The Real "War On Christmas"
'Tis the season to once again draw nigh and engage in our annual ridiculousness over the "War on Christmas," it seems. My fellow Huffington Post blogger Jeff Schweitzer has a rundown on what this all means, for anyone unaware that such a conflict is happening in America -- or, at the very least, in the minds of some Americans.
But just because the modern-day "War on Christmas" may not, in fact, exist does not mean that such a war never existed in America. The subject of Christmas was indeed at the heart of a previous bitter political dispute, but you've got to go pretty far back in time to find it. All the way back to the New England Puritans.
The Massachusetts Bay Colony was founded, as we all know, on religious intolerance. Yes, you read that right. Contrary to what we are all taught as schoolchildren, the colony was not, in fact, founded on the principles of tolerance in worship. Far from it. In fact, the Puritans were actually fleeing such religious tolerance in the Netherlands (because they were, quite rightfully, afraid their children would be so influenced by this tolerance that they'd leave their parents' stiff and intolerant religious sect -- which the children simply wouldn't be able to do in the New World). To make sure they wouldn't be tempted by such intolerance in their new home, they went about legislating their version of Christianity to rule over the colony.
Part of this effort was the banning of Christmas celebrations. Once again, yes, you read that right. In 1659, the Massachusetts Bay General Court banned Christmas. The ban explicitly disallowed "forbearing of labour" and "feasting" on Christmas, and included a fine of five shillings (a not-inconsequential sum of money, back then) for whomever "shall be found observing any such day as Xmas or the like." Guess they didn't get the memo that some folks are now offended by the term "Xmas," either. The celebration of Christmas remained illegal until 1681, when the law was overturned, but the controversy continued for years afterwards.
Why, you might wonder, did these ultra-conservative, ultra-devout Christians frown on celebrating the day of their Savior's birth? Well, in the first place, they were a dour lot. They frowned on pretty much any expression of any joy whatsoever. Indeed, H.L. Mencken once famously described the Puritans as: "haunted by the fear that somewhere someone might be happy."
On top of this, the Puritans of the seventeenth century were a lot closer in time to the establishment of Christmas as a Christian holiday. This happened through the Catholic Church's tried-and-true method of appropriating widely-celebrated pagan holidays, filing the serial numbers off of them, and then reselling them from the pulpit as Christian celebratory days. Thus, the flock could still celebrate all their favorite pagan rites during the year, with a Christian veneer pasted on top of it to keep the clerics happy (see, for instance: the history of Hallowe'en and All Saints Day, to say nothing of Mardi Gras). Christmas was the appropriation of the Winter Solstice festival (or, more properly, "Saturnalia") by the Church, and this was a well-known fact back in the 1600s. The Puritans banning Christmas also had a tinge of anti-Catholicism to it, in fact, a common thread throughout much of the Protestant world at the time (Protestants, as a rule, were much more restrained in their Christmas celebrations).
In fact, Christmas wasn't the only holiday the Puritans cracked down on. The history of Merrymount, Massachusetts is probably the best example of the Puritans' intolerance toward merrymaking. Merrymount was a town down the coast from Boston, founded by Thomas Morton as a non-Puritan settlement. In 1627, Merrymount put up a Maypole and had a spring festival complete with lots of drinking and dancing and other non-Puritan-approved entertainments. The following year, the Puritans sent Captain Miles Standish (he of Thanksgiving fame) with a force of men over to destroy the competition. They chopped down the Maypole and burned it, uprooted the settlement, arrested Morton, and eventually deported him to England. Dancing, where men and women touched each other, would also soon be banned.
These were not fun neighbors to have, to be blunt (see: the founding of Rhode Island). But let's get back to Christmas. From a peasant's point of view, Christmas is just about the best time of year to hold a festival, other than the weather outside being frightful. The harvest is in, there is little agricultural work to be done, the beermaking is done, and the pantry is full of food. What better time to kick back and enjoy life?
Unfortunately for them (and everyone), the Puritans simply did not see it this way. So the closest integration of church and state ever to be seen in America (Massachusetts Bay Colony) -- the most rigidly fundamentalist Christian government in our history, to put it another way -- actually banned Christmas. Massachusetts pointedly held official functions such as court sessions on Christmas Day into the eighteenth century -- long after the law had been repealed and the colony's ultra-religious charter overturned by England.
Think about that the next time you see some Currier and Ives image of a small New England town covered in snow, as a representation of some gauzy historic ideal of how one is supposed to celebrate Christmas.
Today's "War on Christmas" is supposedly being secretly waged by secularists who want to ban Christ from the winter holiday season. How far we've come, eh? The ultra-religionists have now apparently swapped sides in this war, and are now fighting for the celebration of Christmas -- the more public and gaudier the better.
If there really is a struggle over Christmas today, I'd have to say it's the one being waged by church leaders across the land who desperately try to remind everyone that Christmas is supposed to be about something other than going shopping and Santa Claus. Call it a war on the consumerist end-of-year orgy. This war is more subtle and complex, which is likely why right wing talk show hosts don't generally rant on the subject much.
Or perhaps it is another, more deadly war -- the war on drunken Yuletide excess. We've made strides in combating this in the past few decades, making drunk driving absolutely not acceptable any more. This was a key component of the original Puritan War on Christmas, it bears mentioning.
Which is why I'm closing with the lyrics to a song by a rock group who (coincidentally enough) took the name of an agricultural genius of the 1700s (one of the Steve Jobses of his day): Jethro Tull. In 1968, they released a song which goes to the heart of this problem (which was much more intense in England, it bears pointing out). The song is, quite simply, named "Christmas Song." And it bears a message for us all, during whatever revelry we participate in: "I'll defend to the death your right to celebrate Christmas in whatever way you personally choose; but that right ends the moment you get behind the wheel while drunk -- because I don't want you killing me, my family, or, in fact, anyone." Because this is a real Christmas battle we can all join in fighting.
Once in royal David's city stood a lowly cattle shed,
Where a mother laid her baby.
You'd do well to remember the things He later said.
When you're stuffing yourselves at the Christmas parties,
You'll laugh when I tell you to take a running jump.
You're missing the point I'm sure does not need making;
That Christmas spirit is... not what you drink.So how can you laugh when your own mother's hungry
And how can you smile when the reasons for smiling are wrong?
And if I messed up your thoughtless pleasures,
Remember, if you wish, this is just a Christmas song.[Spoken:] Hey, Santa, pass us that bottle, will you?
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at Business Insider
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
ummmmm...what happened to my former comment?
Ok, it was apparently lost so...
1982, Minnesota
An attempt was made to make a car crash fatality, with a driving drunk individual with multiple convictions for drunk driving a capital offense.
You are convicted of DUI 2+ times, you drink, you drive, you are in a car crash (note the non-use of the term accident?), someone dies ... YOU DIE.
It failed miserable. We couldn't even get it into a committee.
It is not required that you win. It is required that you bear witness and fight the good fight.
Christmas fun fact: Jeremiah specifically spoke out against Christmas trees!
"Thus saith the Lord, Learn not the way of the heathen.... 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 the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not."
That's Jeremiah 10:2, for those who want the quotations to be cited chapter and verse.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah+10:2-4&version=ASV
DerFarm -
I couldn't find a previous comment backstage. Let me know if this happens again, as I've been trying to get the whole comment thing working flawlessly...
Hope this hasn't been a problem for others... let me know right away if anyone's been having comment posting problems.
I came of age in the era of MADD, so I know what you're talking about. Previously, a slap on the wrist was all a DUI was good for in many states...
Osborne Ink / dsws -
Really? Wow, I didn't know that! Yule trees were, of course, also of pagan origin. Well, I certainly can't argue with Jeremiah, who while hard to understand at times, always had some mighty fine wine. Heh.
Joy to the World! All the boys and girls...
-CW
Other translations render "the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe" as something more like shaping a piece of wood with a chisel.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah%2010&version=NIV
I have no idea what the words are in the original Hebrew, and what activities and tools they apply to.
I certainly can't argue with Jeremiah ...
Indeed. The relevant text in its full embroidery:
10 Then I heard a loud voice in heavens, more beautiful than all the voices of the prophets of Israel, as the psaltery is than the croaking of frogs. And the voice proclaimed:
“Now have come the salvation and the power
and the kingdom of our God,
and the authority of his Messiah.
For the accuser of our brothers and sisters,
has been hurled down.
11 They triumphed over him
by the blood of the Lamb
and by the word of their testimony
.
