It’s all about a mean atheist who, of course, stole Christmas.
The actual title is Christmas With A Capital ‘C’, but I think Alex Balk’s title is much better, funnier and more accurate:
Bullshit Resentments Fomented To Somehow Convince The Practitioners Of America’s Most Widely-Followed Faith That They Are Under Siege: The Movie.
Pretty much sums up the entire Values Voters Summit, as well as the entire Religious Right, right there.
Gayest movie ever.
Ted McGinley? Fundamentalist Christianity has officially jumped the shark!
I love the thoroughly evil villain straight out of a Steven Seagal movie.
This thing made me laugh my a*s off, and I’m a Christian, for God’s sake.
I don’t know where these people got the idea that the Founding Fathers were Christians when half of them were Deists and the other half may have been nominally Christian but were definitely in considerable tension with their faith. And the bottom line is that WHATEVER these men believed or did not believe, they CERTAINLY did not incorporate religion into the government; in fact the two are SUPPOSED to be kept SEPARATE.
But Scott, they were more concerned with the state corrupting religion than they were with religion influencing the state. They assumed some general religious influence on the state was beneficial and even necessary as a foundation for morality. They were not Athiests and not anti-religion. The modern purge of even the most modest influence of religion from public life today would have left them shaking their heads in disbelief I suspect.
I assume nothing. Aside from the motto “In God We Trust,” there is nothing in any document that states anything other than a clear line of demarcation between religion and government. I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who wrote of the “Wall” between church and state; walls do not work in one direction.
More asinine BS to whip the “We’re so persecuted” idiots into a frenzy so they spend the next few months screaming MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!!!! in the faces of confused minimum wage clerks.
BS Bob. They fled England where religion was controlling the state – that was primarily what they wanted to avoid.
Thomas Jefferson and Tom Paine were deists-that is, they believed in one Supreme Being but rejected revelation and all the supernatural elements of the Christian Church; the word of the Creator, they believed, could best be read in Nature.
George Washington and James Madison also leaned toward deism, although neither took much interest in religious matters. Madison believed that “religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise.” He spoke of the “almost fifteen centuries” during which Christianity had been on trial: “What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.” If Washington mentioned the Almighty in a public address, as he occasionally did, he was careful to refer to Him not as “God” but with some nondenominational moniker like “Great Author” or “Almighty Being.” It is interesting to note that the Father of your Country spoke no words of a religious nature on his deathbed, although fully aware that he was dying, and did not ask for a man of God to be present; his last act was to take his own pulse, the consummate gesture of a creature of the age of scientific rationalism.
Thomas Pain said “I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life …. I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.” This is how he opened The Age of Reason, his virulent attack on Christianity. In it he railed against the “obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness” of the Old Testament, “a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind.” The New Testament is less brutalizing but more absurd, the story of Christ’s divine genesis a “fable, which for absurdity and extravagance is not exceeded by any thing that is to be found in the mythology of the ancients.”
Divine revelation, Franklin freely admitted, had “no weight with me’ and the covenant of grace seemed “unintelligible” and “not beneficial.” As for the pious hypocrites who have ever controlled nations, “A man compounded of law and gospel is able to cheat a whole country with his religion and then destroy them under color of law”-
Jefferson felt that the miracles claimed by the New Testament put an intolerable strain on credulity. “The day will come’ he predicted (wrongly, so far), “when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.” The Revelation of St. John he dismissed as “the ravings of a maniac.”
Jefferson rejoiced that there was finally “freedom for the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammeden, the Hindu and infidel of every denomination”-note his respect, still unusual today, for the sensibilities of the “infidel.”
Oh, so now saying ‘Merry Christmas’ is a right wing political act?
Priya, these are private views. In public they were respectful of religion. Washington’s speeches are very respectiful of relgion. As I said, they were not anti-relgion.
Bob, did it ever occur to you that the person behind the checkout counter to whom you so blithely and complacently say “Merry Christmas” might just be Jewish or Muslim or something else?
I would not necessarily call it a “right-wing political act,” but there is an assumption made in the above scenario that is both elitist and arrogant.
