GarthP2000

I can think of many and various vile things that have been said, and all in a 'moral and pure' religious context too, ... like saying that someone is condemned to hell for simply not believing in Jesus, automatically presuming that atheists have no morals nor could ever defend their country (via the concept of no atheists in foxholes, donchaknow <_< ), trying to make a purely political viewpoint appear 'spiritual', even if/when it involves taking our nation to a stupid war, etc., etc., ad nauseum. You subscribe to HBO, Showtime, or other cable channels that aren't as 'family friendly' as Disney? Then you probably (most likely) have heard just as much 'vile' things, and I'd be willing to bet that a good number of them haven't got you upset as you seem to be here. Especially if you have seen Penn & Teller's Bullsh1t!

"It ... is ... your ... DESTINY!!"

Ohhh .... 'world domination' as a tangible benefit. ..... well, why didn't you SAY so? ;) Anyway, I've explained my view of the tangible benefits to the space program. Perhaps you don't see them as tangible. Oh well. ... One thing for sure, one soft drink company sure got quite a Tang-ible benefit out of the Apollo space program. ........... ((crickets chirping)) Gee, tough crowd! :unsure:

Even better than that Belle, is to cut a 'Silent but Deadly' in the elevator right as your getting off, ... and the doors quickly close, ... ... and the poor victims only then realize who did it, but are *trapped* with no way out! Oh wait! This is in regards to being in the _plane_.

"billions of tax dollars" I laugh when I hear phrases like that, as it gives the impression that NASA is gobbling up a sizeable amount of the federal budget. Where in actuality, NASA only uses around 1-3 or 4% of our tax dollars. Heck, I think it's even less than that. And when it comes to the wastefulness factor, NASA doesn't even come close. Hell, I could probably take a quarter of the cost overruns in the defense dept., and fund NASA for the next 20 years! What I think needs to be done in NASA is make them more efficient, and more intelligent at the upper levels of management, tho.

Frankly, I think that sending people into space is done with a farther goal than just simply 'sending them into space'. I mean, look at the whole space program. What are its overall goals? Is it simply to send man into space? To the moon? To Mars? To any other destination for the simple purpose of simply sending them there? Or are all these things done with an overall goal or goals in mind? ... How about to explore beyond this earth? Hell, we've been exploring this earth for the purposes of exploring for the past several thousand years or more. And there has definitely been benefits from all that, and not just from a technical or a gee-whiz standpoint. We humans are a curious bunch, wanting to see what's out there ever since we first climbed down from the trees. So what of it if we take our exploration beyond the skies? And is it really going to make all the more people hungrier or more deprived of the basic necessities of life if we do? And if you don't want to participate, well then, who is stopping YOU from participating in the betterment of mankind here on earth, hmmm? :unsure: Disclaimer here: Just wanted people to know that I have, and am a staunch supporter of the space program and exploration, and live in the Space Capital of the World (Huntsville, AL), and I have a personal interest in the space program. ... So there! :P :)

Medical condition? ... You sure it wasn't due to a family sized can of pork n' beans? Evan, man what _do_ they feed you in Africa down there dude?

What's the matter Tom? Did you watch one of SciFi's 'Star Trek Marathon' one too many times, ... and feel like you're being assimilated? Here. Have a Vulcan style sno-cone to sooth your nerves, ... and make you more logical again.

I have to laugh at the 'COURSE LANGUAGE' warning, Mark. I really do. Nothing on you, but with some of the ((ahem)) 'heated' arguments that go on around here, in the politics area and elsewhere, ... I imagine that it would be hard to picture very many of us then being shocked :blink: at course language on a video, even if it is done by an 8 year old girl and her uncle. <_<

Talk about your blanket (and quite presumptuous) statements. <_< And with that, I think I will withdraw from this particular argument, as it is evident that we're gonna go 'round and round with no end in sight, neither one of us convincing the other. So I wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

(sarcasm mode on) Satan? (sarcasm mode off) <_< But seriously, I think that it's great that more effort was made to "go where no one has gone before". Ie., especially if we can figure out faster than light travel. :) And why not do this? What will we do if our planet gets way too overcrowded/nuked/threat of asteroid/some other catastrophe happens? Or will it be some are opposed because it doesn't fit in with their religious beliefs/prophecy? <_< I say lets go for it, and see what we can learn and accomplish!