12 Therefore rejoice, ye heavens
and ye who dwell in them! Rejoice you little children! Let all the earth rejoice, even to the depths of the sea and the fishes therein! Rejoice, all who hear these words, as the messenger of the Lord rejoices to declare them!"
Revelation of Axton 1:10-12
Well, embroidery isn't quite adequate. More like fabricated out of whole cloth.
Whew!!! I was afraid I would get thru your entire commentary w/o being able to post a suitable quote.. :D
Which is why I'm closing with the lyrics to a song by a rock group who (coincidentally enough) took the name of an agricultural genius of the 1700s (one of the Steve Jobses of his day): Jethro Tull.
"You know what upsets me? People that think that Jethro Tull is just some guy in the band."
-Oscar, ARMAGEDDON
:D
Michale
216
Christmas fun fact: Jeremiah specifically spoke out against Christmas trees!
"Thus saith the Lord, Learn not the way of the heathen.... 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 the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not."
"But Lord, I did everything in the bible!! Even the stuff that contradicts all the other stuff!!"
-Ned Flanders, THE SIMPSONS
CW,
Really? Wow, I didn't know that! Yule trees were, of course, also of pagan origin. Well, I certainly can't argue with Jeremiah, who while hard to understand at times, always had some mighty fine wine. Heh.
Joy to the World! All the boys and girls...
I be you've been waitin' ALL year to post that little gem, eh? :D
Michale
217
But getting back the the subject at hand..
I am all for taking religion out of Christmas.. I really am..
But it's silly to deny that there has been and is a "War On Christmas"...
OK, maybe "war" is too strong of a word.
But there has been an ongoing and systematic effort by the Left to get rid of all religion-based holidays... Or, at the very least, get rid of the religious aspects of those holidays..
It's why we have Spring Break instead of Easter Vacation.
It's why we have Winger Break instead of Christmas Vacation.
Don't get me wrong.. I am firmly on record as being agnostic as they come..
I firmly believe that Freedom OF Religion means Freedom FROM Religion..
But to deny that there is the Left Wing effort to separate religion from the holidays is to deny reality..
Michale
218
And, for my ongoing series of bring laughter to all Weigantians... :D
http://sjfm.us/temp/baconcheeseburgers.jpg
:D
Michale
219
CW,
Don't threaten ME with kitten pictures!!! :D
http://sjfm.us/temp/cutest.jpg
:D
Michale
220
(Historical Note: This represents my High Water mark in the 2010 Fund Drive... As opposed to 1011 Main Street.. yuk yuk yuk) :D
No significant number of people on the left has tried to eliminate religious holidays.
All reasonable people oppose having government tell us which religious holidays we should celebrate, of course. Freedom of religion certainly does mean freedom from government control of religion. What no one on the left is doing, despite the noise from the right, is trying to take religion out of anyone else's personal observances of holidays.
I'm sure if you looked you could find someone advocating government-imposed secularism. There's a handful of nuts in every batch, right left or center. But the left as a whole, no.
If you right-wingers have "winger break" instead of Christmas vacation, it's your choice and not mine.
No significant number of people on the left has tried to eliminate religious holidays.
And yet, the evidence indicates the contrary...
If you right-wingers have "winger break" instead of Christmas vacation, it's your choice and not mine.
Yes, I am sure the Right voluntarily changed Christmas Vacation to Winter Break..
And I have some swampland in FL I wanna sell ya too.. :D
Michale....
221
Freedom of religion certainly does mean freedom from government control of religion.
Unfortunately, many people on the Right don't agree with that... :(
What no one on the left is doing, despite the noise from the right, is trying to take religion out of anyone else's personal observances of holidays.
Yet every year, there are whinings and cryings from the Left about public displays of the holiday...
Seems widespread enough to label the Left...
Michale
222
Chris,
Don't worry about it. Most likely, I hit the wrong button and it disappeared.
If there is a list of improvements you are keeping, I'd like to suggest a edit button on the posts that can be used by the commenter to modify and/or delete comments.
I have a tendency to get excited and write things that could easily be taken the right way.
Yet every year, there are whinings and cryings from the Left about public displays of the holiday.
Private activities, visible to the public: no. Of course, out of about 150,000,000 Americans in the leftmost 50%, there's sure to be someone who says something stupid. But overall, no. The left tends to believe in a public/private distinction that supports freedom of religion.
"Public", as in sponsored by government: yes. People should object to the use of government to promote particular religions over others, or to promote religion over non-religion. You can call it "whining" if you want, but that doesn't change the fact that we're right.
Yes, I am sure the Right voluntarily changed Christmas Vacation to Winter Break.
Yes, in personal discussion (as opposed to government observances), the right does most of it, just so you'll have something to whine about.
Then there's the major source of "winter" this and "holiday" that: corporations trying to do whatever will offend the fewest dollars' worth of potential customers. They just count up the number of dollars likely to be spent by Jews and Muslims who'll fell less at home in a shop with too much overtly Christian Christmas stuff, as compared to the dollars likely to be spent by the thin-skinned thought police who scream whenever they hear "happy holidays". Corporations just trying to make money aren't exactly left or right, but more nearly right than left.
But you're definitely the one who changed "winter break" to "winger break".
"Public", as in sponsored by government: yes. People should object to the use of government to promote particular religions over others, or to promote religion over non-religion. You can call it "whining" if you want, but that doesn't change the fact that we're right.
I have said as much.
But that doesn't change the fact that the Left, in fact, does this...
In other words, I agree with the action and the action DOES exist...
Michale....
223
Towns scared to call it a "Christmas Festival" change the name to "Holiday Festival"...
City Halls put up "Holiday Trees" instead of Christmas Trees..
Schools petrified of lawsuits have "Holiday Activities" instead of Christmas Activities...
Basically, it all comes down to Political Correctness run amok..
And you simply cannot FACTUALLY deny that Political Correctness is a Left Wing construct...
Michale.....
224
Cute critter picture alert:
actual picture
article
Michale [8] -
When I wrote this originally, I wrote for the sentence after the one you quote: "They (the collective is properly used for the band, not "He")..."
But then I had too many parentheses in that paragraph, so I took it out. I wondered if anyone would notice the proper "They" or not...
:-)
-CW
And you simply cannot FACTUALLY deny that Political Correctness is a Left Wing construct...
It is, in large part, a ludicrously overwrought reaction to a left-of-center thesis. With the usual qualification about there always being a few idiots, the left expects only a very reasonable level of "Plain Courtesy" in speech. It's the right that comes up with the exaggerated versions, or publicizes the exaggerated versions that the perennial few idiots come up with. And it's the apolitical but right-ish lawsuit-paranoia that spreads the low-grade silly versions.
the left expects only a very reasonable level of "Plain Courtesy" in speech.
"African American"...
'nuff said on that moronic PC contribution from the Left...
With the usual qualification about there always being a few idiots,
Have you ever noticed that, whenever anything bonehead or stoopid is pointed out that has been committed by the Left, you simply pooh-pooh it away as isolated cranks or morons. The Left, as a whole, is as pure as the driven snow..
Yet, all the boneheaded or stoopid things done by the Right are the fault of the Right as a whole..
These pages are replete with "The Right did this" or "The Right did that"..
But when "The Left" does something stoopid, it's always "just some isolated moron"...
Strange how that is, eh??
Don't feel bad.. You are not the only one who does it..
Michale.....
225
CW,
When I wrote this originally, I wrote for the sentence after the one you quote: "They (the collective is properly used for the band, not "He")..."
But then I had too many parentheses in that paragraph, so I took it out. I wondered if anyone would notice the proper "They" or not...
Wasn't it you who posted that Jethro Tull got their name from just random switching of the name?? That they changed their name every appearance until they hit it big??
Michale..
226
I have noticed that when you bizarrely mis-characterize the left, I acknowledge that there are a few outliers who fit even the most ridiculous mis-characterization.
I have noticed that when you bizarrely mis-characterize the left, I acknowledge that there are a few outliers who fit even the most ridiculous mis-characterization.
What you characterize as " bizarrely mis-characterizing the Left" is simply an objective report of the facts of any particular incident..
:D
But you kind of make my point for me..
Anything that the Left does that is bad, you characterize it as "outliers"...
But anything bonehead done by the Right is indicative and symptomatic of the Right as a whole..
Lemme ask you something..
Is there anything going on today, any ideology that you would say is indicative of the Left as a whole??
Michale
227
Congressmen can't say 'Merry Christmas' in mail
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/congressmen-cant-say-merry-christmas-mail/261466
More PC run amok....
Political Correctness is the WORST disservice the Left has ever done for this country...
