questions, and there may be a slight chance I'll take your assertion half-way seriously. At least more seriously than your objection to the impersonal pronoun "it."

Maybe.

[Warren Stupidity]

99. St. Nick is an official saint.

The European santa claus is derived from him. He is worshipped in both the Eastern and Western catholic churches.

[phil89]

180. It's an analogy. It doesn't have to

be linked to xtianity.

[okasha]

187. It does if the poster claims

that Santa Claus is "part and parcel Christian dogma."

[littlemissmartypants]

4. Santa? Really? nt

[HeiressofBickworth]

5. I've used the Santa analogy many times

because it works. As adults, we know that Santa doesn't exist except in the minds of children. So, to use Santa as an analogy for "god" gives the listener (usually a god-believer) a sample of how absurd religious arguments sound to unbelievers.

Or, other substitutions of equal value to Santa: Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, or any other mythological figure. Take your pick.

[rug]

7. Or, it gives the listener a pretty good clue the speaker's understanding of religion is a cartoon.

[Cartoonist]

10. I love cartoons

But that is precisely the reason for using such an analogy. A believer in a particular religion believes that all other religions have the same credibility as a cartoon. (not a universal opinion). By showing them that a cartoon religion should not be able to write laws based on their cartoonish beliefs, maybe, just maybe, they will begin to see their own lawmaking in a different light.

[rug]

12. That's not accurate at all.

Most people who have given the matter any thought find some value in most religions. They also note the differences among them. This is somewhat more nuanced than Santa Claus. Unfortunately, your flat view of religious belief extends to religious believers:

A believer in a particular religion believes that all other religions have the same credibility as a cartoon.

In any event, here's a cartoon.

[Cartoonist]

16. Can I elaborate?

A believer in a particular religion believes that all other religions have the same credibility as a cartoon.
-
First, I said it was not universal. Why did you quote me without including that disclaimer? It recognizes that what I said is not a flat view. A person of one religion may respect the beliefs of another, but still thinks of it as false. If they didn't, then they would change religions. Have you ever heard anyone refer to another faith as a gutter religion? That's pretty harsh. Certainly less harsh than calling it cartoony.


Most people who have given the matter any thought find some value in most religions.
-
Given the matter thought? That would be a pretty small number among those who would write laws forcing their beliefs on others, and that is the group I am addressing. I know many people who are religious and respective of other religions. I count some of them as my friends. I respect others, like John Fugelsang, who is religious and respects other religions, but he recognizes the need for the separation of church and state. He is not in the select group I am addressing.

[rug]

33. There's a big gap between not universal and few.

A person of one religion may respect the beliefs of another, but still thinks of it as false.

Religious belief is not monolithic. If one does not accept one belief, or more, within a religion, that foes not equate to considering the whole thing to be false. (BTW, calling a religion a "gutter religion" is far worse than referring to someone's view of religion as "cartoony". The former has a racist tinge.

As to your second paragraph, what you quoted has nothing to do with legislation. It has to do with the consideration of religion. Whether one has belief or not, that is irrelevant to the notion of separation of church and state. It's not necessary to be an atheist to advocate that.

[Cartoonist]

35. Few is definitely the wrong word

I tagged on the "not universal" because there are probably one or two members of the rabid right that still have some respect for other faiths. It seems as though you are implying that only a few of the rabid right are disrespectful of others. If so, then we have a big gap in our head count.

Thanks for agreeing with me that calling another's faith a gutter religion is contemptible. If you read my comments as thinking otherwise, then we have a comprehension problem.

As to your second paragraph, what you quoted has nothing to do with legislation.
-
Legislation is what I have been talking about. I am not talking about the consideration of religion. There are almost as many different views on religion as there are people. I am talking about one particular group of people, those that feel THEIR particular religion trumps all others and that this gives them the right to write laws forcing their belief on others. If you feel that only a FEW in that group are disrespectful of others, then we see the world differently.

[rug]

39. Which is a political question having nothing to do with santa Claus.

If you feel that politics is equivalent to storybook characters, then we see the world differently.

[Cartoonist]

40. I consider God a storybook character

With no place in politics. What do you think of that?

[rug]

41. I think it's an asinine statement.

Your premise undercuts any broader point you're trying to make.

[Cartoonist]

44. You aren't respecting my religious views

Calling me asinine is mean.

[rug]

45. You have none to disrespect.

And it was your statement I called asinine, not you. See, haven't you heard that it is the ideas that warrent no respect in here?

[Cartoonist]

49. So atheism deserves no respect?

I can kind of agree with you if you are saying atheism is not a religion in and of itself. However, it is certainly a religious view in that it is how I view the God question. And only an ass can make an asinine statement, so yeah, you did call me asinine.

[rug]

69. It merits as much or as little respect as beliefs do.

If one calls religious belief a delusion, is one calling a believer deluded?

[Cartoonist]

71. Well, . . . yeah.

If one calls religious belief a delusion, is one calling a believer deluded?
-
You have to ask?

[rug]

72. I'm editing my comment because I don't think you've quite picked up how and what some people post.

So, do you think equating religious belief to belief in Santa Claus is saying something about the believer?

[Cartoonist]

74. Need a new edit

Sorry, but that question makes no sense.

Here's what I think:
Belief in God
Belief in Santa Claus
Belief in The Easter Bunny (another religious icon without proper canonization)
Belief in the Tooth Fairy
Belief in UFO's
All the same to me. If you believe in any of those, that's your business, but don't write any laws based on that belief. You and okasha seem to be talking about something else entirely that has nothing to do with the OP, so please knock it off. Save it for a discussion where that line of questioning is relevant.

[rug]

75. Ok, you had your chance.

Now, since you wrote this:

If one calls religious belief a delusion, is one calling a believer deluded?
-
You have to ask?

and you wrote this:

Here's what I think:
Belief in God
Belief in Santa Claus
Belief in The Easter Bunny (another religious icon without proper canonization)
Belief in the Tooth Fairy
Belief in UFO's
All the same to me.

I will take it that you are saying a person who believes in God has all the attributes of someone who believes in the tooth fairy.

Not only is that an asinine statement, it demonstrates a serious inability to see basic distinctions.

