'Merry Christmas' or 'Happy Holiday'
Americans can be sued for changing the expression "Merry Christmas" to "Happy Holidays". Right wing christian extremists insist this is necessary to protect us from those who would subvert Christ and Christmas.
And then we ask those extremists questions such as Why? Why do we call them Holidays? Because the only days off work were "Holy Days". Where did the word Holiday come from? From what they were - the Holy Days.
But knowing facts - the underlying reasons why - is unnecessary for extremist Christians. As scam artists know, extremist Christians are some of the easiest to take. They will believe most everything they are told. So they are told to protect "Merry Christmas" from the scandelous expression "Happy Holy Days".
Extremists blindly impose their religous beliefs on others as instructed. Since no one told them what Happy Holidays means, then denial mode is next.
Happy Holidays - a slap in the face of those who just know rather than first ask why the expression is so wrong.
This post belongs in the Politics section because religion is being imposed on others only for political reasons.
So what should I expect from all of the people I tell "Fuck Christmas!"?
ironic, don;t you think, when you consider that 'christmas' was held on dec 25th in order to supplant the pagan soltice celebration....christ being born nowhere near that date. now, the christians ....who are not taught the facts about their savior, just the stories, are up in arms?
ironic, don;t you think, when you consider that 'christmas' was held on dec 25th in order to supplant the pagan soltice celebration....christ being born nowhere near that date. now, the christians ....who are not taught the facts about their savior, just the stories, are up in arms?
But December 25th is the date they have chosen to celebrate the birth so that becomes the holiday.
I've gotten several emails bitching about the use of Xmas instead Christmas and how it makes Baby Jesus cry. But
Snopes says no.
The X abbreviation of 'Xmas' for 'Christmas' is neither modern nor disrespectful.
The notion that it is a new and vulgar representation of the word 'Christmas' seems to stem from the erroneous belief that the letter 'X' is used to stand for the word 'Christ' because of its resemblance to a cross, or that the abbreviation was deliberately concocted "to take the 'Christ' out of Christmas."
Actually, this usage is nearly as old as Christianity itself, and its origins lie in the fact that the first letter in the Greek word for 'Christ' is 'chi,' and the Greek letter 'chi' is represented by a symbol similar to the letter 'X' in the modern Roman alphabet. Hence 'Xmas' is indeed perfectly legitimate abbreviation for the word 'Christmas' (just as 'Xian' is also sometimes used as an abbreviation of the word 'Christian').
None of this means that Christians (and others) aren't justified in feeling slighted when people write 'Xmas' rather than 'Christmas,' but the point is that the abbreviation was not created specifically for the purpose of demeaning Christ, Christians, Christianity, or Christmas -- it's a very old artifact of a very different language.
;)
Merry Christmas! and xoxoxoBruce is correct. I think it is ignorance of the fact that 'X' stands for chi, the greek letter representing the first letter of Christ's name is what leads to Christians feeling slighted when Christmas is abbreviated to Xmas. That and the fact that it is used in a lot of commercial venues.
Personally, at work I say "Happy Holidays." Sometimes my job calls for me to have a lot more public contact, and I do this mostly out of consideration that there are other holidays celebrated by other faiths this time of year. :santa:
Mery christmas and happy holidays and seasons greeting and whatever the FUCK you WANT to say. fook what anyone else wants you to say.. feedom of speech yo'!!!
I dont believe in god, but i believe in christmas.. and i'll say merry christmas not because I'm celebrating the birth of some dude i never knew but because i am excited to go home and spend 10 full days of food, relaxing and sharing and love with my family and those i care about, which has been a part of my life since i was born.
Religion has nothing to do with it for me.. but i dont get offended by nativity scenes and chrissy cards, because it means a lot of things to different people, and i think people who do get offended by that are just dickheads.
I like "Have a Super Saturnalia!" or, "Happy Yule!" but I don't usually greet people that way. I say, "Merry Christmas," because I always have. I guess if someone feels offended they can just say, "well, F*CK YOU!", right?
to supplant the pagan soltice celebration?
now I'm really confused.
Wolf, I'm dying to see your post. Is this for real?
I still say merry Christmas, and prolly (sorry humpbug for the sp) always will. Happy Holidays would not offend me, though, as I have heard that all my life.
What the hell is wrong with people these days? Have they nothing better to do?
Why can't we all enjoy ourselves and stop worrying about the term we use to encourage it.
Let's try this: HAVE A GOOD TIME THIS DECEMBER 25th!
[one]Early Christians in Rome hid their festival behind the state religions Saturnalia celebration so they could celebrate without fear of Patricius Robertsonius. When they came to power they in turn buried the old religion.[/interpretation]
Yes, to acknowledge the Pagan solstice celebration! It's the original winter holiday. What, only wolf can have a Happy Yule and be serious??
Protect the meaning of Christmas? You mean that day when everyone feverishly tears the wrapping off of all the gifts that everyone will owe credit card debt on for the rest of the year? That holiday that is preceeded by an orgy of consumer spending, television advertising, and rabid material desire? The day of the year when everyone tells their children that a magical fat man in a red suit from the north pole flies around the world in a sled pulled by reindeer to shuffle down the chimney to place brand named toys under an evergreen symbol of a pagan holiday? That day is about Jesus Christ? Oh, I had no idea... :rolleyes:
[Plaintive cry]But what about the athiests?[/plaintive cry]
Oh, yeah, Happy Day Off.
So, uh, what's the big deal with this? There are a number of people at my office that are refusing to shop at Target because the store makes only rare and infrequent references to Christmas.
So what?