And that says a lot... :D
Michale
228
To be fair, there IS a prevailing theory (amongst the Left, of course :D) that there really wasn't any "Political Correct" movement from the Left..
The theory goes that it was all a construct from the Right to squelch debate on racial, class and gender discrimination...
So, there IS another side of the story, to be sure..
However, I think that's just a weak justification.. Attitudes of political correctness are everywhere and, coincidentally, they all reflect a Leftist agenda..
As witnessed by the article above...
Michale
229
Oh....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness
There's my reference for the above...
Michale....
230
Michale [24] -
You are 100% correct. I got that story from an interview I heard. Ian Anderson and the boys were "so bad" (his words) when they started out that they would change their band's name on a weekly basis, so that they could get gigs at clubs which they had previously played at (since they were never asked back). You've got to at least admire his "game the system" inventiveness! "Jethro Tull" was just the name they were using when they happened to hit it big...
-CW
Congressmen can't say 'Merry Christmas' in mail
.. if they want it to be a taxpayer-funded official statement of the US government. They're still free to say it in their campaign correspondence.
That's as it should be. The government as such has no more business telling us to observe religious holidays, than it would have telling us not to. But government officials, in their capacity as private individuals, have a right to express their religious opinions.
That is not political correctness. It's freedom of religion.
Anything that the Left does that is bad, you characterize it as "outliers"
Simply not true. There are various things in some of the major currents on the left, that I think are bad. Most of it, like excessive nationalism and prohibition of recreational drugs, is characteristic of majorities of citizens left, right and center. Anti-intellectualism, although far more pervasive on the right, is common enough on the left not to fit the "a few negligible outliers" description. In each case, the left has its own variations.
Is there anything going on today, any ideology that you would say is indicative of the Left as a whole?
No. There is no capital-L "Left" that's appropriately referred to with a proper name.
Liberals disagree with progressives. People whose commitment is to their union, or to the American working class, disagree with those who believe that under the current global circumstances the greatest moral imperative is to allow the truly impoverished parts of the world to become richer. And so on.
Even when people agree on particular ends, they disagree on the means. Some think markets are useless, and everything should be done by workers' meetings. Some accept the right's false identification of markets with capitalism. And so on.
Update:
War on Christmas news update.
The Pastafarians have entered the debate.
Heh.
Fair's fair. If courthouses allow nativity scenes, then they've got to allow the Flying Spaghetti Monster as well.
Heh heh. Or should that be "Ho ho ho!"?
:-)
-CW
CW,
You are 100% correct. I got that story from an interview I heard. Ian Anderson and the boys were "so bad" (his words) when they started out that they would change their band's name on a weekly basis, so that they could get gigs at clubs which they had previously played at (since they were never asked back). You've got to at least admire his "game the system" inventiveness! "Jethro Tull" was just the name they were using when they happened to hit it big...
Interesting side note. The band UB40 (Red, Red, Wine) got their name because UB-40 was the form number of the Unemployment Form they filled out when they were getting started..
I wonder how Jethro Tull came up with that name..
dsws,
That's as it should be. The government as such has no more business telling us to observe religious holidays, than it would have telling us not to. But government officials, in their capacity as private individuals, have a right to express their religious opinions.
This is exactly what I am talking about..
Simply saying "Merry Christmas" is not imposing religious beliefs.. It's a frak'in holiday for christ's sake!!
It's like that old joke about saying to a person, "Have a nice day" and the person gets all bent out of shape and yells, "Don't tell ME what kind of day to have!!"
Except in this case, the Left is actually serious that saying "Merry Christmas" is somehow imposing one's beliefs..
CW,
Fair's fair. If courthouses allow nativity scenes, then they've got to allow the Flying Spaghetti Monster as well.
Another perfect example of Politically Correctness run amok..
Does the Church Of The Flying Spaghetti Monster have a Xmas traditional scene that dates back thousands of years?
No??
The out the door they go...
Again, I am as agnostic as they come. I am not arguing for RELIGION..
I am arguing for the holiday.
A while ago, a HuffPo commentator wrote a piece about how the US should honor other people's traditions because, she said, the US doesn't have any traditions of their own.
A commenter made a VERY good point. The US doesn't have any traditions of their own because the Left does it's damndest to tear down US traditions so as not to hurt the feelings of others...
A nativity scene is a CHRISTMAS tradition, not a religious one. A Christmas Tree is a CHRISTMAS tradition, not a religious one.
If one doesn't celebrate Christmas, that's fine. Do your own thing..
But don't impose YOUR beliefs, even by omission, on those who DO celebrate Christmas..
That's all I am saying..
Michale
231
For the record, I am the biggest scrooge around these here parts..
I would be perfectly content, no... ecstatic!! to go from Oct 15th to Jan 16th and just skip it all..
But I don't begrudge people their celebrations, nor do I make an extra effort to pee on anyone's wedding cake or parade... (I don't make the effort, but sometimes it happens effortlessly.. :D)
My attitude is, "fine, celebrate your holiday, more power to you, just leave me out of it."
The Left should have much more of THAT attitude and much less of their, "it bugs the HELL out of me having to see a baby sitting on a bunch of hay surrounded by a bunch of freaks in robes so it can't be visible because I don't like it!!" attitude..
Michale
234
dsws,
Simply not true. There are various things in some of the major currents on the left, that I think are bad.
For example....????
Most of it, like excessive nationalism and prohibition of recreational drugs, is characteristic of majorities of citizens left, right and center. Anti-intellectualism, although far more pervasive on the right, is common enough on the left not to fit the "a few negligible outliers" description. In each case, the left has its own variations.
Guess I should have read further. :D
"...You have to KEEP reading.."
-Ben Affleck, DOGMA
:D
OK, so it appears that you look at "quantity" rather than "quality" when stating whether it's representative or not..
OK, I can agree with that, conditionally..
No. There is no capital-L "Left" that's appropriately referred to with a proper name.
Would that also apply to the Right?? :D
My entire point is this...
Yes, there are some stoopid actions from the Left that are indicative of how royally frack'ed up the Left is.. Just as there are some stoopid actions from the Right that are indicative of how royally frack'ed up the Right is..
To deny this is to deny reality..
The only point of disagreement between us is whether the action is indicative of the Left as a whole...
When it comes to War On Christmas and Political Correctness, there IS sufficient evidence to support the claim that these actions are indicative of the Left as a whole..
IMNSHO. Your mileage may vary.. :D
Michale.
235
Michale [34] -
A nativity scene is a CHRISTMAS tradition, not a religious one. A Christmas Tree is a CHRISTMAS tradition, not a religious one.
If one doesn't celebrate Christmas, that's fine. Do your own thing..
Sorry to be the one to point this out, but this is just hogwash. It's as laughable as that quote from the article:
“The creche is not religious,” Caulkins said, his voice trembling. “It is a belief symbol. You have to believe in something.” His eyes were glazed with tears.
I mean, seriously, the word "Christmas" comes from "Christ's Mass" and is about as religious as you can get. Without Christianity, what is Christmas? Tet? The Winter Solstace?
Christmas is, by its very definition, religious. I personally have no problem with religious displays on public property (for traditional reasons) as long as there is no discrimination about who is allowed.
Who are you, after all, to validate one religion (Christ worship) and invalidate another (Flying Spaghetti Monster worship)? What gives you the right to differentiate in any way shape or form? Please quote the Constitution, as that's the only authority I will accept here. Sorry to go all "strict constructionist" on you here, but there you go.
Read my article again. The First Amendment protects ALL of us, no matter WHAT we believe. That is the entire point. Government is neutral, and has no say whatsoever.
The irony, for me, is that the fundamentalists have changed from being anti-Christmas to pro-Christmas. But the constitutional position hasn't changed one whit. Chew on that, as you bask in the glow of the Flying Spaghetti Monster holiday scene, pal.
-CW
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/tx-attorney-general-tells-atheists-dont-mess-with-texas.html
This is the sort of BS that I am talking about.
ONE person complained. Allegedly..
So, an OUT OF STATE organization took it upon themselves to order a small county in Texas to remove their nativity scene...
This is just patently ridiculous... One group wants to impose THEIR morality and beliefs on another county in a DIFFERENT state...
So, you tell me.
Left Indicative??
Or outlier??
Michale
237
WOW...
Someone is up early...
Or up late??
Christmas is, by its very definition, religious. I personally have no problem with religious displays on public property (for traditional reasons) as long as there is no discrimination about who is allowed.
I understand the religious connotations of Christmas..
