|
|
| Re: No, It's the Stalinists?? (7522) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 12 of 14 |
||
|
| (9159) | |
Re: No, It's the Stalinists?? |
|
|
Posted by The Rockaway Kid on Fri Dec 31 20:43:42 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Stalinists??, posted by Verbal Kent on Fri Dec 31 13:37:53 2004. First comes the silent night.....then comes the genocide. It's really easy for these things to stumble out of control when religion becomes unchecked. Shocking how it can even happen in a western nation. |
|
|
| (9296) | |
Genocide? (Re: No, It's the Stalinists??) |
|
|
Posted by Verbal Kent on Sat Jan 1 16:16:10 2005, in response to Re: No, It's the Stalinists??, posted by The Rockaway Kid on Fri Dec 31 20:43:42 2004. Silly - Silly - Silly! Do you really believe that people who sing carols have genocidal motive? You better keep looking over your shoulder because they may be coming any minute. |
|
|
| (9305) | |
Re: Genocide? (Re: No, It's the Stalinists??) |
|
|
Posted by The Rockaway Kid on Sat Jan 1 18:07:22 2005, in response to Genocide? (Re: No, It's the Stalinists??), posted by Verbal Kent on Sat Jan 1 16:16:10 2005. who, the evangelicals? the same ones who think that the founding of an independent jewish state is linked with the coming of the apocolypse (where all the jews will burn in hell)? Nah, they'd NEVER be genocidal...then again, watch out. Us jews are normally the first scapegoats. Ever been to the south, where they think jews have horns and a tail? |
|
|
| (9307) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Jan 1 18:44:17 2005, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by The Rockaway Kid on Thu Dec 30 23:57:28 2004. Yes, catholics are the majority. As such, mostly everyone knows the white catholic culture; we do not need it jammed down our throats another dayUh, I think the Protestants and other Christian religions probably way out number the Catholics. It is your responsibility as the majority to be tolerant of the minority. Because you do such a bad job at it (KKK), it is important to be educated in tolerance. I believe the KKK hates Catholics too, but whatever. So don't give me the B.S. about equality I'm not giving any BS, but I'm not taking a lot of the BS either. |
|
|
| (9308) | |
Re: Genocide? (Re: No, It's the Stalinists??) |
|
|
Posted by Anon_e_mouse on Sat Jan 1 18:51:42 2005, in response to Re: Genocide? (Re: No, It's the Stalinists??), posted by The Rockaway Kid on Sat Jan 1 18:07:22 2005. Ever been to the south, where they think jews have horns and a tail?Only in a very few places. I'm a Southern Jew, and even in the rural area of North Carolina I call home my neighbors aren't THAT biased. Yes, I've run into some folks who are a bit suspicious of my faith, but then again, the Southern Baptists and the Methodists don't exactly get along either. Why, if a Southern Baptist girl were to marry a Methodist boy, some folks would be ready to sit shiva :-) Until next time... Anon_e_mouse |
|
|
| (9313) | |
Re: Genocide? (Re: No, It's the Stalinists??) |
|
|
Posted by Verbal Kent on Sat Jan 1 20:25:11 2005, in response to Re: Genocide? (Re: No, It's the Stalinists??), posted by The Rockaway Kid on Sat Jan 1 18:07:22 2005. As a matter of fact, I've traveled extensively in the south and have found very little of what you describe. On the other hand, there is an awful lot of pseudo anti-christian posts here - up north. It's one thing to keep your powder dry but another to live with paranoia. |
|
|
| (9394) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Buffer on Sun Jan 2 22:48:07 2005, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by David of Broadway on Sun Dec 26 15:03:01 2004. But why does that mean that you can't bring a candy cane into a public school?The last time I was in public school was when I was in 5th grade in 1999 at PS102 in Bay Ridge, and I remember (and this is a lot like what Mr. L train suggested) they had in the lobby a Christmas Tree as well as a a table w/ a manora (and I know I probably spelled it wrong) and other Jewish symbols, a table w/ a Kwanzaa and African theme, a table w/ a nativity scene, and a table w/ a moldel mosque on it. That covered all basis and made everyone happy. So what do you find wrong with stuff like that? -James |
|
|
| (9397) | |
ACLU's way: Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Buffer on Sun Jan 2 22:58:51 2005, in response to Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by R36 #9346 on Mon Dec 20 15:48:20 2004. I'd like to know why the ACLU works against Christmas and the religious aspect of the holidays instead of working for the civil liberties of people to be able to say the word Christmas in a public school or give out a candy cane, or show their religious belief of their holiday in a public school. I would think that as the defenders and fighters for civil liberties, the ACLU would be on the "Merry Christmas/Happy Hanukkah" guys instead of the "Happy Holidays" and "'Tis the Season" sensor religion guys.Is that not a civil liberty? Can someone here associated with the ACLU (and I know that's a good amount of you) please explain that to me. And lets face it, w/o Jesus, there wouldn't be a holiday season, so there is no reasoning for censoring Christmas. -James |
|
|
| (9463) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by American Pig on Mon Jan 3 11:33:19 2005, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by Broadway Buffer on Sun Jan 2 22:48:07 2005. That covered all basis and made everyone happy. So what do you find wrong with stuff like that?It doesn't cover all of the bases. What about the Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans, non-believers and many others? Besides, all of the bases would be covered just as well by having nothing, since nobody would be offended by nothing and nothing doesn't constitute an establishment of religion. |
