As I do each and every year, I want to wish a Merry Christmas to all.

Believe it or not, some of us atheists enjoy the Christmas season. Today I will exchange presents with my family in front of a Christmas tree, eat a traditional Christmas dinner, and enjoy the holiday.

Christmas may be based in the West on the birth of Jesus, but in reality, it is an ancient tradition that has taken on many different meanings. Just because I disagree with the history of one version of the holiday doesn’t mean I’m about to deprive myself of the joy and fun that comes with the holiday.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to enjoy some sausage bread, some shrimp cocktail, and later, a nice turkey dinner.

Merry Christmas.

Straight out of the Ann Coulter school of extremism and shock, and the Bill O’Reilly school of extremism and incorrectness, Michelle Malkin affirmed her position as Fox News’ minority atheist basher and once again showed her true Christian compassion as she attacked atheists. (Hat Tip: Friendly Atheist)

Joined by the equally (perhaps more so) extreme Gretchen Carlson, the story was originally about an atheist sign that was stolen from a Christmas display in Illinois. The atheist group that put the sign up wants to have their sign replaced with the added addendum “Thou Shall Not Steal.”

It’s an ironic line to attach for obvious reasons, but the backlash from Malkin and Carlson over the insult that an atheist wants to borrow one of the Ten Commandments is outrageous. They defend the commandments as if Christians are the only ones allowed to use such phrasing, or follow such principles.

They never even mention that the likely culprits in the theft are outraged Christians, the people most likely to be moved by such a line. If you ask me, what better way to keep the new sign from being stolen than to play to the compassion’s of Christians.

Within about five seconds, the story is no longer about a stolen sign, but more about “how dare these atheists demand their stolen property to be returned or replaced…”

Watch the riveting television here:

Malkin proceeds to explain how the best way to fight the atheists is to make fun of them and by mocking them. Again, true compassion from obviously a true Christian.

Meanwhile, this story is linked to some woman who wanted Santa and Rudolph banned because of religion. I’ve harped on this before, but picking the most extreme of any group is going to get you loons. I am an atheist and I celebrate Christmas. I do not support in any way the fight against Christmas, nor the removal of any of the Christmas traditions, including Santa and Rudolph.

What they fail to see, like O’Reilly and many others, is that not all atheists are the same. If there were a little more acceptance in this country and tolerance to opposing religious (or non-religious) views, we may not have this fictional War on Christmas.

And as for Carlson, she is practically one step away from Ann Coulter’s “invade them and convert them to Christianity” mindset. She emphasized that not fighting back against atheism will only lead to more power for the atheists and eventually the disappearance of Christianity.

In her defense, Malkin balked a bit at this statement (though saying “that’s true), but she didn’t seem to believe it and she didn’t really seem to want to play along with that argument.

But you can go ahead and add this chapter to the Fox News War on Christmas Holiday Spectacular.

About the only shining moment in this whole fiasco was Megyn Kelly’s in-your-face debate with O’Reilly where she vehemently defended the atheist sign in Washington, despite all of the inaccuracies and wrongness Bill tried to throw at her.

Here’s that one:

That Megyn Kelly is one hot piece of…

So please, Fox News, stop the War on Atheism Christmas that you are pushing so hard. You are simply creating news, rather than reporting it, and that is a cardinal sin in journalism (pardon the figure of speech).

And atheists — lighten up. I agree with you on many of the principles when it comes to Christmas, but I am also a big enough person to enjoy the holidays for what they are — tradition. There is no need to start fights just to get attention, especially when 99 percent of the attention it gets is negative. Just enjoy your time off from work and put up some lights.

It’s also a great time to get some turkey at a reasonable price.

Bill O’Reilly’s defense of his culture war continues, as he once again takes on the “war on Christmas” in a recent Talking Points on The O’Reilly Factor.

Here is O’Reilly bashing atheists and the “war on Christmas” on Dec. 2.

