|
|
| Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists (7522) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 4 of 14 |
||
|
| (8077) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Dec 25 08:49:06 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by Train Dude on Fri Dec 24 17:09:30 2004. There is no seperation of Church and state anywhere in the constitution and especially not in the "Bill of Rights"."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Sounds like separation of church and state to me. The Church of England was the "established" church in England, and they didn't want that kind of close connection here. I agree however that it doesn't necessarily mean you can't have a Christmas tree in front of city hall. |
|
|
| (8078) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Dec 25 08:51:19 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by Train Dude on Fri Dec 24 17:18:14 2004. The celebration of Christmas and Chanukah are coincidental to the occurrence of the new year. The meanings of the 3 celebrations have nothing to do with each other and to try to combine them demeans them. I'm not sure about the celebration of Kwanzza as it relates to the new year. Those who celebrate the Winter Solstace, however, may not mind the celebration 10 days later on New Years Eve. Then again, they might.However, the celebration of Christmas is NOT coincidental to the winter solstice. Christians decided to celebrate Christmas on the Roman holiday celebrating the return of longer days (Saturnalia?), so that they wouldn't be conspicuous in their celebrations. |
|
|
| (8079) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by Anon_e_mouse on Sat Dec 25 08:55:07 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Dec 24 22:42:25 2004. The Christian New Year occurs in Spring around Easter ...Then why is the current "secular" year identified as 2004 A.D.? Last I knew, that stood for Anno Domini, or "Year of Our Lord". Not particularly secular, as far as I'm concerned. Until next time... Anon_e_mouse |
|
|
| (8080) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by Anon_e_mouse on Sat Dec 25 08:58:24 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Dec 25 08:47:23 2004. There is nothing religious about a pine tree.Until it is festooned with a star at the top, candy canes (which are a religious symbol), and other religious decorations. Until next time... Anon_e_mouse |
|
|
| (8081) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Dec 25 09:14:45 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by Anon_e_mouse on Sat Dec 25 08:55:07 2004. The number in the year the world uses may have religious origins, but for all intents and purposes it is a secular New Year. Everything in our daily lives revolves around the year, whether y ou are religious or not. Even taxes are paid revolving around the year that begins Jan 1st and ends Dec 31st. It6 is secular, no matter what it's origins may have been.In the Catholic Calendar, January 1st is a hold Day of Obligation. However, that is not because it is "New Years Day", but because it is "The Feast of the Solomenty of Mary". This is only in the Catholic Calendar, not most of the Christian Protestant religions which don't follow the Catholic Feast Days. |
|
|
| (8082) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Dec 25 09:20:35 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by Anon_e_mouse on Sat Dec 25 08:58:24 2004. I have never had a star on top of a Christmas Tree. It is a dead tree, that has no meaning. In fact, I don't believe there are even Balsam Firs in Bethleham. It has NOTHING to do with Jesus, just like flying reindeer or a fat guy dressed in red velvet riding through the sky on a sleigh.As for Candy canes. That is a piece of peppermint. I have never stuck one of them on a Christmas tree either. See more here |
|
|
| (8083) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Dec 25 09:29:08 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Dec 24 22:59:54 2004. You may infer but I did not imply. The fact is that Madison was a diest as was Franklin and other founding fathers. Keep in mind that people came here from England to escape religious persecution by the C of E. They did not come here to escape religion. They came here partly for religious freedom.You can interpret the writings anyway you want to support your point of view. My ONLY point was that the constitution does not mandate a seperation of church and state but only prohibits the establishment and support for a state religion. All of the bullshit aside, I see nothing wrong with a menorah or a nativity scene or a festivus pole being displayed in front of my local town hall. In fact, I grew up appreciating other religions because of public displays and the curiosity that they inspired. Where do you propose that children learn about them in this time of secular liberalism? Do you propose that Jewish families hold Muslim celebrations in their home? Shall Christians light Menorahs in their homes. If children do not learn it in school, where do they learn it? As usual, you've fogged the issue with 200 year-old snippets of quotes that have little relevence to today's issues. Deal with today! |
|
|
| (8084) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Dec 25 09:32:35 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Dec 25 09:14:45 2004. Yes, but the very numbering of the years has it's foundation deeply rooted in the Christian Religions. After all, leave us not forget what the terms BC & AD refer to. January 1, 2005 AD |
|
|
| (8085) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Dec 25 09:34:45 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by AlM on Sat Dec 25 08:49:06 2004. Establishment of Religion refers to a "State Religion" such as the church of England. |
|
|
| (8086) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Dec 25 09:46:00 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Dec 24 22:59:54 2004. Just as an aside, what did you do with your Christmas bonus when your boss gave you one? Did you refuse to take Christmas off (with pay)? Did you ever put your did you ever practice the Seculiberalism that you preach? |