|
|
| (9464) | |
Re: ACLU's way: Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by American Pig on Mon Jan 3 11:37:34 2005, in response to ACLU's way: Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by Broadway Buffer on Sun Jan 2 22:58:51 2005. I'd like to know why the ACLU works against Christmas and the religious aspect of the holidays instead of working for the civil liberties of people to be able to say the word Christmas in a public school or give out a candy cane, or show their religious belief of their holiday in a public school.Because those things are already established, there is no need to fight a legal battle to get a ruling that reinforces the status quo. A person's right to free speech and freedom of religion extends to their ability to "to say the word Christmas in a public school or give out a candy cane, or show their religious belief of their holiday in a public school." And lets face it, w/o Jesus, there wouldn't be a holiday season, so there is no reasoning for censoring Christmas. You have really fucked up logic. How is the existence of Jesus supposed to defeat the "reasoning for censoring Christmas?" |
|
|
| (9472) | |
Re: ACLU's way: Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Mon Jan 3 12:05:27 2005, in response to ACLU's way: Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by Broadway Buffer on Sun Jan 2 22:58:51 2005. And lets face it, w/o Jesus, there wouldn't be a holiday season, so there is no reasoning for censoring Christmas.No, we'd still have Christmas, just a different celebration. After all, biblical scholars disagree strongly upon when exactly Jesus was born. The holiday of christmas as most of the US and Europe, as well as significant parts of South America and Asia, celebrate it is a combination of the Christian celebration of the savior's birthday and a pagan festival celebrating the winter solstice. Even without Christ's birth back in 1±5 AD we'd still likely have some celebration passed down through the centuries to celebrate the shortest day of the year and the thence increasing amounts of sunlight per day. |
|
|
| (9476) | |
Re: ACLU's way: Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jan 3 12:18:45 2005, in response to Re: ACLU's way: Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by WillD on Mon Jan 3 12:05:27 2005. Eaxactly, it may be called something else, and it may be for different "reasons", but there would always be something "like" Christmas, especially in the retail driven economy the modern world has. |
|
|
| (9479) | |
Re: No, It's the Stalinists?? |
|
|
Posted by American Pig on Mon Jan 3 12:28:22 2005, in response to Re: No, It's the Stalinists??, posted by Verbal Kent on Fri Dec 31 13:37:53 2004. On the other hand, forcing people to sing Silent Night is in fact violating their freedom of religion. You may feel that doing so does not, but other people might feel differently and it would not be reasonable to expect some non-Christians to be offended by the lyrics of "Silent Night."If you want to ask who would be forced to sing anything, children performing in holiday pageants are FORCED to perform. While a school can allow children to opt-out, this in causes those same children to be ostracized, especially if they are a very small minority. |
|
|
| (9481) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Buffer on Mon Jan 3 12:36:20 2005, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by American Pig on Mon Jan 3 11:33:19 2005. We how come back 20 years ago or less when people weren't afraid to put up a Merry Christmas sign no one was offended. And I don't believe that there is any major holiday for Buddhists, Muslims, and Hindus around this time. Or at least they must not be too big, because I've never heard of them.You only offend more people by censoring Christmas and Hanukkah, etc. If you are a nonbeliever, then fine, don't celebrate, but the fact is that the majority of the people in this country are not nonbelievers and do celebrate one of the 3 holidays. We should not bend over backwards for minorities and put down the majority. Why should the world revolve around a few people who intolerant? |
|
|
| (9483) | |
Re: ACLU's way: Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Buffer on Mon Jan 3 12:48:16 2005, in response to Re: ACLU's way: Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by American Pig on Mon Jan 3 11:37:34 2005. A person's right to free speech and freedom of religion extends to their ability to "to say the word Christmas in a public school or give out a candy cane, or show their religious belief of their holiday in a public school."I guess not, because last year and this year people were sued for bringing in candy canes to a public school. You have really fucked up logic. How is the existence of Jesus supposed to defeat the "reasoning for censoring Christmas?" And you have a screwed up way of understanding. The reason why there is a holiday season is because of the birth of Jesus Christ. Hanukkah would probably not take place around this time of year or be a big celebration at all if it was not for Christmas. And not to offend anyone who celebrated it, but Kwanzaa is pretty much a made up holiday which occurs around the same time as Christmas to be with the other holidays. The first one was Christmas and it is what started the whole thing. THEREFORE, if there was no Jesus, there would most likely be no holiday season. |