Who is it that’s keeping these people from celebrating Xmas in their own way? It seems to me that it’s more that they want everyone else to follow their customs.
I’m an atheist and I love Xmas. I love the trees, I love the decoration, I love giving and getting gifts. I even have my parent’s old nativity scene even though I think it’s just a story it’s sort of an heirloom of my childhood. I love Xmas and look forward to it in a few months.
Take the blinders off Bob. What people say in private represents their true feelings. That people may refrain from being anti-religious in public in no way means they are not anti-religious. They most certainly
didn’t think some religious influence on the state was beneficial and necessary as a foundation for morality – that’s just a lie typical of the fabrications of reality christians like you use to try to manipulate people.
Priya, it’s the truth. You see and re-interpret the world through your own Athiet views. That’s fine but it does not make you correct.
All these people thought public respect for religion was important.
I don’t “re-interpret the world through athiet[sic] views” in any way whatsoever. There is no such thing as an atheist view. I look solely at the evidence and go where that takes me. You look first at the bible, decide where you want to go and then manipulate the evidence to support your desired conclusion. What I do is science, what you do is intellectual dishonesty, superstition.
Bob said “All these people thought public respect for religion was important.”.
LOL, of course, that’s why the derided religion so.
Priya, show us the PUBLIC statements and speeches where Washington or Jefferson derided religion then in their official capacities as public officials.
“What I do is science”
What kind of science and what is your area of expertice?
Everything I examine I aproach from a scientific perspective, I let the evidence show what is happening rather than using the unscientific approach that you do where you decide what you’re going to say is happening first and then manipulate and falsify reality to support your desired conclusion.
My speciality is computer science.
Bob said “show us the PUBLIC statements and speeches where Washington or Jefferson derided religion then in their official capacities as public officials.”
Bob, in politics eventually ALL communication is public. These were public statments where they derided religion. If you want something more go to the treaty of tripoli:
“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
The founding fathers most certainly never believed “some general religious influence on the state was beneficial and even necessary as a foundation for morality.” – that’s just a perverted fantasy of christians like you. You don’t like reality so you lie, make up quotes, distort and lie some more.
Priya, “ALL communication is public” is a huge cop out.
This treaty does not deride religion, it respects it.
That treaty in no way expresses any respect for religion, it expresses disrespect in that it says under no circumstances does religion have any say over the governance of the United states – a FAR, FAR cry from your absurd claim that the founding fathers believed “some general religious influence on the state was beneficial and even necessary as a foundation for morality.” One does not show any respect whatsoever for religion by saying “we utterly reject its influence and “authority”.
Priya, I have no “desired conclusion” and I don’t manipulate or falsify reality in any concience way so your charges, expecialy about lies are groundless.
I am not trying to make you believe in what I believe but you seem bent on disrepecting any sign of belief where ever you see it show its pointy little head. I’m fine with you being an athiest but not fine with the way you treat others on this site.
“My speciality is computer science”
Interesting. Programmers do tend to think of themselves as gods. That may explain a lot.
Priya, get beyond the diplomatic language. It’s not anti-religious. It is saying there is to be a mutual respect. If it were anti-religious then the Muslim signers would have been offended and they weren’t. The United States would not sign a treaty condemming it’s own culture then or now. Just think about it.
Bob,
So which religion should be the official religion of the US? There are hundreds of Christian denominations, sects/versions out there. All of them say they are the “correct” version of Christianity. And what about those who follow different beliefs? Should the US have official holidays for Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and Zororastrians?
Bob said “Priya, I have no “desired conclusion” and I don’t manipulate or falsify reality in any concience way so your charges, expecialy about lies are groundless.”.
And if you believe that you’ll buy this watch, this bridge and this Forida swampland. Please Bob, you wouldn’t be a christian if you didn’t put desired conclusions ahead of a dispassionate examination of the evidence. You wouldn’t be looking at the story of Adam and Eve and the tree of knowledge and claiming “It might look like god’s immoral, but he’s not, I just can’t explain how he’s not.”. You are blatently obvious in your putting desired conclusions ahead of an examination of the evidence.
