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. )
Completely irrelevant--My birthday is January 28th--If one year I decide I am going to celebrate it on March 30th because that is when My relatives are coming to Alaska then, While my Chronological birthday is January 28th, MY Birthday celebration is March 30th--this isn't complicated
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.
And your point is???? No one of this negates the fact that for whatever rational or reasons the Celebration of Christ's birth is Dec 25th
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.
And where is it written that Christians are only allowed to sing songs about Christ on his birthday---or is this the Book of Garth we are talking about
4) .
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.
That may be because instead of just celebrating their non-Christian celebrations they at the same time demand that Christians a) not say Merry Christmas, b) do not display Creches anywhere that they may be seen, c) do not sing any kind of :religious" carol anywhere but behind closed doors.
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 just re read my previous post--didn't say anything about anyone not being allowed to have a party on Dec 25th-- in fact just the opposite---just about them being allowed to declare that those of us who have a party on Dec 25th can;t claim it as Christ's Birthday.
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!".
Actually I don't care what you call it--or what you say a a part of greeting your fellow humans --What IO care about is the fact that you expect me to go along with it in my personal world-- and to that let me say
Disclaimer: the following reflects the views of the organization responsible and does not reflect the views of Mark O'Malley, his family, friends, or co-workers.
Sign hanging up in the Wisconsin Capitol. Click on the sign for an accompanying press release. (for those who hang out in the 'tacks mosh-pit, you will recognize the signifance of the expression "press release.")
One word of commentary:
I certainly hope that none of the members of the group sponsoring the above sign:
a) take the day off from work, unless it falls on a normal day off.
b) have any decorations in their house reflecting any type of festival with any religious origins whatsoever
c) do not exchange gifts of any type
d) do not allow their children to receive any type of gift, candy, special food, and so on
e) attempt to involve their children in routine daily work so that they recognize how they are being discriminated against during the winter holiday break (since the religious majority discriminate against them through having the week before and week after as school holidays -- in most places, at least)
f) insist that the television be turned off during any holiday specials
Ya know, one of the benefits of this board is that you guys are helping me sharpen my debating skills.
Now Waterbuffalo,
For one, I don't recall reading about any Muslims in our history who lost life or all of their earthly posessions in order to found the still free country we live in. There are many Christians who did.
Irrelevent point. This country wasn't founded to be a Christian country, but a free country. ... That was easy.
Also, why would I say "Happy Holidays" to a Muslim?
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,
c) do not exchange gifts of any type
what if its someone's birthday or anniversary?
d) do not allow their children to receive any type of gift, candy, special food, and so on
see above
e) attempt to involve their children in routine daily work so that they recognize how they are being discriminated against during the winter holiday break (since the religious majority discriminate against them through having the week before and week after as school holidays -- in most places, at least)
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. <_<
f) insist that the television be turned off during any holiday specials
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.
Yea --- that's the one. Didn't want to upset Vegan or DrtyDzn by posting it though.
:) Seriously, I don't care who celebrates what, when. As long as I'm not forced to bow down and worship that moronic animal abuser, Santa Claus. I mean, what's up with this guy? He keeps these reindeer confined at the North Pole without much food (why do you think the poem says eight TINY reindeer?) then expects them to haul his fat self and a huge load of toys all over the world in one night! Then, if that isn't bad enough, he goes into people's homes and eats cookies with EGGS and washes it down with MILK! OMG! Its all been documented, by a non-PETA source for all you skeptics.From now on, its Santa Banana for me!
Edited by VeganXTC
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.
I have seen both these signs and I'm not having a fit of any kind over it --much less an apocalyptic one
and are these signs not more prevalent because of Christians having fits OR because the Buying power of the groups who celebrate these holidays is not as great as the buying power of the collective that buys at Christmas?
Methinks it is a dollar, as opposed to a spiritually, driven decision
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.
It's interesting to me that you seem to always put this is the context of "stores" rather than individual liberty or individual freedom of expression, which to me is the fundamental issue at hand...not what "stores" do. I wasn't going to comment until I "processed" that a little more, so would you care to expand on that a bit?
Although the nation wasn't necessarily founded on Christian principle, as many assert, it WAS founded on a paradigm of acknowledgment of a supreme being. In so doing, it placed the seat of authority in the hands of the people as individuals accountable to an authority ABOVE that of the secular state, one of the results being the eventual demise of the concept of "divine right of kings".
When the state, via courts, tort and legislation, starts deciding what people may say and how they may express themselves and their beliefs in the public square or where and how they may pray etc. then the secular state is seeking to replace God or the individual conscience with itself at the top of the accountability food chain.
When the state allows it's citizens to place crosses or nativity scenes or whatever on the courthouse square, then that's NOT endorsing or establishing anything but rather ACKNOWLEDGING the right of WE THE PEOPLE to express ourselves freely and that the people, rightfully, are accountable to something higher and more omnipotent than the state.