Are people really that threatened by this? Do people think the store changed it simply to "attack Christmas" as opposed to oh, I dunno, maybe making more sales by changing their store and goods to appeal to everyone versus a select group?
To the people that demand "Merry Christmas" from businesses: welcome to The United States. This is a country where not everyone is like you and not everyone caters to your religion. It's a free country and a free marketplace where businesses adapt and change to follow their customers. Get over it. If you are that insecure about your religious beliefs that you need a law to "protect it", then you have a bigger problem than what you expect to hear from the part time cashier when they hand you your receipt.
And, anyways: <a href="http://www.target.com/gp/search.html/ref=sr_bx_1/601-8026492-7042505?field-keywords=christmas&url=index%3Dtarget&x=0&y=0">We found 39024 match(es) for "christmas" at Target.</a>
Kitsune, dude, why all the fuss? Holiday expectations stressing you out? There's probably a nice, affordable foot massage/sex toy on sale at a Target somewhere near you! Kisses, you old fox. It will all be okay! ;)
Kitsune, dude, why all the fuss? Holiday expectations stressing you out? There's probably a nice, affordable foot massage/sex toy on sale at a Target somewhere near you! Kisses, you old fox. It will all be okay! ;)
It's all gonna be okay... I just-- well, there's that 16 hour car trip ahead, dealing with two sets of families, the 'gift-guilt' problem, cooking for guests, the tangle of strings of lights, that creepy person ringing the bell with the red kettle outside of the place where I buy my groce--
oh, dammit, end it now! END IT NOW!
:brikwall:
You're all getting pocket change for Christmas, you hear? Nothing but coffee money! I'll be in the woods in my tent next to a campfire on the 25th if you need me!
I'll be in the woods in my tent next to a campfire on the 25th if you need me!
I think you can do that.....it's a free country, right?
I think the first time I heard people bitching about other people screwing up Christmas by commercializing it was in 1950. I've heard it every year since, too.
I also think that Happy Holidays is an abbreviation of MerryChristmasandHappyNewYear, much to the chagrin of the sign painters local.
OK, I'm done thinking. :blush:
I am having a hard time beliving that a true christian would sue anybody over something as trivial as a holiday greeting. Now I can see some Left Wing Whakko sueing over this, I belive that this subject has gone to far. "Cant we all just get along" (Rodney King) [COLOR=Red]MERRY CHRISTMAS[/COLOR]
Thank You Terry Bell :santa:
I personally think this whole "attack on christmas" thing is rediculous.. christmas is not the only religious holiday celebrated by people this time of year.. so when in question of someone's specific beliefs, I'd say "happy holidays" is actually quite appropriate.
Now the whole "holiday tree" nonsense.. that's just wrong. It IS a christmas tree, plain and simple. I heard someone say that changing christmas tree to "holiday tree" would be like changing menorah (sp?) to "holiday candlestick".
I am having a hard time beliving that a true christian would sue anybody over something as trivial as a holiday greeting.
They wouldn't. But these are people who see "Christian" as a political affiliation, not true Christians.
They wouldn't. But these are people who see "Christian" as a political affiliation, not true Christians.
exactly
Americans can be sued for changing the expression "Merry Christmas" to "Happy Holidays".
I'll be calling my Pagan lawyer tomorrow to discuss my suit regarding the appropriation of traditionally non-Christian holiday notions:
1) The whole damn Christmas tree thing in the first place.
2) Holly and Mistletoe.
3) Candles in the window.
4) Christmas caroling/wassailing.
5) Son, sired by his father (who is in fact another manifestation of himself) born of the goddess at the Winter Solstice.
Pagans 1, Christians 0.
I believe it was Dave who can testify about Christmas Trees verses burning in hell. Christmas tree lights burned down an entire house in about 5 minutes. They lost many pets and are lucky to be alive.
If one must be so religious as to use a live Christmas tree, then also be secular. There exists a device called an Arc Fault GFI or AGCFI that is now required on all bedroom electric circuits. Change an existing circuit breaker that powers a Holiday Tree with an AGCFI type. This so that evil spirits cannot take revenge. AGCFI breakers will detect a short circuit (arcing) in a string of Christmas tree lights; quash an arc before that arc can kill household occupants, burn down the house, and wipe out the family pets.
Pretending there is not an organized effort to eliminate all mention of Christ from any public arena doesn't make it so. There are any number of court dockets that show just that. The ACLU researches individual school districts to see if it can find any mention of Christmas, then warns the school board that they're going to get sued if they don't take out the offending references.
Kwanzaa my ass. 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. If I move to India, I don't expect Indians to remove all signs of their predominant religion to keep my white Christian ass happy. Likewise, I don't intend to change my country to keep theirs so.
Grr.
I said I wasn't gonna get involved in this argument...
Elspode, you guys can have all that stuff back if you want. It's a pain in the butt to put up and take down every year. But pagans are older than Christianity, the ones who brought the traditions over were pagans who saw the light, so to speak. So you're gonna have to make a call to internal affairs -- don't blame it all on Dobson.
Pretending there is not an organized effort to eliminate all mention of Christ from any public arena doesn't make it so.
What, precisely, do you mean by "public arena"? Government?
Yeah, I kind of zeroed in on those two words too. I think there should be and is an organized effort to remove religion from government. Government should be fair to everyone.
But if you want to stand on a box on the street corner and spout off about your religion, that's fine with me. Just don't impede traffic.
Of course, I *am* kidding. My point is that, if we're going to start suing each other, let's make sure everyone gets to play.
Fair is fair. If we're going to have government santioned Christianity, then we're gonna need to have some Evolution taught in churches. Otherwise, let's keep them separate. I'm not going to pretend that it isn't going to be painful from time to time to do so, but if we include one religion (yes, I know, Christianity is the only *right* one, but humor me) 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.
