Yup ...
 
This is about the point (give or take a post or two) at which word hurling is filtered out and it's time for the discussion participants (particularly apologists) to put up or shut up, as they say.
 
This is the point at which intellectual integrity and the level of interest in genuine discussion of the participants is laid out in the open.
 
 --
 
Unfortunately many seem not to notice this key point in these exchanges. Understandable, I suppose, for those who are directly involved or who just aren't really paying close enough attention to notice (no reason anyone not involved should, except for the effect on the social climate).

Such as crying like babies because someone says 'Happy Holidays' in an ad. There were actually organized threats of boycott over that issue.

In a previous post, DDickerson said that 'Happy Holidays' was a 'replacement' for 'Merry Christmas'. Of course, that's untrue. A replacement means something that takes the place of another, with the other no longer in use. If you replace your tires, or your car, or your CEO, the old ones are no longer in use. But that's not true in this case. "Merry Christmas" is still in common use. 'Happy Holidays' is an alternative to saying 'Merry Christmas', not a replacement.

That's an important distinction, because the whole 'war on Christianity' thing relies upon exaggerating and even inventing affronts to Christianity. In other words, no one's stopping you from wishing someone a Merry Christmas, but you might feel beset just because someone else chooses to say something different. In order to lend any resonance at all to that absurd premise, you have to falsely claim that "Merry Christmas" has been replaced.

Christians are genuinely persecuted in many parts of the world. In many otherwise moderate Muslim-dominated nations, a Muslim converting to Christianity faces the death penalty. In many places Christians are driven from their homes, attacked, and sometimes killed.

You'll notice that none of the people decrying this persecution, which is real, are complaining about the silly crap that some US Christians complain about. The truly oppressed Christians are not trying to brand an entire town with a cross, or insert Christian symbols into public schools, or put Christian shrines on public land, or bus non-Christian public students to a Christian church at public expense. They're trying to be left alone to practice their religion.

American Christians are free to worship in their homes and churches, but not in schools. Christians are free to pray anywhere they want, but not to have the school impose their prayers on compulsory public school students of other faiths, or on non-religious people. They're free to put any symbol on their places of worship, or their homes, or their private schools, or on any private land, but not on public lands or on publicly funded signs.

You'll notice that no one is proposing that a town sign should have a Star of David or an Islamic crescent on it, and no one would. Of course, we must be declaring war on those religions, following the reasoning of the people defending the sign with the cross on it.

The American 'war on Christianity' is imaginary. It's essentially saying, If you don't let us oppress you by letting us impose our religion on institutions that you pay for, that's the same as you oppressing us. The disgusting thing about this is that it trivializes persecution of Christians, which is a real problem. I guess some people are oppressed by being driven from their homes and killed, and others are oppressed by the phrase 'Happy Holidays' in an ad, or painting over a religious symbol on a publicly funded sign.

I'm not sure that ideologues is a fair characterization.

When you have a group of people with a life long exposure to ONLY their brand of thinking, it is expected and natural to have shocked hurt feelings when meeting someone who does not share it.

Indeed, many of them go to great lengths to avoid such contact. 

With the US having such a strong shared Christian tradition, it is easy for the insiders to see anything as an attack.  Why wouldn't the government use tax dollars to push Christian values?  What could possibly be wrong with that?  Seeing the other side is a completely alien possibility. 

Not at all. Some people regard them as journalists, and some don't. You don't like MSNBC, and therefore criticize them.

That has nothing to do with your implication that I'm a Nazi book burner if I criticize certain journalistic practices. You can't explain it because it doesn't make sense. Criticism isn't anti-First Amendment--criticism is protected by the First Amendment, just as when you do it.

Wouldn't the same question apply to you? You frequently complain about some journalism that you think is written improperly. You often post criticisms of news coverage, and particularly don't like MSNBC and Rachel Maddow. By complaining about them, are you suggesting there should be some 'solution'? Are you proposing to burn books, or to limit the First Amendment? Of course not. You're simply exercising your First Amendment rights to bellyache about news coverage you don't like.

So why is it when someone else does exactly same thing, you imply that they want to burn books?