If you read this site, you know that I am an atheist, but also a conservative. I also have no problem with Christmas being celebrated in this country. So I take offense when people bash atheists as Christmas-hating liberal godless scumbags. Just as you wouldn’t lump all Muslims into the extremist category, and you wouldn’t call all Christians fundamentalists, it is not fair to call all atheists fanatical. In my disgust at this segment, I fired off the following email to Mr. O’Reilly:

Bill,

Since when are atheists “fanatical groups?” Believe it or not, many of us atheists completely support and celebrate Christmas. I say “Merry Christmas” with no regrets. I do this because Christmas is not a religious holiday anymore, it’s a consumer driven celebration that is simply fun and harmless.

And how is it inappropriate for an anti-religious sign to be posted next to a Nativity scene, but it’s not inappropriate for a Nativity scene to be on federal property?

Your comparisons of Jesus and Dr. King are just plain bad logic. We honor Dr. King’s birthday, but we don’t celebrate “Kingmas,” do we? Dr. King is not the basis of a religion, he was a man who followed one. There are huge differences between the celebration of the birthdays and your comparison of the two is simply idiotic.

Also, your use of the phrase “small fanatical group” implies that we atheists can simply be bullied away because we are in the minority. This will never happen. Sure, there are some atheists who are more “fanatical” (to use your word) than others, just as they are in every religion. Would you call all Christians a fanatical group because of what one Christian, or group of Christians says? Of course you wouldn’t. Atheists are no different than you, Bill. They simply don’t believe in a god.

Do you believe that Zeus is watching over you? No. You are a non-believer of every religion in history, except one. I just don’t believe in that last one that you do. There is nothing extreme or fanatical about that.

I, an atheist, have never been to jail, never been arrested, never even gotten a speeding ticket. I am highly educated and I’ve voted Republican in every election in my life. You and I agree many issues in the political world. The only difference is that I don’t believe in a god. In fact, the majority of educated people do not. It’s not because we’re trying to fight you in a culture war, it’s because we believe what we see and what the evidence shows us. My lack of a religious belief has had zero impact on any other decisions in my life. It does not affect my morals or my decency as a human.

Perhaps if you were willing to have a little faith in human beings you’d see that they’re not all the same. Learn a little bit about atheism and you’ll find out that it’s not so scary.

Perhaps if atheists were treated like equal citizens, instead of constantly insulted and stepped on, we wouldn’t have to fight for attention in such “offensive” ways.

There are more atheists and agnostics than there are Jews and Muslims, but you wouldn’t dare call all Jews in America a “small fanatical group.” Have some respect for your fellow Americans. There are millions of us hard-working atheists that go to work everyday like everyone else. Atheists are policeman, soldiers, salesmen, firefighters and store clerks.

Other than the fictional culture war, I enjoy the show. But please cut the atheist bashing. The majority of us (like any group) are good people.

Merry Christmas.

I usually like Fox News, at least more than most people on the Internet. I don’t find them to be completely conservative, only certain shows. I think Shepard Smith is the best in the business, and I have no problem with Brit Hume or Chris Wallace. Their editorial shows like Hannity and Colmes can be a bit partisan to say the least.

The only show that I actually despise on Fox News is Fox & Friends. I can’t even look at Steve Doocy without seeing a local small market weather guy trying too damn hard to be hip. Brian Kilmeade is not nearly as bad, but has gotten worse and worse over the years. And token girl isn’t nearly as enjoyable to look at as E.D. Hill used to be. I say look at because E.D. was quite unbelievable to listen to, even before her “terrorist fist jab” comment about Michelle and Barack Obama’s fist bump.

So it was not surprising to come across a clip of Fox & Friends mocking the atheist bus campaign in Washington, DC. It was a quite childish exchange that left viewers with the impression that atheists are just starting trouble, just need a hug, and for some reason saying that tax payers should be concerned about the advertising on their buses.

Here’s the video:

I understand that their “base” on that channel is conservative and religious, but they also paint themselves as the “fair and balanced” cable news channel. It really is amazing that atheists can still be so openly mocked and discriminated against. Yes, 92 percent of this county believes in a god. But that doesn’t mean that 92 percent of the people in this country are religious. There is a distinction.

Luckily for me, I sleep through Fox & Friends every day. If I’m awake and Fox & Friends is on it’s because I am still up. One of the benefits of being a shiftless layabout is that I never have to be subjected to morning “Coffee Talk” television shows.