As an afterthought to Mr Noodle (and please, take this as it is offered, which is with the greatest of personal respect to you, who I believe to be a fine person), pretending that there isn't an effort to insert Christ and Christian mores into our schools and public arenas doesn't make it not so, either. :)
I think the expansion in the effort to remove religious intrusions into secular areas is in direct proportion to the expansion in efforts to add them in the first place. The Constitution provides a mandate to keep Church and State separate, and that includes my Pagan theology, too.
For example - Just because Darwin happens to jive with my personal take on Creation doesn't make teaching Darwin religious, but teaching that Jehovah God (tm) created it all (even if it is disguised as "Intelligent Design", which, let's all be honest, is Creationism unless you also teach that it might have been the Flying Spaghetti Monster, aliens or a chem lab accident on Delta Tauri) is, in fact, religious, since the whole concept stems from the Bible.
I would have absolutely *no* problem with Creationism being taught as mythology, along with my own beliefs on the matter.
Pretending there is not an organized effort to eliminate all mention of Christ from any public arena doesn't make it so.
Happy Monkey got it. If you mean "the government" by "public arena", there is certainly an organized effort. My tax dollars don't need to go to sponsor any religion, including Christianity.
Kwanzaa my ass. 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
Trying replacing "Kwanzaa my ass" with "Hanukkah my ass" or any other number of major religious holidays. Your concept of any religion's validity and recognizability is beside the point, however.
and that by paying attention to xmas, we are somehow offending practitioners of other faiths.
That's funny, because the imression I've gotten is that a small portion of Christians are making it seem that it is as if they are being offended when their faith isn't expressly referenced
everywhere by
everyone. 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?
Besides, this is all about a private business on private property using a phrase of their choice to wish their customers to what pretty much translates to "have a nice day". If you think there is an organized attack of Christmas, you need to adjust that foil hat of yours. Everything you see happening is either freedom of speech in action or the people of the US attempting to keep their government from mixing with a select religion and excluding taxpayers that don't subscribe to it.
If I move to India, I don't expect Indians to remove all signs of their predominant religion to keep my white Christian ass happy.
This is amusing, because India is supposed to be a democracy, too, yet they still seem to constantly fall into the trap of truly being a Hindu theocracy. The Indian government suffers from the same illness the US does.
Well, maybe you'd prefer to move to a country where the government recognizes a specific religion of your preference? Would that make you feel more secure about your faith?
... 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.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?
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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. ;)
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.
oh, and BTW: Feliz Ano Nuevo...
*ahem* I mean: Año
That means mrnoodle is a classic anti-American in the tradition of Nazism, McCarthyism, Spanish Inquisition, and the Ku Klux Klan.
Trust TW to weigh in on the extreme *other* side of the discussion.
Mr. Noodle is expressing a valid concern of millions of Americans, who feel frustrated that their firmly held beliefs are prevented from permeating all aspects of their lives. Like it or not, Government *is* a big part of our lives as citizens, and I for one understand the frustration that Mr Noodle and others like him have. I don't agree with it, but I understand it. However, calling him unAmerican and comparing him to Nazis and Tail Gunner Joe is just plain ridiculous, and is just another form of extremism, no prettier than any other form.
It might be much simpler to just ask him a straightforward question:
Mr. Noodle - do you believe that your religion should be the National Religion, the only one promoted and supported by the State? And do you believe that our Constitution allows for that?
Also, along this line, I just heard Rush Limbaugh puke out a couple of choice stupidities this morning on his two-minute Conservative Agena Promotional spot, one of which was along the lines of "Liberals want you to believe that your Constitution builds a wall between Church and State; it does no such thing." He also said that the Constitution provides no guarantee of privacy, and that it was Liberal BS that made us think it does.
I'm trying to get a bunch of work done before the holiday, so I can't spend as much time on this as I'd like (and I haven't read all the arguments after my last post), but let me try to clarify who I'm addressing..
I'm not against people of other religions, or people who don't follow a religion. I'm specifically addressing the small, vocally anti-Christian crowd that is actively involved in trying to mute all references to faith outside of a church building. I support the freedom of any religious group to practice their religion, and I support the right of non-religious people to abstain.
What I don't get is how one can draw a parallel between a theocracy and a government that simply doesn't work against people of faith at every opportunity. I think that if a local body, such as a city council, pays for the electricity for a "Christmas light" display, it is not guilty of religious tyranny. If the white house wants a "Christmas tree", that's not the same thing as a federally mandated celebration of Christmas. If Chaim Abraham Finkelstein is elected president and wants a 400 foot menorah on the White House lawn, that doesn't mean that they're forcing me to celebrate Hannukah.
To say that ALL faiths must be represented simultaneously or NO faith can be mentioned by ANY public official while he or she is on the clock is unrealistic, and the pursuit of such a goal is more than futile -- it goes against what this country is about. This isn't a melting pot anymore, it's a carefully segmented TV dinner, with each course demanding that it be given its own serving tray.
America celebrates Christmas. You don't want to? You are free to celebrate something else without persecution. Good luck getting the same treatment anywhere else. But just because you don't celebrate Christmas doesn't mean you're entitled to have it hidden from view so that you're not "offended". Furthermore, a government that recognizes the main holiday of the vast majority of its citizens is not a theocracy. A theocracy would prohibit you from celebrating yours, and nothing of the sort has ever happened or will happen here.
