Was this really necessary?

[caniswalensis]

Whatever feelings I may personally have about xmas (and those would be some fond ones from childhood and nothing memorable since then) can not be relevant to whether to fight the erection of a 'National Christmas Tree' by the government and having a lighting ceremony by the president of the country. That is simply wrong.

Fortunately, I buy myself the best presents. Being on Atkins, the eating part is not something I want to dwell on right now.

Aww, I was just teasing you.

Hey, wouldn't "Fight the Erection" Be an awesome slogan for such a movement? Puritanical tree supporters wouldn't know how to feel about it.

 

[Complexity]

That is funny.

 

[triforcharity]

We'll start with those that pick religious names today and are silly enough to have people post in favor of doing so on JREF.

Huh? I'm not sure what you mean here. Will you elaborate?

Been there, done that. I've supported that effort for some time.

How'd that work out for you? Why is God still on our money?

Then, once again, you are wrong. If we don't keep you guys from encroaching on our rights in the small things, it will be too late when you start in on the big things.

Why do you make assumptions?

Think of it like a leaking boat. I want to bail out and plug gaps from the beginning, while you (who are hoping the boat goes down with all aboard) is urging me to wait until the water really starts coming in.

Wow. Making up stuff as you go along now? Cool. Maybe you should stick to known facts. Which, BTW, includes nothing in your post so far.

We've got the ACLU and some other great lawyers; you've got Fred Phelps and his clan.

Again, making stuff up as you go along. (I'll give you a hint. Fred Phelps IMO could die right now, and I would not even shed a single tear. In fact, I might actually pour me a glass of Crown XR to celebrate.

What about Hell? Heaven is imaginary - I made it up for suckers. Hell is real - you're in it right now.

Satan

I've been to hell, kicked it's ass, and sat down a smoked a cigar. Hell is afraid of me. But hey, good attempt at getting me irritated. You don't intimidate me in the least bit champ.

How about you address the actual post instead of me?

 

[Beerina]

I agree their decision to sue over this.

I do not. Government insinuates itself into streetmaking, then, by its very presence, strips any religious names from said streets?

 

[triforcharity]

I'm going to support a suit to prevent the transport and raising of the "National Christmas Tree" in Washington DC.

Best of luck to you. Why don't you just throw you money in the toilet and flush it.

(I'll give you a hint why. The National Christmas Tree is not sponsored or organized by the uS Government in any way. )

 

[Gazpacho]

Well, which is it? Do you want atheists to go after "more important things" or not?

 

[Complexity]

Well, which is it? Do you want atheists to go after "more important things" or not?

Not being able to tell who your question was directed towards, and distracted by the eyes in your avatar, I shall answer the question.

I surely want atheists to go after "more important things".

I also want atheists to go after "less important things".

I'll let you define those two terms as you wish.

 

[gnome]

I think the problem with the boat analogy is the idea that someone wants "waiting". There is already water coming in, why not start with the bigger holes? Every issue has a level of importance and a level of opposition that can be expected-- it is poor strategy to take on low-importance/high opposition issues.

If the US government was completely secular but for a few symbolic accommodations here and there, I'd consider the battle mostly won.