When the state seeks to quash this freedom of expression, then we have a HUGE, HUGE problem and it must be dealt with quickly, efficiently and thoroughly.
When the state, via courts, tort and legislation, starts deciding what people may say and how they may express themselves and their beliefs in the public square or where and how they may pray etc. then the secular state is seeking to replace God or the individual conscience with itself at the top of the accountability food chain.
When the state allows it's citizens to place crosses or nativity scenes or whatever on the courthouse square, then that's NOT endorsing or establishing anything but rather ACKNOWLEDGING the right of WE THE PEOPLE to express ourselves freely and that the people, rightfully, are accountable to something higher and more omnipotent than the state.
When the state seeks to quash this freedom of expression, then we have a HUGE, HUGE problem and it must be dealt with quickly, efficiently and thoroughly.[/quote]
Ron G thank you for so eloquently stating the problem
Garth, the friends I sent that to absolutely loved it!
They aren't necessarily non-Christian (dunno/don't care what one would call them actually), but they are anti-establishment, including "money grubbing churches" (as they call them).
After being forbidden from saying "Christmas" for so long, I say it at every chance I get. I despise the words, "Happy Holidays" because it's what I had to say instead. During this time of year folks are celebrating all kinds of things - say what you (rhetorical) want, I'm going to say "Christmas" cause that's what I'm celebrating. I do send Happy Hanukkah cards and gifts to my Jewish friends, though.
To each his own - live and let live - don't sweat the small stuff - don't pet the sweaty stuff - poh-tay-toe - poh-tah-toe - toh-may-toe - toh-mah-toe - schlemeel - schlemazel - hasenfeffer incorporated ... oops, got a little carried away there, sorry!
There's no discussion *available* if he is in the mix.
Exactly. And you know what? Most people are afraid to say ANYTHING that might offend a Muslim. Why are we living like this? It's not out of respect, it's out of fear because if you ruffle their feathers, they'll find a way to murder you. So, whatever we do, let's not say
Merry Christmas
no fing way...and we better get used to it...
and here's a way to start: Never say
Merry Christmas
and while we're at it, we can get used to carrying our fire arms to church like this guy did in South Africa
It's interesting to me that you seem to always put this is the context of "stores" rather than individual liberty or individual freedom of expression, which to me is the fundamental issue at hand...not what "stores" do. I wasn't going to comment until I "processed" that a little more, so would you care to expand on that a bit?
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.
Although the nation wasn't necessarily founded on Christian principle, as many assert, it WAS founded on a paradigm of acknowledgment of a supreme being. In so doing, it placed the seat of authority in the hands of the people as individuals accountable to an authority ABOVE that of the secular state, one of the results being the eventual demise of the concept of "divine right of kings".
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.
When the state, via courts, tort and legislation, starts deciding what people may say and how they may express themselves and their beliefs in the public square or where and how they may pray etc. then the secular state is seeking to replace God or the individual conscience with itself at the top of the accountability food chain.
When the state allows it's citizens to place crosses or nativity scenes or whatever on the courthouse square, then that's NOT endorsing or establishing anything but rather ACKNOWLEDGING the right of WE THE PEOPLE to express ourselves freely and that the people, rightfully, are accountable to something higher and more omnipotent than the state.
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,
There's no discussion *available* if he is in the mix.
Sorry Garth -- but am just stating the obvious (to most of us) here.
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? <_<
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
Humorous only if you find rude boorishness humorous. And that would be true of your initial post no matter what "religion" it was putting down.
Secondly,
That is your interpretation, but one that is flawed. They are endeavoring to have publicly 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 following with thanks to the folks at Wikipedia
Funny, I see a lot of wreaths this time of year on public as well as private buildings-
Pagan Greek, Roman and Norse peoples used wreaths around this time of year for both secular and religious purposes. The religious use of wreaths is pagan in origin
as well as Christmas trees -
Another pagan holiday thing to do. Followers of The Roman cult of Dionysus would erect a tree during the December holiday season, and Nordic pagans also brought in and decorated trees. The Bible actually forbids the decoration of trees. Jeremiah 10:3,4 says: "For the customs of the people are vain; for one cutteth a tree
out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with an axe. They deck it with silver and gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not."
mistletoe --
Pagans decorated with Mistletoe around winter to pay homage to the God Baldur's resurrection by his mother, who used mistletoe and a kiss to revive himgift giving
Pretty much the only Christian thing in Christmas is the manger
display, though some argue that this is actually similar to the story
of Hercules, or Dionysus who were both born of a human woman (after sex
with gods) in manger settings, with very similar overtones to the
Christian legend
And let us not even go into the various meanings of stars in pagan symbolism
So tell me, Garth, how does permitting the use of your "Pagan Symbols" while excluding the use of my "Christian Symbols" at this time of year around public buildings separate religion from government????