I do, however, agree that the statement that the American Humanist Association used about “feeling alone” is a terrible way to get attention at this time of year. I’m an atheist that loves Christmas for the tradition and holiday of it, not for the coincidental possible birth of Jesus around this time of year. If they wanted to start this campaign and get attention, this was probably not the best way to make your point.

Having said that, Fox News being idiots about it will only add to the attention that the topic gets. For me, the most important thing is that atheist become accepted in American society, because right now, we’re not. Study after study shows that people overwhelmingly would not elect an atheist to public office and really wouldn’t want their child marrying an atheist. A little knowledge would do a lot of people a lot of good.

Atheism acceptance and less religion in public are the only two goals I have circled. Anything else I understand is not going to happen anytime soon. Baby-steps. First we get a dialogue started, then acceptance.

But Fox & Friends showed that they certainly are not open to discussions about atheism.

An atheist bus campaign has been in full effect for some time in the UK, raising over £100,000, and now the American Humanist Association is getting in on the fun by launching similar campaigns in America, just in time for (the war on) Christmas season.

The AHA campaign is placing ads on buses in Washington, DC that read “Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness’ sake,” and feature a person in a Santa Claus outfit with a skeptical look on their face. The idea of the project, like in London, is to raise awareness of agnostic, atheist and any other non-theist views in a largely religious world.

The message has also already appeared in the New York Times and Washington Post, and will be followed by showing up on buses all over Washington, DC. Fred Edwords, a spokesman for the AHA said that “Our reason for doing it during the holidays is there are an awful lot of agnostics, atheists and other types of non-theists who feel a little alone during the holidays because of its association with traditional religion.”

From whybelieveinagod.com:

“Humanists have always understood that you don’t need a god to be good,” said Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association. “So that’s the point we’re making with this advertising campaign. Morality doesn’t come from religion. It’s a set of values embraced by individuals and society based on empathy, fairness, and experience.”

Not surprisingly, religious groups in the United States are not pleased with the campaign. Tim Wildmon of the American Family Association said bluntly, “It’s a stupid ad. How do we define ‘good’ if we don’t believe in God? God in his word, the Bible, tells us what’s good and bad and right and wrong. If we are each ourselves defining what’s good, it’s going to be a crazy world.”

Wildmon obviously does not understand the whole point of the ad. There are many of us (even if it is a small percentage) that don’t believe in God, and don’t get our morality from the Bible. I for one have written on multiple occassions about atheists and morality, and Mr. Wildmon would be hard pressed to prove that I have no morals because I didn’t get them from God.

The AFA is choosing to take a very childish stance on this by basically saying that if you’re not doing it our way, you’re not doing it right — no matter if we both end up in the exact same spot.

I think this is a great ad campaign in theory, since I would love for there to be more awareness. If people weren’t made to feel alone and ashamed in this country for not believing in a god, then maybe more people would admit that they have severe doubts about the religion they pretend to believe in.

But in practice, I fear that this will cause a massive backlash in today’s America, and we just don’t have the numbers to put up a fight. When all of the conservative Christian groups get their hands on this one, especially during the Christmas season, it may get ugly. Once Ann Coulter, Brent Bozell, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly get their hands on this, they will call their troops to arms and distort the actual message of the ads to get them all fired up. At that point, us atheists will have to spend so much money, time and effort just to try to get our point across that we’ll end up exactly where we started, despite all of the effort.

Hopefully, though, the ads can be tasteful and non-offensive enough to these people that the point can be made. That’s a distinct line that I think atheists need to be walking right now. It’s so easy to get caught up in the moment and do something big for the shock value, but the right move is to create tasteful ads that are not offensive, so that they can inform without drawing protest. It’s a tough pill to swallow, but as a group, we need to understand that baby-steps is the way to go.

As I’ve said before, I’m not a supporter of the “war on Christmas.” I like Christmas as a traditional celebration. I think it’s up to each individual or family to determine the religiousness of Christmas. But seeing the word “Christmas” does not bother me. In that respect, I’d rather have seen this ad campaign run at a less divided time of the year. I’m an atheist, but I like Christmas. Christmas stopped being a religious holiday a long time ago. Now it’s just a time to get presents, enjoy a day off from school or work, and for me, eat a leg of lamb on Christmas day shrimp scampi on Christmas Eve. It’s just my family’s tradition. Nothing to do with religion, but I love Christmas for what it is to me.

