PC v JC 7

Out of season because only just found, here is a recent video by Pat Condell speaking against a pathetic anti-Christmas campaign conducted by atheists of the Left. 

As very often – without his knowing it, of course – he speaks for us.

Posted under Atheism, Christianity, Religion general, United States by Jillian Becker on Monday, January 30, 2012

Tagged with ,

This post has 7 comments.

  • Liz

    In most cases I agree with Pat.  For instance, I think it’s ridiculous in these cases you hear about where a student gets suspended for bringing a Bible to class.  As long as he doesn’t read it when he’s supposed to be doing classwork, its nobody elses business.  On the other hand, if the teacher brings a Bible and starts giving out gold stars for verse memorization, thats another thing.  Thats when you really want to be able to invoke separation of church and state. 

  • Don L

    Freedom From Religion vs. Freedom of Religion MythYou Have Freedom Of, not Freedom From Religion? By Austin Cline  Myth:
    You have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Response:
    This claim is common, but it rests on a misunderstanding of what real freedom of religion entails. The most important thing to remember is that freedom of religion, if it is going to apply to everyone, also requires freedom from religion. Why is that? You do not truly have the freedom to practice your religious beliefs if you are also required to adhere to any of the religious beliefs or rules of other religions. As an obvious example, could we really say that Jews and Muslims would have freedom of religion if they were required to show same respect to images of Jesus that Christians have? Would Christians and Muslims really have freedom of their religion if they were required to wear yarmulkes? Would Christians and Jews have freedom of religion if they were required to adhere to Muslim dietary restrictions? Simply pointing out that people have the freedom to pray however they wish is not enough. Forcing people to accept some particular idea or adhere to behavioral standards from someone else’s religion means that their religious freedom is being infringed upon. Freedom from religion does not mean, as some mistakenly seem to claim, being free from seeing religion in society. No one has the right not to see churches, religious expression, and other examples of religious belief in our nation — and those who advocate freedom of religion do not claim otherwise. What freedom from religion does mean, however, is the freedom from the rules and dogmas of other people’s religious beliefs so that we can be free to follow the demands of our own conscience, whether they take a religious form or not. Thus, we have both freedom of religion and freedom from religion because they are two sides of the same coin. Interestingly, the misunderstandings here can be found in many other myths, misconceptions and misunderstandings as well. Many people don’t realize — or don’t care — that real religious liberty must exist for everyone, not just for themselves. It’s no coincidence that people who object to the principle of “freedom from religion” are adherents of religious groups whose doctrines or standards would be the ones enforced by the state. Since they already voluntarily accept these doctrines or standards, they don’t expect to experience any conflicts with state enforcement or endorsement. What we have, then, is a failure of moral imagination: these people are unable to really imagine themselves in the shoes of religious minorities who don’t voluntarily accept these doctrines or standards and, hence, experience an infringement on their religious liberties through state enforcement or endorsement.  That, or they simply don’t care what religious minorities experience because they think they have the One True Religion. 

    • Don L

      This was typed in perfectly and spaced between paragraphs.  Upon Post as…all paragraph separation was eliminated…Sorry.

  • Frank

    The Art of Humbuggery, with Pat Condell

    • Jillian Becker

      Frank – 

      Thanks for the link. She insists the only point at issue is that a nativity scene should not be set up on state property. Her reasoning is that the Constitution insists on “the separation of church and state”. 

      But does it? 

      “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

      That – the First Amendment – seems to be all that the US Constitution says about religion. To my mind it protects rather than prohibits anybody’s and everybody’s right to “exercise” any religion in any way they like. Nowhere can I find a word about state property not being used for a nativity scene.

      Words forbidding “the separation of church and state” are not to be found. I know learned judges have interpreted the First Amendment to mean something like that. Seems a stretch to me. And the fact remains, the phrase is not in the Constitution. 

      Her claim doesn’t convince me anyway. Why such zeal to protect the Constitution when in no way can a nativity scene challenge it? A nativity scene is kitsch, but it is not aggression. 

      No. Pat Condell’s verdict, in my view, is bang on.

      • Don L

        The words “Right To A Fair Trial” do not appear in the constitution…yet it is the essence of the 6th Amendment…

        Ah that it were my original thought.  Here’s a link to the paper: http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstatemyths/a/phrase.htm

      • Don L

        The paper at the end of the URL is about Separation Of church and sate whereas just because the specific words aren’t spelled out doesn’t mean the concept isn’t true or applicable.  Jefferson believed it to be true.