None of which has anything to do with legislation. Next time don't try to hide stupid statements behind some mythical rationale that you're really a simple advocate for separation of church and state.

[Cartoonist]

78. Yes! A million times yes!

I will take it that you are saying a person who believes in God has all the attributes of someone who believes in the tooth fairy.
-
Sorry if that hits you in the gut. I didn't want to go there but you pushed me. I await your proof of God's existence. And yes, that is the great equalizer for imaginary beings. If you make a claim, such as God exists, then you better be prepared to prove it or you are as deluded as that guy in cell #9.

[rug]

79. No, it didn't hit me in my gut. It stuck to the bottom of my shoe.

Okay Cartoonist, you've outed yourself a simply another internet atheist, of limited ability or original thought, who simply trolls boards to argue the nonexistence of a god. And, in passing, choose to call anyone who disagrees with you on that deluded or a devotee of nonsense.

Your presence here has not a thing to do with legislation and everything to do with disruption.

Now, let's hear it. Disprove that.

[Cartoonist]

82. The burden of proof is on you

YOU make a claim, YOU have to prove it. I readily admit to my atheism. My limited ability or lack of original thought has withstood all of your BS and I stand here champion for the separation of Church and State. You and okasha meanwhile, have exposed yourselves as not the least bit interested in the OP but fixated on trying to establish credibility for a mythical being at the exclusion of all other mythical beings.

[rug]

83. "I stand here champion for the separation of Church and State."

!



You stand there exposed.

Here, this may make you feel better.

[Goblinmonger]

102. Not having any luck with those alerts, rug?

that must give a sad.

[rug]

122. You got to make one to win one.

Is that the best you can do, goblin? Why don't you take this new recruit and put him under your wing? Give him a few cartoons and he'll be all ready to join you in vigorous and knowledgeable debate.

[Goblinmonger]

127. When was the last time I posted a cartoon?

And if you aren't trolling for more posts to alert on, why do you constantly ask people to repeat the same thing over and over again? It can't be because you can't understand what is so clear.

And you know this feels a lot like a "no, mom, I didn't touch a single cookie" when you had your sibling touch it and put it your mouth.

[rug]

129. Not all cartoons are pictures.

And why are you constantly worried about who alerts on whom?

[Goblinmonger]

134. Because I've been around the intertubes enough to recognize

someone fishing for multiple alerts when I see it. I post about it not for you but for those that may not know what it seems obvious you are doing. Which is also why when you do it to me, my response is something like, "You only get one shot at the alert" so that others can learn.

If that isn't what you are doing, why do you ask the same question over and over again? Do you really not get what people are saying?

[rug]

137. Because coyness irritates me.

Really, these sub rosa insults are so weaselly.

I prefer a flat out insult to these pseudo-clever efforts.

[cbayer]

147. Do you have any evidence whatsoever to support your apparent belief that there

have been alerts of any kind in this thread.

I have been around the internets enough to recognize that people who divert the conversation into some kind of lame accusation of "alerting" are generally done, in terms of their actual arguemnt.

You really don't need that. You are smart enough to actually engage in debate.

[Goblinmonger]

163. I have a hard time listening to internet advice from someone who doesn't know who Scooby Doo is.

That may seem flippant, but one can't say they don't know the "roh roh raggy" saying and then later say they are savvy about things.

I'm not diverting the conversation. I was trying to let Cartoonist know that what rug was doing seemed a lot like someone fishing for more responses to alert on. Of course I don't have "evidence" that this happened specifically in this thread. I'm not Skinner.

[cbayer]

164. Seriously? Knowledge about a phrase from a cartoons from the 70's

is a sign of being savvy? I think there are probably 1000 valid reasons that you might have a hard time listening to me, but this particular one seems a bit flimsy.

This whole fantasy about alert stalking is just that - a fantasy. Without evidence one might even suggest that it is a belief based on faith.

[Goblinmonger]

169. Not flimsy at all.

Being internet savvy means that you keep up with things that move at a REALLY fast pace and, very often, are based on pop culture references. If you have seriously not heard the phrase "roh roh raggy" every before, it does not mean that you skipped a portion of the 70s but that you aren't out on the internet as a whole. And I don't mean watching YouTube, doing Facebook, and reading news. I mean really out in the intertubes where the bullshit like making people repeat themselves so you can get more ammo to get them blocked happens a lot. That phrase you never heard before gets thrown around a lot.

I would say the same thing if you weren't familiar with "u mad bro" "trollface" "awkward penguin" "good guy greg" and a lot of other common internet phrases and memes.

And, again, I have no evidence for it. But those that have been on more discussion boards than this one know what that type of behavior is all about. We know why people are doing it.

[cbayer]

176. Being internet savvy means keeping up with really bad cartoons from 40 years ago?

Of all the attacks that have been made on me, I think this one wins the prize for most absurd. Completely and utterly absurd.

"We know why people are doing it" - what in the world does that mean? It sounds like something that belongs in the conspiracy theory group or something.

[Goblinmonger]

179. I know you live "off the grid" and all,

but the Scooby Doo franchise is still alive and kicking.

And you clearly didn't read or understand my point. It's not that you don't know things from 40 years ago. I'm not mocking someone for not knowing H.R. Pufnstuf (though, seriously, the Kroffts were awesome). Because that isn't part of the internet world right now. "ruh roh raggy" is.

Those that have been on more contentious discussion groups on the internet (yes, contrary to the argument of some that atheists make Religion on DU the most awful place to discuss things ever, there are much worse and more contentious places on the intertubes) know the tactic. I fully realize you don't understand that. I am completely aware that you cannot comprehend that some people try to goad others into re-making comments because their attempt to get a punishment for the first one didn't work. The fact that you don't get that is one of the primary reasons I am arguing that you aren't internet savvy. The Scooby Doo reference going over your head is just a small symptom of a much bigger problem.

[cbayer]

185. I couldn't be happier for Scooby Doo and it's franchisees.

Actually, I don't give a shit about Scooby Doo at all. If knowing these stupid references is what makes one cool, you can keep it.

A google search of this phrase on DU shows a grand total of 508 hits for the entire history of DU3.

Have I made some kind of claim that I am a frequent visitor to contentious discussion groups on the internet or know everything that happens on the intent?