Bob said “Programmers do tend to think of themselves as gods. That may explain a lot.”.
The absurdities just keep comming out of your. I’m sure your delusions comfort you on the surface, but no doubt they nag you deep down inside where you don’t want to go.
Bob said “Priya, get beyond the diplomatic language. It’s not anti-religious. It is saying there is to be a mutual respect. If it were anti-religious then the Muslim signers would have been offended and they weren’t. The United States would not sign a treaty condemming it’s own culture then or now. Just think about it.”.
Bob, you’re delusional. The treaty makes it obvious that under no circumstances did the founding fathers believe “some general religious influence on the state was beneficial and even necessary as a foundation for morality.”. The treaty was signed unanimously by the senate, was published in the major papers of the day prior to passage and there was nary an outcry or concern expressed compared to the screaming and frothing at the mouth the religionists of today would put up if such a clause came up in a government treaty. Respect for religion would entail acknowledging that it had something to contribute, that it was to be an influence. This did the exact opposite, it relegated christianity to irrelevant status – that’s not respect, that’s disrespect. The Muslims were’nt offended because the treaty never referred to their religion, it never said their religion was irrelevant, it said Christianity was. Of course in your world somehow saying christianity is irrelevand and we utterly reject its influence is respect – you’re fucked in the head.
Scott, thanks for answering.
I never suggested any religion should be the official religion of teh United states which is exactly what the founders intent was. They were intent that there was to be no Church of the United States like there was/still is a Church of England.
I agree with teh founders intent. All I brought up was they were not anti-religious and felt there was a place for religion in society including as a check and balance on the hearts of the people. Priya might claim say they cynically manipulated religion to control the people while scoffing at it all along.
As for holidays. Good luck repealing Christmas and Thanksgiving (oh, thanks to Whom?…) if you want.
Priya, that treaty is not the sum of all thought on the subject of Christianity in the early years of the United States and you are taking it out of context.
And if I am so ****** in the head why do you bother to respond to me. I originally was adressing Scott.
Bob, who’s trying to repeal holidays?
Daniel, nobody I hope. So, I think the above video is just scare tactics.
Bob you idiot that treaty was signed UNANIMOUSLY by all the representative politicians. It most certainly was the sum of thought on the subject of Christianity’s role in government. Not only did the founding fathers under not believe “some general religious influence on the state was beneficial and even necessary as a foundation for morality.”, virtually NO ONE did at the time. Far from being respectful if you tried to pass a provision like that the religionists would be screaming bloody murder because they’d consider it far, far, far beyond disrespectful
That should read “If you tried to pass a provision like that TODAY…”
Priya, I am not an idiot and you are misunderstanding me. I did not claim the founders thought that Christianity was or should be an official pillar of the United States. I claim they recognized its importance in civil life and they did. In other words I doubt they would all agree with your views today.
All the treaty claims, for diplomatic reasons and in the context of the dispute at hand, that the United States is not a Christian Nation. I never said it was or should be a legal and official Christian Nation.
I, like you, don’t want to live under the tyranny of a so called Christian Nation because I fundamentally distrust the motives and ability of flawed Christian people to truly act Christian when given unchecked power.
Fundamentally, I distrust humans to implement a truly Christian Nation without being corrupted let alone the fact that America is now a multicultural society and not nearly as Christian as it was in 1796. We Christians have a hard enough time running our churches and institutions as it is.
Which is why I personally am alarmed at the rise of the Tea Party which seems to be going in a hard religious right direction.
Straw man Bob, I never claimed you said the founders thought that christianity was or should be an official pillar of the United States.
What you said was “They assumed some general religious influence on the state was beneficial and even necessary as a foundation for morality.”.
That quite simply was a lie and the speech of many of the founders and the treaty of Tripoli show it was a lie. And by the way that unanimous vote on the Treaty of Tripoli that said the U.S. is not in ANY sense founded on the christian religion was only the 3rd time out of 339 votes where the vote was unanimous.
It could only be a lie if I knew it was false and said it anyway. If not it would only be a false statement. So, are you saying I lied or make a factual error in your judgement?
