Atheist advertising

[Rebel]

Yep. Wanna guess the lady?

Ariane Sherine?

[Talon]

I feel bad now, I didn't recognize the point that poster was aiming for

[fireheart17]

I still celebrate the non-religious aspects of Christmas (along with a few pagan ones). But it seems a little strange to wish a non-Christian a Merry Christmas. It's kind of like wishing somebody a happy birthday on your birthday.

I do the same thing. Both sides of my family are Uniting Church of Australia (mix of Methodist and Presbyterian) although my parents are non-practicing, I'm atheist and so is my sister, but we still celebrate Christmas for non-religious reasons.

I was going to challenge Xtians to prove their sincerity in practicing "Jesus is the reason for the season" by not getting caught up in the commercialization of Xmas, but they still need all the Nativity scenes and other decorations to proselytize their holiday.

I think Ipecac's point was that some people don't practice what they preach-emphasis on SOME, I know that the Fratching folk are among the exceptions.

[HYHYBT]

I was going to challenge Xtians to prove their sincerity in practicing "Jesus is the reason for the season" by not getting caught up in the commercialization of Xmas, but they still need all the Nativity scenes and other decorations to proselytize their holiday.

Some "need" them for that reason; others for other reasons. Must you assume that, since people enjoy celebrating a holiday with decorations for the purpose, their reason for doing so must be to "proselytize?" For that matter, depending on precisely what you mean by the word (and it's only ever used with negative connotations) what's wrong with sharing what you believe, if done in a non-forceful, polite manner? After all, you share *your* views freely, so far as I can tell at least.

[Ipecac Drano]

Some "need" them for that reason; others for other reasons. Must you assume that, since people enjoy celebrating a holiday with decorations for the purpose, their reason for doing so must be to "proselytize?" For that matter, depending on precisely what you mean by the word (and it's only ever used with negative connotations) what's wrong with sharing what you believe, if done in a non-forceful, polite manner? After all, you share *your* views freely, so far as I can tell at least.

I'm not saying that they shouldn't put up decorations or even celebrate it.

Before some people misinterpret what I'm saying (even further), what I was getting at is that when I ask people what the most important day in the Xtian year is, they say that it is Xmas. That has only been a recent thing, as they have been so caught up in the claptrap of Xmas commercialization that they put it ahead of another Xtian holiday that used to get more reverance.

[Ghel]

Must you assume that, since people enjoy celebrating a holiday with decorations for the purpose, their reason for doing so must be to "proselytize?" For that matter, depending on precisely what you mean by the word (and it's only ever used with negative connotations) what's wrong with sharing what you believe, if done in a non-forceful, polite manner?

Part of the problem with the way most Christians share their beliefs is that they're either amazed or offended that someone exists who doesn't believe in their God. The very concept of non-belief or alternative beliefs is foreign to them.

[Andara Bledin]

Part of the problem with the way most Christians share their beliefs is that they're either amazed or offended that someone exists who doesn't believe in their God. The very concept of non-belief or alternative beliefs is foreign to them.

I'd be shocked if "most Christians" even shared their religion without it being part of an existing conversation.

I will allow that the majority of those inclined to share are pushy and obnoxious, some to the point of being downright unChristian.

That last cartoon just oozes inside joke smugness. Very unbecoming of either side.

^-.-^

[Ghel]

I'd be shocked if "most Christians" even shared their religion without it being part of an existing conversation.

You must not recognize how thoroughly Christianity permeates American society. In my part of the country, you can't go 3 blocks without seeing a church. Every one of my coworkers is Christian. Over half of them are very active in their church. I'm not saying that's a bad thing - I'm glad that they actively support their community. What bothers me about it is that I can't go two days without hearing about what their church is doing. And I can't even say anything about how it bothers me because it would make my coworkers hostile towards me.

We've had a lot of customers come into the bank this month and say "Screw this 'Happy Holidays' stuff, Merry Christmas!" Now, nobody has said "Happy Holidays" to these customers before they said this. (Even I frequently say "Merry Christmas" to customers if I know they're Christian or if they say it to me first.) The interesting thing is the horrible contempt with which the customers say "Happy Holidays," as if it would be a personal insult that somebody might even consider saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas." So, yes, they're sharing their religion without it already being part of the conversation.

I will allow that the majority of those inclined to share are pushy and obnoxious...

