'Merry Christmas' or 'Happy Holiday'

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Elspode

... but if we include one religion ... in our governmental processes, we're going to disenfranchise *all* the others, or at the very least, make them into second class religions in the eyes of the State.

Either all religions are equal and we are a Republic, or one religion is officially better, and we are a Theocracy.

I know which one I want to live in.

I can not overstate my support for this idea*. Completely true, well put.






* I can compensate, however.

[Elspode]

Originally Posted by Kitsune

Why is it that when the system references nothing and permits people to observe anything that this small group of Christians think they are being expressly excluded?

This is the unfortunate byproduct of believing that your way is Right, and that you hold Truth. When there is no allowance for any other way of belief or thinking that doesn't involve burning in Hell, one begins to get a bit touchy when one does not get things one's way. This is pretty much why Theocracies are born. If you've got all the power, you don't need to muck around with worrying about what anyone else thinks, because after all, you are Right, you are in sole possession of Truth, ;*and* you have Power.

These things come in pretty handy when you start killing off everyone else who fails to take advantage of the various benefits offered by Truth (i.e., those who fail to agree with your point of view). How can it be wrong to off others when you and your ilk have cornered the market on Truth?

Curiously, being able to do away with people who disagree with your theology also comes in pretty handy should those people have, say, enormous land holdings or large bank accounts and big houses, since you can also seize those things in the name of All That Is Good and True. And, if you need to have a handy servant class at the ready, denying people equal employment and such because they don't agree with you guarantees a ready pool of manpower for that next Crusade to convert the rest of the ungodly.

Now I have to wonder which came first...the Government or the Religion?

[mrnoodle]

It's my belief that the effort to remove Christianity from the public arena extends beyond the government. The government touches every aspect of our lives, from school to church to our homes to our cars to our food. To say that you only want to remove Christianity from government doesn't make me feel much better.

Should the government establish a religion? No. But is it possible for the government to be absent of any religious influence? Maybe -- but only when the people who have elected that government become overwhelmingly atheist. That is not the case here. A vast majority (75-80% or so) identify themselves as Christian, or some offshoot. The next highest group, percentagewise, is nonreligious/agnostic/atheist -- accounting for about 15%. The next highest follows Judaism (single digit percentage, if I recall correctly). Everything else, paganism included, is sub-1%, and the total equals about 3% of the whole.

Of the number of atheists/agnostics who give a shit, there are maybe a few thousand actively involved in shutting down all mention of the predominant religion of the country. What I hear you saying is that these are the people who represent this country's foundation, and it is their wishes that must be adhered to.

That's not representative government. You are one of a handful of people who don't want your kids singing "Christmas carols" at school? Take em home. Don't turn it into a separation of church and state issue. The government isn't establishing a state religion by allowing the vast majority of its constituents to celebrate their holiday as they see fit. If you live in a school district that is primarily Muslim, and the Muslim kids want to do whatever it is they do at school, they should be allowed to. If you live in a Jewish neighborhood, and the local rec center wants a menorah up during Hannukah, more power to em. If there are 50 Scientologists and they want to exchange quasars in front of an altar to Zod at the city park, it's their park too. Just don't tell me I can't have a manger scene next to it.

The government might own the building on paper, but the taxpayers foot the bill, and it's they who are celebrating, not some faceless entity called the state.

It's freedom OF religion, not from religion.

[Elspode]

That would be great, if it would work that way. Historically, it does not. Theocracies persecute those who are not members of the ruling religion, and favor those who are.

Tell me why that wouldn't happen now. Or...since the majority rules, tough titties for the rest of us, then?

[glatt]

You probably won't admit it, but I think you would feel differently, mr. noodle, if you were in the minority instead of in the majority.

Including Christianity in the government is unfair for non-Christians. As a Christian, I don't want to be unfair to others. It just seems wrong. If they don't want to join our religion, it's their call.

Our founding fathers wanted a separation of church and state.

Jesus Christ wanted a separation of church and state. Matthew 22:15-22

Why do the Republicans want to use the government to shove Christianity down everyone else's throat? Do they not believe in the ideals of the founding fathers or the teachings of Christ?

[mrnoodle]

If you are persecuted for practicing your religion, you should have the full might of the law behind you to make sure it stops. On the other hand, if by "persecution" you mean that city hall paid for a Christmas tree and didn't change the name to "holiday tree", that's where the titties start to toughen.

My views on abortion are not recognized by the government. Tough titties for me. My views on guns are not represented. Too damn bad. Pot's still illegal...that doesn't make me oppressed just because I disagree with the law. I can try to find lawyers to bend the Constitution to something that supports my viewpoint, but that doesn't mean I'll be successful.

