American Atheists Target Christmas in Billboard

[jmdrake]

and another:

Well if you're "keeping score" this one doesn't cross the line either.

I explained in detail why here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=3017946&postcount=13

So 2 of the 4 signs LFOD complained about were not attacks on atheism in the least. I'm not sure what grade you get at your school for 50% but....

 

[Brian4Liberty]

John Stewart attacked Christmas on the Daily Show last night.

 

[oyarde]

John Stewart attacked Christmas on the Daily Show last night.

What does he have against it ?

 

[Brian4Liberty]

What does he have against it ?

You also might ask what his writers have against it.

Actually, the segment was multi-dimensional. It was making fun of those who oppose the changing nature (to non-religious and non-Christmas) of the Christmas Holiday, and at the same time utilizing cartoons that were a big part of the propaganda campaign to secularize Christmas in the first place. They took special aim at Linus (Charles Schulz's Peanuts), who may have been the only childrens special producer that actually mentioned the religion of Christianity. There was a bit of a demonization of Peanuts.

 

[jmdrake]

You also might ask what his writers have against it.

Actually, the segment was multi-dimensional. It was making fun of those who oppose the changing nature (to non-religious and non-Christmas) of the Christmas Holiday, and at the same time utilizing cartoons that were a big part of the propaganda campaign to secularize Christmas in the first place. They took special aim at Linus (Charles Schulz's Peanuts), who may have been the only childrens special producer that actually mentioned the religion of Christianity. There was a bit of a demonization of Peanuts.

I guess the TV stations in John Stewart's town didn't show the little drummer boy?

YouTube - Little Drummer Boy

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I guess the TV stations in John Stewart's town didn't show the little drummer boy?

Yeah, that one was buried...

 

[libertarian4321]

Everybody has the abilty to reason .

Yup.

But luckily for religious leaders, most people rarely exercise that ability.

Don't worry Benedict, the gold and riches will keep rolling in...

BTW, I don't think the bill board is all that effective.

 

[oyarde]

Yup.

But luckily for religious leaders, most people rarely exercise that ability.

Don't worry Benedict, the gold and riches will keep rolling in...

BTW, I don't think the bill board is all that effective.

I do not think it is effective as well.

 

[oyarde]

You also might ask what his writers have against it.

Actually, the segment was multi-dimensional. It was making fun of those who oppose the changing nature (to non-religious and non-Christmas) of the Christmas Holiday, and at the same time utilizing cartoons that were a big part of the propaganda campaign to secularize Christmas in the first place. They took special aim at Linus (Charles Schulz's Peanuts), who may have been the only childrens special producer that actually mentioned the religion of Christianity. There was a bit of a demonization of Peanuts.

Or maybe he is evil and demented from never getting what he wanted as a kid ......

 

[idirtify]

So, I really do not understand why you feel the need to smear this man's good name by interjecting your hate for his faith all over this board, over and over again. At this point, most of you must know that it does not further our cause, so why do you do it? Or does your hate for God so cloud your thinking that it takes priority over us making headway in our quest?

I do realize that hating God is the "in thing", today and in fact, it is being pushed. Did it ever dawn on you that just like so many other things, this is also being done for a purpose and by the very same people who are heralding all the other things we are fighting against? As much as you hate it, remember that history has shown that just as guns are confiscated in countries as one of the last steps before complete totalitarianism, so is the worship of God made illegal. And yes, I do think this is part of the agenda. I honestly do. Just think about it, please.

When making such strong allegations, it would be good to be more specific. Your vague generality implies that the allegations you make are not exactly true, and my emphasis above shows that you are intentionally mislabeling the simple and respectable process of disagreeing with Christian belief.

 

[idirtify]

Don't fall for the passive aggressive trap. The whole game is to push the envelop of civility to the edge and beyond, get you to react, and then say "See? Look at the aggressive Christians and how terrible they are."

How about quoting some of the “passive aggressive” stuff, esp where the envelop of civility is pushed to the edge and beyond. I suspect you are miss-defining the term and intentionally miss-describing the posts.