Did I say anything about pushy or obnoxious? I said amazed or offended. However, there was the woman who walked up to me in a fast food restaurant, put her arm across my shoulders, and said, "Isn't this a beautiful day the Lord has given us?" That was obnoxious.

... some to the point of being downright unChristian.

Please define "unChristian" in this context. The only definition I currently recognize for "Christian" is "one who believes that Jesus Christ died for our sins and rose from the dead." But that's a noun. You're using it as an adjective, as in "Christian (or unChristian) behavior." I'm afraid that's terribly vague.

As a reminder, "Christian" doesn't mean "good" or "polite" or "respectful." We already have words for those things.

That last cartoon just oozes inside joke smugness.

Inside joke? It's a reference to international news - how could that possibly be an inside joke?

Smugness? Well, if you consider it smug to promote peace and tolerance while many Christians get caught up in the "commercialization of Christmas," then call me smug.

[HYHYBT]

Before some people misinterpret what I'm saying (even further), what I was getting at is that when I ask people what the most important day in the Xtian year is, they say that it is Xmas. That has only been a recent thing, as they have been so caught up in the claptrap of Xmas commercialization that they put it ahead of another Xtian holiday that used to get more reverence.

I think Easter still gets more reverence, just less attention. Christmas is a lot more *fun* than Easter; not such a bad thing, especially as Easter immediately follows the rather depressing second half of Holy Week. And anyway, despite the change of a season, you cannot really separate them.

What bothers me about it is that I can't go two days without hearing about what their church is doing. And I can't even say anything about how it bothers me because it would make my coworkers hostile towards me.

In and of itself, there's nothing wrong with that; people talk about what's going on in their lives and within their social circles all the time, and that doesn't suddenly become wrong just because their social lives tie into church. Having to hide or mask that connection, or to avoid talking about that aspect of their lives at all, is just as unfair, unreasonable, choose your own word for it, as gay people having to engage in pronoun-switching or keep silent about *that* aspect of their lives because their coworkers are straight.

Notice the "in and of itself," though. If the purpose of the conversation is to make their atheist coworkers uncomfortable, that's very different... but it's not the same thing as your happening to be uncomfortable hearing a normal conversation, and of course from here it's impossible to tell which it is, which is why I'm pointing out the distinction.

We've had a lot of customers come into the bank this month and say "Screw this 'Happy Holidays' stuff, Merry Christmas!" Now, nobody has said "Happy Holidays" to these customers before they said this. (Even I frequently say "Merry Christmas" to customers if I know they're Christian or if they say it to me first.) The interesting thing is the horrible contempt with which the customers say "Happy Holidays," as if it would be a personal insult that somebody might even consider saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas." So, yes, they're sharing their religion without it already being part of the conversation.

That certainly is rude... but then, I seriously doubt that's anywhere near a large portion of Christians that do that (though any is too many), nor does celebrating Christmas under that name require being Christian. There are quite a few people who go for the greenery, lights, Santa Claus, etc without caring a thing for Jesus, and, inexplicably, at least some of them get upset over the name not being used.

Please define "unChristian" in this context. The only definition I currently recognize for "Christian" is "one who believes that Jesus Christ died for our sins and rose from the dead." But that's a noun. You're using it as an adjective, as in "Christian (or unChristian) behavior." I'm afraid that's terribly vague.

As a reminder, "Christian" doesn't mean "good" or "polite" or "respectful." We already have words for those things.

Quite true. Generally, "unchristian" as an adjective refers to behaviors that are contrary to the principles of Christianity, whether generally practiced or not. But since there's such a variety of opinion on that, and anyway, as you say, most of it can be covered by other terms, it's usually better not to use. On the other hand, it's important to point out when people aren't living up to the principles of their faith, to counteract the false claim that the fact that many Christians behave badly means that Christianity is a bad thing. It's a necessary separation that tends to get lost, all too often deliberately, when conversations include statements like "Christians are liars" or "Christians are bigots" or whatever.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Inside joke? It's a reference to international news - how could that possibly be an inside joke?

It's an inside joke in the sense that it relies entirely on and caters specifically to a somewhat specific community and at least half of it has to do with recognizing some presumably prominent members of said community, without which it looses it's humor. That's the definition of an inside joke, a joke where the humor is clear only to a specific group.

Smugness? Well, if you consider it smug to promote peace and tolerance while many Christians get caught up in the "commercialization of Christmas," then call me smug.