|
|
| (8089) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Dec 25 10:39:32 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by Train Dude on Sat Dec 25 09:32:35 2004. Again, I understand that, however, a line has to be drawn somewhere. The year is so embedded in history and everyday life at this point, there is nothing anyone can do. It has become secular, no matter how the year number started.The war of 1812, 9/11/2001, 1941, 7/4/1776, etc, etc. It's as secular as you are going to get. Who cares where it came from. |
|
|
| (8093) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by BMT Dude on Sat Dec 25 11:01:39 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by Anon_e_mouse on Sat Dec 25 08:58:24 2004. C.K....since when is a candy cane a religious symbol? Details...we need details, please! ;-D |
|
|
| (8101) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by American Pig on Sat Dec 25 12:38:00 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by Anon_e_mouse on Sat Dec 25 08:55:07 2004. I call it 2004 CE. Jesus was not born in 1 BCE anyway. |
|
|
| (8102) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by American Pig on Sat Dec 25 12:44:15 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by AlM on Sat Dec 25 08:51:19 2004. Chanukah is also not coincidental to the winter solstice. Is it a coincidence that the festival of lights comes during the darkest time of year? (darkest because days are shortest). Yes, it does commemorate a major victory, but I don't recall that the war between the Maccabees and the Seleucids actually ended on the 25th of Kislev, they just re-lit the temple menorah at that time. |
|
|
| (8103) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by American Pig on Sat Dec 25 12:54:04 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by Anon_e_mouse on Sat Dec 25 08:58:24 2004. candy canes (which are a religious symbol)No. |
|
|
| (8104) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Dec 25 12:55:50 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by American Pig on Sat Dec 25 12:54:04 2004. Hey! That's the same link I found!I guess it's one of the first that comes uo when googled.... |
|
|
| (8105) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by American Pig on Sat Dec 25 12:56:46 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by Train Dude on Sat Dec 25 09:29:08 2004. If children do not learn it in school, where do they learn it?Learning does not require celebrating. As usual, you've fogged the issue with 200 year-old snippets of quotes that have little relevence to today's issues. On the contrary, they have everything to do with today's issues, the show that in fact the establishment clause DOES provide for separation of church and state since it shows that it was the intention of its authors. |
|
|
| (8106) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by American Pig on Sat Dec 25 13:14:35 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by AlM on Sat Dec 25 08:49:06 2004. I agree however that it doesn't necessarily mean you can't have a Christmas tree in front of city hall.Only because a tree is not a religious symbol. If it was, then it would be wrong to place it in front of city hall. |
|
|
| (8108) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by American Pig on Sat Dec 25 13:19:30 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by Train Dude on Sat Dec 25 09:34:45 2004. NO!If all the framers wanted to do was ban a national church, they had plenty of opportunities to state exactly that in the First Amendment. In fact, an early draft of the First Amendment read in part, "The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief, nor shall any national religion be established...." This draft was rejected. Following extensive debate, the language found in the First Amendment today was settled on. http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:KDpUDWEqc0gJ:www.au.org/site/DocServer/TenMyths.pdf%3FdocID%3D148+&hl=en, Page 4 |
|
|
| (8110) | |
Re: Crusades |
|
|
Posted by American Pig on Sat Dec 25 13:20:47 2004, in response to Re: Crusades, posted by daDouce Man on Fri Dec 24 22:22:02 2004. You mean the Children's Crusade was done by lack of leadership rather than the fact it was fought by children?The Children's Crusade is largely a myth anyway. |
|
|
| (8112) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by BMT Dude on Sat Dec 25 13:44:47 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by American Pig on Sat Dec 25 12:54:04 2004. One thing the site does not go into about the 'hook' of the cane is that it was made that way for a practical reason: to decorate the Christmas tree, of course. How best to dress up a tree with candy and not use a fastener of some kind is to simply hook the candy cane around one of the fir's branches. That is probably the reason for the hook. That's how my mom used to always decorate the tree with the canes. And I'm sure the stripping was added simply for it's decorative effect. |
|
|
| (8113) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Dec 25 14:09:43 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by American Pig on Fri Dec 24 18:18:32 2004. I stand corrected. I was thinking of the fact that the people of that time and place spoke Aramaic, but of course the New Testament wasn't written then or there. |
|
|
| (8114) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Dec 25 14:14:21 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Dec 25 09:14:45 2004. In the Catholic Calendar, January 1st is a hold Day of Obligation. However, that is not because it is "New Years Day", but because it is "The Feast of the Solomenty of Mary".Only for the last 20 years or so. It used to be the Feast of the Circumcision. |
|
|
| (8116) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Dec 25 14:44:09 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by American Pig on Sat Dec 25 12:56:46 2004. And, I have no argument with the establishment part. That's a whole other issue from a nativity scene on the lawn in front of town hall. The state isnot establishing a religion, just recocnizing it as one of many. |