I fully understand about trolls and trolling. I also understand the tactic of accusing others of being trolls.

This is ridiculous. What is it you are really trying to say here? What exactly is the much bigger problem you are referring to?

You make things so personal. That's why I have chosen not to engage with you in the past and why I may go back to that position.

[Goblinmonger]

186. Do you not really remember what this was all about?

I was having a conversation with rug about whether or not (I believe yes) he was asking for multiple repetitions to get more jury shots. He asked me why I was so concerned about alerts. I told him I've been around the internet long enough to recognize what he's doing.

That's when you came in and said:

Do you have any evidence whatsoever to support your apparent belief that there

have been alerts of any kind in this thread.

I have been around the internets enough to recognize that people who divert the conversation into some kind of lame accusation of "alerting" are generally done, in terms of their actual arguemnt.

You really don't need that. You are smart enough to actually engage in debate.

Allow me to take a minor break from answering "What is it you are really trying to say here?"
In your last post you said, "You make things so personal." I was having a conversation with someone else. Now, you're certainly free to jump in. I do it all the time, too. That's not my argument. Before I said anything to you,though, you said:
1. "apparent belief" which seems to be a clear "you're an atheist and you don't have beliefs, but look, you do" kind of jab.
2. "recognize that people who divert the conversation into some kind of lame accusation of "alerting" are generally done, in terms of their actual arguemnt" which is a pretty personal shot.
So I take offense with your characterization, especially in this specific instance, that I'm the one that "makes things so personal."

But back to my point. You said in your first post to me:

I have been around the internets enough to recognize

I don't believe that for the the reasons I have given in this subthread. That's what I'm "trying to say here." I don't think you are as internet savvy as you think you are. You want to pass it off as me thinking you aren't "cool enough" but I have news for you, that's what it is all about in the world of discussion boards and the internet. Hell, that's what it's about here at DU. Have you been in GD or The Lounge? It's just not as nasty here as it is out in the cold, dark world. You have to know what's going on. You have to know the references. If you don't, you miss probably more than half the content and, often times, all of the tone of the message.

It's OK to not be internet savvy. Really, it is. And I didn't just go and jump in on a random post of yours and tell you that you aren't. You said, as the first dip into the conversation, that you are. I countered that. We've all watched enough Law & Order to know that you "opened the door" for that discussion.

[cbayer]

188. I don't give a shit about your interactions with rug.

If you think your behavior in those subthreads looks any different than his, you are sorely mistaken.

You continue to make unfounded accusations based on some belief you have without evidence. It really sounds like a conspiracy theory. And I maintain my right to call you on it when you make these kinds of unfounded accusations.

There is absolutely no evidence of alert stalking in this group or in AA. Things get alerted. Things get hidden.

You are completely off base in your assumptions in 1. Completely.

The phrase I used about being around the internets was merely a repetition of what you had said in order to make a point.

You will never believe anything I say, though. You and your magic "we" have an agenda when it comes to me. I felt like you might have moved beyond that, but clearly you have not.

I know you risk a lot if you try to have a civil relationship with me and I know the odds are against that happening. I thought I would give it a shot, but I am not optimistic at this point.

[Goblinmonger]

189. Of course I have no evidence.

I've said that several times. It does happen elsewhere. The actions that were displayed here and have been displayed before are in line with that type of action. rug gave an explanation (he likes a more straightforward insult) for his actions and maybe he's right. That's a reason I can respect, anyway. I'll think about it and see how it looks next time it pops up.

Never said I won't believe anything you say. I realize I'm abrasive and that I get personal. I try to work on that. Sometimes I fail. You came into this discussion making things personal toward me. I see you haven't admitted that, yet. I even tried to make it clear that I don't see it as a defect that someone isn't internet savvy, but that your statement didn't ring true to me. There seem to be a lot of things you don't get that are internet things. I don't feel like I need to delineate things and I'm not saying you are stupid or less of a person or less likely for someone to want to listen to because of it. You just don't seem like part of that world. Sorry if that came across as me saying you were somehow "less than." Not my intent.

[cbayer]

197. I guess I just don't get it.

It seems so junior high school to me. If you play by the rules, it doesn't matter how many people alert on you. I feel pretty sure that I get alerted on quite a bit and even have some evidence that that is the case. So what?

This is just a silly feud between you and rug.

I am sure there are a lot of things I don't get and that is true for pretty much everyone. And then there are the huge distortions that grow over time which completely color ones ability to read something objectively.

[Goblinmonger]

198. Wasn't thinking this would be a discussion of juries, here, but

you do realize that it is about the random mix on the jury, right? I think as a whole the jury system does OK, but some posts are hidden when a different jury mix would have let it stand. So especially here, the desire to have someone say something numerous times is an attempt to get a friendly jury. It's playing the odds. Do I have proof that happens? Again, not Skinner, so no. Do I firmly believe it does happen? Of course. I have pretty much gone to sending jury results that don't result in a hide to the poster so that they know.

There are plenty of things I don't get. But I don't have a problem with someone telling me I don't get it when I think I do. Perhaps my approach was too abrasive or taken by you with the wrong tone or a combination of both.

[cbayer]

199. Yes, I do "realize" that about juries.

This really reads like a conspiracy theory. Not only is there absolutely no evidence that this is happening, I do not personally believe it is happening at all.

There are several members, yourself included, who get into these long snarky back and forths which one might interpret as occurring for the exact reason you describe. Are you doing it in order to increase your odds of getting a sympathetic jury? Do you have any proof that that is not exactly what you are doing?

Now, let's get down to what could be considered data. I follow this group pretty closely. There are very few hides in this group and in my experience, there is no evidence that when there is a hide it occurs as a result of the kind of trolling you describe. It generally occurs when someone has truly crossed the line.

I also have jury results that don't result in a hide. So what. The fact that you get one once in a while and send it to the accused means absolutely nothing.

[Goblinmonger]

200. I don't need to have this conversation with you.

I have twice apologized for my attitude coming through. You have only just kept going with the your claims I am a conspiracy nut. I'm done with this conversation of that's where it's going to continue to go.

[cbayer]

201. Suit yourself.

But if you continue to make unsubstantiated allegations, I may continue to challenge those.

