Bill O'Reily Says Christianity is NOT a Religion

[Statler Waldorf]

Well any religion can be seen as a sort of philosophy so the argument of whether its a religion or a philosophy is kind of silly. It can be both and is both.

As far as the Christmas thing, Im about as non-religious as you can get, but I dont personally see the issue with publicly acknowledging Christmas and even the whole nativity thing. To me, that story and the holiday in general transcend religious beliefs and have become cultural. I think if you are offended by a nativity scene or any other Christmas decorations youre trying too hard to be offended. Its just as much a part of our culture as it is a part of a religion. The time spent complaining about Christmas decorations would be better spent on church/state issues that are actually issues.

We completely agree on something. Careful, you'll hurt your "street cred" if you agree wtih me too many times. :-)

[rob19]

No, I wouldn’t be celebrating it, but if I lived in a nation that had predominately Islamic roots I would have no problem with it being a federal holiday as long as I was not forced to celebrate it. You are not forced to celebrate Christmas.

That's all well & good, but you can see how that is favoring one religion to another. O'Reily's contention that because 'things can be learned & taken' from Christianity makes it a philosophy & not a religion, is not correct. You can take & learn things from all religions. All religion's have a philosophical element to them.

[Statler Waldorf]

The Constitution prohibits the passing of laws respecting the establishment of a religion, favoring Christianity is not the same as establishing it as a national religion. Jefferson and Madison had no problem with church services being held in government buildings on Sundays; in fact they even attended services in the Congressional Hall. It’s obvious that their intentions behind the establishment clause had nothing to do with Government favoring Christianity; Christianity is the most culturally influential religion in American history and therefore it should receive more attention for these historical reasons alone much like Judaism should in Israel and Islam in the U.A.E..

[rob19]

The Constitution prohibits the passing of laws respecting the establishment of a religion, favoring Christianity is not the same as establishing it as a national religion. Jefferson and Madison had no problem with church services being held in government buildings on Sundays; in fact they even attended services in the Congressional Hall. It’s obvious that their intentions behind the establishment clause had nothing to do with Government favoring Christianity; Christianity is the most culturally influential religion in American history and therefore it should receive more attention for these historical reasons alone much like Judaism should in Israel and Islam in the U.A.E..

I have no problem with it's celebration, I celebrate it myself; though not for the birth of Christ, but because it's a cultural tradition. I understand the history. That however, doesn't lessen his claim about a particular religion getting preferential treatment, nor does it make O'Reily's contention about it not being a religion any less ludicrous.

[Statler Waldorf]

I have no problem with it's celebration, I celebrate it myself; though not for the birth of Christ, but because it's a cultural tradition. I understand the history. That however, doesn't lessen his claim about a particular religion getting preferential treatment, nor does it make O'Reily's contention about it not being a religion any less ludicrous.

O’Reilly was right about it being a philosophy but wrong about it not being a religion. However, Silverman was wrong about the constitution prohibiting the government from treating one religion differently from the rest; no such prohibition exists in the constitution. He may not like the government doing that, but that doesn’t make it unconstitutional.

[rob19]

O’Reilly was right about it being a philosophy but wrong about it not being a religion. However, Silverman was wrong about the constitution prohibiting the government from treating one religion differently from the rest; no such prohibition exists in the constitution. He may not like the government doing that, but that doesn’t make it unconstitutional.

I'm with you about people getting too easily offended, so let me ask you this; Would you have a problem if a particularly Jewish neighborhood decided to decorate a publicly funded park with Hanukkah decorations? Or Islamic Ramadan decorations in a public park? Or Quanza decorations in a public park?

[Statler Waldorf]

I'm with you about people getting too easily offended, so let me ask you this; Would you have a problem if a particularly Jewish neighborhood decided to decorate a publicly funded park with Hanukkah decorations? Or Islamic Ramadan decorations in a public park? Or Quanza decorations in a public park?

No problem with that at all, people in America are free to express their religious beliefs however they wish.

[rob19]

No problem with that at all, people in America are free to express their religious beliefs however they wish.

Okay, but we agree though that religious expression shouldn't be taking place at publicly funded schools though, yes? So where exactly is it that you draw that line?

[Statler Waldorf]

Okay, but we agree though that religious expression shouldn't be taking place at publicly funded schools though, yes?

What do you mean by this exactly?

[rob19]

What do you mean by this exactly?

I should be more clear with what I mean by "expression". When I say this I'm not talking about students wearing certain clothing or anything like that. What I mean is, we shouldn't be pushing any religious agenda on children in publicly funded schools.