Majority rules, and tough titties for the rest of us. Watching out for the little guy doesn't mean that 95% of the country should suffer so the 5% won't be burdened with the knowledge that their fragile eyes might stumble upon a nativity scene.

[Elspode]

I *like* Nativity scenes. I like Christmas trees, and that's what I call them. I'm Pagan as hell, and every year I go to an old folks home and sing Christmas carols. None of this stuff offends my sensibilities...on a personal level. However, it is the damnable thing about The Law that you must be very, very specific about things, or else someone will come along and screw with it.

A government should function like a referee...neutral and presumably unbiased, even if the game is being played in its hometown. Even if the ref fervently hopes for his hometown team to go to the championship. The ref must be neutral, or bias *will* be introduced.

We can all put up a Nativity in our front yards or our church yards. We can put up a Christmas tree, Pagan though it is, and call it what we want in our homes and churches. *Why* do we need to have our government be involved in this? Why cannot our tax dollars purchase neutral and inclusive symbologies? What is the *harm* in using neutral terminologies?

Keep in mind that *I*, too think it is a bit wacky to call a Christmas tree anything else, but I completely agree with the argument that causes it to end up being a Holiday Tree instead.

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

If you are persecuted for practicing your religion, you should have the full might of the law behind you to make sure it stops.

Under a theocracy, there is no law behind other religions or the right to practice them.

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

Majority rules, and tough titties for the rest of us. Watching out for the little guy doesn't mean that 95% of the country should suffer so the 5% won't be burdened...

You are correct. The very problem is that you are correct and this is not at all what the United States is based on despite the path our country has been headed down for some years, now. The spirit behind our government is that the majority should not, cannot crush what is right simply because they are in the majority. Civil rights is a fine example of a small group of people standing up for what is right in order to overthrow an incorrect majority.

[mrnoodle]

The other side wants to frame this argument like it's some kind of uprising or revolution by some poor disaffected class of downtrodden, oppressed people. Nothing like a theocracy is happening here. Anyone who truly thinks that the recognition of Christmas by the government is the same thing as the government establishing a state religion should have a look at the circumstances that caused us to leave England in the first place. The two situations are as different as night and day.

The people leading this fight against everything that used to be considered good and right aren't trying to help anyone, they're just picking a fight with what they consider to be a judgmental moral code that frowns upon the stuff they like to do. You'll never get anyone to admit it though.

The sad thing is, perfectly reasonable, intelligent people are pulled into this stupidity because of their innate desire to stick up for the disaffected. Once they've bought the spiel that this is about religious minorities not being represented by the government, they'll never hear another argument to the contrary. It's hopeless.

If a Christian ever makes a stink because something offends them, they're laughed at as a holier-than-thou hypocrite who doesn't deserve serious consideration. Insert any other word than "Christian", and suddenly you have a Major Social Issue That Must Be Addressed.

meh.

I'm afraid that the left is finally going to get the kind of world they're begging for. Hopefully there will be enough normal people left to save them from it.

[Elspode]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

The other side wants to frame this argument like it's some kind of uprising or revolution by some poor disaffected class of downtrodden, oppressed people. Nothing like a theocracy is happening here. Anyone who truly thinks that the recognition of Christmas by the government is the same thing as the government establishing a state religion should have a look at the circumstances that caused us to leave England in the first place. The two situations are as different as night and day.

Uh...*did* everyone here come from England, or are there numerous different ethnic backgrounds with numerous different ideas about spirituality? Heck, last time I checked, even Christians didn't agree about exactly what was what.

The people leading this fight against everything that used to be considered good and right aren't trying to help anyone, they're just picking a fight with what they consider to be a judgmental moral code that frowns upon the stuff they like to do. You'll never get anyone to admit it though.

Um...I'm not leading a fight against good and right. I have kids. I've raised them with morals. They aren't Christian morals, but they aren't running around doing drugs, stealing or killing anyone. So, how again am I part of running down morality and decency? I'm not trying to make this an Elspode vs Mrnoodle argument...I'm just trying to make a point that not everyone who doesn't think that Christianity should run everything is defacto actively trying to turn the world into a moral sewer. It doesn't work that way. No one *has* to act the ass just because one *can* act the ass.

The sad thing is, perfectly reasonable, intelligent people are pulled into this stupidity because of their innate desire to stick up for the disaffected. Once they've bought the spiel that this is about religious minorities not being represented by the government, they'll never hear another argument to the contrary. It's hopeless.