I never called you a conspiracy nut.

[Goblinmonger]

202. What you exactly said was,

"This really reads like a conspiracy theory."

I do note that you still admit doing nothing wrong.

[cbayer]

203. Yes that is exactly what I said. I did not call you a conspiracy nut.

What is it with the need for an admission of guilt?

I'm sorry if you felt like I called you a conspiracy nut. I do not think you are a conspiracy nut.

[Goblinmonger]

204. My problem is this

I made two attempts to indicate that I was likely coming across in an abrasive way. You very often talk about that being a bad thing. About how it is just the approach of others and why we can't get along. So I made an attempt to own my part of it. As I did so, you just continued to talk about how wrong I was. No indication of your understanding of your part of the problem. Which perhaps is either an indication that you don't think you are part of the problem or that you don't care. Either way, it lets me know where it all stands and how you view your participation in this forum.

[cbayer]

205. Yes you did and you changed your tone.

That's great.

And yes, I did continue to challenge your allegations that there is some kind of troll driven game going on to get posts hidden.

What part of that problem is mine? Do you think I should be just utterly delighted that you are being more civil to me after the way you have treated me both to my face and behind my back for years?

You can interact with me or not, it makes no difference to me. But I'm not going to supplicate to you and beg your forgiveness because you don't like the way I participate in this forum.

What I will do is be civil and try to the best of my ability to understand what it is you are saying. I don't owe you anything.

[Goblinmonger]

206. Here's how this sounds to me.

"I don't like the tone in Religion. It's horrible. And it's all your fault. I'm not going to change a single thing I do" Which means, of course, that it is everyone else that doesn't agree with you that needs to make the changes. You are going to continue to fight the good fight.

I don't think you really think that. But that's how it reads.

Good luck with that approach.

[cbayer]

207. Ok, that's how it sounds to you. I believe that, but that is not what I am saying.

I think the tone in religion is generally pretty good, but I only see parts of it. I don't think any problems with tone are your fault. I stay civil and try not to engage in personal attacks or snark fests. What else do you think I should do?

Good luck with that approach? It seems to be working just fine. As your post points out, it is how some interpret what I say, not what I actually say.

I don't expect much to come of this, but I do appreciate the opportunity to have this discussion with you. I would like to be able to have further discussions with you, but I have limits and will set them.

[Goblinmonger]

208. Fair enough. A couple thoughts.

Don't you think that if enough people are interpreting your communication in a certain way that you may want to look at your communication and see if maybe they have a point?

And I was completely fine with your post until your last sentence. That sounded very much like you are acting like my mom. Or overbearing spouse. Neither of which are overly compelling.

[cbayer]

209. Well that would all depend on who those people are and whether they

are participating in a witch hunt or are approaching me with the belief that I am participating in good faith.

When people who I know respect me and don't carry any malice towards me give me feedback on my communication, I take it very seriously.

But when people who will attack anything I say, distort every comment I make and pursue a vendetta for years give me feedback, do you really think I should take that seriously?

Perhaps the problem is yours in that you perceive me as your mom or your overbearing spouse. I am neither of those nor do I have any desire at all to be either of those. This is not my problem.

[okasha]

170. In the 70's, cartoons;--unless they wdre political--

were for children. You'll just have to give the grown ups a pass on this one.

[Goblinmonger]

171. First of all, I was born in '66, grandma.

Secondly, I could alternatively think that you are a pretentious a-hole with a stick up her ass that thinks there is nothing good about cartoons or other things that you don't think are acceptable forms of literature. And rather than realize that most cartoons like Scooby Doo are actually written by very well read individuals who include very clever allusions to those pieces of classic literature that they know and love, you actually just dismiss those that realize and appreciate this as children and pretend that you are the adult rather than the person who needs to get the fuck over themselves and who doesn't have the capability to appreciate said allusions and the overall literary merit of a genre you look down upon.

Thirdly...nope, I'm fine with just the rant in the second one.

ETA: For the inevitable jury, please take at least a short amount of time to read the post I am responding to.

[okasha]

194. I sincerely hope no one alerts on your posts.

The spectacle of a 50-year-old man having a fit over a bad cartoon and what constitutes internet "savviness" is just too damn funny to quash.

[okasha]

80. Oh, dear.

He's definitively strayed from the party line.

Kinda reminds me of Mark. His grammar and syntax were reasonably good, unlike another poster's.

[rug]

81. He's getting a good talking to.

[Cartoonist]

86. Ha ha ha ha ha

https://www.facebook.com/SantaClausUnitedMethodistChurch
ha ha ha ha ha


Boy, you two sure look . . .

[rug]

87. .

[Cartoonist]

90. Victory is sweet

Even though I didn't choose this fight. You've both failed in separating the belief in God from the belief in Santa Claus. Okasha has failed miserably in trying to distance Santa Claus from Christianity.

https://www.facebook.com/SantaClausUnitedMethodistChurch

Ha ha ha ha
Tell the guy in cell #9 to move over.

[rug]

91. Things you taste rarely always taste better than the reality.

Now, I want to be crystal clear in what you're saying. Are you saying I am deluded and belong in a cell in a mental hospital?

[Cartoonist]

92. Ah, sweet victory

Thank you for letting me revel in it instead of doing the right thing by retreating into the chapel.


rug: I will take it that you are saying a person who believes in God has all the attributes of someone who believes in the tooth fairy.
cartoonist: https://www.facebook.com/SantaClausUnitedMethodistChurch

okasha: Identify individual parishes named for him. Where might we find a Catholic, Anglican or Lutheran church of Santa Claus?
Cartoonist: https://www.facebook.com/SantaClausUnitedMethodistChurch


Ha ha ha ha ha

[rug]

93. It looks pretty clear you have the wrong person in mind for a cell.

[Cartoonist]

94. Best Day Ever!

On DU. Even rug, the all wise original thinker of unlimited ability has to resort to posting an old song instead of being able to wipe the egg off of his face.


Ha ha ha ha ha

[rug]

95. When the shoe fits, I provide it.

[Cartoonist]

96. I can play as long as you like

https://www.facebook.com/SantaClausUnitedMethodistChurch

When you run out of shoes in your mouth, write these guys. They probably hold clothing drives around Christmas.