It's smug in it's needless 'correction' of an already grammatically correct phrase (The plural noun man denotes mankind/the human species) to say nothing of it's hypocrisy in deriding the reasonably based criticism of others whilst supplying comparatively poorly based criticism of it's own.
If indeed the purpose of Christmas is to buy a bunch of stuff for the people you know, a nice thing to do I might add, and do your best to be nice, this is definitely at odds with nitpicking over non-issues and then acting smug about it.
To say nothing of the fact that people actively engaged in indulging in their right to free speech to the point that it annoys others shouldn't be so smug about the annoying free speech they receive as a result.

[Ipecac Drano]

I think Easter still gets more reverence, just less attention. Christmas is a lot more *fun* than Easter; not such a bad thing, especially as Easter immediately follows the rather depressing second half of Holy Week. And anyway, despite the change of a season, you cannot really separate them.

It's interesting that you say that Easter gets more reverence when the Xtians I had questioned say that Xmas is the most important Xtian holiday. (Yes, I ask them, "What do you think is the most important day on the Xtian calendar?" or "What's the most important Xtian holiday?".)

Of course, religion has to be fun: waiting for Santa, drinking eggnog (spiked or not), giving gifts, getting gifts, watching football, etc. That does beat the heck out of sitting in church for a couple of hours, lighting candles, singing a couple of hymns, eating a meal slightly larger than usual and waiting for the sun to rise on Epiphany.

It's an inside joke in the sense that it relies entirely on and caters specifically to a somewhat specific community and at least half of it has to do with recognizing some presumably prominent members of said community, without which it looses it's humor. That's the definition of an inside joke, a joke where the humor is clear only to a specific group.

The word we are looking for here is "commentary".

It's smug in it's needless 'correction' of an already grammatically correct phrase (The plural noun man denotes mankind/the human species) to say nothing of it's hypocrisy in deriding the reasonably based criticism of others whilst supplying comparatively poorly based criticism of it's own.
If indeed the purpose of Christmas is to buy a bunch of stuff for the people you know, a nice thing to do I might add, and do your best to be nice, this is definitely at odds with nitpicking over non-issues and then acting smug about it.

Which isn't the point of the cartoon.

To say nothing of the fact that people actively engaged in indulging in their right to free speech to the point that it annoys others shouldn't be so smug about the annoying free speech they receive as a result.

It has nothing to do with free speech, either.

[Ghel]

It's an inside joke in the sense that it relies entirely on and caters specifically to a somewhat specific community and at least half of it has to do with recognizing some presumably prominent members of said community, without which it looses it's humor. That's the definition of an inside joke, a joke where the humor is clear only to a specific group.

I didn't think I would have to explain the joke. I thought it would be readily apparent without even knowing any of the background. All you have to know is there's a group of atheists putting up a billboard promoting peace and a Christian objecting to it despite the fact that he, apparently, doesn't "respect the spirit of Christmas," himself.

It's smug in it's needless 'correction' of an already grammatically correct phrase (The plural noun man denotes mankind/the human species) to say nothing of it's hypocrisy in deriding the reasonably based criticism of others whilst supplying comparatively poorly based criticism of it's own.

That's the part you consider smug? Wow. The minor change to the carol's lyrics seems like a non-issue to me. I didn't even consider that part of the joke.

If indeed the purpose of Christmas is to buy a bunch of stuff for the people you know, a nice thing to do I might add, and do your best to be nice, this is definitely at odds with nitpicking over non-issues and then acting smug about it.

So you're saying it's a non-issue to promote reason over superstition? That it's a non-issue to promote peace and tolerance over conflict and repression? I'm concerned about your priorities.

To say nothing of the fact that people actively engaged in indulging in their right to free speech to the point that it annoys others shouldn't be so smug about the annoying free speech they receive as a result.

I don't see how you get that out of the comic. The joke is the hypocrisy of the Christian. It's not about free speech.

[Ghel]

Notice the "in and of itself," though. If the purpose of the conversation is to make their atheist coworkers uncomfortable, that's very different... but it's not the same thing as your happening to be uncomfortable hearing a normal conversation, and of course from here it's impossible to tell which it is, which is why I'm pointing out the distinction.