In the long run, I hope this campaign is successful. To me, successful is that it gets some media coverage, makes people talk about it, and doesn’t get drowned out by the voices of protesters — both in person and in the media.

If we can get people talking about atheism like it’s something to be accepted and understood, it will be our biggest accomplishment in years. From there, we can only get more involved and included, and that’s all I really want for Christmas.

The United States House of Representatives passed a resolution this week that recognizes the importance and significance of Christmas and Christianity.

Sponsored by Rep. Steve King, R.-Iowa, and passed by a vote of 372-9, the resolution recognized that Christianity was “one of the great religions of the world,” and “expresses continued support for Christians in the United States and worldwide.”

Clearly, this was a resolution brought up to be passed. The only reason it was written was because similar bills had been written about other religions. Rep. King was quick to point out the nine no votes (all by Democrats), as proof of the “anti-Christian bias” and the “assualt on Christianity” in the United States.

Similar resolutions were passed unanimously in the past recognizing similar sentiments towards Muslims and Ramadan, as well as towards Diwali, the Indian festival of lights celebrated by Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains.

This resolution includes lines like, “Whereas on December 25 of each calendar year, American Christians observe Christmas, the holiday celebrating the birth of their savior, Jesus Christ.”

Apparently this isn’t taking into account the millions of Christians who consider Christmas to be completely un-Christian, and don’t celebrate it for that reason. Nor does it recognize the lack of historical support for Dec. 25 being an originally Christian holiday celebrating Jesus’ birth. Nor does it recognize the Pagan roots of this Christian holiday.

Since they already passed the other two bills (Ramadan and Diwali), I can’t say that they shouldn’t have passed this one. But realistically, none of them should have ever seen the floor of the US House of Representatives. That our lawmakers are spending their time bitching about the nine no votes on a bill about Christmas, when they only work about 1% of the year, is embarrassing. The only reason this bill was brought up was to create controversy.

There is no war on Christmas, and this bill was a waste of time. Having said that, the nine people who voted no on this bill, seven of them having voted yes on the other two, should be ashamed of themselves. There are other ways to get attention in which you don’t have to add fuel to the fire of the fictional holy war in America. Just vote yes, and avoid the controversy of voting no. It’s too hypocritical to vote yes on one and no on the other. You’re an elected lawmaker, you should act like one.

So what are the chances that the House passes a resolution supporting atheists? Could you imagine reading ”

(4)acknowledges and supports the role played by Atheists and Atheism in the founding of the United States and in the formation of the western civilization;

(5) rejects bigotry and persecution directed against Atheists, both in the United States and worldwide; and

(6) expresses its deepest respect to American Atheists and Atheist throughout the world.”

Somehow, I just don’t see that one passing.

There are few phrases I dislike more than “The War on Christmas.” This is a phrase that has been attached to atheists, liberals, or O’Reilly’s “secular progressives.” Well I got news for the Christians — I like Christmas.

I’m an atheist. I’m not shy about it, nor ashamed of it. And I like Christmas. I think it’s a great holiday, and it accounts for some of my greatest childhood memories. I can’t envision a world without Christmas. I like seeing Christmas decorations, and I take no offense when someone wishes me a “Merry Christmas.” I actually take issue with the ACLU and atheist groups that fight public displays of Christmas.

Part of the reason this holiday season doesn’t bother me as an atheist is that I understand that it is not a celebration of Christianity. Christianity didn’t try to claim Dec. 25 as Christmas until the fourth century. The early settlers of America didn’t celebrate Christmas, and it was in fact illegal to celebrate in Massachusetts from 1659 to 1681. The reason the Puritans refused to recognize Christmas is the same reason atheists shouldn’t fear it — it is simply an acquired Pagan celebration, not the birthday of Jesus. (Source)

In fact, the Bible warns against Christians adopting Pagan customs, which is exactly what Christmas started as. The Pagan celebrations of the winter solstice were the basis for the celebrations of Christmas. Even in the Christian community, there is often debate about what time of year Jesus was actually born. Since the Bible offers no dates, only descriptions, many feel that the birth actually took place closer to Autumn, rather than Dec. 25.