[cbayer]

106. In case you miss my post above, I wanted to make sure you noted the location of this church.

I also wanted to ask about your reference to "cell #9". Are you saying that Okasha and rug should go to jail? To a psychiatric hospital? Or something else entirely?

[Cartoonist]

112. I caught it

I don't care where they go. I'm just getting great enjoyment watching them retreat with their tails between their legs. They both got exposed for being wrong, wrong, wrong. rug for his belief that there is a difference between believing in God and believing in Santa Claus, and okasha for saying that Santa is not a part of Christianity. I have saved that link and will repost it every time one of those two try to peddle their BS.

[cbayer]

115. That's not retreat you are seeing, but if that' what you want it to look like,

go for it.

You might be careful about proceeding with your plan.

[Cartoonist]

117. Neither one

has chosen to show their face since. They're probably too busy emailing alerts to the moderator. In any case, if okasha returns without addressing that link, then there is nothing more that needs to be said.

And I recognize your caution as a threat. If I keep posting the same link, someone is going to cry harassment.

[rug]

121. I spent probably the stupidest two hours of my life replying to you until 1:30 a.m.

I've spent part of today filing a brief to suppress an alleged confession and the rest of it getting two children returned to their grandmother.

But don't worry, I still have a few minutes to address idiocy.

[okasha]

139. I guess the idea of work doesn't enter the dear child's head.

I haven't done anything as socially useful as steer some innocent people through the legalities, but I did spend some time unloading a kiln and throwing some pots. Also doing some glaze formula interpolation, which is the only practical thing I've ever used algebra for since I was 16 years old.

But as you say, one does have a few moments for an utterly useless pursuit. (But I did get a kick out of what he thought was a response to the question.)

[cbayer]

124. What evidence do you have that anyone has alerted on anything here?

Do you think your posts deserved to be alerted on?

If they have gone, I strongly suspect it is because they have tired of you.

The link is garbage and does nothing to prove your point. There is a town called Santa Claus and there is a church in that town called Santa Claus church.

Full stop. There is nothing more that needs to be said.

[rug]

120. How do you function with all that adulation going on in your head?

If you keep saying there is no "difference between believing in God and believing in Santa Claus" I will continue pointing out what an enormously asinine statement that is. As long as you're here, that is.

[ZombieHorde]

156. I think many atheists

have a difficult time differentiating between God and folks like the Easter Bunny. I understand where they are coming from, but I think they are different. I view Santa and the Easter Bunny as holiday mascots, while God is generally more encompassing. Many Christians seem to describe God as a self aware force. You may view God differently, but that is the gist I get from reading posts here in the Religion group.

I view belief in God as being similar to believing in human rights or the borders of countries, except I think there is more evidence that human rights and borders are an imaginary creation of people than there is evidence that there are no gods.

[phil89]

183. Can you provide evidence of a god?

any god?

[ZombieHorde]

210. To my knowledge

there is no evidence for or against the existence of gods, but there is evidence that there are no human rights, borders, etc. We know we invented rhetorical/social constructs, such as authority, because we can change these constructs by merely deciding to do so. The decision is all that is needed for the change.

[phil89]

181. Why is it asinine?

Can you provide evidence for any of them? What is the distinction between believing in christian mythology or in the easter bunny? It's all unsupported.

[rug]

195. Anyone with the ability to compare and distinguish will rapidly dismiss it as a failed analogy.

Its premise is also laden with assumptions, distortions and biases about what is allegedly being compared.

It is also old flamebait.

For more, read John Stuart Mills' Method of Difference in volume 1 of his A System of Logic.

[AtheistCrusader]

14. Or, the seriousness with which we should hold religion.

[rug]

34. "should"? Is there some commandment here I haven't heard?

[edgineered]

13. I got beat as a kid and turned out fine. well maybe not

There are some religious people that believe in the claus. Problem is most of them are too young to type.

To answer your question: I think he absolutely should pass a law allowing people to celebrate santa claus. It would be every bit as big as xmas, advertising agencies and stores would still rake it in. And all stores will be closed on claus day, just like it used to be. I'll bet the churches would even hold a special mass to coincide with the holiday. And I am an atheist.

[Lordquinton]

15. They don't like the santa analogy

because they have no counter for it other than to claim it's "over used" and when you point out how effective it is, and how they still haven't explained why it's not, they claim they are offended as a way to shut down discourse.

The main difference is that Santa Clause is based on a real person, St. Nikolas (presumably real, at least he has more historical evidence going for him that any god does)

[Act_of_Reparation]

25. Pretty much

Except in my experience they also try nonsensical arguments from popularity, as if a bazillion people believing in something makes it qualitatively distinct from other beliefs.

[cbayer]

109. Nonsensical arguments from popularity?

You mean like saying there is a difference between things that most of the people in the world believe in a things that only a dozen or so may believe in? Do you honestly not think there is in fact a qualitative distinction there? How do you think "normal" is defined, say, in medicine?

That's nonsensical?

I'll, ask you, as well. Who is "they"? Do you have a list? What are their identifying characteristics?

[cbayer]

107. Who is they? Do you have a list?

[Cartoonist]

17. More elaboration

First, let me specify that I am not lumping ALL religious believers into one group. I am limiting it to those who do not recognize the need for a separation between church and state. I am not using Santa Claus as an argument over the existence of God, but instead as an example of why the separation is needed.

I strongly, and I repeat, STRONGLY disagree that Santa is not part of the Christian hierarchy. True, he is not named in either Testament, but neither is Mother Theresa. Some on the religious right (NOT UNIVERSAL) are quick to denounce the good witch of the west, Harry Potter, and the Great Pumpkin as being agents of the devil. No one has denounced Santa Claus. Instead, he is embraced as part of Christmas by these same people. So to suggest that there is nothing religious about Santa couldn't be farther from the truth.

I also recognize that some people would welcome a grounding of planes on Christmas Eve, and a closing of businesses on Christmas day for reasons that may have nothing to do with religion and more to do with partying. But do these same people want it written into law? My analogy is meant as an example of a bad law being written solely for religious reasons. If I still haven't made that clear, please forgive me for my poor use of English, the language of my birth.