Oh silly me, It is just my religious symbols that need exclusion not yours--
HMMMM---
Maybe YOU should re visit the definition of hypocrisy
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
13
5
10
7
Popular Days
Dec 2
16
Dec 1
14
Dec 4
11
Dec 3
10
Top Posters In This Topic
GarthP2000 13 posts
waterbuffalo 5 posts
templelady 10 posts
dmiller 7 posts
Popular Days
Dec 2 2006
16 posts
Dec 1 2006
14 posts
Dec 4 2006
11 posts
Dec 3 2006
10 posts
templelady
Templelady,
Your 'analysis' is flawed for the following reasons:
Completely irrelevant--My birthday is January 28th--If one year I decide I am going to celebrate it on March 30th because that is when My relatives are coming to Alaska then, While my Chronological birthday is January 28th, MY Birthday celebration is March 30th--this isn't complicatedAnd your point is???? No one of this negates the fact that for whatever rational or reasons the Celebration of Christ's birth is Dec 25th
And where is it written that Christians are only allowed to sing songs about Christ on his birthday---or is this the Book of Garth we are talking aboutThat may be because instead of just celebrating their non-Christian celebrations they at the same time demand that Christians a) not say Merry Christmas, b) do not display Creches anywhere that they may be seen, c) do not sing any kind of :religious" carol anywhere but behind closed doors.
I just re read my previous post--didn't say anything about anyone not being allowed to have a party on Dec 25th-- in fact just the opposite---just about them being allowed to declare that those of us who have a party on Dec 25th can;t claim it as Christ's Birthday.Actually I don't care what you call it--or what you say a a part of greeting your fellow humans --What IO care about is the fact that you expect me to go along with it in my personal world-- and to that let me say
MERRY CHRISTMAS GARTH!!!!!!!!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
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'!!!!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Hey -- glad you got a chuckle out of my *knee-jerk" response, Garth. :)
Here is the important part of it in quotes, so you don't have to go back to page one.
While it was a response -- it was hardly *knee-jerk*.
Especially since I support others who wish to celebrate (or not),
different holidays, some holidays, or no holidays in place of Christmas.
Now --- where's that dead horse gif Linda had???
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
You mean this one?
"Awww come on Willl-burrrrr! Cut it out! I said I was just faking it!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Yea --- that's the one. Didn't want to upset Vegan or DrtyDzn by posting it though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Thank you Garth for the Holiday wishes
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Disclaimer: the following reflects the views of the organization responsible and does not reflect the views of Mark O'Malley, his family, friends, or co-workers.
Sign hanging up in the Wisconsin Capitol. Click on the sign for an accompanying press release. (for those who hang out in the 'tacks mosh-pit, you will recognize the signifance of the expression "press release.")
One word of commentary:
I certainly hope that none of the members of the group sponsoring the above sign:
a) take the day off from work, unless it falls on a normal day off.
b) have any decorations in their house reflecting any type of festival with any religious origins whatsoever
c) do not exchange gifts of any type
d) do not allow their children to receive any type of gift, candy, special food, and so on
e) attempt to involve their children in routine daily work so that they recognize how they are being discriminated against during the winter holiday break (since the religious majority discriminate against them through having the week before and week after as school holidays -- in most places, at least)
f) insist that the television be turned off during any holiday specials
etc.
OK, well, maybe more than one word
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waterbuffalo
What's my beef? No beef, but my point is this--it goes to culture. Why should I
change mine? For one, I don't recall reading about any Muslims in our history
who lost life or all of their earthly posessions in order to found the still
free country we live in. There are many Christians who did.
Also, why would I say "Happy Holidays" to a Muslim? Ramadan has already
passed this year and I'm pretty sure their new year, in their religion at least,
does not start on January 1st. So, why would I say either to a practicing
Muslim?
They came to this country. We didn't go over there. Let them adjust to our
customs. If they can't, they should feel free to get back on the boat.
In addition, my Jewish friends probably like the Christmas holidays more than I do.
They don't get insulted at all if I forget and ask what they're doing this year for
Christmas. It's to be expected in a predominately Christian country.
If you were in Iran right now, Garth, what kind of accommodations do you think they
would be making for you?
Edited by waterbuffaloLink to comment
Share on other sites
NotMatilda
whore whore whore! marree kismet!
here's to Ralphie and all seasonal flagpole kissers...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
and a happy Monday to you when it comes up this year. Hope you don't work too hard that day (but your commute ought to be VERY easy
)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waterbuffalo
...sidestepping is, hum, easy, agreed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
VeganXTC
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
I have seen both these signs and I'm not having a fit of any kind over it --much less an apocalyptic one
and are these signs not more prevalent because of Christians having fits OR because the Buying power of the groups who celebrate these holidays is not as great as the buying power of the collective that buys at Christmas?