What are you even talking about? No one is proposing to limit the first amendment here--they're complaining about news stories. In case you didn't notice, complaining is protected by the first amendment.

If you think that criticising writing is tantamount to throwing it into a bonfire, maybe it's time for another of your little breaks. I will give you kudos for avoiding the dreaded 'Hitler fallacy' by invoking Eva Braun insted. It didn't make any sense, but it was creative.

And a shout-out to RHM--I misspelled 'criticizing' on purpose, just because you guys always do it.

Why would I? The public schools and the Rhode Island governor aren't involved in this discussion. Do you have an unstated point there?
 If that were what was actually happening then it would more likely be choosing not to waste a lot of money on unwinnable litigation. It would also likely indicate just how much discrimination is systemically accepted against the group in question ... just like with the Civil Rights Movement.
 Yup, and spending public money for religious symbol displays is quite arguably a violation of the establishment clause, not to mention identifying a town with a religion through official heraldry.

What does a Christmas tree have to do with religion?
 Are you arguing that choosing strategically sound battles is unethical or something? In any case it would be pretty hard to argue that position given the body of 1st Amendment/Establishment litigation.

Only in the sense that "nothing is illegal until you're caught".
 Yup. And I suspect that's the best argument for the defense against the lawsuit--it's probably the best logical argument, anyway ... not so sure about the best legal argument though.

I'm not proposing to remove the sign to save taxpayer dollars. I'm saying that the original use of taxpayer dollars to create a sign promoting a religion was inappropriate. Is it a super-big deal? Not in my opinion. But the objections to the sign aren't as ridiculous as you're trying to make them. The sign is illegal in my opinion, because it's an official endorsement of one religion.

Whose Eva?  And how did you get to book burning from the previous post

Good point, again! Criticizing a news story is EXACTLY like burning books! You're quite the debater.

Always the pessimist.

True enough, but his trend line is better at present.

Good point, Ronkny. As long as something's been around for a long time, it's not a big deal.

It's like when they cover a murder on the news, I'm thinking, wow, are we really still talking about that?

Ronkny, you're making an assumption that only atheists might object to an official sign promoting a particular religion, and that's not true. It may not be a big deal if tax dollars are used to place a symbol of a specific religion on an official sign, but it's not appropriate, either. What purpose does it serve?

I suppose they could replace it with a slogan: "Buhler, Kansas--no Jews!"

>>For what purpose?

For the purpose of not having to have my nose rubbed in somebody else's religion that I may not subscribe to.  I am not  Christian.  I do not believe in the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth.  If that makes me an atheist in your eyes so be it.  But I'm not going to insist you change your beliefs just because I don't subscribe to them.  Which seems to be what you are asking me to do (subscribe to your beliefs even though I don't believe in them).

Mind you, I'm not taking umbrage about you wishing me a Merry Christmas.  Please don't feel insulted if I wish you a Happy Holiday simply because I may not know whether you celebrate Christmas, Chanukah, Winter Solstice, Kwanzaa, or the Advent of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Except that, as has very recently been pointed out, you'd be obviously wrong.
 
Besides, I was making observations and pointing out the questions being raised in the current discussion (what kinds of posts to which you never seem to respond, as in the linked example--when discussion ends and contentions and presumptions are preserved uncorrected, no progress made), as well as a well established pattern of the same. I wasn't forming conclusions. I do have pretty strong suspicions though--tentative conclusions perhaps, but only relatively vague ones.
 A lot of more militant atheists think that, but you also regularly accuse me of thinking all believers are idiots in spite of repeated correction (and the fact my wife is an active Episcopalian), as well as anyone else who makes observations about Christianity that you don't like.
 Define what you mean by "hubbub" and I may be able to explain. But I suspect you're mixing your categories here--conflating those who have valid grievances, those who are simply critics of sorry religiously motivated behavior, those who would like religious sociopolitical impositions to cease, those who are simply interested in critically examining religious beliefs ... etc, calling it all "hubbub".
 Maybe you should see if you can find more information on the story than just Fox's coverage ... if you're really interested in the answer.