What opposition to Christmas displays tells us about atheism

A post critical of litigious atheists, by Doug Giles.


The atheists I grew up with in Texas were a tad bit pluckier than today’s lardy hagfish atheists who file lawsuits every winter when they see a child wrapped in swaddling clothes.

Yep, the anti-theists I used to hang out with in the Lone Star state were rugged individualists who were so busy milking this existence that they didn’t have time to bleat like a stuck sheep because a plastic baby Jesus statue endangered their delicate beliefs.

My other non-believing buddies who weren’t the robust Hemingway types were usually heady stoners who were into physics, Pink Floyd and Frisbee and were completely comfortable around people of faith versus today’s reflexively irate, touchy atheists who pop a blood vein in their forehead if they accidentally hear “Silent Night” playing at Macy’s.

For God’s sake atheists, übermensch up why don’t you?

Giles then goes on to explain one of the latest attempts by former-Pentecostal-hymn-singer Dan Barker to ban nativity scenes and other Christmas stuff from being displayed.

Then concludes:

Yep, according to the 21st century metrosexual atheist motif, anything that offends them should now be banned. That makes me scratch my head because I thought the atheists were the tough-minded ones who could stare death in the face and mock God and His dictates, but now a silicone statue of Yeshua in diapers puts them in a tailspin. Hello, sweetie.

He mentions Dan Barker in his article, so I think it’s worth linking to this post I wrote about how Dan Barker abandoned Christianity. To persist in the Christian life requires a certain amount of intelligence and wisdom. You have to be good at life. Dan couldn’t cut it.

3 thoughts on “What opposition to Christmas displays tells us about atheism”

  1. Apparently Doug Giles does not understand the difference between governmental property and private property. Personally, I find nativity scenes (or Menorah’s) as boring as Plastic Claus, and wish my government would be far more concerned about other things than decorations at Christmas.

    If people feel so gung-ho about having Nativity scenes, why not put them in their own yards? Put them in their churches. Put them in their businesses. Is it really that important to Christians the local courthouse has a Plastic Mary with a Styrofoam stable?


  2. Nativity scenes are simply a reflection of the Christian background of a majority of the people who started the U.S. That is simply a fact. Some people don’t like it. Too bad for them. They don’t have to like it. Most Americans do like it. The majority needs to stand up for what they believe and not let a few people attempt to change the long-standing traditional practices of the country simply to suit their own personal beliefs! Putting a nativity scene on public property is NOT an establishment of a state religion. Anybody who says it is, is lying to you.


  3. Drew,

    If America operated by “Majority Rules” then majority opinion would be determinative.

    It does not—it is a constitutional democracy designed specifically to protect ALL citizen’s rights. Whether those actions are endorsed by the majority, the minority, the few or even the one.

    The question, regarding Nativity Scenes on government property, is NOT, “What does the Majority think?” It is, “Is this constitutional?”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s