The Instigator
Tes95
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
emj32
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

Are Atheists being malicious and unfair with their War on Christmas? Pro=True, Con=False.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
emj32
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/8/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,186 times Debate No: 27985
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (4)

 

Tes95

Pro

The Christmas that is celebrated for the most part, is about good will towards all, family, festive decorations, good food, fun, and all around it is a beneficial thing. It morally brings people together, spiritually makes people closer, and reaches across every barrier to make the coldest and oldest join hands with the youngest among us, not to mention is economically beneficial. So Atheists, being a group of people who DEFINE themselves as "believing in no religion or higher power"... what case could they possibly make. And even if they could, why would they? It could only cause further division in a country where people are already at the brink.

It is my view that Atheists are making noise to simply call attention to themselves, and to really make young, rebellious teens become Atheists, so if anything, this behavior is dangerous on their part. The Christmas tree is a tree, not a cross. Santa is not Jesus Christ. And even if you have a case with the Nativity scenes, then why don't other religions feel like you? Because they don't feel infringed upon. This is America the free. No one is forcing Christmas on anyone except maybe extremist preachers. So, based on the points I have raised thus far, I argue that Atheists have a malicious vendetta against Christmas.
emj32

Con

I accept, Pro may now construct his case.
Debate Round No. 1
Tes95

Pro

Thomas Jefferson, the biggest secular progressive of his time once said: "It is of no concern to me if my neighbor believes in 20 gods or none." America is a place of freedom, creatively, religiously, and overall, it is a boiling pot of different walks of life. However, it is detrimental to this mix's balance to transgress upon the religious expressions of another if it does not advocate violence, profanity, or other unacceptable conduct. An example being the removal of the Nativity scene from Santa Monica California, the birth of a man, regardless if people believed him to be the son of God, cannot cause a group of people, Atheists specifically, harm as by their own tongue's admission, they do not believe in an omnipotent power, a deity, a God, or intelligent design, and they do not believe in religion. I view this as a confession of discredit on their part. A Nativity scene reminds us of the birth of a wonderful man, and to remove chance of bias I submit I am Jewish, who's teachings have endured through millennia, IE being good to others, forgiveness, selflessness, etc. In all honesty, Jesus Christ never asked or told anyone to worship him, just because people do worship him today, does not mean he is responsible for this. Now acknowledging this, the display of a Nativity scene is simply the equivalent of the annual erection of a monument to a deceased individual, therefore there is no grounds for removal of it.

An argument that has been brought up to me by Atheists I have held discourse with, is that under Separation of Church and State, the government cannot in any way do anything so as to prefer one religion over another. Logically, this is an oxymoron/paradox, as Atheism is not a religion and it makes it very clear by self-admission it is not a religion. And even if Atheism was a religion, the government is not promoting a religion, but a winter holiday that has multiple associations, and benefits the nation in many ways, from a government standpoint, primarily economically.

There is no religious promotion with erecting a Christmas tree, or allowing the Salvation Army to seek charity, in letting children see the Nutcracker, or in stringing colorful lights, or letting children believe in a man who wants to give them presents if they be good to their fellow man. If anything, if this is the argument the Atheists will use, they are making themselves a religion, and they are infringing upon our rights, and promoting their religion. This is malicious for the end result would be the denial of the Christmas holiday to the people, when, as it stands, no one is making anyone do anything to either involve themselves in Christmas, or disassociate themselves from it. If anything, this is an ideal situation as no one is being preferred.
emj32

Con

"America is a place of freedom, creatively, religiously, and overall, it is a boiling pot of different walks of life. However, it is detrimental to this mix's balance to transgress upon the religious expressions of another if it does not advocate violence, profanity, or other unacceptable conduct."

Atheists are doing nothing to censor anybody's religious expressions. The only thing they ask is we maintain the Constitution's order of separation of Church & State. When this has not been fulfilled, that's when the lawsuits occur to resolve any imbalances. Also, if you want to get specific, Christians have been doing more to advocate unacceptable conduct against Islamic practice within the U.S since 9/11. The notion that Atheists are trying to do anything to remove Christmas is a baseless argument that has been constantly pushed by Fox News to attack secularists.

"An example being the removal of the Nativity scene from Santa Monica California, the birth of a man, regardless if people believed him to be the son of God, cannot cause a group of people, Atheists specifically, harm as by their own tongue's admission, they do not believe in an omnipotent power, a deity, a God, or intelligent design, and they do not believe in religion. I view this as a confession of discredit on their part."

I'm not sure what my opponent is trying to advocate. Since atheists do not believe in either God or Intelligent Design, the atheists are admittingly discrediting themselves? This is a non-sequitur fallacy, as nowhere within the definition of atheism or atheist does it mention any sort of discredit amongst ourselves. In the Santa Monica case, atheists never removed the nativity scene or did anything to obstruct its view. They just used the land, that they received from the city, to place signs and scenes that advocate a religious-free viewing of the holidays'


"An argument that has been brought up to me by Atheists I have held discourse with, is that under Separation of Church and State, the government cannot in any way do anything so as to prefer one religion over another. Logically, this is an oxymoron/paradox, as Atheism is not a religion and it makes it very clear by self-admission it is not a religion. And even if Atheism was a religion, the government is not promoting a religion, but a winter holiday that has multiple associations, and benefits the nation in many ways, from a government standpoint, primarily economically"

I think my opponent has misunderstood Separation of Church/State. That is there to limit the government from advocating Christianity within their practices and advocating it as the country's religion.

"There is no religious promotion with erecting a Christmas tree, or allowing the Salvation Army to seek charity, in letting children see the Nutcracker, or in stringing colorful lights, or letting children believe in a man who wants to give them presents if they be good to their fellow man. If anything, if this is the argument the Atheists will use, they are making themselves a religion, and they are infringing upon our rights, and promoting their religion."