ooooo nice try, Templelady, nice try. .... except that the manger scene and other figures of Christ's birth are with a specific religious purpose. But wreaths, Christmas trees, mistletoes, etc., do not have a specific religious purpose in mind. Ie., nobody has converted to pagan Greco-Roman mythology due to said images. They are simply cultural images. The Christian images however, are often noted as conveying a specific religious message. One of Christ coming to save humanity from their sins. A specific religious message is being conveyed here. And many times people complain that "Jesus is the reason for the season". Nobody is going "Bacchus or Zeus or Saturn is the reason for the season". And even with the Winter Solstice holiday motif, it was celebrating a natural event; the winter solstice, where the return of longer days is now ahead, and the end of long winter nights and the hope of spring being not far off. But you don't see the government putting up Saturn (or any other pagan god) as a religious image for people to religiously think about. No matter how you slice it, there IS no governmental or organizational attempt to prohibit the Christian celebration of Christmas, no matter how insistent you want to keep holding on to that idea. ..... It is a 'persecution' that is largely hype. Because if the government or anyone else was actually trying to stop you from celebrating or saying Merry Christmas, ... it would be a helluva lot more obvious. ... why, it would be just like back in Puritan New England, where celebrating Christmas was outlawed. By fellow Christians! <_< How's that for clearing up any confusion which you evidently have about this so-called hypocrisy, hmmm?

Evan, Sad to say, I didn't write her script, but sure as hell wish I had. Overall, *excellent* video, just excellent! She does make some very good and valid points, ... when you manage to get past the 'offensive' terms. <_<

First I'll deal with Ron's post. Ron, First off, I appreciate that instead of the (usual) tirade of ad hominum "Yer a Leftist, Marxist, U.N. luver" like renderings, coupled with little else of relevant content, you are addressing my points directly, and asking me more about what they mean. Good on you, and it deserves an applause. Two, I was using the stores as but a context example of how various religious Christians are viewing the (supposed) attempt to drive Christ out of Christmas, an attempt that is based FAR more on myth and hyperbole than on actual fact, some of the rigorous protestations here notwithstanding. <_< I wasn't trying to show a comparison of sorts between stores, individuals, or government, or anything else like that. Also keep in mind that not everybody views life and sundry through 'Libertarian and/or Marxist State vs Individual Liberty' filters/context that some do. There are other sources/contexts about where life and sundry can be discussed, even here. Hope this clears that up. In this paragraph, there is one characteristic that has been made a necessary part that which is actually optional (ie., not necessary) when this country was founded. I illustrate that by putting the optional part in bold above. Ie., government >(accountable to)> the people >(accountable to)> God or Supreme Being. Notice I said optional! I did NOT say it was to be *left out* perse. Expanding upon this, the government was to be held accountable to the people, after that who some hold themselves accountable to God, and some do not. AND as to the government, whether people are held accountable to God or not is none of the government's concern nor business! <--- notice more bold, and this illustrates that it is NOT optional. Also, it is historically documented that the demise of 'divine right of kings' was set in motion in Europe long before 1776, ... like maybe starting in 1219 at the signing of the Magna Carta. That is your interpretation, but one that is flawed. They are endeavoring to have publically funded institutions of government/public schools not be communication tools for specific religions/churches as regards their holy days. It is all within the context of separation of church and state. The government is essentially saying "Do not use us as a means of communicating your gospel/religious views." No doubt it can be done better, but that is the context that they are doing it under, rather than some alledged (and unproven in the least) intent as setting itself up to be God or as The Ultimate Authority. (irrelevant of Templelady's large font posting of endorsement of your post. )Dave, Really? Do tell? ... Then please explain to me why you're still discussing, hmmmm? Or aren't you aware of your fingers typing on the keyboard when you respond? <_< But in all seriousness Dave, arguments like that are comparable to a little kid blurting out "So you think that your daddy is better than my daddy!" Yes, that is how I see it. Believe it or not, there is *nowhere* in any of my posts where I am saying that there is no discussion available or allowed, and when you get off your high horse, ... you know it. This is an open forum, and nobody is prohibiting you from responding. (remember your fingers typing away on the keyboard?) Oh, and by the way, you post with *just as much passion and challenge as I do* in many of your posts, and you know it, so spare me the "You just don't want other people to say anything" song-and-dance, because I have never communicated such, and no "well it seems like it" argument is good enough to prove otherwise. You are college (or equivalent) educated adult. I would expect more intelligent responses than that from you. If what I am saying is wrong, then show it clearly. Ron's above post was a classic example of a better attempt than yours. I am disagreeing with him on specific points, and state why. ... And neither of us is going "There is no discussion available" to the other here. ... You notice that? :unsure: And by the way, you also notice that my initial post here was with a humorous anecdote? It was others that took it more seriously and made an argument out of it. ... Right? <_<