 

[idirtify]

Mmm I've been insulted by plenty of online Christians when I try to civilly discuss things like Israel or religion and they are the first to use insults.

Yes, that same pattern is demonstrated here on LF.

 

[idirtify]

Yes. I've shaken the dust off my feet from idirtify.

Hey, you callin idirtify dirty!? Alright, that’s it! I’m in this fight now too!

Just kidding

 

[idirtify]

I will agree with you on one thing. This isn't worth going "on and on" about. I've proven my point from the Bible. You've only misquoted a single Bible verse and twisted it to your on pathetic ends. If you want the last word fine. I have better things to do than to continue to, as Jesus put it, "cast my pearls before swine".

Please stop the thinly veiled insults!

Using a bible verse to call someone a pig certainly doesn’t make it OK.

 

[idirtify]

Well if you're "keeping score" this one doesn't cross the line either.

Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has.

Actually, it's quite true.

 

[BlackTerrel]

Don't fall for the passive aggressive trap. The whole game is to push the envelop of civility to the edge and beyond, get you to react, and then say "See? Look at the aggressive Christians and how terrible they are."

Yep. See here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=271569

 

[Maximus]

Actually, it's quite true.

St. Thomas Aquinas would greatly disagree

 

[jmdrake]

Please stop the thinly veiled insults!

Using a bible verse to call someone a pig certainly doesn’t make it OK.

Please stop with the passive aggressive baloney. You've cried wolf one time to many for any intelligent person to take you seriously. And this insult is not veiled. Save your nonsense for Sarah "Obama called me a pig"* Palin.

*Reference to Sarah Palin getting her undies in a bunch over Obama's "lipstick on a pig" comment.

 

[jmdrake]

Actually, it's quite true.

Thank you for proving me right yet again. Some atheists attack Christians for merely saying what atheists actually believe. Yet another example of the whole passive aggressive nature of this debate. And note I never said you were the only one to use that tactic. But you certainly have used it.

 

[jmdrake]

How about quoting some of the “passive aggressive” stuff, esp where the envelop of civility is pushed to the edge and beyond. I suspect you are miss-defining the term and intentionally miss-describing the posts.

LOL. That's really a waste of time. It's like trying to get a pathalogical liar to admit he's lying. But I'll humor you. In one thread you kept trying to say I didn't know the difference between "attacking the person and attacking the message". That's your opinion, not fact. (And your opinion is wrong). I pointed out that you don't understand person liberty. That's my opinion. You called that an "almost ad hominem" (I don't remember your exact words but it doesn't matter). So when other people do exactly what you do, you disparage their behavior while trying to pretend your own behavior is civil.

So just like I expect a pathological liar to lie and say he's telling the truth even when you catch him in a lie, I expect a passive aggressive person such as yourself to continue to claim others are "miss-defining the term" or "miss-describing" his activity. It's just part of the pathology.

Anyway, I wasn't directed my post to BlackTerrel at you per se, but at the behavior. I really don't care what you think at this point. But I want others to be able to recognize the behavior and avoid the trap. Another example of this behavior is coming from Flash. Even after I acknowledged his Bible quote, but provided quotes of my own in rebuttal, all he could do was to keep repeating "You don't know your Bible". Now that's rather illogical and a (to use your term and standard) "veiled insult". Of course in your own mind you can pretend I'm "defining the word wrong" or whatever, but like I said, at this point I don't care what you think. If Flash wanted to carry on a civil conversation he could have by offering some explanation to rebut the Bible verses I provided or some other verses of his own, or even by saying that he didn't really believe the Bible anyway but wished to provide some other standard. He didn't.

So in short, you can keep playing your little games. I can't stop you. I'm not a moderator so I can't ban you. And passive aggression isn't against forum rules. It's just bad form in my world. But I'm sure it's ok in yours. And I'm also sure you will think of some cleverly dishonest way to define yourself out of it.