In all due respect to my opponent, that argument makes no sense. Even if that was the argument of atheists, which it isn't, that in no way advocates Atheism as a religion. I'd like my opponent to explain deeper on how promoting Separation of Church/State makes Atheism a religion.

"This is malicious for the end result would be the denial of the Christmas holiday to the people, when, as it stands, no one is making anyone do anything to either involve themselves in Christmas, or disassociate themselves from it"

"No one is making anyone do anything to either involve themselves in Christmas, or disassociate themselves from it". I'm confused, so you just admitted that atheists, under 'no one', are doing nothing to disassociate anybody from practicing Christianity within the U.S.? Like previously mentioned, atheists are doing nothing to advocate the remove or destroy the holiday season, particularly Christmas.



Argument

I have one simple argument to affirm my case. The "War on Christmas" doesn't exist. The War on Christmas is a plot by the Christian-Conservative media to attack secular activists for advocating the Separation of Church/State. As it stands, atheists are doing nothing to limit anybody's right to celebrate Christmas. Instead, there are more plausible reasons why Christmas is becoming more "irrelevant" in America. According to Timothy Stanley of Oxford University, these reasons can be attributable to a decline in Christmas in America[1]


-An attack on secularists by conservative and evangelical leaders
-Rising unbelief and growing religious diversity
-A reason for politicians to attack each other over
-A way to avoid confrontation or offensive to multiple minority religious groups.

Also, as Jeff Sorensen, author for the Huffington Post reviews, you can't go minutes without seeing or hearing a Christmas song, commercial, TV show, movie, magazine, or carol within your town, let alone the entire U.S.[2] When's the last time anybody saw an Islamic, Jewish, Buddhist, Hinduism, or any religious minority being represented in the U.S. mass media system? Hell, even NORAD has a feature on their website that 'tracks Santa'. Like Jeff Soresen reiterates within the article, and what I have been advocating in my entire argument, there is no War on Christmas, and it is much more likely there is a growing war on secularism.


I'd also like to point out my opponent has neither given any examples of how atheists/secularists have attacked Christmas within the public sector, and has never constructed an argument proving this War on Christmas. To affirm the resolution, my opponent must prove that not only this war exists, but the atheists are being over-ambitious in trying to remove Christmas.

Sources

1. http://www.cnn.com...
2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
.


Debate Round No. 2
Tes95

Pro

I would like to redirect to my opponent. The reasoning will be evident in the next round. This is to instruct him to answer these questions, as they are exceedingly relevant the more information he gives. I ask he please answer all entirely truthfully.

1. Does my opponent take issue in any way, shape or form, to celebration of Christmas?
2. Does my opponent in any way, shape or form, take issue to the naming of the evergreen in winter as a Christmas Tree?
3. Does my opponent in any way, shape or form, take issue with Nativity scenes?
4. Does my opponent believe recognition of Christmas is an offense if any government figure is the recognizer?
5. Is my opponent biased, or has any form of grievance, against the Republican Party, Conservatives, or Christians?
emj32

Con

It appears my opponent thought this was a four round debate. Anyway, I'll still answer the questions truthfully.


1. No, I don't take issue of the celebration of Christmas. Actually, I celebrate Christmas with my family every year. It's a great holiday.
2. No, I don't take issue to naming an evergreen tree a Christmas tree during the holiday season. Once again, my family partakes in the activity.
3. No, I don't take issue with Nativity scenes. Some of my neighbors have them and I personally think they look very nice.
4. No, most of our governmental figures do that. I would only have a slight problem if the state officially promoted it.
5. I find myself, on the political spectrum, as a Left-Libertarian. However, I don't hold any grievances against Republicans or Christians.


My opponent has failed to

1. Show Atheists are being malicious/unfair with 'our' 'War on Christmas'
2. Show that a 'War on Christmas' even exists

I urge a vote Con


Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
In my view the arguments that were intended to support the premise that a war on Christmas was occurring was entirely presuppositional.

On a personal note, the victim mentality of many Christians is great marketing, but obviously has no basis in reality. I note that atheists are often prevented from holding elected office, and cannot serve on a jury in many regions of this country. Making the case that these tools allow rational believers to persecute the vast Christian community is simply absurd.
Posted by Tes95 4 years ago
Tes95
I have lost this debate due to my own error. Had it been round two, I would have been able to inform the viewers of why I inquired with those questions during my turn in round 3. Since I did not realize that it was already round 3, and since I have no additional round, I cannot explain to the viewers why this was relevant. Therefore, this debate, while still valid, is failed in this specific location.
Posted by emj32 4 years ago
emj32
I know, we're terrible people.
Posted by shneeba 4 years ago
shneeba
Atheists are annoying
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Luggs 4 years ago
Luggs
Tes95emj32Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro presented weak arguments that were easily refuted by Con. Pro also failed to uphold the burden of proof.
Vote Placed by iamnotwhoiam 4 years ago
iamnotwhoiam
Tes95emj32Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Separation of Church and State argument is solid. Besides, Pro fails to establish the war on the holidays actually exists :P
Vote Placed by GorefordMaximillion 4 years ago
GorefordMaximillion
Tes95emj32Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Seperation of church and state holds.
Vote Placed by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
Tes95emj32Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro offers good reasons why the persecution of Christians at the hands of atheists would be awful - if it were happening. He presumes his premise, and fails to establish the persecution is happening in the first place. Con concisely notes that the alleged "War on Christmas" is largely media driven, and this argument is convincing. The sourcing score must go to Con as well - as these were the only sources used.