One of my coworkers, in particular, does it on purpose. She is very confrontational (not just with me, though) and says things about her religion to me and around me specifically because she knows I'm an atheist. She even went so far as to tell me, "It wouldn't hurt you to get some church in you," because I declined to go to an event that just happened to be held at a church. I wasn't interested in the event; I didn't care if it was at a church.

The others, I'm not so sure.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

The word we are looking for here is "commentary".

Actually, if that was the word I was looking for, I'd have used it. The comic in question is more than straight commentary as it seeks to achieve this commentary through humor. Do I really have to spell this out?

Which isn't the point of the cartoon.

The point of the cartoon is to lampoon the Christian's reaction to their poster and specifically in light of his recent holiday purchases. I wouldn't think I'd have to explain to you that there's more to any piece of art than what the creator intended.

It has nothing to do with free speech, either.

Actually, it is free speech. And whether it's the topic of the joke or not, the situation is nevertheless a group of people doing something they know will tick people off and being confused over the negative reaction they should have known they'd get.

I didn't think I would have to explain the joke. I thought it would be readily apparent without even knowing any of the background. All you have to know is there's a group of atheists putting up a billboard promoting peace and a Christian objecting to it despite the fact that he, apparently, doesn't "respect the spirit of Christmas," himself.

Perhaps if I were inclined to stumble blindly past all the distasteful implications along the way, but that's just not how I roll. Most important being that, if indeed this guy's definition of the spirit of Christmas is purely consumerist, so what? He's calling the atheists out on a perceived separation from reality and they're doing the exact same thing back. Basically, getting pissy over something that they're also doing. All the while with the exact sort of 'woe be the unenlightened' bullshit attitude that breeds the pointless 'correction' of long-established social memes.

That's the part you consider smug? Wow. The minor change to the carol's lyrics seems like a non-issue to me. I didn't even consider that part of the joke.

It seems to me that when the whole point of a joke is indigence over the content of a poster, that content is central to the joke. It's a one-fram single-joke comic strip, therefore the part I consider smug, if indeed there is one, would be Part 1 Act 1 Scene 1. That 'minor correction', small thing that it is, is exactly the sort of 'woe be the unenlightened' type 'there we fixed it for you' thing that ticks a lot of people off. Not only did it not need fixing and indeed the fix serves only to make the wording more ponderous and awkward, but the people doing it are acting superior about it, is it really that difficult to understand that all this adds up to: smug?

So you're saying it's a non-issue to promote reason over superstition? That it's a non-issue to promote peace and tolerance over conflict and repression? I'm concerned about your priorities.

I could use this paragraph to explain to you that the needless word swapping was the non-issue to which I referred, but that would be a waste of time seeing as how you either A: already knew that and are just being contrary for the sake of it or B: are entirely blind to the very idea that doing a good thing in an pointlessly annoying way is by definition, pointless in it's annoying quality.

I don't see how you get that out of the comic. The joke is the hypocrisy of the Christian. It's not about free speech.

It's pretty easy, all one must do is put forth a modicum of effort. It goes like this, the Atheists there pictured put up a poster with a message written on it, something that it's their right to do, whilst remaining ignorant of the hypocrisy generated by their alteration. The passing Christian/enthusiastic capitalist notices the message with it's annoyingly smug/snippy alteration and expresses his annoyance despite the hypocrisy generated by his mention of the 'spirit of the holiday'. Only they're painting the Christian as in the wrong because of this in blissful ignorance that under that judgment they'd be in the wrong too.

Now, there's always been a divide between the intention of the artist and the way some people see it. But what particularly annoys me here is that the Atheists there pictured are cashing in on the 'peace on earth' message and caring not a whit for the way in which they do it or the effect it will actually have, something quite at odds with the message, given that the best way to get something you want is not to just say it, instead, maybe you should actually fucking do it.

And there's a whole list of other hypocritical crap they're getting at as well. Let's have a list!
1) Atheists making commentary on the sentiment of something derived from a religious event they don't believe happened.
2) Atheists criticizing the capitalist nature of Christmas whilst wearing the santa suit as designed by Hayden Sunbloom for the Coka Cola corporation.
3) If they really wanted peace and love on earth, provoking people is probably not the best course of action.
4) Since capitalistic interdependence is one of our best shots at getting along on this planet, criticizing it's more than a little counter-productive.

I could keep going, but there's other shit to do today.

[Ipecac Drano]

Actually, if that was the word I was looking for, I'd have used it.