Christmas isn’t even the true birthday of Jesus (if he existed at all); it’s a bastardized pagan holiday. So, the joke’s on them.
Actually the joke’s not on them. They know full well that the early Church placed Christmas to correspond with the Roman Saturnalia and the ‘rebirth of the sun’. Most scholars believe Jesus was most likely born some time in the spring (based on biblical accounts). Maybe they should switch it with Easter, but then the symbolism (which it mostly is) of birth, death, and re-birth would be lost.
Atheists certainly don’t want to repeal holidays. We like getting off work just as much as everyone else. We also like eating and getting presents.
What is this obsession with Christians needing to insert God into our government? I don’t care if xtians practise their religion–I do care if they try to use tax dollars to do it. I don’t care if they wish me a merry xmas–I do care when they act like asses and try to force everyone else to do it. Why is it that they need to insert god into the pledge and put god on money and government buildings and stick big ugly 10 commandment statues everywhere–and aren’t these statues and names of god on buildings and money graven images? Isn’t that one of the commandments?
“What is this obsession with Christians needing to insert God into our government?”
I am only one participant/observer but I believe it is based on irrational fear. They feel they are defending the last vestiges of what was believed to be a Christian Civilization against the hoards of pagan barbarians. They buy into the slippery slope argument that for example, equal civil rights for LGBT people, will ultimately lead to Christian children being taken from their homes by the state of some such nonsense. They are really paranoid but unfortunately some of the reaction only feeds their paranoia.
The truth is that if we Christians just lived our own lives by our own standards I think no one would bother us.
Bob, you pretty much nailed it, there.
Thanks.
OMG. Was that Alec Baldwin? And that really cool lawyer from Boston Legal? OMG. First, our founding fathers stated there is a separation between church and state. Done.
Second, No one is going after the Christians! They are enforcing the Constitution; the very document that gives them the freedom to spout against gays, jews, women, men with hats and divorcees.
Third, that guy from Boston Legal? Really? My respect just plummeted. I am so bummed out about that.
Post: How does this movie end? Somebody needs to tell me the ending because I have to know if Baldwin wins.
The big stink for these bigots is that other religions have holidays at this time. And there is a big misconception that if a religion is not Christian(ist) it is not a religion. They want to have complete dominion of that particular holiday season. This is the real stink behind “Happy Holidays” as opposed to “Merry Christmas”.
You will find that at base, Christianists HATE the Constitution because it gives those of other faiths (or no faith at all) full rights.
Can’t “happy holidays” refer to New Years as well, which taking place 6 days after christmas, is a secular holiday?
Maurice – that’s Daniel, the second oldest of the Baldwin Bros.
I agree with Bob…it is pure fear that they are ‘losing the game’. Merlyn, I am not sure I would say the fundamentalists hate the constitution so much as really think that they have a special place in it. They really do think this is a Christian nation and society, and that failing to recognize this with “Merry Christmas” is threat to the society.
In short, they are nuts, NVTS nuts.
I am grateful that God has blessed this country. If it weren’t for Jesus, we would not have the freedom we live. Without him, you can bet we will become slaves. I think this is the bottom line. This country does not belong to us. It belongs to God and we are stewards of this country to help other people to come into freedom. Who else made this country the land of refuge! It was not Mohammed. It was in the name of Jesus, Christian principles and values fought for by our founding fathers. What other principles did they use! Islam! Buddhism! Hinduism! NO! So, Merry Christmas! Don’t be afraid of the truth! Enjoy it! It only brings good cheer, not hatred.
To the best of my knowledge, the only retarded child of the Baldwin clan is Steven (I’m a GOD guy) Baldwin who against his family’s political track supported GW BUSH!
“Don’t be afraid of the truth!”
“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
–Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, 1796
“I am grateful that God has blessed this country. If it weren’t for Jesus, we would not have the freedom we live. Without him, you can bet we will become slaves. I think this is the bottom line.”
and with Jesus, at the very founding of this country, there WERE slaves. It too nearly 100 years to get rid of slavery.
Read the constitution before you start commenting on it. I’m pretty sure there is no mention of Jesus.