But you cannot deny that, in the here and now, the religious aspects have been overshadowed by the commercialism...
And I don't have a problem with that.
But it's happened "naturally", by the will of the people..
Not imposed on the country as a whole by a small group...
As much of an atheist/agnostic as I am, I also think it's wrong for a ATHEIST group to impose THEIR beliefs (or lack thereof) on the country...
There are religious connotations to Christmas, this is undeniable..
But, in the here and now, they have taken a backseat...
A nativity scene is more of a Christmas scene than a religious one, despite the obvious religious connection..
Let me put it another way...
Would you have a problem with a scene on the courthouse property, where a baby Luke Skywalker is lying in a spent warp engine shell, with Padme and Anakin standing over him and 3 Jedi Knight Masters in attendance???
I wouldn't...
It's not something that I would find "intimidating" or attempting to impose a belief..
NO ONE can impose a belief on another person without that person's consent or approval.
"There can be no offense where none is taken."
-Sarek Of Vulcan
It seems to me that every year we have whiners from the Left who make it a point to search out and BE OFFENDED by stuff all over the country..
"It's RE-DONK-ULUS"
-Donkey, SHREK IV
:D
Michale
238
Who are you, after all, to validate one religion (Christ worship) and invalidate another (Flying Spaghetti Monster worship)? What gives you the right to differentiate in any way shape or form?
If the Church Of The Flying Spaghetti Monster had the track record with a holiday that Christians have with Christmas, then I would say have at it..
But they don't, so I won't...
"I beg to differ. A religion is just a cult that "made it." The only difference between the two is the number of people who are its followers. Mormonism, on sheer membership alone, qualifies as a religion, to me. Worshipers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster are still a cult. See how it works? Heh.
-Chris Weigant
Sorry to throw your own words back atcha... :D
But the difference you mention there also applies here..
Cults don't get their own representation at holidays..
Religions do...
You can bet that in Dearborn Michigan, there are a LOT of Muslim displays. And I don't have a problem with that, because there are a lot of Muslims there....
But I bet you'll never see a Leftist group try to shut down a Muslim religious display or activity..
One only has to see the Tim Tebow controversy to know that....
Michale
239
It's a frak'in holiday for christ's sake!!
'Tis the season to pump toxic chemicals into the ground in search of natural gas. Or did you mean "a franking holiday"?
Does the Church Of The Flying Spaghetti Monster have a Xmas traditional scene that dates back thousands of years? No?? The out the door they go...
So I take it you're ok with government suppression of all the Christmas traditions that date back only to the 1800s? Or do we draw the line strictly based on the political affiliation of the celebrants?
Would that also apply to the Right??
Ambiguous. The right is far more unified and organized than the left, and far more integrated with the Republican Party than the left is with the Democratic party. So depending where you want to draw the line, you reasonably could capitalize "the Right" as a proper name while leaving "the left" lower-case as a generic adjective. But I normally don't capitalize either, outside of quotation marks.
Christmas is, by its very definition, religious.
Christmas is certainly religious in its origins, and in much of its contemporary celebration. But it's a stretch to call the annual orgy of consumerism "religious".
A crèche is 100% religious. It refers unambiguously to the birth of Jesus. Saint Klaus is ambiguous.
Would you have a problem with a scene on the courthouse property, where a baby Luke Skywalker is lying in a spent warp engine shell, with Padme and Anakin standing over him and 3 Jedi Knight Masters in attendance?
The scene is not the issue. The role of government is.
Such a scene would be a slightly-amusing mockery of Christianity. As such, it's protected speech about religion, not exercise of religion.
Private individuals and organizations must be allowed to use public space for such things, under the restriction that government can't do anything that creates the impression of endorsing one side or another as regards religion.
Michale [28] -
This is bunk. I went to college in the 80s. PC-ism ran amok on my campus, which was slightly to the left of Marx. I decried it then (which didn't earn me any friends) as fascism of the Left, and I still denounce it now.
I have no problem with private businesses wishing folks whatever Merriment they want. Government, however, should be neutral.
[34] -
OK, would you allow a Mormon display? Their tradition doesn't go back "hundreds of years". Or how about a Kwanzaa display? That one's only a few decades old. Just wondering. Also, who decides?
My stance: let 'em all in, or let none of them in. But don't pick and choose.
[39] -
I would actually travel quite a ways to see a Luke Skywalker scene, to be honest. It sounds pretty cool!
I think I understand where you're coming from, how's about we meet in the middle?
Santa is indeed a secular display. OK, sure, it comes from Saint Nicholas (a real guy, and a Catholic saint), but it has morphed into something almost completely consumerist with barely a shred of religion left about it. Santa is celebrated in Japan, for instance, even though most Japanese aren't Christians. It's become almost universalist.
But a creche scene doesn't fit that description. A creche scene is deeply and inherently religious.
So -- how about a Santa, reindeer, candy canes? I think that is the point you're trying to make.
And it was "up late" not "early" just to let you know...
:-)
[40] -
But then how do cults ever obtain a "long tradition" if they're not allowed to start?
It's all hogwash. Read the exact text of the First Amendment.
What you are arguing for, plain and simple, is the government "establishing" what is, and what is not, a "religion." By banning cults, atheists, or other "made up" religions (Pastafarians, Subgeniuses, etc.) where religious displays are allowed is preventing their "free exercise."
In other words, what you are arguing for is utterly and blatantly unconstitutional. Governments can either allow ALL displays, or NONE. No other answer is permissable.
Here's a tricky question for you to ponder. Say your rules were in place, and you got to decide, on the criteria you've laid out. OK, a Satanist wants to put up a display. Do you allow it? They've got a long history, stretching back hundreds of years. But they're unpopular. So what do you do?
dsws -
I think he meant a "freakin' holiday". Or maybe he's talking about the solemn service where folks gather around the kitchen tap and light the fumes that come out when the water's on. Poof! Merry Frackmas!
Aha! Someone else with the Santa/creche example! Hadn't read your comment when I wrote the above to Michale, but I have to concur with you.
-CW
Just a quick note, because I am hittin' the sack...
"Frak'in holiday" in the vernacular of BSG... :D
I'll get to the rest in the morning...
I'll probably be waking up about the time CW is ready to turn in... :D
Michale....
239
By the by, CW..
Thanx for fixing my attributes.. :D
Michale
240
I think he meant a "freakin' holiday".
I hadn't placed it as BSG, but it's a familiar enough variation. I must know some BSG fans. It's not the word: I just couldn't resist the similarity to "franking", since what he's insisting on is specifically the use of tax money to promote specific religious observances in congresscritters' official capacity as speaking on behalf of the US government.
What you are arguing for, plain and simple, is the government "establishing" what is, and what is not, a "religion."
The government has to ascertain what is and is not subject to first-amendment protection. Suppose I want to run a paper mill, with no connection to any eschatology or cosmology or creation story or whatever, and with no rituals beyond the activities that are of practical use in actually making and selling paper; and suppose I claim that this is a religious activity and therefore not subject to the taxation and regulation that apply to ordinary secular paper mills. The government would have a duty to tell me to pay my taxes and stop polluting the river and endangering my employees.
OK, sorry it took so long to get to this.. Woke up Sunday with a bad headache.. Dunno if it was too much beer or not enough beer...
I'll test the theory and get back to ya'all.. :D
Anyways....
I am not going to bother taking point by point as I am wont to do... Just going to state what I mean and leave it at that.
A congresscritter telling a constituent "Merry Christmas" is NOT "imposing" a religion on any one in any way, shape or form..
Any more than a person who says "Have a nice day" is not ordering a person around..
It's a frak'in seasonal salutation, for chreest's sake!!
Show me a person who is offended by a heartfelt and well intentioned "Merry Christmas" and I'll show you a person who goes out of their way, SEARCHING for things to be offended by...
As far as the case of the Texas County and the nativity scene?? Yea, you MIGHT have an "imposing" case, but I feel the community is the issue here...
No one has a problem with it. The community, AS A WHOLE is all for it..
One atheist organization 4 states away has no right to barge in and tell a "sovereign" county that they can't do that...
Yea, supposedly ONE person out of the entire county complained.. Yea and I have some swampland in FL for sale... :^/
Speaking of "imposing", consider this. This Atheist group from another state is attempting THEIR "religion" (in this case NON-religion) on an entire community..
If the community as a whole, doesn't have a problem with a nativity scene, it's not up to the PC police to tell them different...
Regardless of the religious aspects, a nativity scene is a CHRISTMAS issue...