[Lordquinton]

18. Don't feel the need to correct yourself

your intent was clear, but there are bullies here who wish anyone who questions them would be silent. They take any thought experiment, or pointing out that yes, there are huge, glaring problematic areas in the majority of world religions as a personal attack.

Keep going, that you forced them into the "I'm offended" stage so quick means you're doing something right.

[trotsky]

19. Agreed. n/t

[mr blur]

24. I agree, don't feel that need,

You made a reasonable and accurate analogy; not your fault if readers are either incapable of understanding it intellectually, or desperate to willfully misunderstand it for the purposes of deflection. You've landed in Deflection Central here. It's one of the main weapons in the Apologist's arsenal. Along with rudeness and condescension. Congratulations!

[cbayer]

111. Yes the place is crawling with the intellectually bereft and desperately deluded.

Run!! Run as fast as you can!!

[edgineered]

23. Keeping and expanding a national holiday

is exactly what I would like Cartoonist. I am also socialist. more holiday = good. more work =/= good. I'm in favor of making EVERY religious observance a holiday. No offense intended. No laws based on religion allowed.

[Act_of_Reparation]

26. Not my first choice...

...but that would be more fair than how we're doing things now. At least we'd be ditching the Christian privilege.

[edgineered]

29. exactly, masses are celebrations

every sunday the rector, priest, or who ever performs a mass in celebration of someone or something. that celebration changes how the priest performs the mass and he explains it. of course most of the congregation doesn't know what's going on. They are there for enforcing their misguided beliefs (instead of learning what their religion is) by listening to the sermon, or gatherings afterwards.

understanding this allows me to separate the religion from its followers and what they do and think. it allows me to accept religion for what it is, but not the actions of the self appointed leaders and their ilk.

a majority of religions agree on celebrating xmas, yet similar festivities for the highest holy day of other belief are ignored. it is not a fair game. to allow a similar festive holiday that celebrates not a religion, but a freedom day of some kind, maybe chosen to allow a second and conflicting belief to celebrate their high masses too. got any ideas?

[Cartoonist]

30. I too love holidays

I don't take my atheism so seriously that I refuse to take Christmas off work. Besides, we all Know Christmas is really Solstice Day, though in typical religious fashion, they celebrate it on the wrong day. All Hallows Eve is my personal favorite, and I love it when the right gets all fidgety over it.

Perhaps rationing everyone 4 or 5 holy days a year at their choice might work. The logistics might be problematic. Non religious Holidays like Veterans day and Washington's birthday would still be universal. The only holiday I don't like is Columbus day. I have no native American blood, but I am deeply offended at the conceit that Chris discovered America. If we called it National Genocide day, I'd be cool with that.

[edgineered]

31. AGREE AGREE AGREE

The stealing of this land and it aftermath makes my blood boil. Good thing lunch time is over Cartoonist, a bad side side of me was surfacing so I need to throw a wrench or something! Good day to you.

[cbayer]

113. Tell me, AOR, how many national holidays in the US are religious holidays?

[Jim__]

36. "Some on the religious right ... denounce the good witch of the west ... No one has denounced Santa"

Guess again. From Santa Claus the Grear Impostor by Dr. Terry Watkins, Th.D.:

Satanist Anton LaVey, author of The Satanic Bible and founder of the First Church of Satan, writes fantasy is a "magic weapon" in Satanism.

"Fantasy plays an important role in any religious curriculum, for the subjective mind is less discriminating about the quality of its food than it is about the taste. . . Thus, fantasy is utilized as a magic weapon <in Satanism>. . . The Satanist maintains a storehouse of avowed fantasy gathered from all cultures and from all ages."
(Anton Szandor LaVey, The Satanic Rituals, p. 15, 27)

Lavey knows the message of Satan can be quietly preached under the mask of fantasy. Parents will allow things, such as Santa Claus, under the cloak of fantasy into their little child's tender mind that under "serious" circumstances they would never allow in a million years. It is just fantasy. But in the vulnerable mind of that little child – IT IS TRUTH!

Of course, you and I do not take Santa serious. We know Santa Claus is fantasy. But those little children are deceived in believing "with all their heart" in a god that is a replacement for the Lord Jesus Christ.

[Cartoonist]

43. The world will never run out of idiots

He might have a point if it was a Satanist who created Santa Claus, but history does not support that.

Th.D.
What is that? A doctor of theology? Sounds like something the word oxymoron was invented for.

Go ahead and burn me at the stake if you were offended by my last remark.

[Jim__]

47. As is evidenced by people who make incorrect categorical claims.

[Cartoonist]

51. Sniff

Was that a putdown of me?
I will now slither away in shame.

[okasha]

57. There are apparently a susbstantial number

of evangelicals who think Santa has a whiff of sulphur about him. Last December I went to the PO to buy stamps and was offered a choice between a madonna and child image or one with Santa. When I chose Santa, the clerk replied that "You know, Santa has the same letters as Satan."

It's a lovely thing to be able to fall back on a language no one else present is likely to understand when severely irritated.

[Cartoonist]

58. The War on Santa

I am so used to the marriage of Santa and Jesus that this view surprises me. Still I have yet to hear Pat Robertson or any other prominent bible thumper call for his expulsion from the festivities. Could it be that they recognize his popularity and name recognition is essential to the economic stability of Christianity?

[okasha]

60. In Pat Roberson's case,

I think he probably doesn't want to turn advertisers away from buying air time on his show, especially during peak shopping periods.

How would Santa be essential to Christianity's economic stability? He might be important to American economics, given retailers' reliance on Black Friday to make up sales shortfalls from the previous eleven months. But that money isn't going to the churches, and there are Christian-majority countries in which Santa is at most a secondary figure. In Latin America, for instance, children's gifts are delivered by los reyes magos--the three kings--on January sixth.

[cbayer]

110. Do you think there are some here who do not believe in separation of church and state?

If so, could you point out some examples of that?

You have set up a false dichotomy here and it has quite effectively led to a "we" vs. "them" debate.

In fact, it may be one of the best I have seen for a while.

Who wants to ground planes on Christmas Eve or force business to close on Christmas day. As they say in the trade, you have jumped the shark.