Let's say I'm elected Mayor of a medium sized town, and I want to erect a big lighted Pentacle and a Yule tree on the lawn of City Hall. As long as I'm mayor, it will be alright for me to spend tax dollars on this, right? Even if the majority doesn't agree with me, right? After all, if we can just discount the opinions of the minority, can't we discount the opinions of the majority where this subject is concerned?
Of course, there's not a snowball's chance in Jerusalem that this will ever happen, because, thanks to the co-opting of the political process by the Right Wing Conservative Christians, the first question you have to answer these days is, "Do you believe in God?" When I reply, "Yeah...lots of 'em!", I'm thinking that's gonna be the end of the political campaign. :lol:
I support the freedom of any religious group to practice their religion, and I support the right of non-religious people to abstain.
Okay, so why does the line "...freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM..." keep appearing in so many of the debates? Does this simply mean that people who wish to abstain must tolerate seeing displays of it or that they must endure a government biased to a religion of that government's selection?
What I don't get is how one can draw a parallel between a theocracy and a government that simply doesn't work against people of faith at every opportunity. To say that ALL faiths must be represented simultaneously or NO faith can be mentioned by ANY public official while he or she is on the clock is unrealistic
Well, I've always viewed government as a representative body that provides a function and that function has not ever been religious, nor does any require any religion to operate. Does a courthouse need a star of david to determine court cases? Does a town hall need a crescent moon and star symbol to levy taxes? Does a state run elementary school need a Christmas tree to teach chemistry? No. Religion simply serves no purpose at any of these places besides making one group of people feel more recognized and powerful than another. The government biasing itself one way or another only discredits some portion of the population, but remaining netrual affects no portion of the population in a negative way. This, to me at least, seems both logical and simple.
So, if this group you fear gets its way and removes religious displays from government, what will happen? Does society degrade and collapse? My view is that people will feel free to practice their religion as they please in their churches, worship areas, in public, etc. I even think that the lack of a government recognized religion might even make many of the minor religions in this country feel even more open and free to do as they wish.
I suppose I've never seen these groups that you speak of actually do anything to try to prohibit private individuals from celebrating or observing their beliefs, only the collective government. Maybe you have some instances in the media that you'd like to point to us that provide a different story?
At this point, the biggest problem I have with what I'm hearing here is paraphrased something like this:
"Why are you worried if the Government is Christian biased? They won't mess with anyone who isn't."
I'd like to see *one* single historical example of this having been the case anywhere, ever, regardless of which religious bias the government held. It is especially unlikely in the case of Christianity, since the central tenet is that you have to attempt to convert everyone else who isn't Christian (Evangelism), and that little gem has been used down through the ages to subvert entire races and separate them from their property. Take the gold and land, give 'em Jesus and smallpox. Not a very fair trade, IMHO.
I'm not against people of other religions, or people who don't follow a religion. I'm specifically addressing the small, vocally anti-Christian crowd that is actively involved in trying to mute all references to faith outside of a church building. I support the freedom of any religious group to practice their religion, and I support the right of non-religious people to abstain.
Above is a different post compared to mrnoodle's earlier one. That earlier post so agreed with intolerant religious extremists who, for example, condemn Target for using the expression "Happy Holidays". Based upon mrnoodle's most recent post, then my last post no longer applies to him.
However I have no problem associating this quote with religous extremists whose intent is to promote their religion upon America:
That means [replaced with 'Christian extremist'] is a classic anti-American in the tradition of Nazism, McCarthyism, Spanish Inquisition, and the Ku Klux Klan.
Concepts by Christian extremists are same principles that Hilter defined (to rally Brown Shirts) in his book Mein Kampf. Throughout history, religion in politics has created so much death and destruction. For example, in a war between different factions of Catholics for religious reasons, the conquering general was asked how to tell the difference between good and bad Catholics. He replied, "Kill them all. God will know his own." Classic example of decisions based upon religious extremism.
The difference between my position verses those of Elspode and Kitsune is that I consider religion in politics that dangerous. That is not to say that religious leaders doing secular work (being careful to remove any religious bias from their agenda) cannot perform as politicians. That the Catholic Church would protect pedophiles at the expense of kids, however, should surprise no one. The nature of any institution that can make decrees without question, doubt, or public accounting can become satanic. An honest Catholic Church would instead welcome reforms from "Voices of the Faithful". In other venues, these religious institutions would be called a dictatorship with all the associated intolerance.
A good religion is only a relationship between you and your god - completely devoid of government and political attachments. 1st Amendment demands same. A Federal court ruling in Dover PA even demonstrates the evil of a religious political agenda. Those religious extremists would even lie ("repetitious, untruthful testimony") - which is what happens when religion is promoted by a political agenda.
Okay, I know this was said relatively long ago in the thread, but it sums it up quite nicely for me:
Just don't tell me I can't have a manger scene next to it.
That's exactly the problem. You CAN have a manger scene next to it. Anyone who feels like it has the right to display their religion. Wonderful. But by this token, if there's a single Jewish kid in your class, he has the right to request that the class sing at least a few Hannukah songs at the school Christmas play.
"You can have your Christmas carols, just don't tell me I can't have a round of
Hava Nagila right after it."
And that one atheist kid? He gets to make everyone sing "Grandma Got Run Over By a Reindeer." And the Muslim kid gets to add in whatever songs he wants. And the Kwanzaa kid. At some point, it's just too much of a pain in the ass to be inclusive to everyone. So you create a generic substitute. No one is happy, but no one is left out either. It's just not
practical in a lot of situations to allow one of everything.
No, no, no, if the Jewish kid wants Hava Nagila and the Atheist wants "Grandma Got Run Over By a Reindeer", I have to LISTEN to it, not sing it. They don't have to sing Christmas Carols either. :headshake
Hmmm...TW and I agree on something. Mark this date. I, too, feel that religion and politics is *that* dangerous. History proves it, and I don't see anything different in what is going on in this country and what has happened over the centuries in other lands.