Methinks it is a dollar, as opposed to a spiritually, driven decision
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Is this really so important as to warrant an argument?
I mean - sheeeeeesh!- call it what you like - it doesn't change a thing.
It's so easy to fight over minutae sometimes........
OK I'm tired and cranky -
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Aww -- Dooj, don't fret it. :)
Garth is wrapped up in the SOUNDS OF SILENCE
He's the wall he was mentioning earlier.
There's no discussion *available* if he is in the mix.
Sorry Garth -- but am just stating the obvious (to most of us) here. <_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Ps --- HERE'S ONE FOR YOU, GARTH.
Shucks --for everyone else too.! :)
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ron G.
Garth...
It's interesting to me that you seem to always put this is the context of "stores" rather than individual liberty or individual freedom of expression, which to me is the fundamental issue at hand...not what "stores" do. I wasn't going to comment until I "processed" that a little more, so would you care to expand on that a bit?
Although the nation wasn't necessarily founded on Christian principle, as many assert, it WAS founded on a paradigm of acknowledgment of a supreme being. In so doing, it placed the seat of authority in the hands of the people as individuals accountable to an authority ABOVE that of the secular state, one of the results being the eventual demise of the concept of "divine right of kings".
When the state, via courts, tort and legislation, starts deciding what people may say and how they may express themselves and their beliefs in the public square or where and how they may pray etc. then the secular state is seeking to replace God or the individual conscience with itself at the top of the accountability food chain.
When the state allows it's citizens to place crosses or nativity scenes or whatever on the courthouse square, then that's NOT endorsing or establishing anything but rather ACKNOWLEDGING the right of WE THE PEOPLE to express ourselves freely and that the people, rightfully, are accountable to something higher and more omnipotent than the state.
When the state seeks to quash this freedom of expression, then we have a HUGE, HUGE problem and it must be dealt with quickly, efficiently and thoroughly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Garth, the friends I sent that to absolutely loved it!
They aren't necessarily non-Christian (dunno/don't care what one would call them actually), but they are anti-establishment, including "money grubbing churches" (as they call them).
After being forbidden from saying "Christmas" for so long, I say it at every chance I get. I despise the words, "Happy Holidays" because it's what I had to say instead. During this time of year folks are celebrating all kinds of things - say what you (rhetorical) want, I'm going to say "Christmas" cause that's what I'm celebrating. I do send Happy Hanukkah cards and gifts to my Jewish friends, though.
To each his own - live and let live - don't sweat the small stuff - don't pet the sweaty stuff - poh-tay-toe - poh-tah-toe - toh-may-toe - toh-mah-toe - schlemeel - schlemazel - hasenfeffer incorporated ... oops, got a little carried away there, sorry!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waterbuffalo
Exactly. And you know what? Most people are afraid to say ANYTHING that might offend a Muslim. Why are we living like this? It's not out of respect, it's out of fear because if you ruffle their feathers, they'll find a way to murder you. So, whatever we do, let's not say
Merry Christmas
no fing way...and we better get used to it...
and here's a way to start: Never say
Merry Christmas
and while we're at it, we can get used to carrying our fire arms to church like this guy did in South Africa
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53130 in Shooting Back.
Edited by waterbuffaloLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
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? <_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Secondly,
The following with thanks to the folks at Wikipedia
Funny, I see a lot of wreaths this time of year on public as well as private buildings-
Pagan Greek, Roman and Norse peoples used wreaths around this time of year for both secular and religious purposes. The religious use of wreaths is pagan in origin
as well as Christmas trees -
Another pagan holiday thing to do. Followers of The Roman cult of Dionysus would erect a tree during the December holiday season, and Nordic pagans also brought in and decorated trees. The Bible actually forbids the decoration of trees. Jeremiah 10:3,4 says: "For the customs of the people are vain; for one cutteth a tree
out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with an axe. They deck it with silver and gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not."
mistletoe --
Pagans decorated with Mistletoe around winter to pay homage to the God Baldur's resurrection by his mother, who used mistletoe and a kiss to revive himgift giving
Pretty much the only Christian thing in Christmas is the manger
display, though some argue that this is actually similar to the story
of Hercules, or Dionysus who were both born of a human woman (after sex
with gods) in manger settings, with very similar overtones to the
Christian legend
And let us not even go into the various meanings of stars in pagan symbolism
So tell me, Garth, how does permitting the use of your "Pagan Symbols" while excluding the use of my "Christian Symbols" at this time of year around public buildings separate religion from government????
Oh silly me, It is just my religious symbols that need exclusion not yours--
HMMMM---
Maybe YOU should re visit the definition of hypocrisy
Edited by templeladyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.