|
|
| (9484) | |
Re: ACLU's way: Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Buffer on Mon Jan 3 12:48:37 2005, in response to Re: ACLU's way: Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by American Pig on Mon Jan 3 11:37:34 2005. A person's right to free speech and freedom of religion extends to their ability to "to say the word Christmas in a public school or give out a candy cane, or show their religious belief of their holiday in a public school."I guess not, because last year and this year people were sued for bringing in candy canes to a public school. You have really fucked up logic. How is the existence of Jesus supposed to defeat the "reasoning for censoring Christmas?" And you have a screwed up way of understanding. The reason why there is a holiday season is because of the birth of Jesus Christ. Hanukkah would probably not take place around this time of year or be a big celebration at all if it was not for Christmas. And not to offend anyone who celebrated it, but Kwanzaa is pretty much a made up holiday which occurs around the same time as Christmas to be with the other holidays. The first one was Christmas and it is what started the whole thing. THEREFORE, if there was no Jesus, there would most likely be no holiday season. |
|
|
| (9487) | |
Re: ACLU's way: Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Buffer on Mon Jan 3 12:55:10 2005, in response to Re: ACLU's way: Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by WillD on Mon Jan 3 12:05:27 2005. Yes, I know what you mean, but that wasn't really what I meant.I meant that if Jesus was never born, there would be no Christmas or "holiday" season and therefore we should not censor what the reason for this entire holiday season is. And most people with the exception of American Pig wouldn't be offended by it anyway. -James |
|
|
| (9488) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by American Pig on Mon Jan 3 12:56:37 2005, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by Broadway Buffer on Mon Jan 3 12:36:20 2005. We how come back 20 years ago or less when people weren't afraid to put up a Merry Christmas sign no one was offended.People were offended, they just kept their mouths shut. That doesn't mean that what was done is right. And I don't believe that there is any major holiday for Buddhists, Muslims, and Hindus around this time. Or at least they must not be too big, because I've never heard of them. Ignorance is no excuse for anything. When Eid al-Fitr, a big Muslim holiday, rolls around, nobody puts up a "Happy Eid" sign (or whatever would be appropriate). The only reason that Happy Chanukah signs are put up is because many people incorrectly perceive it as the Jewish Christmas and that putting up Happy Chanukah signs next to the Merry Christmas signs is more egalitarian. If Chanukah was in July, there would have been no Happy Chanukah signs. You only offend more people by censoring Christmas and Hanukkah, etc. No, you offend no one. Nobody expects the state to celebrate Ash Wednesday, so why should people expect the state to celebrate Christmas? Do people notice when a government building in December fails to sport a Christmas tree? doubtful. If you are a nonbeliever, then fine, don't celebrate, but the fact is that the majority of the people in this country are not nonbelievers and do celebrate one of the 3 holidays. We should not bend over backwards for minorities and put down the majority. The Constitution was written to protect the minority from the tyrrany of the majority. Why should the world revolve around a few people who intolerant? Au contraire, it is the people who feel that the United States, and the several states should celebrate THEIR holidays who are intolerant. |
|
|
| (9489) | |
Re: ACLU's way: Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by vengence on Mon Jan 3 12:59:18 2005, in response to Re: ACLU's way: Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by Broadway Buffer on Mon Jan 3 12:48:37 2005. Christmas is a "made up holiday",too..my man.A Pope made it up out of the blue sky.... |
|
|
| (9490) | |
Re: ACLU's way: Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by American Pig on Mon Jan 3 13:05:20 2005, in response to Re: ACLU's way: Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by Broadway Buffer on Mon Jan 3 12:48:16 2005. I guess not, because last year and this year people were sued for bringing in candy canes to a public school.Anybody can sue anyone for anything, it doesn't make anyone right, until the case has been adjudicated. The reason why there is a holiday season is because of the birth of Jesus Christ. To many people this is not a reason for celebration. Hanukkah would probably not take place around this time of year... Yes it WOULD take place at this time of year. Chanukah is NOT the Jewish Christmas and it has NOTHING to do with Christmas. It's celebration PREDATES that of Christmas. ...or be a big celebration at all if it was not for Christmas. Of course it wouldn't. But why should Chanukah be a big celebration? Chanukah was never a particularly important holiday. And not to offend anyone who celebrated it, but Kwanzaa is pretty much a made up holiday which occurs around the same time as Christmas to be with the other holidays. So what? Every holiday is made up. Christmas is pretty much a made up holiday which occurs around the same time as Saturnalia to be with the other holidays. The first one was Christmas and it is what started the whole thing. Nope, the first one was the pagan celebration of the winter solstice. Do some research before making statements. THEREFORE, if there was no Jesus, there would most likely be no holiday season. Of course, there would be, as I've already mentioned, but what is your point? The fact that the holiday is based on Jesus simply makes it that much worse that the state is celebrating it. |