All you need to know about a theocracy can be seen in the Middle East. *They* think their religion and tenets are Right. Having our own government adopt any religious tenets that people here think are Right is going to produce the same results. That's why we need to just leave it out. If it is a restrictive practice to do so, if it is discriminatory...at least it restricts *everyone* equally. At least it discriminates against *all* religions.
These are interesting dilemmas created by the totality of state interference in all aspects of life. For many believing Christians or Moslems or whatever to exclude their faith from any enterprise in their life is unnatural. This becomes easy pickings for evil politicians, naturally they will choose the most coercive response because that is what statists do. Fortunately, private schools are still legal. Home schooling is an oppressively regulated option most places as well. A public system of smaller community based schools might help ease tensions but they'd still exist. The bottom line is a lack of respect for each others beliefs/disbeliefs and ways of life which is exascerbated by two ugly political parties trying to rally their militants.
If it becomes acceptable to marginalize, deny access to, and ban expressions and celebrations of the "big" religion, what do you think will happen to all the "little" ones?
They'll remain exactly where they are now, in the hearts and homes and places of worship of their practitioners. Where do you think?
The denial of access to any religion is only applicable to Governmental entities, in my mind. Are you suggesting that there is a functional way to allow equal inclusion and protection for *all* religions within the Governmental milieu?
But it takes a whole village to persecute a minority. :blush:
Are you suggesting that there is a functional way to allow equal inclusion and protection for *all* religions within the Governmental milieu?
Then there is the basic incompatability of inclusion of *any* religion with the rights of our token athiest. Do athiests have rights, Wolf? Do we have the *same* rights as Christians? :eyebrow:
- Pie
re·li·gion n.
1- a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2- The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3- A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4- A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
If you have enough zeal, Pie, or conscientious devotion. ;)
re·li·gion n.
1- b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The problem I've got, Bruce, is that 1B is the only way it is observed in this country by that vast hulking Chrisitian majority. The promotion of organized religion is the antithesis of everything I "believe"!
Still incompatible.
From the Associated Press on 22 Dec 2005:
Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) withdrew on Thursday his affiliation from the Christian-rights law center that defended a school district's policy requiring the teaching of "intelligent design."
Santorum, the Senate's third-ranking Republican, is facing a tough reelection challenge next year. Earlier, he praised the Dover Area School District for "attempting to teach the controversy of evolution."
But the day after a federal judge ruled that the district's policy on intelligent design is unconstitutional, Santorum told the Philadelphia Inquirer that he was troubled by testimony indicating that religion motivated some school board members to adopt the policy.
Santorum was on the advisory board of the Michigan-based Thomas More Law Center, which defended the district's policy. ...
In 2002, Santorum said in a Washington Times op-ed article that intelligent design "is a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes."
Funny. Santorum did not have a problem back when the Dover School Board was openly promoting religion in the schools. Suddenly he has a problem with his Thomas More Law Center that was (according to the judge)
Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID ...
Will PA reelect Sen Santorum? Probably. PA reelects 98% of its incumbents. Future victims of religious extremism have remained in denial until it is too late. Even the good people of Dover PA never saw this coming - in part because few really appreciate how serious Christian extremists are to American principles and government. As court testimony demonstrates, some on the school board voted for ID because they did not even know what it was. In PA, such ignorance is still found in the public. (However some 'always' Republican friends have recently admitted that George Jr may have been a mistake. That is a major concession for one.) Santorum, like George Jr, publically approved of what religious extremists in Dover were doing. Each specifically said so using the word ‘Dover’. Suddenly Santorum pretends not to be a Christian extremist? Suddenly he no longer approves of what he previously encouraged? Maybe he lurks in the Cellar and is now worried?
Hi Rick! You don't have a problem. Most PA residents don't care. Only Christian extremists vote with religious furvor - and vote who they are told to vote for.
Then there is the basic incompatability of inclusion of *any* religion with the rights of our token athiest. Do athiests have rights, Wolf? Do we have the *same* rights as Christians? :eyebrow:
- Pie
You have as much right to your beliefs/disbeliefs as a Christian does to theirs. The fact that they believe in a particular Godform does not intrude upon your ability not to believe. Displays of religious iconography do not harm you, or anyone else. You are not forced to participate in their practices, nor am I.
If someone would read a Bible in your presence, that is their choice, and their right. If they ask that you read the Bible, you have the right to decline. If they would attempt to press the issue and inist that you read the Bible, accept Christ as your personal savior, or sacrifice a lamb to appease the Gods, and don't respond to your requests to desist, THEN they are harrassing you and you can pursue legal action against them.
Well, I've decided not to celebrate the whatchamacallit season at all. Solves the problem for me, and I have had a completely stress-free, non-commercial whatever-everyone-else-who-wants -to-argue-about-semantics-wants-to-call-it season. I AM going to a friend's house for that one dinner that people get together for on the 25th of December, but that is just because I want to hang out with her. I expressly asked that no one buy me a gift this year and I have bought no gifts. It is more important to spend time with people you care about.
I am a whatever-this-season-is-called drop-out. I resent that corporate America is now trying to start the (insert your favorite term here) season at the beginning of November. It is getting absolutely ridiculous. I quit--I'm not even a Christian--so, I quit.
I'm gonna sit back and let everyone else get stressed out and buy a bunch of useless junk for the holiday/Christmas/Xmas..blah, blah, blah, ad nauseum season. And argue with each other over what we are going to call a season that no longer stands for the secular or religious sentiments that it once did. Maybe we should just call it the "buying season." Because that is what it is really about.