|
|
| (8117) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Dec 25 14:47:00 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by American Pig on Sat Dec 25 13:19:30 2004. YES - No links provided |
|
|
| (8118) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Dec 25 14:52:33 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by AlM on Sat Dec 25 14:14:21 2004. All the readings at Church that day are still about the circumcision, after all, Jesus was Jewish, and it is 8 days after Christmas, his supposed birthday.Of course, that still has nothing to do with New Years Day. And circumcision isn't even a requirement in the Christian religion, like it is in the Jewish religion. |
|
|
| (8120) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by monorail on Sat Dec 25 14:56:32 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Dec 25 14:52:33 2004. circumcision is just a cut above the rest! |
|
|
| (8124) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Dec 25 16:20:11 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by monorail on Sat Dec 25 14:56:32 2004. ouch |
|
|
| (8125) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Dec 25 16:24:31 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Dec 25 09:14:45 2004.  In the Catholic Calendar, January 1st is a hold Day of Obligation. The Feast of the Solemnity of Mary *is* a very recent addition to the Church Calendar. It was added to trump some of the rabid secularism that surrounds the New Year's Day celebration. To get people back into church instead of surrenduring them to some football game on TV. The former feast of the Circumcision was not a Holy Day of Obligation, the Solemnity of Mary is. |
|
|
| (8126) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Dec 25 16:29:44 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by American Pig on Sat Dec 25 12:38:00 2004. The year 2004 of the Common Epoch.Yes the current numbering of the years does date from Christ, but there are some inaccuracies in the precise dating. But now we *do* have a number system that most of the world follows, so maybe it is right to call it the Common Epoch and let it go at that. Let us see if we can get the correct year numbers for the following: Hindu.................. Buddist................ Jewish................. Christian..............2004 Moslem................. Others????????????????? |
|
|
| (8128) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by BIE on Sat Dec 25 16:40:38 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Dec 25 16:29:44 2004. I always heard it referred to as The Common Era. |
|
|
| (8130) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by American Pig on Sat Dec 25 16:46:17 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Dec 25 16:29:44 2004. Jewish: 5765 |
|
|
| (8131) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by American Pig on Sat Dec 25 16:47:05 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by Train Dude on Sat Dec 25 14:47:00 2004. ?I provided a link. |
|
|
| (8132) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by American Pig on Sat Dec 25 16:53:53 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by Train Dude on Sat Dec 25 14:44:09 2004. If a nativity scene is place in the town hall lawn as part of an exhibit on religion, they would have to put symbols of every other religion. This is stupid and cluttersome. |
|
|
| (8133) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by Anon_e_mouse on Sat Dec 25 17:03:31 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by American Pig on Sat Dec 25 12:44:15 2004. I don't recall that the war between the Maccabees and the Seleucids actually ended on the 25th of Kislev, they just re-lit the temple menorah at that time.Correct. It was also the third anniversary of the desecration of the Temple, which may account for the choice of that date to relight the menorah. Some years it falls almost a full secular month before the solstice so I would say there is no relation between our festival and the changing of the seasons. Until next time... Anon_e_mouse |
|
|
| (8135) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by American Pig on Sat Dec 25 17:53:58 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by Anon_e_mouse on Sat Dec 25 17:03:31 2004. Becuase of the shifting of the Jewish Lunar Calendar relative to the solar calendar, a shift of up to a month from the Winter solstice is to be expected. I agree that it wasn't based on the solstice, but practices as they have developed might be related to the solstice. |
|
|
| (8137) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Dec 25 19:08:21 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by Train Dude on Sat Dec 25 09:29:08 2004. The fact is that Madison was a diestActually, he was Episcopalian; Jefferson was Deist. people came here from England to escape religious persecution ... They did not come here to escape religion. Does that mean that they gave license to persecuting atheists and agnostics? My ONLY point was that the constitution does not mandate a seperation of church and state but only prohibits the establishment and support for a state religion ... 