[on point]

27. Great example in need for separation of superstition and state

[Iggo]

28. You had me at "Santa Claus."

[edgineered]

32. +1 k&r

[Jim__]

37. "Or should we dismiss his proposed legislation on grounds that it violates the First Amendment?"

We would dismiss his proposed legislation on the grounds that it's absurd. To argue against it on first amendment grounds would be a colossal waste of time.

[Goblinmonger]

38. To not teach sex education at public schools because there are people that believe

that there is a god that exists who thinks sex is a sin is equally absurd. So are abortion laws. And gay marriage laws. Just because it is a "deeply held belief" does not mean that it carries any more weight than the Santa belief in this regard. Many here, as evidenced by responses to this OP, belief that is insulting.

[Jim__]

46. I didn't say anything about "deeply held belief."

The Santa legislation could be dismissed with the equivalent of a voice vote because next to no one would take it seriously. The things you cite could not be so easily dismissed; because, yes, many people have serious concerns about them. At least some of those people can be won over through discussion. I doubt any can be won over by dismissing them. Discussion can lead to progress, dismissal won't.

[Goblinmonger]

48. So you do realize that, to many atheists, there is as much convincing evidence

for Santa Clause and belief in him as there is belief in any god. Perhaps more depending on which specific aspect of the myth we are talking about. To me, making legislation based on a belief in Santa Clause is just a ridiculous as making legislation based on a more accepted "god." I know that offends plenty of people, but it really is how I, and many others, feel about the myths of Christianity and other religions. Just because more adults believe it, doesn't make it any better reason to pass something or to pretend like it is a valid thing to be treated with respect.

[Jim__]

50. Convincing evidence is why discussion on those issues can be beneficial.

The fact that there are many people who disagree on those issues is the reason discussion is necessary. Very few adults need convincing about Santa Claus.

[Cartoonist]

84. Attention okasha

With posts appearing in non chronological order, I guess you missed this.

https://www.facebook.com/SantaClausUnitedMethodistChurch
-
From now on I will no longer be able to read your posts. As soon as I see your name I will be breaking into my touchdown dance.

[rug]

85. You're off the rails.

[okasha]

88. Definitely touched by Coyote.

No wonder I've been hearing "The Wreck of the Old 97" in the background. ...

[rug]

89. I can't hear it over the crying.

His toy got broken.

[Goblinmonger]

103. I think the point is: are you going to address that Santa is Christian in origin.

You have claimed otherwise and most of us know you are wrong.

Keep up with the witty comments; they are working well as a distraction

[okasha]

141. Many of you "know" several things that are wrong.

I'm wondering why you feel it necessary to nursemaid your A&A buddies, even when they've posted something utterly ludicrous. Other hosts don't seem to feel the need to do that.

[Warren Stupidity]

98. Somehow there is still no cult around Santa Claus.

Although upthread she more or less admitted that there was some sort of cult only it was invalid because money. Christianity, and Roman Catholicism in particular, is littered with coopted polytheistic god-saints and their cultic celebrations.

[trotsky]

100. It is not a cult SO STOP SAYING THAT!

Folks love to channel Bob Boudelang from time to time it appears.

[mr blur]

165. I doubt that you'll miss much. (nt)

[djean111]

97. Good analogy. Analogy evidently whooshes over some heads. How dare you!

Although, in a way, calling the analogy absurd kind of nails my feeling about laws in service to religion.

[Iggo]

146. Four thousand, woot!

[cbayer]

148. I'll see your 4000 and raise a thousand.

Anybody all in?

[cbayer]

104. I came up with an analogy.

Those that make analogies between those with religious beliefs and those who believe in Santa Claus are like those who make analogies between horses and unicorns.

You need a better discussion that doesn't start with a premise that mocks religious believers if you want a legitimate discussion of this.

Or not.

[Cartoonist]

116. Which is worse?

Mocking religious believers or burning the mockers at the stake
Being able to support your views or having to alert when you can't

Your post could have been written by those who feel there is a war on Christianity, when they've got a long way to go to match the number of dead victims of Christianity. You need to get over it. There is a rising number of people who reject religion and see it no different from Clausism or any other make believe story some MALE made up. And the fact that billions of people believe in God makes no bloody difference. Once upon a time, everyone in the whole world thought the Sun orbited the Earth. Galileo got alerted on and thrown in a cell.

And stop taking it personally. Yes, we are mocking the belief in God, but we know why this is a prevalent belief, parents brainwash their children into believing what they believe in. Most children are not even exposed to other ways of thought until they reach adulthood. So we are not mocking the person, we are mocking the belief. Learn to separate the two.

[cbayer]

119. Mocking burners at the stake.

Was there some question about that?

I don't think that the ability to support one's view or needing to alert are really comparable things, so it's hard for me to say which might be "worse".

Comparing me to the religious right might be amusing, but it's way off the mark.

What is it that I need to get over exactly? I am very supportive of the growing number of people who are self identifying as atheist, agnostic or SBNR. I embrace diversity and I think that people should be accepted or judged based on their actions, not their beliefs.

The fact that billions of people do believe in god does make a difference though, and it is perhaps, something you may need to get over.

What do you think I am taking personally? I am still waiting to be given the knowledge as to who this "we". I think, but am not sure, that it is a small subset of non-believers who are anti-theism. I respect them just about as much as I do those that are anti-atheism.

You have clearly got the dogma down, but I suggest to you that I am not the one who needs to learn something when it comes to this topic.

What kind of cartoons do you do, btw?

[Lordquinton]

125. this is hilarious

Horses are real, unicorns are not.

St. Nicholas was a real person, god is not.

You just reinforced his anolagy.

[trotsky]

130. LMAO!

Whoops!

[cbayer]

132. Believers in horses are real. Believers in unicorns are exceedingly rare, if they exist at all.

If it appears to you that I reinforced his analogy it is because that is how you want it to appear. This is fairly simple logic.

[Warren Stupidity]

133. Virgin Mary with unicorn.

You are mocking religion. Shame on you.

[okasha]

140. The artist who made that medieval carving knew that the unicorn was a symbol.

You apparently don't.

There's progress for you . . . .