No doubt the stores are driven by the bottom line, ie., the dollar. And a lot of those who are crying out for more 'Marry Christmas' stuff and less 'Happy Holidays' stuff are driven by some 'spiritual' motivation. So I would say that it is a combination of both all around.

Ya know, one of the benefits of this board is that you guys are helping me sharpen my debating skills. Now Waterbuffalo, Irrelevent point. This country wasn't founded to be a Christian country, but a free country. ... That was easy. You missed the point. Nobody is requiring you to say Happy Holidays to a Muslim or anyone else. I never said that either. My point is that others of different beliefs celebrate the holidays during this time of year in their own way, and they would like an equal participation in society just as much as Christmas revelers. Ie., a store has signs up saying "Happy Kwanzaa" or "Happy Winter Solstice" or the like, and without the local Christians having such an apocalyptic fit about it. Oh and keep in mind that a good number of the first Christian, *Christian* mind you, colonists who came over here (particularly in the Boston area during the Puritan era), outlawed the celebration of Christmas. :blink: Now there was a serious reason to throw a fit about not saying "Merry Christmas!" MarkO, what if its someone's birthday or anniversary? see above That would be quite an educational experience for the children, wouldn't you agree? To show them that here in America, religious discrimination is still going strong! And Yes Virginia, that form of discrimination IS still happening, the state allowance of that sign notwithstanding. <_< Given some of the super-sickly sweet characteristic of some of them (enough to make my teeth hurt ), I would tend to agree, altho I would make an exception for the flick The Grinch. Way too funny. And I would definitely be for turning the radio off to tune out all the Xmas muzak (which is staring to air in late Sept.-early Oct.), which is enough to make even YOU a Scrooge by the time Christmas Day arrives. Thanks for the pic of the sign tho. Made my day! So a HAPPY WINTER SOLSTICE to you too MarkO.

You mean this one? "Awww come on Willl-burrrrr! Cut it out! I said I was just faking it!"

Gad! It's like talking to a brick wall! Hell, I get a better response from the wall. <_< In any event ..... HAPPY WINTER SOLSTICE TO YOU MO'!!!!!!

Amen brother!

Templelady, Your 'analysis' is flawed for the following reasons: 1) Dec. 25th is NOT Christ's birthday. Nobody really knows when it is exactly, but some scholars (y'know, those who have done quite a bit of studying more than the average churchgoer?) place it around fall, while others place it in springtime. (Then there was TWI who placed it squarely on Sept. 11th, and we all know how flawed they are. ) 2) Many people acknowledge Christ (on his 'supposed' birthday), and some do not. And even among those who do acknowledge him, apparently they are acknowledging this bearded fat guy in a red suit who is at his party a LOT more. 3) Songs and noels are still being sung about Jesus. It's just that those songs are outnumbered by "Rocking around the Christmas tree!" and like current tunes, ... again, many times by those who acknowledge Christ. 4) And this (supposed) not acknowledging that this is a birthday of sorts, again, is just not true. There is that type of acknowledging portrayed all over the place. See, that's the Christmas side of the equation. Winter Solstice, which is what this time of year originally celebrated, so FAR precedes Christmas, it isn't even funny. And yet when that is brought into the picture, or any other non-Christian celebration of this time of year, it is automatically, blindly, and without question, presumed to be an aggressive attempt to drive out Christmas or anything related to Christ. Presumed. W/o question. ... as in, not thinking. And people say that *I'm* anal, and oversensitive? It's well known that people talk about 'political correctness' run amok, like Hills attempt to portray me doing this very thing in this thread, evidently w/o even considering what I wrote or why. ("GARTHs topic that seemss to take a jab at Christmas." clearly illustrates this.) ... Nope. Gotta take the easy way out and whine and label it 'political correctness'. Actually, this virulant reaction that I speak against is the religious version of 'political correctness'. Why do I call it that? Because it is 'politically incorrect' to try to celebrate anything non-Christian on Christmas, regardless of any valid reason for doing so. I mean, look at how many are knee-jerk reacting here to my initial post, which is largely humorous in nature. So yes Hills, one doesn't have to be a secular leftist 'commie' to play the 'politically correct' game. I got a challenge to all here who are up in arms about the 'taking Christ out of Christmas', mmm-kay? Take stock of how you celebrate Christmas and what you celebrate with. If it largely involves Santa Claus, "Rocking around the Christmas tree", going to the stores "to buy our big-screen TVs and dress our daughters like whores", (maybe thats one of the parts that some here find offensive, y'think? ), and pigging out on Xmas turkey, then you really don't have much to whine about 'taking Christ out of Christmas'; ... not really. However, if it is heavily into Christ's birth, his salvation of all mankind, religious hymns & church services, and the like, okay then you have a basis to complain about 'taking Christ out of Christmas', ..... but that is only in regards to fellow Christians who say that they celebrate the 'Christ' in Christmas, ... but don't. As regards to the rest of us blasphemous and unbelieving heathen who have the mitigated gaul to 'assault Christmas' by going around with 'Happy Holidays', 'Happy Winter Solstice' and the like, ... as Sgt. Hulka would say, "Lighten up, Frances!".