|
|
| (9491) | |
Re: ACLU's way: Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by American Pig on Mon Jan 3 13:07:37 2005, in response to Re: ACLU's way: Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by Broadway Buffer on Mon Jan 3 12:55:10 2005. I meant that if Jesus was never born, there would be no Christmas or "holiday" season and therefore we should not censor what the reason for this entire holiday season is.Again, your logic is really fucked up. Not only has Will shown that there would still have been a holiday season, had you have been correct, that would buttress my point about Christmas being a holiday that should not be celebrated by the state, because the state should not celebrate religious holidays. A holiday based on the birth of your lord and savior is a religious holiday. |
|
|
| (9492) | |
Re: ACLU's way: Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by vengence on Mon Jan 3 13:07:57 2005, in response to Re: ACLU's way: Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by American Pig on Mon Jan 3 13:05:20 2005. Was that a swipe on Jesus,Pigs? |
|
|
| (9494) | |
Re: ACLU's way: Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by vengence on Mon Jan 3 13:09:03 2005, in response to Re: ACLU's way: Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by American Pig on Mon Jan 3 13:07:37 2005. Was that a swipe on Jesus,Pigs..? |
|
|
| (9497) | |
Re: ACLU's way: Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by American Pig on Mon Jan 3 13:11:25 2005, in response to Re: ACLU's way: Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by vengence on Mon Jan 3 13:07:57 2005. No. What makes you think that? |
|
|
| (9507) | |
Re: ACLU's way: Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jan 3 13:40:19 2005, in response to Re: ACLU's way: Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by Broadway Buffer on Mon Jan 3 12:48:37 2005. Uh, I think Chanukah was around long before Christmas. And as for "Christmas being big deal", that is only because of the commercialization of it, not because it's really all that important of a Christain holiday. In fact, it's not really all that important of a Christian holiday. It's the "secular" Christmas that appears important, not the "religious" Christmas. In fact, Christmas was "made" up to be this time of year, because of a pagan holiday that was celebrated at this time, but also because it may be adopted because of a Jewish significance on the 25th of decemnber: The first two Hebrew letters of Chanukah are those spelling the name NOAH. The Hebrew month of the post-flood RAINBOW of hope was Kislev. Moses completed the construction of the Holy Arc on the 25th day of Kislev, as was the date of the laying the foundation of the second Temple by Nehemaya. See more here: http://www.nyjtimes.com/cover/12-07-04/ChanukahReflections.htm In fact, it is really suggested that Jesus was born in April. April 17th, 0006A.D. to be exact. And not to offend anyone who celebrated it, but Kwanzaa is pretty much a made up holiday which occurs around the same time as Christmas to be with the other holidays. Not that I disagree, but how is that different than some pope, deciding that Christmas was the going to be celebrated at the same time as the pagans had a religious holiday, and actually had some significance to the Jews too. The first one was Christmas and it is what started the whole thing. THEREFORE, if there was no Jesus, there would most likely be no holiday season. You couldn't be MORE wrong. Christmas was far from the first at this particular time of year. |
|
|
| (9512) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jan 3 13:48:19 2005, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by American Pig on Mon Jan 3 12:56:37 2005. No, you offend no one. Nobody expects the state to celebrate Ash Wednesday, so why should people expect the state to celebrate Christmas? Do people notice when a government building in December fails to sport a Christmas tree? doubtful.I don't disagree with you in theory, but the reason that Christmas is made such a fuss about it is because of the "secular" version of the holiday. Again, Christmas is not all that important as a Christian holiday. Easter is MUCH more important than Christmas, and so is Good Friday, however you rarely see "Happy Easter" signs up anywhere, and that is because Easter is not an important holiday secularly (aside from maybe a few chocolate manufacturers). The reason Christmas has such a fuss, is not because it's an important religious holiday, because it's not...it's because it has been interwoven into an important secular holiday. |
|
|
| (9537) | |
Re: ACLU's way: Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by American Pig on Mon Jan 3 16:00:54 2005, in response to Re: ACLU's way: Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jan 3 13:40:19 2005. There is no significance in the Jewish faith of the 25th of December, because there is no month called December in the Jewish faith, nor any equivalent.That story about the first two letters of Chanukah spelling the name of Noah is nonsense. While Noah is spelled NCh, and Chanukah starts with ChN, it's nothing more than a coincidence and a rather flimsy connection at that. |
|
|