When you can show me nativity scenes in July all over the country, then I'll consider the possibility.
And, again I'll ask..
Why don't we see all these agnostic groups going after Muslim displays??
Why is it that the Left (in general) preaches tolerance and understand about everything EXCEPT American traditions???
I have always wondered that...
Michale
242
The government has to ascertain what is and is not subject to first-amendment protection. Suppose I want to run a paper mill, with no connection to any eschatology or cosmology or creation story or whatever, and with no rituals beyond the activities that are of practical use in actually making and selling paper; and suppose I claim that this is a religious activity and therefore not subject to the taxation and regulation that apply to ordinary secular paper mills. The government would have a duty to tell me to pay my taxes and stop polluting the river and endangering my employees.
That's a very good point...
Did you know that there is a JEDI religion??? Are we going to allow people to carry JEDI weapons, in the interests of religious tolerance???
Michale
243
dsws makes a good point in #46 that also applies to the immigration issue..
Forgive my changing the subject, but hay.. I have got less than 2 weeks to do 250+ posts!!!
Anyways, Obama's Justice Dept is suing several states because those states have enacted laws that require LEOs to ascertain immigration status... Apparently, the Obama Administration doesn't want LEOs to ascertain a person's immigration status...
Of course, Obama's STATE Dept has issued guidelines to State and Local LEOs that states it's vitally important that LEOs ascertain a person's immigration status so as to offer Consular services, should such be required..
Get that!??
The Justice Dept is SUING States to PREVENT LEOs from ascertaining immigration status.... The State Dept tells LEOs that they have to ascertain immigration status as soon as possible when making contact with people...
Such is the "logic" of the Obama administration...
Michale
244
Been too tied up to comment recently and this thread is probably dead but it did make me think about the War on Christmas thing. As a former Catholic I have a pretty good grounding in Christianity, but I also have the strong feeling that the Church pretty much fails to actually uphold the true, central tenets of the New Testament. And I'm not interested in there being anyone between me and God, however I conceptualize him/her - I would have been a Gnostic in 10 AD. But though I left established Christianity years ago I certainly had no problem with Nativity Scenes in front of churches, or with saying "Merry Christmas" or other vestiges of my Christian upbringing.
That is to say, I "didn't used to have a problem with" vestiges of Christianity. Nowadays, however, I think "Christianity" has been so tainted by hysterical and hateful "christians" that I literally recoil, sometimes just a little and sometimes quite a bit, when I'm confronted with overt Christian displays. Fundamentalists and Christianists have, in my opinion, completely debased the "brand". When someone sends me a religious Christmas card I go through a thought process, evaluating whether they are "good Christians" or "bad Christians" -- which for me is inextricably entangled with their politics. If they're right-wing I find their expressions of Christianity literally repellent. If they're left-wing or politically agnostic I give them the benefit of the doubt. (But I question the depth of their beliefs.)
The fact that "the war on Christmas" is trumpeted by especially loathsome figures like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity, of course, makes me long for one to actually take place. Frankly, anything people like that are for, I'm reflexively against. In the realm of religion I discount everything they say and every claim they make. The more they wave crosses the more a cross represents ugliness and intolerance instead of love or caring, or mercy or charity.
Nowadays, when I hear the word "christian" I don't think of Mother Theresa, I think of Rush Limbaugh. And I literally find myself NOT saying "Merry Christmas" - changing the greeting to "Happy Holidays".
Chris: Happy Holidays!! (Also, in preview there were no paragraph breaks, though this has about 4 paras. So if it comes out one big block, that wasn't my intention. Is it a WP 3.3 issue?
Looks like the paragraphs came out ok - good.
Show me a person who is offended by ...
Offense, given or taken, has absolutely nothing to do with it. Fringe Christians can be as offensive as they want, in their own churches or on a soapbox on the Diag, shouting that all Jews are going to Hell and women are inherently unclean and unworthy to serve, and (for the purposes of this discussion) I don't care. I insist on their right to say it. Fringe atheists can be as offensive as they want, taking the next turn on the same soapbox to burn a Bible while speaking blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and (for the purposes of this discussion) I don't care. I insist on their right to say it. Nazis and the Klan can disseminate their views on race and religion, even advocating violence in principle, and (for the purposes of this discussion, and as long as they just disseminate their views rather than make threats, or incite truly imminent violence, or organize actual violence) I don't care. I insist on their right to say it.
Have the government single out Unitarian Universalists to say mildly nice things about -- Things I agree with. Things I can't imagine how anyone would be offended by. Things that would get me over to First Parish on Sunday morning if I'd heard them from a private group. Things that would get me to donate to the group that said them --
and without hesitation I will declare it unconstitutional.
Chris -- preview showed a tag working that doesn't in the actual comment.
Specifically, when I said "Offense, given or taken, has absolutely nothing to do with it," in the above comment, I put tags around it, like so: "Offense, given or taken, has <font size=+1>absolutely nothing to do with it.</font>." Preview showed it being huge.
Offense, given or taken, has absolutely nothing to do with it.
It has EVERYTHING to do with it, as it is the very reason being cited in the Henderson County, Texas issue..
Allegedly, this Atheist group from Michigan has ONE person from Henderson County who claims they were "offended" by the display...
If one follows the reasoning that Atheism is this group's chosen "religion", then that reasoning MUST take you to the idea that the Atheism group is imposing THEIR "religion" (IE NO religion) on others...
If a community in BumFuq, Kentucky is OK with a nativity scene at their county courthouse, then other people who don't have a dog in the hunt should just shut the frak up and mind their own business..
Like professional activists, these "professional offend-ees" are a pain in the ass...
They don't care about a cause. They just care about HAVING a cause. ANY cause...
And if they can't find one by actively searching, they'll just make shit up...
It's much ado about nothing... Sarek's wisdom has meaning here...
"There can be no offense where none is taken."
Or, if you prefer...
"Arthur, have another drink and stop thinking about how much everyone else is getting. See you later."
-Charles Durning, THE FINAL COUNTDOWN
:D
Michale....
250
(WOOT!!! Halfway there!!!)
I feel that if people would mind their own business and quite trying to impose ANY belief, then everyone would be a lot happier...
Michale
251
and without hesitation I will declare it unconstitutional.
There are two problems with your "it's unconstitutional" argument.
1. The Left doesn't seem to mind ignoring the US Constitution when it suits their agenda. {{cough}}{{cough}}2nd Amendment{{cough}}{{cough}}
2. If the US Constitution was posi-loutly and abso-tively the last word on the issue, the US shouldn't even be CELEBRATING Christmas... It should be done away with because it is clearly a religious holiday...
For that matter, we would have to get rid of Thanksgiving, Easter and every other holiday that invokes religion..
Wait a minute.. Martin Luther King was a preacher.. So his birthday holiday has got to go...
Many MANY people will be saying "oh god, why did I drink so much!!" so obviously we'll have to get rid of New Years Day...
Tell ya what.. No matter what holiday it is, there will be people who are offended by other people being able to be happy and celebrate... So, in order to insure that NO ONE is EVER offended by ANYTHING, why don't we just get rid of ALL holidays..
Sounds pretty silly, doesn't it??
Just about as silly as not letting a community have their Christmas display, just because it has religious roots...
Michale
252
Again, let me be absolutely clear..
I am not defending religion in any way, shape or form..
Yer talking to a guy who is uncomfortable when people say "God bless you" after I sneeze...
As an aside, I once to a really religious woman, "Spiderman bless you" after she sneezed.. Got a REAL dirty look, but I thought it was funny as hell. :D True story..
Anyways, yea... I am VERY uncomfortable around religion... But I am not so egotistical and arrogant (really, I'm not!! :D) to think that MY comfort, the comfort of ONE person, should outweigh the desires of an entire community..
So, don't think of this as an argument in favor of religion..
Think of it as an argument in favor of people quit being so damn arrogant and touchy and just let people have their fun...
Life's just WAY too short to put so much effort into worrying about this piddly-ass crap..
We REALLY need to worry about the IMPORTANT stuff!!
Like of the GOP really wants to murder 8100 people or if Democrats really want to be BFFs with terrorists... :D
Michale....
253
As an aside, I once to a really religious woman, "Spiderman bless you" after she sneezed.. Got a REAL dirty look, but I thought it was funny as hell. :D True story..
Of course, that SHOULD read:
As an aside, I once said to a really religious woman, "Spiderman bless you" after she sneezed.. Got a REAL dirty look, but I thought it was funny as hell. :D True story..
Michale
254
It has EVERYTHING to do with it, as it is the very reason being cited in the Henderson County, Texas issue..