Then you should have looked for it.

The point of the cartoon is to lampoon the Christian's reaction to their poster and specifically in light of his recent holiday purchases. I wouldn't think I'd have to explain to you that there's more to any piece of art than what the creator intended.

Of course. You'd have to go out of your way to see it; which you had.

Actually, it is free speech. And whether it's the topic of the joke or not, the situation is nevertheless a group of people doing something they know will tick people off and being confused over the negative reaction they should have known they'd get.

If you say so, but again, you have to deviate from the cartoonist's message.

Perhaps if I were inclined to stumble blindly past all the distasteful implications along the way, but that's just not how I roll.

What? It's never stopped you before!

Most important being that, if indeed this guy's definition of the spirit of Christmas is purely consumerist, so what? He's calling the atheists out on a perceived separation from reality and they're doing the exact same thing back. Basically, getting pissy over something that they're also doing. All the while with the exact sort of 'woe be the unenlightened' bullshit attitude that breeds the pointless 'correction' of long-established social memes.

No, it really is about the consumerism of Xmas. Don't fart and point.

It seems to me that when the whole point of a joke is indigence over the content of a poster, that content is central to the joke. It's a one-fram single-joke comic strip, therefore the part I consider smug, if indeed there is one, would be Part 1 Act 1 Scene 1. That 'minor correction', small thing that it is, is exactly the sort of 'woe be the unenlightened' type 'there we fixed it for you' thing that ticks a lot of people off. Not only did it not need fixing and indeed the fix serves only to make the wording more ponderous and awkward, but the people doing it are acting superior about it, is it really that difficult to understand that all this adds up to: smug?

It's not difficult to see that when confronted with a cartoon that opposes your point of view and that you have to go out of your way to misinterpret it and poke holes in trivial and non-existent elements and offer a convoluted explanation that it all adds up to: someone who hates to have his POV challenged.

I could use this paragraph to explain to you that the needless word swapping was the non-issue to which I referred, but that would be a waste of time seeing as how you either A: already knew that and are just being contrary for the sake of it or B: are entirely blind to the very idea that doing a good thing in an pointlessly annoying way is by definition, pointless in it's annoying quality.

Or, C: you've done enough needless word swapping of your own.

It's pretty easy, all one must do is put forth a modicum of effort. It goes like this, the Atheists there pictured put up a poster with a message written on it, something that it's their right to do, whilst remaining ignorant of the hypocrisy generated by their alteration. The passing Christian/enthusiastic capitalist notices the message with it's annoyingly smug/snippy alteration and expresses his annoyance despite the hypocrisy generated by his mention of the 'spirit of the holiday'. Only they're painting the Christian as in the wrong because of this in blissful ignorance that under that judgment they'd be in the wrong too.

It's easier than that: you're reading too much into it.

Now, there's always been a divide between the intention of the artist and the way some people see it.

Non-atheists tend to think that there's a difference and have to establish one.

But what particularly annoys me here is that the Atheists there pictured are cashing in on the 'peace on earth' message and caring not a whit for the way in which they do it or the effect it will actually have, something quite at odds with the message, given that the best way to get something you want is not to just say it, instead, maybe you should actually fucking do it.

Like blowing up churches? Pissing on Nativity scenes? Shooting Salvation Army ringers? (Hmmm...) Trouble is, the atheists are not that excitable. If they were to "actually fucking do something", then the Xtians and others would have even louder hissy fits and that just wouldn't do. No, no!

And there's a whole list of other hypocritical crap they're getting at as well. Let's have a list!
1) Atheists making commentary on the sentiment of something derived from a religious event they don't believe happened.

So, Xtians feel that they hold a monopoly on said sentiment? I've heard that before, as well as other sentiments, morals, etc.

2) Atheists criticizing the capitalist nature of Christmas whilst wearing the santa suit as designed by Hayden Sunbloom for the Coka Cola corporation.

Who had based it on earlier depictions which had evolved from pagan traditions. Not the first time the Xtians had to steal from the pagans.

3) If they really wanted peace and love on earth, provoking people is probably not the best course of action.

They didn't provoke you. Oh, yes they did. They offered you an opposing viewpoint.

4) Since capitalistic interdependence is one of our best shots at getting along on this planet, criticizing it's more than a little counter-productive.

But not the only shot.

I could keep going, but there's other shit to do today.

Like rampages.