| (9546) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by American Pig on Mon Jan 3 16:14:16 2005, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jan 3 13:48:19 2005. the reason that Christmas is made such a fuss about it is because of the "secular" version of the holiday.Religious holidays don't have "secular" versions. Christmas is still a religious holiday despite the non-religious aspects that have been tied to it. If those same functions were tied to the New Year, I could see that as secular, since the New Year is a secular holiday. |
|
|
| (9547) | |
Re: ACLU's way: Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jan 3 16:14:58 2005, in response to Re: ACLU's way: Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by American Pig on Mon Jan 3 16:00:54 2005. Oh okay, I was reading it from the "New York Jewish Times". I found the link through google. I have no idea if that particular "paper" is reputable or not. It seemed to be, but again, who knows. |
|
|
| (9549) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jan 3 16:17:33 2005, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by American Pig on Mon Jan 3 16:14:16 2005. I agree Christmas is a "religious" holiday, but again, all the fuss you see (or at least most of it) has NOTHING to do with the religious version of Christmas. Again, the whole thing was invented by American retail at the early part of this century (at least the whole big fuss it has become). |
|
|
| (9564) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by The Rockaway Kid on Mon Jan 3 16:29:11 2005, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jan 3 16:17:33 2005. If it has to do with god and jesus, then it is religious. |
|
|
| (9566) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jan 3 16:40:27 2005, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by The Rockaway Kid on Mon Jan 3 16:29:11 2005. Please.Shopping has to do with God. Lights all over the place has to do with God. A dead pine tree brought into the house has to do with God. Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade (which was started as a big publicity thing for the then beginning of the Shopping season, and why the parade ends with "Santa") has to do with God. Fake pine and glass balls hanging from the ceiling at the mall have to do with God. Sale Sale Sale Sale and buy till you drop has to do with God. A reindeer with a red lightbulb for a nose has to do with God. A fat man jumping down a chimney had to do with God. A flying sled with flying reindeer has to do with God. I could go on...... |
|
|
| (9568) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by Flxiblemetro on Mon Jan 3 16:43:43 2005, in response to Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by R36 #9346 on Mon Dec 20 15:48:20 2004. You guys know there are many different Christian faiths(Jehovah Withness, Mormons, Roman Catholics, Protestants, and others). Out of all those different Christan beliefs, Jehovah withnesses don't celebrate Christmas(nor Easter and birthdays. Why?...because Jehovah withesses believe that Jesus never told early Christians to celebrate his birth. Rather, he commanded his disciples tomemorialize(or remember) his death. So they claim Christmas came from ancient false religions. But, Jehovah withnesses do give gifts and have good times together during anytime of the year. |
|
|
| (9569) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by The Rockaway Kid on Mon Jan 3 16:48:09 2005, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jan 3 16:40:27 2005. >>Shopping has to do with God.<<Yes. >>Lights all over the place has to do with God.<< Yes >>A dead pine tree brought into the house has to do with God.<< Yep >>Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade (which was started as a big publicity thing for the then beginning of the Shopping season, and why the parade ends with "Santa") has to do with God.<< Nope >>Fake pine and glass balls hanging from the ceiling at the mall have to do with God.<< Yep. >>Sale Sale Sale Sale and buy till you drop has to do with God.<< Only if it's a Christmas sale. >>A reindeer with a red lightbulb for a nose has to do with God.<< Then one foggy CHRISTMAS eve... yes. >>A fat man jumping down a chimney had to do with God.<< Yes. >>A flying sled with flying reindeer has to do with God<< that would be a miracle, wouldn't it? |
|
|
| (9570) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by American Pig on Mon Jan 3 16:50:43 2005, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jan 3 16:40:27 2005. You could but it would be a waste of time. All but one of those are part of the celebration of a religious holiday. It has no place in a public facility (and by public I mean run by the government, I don't mean open to the public). |
|
|
| (9573) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jan 3 17:34:49 2005, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by American Pig on Mon Jan 3 16:50:43 2005. Not one of those things on that list have the slightest thing to do with the religious holiday. |
|
|
| (9577) | |