BS. Here's the reason actually being cited: "Sponsorship of a religious message is impermissible because it sends the ancillary message to members of the audience who are nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community."
http://athens.kltv.com/news/news/75648-according-ffrf-reason-not-prevailing-yet-athens-texas
So, don't think of this as an argument in favor of religion.
On this subject I doubt there's any danger of anyone thinking you've done anything so coherent and substantial as making an argument. And it's pretty clear that it's all about who's on your side of the political divide, no matter what they do or say, not about anything so substantive as religion.
You dance by the point I made as insultingly as possible..
The simple fact is, it's the community standards that are the main factor in this.
Does the community have a problem with it??
No, they do not..
So groups outside the state should just butt out..
That's my "argument".. Sorry it's not to your liking, but, hay... That's life...
Michale
258
The Left doesn't seem to mind ignoring the US Constitution when it suits their agenda. {{cough}}{{cough}}2nd Amendment{{cough}}{{cough}}
Apparently you missed that the first time..
So, let me repost it... :D
Michale
259
2. If the US Constitution was posi-loutly and abso-tively the last word on the issue, the US shouldn't even be CELEBRATING Christmas... It should be done away with because it is clearly a religious holiday...
Ooops... ya missed that one too...
Funny how that is, eh? :D
Michale
260
According to the letter, the complainant is “a concerned area resident and taxpayer” of Henderson County. The resident is not named.
ONE resident was "concerned".. IE Offended...
It's also interesting to note that the FFRF has 12 of these types of cases going on at this moment..
Like I said...
Professional "Offend-ees"...
They're worse than Professional Activists and much MUCH worse than the "Professional Left". :D
Michale
261
Lemme ask ya something..
If the US Constitution is absolute about forbidding religious displays on government property, why did the FFRF group give up on it's campaign to have the nativity scene removed from County property??
Michale.....
262
It's actually quite ironic, in a way..
At any other point in time, I would probably be arguing the FFRF's case...
The banner that the FFRF wants to hang up??? I completely and 1000% agree with it...
But there is a time to make a stand over a principle...
Christmas is NOT that time..
Apparently, the FFRF agrees with me, as they have folded when the County raised the ante...
I still maintain that professional "whiners" are really a pain in the ass... But, at another time, I would be more sympathetic to their cause.
"There may come a day when your kind will be welcomed back into the city. But today is not that day."
Lantean Commander, STARGATE ATLANTIS, The Return Part 1
Michale
263
The simple fact is, it's the community standards that are the main factor in this.
On no reasonable interpretation does the first amendment have anything to do with community standards.
The Left doesn't seem to mind ignoring the US Constitution when it suits their agenda.
Most of the left has interpretations of various provisions of the Constitution that are in accordance with their policy positions to a suspiciously high degree. Almost none are willing to flat-out ignore the Constitution -- the way Democrats and Republicans do on stuff like indefinite detention without charges. The second amendment has an introductory clause that can reasonably be interpreted as providing some useful guidance in interpreting the main clause.
But IT'S IRRELEVANT to the question at hand.
If the US Constitution was posi-loutly and abso-tively the last word on the issue, the US shouldn't even be CELEBRATING Christmas
The Constitution certainly is supposed to be the last word on the structure of US government, and the limitations on its actions. And indeed, the US government should not celebrate Christmas.
ONE resident was "concerned".. IE Offended.
Concerned is not at all the same as offended. You can be offended but unconcerned, or concerned but unoffended. For example if I hear a few KKK loudmouths on the corner spouting their offensive doctrines, with no prospect of gaining any converts, I will be offended but not concerned. If I hear the government singling out UUs to say mild nice things about, I will be concerned but not offended.
The only relevance of having someone in the local community is getting standing to bring the lawsuit. They presumably need to have someone to whom the message "that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community" is addressed.
If the US Constitution is absolute about forbidding religious displays on government property
That is absolutely not what the Constitution forbids.
Government property often can, and sometimes must, be made available for private use that includes religious displays. Government must not endorse the message of such displays. Government must not discriminate among such displays. Government must not allow such displays in a manner that would give a reasonable person the impression of government endorsement of the message.
On no reasonable interpretation does the first amendment have anything to do with community standards.
The US Constitution is not absolute. I am sure we can agree on that.. Free Speech doesn't allow you to place pornographic pictures in public display.. Why?? Because it would inflame.... wait for it... wait for it...
"COMMUNITY STANDARDS"
The SCOTUS has ruled, on MANY occasions, that "community standards" is relevant to constitutional issues..
Regardless of all that, the FFRF have already folded on the Constitutional Violation issue, so that issue is moot.
Even THEY recognize that they don't have a Constitutional leg to stand on..
In fact, their NEW tact would (it seems) would violate the Constitutional issues you've been arguing...
But IT'S IRRELEVANT to the question at hand.
Goes to credibility. One can't pick and choose which Amendments of the US Constitution are absolute and which allow wiggle room..
If one believes that the US Constitution is absolute, then they MUST believe that it allows ANY US citizen the right to arm themselves with ANY weapon they choose...
If one believes the US Constitution is absolute, then they MUST believe it is free speech when a person yells FIRE in a crowded theater when there is no fire.
If one believes that the US Constitution is absolute, then they MUST believe that it is free speech to post pornographic posters all over their city...
Now, if one believes that the US Constitution is NOT absolute, that each and every Amendment has gray areas where other considerations take precedent over the Constitution, then they MUST concede that the Constitution is moot here, that other considerations are in play...
But if one wants to pick and choose which Amendments are absolute and which have a buttload of gray areas based on a political agenda, then one's credibility is in the toilet...
Government property often can, and sometimes must, be made available for private use that includes religious displays. Government must not endorse the message of such displays. Government must not discriminate among such displays. Government must not allow such displays in a manner that would give a reasonable person the impression of government endorsement of the message.
I acknowledge the correction.. Especially since it makes my argument so much easier.. :D
It's Christmas, right?? The Christmas season. A nativity scene is a CHRISTMAS scene..
Now, a REASONABLE person seeing a Christmas Scene on government property at Christmas time would NOT have the impression that the government is endorsing a religion..
Let me ask you this...
If there was a Santa Claus on his sleigh with reindeer on the courthouse grounds, would a reasonable person believe that the government is endorsing that Santa Claus is a real entity??
Of course not.
It's a CHRISTMAS display.. Nothing more, nothing less...
As with the nativity scene... It's a CHRISTMAS DISPLAY.. Nothing more, nothing less..
Postulate a community made up of primarily Muslims. 99.2% Muslims, .8% other.. City council.. All Muslims... Mayor... Muslim...
At Christmas time, a Muslim Christmas display (whatever that would look like) is put on display.
Would a reasonable person in that community feel that the city is "endorsing" or "imposing" a religion???
Of course not.. It's reasonable that the city would do such a display as the vast majority of the community are of that religion...
The simple fact is... it's Christmas.
Having a CongressCritter say "Merry Christmas" is not a violation of the Constitution..
It's a violation of COMMON SENSE to stop CongressCritters from saying "Merry Christmas".
If 99.2% of a community doesn't mind a Christmas Display, some national organization of professional offend-ees should butt out and mind their own business..
Any other time of the year?? Yea, they might have a case.. And even more so, I would be more inclined to be on their side as I firmly believe that Freedom OF Religion equals Freedom FROM Religion...
But Christmas time is NOT the time to make that point.. Because religion is so intertwined with the holiday, it's impossible to separate the two..
This is a battle the FFRF cannot win and it was stoopid of them to even try. All it will do is inflame people AGAINST the FFRF..
And that's a shame because the FFRF *does* have a valid message...
Michale
268
Why is it so important to you that a congresscritter's Christmas greeting be an official statement of the US government, paid for with tax money? No one has questioned their right to say it in their private capacity, on their own dime. No one has questioned their right to say it as a candidate, on their donors' dime.
Saying it that way wouldn't be onerous for them at all. The only reason to insist on saying it as a statement of the US government is to push the point that government can be involved in sponsoring religious holidays, and to score the political points for it. Shouldn't the Christmas spirit call for politicians to cut the posturing and stop being divisive about the holiday?
Why is it so important to you that a congresscritter's Christmas greeting be an official statement of the US government, paid for with tax money?
The simple fact that it even has to be MENTIONED is my point..
It's utterly ridiculous that the Left would even come up with this...
It's like the rules of Fizzbin... Completely arbitrary and without a shred of common sense..