I'm still waiting for the argument to the contrary. I say that a religiously neutral government is fair to everyone, because then, everyone can practice their religion as they see fit, gathering together with like-minded people to revel in their mutual spirituality. Please tell me how that's wrong, and why a government that sanctions any specific single religious path is better.

If a Christian ever makes a stink because something offends them, they're laughed at as a holier-than-thou hypocrite who doesn't deserve serious consideration. Insert any other word than "Christian", and suddenly you have a Major Social Issue That Must Be Addressed.

Au contraire...Christians should express their points of view. They just shouldn't legislate them. Minorities are protected because the Majority will always trample them. After all, they're minorities, and the Majority wins. If one studies history, one finds that, at one time, Christians were in the minority, and they were treated rather shabbily. What happens if the tables turn again someday? Will it be alright for any other popular religion to then make the rules, even if the Christian minority doesn't like them?

I'm afraid that the left is finally going to get the kind of world they're begging for. Hopefully there will be enough normal people left to save them from it.

I must take issue with being lumped in with abnormals. I'm not. Different doesn't mean abnormal.

[warch]

I've noticed Christians are laughed at as hypocritical and stupid when their complaints and indignations are hypocritical and stupid. Unfortunately there are many visible and vocal idiots connected with this form of political thought that they like to label as "christian", Gibson, Dobson, Robertson, et al.


PS. Christian does not equal Conservative or Extreemist.
This is the REAL attack on Christianity- that it is a political ideology rather than an individual spiritual concern.
I've met many a radical liberal Christian. Some rockin' nuns and progressive Christians who are more concerned about actual acts of Christian charity— feeding people, caring for the sick and elderly, building homes, supporting community development, tackling racism, assisting immigrants— than the pagentry/indignation of the media. And those laughing at them are "normal" people like you.

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

I'm afraid that the left is finally going to get the kind of world they're begging for. Hopefully there will be enough normal people left to save them from it.

Alright, I'll bite. What world is this? What plans does the left have and what will the world be like after they've implemented them? What do you think will happen if the left removes religion completely from government?

[Elspode]

Originally Posted by warch

PS. Christian does not equal Conservative or Extreemist.
This is the REAL attack on Christianity- that it is a political ideology rather than an individual spiritual concern.

Right on, Warch.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Anyone who truly thinks that the recognition of Christmas by the government is the same thing as the government establishing a state religion should have a look at the circumstances that caused us to leave England in the first place.

The first thing that comes to mind, reading that, is the Pilgrims, Plymouth Colony and all that.
They didn't celebrate Christmas. As a matter of fact, when they were in charge, they outlawed Christmas.....they actually enforced it, too. They came here to do their own thing....and make sure everyone else would not deviate. That's why Boston became the destination of choice rather than Plymouth. Half the towns in New England were established by people wanting to move away from the oppression they lived under, not in Europe, but maybe 30 or 40 miles away, in Country.
The founding fathers saw this first hand and wrote the constitution to stop that kind of thing. The Feds jumped in when they made Christmas a federal holiday.

[tw]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

We've allowed a small group of people to create the false impression that the Christian holiday is just one of many that are actively being celebrated, and that by paying attention to xmas, we are somehow offending practitioners of other faiths.

Suddenly extremists want to distort what was clearly a patriotic American invention. The expression that best honors religion from a patriotic American perspective is dated December 1791 - therefore "Happy Holidays". Any religious extremist who has a problem with that also has a problem with the definition of patriotic American.

This weekend is Christmas, Hanukah, and Kwanzaa. mrnoodel posts - as quoted - a direct insult at those other religions. He tells us that Kwanzaa and Hanukah do not really exist - and does so with insult. That means mrnoodle is a classic anti-American in the tradition of Nazism, McCarthyism, Spanish Inquisition, and the Ku Klux Klan. He even pissed on American troops. Why? Even US troops are multi-denominational.

The term "Happy Holidays" is uniquely American. Traceable to something never before seen in history - 1st Amendment to the US Constitution. The American government and its people would have no attachment to any one religion. Completely unheard of everywhere - yes everywhere - in the world. The American people would be of any religion that could exist and would honor all with religious freedom. This whole new concept would be attached to something we call a "patriotic American". A concept that has prospered whereever free people are permitted.

Happy Kwanzaa. Happy Hanukkah. Happy Ramadan. Or Happy Holidays. And mrnoodle - go back to the extremist anti-American nation you must have come from. Only an anti-American or a person of hate could have seriously posted that.

I heard Santa will be wrapping your lump of coal inside the Bill of Rights. Something about learning what made America great.