200 year-old snippets of quotes that have little relevence to today's issues Your ONLY point is in contradiction to 200 years of judicial history. It is also in contradiction to the writings of the people who wrote the first amendment. I see nothing wrong with a menorah or a nativity scene or a festivus pole being displayed in front of my local town hall. What about the wishes of those who do find such displays offensive? Where do you propose that children learn about them in this time of secular liberalism? There are many venues where children can receive religious instruction, if they and/or their parents wish it. Most are called churches, cathedrals, synagogues, temples, mosques, meeting houses, etc. The only restrictions such locations are subject to are fire codes for public safety. Children may also receive religious instruction in the home. There are no restrictions on religious instruction and training. Most religious demoninations will give instruction in only their denomination. Others offer some comparative studies. There is also a wealth of written material freely available that describes just about any religion for those who are curious. Do you propose that Jewish families hold Muslim celebrations in their home? Shall Christians light Menorahs in their homes. Many Jews would be feel insulted if Christians partook of their religious rituals. From what I remember, some Jews are insulted that other Jews partake in some religious rituals. I been told that such sentiments are not limited to Jews. :=) If children do not learn it in school, where do they learn it? If children were taught in the schools only that religion is a private matter, the country and the children would be well served. |
|
|
| (8140) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by Anon_e_mouse on Sat Dec 25 20:40:44 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by American Pig on Sat Dec 25 12:54:04 2004. Yes.They may not have been originally designed that way, but that is what is now being taught by Southern Baptists and some fundamental Christian groups to children in their Sunday schools - that the red and white intertwined symbolize purity and Jesus' blood, and that the shape is to remind you of the shepherd's crook. I've confirmed this tonight with a friend who is a member of a fundamentalist church; they use Southern Baptist workbooks in their preschool classes and one of the pages his three year old son recently colored is a worksheet with a picture of a candy cane and that story. Until next time... Anon_e_mouse |
|
|
| (8142) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by Verbal Kent on Sat Dec 25 20:48:28 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by American Pig on Sat Dec 25 16:53:53 2004. Why would the "HAVE" to? I could see permitting others to exhibit if they wished but why would they have to? |
|
|
| (8143) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by Verbal Kent on Sat Dec 25 20:54:56 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Dec 25 19:08:21 2004. Public displays of religion do not persecute athiests or agnostics!If people are offended by displays of a religious nature then should churches or synagogs on public streets be forced to be screened off from public view? Do you really believe that children are harmed if they are exposed to other religions? |
|
|
| (8144) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Dec 25 20:58:06 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by Train Dude on Sat Dec 25 14:47:00 2004. YES - No links providedAnd thou art proud of that, and thinkest that such empty resolve proveth thy case?  Verily, 'tis like saying "Behold, ten dollars" and thou showest empty hands . . . 
|
|
|
| (8146) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Dec 25 21:00:18 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by BIE on Fri Dec 24 12:39:54 2004. I know; hence the reminder. |
|
|
| (8147) | |
Re: Crusades |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Dec 25 21:06:02 2004, in response to Crusades, posted by American Pig on Fri Dec 24 18:46:50 2004. Crusade means Christ battleActually, the root of the word comes from Latin "crux" (cross) rather than "Christos" (CristoV). http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=crusade Notwithstanding, the cruciform was associated with Christianity by the Catholic Church . . . and "crusading" is something that Christ never commanded, in the writings. |
|
|
| (8148) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Dec 25 21:09:41 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by Train Dude on Fri Dec 24 17:09:30 2004. No offense but you Secularists are one fucked up bunchHmm . . . I feel a "pot, kettle, black" moment coming on . . . And who said that secularists are liberal anyway? |
|
|
| (8149) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Dec 25 21:15:57 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by Anon_e_mouse on Sat Dec 25 20:40:44 2004. Sorry, but still no. Doesn't matter what Southern Baptists teach. Guess you didn't read the Snopes article? |
|
|
| (8150) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Dec 25 21:18:14 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by BIE on Sat Dec 25 16:40:38 2004. Common Era is correct. I was trying to make it elaborate. |
|
|
| (8151) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Dec 25 21:19:18 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by American Pig on Sat Dec 25 12:54:04 2004. Funny . . . there's a link to the 12 Days Of Christmas "hidden meaning" canard and I noticed what they tried to give as a "hidden meaning" for the two turtle-doves . . . but in the Bible, it's part of a ritual sacrifice performed when presenting the firstborn male child, that opens the womb, in the old Temple in Jerusalem . . . |
|
|
| (8152) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Dec 25 21:21:44 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by Verbal Kent on Sat Dec 25 20:54:56 2004. I believe Mr. Baumann mentioned "town hall" in that context, alone. A public place, not a place of worship. Taking things out of context does not win arguments. |
|
|
| (8153) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Dec 25 21:28:36 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Dec 25 14:52:33 2004. Ah, circumcision . . .Modern science apparently has verified that at 8 days old, a baby has more vitamin K than at any other time in its life. |
|
|
| (8154) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Dec 25 21:29:51 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by #4 Sea Beach Fred on Thu Dec 23 22:08:59 2004. The Neocons have made this all up, I suspect. Who is really enforcing "Happy Holidays"??Seasons Greetings to thee and thine. |
|
|
|
Page 4 of 14 |
||