Origins of the Secular Christmas Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jan 3 18:02:25 2005, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by The Rockaway Kid on Mon Jan 3 16:48:09 2005. No, they have nothing to do with any God that I know. Not one thing on that list has anything to do with the Christian religion, the day that is on the 25th of Dec.>>Shopping has to do with God.<< Yes. Uh no. >>Lights all over the place has to do with God.<< Yes Uh no. I never saw anywhere in the Bible, or in any church that you should buy colorful lights and put them outside your home. >>A dead pine tree brought into the house has to do with God.<< Yep Uh no. No where in the Bible does it say such a thing, that a pine tree should be brought into the home. It was a pagan custom that was first done in the 1500's by the Germans. It was later adopted by the Slavic people, and found it's way into this country some time in the 1700's, and certainly not by Biblical or Church doing. Putting glass balls on the tree was introduced by NF.W.Woolworth in 1890 (Surprise, surprise a retailer). By the early 1900's, only about 1 in 5 Americans put up a Christmas Tree. (Again, the Christmas we celebrate was invented by American Retail in the early 1900's, as I have said throughout this thread). See more here. >>Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade (which was started as a big publicity thing for the then beginning of the Shopping season, and why the parade ends with "Santa") has to do with God.<< Nope Correct, but the parade should be called the almost be called the "Christmas Parade", because that is the only reason it was started, to promote business for the Christmas Holiday season. >>Fake pine and glass balls hanging from the ceiling at the mall have to do with God.<< Yep. Nope. Glass balls made popular in the early 1900's by FW Woolworth, and pine was first put in the homes at Christmas, and evergreens branches were already brought into the home by the Egyptians, Romans, and others, long before Jesus was even a thought. >>Sale Sale Sale Sale and buy till you drop has to do with God.<< Only if it's a Christmas sale. Uh no. It's all business. And Jewish retailers are just as guilty of it as anyone else. (Not that there's anything wrong with that). >>A reindeer with a red lightbulb for a nose has to do with God.<< Then one foggy CHRISTMAS eve... yes. What in Bethlehem when Christ was born? I don't think so. That one foggy "Christmas" Eve has absolutely NOTHING to do with God, Jesus, or ANYTHING vaguely religious. Hmmm, could it be, oh, I don't know, an AMERICAN BUSINESS that invent that one? Sure it can: Rudolph's origins See more on the origin on Rudolph here. Did I mention that the Christmas the United States celebrates was invented by American Business in the early part of this century....hmm, I may have mentioned that a few times >>A fat man jumping down a chimney had to do with God.<< Yes. >>A flying sled with flying reindeer has to do with God<< that would be a miracle, wouldn't it? Uh, no again, no Godly or divibne intervention there either. But Here is where the American Santa Claus, as well as other countries versions of him come from, and of course that has been taken over by the American Businesses at the early part of the century too, to increase the sales.... See more here of where many of the things people think are "religious" at Christmas, really came from. It should be noted that Christmas wasn't even celebrated until very late on in the Christian faiths. Certainly nothing God or Jesus EVER said should be something to be celebrated or observed. Not to mention, he wasn't even born in December. |
|
|
| (9580) | |
Re: ACLU's way: Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Buffer on Mon Jan 3 18:05:33 2005, in response to Re: ACLU's way: Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by American Pig on Mon Jan 3 13:05:20 2005. Nope, the first one was the pagan celebration of the winter solstice. Do some research before making statements.I know that church leaders decided to make the celebration of the Nativity of Jesus at this time of year to overshadow the pagan celebrations at the time when most people believe that Jesus was most likely born in the summer months or around March or April. But I don't think the pagan celebrations would have turned into a major holiday season like this Christmas, although I'll admit I don't know how big of a deal it was. But not too many celebrate it anymore. But my point is that we should not sensor something which is the primary reason for the holiday season and that is a national holiday. The fact that the holiday is based on Jesus simply makes it that much worse that the state is celebrating it. So it sounds like you believe all government workers would have to work on Christmas, no congress or senate breaks and that schools should be open on Christmas. Do you also want "under God" taken out of the pledge and schools to be open on Jewish holidays. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but sounds like that's what your gettin at. -James |
|
|
| (9582) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Jan 3 18:14:50 2005, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jan 3 13:48:19 2005.  but the reason that Christmas is made such a fuss about it is because of the "secular" version of the holiday. Actually it was a *pagan* holiday (Sol Invictus... The Victory of the Sun) that was coopted (rather successfully too, I might add) to become a Christian holiday (The Victory of the Son...) Can't oblitterate a pagan holiday? STEAL it and make it one of your own. Now they complain because Sam WalMart tried to steal it back again. It can be a very valid non-religious holiday if you want it to be. |
|
|
| (9583) | |
Re: ACLU's way: Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Buffer on Mon Jan 3 18:15:37 2005, in response to Re: ACLU's way: Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by American Pig on Mon Jan 3 13:07:37 2005. the state should not celebrate religious holidays. A holiday based on the birth of your lord and savior is a religious holiday.You just want to try and delete religion totally from this country by saying that. Religion was a big part in the founding of this country. Is the Great Awakening nothing? People like you are just so intolerant. And it comes from the ones like the ACLU who claim to be so tolerant. |