Regardless of those points, the main point remains that Christmas was never about Christ. It wasn’t until the 19th century that Christmas really became a “Christian holiday” in America.  The Christmas tree was taken from the Pagan customs. December 25 was celebrated by the Romans long before Jesus’ birth, and centuries later it was adopted by Christians as a date to celebrate Jesus.

The alleged War on Christmas, perpetrated often in the past by Fox News, is a manufactured war. Bill O’Reilly’s insistence that “secular progressives” are out to ruin America is one of the worst arguments I’ve ever heard. I like O’Reilly, and have all of his books, but his invention of the Culture Warrior, and the war on secular progressives was all about selling books, with no basis in reality. And he’s not alone. In 2006, CNN’s Lou Dobbs insisted that the phrase “happy holidays” excludes everyone celebrating Christmas. While I completely agree that political correctness is out of hand in this country, I don’t think that saying “happy holidays” is in any way offensive or excluding. Nevertheless…

Here’s the bottom line: Money drives America. If one customer claims offense by hearing “Merry Christmas” from the store greeter, then that store will make the simple change to “Happy Holidays”. If one student is “offended” by some Christmas decorations at school, the school is going to eliminate Christmas to avoid the lawsuit. Stores are looking to please (or not offend) the most customers possible, and everyone else is just trying to avoid offending anyone. It’s not a War on Christmas, is evasive maneuvers to avoid litigation.

Christmas is an amazing holiday, especially for children. Not everything needs to be about religion. I am an atheist, enough so that I started this website, but I have the ability to not put religion in everything. If my neighbor wants to use Christmas as a Christian holiday, that’s fine with me. But I guess I’m in the minority with the idea that your religion should be between you and your God. I am not offended by a nativity scene on someone’s lawn. I’d prefer that they are not on government property, unless other religions are also represented, but I’m fine with individual homes having them. I’m not a subscriber to any religion, but if I see a Christmas or a Hanukkah and any other religious representations on government property, then I am not offended because I don’t take that as any type of endorsement of a single religion.

I’m in favor of Christmas being openly celebrated, simply as Christmas. Santa Claus, trees, wreaths, lights, and snow. We can celebrate it for different reasons. If you want to celebrate it because you’re a Christian, fine. And I’ll celebrate it because of the tradition of Christmas, much like Halloween. It is what it is, and it doesn’t have to be more.

But I do feel that Christians should learn the history of Dec. 25, and understand that it is not a holiday created by and for Christians celebrating Christ’s birth. It is no coincidence that Christmas and Easter both fall on the solstices.

And I also feel that the other atheists out there should understand that Christmas is not a Christian holiday, but a holiday celebrated by Christians, among others. If both sides can understand the true history of this holiday, I think this imaginary War on Christmas would quickly disappear.

The Catholic League and other Christian groups are urging Christians to avoid the movie “The Golden Compass” this year, as they are opposed to what they call an anti-religious message in the books that the movie is based off of.

The books, written by British author Philip Pullman, have clear anti-religious tones in them, as they star the “Magisterium” as a version of the Catholic Church “gone wildly astray from its roots,” according to the director of the film, Chris Weitz.

The article I’ve linked refers to Weitz as a “confirmed agnostic”, as if they couldn’t come up with a more negative way to put it. When is someone religious referred to as a “confirmed Catholic” or a “confirmed Muslim”? Never. But with agnostics and atheists, I guess it doesn’t matter, since we’re all apparently immoral, dangerous and unedumacated. But I digress…

The movie version is a watered down version of the books, where most of the references to the church and the anti-religious rhetoric has been removed. That’s not enough for the Christian groups, however.

Christian groups are urging parents to avoid this movie, since watching it will make you and your children interested in buying the books. Despite the movie not necessarily being anti-religious, the books that it is based on are, in their opinion.

So let me get this straight. Movies about Christmas or the Church should never be made unless they are completely positive? Christian groups slam every Christmas movie that comes out unless it is true to scripture. Take L. Brent Bozell for instance. The founder and President of the Media Research Center, Bozell is one of the most outspoken conservative columnists in the country, especially when it comes to religion in public life and entertainment.