A joyous buying and arguing season to all, and to all a good night!
My two cent...
My increasingly senile mother has already decided that I have ruined Christmas. I am not entirely sure why she has decided this. Neither is she, and hopefully by tomorrow she will have picked something else to obsess about.
hmmmmm...
:idea:
Why not, "Peace on earth"?
:rainfro: :biggrinba :stpaddy: :dreads: :muse: :us: :ivy: :earth:
:ipray:
:grouphug:
:gift:
Merry Holidays, everyone!
(even you, LJ!)
:shocking: :shocking: :shocking:
religion: a popular cult
cult: an unpopular religion
Why not, "Peace on earth"?
Because it's not "The American Way"[SIZE=1]tm[/SIZE]
Because it's our duty to save the heathens from the evils of their oil, gold, diamonds, etc.
Because it's not profitable. ;)
The problem I've got, Bruce, is that 1B is the only way it is observed in this country by that vast hulking Chrisitian majority. The promotion of organized religion is the antithesis of everything I "believe"!
Still incompatible.
I understand what you're saying.
My point was under "4- A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.", if you have the zeal, the government must recognize your position as a valid religion and include it as acceptable. :D
MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL THE HEATHENS OF THE WORLD
Happy Holidays! - Christmas, Yule, Kwanzaa,
Hanukkah, or (insert winter solstice holiday here) to all of my Cellar friends, not-friends, and lurkers.
I prefer Thanksgiving anyway because it is basically the same thing minus the traffic and the maxed out Mastercard.
To all of you:
However you celebrate the occasion, may it be filled with happiness.
If you don't celebrate it, hell , have a great weekend! :beer:
I prefer Thanksgiving anyway because it is basically the same thing minus the traffic
Uh, wha? Are you sure you're talking about the Thanksgiving I'm thinking of? The Thanksgiving that involved a 7 hour drive turning into a 13.5 hour drive?
You can tell it's Christmas by the clothes people wear.
Even the
pope was dressed for the holidays, looking like a cross between Emperor Palpatine and Santa Claus.
Displays of religious iconography do not harm you, or anyone else. You are not forced to participate in their practices, nor am I.
However once 'they' tell others what may and may not be displayed, (ie Target attacked for using the expression "Happy Holiday" - and this attack is for political reasons), then their religion does harm everyone. A display of "Holiday" garnish is not offensive when paid for with public money. But when only Christian symbols are displayed, then that is akin to government sponsoring religion.
Wreaths, trees, decorative lights, Santa Claus, etc in the Holiday spirit are not offensive to anyone. But by taking offense to “Holiday” and demanding that government "put the Christ back into Christmas" (as Christian extremists are demanding) is an offense to the 1st Amendment.
It is a fine line. Was not an issue when Christian extremists were not promoting their religion upon all others. Therefore (and unfortunately) a line must be drawn.
Seasonal garnish is one thing. Public spending that promotes the religion of an extremist group offends anyone American. If we have a manger, then we better have some Kwanzaa, Islamic, and Buddhist trappings as well. This only because Christian religion is now being used for a political agenda. “Put the Christ back in Christmas” is offensive because it imposes beliefs of one religious group upon all others.
Let's not miss what their agenda is. As even stated in testimony in the Dover PA school board lawsuit, Christian extremists wanted to put prayer back into public schools. So now even Holiday decorations require a legal opinion. It's shameful what Christian extremists have done to the Holidays.
Merry Xmas to all who are not so intolerant. And Happy New Year. Another part of "Happy Holidays" that are thankfully devoid of religion - so far.
My increasingly senile mother has already decided that I have ruined Christmas. I am not entirely sure why she has decided this. Neither is she, and hopefully by tomorrow she will have picked something else to obsess about.
Hey, Wolf, your mom sounds like my mom. Jeez, why can't they just realize that they RAISED us to be Christmas ruiners! I "ruined" Christmas last year so I'm staying over on my side of the country this year. But, wouldn't ya know it, my sister stepped up to the plate and "ruined" Thanksgiving this year. We're just a bunch of holiday ruiners--the lot of us. (We're wondering when she's going to wake up and realize that she is actually the one with the problem.)
Chin up! It must simply be something in the mentality of mother's with grown children. :headshake : :right:
Rich, do you have any insight into this issue ...
Was there any gift-giving associated with Chanukah before, say, about the 1940s (just guessing at time of culture change)? What do presents have to do with the bottle of oil lasting 8 days, anyway?
Do modern Hasids exchange gifts during Chanukah, or do they just do the prayers over the candles?
Haha
[size=4]Experience a satisfactory non-denominational winter gift festival citizen[/size]
And remember to lighten up a bit, It's Christmas for fuck sakes! :fumette:
Rich, do you have any insight into this issue ...
Was there any gift-giving associated with Chanukah before, say, about the 1940s (just guessing at time of culture change)? What do presents have to do with the bottle of oil lasting 8 days, anyway?
Do modern Hasids exchange gifts during Chanukah, or do they just do the prayers over the candles?
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are just rearranging their prejudices."
William James
Rich, do you have any insight into this issue ...
Was there any gift-giving associated with Chanukah before, say, about the 1940s (just guessing at time of culture change)? What do presents have to do with the bottle of oil lasting 8 days, anyway?
Do modern Hasids exchange gifts during Chanukah, or do they just do the prayers over the candles?
Well, first,
here is a Hanukkah story I had never heard before. Hanukkah is the celebration of a revolt, and as usual, insurgents do not play by the rules and the women are often more dangerous than the men.
