being an atheist that celebrates Christmas because family, food and stuff... atheists can be extremely retarded sometimes.

Meh... The trappings of a modern "American" Christmas, except for those specifically referencing the nativity, have more to do with old pagan traditions than anything else.

People who try to say there's a war on Christmas in the USA are either, A: Trying to sell a political position, B: Trying to sell advertising slots during their news broadcast by airing "news" stories that anger people with their blatant stupidity, or C: Are crazy whack-jobs that no one should take seriously.

Christmas, if people were honest, is practically a secular holiday. It's about family, the spirit of giving, goodwill toward others, and the quaint notion that maybe there could be peace on Earth while human beings still roam its surface. It's about showing your loved ones how well you know them by picking out a gift that speaks to them in that special way. It's about a festive atmosphere of twinkling lights cookies, nostalgia, and Santa riding around in a Norelco razor... things that capture the imaginations of children too young to speak, and too old to walk. It used to be about Brach's Arabian Nights candy mix, too, but that stuff hasn't truly existed for ages... though occasionally they still put out a feeble parody of the stuff for people willing to spend good money to be disappointed.

I get irritated at people trying to cram religion down my throat, by I will never, ever, be even the slightest bit irritated at someone wishing me a Merry Christmas, simply because of religious connotations. The phrase, for most people, carries about as much spiritual weight as "Rock on, dude!" or "Good luck!"

Now, the British phrase of "Happy Christmas" does grate on me slightly, but that has everything to do with sounding jarring compared to every single utterance of Merry Christmas I ever heard in my life. Besides, "Have a merry Christmas and a happy new year" just sounds better than "Have a happy Christmas AND a happy new year."

Anyway, I wish everyone, regardless of race, credo, age, nationality, sexual orientation and/or politics, religion, or level of physical or mental ability a Merry Christmas, a happy new year, and a joyous holiday season, cloaked in as much nostalgia, goodwill, and the love of those near and dear to you as you can stand.

Fanatics and extremists tend to be douchebags no matter the denomination. I think that's the underpinning lesson that we can all take away from this. Unfortunately, the law tends to cater towards the squeakiest wheels. Not necessarily the most in need of change, just the loudest complaints (regardless of rationality).

I don't have a problem with it, but a lot of people tend to have issues with "Merry Xmas", which is what I use.

One or two possibly genuine stories get blown out of proportion into a fully fledged War on Christmas. That's like saying that one or two Jewish bankers proves a global Jewish lizard-person illuminati. In other words, it IS a myth. Merry Xmas to you, too!

Have you seen Hallelujah? Same thing.

Transliterating Arabic to English is really iffy; all I know is that if you say "Allah Akbar" in front of a Muslim without the hu (Sounds like "who") in between, they're gonna look at you like you're retarded.

Wrong button. Meant to edit.

What does equality have to do with it? Are you saying the bias of the big networks are somehow on equal terms than what Fox News has?

I don't understand what you are saying.

You mean other than arrests of peaceful protesters? (violent ones disregarded)
Shouldn't that be enough?
Do note I said "expression or speech". Freedom of speech does not encapsulate only words, but your right to express discontent within legal boundaries, such as protest, or refusing to comply when an authority acts outside of it's boundaries.

For example, what about the frivolous use of tasers and pepperspray for non-hostile situations that the police escalated, where they had no jurisdiction? Google can land you plenty of examples, and really I don't keep an archive of this stuff. Just tried to dig up something but can't find it (nor it's attached video), but there was a fast food cashier who served an officer in a drive-through, who then stormed inside to accuse her of short-changing him, and when he started yelling in her face and telling her to come out to his cruiser, she felt intimidated and told him that she wanted her guardian present for it. In response, he pepper-sprayed her point-blank in the face (below safety distance) and arrested her, and ended up needing to take her to the hospital for the spray she got. I've seen a video of skateboarders just doing their thing, but when an officer gets on scene, his FIRST response was not to address them or tell them to stop (right or wrong), but to literally shove one of them while they were mid-grind, causing an injury (albeit a very minor one) but still totally inappropriate. These are facets of freedom of expression, and while certain forms of expression are curbed, and law enforcement do have a complex job, that doesn't excuse blatant mishandling, violence or intimidation in response to innocent acts. This is just on random everyday activities, now consider the same law and enforcement when it comes to activism and 'issues'. Sure, it's rare for speech alone to get punished, but it's not really 'free speech' when you're allowed to say what you want... from the back of a police van.