Bozell calls on Christians to not see this movie, and slams it’s very existence, with lines like “Isn’t it a bit perverse to head into the Christmas holiday season hyping an atheist fantasy movie for kids?” Really, Brent? Is it really “perverse” to go into Christmas with a movie that has an atheist theme? So that would make it off limits to release in November, December and January (Christmas season); March and April (Easter season); or summer (too big of an audience – clearly marketing towards kids during summer vacation). That leaves February, September and October as the only months in which an atheist themed movie could be released without being at an offending time (obviously tough for a Christmas movie). So a Christmas movie that isn’t pro-church has absolutely zero market in this country, apparently.

One year ago, Bozell praised the release of “The Nativity Story”, saying,

“‘The Nativity Story’ is reverent, generally true to the Gospel, and a moving experience for the Christian faithful. It reminds the audience that these distant figures in the stained glass window were real humans with real struggles and real suffering, and responded to their calling with timeless devotion to their creator.”

What about to those of us that aren’t religious. Some of us enjoy the movies that you loathe. If we were to send out press releases condemning the release of this movie, you’d be up in arms over our anti-religious, secular war on Christmas. The truth is, we don’t care. Release all the movies, and let the people dictate which ones get made the next year. I personally find it offensive that you are bringing children to a religious movie, simply continuing the involuntary indoctrination into religion, before they have any say in the matter. But that’s a different argument.

But here’s the difference when it comes to Christmas movies. We don’t care. I don’t give a damn what movies are released. If you want to watch it, watch it. If I don’t, I won’t. It’s not that hard. You don’t have to tell me what I should or shouldn’t watch. If the movie is anti-religious, and you don’t want to watch an anti-religious movie, then don’t go. But you don’t have to try to get the movies release dates changed (as the Catholic League has done in the past), or have the content toned down (as the director has done on “The Golden Compass” to appeal to more people).

If you want people to not buy the books that “The Golden Compass” was based off of, then protest that. But to protest them making a movie version of a best-selling book, in which they’ve removed almost all of the “offending” material, is pathetic. God-forbid (no pun intended) you expose your child to any differing opinion. Just keep on feeding them the same story that has been edited by man for the last 2000 years, and don’t let them think for themselves.

I don’t mean to be offensive, but I am offended by people telling me what I should or shouldn’t watch, and what my children should or shouldn’t read. As a responsible adult, I’ll make those decisions for myself. If you are going to have the nerve to actively promote the positive Christmas movies, and praise them for their religious message, you can’t actively bash the non-positive Christian movies, and demean them for not having a religious message. There is something to be said for balance in this country.

Yes, this nation may have a much higher percentage of Christians than any other religious denomination. But this nation is not a majority rules nation. That is why we have an Electoral College, and why we are a Republic and not a Democracy. And it’s why this is the best nation in the world. This country is predominantly Caucasian, but that doesn’t mean that everything needs to be made to please whites. While it may not be a large percentage, 14% of the United States considers themselves to be atheists, agnostics, or non-religious. That’s over 42 million people who are not religious. To compare, blacks make up 12.1% or 35 million people of the US population. But what would happen if a “pro-black” movie were released and bashed because the majority of the country doesn’t agree with it? Balance is essential to keeping the peace.

So religionists, remember next time you are blasting an anti-religious movie that there are 42 million people out there who are in that market already, and you’re not going to change that. And we are as much a part of this nation as you are. You may not like our movies, and we may not like yours, but keep your opinions to yourself and manage your own family, because I know that I’m quite capable of doing that for my own family.

Coloring Book Warns of Priests

New York’s Roman Catholic Church is warning children of the dangers of molesting priests through coloring books.

In one part of the book, an angel warns the child not to ever be in a room with an adult with the door closed. It also warns of the dangers of Internet chatting.

In the interest of fairness, I applaud the NY Roman Catholic Church for the effort. While I don’t think this “solves” any of their problems, it is at least addressing them. If the other churches around the country can join in and put together a campaign as a group, maybe some things will change.

Here’s to hoping the Church has taken the first step in eliminating child abuse in the churches. But as nice as it is that they are warning children, the root of the problem is the bad priests, which still needs to be addressed. But again, well done on step one. Let’s see if it continues.