I had heard in Hebrew school (say that three times real fast) that the present giving was fairly recent.
This site says the same thing. Of course, we could both be wrong and repeating what we were told. BTW, it also mentions the story about Judith.
In remembrance, a candle is lit each of the eight days of Hanukkah. Children receive gifts of gelt (in remembrance of the coins minted by the new independent Maccabee state) or money and play games of dreidel (a spinning four-sided top.) The tradition of receiving a gift on each of the eight days of Hanukkah is fairly recent. Since Christians exchange gifts at Christmas, Jews have come to exchange gifts other than coins at Hanukkah, which comes at the same time of the year.
I understand the greater prevalence of gift-giving on Hanukkah to have been the influence of the Christian Christ Mass and the traditions that have grown up around it -- the Yule log and the Christmas tree are sort of competing traditions -- in a sort of cultural cross-pollination. A once rather minor holiday is becoming a bigger, grander affair. Evolution in progress, please design intelligently if at all.:3_eyes:
My Jewish mother-in-law, rest her soul, did me the favor of teaching me correct pronunciation of the holiday even when it got spelled Chanukah. We never did get around to discussing a heroine, a tent peg, and that general, though. The mallet wouldn't have gotten the job done, or was she determined to nail the guy to the spot? At first I thought that was the Judith story... oh well. Something else to put on the reading list.
Other holidays are getting a cross-pollination, too. American-style Halloween celebrations with costuming and hijinks are becoming more and more popular in Mexican Day of the Dead, and of course Day of the Dead stuff is all over southern California anyway. All parties concerned are amused. The Halloween influence is being taken south by Mexicans returning after a stay up north, and by families with relatives on both sides of the border, which is a very frequent occurrence.
Here is a little CHRISTMAS story from the center of Christian Fundie Whackos aka Colorado Springs, home of Focus on the Family and that Dobson idiot.
Yesterday (CHRISTMAS Day) I had occasion to go to a convenience store to buy some half and half. The clerk there was ranting to any customer that would listen how she had placed a sign saying Merry CHRISTMAS on the door, despite the fact that the Jews didn't want her to do this. She went on and on about the Jews and loudly proclaimed that she'd be damned if she said "Happy Chanuka" to ANYONE! I stared at her in astonishment, paid for my half and half, and loudly said "PEACE ON EARTH!" to her and everyone else in the store as I went out the door.
We've come a long way. NOT! :eyebrow:
You're just upset because Christians have the secret to Life Eternal and The Truth, and they're right and you're not, aren't you? :lol:
BTW, too bad you aren't a Jew, because you could have sued the shit out of the c-store chain for religious persecution. I mean, you would have felt threatened and demeaned, and you'd have had your civil rights trampled and all, because of all the stuff the cashier was saying. Oh, wait...I'm sorry...its everyone else who is persecuting the Christians these days, right?
I've got to get straight with The Truth.
Tell you what, Patrick. If I were Jewish instead of Buddhist/Native American/Pagan, I doubt if the "Merry Christmas" sign would have bothered me any more than it did when I walked in the door - which was NOT at all. However, by time I walked out of the store, I wanted to tear that "Merry Christmas" sign down, rip it to shreds and set fire to the fragments. I can't imagine how I would have felt if I had been Jewish, but you're right, the only ones who are persecuted these days are the fundies. Umm hmm. :mad:
JESUS CHRIST IS LORD!!! God said it I belive it, and that settles it...
JESUS CHRIST IS LORD!!! God said it I belive it, and that settles it...
Oh, Pshaw. God said a lot of things.
I especially like that thing about, if your wife is infertile, you get to do her sister so you can have sons. Gotta love a good patriarchal sort of ethos...
In Boston, they busted an
Asian Supermarket for being open on Christmas. :rolleyes:
NOt sure if this was posted anywhere, but it is Ben Stein's piece (I am told) from CBS 'Sunday Morning' on Christmas Day
++
Herewith at this happy time of year, a few confessions from my beating heart:
I have no freaking clue who Nick and Jessica are. I see them on the cover of People and Us constantly when I am buying my dog biscuits and kitty litter. I often ask the checkers at the grocery stores. They never know who Nick and Jessica are either. Who are they? Will it change my life if I know who they are and why they have broken up? Why are they so important? I don't know who Lindsay Lohan is, either, and I do not care at all about Tom Cruise's wife.
Am I going to be called before a Senate committee and asked if I am a subversive? Maybe, but I just have no clue who Nick and Jessica are. Is this what it means to be no longer young. It's not so bad.
Next confession: I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejeweled trees Christmas trees. I don't feel threatened. I don't feel discriminated against. That's what they are: Christmas trees. It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, "Merry Christmas" to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu. If people want a crèche, it's just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away.
I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat.
Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship Nick and Jessica and we aren't allowed to worship God as we understand Him?
I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where Nick and Jessica came from and where the America we knew went to.
++
Even before FERRIS BUELLER'S DAY OFF, I loved Ben Stein.
He's a smart cookie.
He was one of Richard Nixon's speech writers. :mad:
No wonder he went into comedy.
Happy New Year, all of you.
I especially like that thing about, if your wife is infertile, you get to do her sister so you can have sons. Gotta love a good patriarchal sort of ethos...
There's more to it than that, Elsp. Living offspring were the Social Security of the era. Enough nephews would be almost as good for keeping you in your old age as a few sons. The widow with no adult sons was in a world of hurt, shekel-wise, and this was a continuing problem through the first century and beyond.
Here in Boulder the Christmas Parade was renamed December Lights Festival. I'm a Witch, but I deliberately went caroling in the Pearl Street mall and telling people Merry Christmas because this PC crap pisses me off.