|
|
| (9585) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by monorail on Mon Jan 3 18:28:40 2005, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by BIE on Fri Dec 24 17:27:51 2004. thankyouif you celebrated the new year, i hope it was an enjoyable one |
|
|
| (9586) | |
Re: ACLU's way: Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Mon Jan 3 18:30:04 2005, in response to Re: ACLU's way: Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by Broadway Buffer on Mon Jan 3 18:05:33 2005. The Christmas that we celebrate in the U.S. is Santa Claus, Jingle Bells, Rudolph, and gift-giving, a big dinner and football. Yes, the celebration of the nativity coincides with that, but it's not the major event. If you believe otherwise, that's fine, but let's not kid ourselves that those folks in line at Toys R Us/Crate n Barrel/WalMart are there because of baby jesus.Sooo...why not spend the day in your house of worship if you believe that 'tis the season is the prayer season. There you can be surrounded by all the magi scenes, crosses and other symbols that you place with the holiday, in their rightful and proper place. I really can't understand why spiritual people need to be so expansive about their beliefs. Nobody is stopping anyone from celebrating a holy day instead of a holiday. I fail to see why putting the magi scene on the lawn of the town hall makes a spiritual person's holiday more spiritual. After all, your god doesn't want you to be a PITA about it. Your pal, Fred PS Not only is xmas a borrowed pagan fest, easter is as well. |
|
|
| (9587) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Buffer on Mon Jan 3 18:31:43 2005, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by American Pig on Sat Dec 25 13:14:35 2004. I agree that the government should not have to fund nativity scenes in the front of gov buildings. But I don't understand why the court says that a menorah is not a religious symbol and a nativity scene is and therefore cannot be seen in a gov establishment (but a menorah can be). And I don't understand why the tree at City hall has to be called the holiday tree instead of the Christmas tree. I doubt anyone would be offended by that.When you think about it, a nativity scene is only religious to those who believe in it's meaning. To someone who is not Christian, it is only a baby being born. I don't find anything religious about that. -James |
|
|
| (9589) | |
Re: ACLU's way: Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by monorail on Mon Jan 3 18:35:52 2005, in response to Re: ACLU's way: Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by Fred G on Mon Jan 3 18:30:04 2005. 'After all, your god doesn't want you to be a PITA about it.'how do you know what my God wants! |
|
|
| (9590) | |
Re: ACLU's way: Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jan 3 18:40:16 2005, in response to Re: ACLU's way: Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by Fred G on Mon Jan 3 18:30:04 2005. Fred, finally a well thought out and resonable post on this subject.And for anyone that thinks it's anything more than what you describe in this paragraph, which is probably the most to the point and accurate description of this holiday I have seen yet: The Christmas that we celebrate in the U.S. is Santa Claus, Jingle Bells, Rudolph, and gift-giving, a big dinner and football. Yes, the celebration of the nativity coincides with that, but it's not the major event. If you believe otherwise, that's fine, but let's not kid ourselves that those folks in line at Toys R Us/Crate n Barrel/WalMart are there because of baby jesus. ...can see the retail origins of many of the "customs" the "secular" Christmas has taken from this post here. |
|
|
| (9603) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by American Pig on Mon Jan 3 19:19:09 2005, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by Broadway Buffer on Mon Jan 3 18:31:43 2005. But I don't understand why the court says that a menorah is not a religious symbol and a nativity scene is and therefore cannot be seen in a gov establishment (but a menorah can be).I don't know which court ruled this way, but a menorah is a religious symbol as much as a nativity scene. And I don't understand why the tree at City hall has to be called the holiday tree instead of the Christmas tree. Because Christmas is a religious holiday and symbols of a religious holiday are religious symbols. When you think about it, a nativity scene is only religious to those who believe in it's meaning. To someone who is not Christian, it is only a baby being born. I don't find anything religious about that. Wrong. Anyone can see what is being conveyed through a symbol and can see that it isn't just a baby being born. |
|
|
| (9604) | |