The REAL question here is why would ANYONE be offended or concerned if a CongressCritter said in a government message, "Have a great Christmas"..
Would a "reasonable" person think that said Critter is forcing his "religion" on others because of that??
Of course not..
It's politically correct bullshit, simply for the sake of political correctness...
As I said above, show me a person who is "offended" or "concerned" about a CongressCritter saying, in his/her official capacity, "Merry Christmas" and I'll show you a person who is LOOKING for things to be "offended" or "concerned" about...
It's utterly ridiculous to be concerned about this when this country has so many other problems...
Michale
270
Shouldn't the Christmas spirit call for politicians to cut the posturing and stop being divisive about the holiday?
And THAT is exactly what the Left and groups like FFRF are doing by their actions. They are being divisive..
A "merry christmas" is nothing more than a "merry christmas"..
Those who try to make it into something it is not, something sinister and oppressive...
THOSE are the people who are being divisive...
Michale
271
Christmas is a religious holiday.
No ifs, ands or buts about it..
If the FFRF specifically and the Left in general, doesn't want the Local, State or Federal government to have ANYTHING to do with Christmas in any way, shape or form, then let them make that case..
No reference to Christmas WHATSOEVER by ANY government entity in any way, shape or form... No White House Christmas Tree, no Federal day off, no nothing...
Of course, this would also have to apply to Thanksgiving as well.... No days off, no Pardoning Of The Turkey, no nothing..
Ya'all make that case and see how well it goes over. :D
I bet it flies like a lead balloon... :D
Michale
272
My advice to the FFRF and the Left in general??
Forget about this war on Christmas...
Leave it to the corporations and big business. They are doing their best to get Christ out of Christmas and they have done a damn fine job to date... :D
Let them do all the heavy lifting. :D
Michale....
273
Forget about this war on Christmas...
Ooopss.. I'm sorry..
Did I say "war"???
I meant "Kinetic Action"....
Silly me.... :D
Michale.....
274
I don't want the Christ out of Christmas. I want the government out of religion.
I'm a convinced atheist, but we all have a hefty chunk of Christian cultural heritage. Christmas is a religious holiday. It's part of that heritage. It should be recognized as such. Give me Venite Adoremus over Holly Jolly Christmas any day.
But it's despicable how your side demands that our representatives switch over from their campaign-fund or personal-account postage meter to their franking postage meter when they want to send out a Christmas message, just to make the point that government is to be involved in religion. It shows that they don't really believe in their dogma. They supposedly think God is omnipotent. They supposedly think government can't do anything right. If they meant either piece of rhetoric, let alone both, then they wouldn't believe so passionately that their god is dependent on almighty Government for the ability to touch people's hearts.
Of course a minor violation of the establishment clause pales in significance compared to the massive violation of the fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments that was just passed as part of the military budget bill. But a minor violation is still a violation.
A White House Christmas tree is more ambiguous. The occupants of the White House are Christians, and have a right to free exercise of religion in their private capacity. But it's not a private family observance in the seclusion of the residential part of the building. The tree itself is one of the more-or-less secular accretions on a religious holiday. But it is a religious holiday.
Days off are part of the reasonable accommodation required by the free-exercise clause. But the government may not discriminate between Christians who want time off for Christmas and Pastafarians who want time off for Ramendan.
Thanksgiving invokes religion, but it's primarily a nineteenth-century effort at social engineering. It's made-up glue to try to stick the country back together during and after the Civil War.
Sorry, Adeste Fideles I meant to say. Venite adoremus is of course the repeated line of the refrain.
I don't want the Christ out of Christmas. I want the government out of religion.
As do I...
But since we are a representative Democracy and this nation was founded with a buttload of religious baggage....
Well, good luck with that...
Personally, I would love to have religion completely stripped from the public consciousness...
But do you think that a candidate who supports such a move would ever get elected??
But it's despicable how your side
Ho now.... Slow down, buckwheat...
If I am on ANY side on the religious issue, I am on your side...
I simply think that, in THIS instance, it's the holiday that's important, not the religious baggage behind it...
I couldn't be happier if there wasn't a religion at all... I would be standing shoulder to shoulder with the FFRF any other time of the year..
I just think that the Christmas season is NOT the time to be divisive...
Remember that old TV show, SCARECROW AND MRS KING?? One episode they were trapped in a village barn in Russia, surrounded by Russian soldiers on Christmas Eve... A truce was declared and the soldiers were allowed to enter the barn and share the warmth because it was below freezing outside..
Call me sentimental, but I wish that sometimes we could have something like that..
Put aside all the partisan BS and all the divisive issues and simply enjoy the season as Americans...
But the government may not discriminate between Christians who want time off for Christmas and Pastafarians who want time off for Ramendan.
Now THAT was funny!! :D
The point is, we will never get religion completely out of this government as much as you or I would like it to happen..
The simple fact that our Left Wing politicians don't push for that indicates to me that they recognize the futility of such actions..
If a White House Christmas Tree is acceptable to the general public, then I don't understand why a nativity scene at a courthouse would be Armageddon or indicate the coming Apocolypse or the foreshadowing of jack-booted Christians marching down the street forcing everyone to pray to Spiderman....
It's a seasonal display. No more or less threatening than a Santa/Reindeer display or a Frosty The Snowman display...
Maybe people should forget their agendas for a bit and just enjoy the holiday season...
That's all I am saying..
Michale
276
Maybe people should forget their agendas for a bit and just enjoy the holiday season...
Of course, we CAN'T forget about the partisan agendas here on CW.COM!!!
I have over 200 more posts to go!!! :D
Michale
277
Personally, I would love to have religion completely stripped from the public consciousness... But do you think that a candidate who supports such a move would ever get elected?
I don't want government in religion -- either for or against. If a candidate supports using government to strip religion from the public consciousness, I don't want them elected. (Of course, the other candidate may be even worse, but that's what primaries are for.)
I want the public consciousness to be free from religion but not free of religion: I don't want religion to be either compulsive or compulsory, but I do want us to be conscious of our history which is full of it.
If a White House Christmas Tree is acceptable to the general public, then I don't understand why a nativity scene at a courthouse would be Armageddon
It's not Armageddon. It's a minor violation of the establishment clause, very small potatoes compared to what's being done to other clauses. But many loudmouths on the right kick up a huge fuss about the supposed war on Christmas every year, and a smaller but still substantial number of loudmouths on the left help give them fodder for it by talking as though those small potatoes were Armageddon.
I don't want to get religion out of government, exactly: government is full of people, many of whom are religious. That's ok. Their views on matters of public concern are influenced by their religious experience and belief. That's ok, as long as they adhere to their responsibility to keep government out of religion. There should be no religious test for any office or public trust under the United States, or any state. Excluding religious people would be just as wrong as excluding atheists.
I do want to get government out of religion: government must not endorse or sponsor any religious message. That means people involved in government must engage in their free exercise of religion only in their private capacity. If people are unwilling to abide that restriction, and decide to exclude themselves for that reason, that's their choice.
It's not Armageddon. It's a minor violation of the establishment clause,
Isn't a White House Christmas Tree the same??
But many loudmouths on the right kick up a huge fuss about the supposed war on Christmas every year, and a smaller but still substantial number of loudmouths on the left help give them fodder for it by talking as though those small potatoes were Armageddon.
Common ground... :D A wonderful thing.. :D
"Detente is a wonderful thing."
Maureen Robinson, LOST IN SPACE
:D
Michale
278
Isn't a White House Christmas Tree the same?
Only sort of. As I said, tree-decorating is a more-or-less secular accretion on the holiday, and the White House is a family residence.
There is nothing secular about a nativity scene. The whole point of making it an official municipal nativity (which what all the fuss is about: no court has ever agreed to hear an establishment-clause case over a privately-owned nativity scene on someone's own lawn) scene is to make it clear that non-Christians (and Christians of the "wrong" denominations) are second-class citizens.
Only sort of. As I said, tree-decorating is a more-or-less secular accretion on the holiday, and the White House is a family residence.
If the tree was within the White House residence, I would agree with you..
But it has more in common with the Henderson County nativity display than it does with a christmas display within a residence...
There is nothing secular about a nativity scene.
I think this is the crux of our disagreement.
You look at the nativity scene as a religious display. To be sure, there is evidence to support that view..
I look at the nativity scene as a christmas display. And there is evidence to support that view as well..
The whole point of making it an official municipal nativity scene is to make it clear that non-Christians (and Christians of the "wrong" denominations) are second-class citizens
In effect, you are saying that the SOLE reason for the county to do this is to give a big "F*UCK YOU" to those who are not christians..