[Warren Stupidity]

143. Did he know that Mary was as mythical as the unicorn?

And by the way, it is not at all clear just how mythical unicorns were to European culture at the time, but I guess you have other ways of knowing, so it is perfectly clear to you exactly what the artist was thinking.

[okasha]

145. Well, there's another thing you know that isn't true.

Must play havoc with your posture, carrying all that trash around in your head.

And "mythical" is not a synonym for "symbolic." The carver knew that, too. (My "other ways of knowing" are several courses in art history, I took one on the period in question just this past summer.)

[Warren Stupidity]

160. Did your art history course mention that unicorns were thought to be real during the period?

'cause pretty much they were and it is only from the modern perspective that we view the creature cuddling with the supposed mother of god as merely symbolic. To the carver and to its contemporary viewers the unicorn was both symbolic and as real as the alleged mother of god.

[okasha]

162. The "real" unicons" of the time were narwhals and rhinos.

They provided the alicorn (unicorn's horn) used in alchemy and medicine.

[trotsky]

168. Yes, of course today we know they were mistaken.

They didn't.

[Lordquinton]

142. believers in horses don't exist

Because they are real, you can see them, touch them, ride them belief doesn't ever enter the equation. The unicorn is the animal of Scotland, and there are many who believe in them, and belief does enter here because there is no proof they exist, much like any deity, regardless of how many followers they have.

The Argumentum ad populum is another thing here that is way more stale than santa outrage.

[cbayer]

144. But that is not the analogy.

It's not about whether what one believes in is real, it's about comparing groups of believers to other groups of believers.

There are many in Scotland who believe in unicorns? Really? Any data on that? It's the mystical animal of scotland. I feel certain you know the difference between a national animal and a nation mythical animal.

Or maybe not.

The Logcial Fallacy argument to dismiss valid points is in and of itself a logical fallacy.

M'lord.

[Lordquinton]

173. "c"bayer I didn't say there was many in scotland, there are many in new age movements who do

And that scotland has it as their national animal.

And we've been through this befkre, much like pointing out bigotry is not bigotry, pointing out logical falacies is not a logical fallacy.

EDIT: I didn't say they were in new age movements, but rather I meant there are many people who do, and meant to point the obtuse in the direction to where they may find people who do believe.

[cbayer]

177. Why do you call me "c"bayer? Does that have some secret meaning or something?

Again, it is not Scotlands national animal and I don't think belief in unicorns is common among those in the "new age movements". But then again, I don't even know what compromises the "new age movements".

I totally disagree with you. I think the logical fallacy accusation thing is generally used when someone doesn't really have a good argument and is itself often a logical fallacy.

[okasha]

149. I want to see the data on all those canny Scots

Last edited Wed Sep 24, 2014, 12:13 AM - Edit history (1)

who allegedly believe in unicorns, too.

The unicorn appears as the "supporter"--the figures to the right and left of the shield--on the Scottish national arms and appears likewise on the arms of the UK.

The animal more closely associated with Scotland, that actually appears on the shield, though, is the lion rampant.

And in passing, what about the Welsh? How many of them believe in dragons?

Edited in self-defense against autocomplete.

[rug]

150. Geez, I wonder what he has to say about leeks.

There must be a religious analogy there somewhere.

[okasha]

151. Or haggis?

[rug]

152. Hmmmm . . . . Jonah!

[okasha]

153. Wait, wait! I've got it!

Haggis is one of the twelve Minor Prophets. He's two whole chapters between Zephaniah and Zechariah.

[rug]

154. And his grandmother was Hagar!

He's on to something.

[okasha]

155. Yes, yes!

There'a whole geneology here! Leek was Jacob's first wife.

[Lordquinton]

172. I won't supply data to people who demand it, yet refuse to provide their own

[okasha]

190. Translation:

His Lordship has no data. He was just making up impromptu nonsesnse and never dreamed some peasant would have the effrontery to question him on it.

[ZombieHorde]

157. About the Santa debate in this thread.

Santa is a holiday mascot, which is why I think some folks here seem offended by the comparison. I like your analogy, but I can see why others wouldn't care for it. Comparisons between modern gods to ancient gods may be less offensive, but I'm not sure.

[delete_bush]

158. I appreciate that you're taking a strong stance

and not being wishy-washy about this.

The Santa Claus debate has been smoldering just under the surface for a long time, and is long overdue. It's too important for anyone, least of all those on DU, to merely straddle the fence.

"Yer either with us or agin' us" never rang truer, whoever us is or is not. If nothing else, think of the poor innocent reindeer!

[ZombieHorde]

159. Ha! nt

[rug]

166. Brilliant!

The Santa Claus debate has been smoldering just under the surface for a long time, and is long overdue. It's too important for anyone, least of all those on DU, to merely straddle the fence.

[cbayer]

167. Well played!

[Starboard Tack]

174. Brilliant! What a great idea.

Maybe ground flights on a few other days of the year, or one day a week. Think of the carbon footprint reduction.
And reindeer travel is really cool.

[Cartoonist]

178. People living near airports agree.

Last edited Wed Sep 24, 2014, 07:14 PM - Edit history (2)

Thank you Starboard Tack for your contribution. It brings up the issue of separation of church and state that was the focus of my OP. Proposing legislation based on scientific and environmental reasons is perfectly acceptable. The debate would be about energy consumption and the impact on the environment. Actual facts would be used. Sides might be drawn between environmentalists and the airline companies complaining about lost revenue. God, Jesus, Allah, Buddha, Coyote, and all other spiritual entities need never be mentioned.

Grounding them to make Santa's life easier is unacceptable, even though the results of the legislation may be similar. And as for Jim__'s argument that it would be voted down by simple voice vote, I'm not so sure of that. I can easily imagine the people floating in Karl Rove's think tankard deciding it is a sure vote getter among the religious right and would fire up their constituents by calling opposition to the idea another battle in the War on Christmas.

[Starboard Tack]

193. Well I think you're being a bit of a grinch

I don't think you wanted a conversation about separation of Church and State at all. You just wanted an opportunity to piss on Santa, not to mention reindeer. Meanie!

[Cartoonist]

196. My motives

I love Santa, even though I do not believe he exists. I love reindeer too, and would never piss on Rudolph. That nose might be electric.