Re: Origins of the Secular Christmas Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by American Pig on Mon Jan 3 19:31:56 2005, in response to Origins of the Secular Christmas Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jan 3 18:02:25 2005. No, they have nothing to do with any God that I know. Not one thing on that list has anything to do with the Christian religion, the day that is on the 25th of Dec.The 25th of December was not chosen at random, it was chosen because it was Christmas Day, and some people felt that could be commercially exploited. That still does not make the holiday non-religious in nature. >>Shopping has to do with God.<< Yes. Uh no. It was long a tradition to exchange gifts on or around Christmas. How would you get gifts except through shopping? >Lights all over the place has to do with God.<< Yes Uh no. I never saw anywhere in the Bible, or in any church that you should buy colorful lights and put them outside your home. It was long a tradition to decorate ones home with colorful objects on or around Christmas. The lights are just a 20th Century adaptation of that. Uh no. No where in the Bible does it say such a thing, that a pine tree should be brought into the home. It was a pagan custom that was first done in the 1500's by the Germans. It was later adopted by the Slavic people, and found it's way into this country some time in the 1700's, and certainly not by Biblical or Church doing. Putting glass balls on the tree was introduced by NF.W.Woolworth in 1890 (Surprise, surprise a retailer). Paganism is a religion. Prior to glass or plastic balls on Christmas trees, it was custom to place fruit on it. Glass and plastic balls are a modern adaptation of that. By the early 1900's, only about 1 in 5 Americans put up a Christmas Tree. (Again, the Christmas we celebrate was invented by American Retail in the early 1900's, as I have said throughout this thread). So what? Religious celebrations evolve over time, and the fact that they are introduced solely in order for someone to make money does not make them any less religious. Religions have always tried to make money from the faithful. Ever heard of tithing? Or selling indulgences? >>Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade (which was started as a big publicity thing for the then beginning of the Shopping season, and why the parade ends with "Santa") has to do with God.<< Nope Correct, but the parade should be called the almost be called the "Christmas Parade", because that is the only reason it was started, to promote business for the Christmas Holiday season. So? The parade takes place on a different holiday and bears little resemblance to the celebration of Christmas. What in Bethlehem when Christ was born? I don't think so. That one foggy "Christmas" Eve has absolutely NOTHING to do with God, Jesus, or ANYTHING vaguely religious. It seems silly to say that CHRISTmas is not a religious holiday when religion is right there in the name! Uh, no again, no Godly or divibne intervention there either. But Here is where the American Santa Claus, as well as other countries versions of him come from, and of course that has been taken over by the American Businesses at the early part of the century too, to increase the sales.... Santa Claus is St. Nicholas, a Christian saint. |
|
|
| (9612) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by American Pig on Mon Jan 3 19:49:55 2005, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jan 3 17:34:49 2005. Yes they do. Like I've said numerous times, it is a religious holiday regardless of how it is celebrated. PERIOD. |
|
|
| (9616) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by vengence on Mon Jan 3 20:00:32 2005, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by The Rockaway Kid on Mon Jan 3 16:48:09 2005. uhhhh...I'm having a real problem digesting this.... Can you guys come again? |
|
|
| (9617) | |
Re: ACLU's way: Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by American Pig on Mon Jan 3 20:03:04 2005, in response to Re: ACLU's way: Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by Broadway Buffer on Mon Jan 3 18:05:33 2005. But I don't think the pagan celebrations would have turned into a major holiday season like this Christmas, although I'll admit I don't know how big of a deal it was. But not too many celebrate it anymore.Not too many people celebrate it anymore because those people converted to Christianity and celebrate Christian holidays. Had people retained their old belief systems, it is likely that the holiday would remain as important as it was. So it sounds like you believe all government workers would have to work on Christmas, no congress or senate breaks and that schools should be open on Christmas. Christmas should not be a government holiday. Government offices are closed on various days of the week. Libraries are often closed on a certain day during the work week. A public facility can close on a certain day for lack of demand and give its employees the day off. But Christmas should not be on the Flag Act as a day in which the Flag should be flown. And if a school board with a predominately non-Christian student body should choose to remain open on Christmas and instead close on some other day, then they should be able to do that too. But my point is that we should not sensor something which is the primary reason for the holiday season and that is a national holiday. Nobody is censoring anyone, people are free to celebrate as they please. The United States Government is not. Do you also want "under God" taken out of the pledge I'd prefer that it not have been put there in the first place, but now that it is there, I feel that removing it would be worse. However I do believe that "In God We Trust" should be removed as our national motto and the former motto "E Pluribus Unum" restored. IGWT can remain on our coins and notes just as EPU has remained. and schools to be open on Jewish holidays. In a school district where few or no students are Jewish, it would be silly to close on Jewish holidays, just as it is silly to close on Christmas in a district where there are few or no Christians (yes, it's rare, but I'm sure there's at least one). |
|
|
|
Page 12 of 14 |
||