Assumes facts not in evidence..
Michale
279
In effect, you are saying that the SOLE reason for the county to do this is to give a big "F*UCK YOU" to those who are not christians..
Look at it this way..
If you are a Red Sox fan, do you deck yourself in the regalia to show pride in your team?? Or to give a big "F*UCK YOU" to other team's fans..
If you are a decent human being, then it's the former..
If yer a lousy human being, then the latter.. :D
In the case of Henderson County, you are assuming that they are the latter without any evidence to support the assumption...
Michale
280
Here's an email that I just received from Senator Bill Nelson...
Dear Friends,
[Facebook]
As the year comes to a close, I can’t help but look back and reflect on all that has happened - doing so with appreciation for the friendship, support and suggestions of so many of you.
At this special time of year, my wife Grace and I would like to wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah and the best of the Holiday Season – and, a wonderful New Year. We hope the blessings of the season will allow you to share time with your family and closest friends.
With that said, it’s important to keep in mind there are many folks in Florida, and all over, who aren’t as fortunate. Whether suffering from economic hardship or being separated from their family and loved ones, like our thousands of men and women in uniform and our civilian public servants abroad, all of them shall be in our thoughts and prayers.
And let us all remember the greeting that has rung throughout the ages: “ … on earth peace, good will toward men.”
Now, I axe ya...
What's wrong with that??
Michale
281
Now, I axe ya...
Apologies in advance for the vulgarity...
"Imagine yer a deeeaa. You're prancing along, you get thirsty, you spot a little brook, you put your little deeaa lips down to the cool clear water... BAM! A fuckin bullet rips off part of your head!!! Your brains are laying on the ground in little bloody pieces!!!
Now I axe ya!! Would you give a fuck what kind of pants the son of a bitch who shot you was wearing!!!??"
-Marisa Tomeii, MY COUSIN VINNY
:D
Michale
282
Here's an email that I just received from Senator Bill Nelson
...
What's wrong with that?
In the context of the current discussion, the only thing wrong with it is that it's irrelevant.
The issue about congresscritters saying "merry Christmas" was that they're supposed to do it in their private capacity as citizens or candidates (and pay the postage on their own dime or from campaign funds), not in their official capacity speaking as part of the US government (and use their franking privilege). An email or facebook posting doesn't use franking, so it doesn't fall under the prohibition you're objecting to and I'm defending.
I look at the nativity scene as a christmas display.
Of course it's a Christmas display. Christmas is a religious holiday: it's Christ's mass. Not the number of kilograms of matter in His body, but the sacrament of the Eucharist celebrated in commemoration of His birth. That's not all it is, of course: the date was probably chosen to coincide with pagan solstice celebrations, and secular traditions in turn have come to be associated with it.
The question is whether a particular Christmas observance involves any religious message (in which case it's unconstitutional for government to sponsor it), or whether it's purely part of the secular stuff associated with the holiday.
Actual depictions of Christ being worshiped by angels and magi are blatantly in the former category.
If you are a Red Sox fan, do you deck yourself in the regalia to show pride in your team?? Or to give a big "F*UCK YOU" to other team's fans.
If setting up a nativity scene is like decking yourself in Sox gear, then going out of your way to stamp it GOVERNMENT SPONSORED is like putting Sox graffiti on a Yankees fan's house.
In the context of the current discussion, the only thing wrong with it is that it's irrelevant.
It was an official letter from a United States CongressCritter..
It was sent in his capacity as a United States CongressCritter, not as a candidate or as a private citizen..
As such, saying Merry Christmas in that email is unconstitutional as you have outlined it.
Ergo, that makes it VERY relevant to this discussion..
Of course it's a Christmas display. Christmas is a religious holiday: it's Christ's mass. Not the number of kilograms of matter in His body, but the sacrament of the Eucharist celebrated in commemoration of His birth
Not really..
If we were celebrating his birth, we would have Christmas in June or July...
If setting up a nativity scene is like decking yourself in Sox gear, then going out of your way to stamp it GOVERNMENT SPONSORED is like putting Sox graffiti on a Yankees fan's house.
So you think that physical location = "Government Sponsored"???
I see absolutely NOTHING to indicate that this display is a vindictive attempt to be divisive..
However, I DO see FFRF's actions as a vindictive attempt to be divisive..
Michale
283
In the context of the current discussion, the only thing wrong with it is that it's irrelevant.
OK, so you are saying that it is NOT endorsing or imposing religion, if a CongressCritter says "Merry Christmas" in an official email or letter...
Then we are in complete agreement..
Michale
285
It wasn't sent via franking, which was the point originally at issue. But yes, the basis for the original issue is a major part of the discussion, so it's relevant that way.
To me, it doesn't read as speaking in his official capacity and constituting government endorsement of the holiday. It's merry Christmas from him and his wife, not from him and his colleagues. It reads as the kind of phony-personal greeting that characterizes a politician speaking as someone who wants your vote next time around. When I said "as a candidate", I was thinking of it as including that kind of thing, not just the period from filing papers for a particular election to that election. Pols are in permanent campaign mode these days.
If it reads to you as though he's speaking in his official capacity, if you think he's expressing his bit of the sense of the Congress on Christmas as implicitly distinguished from Ramadan and Ramendan and everything in between, then you should have a problem with it. But that's not how it looks to me, so I don't.
If we were celebrating his birth, we would have Christmas in June or July...
You're not serious. I don't know whether or not you think you're serious, but you're not serious.
So you think that physical location = "Government Sponsored"?
It can be. After all, you can put something on a pedestal by, literally, putting it on a pedestal.
It reads as the kind of phony-personal greeting that characterizes a politician speaking as someone who wants your vote next time around.
You realize that Bill Nelson is a Democrat, right? :D
You're not serious. I don't know whether or not you think you're serious, but you're not serious.
I am serious.. History shows that Jesus was likely born in the Spring or Summer..
The church accosted the winter solstice holiday and made it their own, because it was the most popular holiday at the time..
But the facts clearly show that it is highly unlikely that Jesus was born in December.
It can be. After all, you can put something on a pedestal by, literally, putting it on a pedestal.
We'll just have to disagree on that... :D
Michale
288
You realize that Bill Nelson is a Democrat, right?
Didn't know, don't care. Sauce-goose-gander. I hope that I wouldn't have defended his message any more if I'd known he's a Democrat, nor any less if I'd thought he was a Republican.
Jesus was likely born in the Spring or Summer.
Yes, we know. But his birth is celebrated on the 25th of December. Apparently some theologian read some passage about Mary and decided it was when Jesus was conceived: throw in a bit of calendrical calculation, and Hocus Pocus! You've got an excuse to celebrate Christ's mass under cover of the solstice festivities.
OK, so we agree that we're not celebrating Christ's birthday...
That's all I am saying.. :D
Michale
300
We're not celebrating on the birthday of the historical Jesus (if any). We are celebrating the birth of Christ. And Christ is after all a fictional character, based loosely if at all on the historical Jesus. So if millions of his worshipers think December 25th is his birthday, then that sort of is the birthday of that version.
The Declaration of Independence wasn't signed on July 4th, either. The Continental Congress voted independence on July 2, which John Adams was going to be the date remembered and celebrated; and the document was signed at an unknown later date. But July 4th is still Independence day, the national celebration of the Declaration -- both of its signing and of the fact of the united colonies actually declaring that they were free and independent states absolved of all loyalty to the British crown.
Saying that Christmas isn't a religious holiday because of the date being off, is as plausible as saying that July 4th isn't a patriotic holiday because of its date being off.
We're not celebrating on the birthday of the historical Jesus (if any). We are celebrating the birth of Christ. And Christ is after all a fictional character, based loosely if at all on the historical Jesus. So if millions of his worshipers think December 25th is his birthday, then that sort of is the birthday of that version.
While it's likely that someone named Jesus Christ is a historical figure, I completely agree that the Christ glorified in that book, the bible, is indeed a mythical/fictional character..
Saying that Christmas isn't a religious holiday because of the date being off, is as plausible as saying that July 4th isn't a patriotic holiday because of its date being off.
I never claimed that Xmas isn't a religious holiday because the date is off..
Further, I never claimed that it wasn't a religious holiday to begin with...
All I have said is that the religious aspects of the holiday have been supplanted by other concerns whereas it should be allowed to be viewed as an American holiday and as such, celebrated by Americans w/o fuss....
Enjoy the season, in other words, and quite trying to label it and, by virtue of that label, prevent others from enjoying the season...
Michale
313