Happy Yuletide
There's more to it than that, Elsp. Living offspring were the Social Security of the era. Enough nephews would be almost as good for keeping you in your old age as a few sons. The widow with no adult sons was in a world of hurt, shekel-wise, and this was a continuing problem through the first century and beyond.
Evidently it continues in the
21st century :eyebrow:
I was talking about your descendants being your retirement plan, not "honor killings." That should go in another thread, I think.
We were talking about doing the wife's sister or brother's wife in this case. ;)
And it's hard to see the intent here to make descendants because...?
Because it's the 21st century not the first, which was my point. :p
And I was talking about the first, which was my point. :p
That's your problem.... well one of them....you're 2000 years behind.
You rant about what a great idea it was for women to be handed off, to be knocked up for their own social security, in the 1st century.
When I pointed out it still goes on, you say it's not about honor killings. Obviously you didn't read past the headline and immediately jumped to the wrong conclusion.
It must be Urbane W. Guerrilla. :rtfm:
Rant about what a great idea...? You have confused me with someone else, Bruce -- AFAIK, someone who has not even posted on this thread. My sole remark was that it was done this way, back then, and before. I read the honor-killing article linked, and made no remark on it, as you will doubtless see when you check. Have fun with your strawman, but I think you can leave me out of that.
Post #96, you claim it was “social security” rather than patriarchal, and needed 2k years ago
Post #98, I linked to a story proving it still exists.
Post #99, you wrongly pronounce my link doesn’t belong in this thread because it’s about a different subject.
Post #100, I point out it was about patriarchal.
Post #101, you claim it’s still ok because the intent is “social security”.
Post #102, patriarchal abuse in not ok in the 21st century.
Post #103, claim 1st century exemption.
Post #104, point out it’s still happening as shown in post#98.
Post #105, who me?
Post #106, yeah you!
:eyebrow:
All of which documents in glorious detail that you persist in missing my point, and also miss that I merely observed this was how they tried to do it. I'd amplify that it seems they had little to nothing else, those being unsophisticated times economically, which from the talking they did about it in the Bible, suggests they weren't sure they were getting the job properly done in 100% of the circumstances. Sounds like everybody who had something to say about it could name a starveling widow or three.
It's the sort of thing that would have been come up with in a social order where your family and your blood relatives were the chiefest, if not the only, thing you kept allegiance with -- tribal bonds and links being a sort of extension of the family bond.
Note also that the story of Onan documents, insofar as this is documented at all, and aside from the superstitious coda of "...wherefore the Lord slew him also," the point at which the Hebrews abandoned this law in apparent hope of finding something better, that didn't rely so heavily on some other available relative being interested enough in, and happy enough with, the widow, to fix her up with descendants with the filial obligations to keep the ol' gal in comfort. Read it and see if this interpretation doesn't hold up.
I also draw a distinction between "social security" and individual "retirement plan," positing the latter and not the former, the one being governmental entitlements, the other private.
The fact remains they live in a patriarchal, abusive society now and have for thousands of years, as Elspode posited. :eyebrow:
I also draw a distinction between "social security" and individual "retirement plan," positing the latter and not the former, the one being governmental entitlements, the other private.
Living offspring were the Social Security of the era.
UG, you really should leave attempts at logic alone and stick with the blatent insults. :rolleyes:
Both of his above statements are accurate.
Both of his above statements are accurate.
OK, Wolf, I'll bite. How? Social security is a government entitlement program. Living offspring were the social security of the first century. How are living offspring a government entitlement, especially in 1 AD? I can understand someone making the argument that a welfare Mom with 6 illegitimate children in the 21st century has them as a "government entitlement." However, saying a child born in the 1st century was the same as a government entilement program is stretching just a wee bit.
Logic is a little bird tweeting in a meadow. Even I know you're not as stupid as you are currently pretending to be.
wolf - the statements each, taken out of context, are true because they make different assumptions. They just don't work together. In the context of the first statement, the second one should be
Living offspring were the individual "retirement plan" of the era.
since he is explicitly not positing "social security."
I think that when the argument has reached this level of inanity it's safe to assume we've worn it out.
What? did somebody say 'Nazi' yet?
OK, Wolf, I'll bite. How? Social security is a government entitlement program. Living offspring were the social security of the first century.
In a feudal society serfs are essentially considered posessions of the landholder and therefore are, in that sense, a form of government entitlement.
Nazi yet again?
Moved and seconded. ;)
In a feudal society serfs are essentially considered posessions of the landholder and therefore are, in that sense, a form of government entitlement.
Wait! How did we suddenly leap into a feudal society with serfs? I thought we were talking about nomadic desert peoples who followed flocks of goats and sheep around. But if we are going to talk feudal society and serfs, then the analogy of living offspring/social security makes even less sense. If a person is essentially an item of property owned by someone else, then their children also become someone else's property. Joe Serf Jr. may long to help out dear old Mom in her old age, but if the evil Lord of the Manor has decreed that he go off and dig turnips somewhere a week's journey away, there's not much little Joe or his Mom can do about it, and Mom's sure not secure in her old age.
BZZZZZT!
Next meadow lark, please.
If a person is essentially an item of property owned by someone else, then their children also become someone else's property. Joe Serf Jr. may long to help out dear old Mom in her old age, but if the evil Lord of the Manor has decreed that he go off and dig turnips somewhere a week's journey away, there's not much little Joe or his Mom can do about it, and Mom's sure not secure in her old age.
I haven't been following the thread closely but isn't this a description of Social Security? We don't own the fruit of our labors. I'll have to go back now to see what you're not getting because I do in fact speak jive.