Although, in trying to google the fast food thing (and finding a few unrelated McD peppersprayings, one of which was totally justified), I did however find this :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfWjgAK-VsQ

Edit:
And now also this : http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2014/12/california-deputy-tases-beats-man-flashlight-holding-head-foot/
And this : http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=48938
Edit 2:
http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2014/12/undercover-cop-points-gun-at-photographer/
The good old agent provocateur tactic, used to loophole the use of suppression tactics and to squash the activity. That too is a form of preventing freedom of speech, and also punishing the innocent.

You might think that this is a separate issue from freedom of speech, and a singular issue with enforcement, but it really isn't. Enforcement, policy and law are vital parts of the freedom of speech/expression equation. These are not isolated incidents, and there is a steady stream of such things being reported all the time.

Haha, yeah. Every country has it's own various issues. There are assholes in every country and we all have our different flavours of idiots floating around. It's more that the "AMERICA HAS FREEDOM" mentality has become something of a meme indicating a lack of awareness of one's own country.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not pretending my own shit doesn't stink here. I'm largely unaware of our own political climate because I find our political debate system totally disgusting, and refuse to spend a huge amount of time gathering all the (biased) news resources and then comparing them to find out which one might happen to be remotely factual or close to the truth. As you might guess, I'm a non-voter. I COULD vote, but then that would just end up being a selfish act of guesswork that would be lured by dumb promises of something that I personally would benefit from. An uninformed vote is potentially very damaging after all...

That's not the constitution shielding people, that's being rich and high profile shielding you.
Just remember to say "I misspoke" five minutes afterwards and you can be as toxic and idiotic as you want. :P

I think what was meant by "USA is not a Christian country anymore" is that the people that makeup the country are no longer practicing Christians by and large. It doesn't mean that America was established as a theocratic government. Obviously that would be incorrect, but the way it was stated is correct.

What you're describing is a representation of people's views through a candidate or staff they voted in. What I was describing was the faith and opinions of candidates being made into law that governs over all, even those who don't share their faith. When you vote for somebody, you don't automatically greenlight every one of their future acts, and even if you did, that doesn't mean certain things shouldn't be struck down for lacking merit or for eroding people's liberty. Again using gay marriage as an example. There is no non-religious reason why they shouldn't be allowed to marry and be held to exactly the same legal and societal benefits, and yet it stays. The only lasting opposition is some weird attempt at people trying to claim ownership of the word "marriage", and insisting that they should settle for a lesser set of rights as a scrap from the table. It's nearly 2015 and this is still an issue.

This is why laws should never be made on opinion, but on fact. Even if you got a majority vote on a law, if that law would openly disenfranchise and discriminate, there is a duty to strike it down and rethink the approach. A comically extreme example here would be to put a vote out for "Should we deport all black people?", and if a majority votes yes, too bad, "democracy has spoken". Or in the case of gay marriage, it's more akin to "Should we prevent anybody named Jacob from being able to marry?". Even with a majority vote of people genuinely not wanting dudes named Jacob to marry, even if it was way up at 99% in favour, it should automatically be stricken down due to lacking merit and being outside of their jurisdiction. Fine, if individual churches, temples, shrines and whatnot all wanted to decline a marriage ceremony? So be it. But if a Jacob found a church willing to marry him then the law should not have any place nullifying it based on "These random people who have no involvement in your life say you can't, because they don't want you to, no real reason".

Hence why I said that those beliefs tend to bleed into law and policy. I was pretty much saying that they don't belong there and with good reason. They're like weeds that need to be uprooted, not sheltered. That's why non-religious folk can be bitter are standoffish at times, because religion has had this awful habit of trespassing on their business, unannounced and unwelcomed. :P