I love all these responses. Really I do. For one thing, the amusement value in them as to all the assumptions made and rigidly held to by people who think they are being attacked, when no such attack is really taking place. Templelady, You know what the problem is? It is that others of different beliefs want to share, _share_ mind you, in celebrating Christmas, but in their *own* way, and have that as part of society and its doings, and many religious Christians act as if they are being persecuted, like their religious beliefs and greetings are being forbidden. Guess what? They aren't! At all! There is NO store that forbids you or anyone else from saying "Merry Christmas". There is NO law doing such. There is NO organization doing such. I dare you to document to me where this sort of behavior happens, AND where they aren't being sued out of existence. ... Guess what? You ain't gonna find it. Period. And for the people who want you to 'feel ashamed or guilty' for saying Merry Christmas, ... well, since when did their opinions really matter to you in the first place, hmmmm? Dave, Ditto! Linda, I have been posting on Greasespot for what, over 6 years now, and you have seen a-plenty of my posts ranging from topic A to topic Z. And you have seen me post on Waydale before that. So, I would think that you, more than most here, should be familiar with my mode of posting, particularly in regards to things I believe in. True, I am not the most diplomatic SOB here, but I remain rather consistant in posting in that respect. Actually take out 2 seconds and think about this, will you please, and you will realize that. So spare me the song-and-dance ranging from "zealous proseletyzer" to "Garth, King of PFAL Sign-ups." and the like. And no, nobody is making me celebrate Christmas, ... but then again, when did I actually say that, hmmm? For a more _clear_ in-a-nutshell interpretation of what my original and succeeding posts in this thread are, read (clearly) the last paragraph, ok? Waterbuffalo, May I ask what the patriotic factor of Muslims have to do with this topic? :unsure: In any event, I just have to laugh at people's anal retentiveness re: this topic. They see persecution and restrictions where there are none or not enough to write home about. Like I said before, There is NO store that forbids you or anyone else from saying "Merry Christmas". There is NO law doing such. There is NO organization doing such. Yet folks of other beliefs want to celebrate Christmas in their own way, and have that practice accepted in society, and religious Christians go apes**t. It's like a little spoiled *brat* who will not share any of his toys _ever_. ... Yeah! Right! Classic example of Christian love and godliness? <_< I stand by what I say.

Not only that, but let us all peruse and contemplate upon the Holy Writ of THE. (Now if I can only find that damn link to all the THE Writings.)

"Oohh Wiilll-burrrr, you insulted me! Now I'm-a gonna sue!!"

you mean that when all Belle broke loose?

Well you see, Templelady, Neither Hannukah nor Ramadan were (ahem) 'borrowed' from another holiday, like Saturnalia or Winter Solstice was from the pagans as it was in the case of Christmas. Read up on church history for details. Oh by the way, I seriously doubt that many in the 'Happy Holidays' crowd want Christ _out_ of Christmas, but rather that their versions be acknowledged also. And the hypocrisy knife doesn't cut nearly as deep as the knife of ignorance. <_< (gives TommyZ a hot apple cider -- <--- hot apple cider :) )