Don't be afraid to say Merry Christmas, its your right

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Scribbler1 I disagree. The U.S. is not governed by a theocracy and therefore you CAN demand religion be kept OUT of government. And you have made a grave error in this statement; "Even further, government also belongs to religious people..." Tha government belongs to ALL the people and we do not ALL share the same faith. As many faiths are practiced differently you cannot govern uniformly or fairly while catering to all faiths. Unless of course you would support YOUR faith (whichever it may be) as the religion of record. In that case you have advocated allowing one faith over another to influence our government and therefore have violated the Constitution. Indirectly there is. Religion in and of itself normally has no effect upon those not aligned with that particular faith. You can be my next door neighbor and practice anything you like and I couldn't care less unless you interfered with my life, in which case we have laws to protect ourselves from that. HOWEVER, if the government is truly "owned" by religious people (I will assume Christians?) then any laws passed by that government will be biased toward that religion, as will enforcement of existing laws when your faith is involved. Again, religion of one type is favored and again qualifies as "state sponsored". I have freedom from religion right now, but if your statement should prove true I will not, as what my government does affects my life and if it IS influenced by Christianity then Christianity will affect EVERYONE.

There you go reading things into my post that I didn't say. Pay attention: the first amendment guarantees the FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION. There is nothing else to be read into it; so, you can knock off this theocracy nonsense right now! It really annoys me when people insist on reading INTO things instead of reading them. Further, there is nothing in the first amendment that guarantees a right to freedom FROM religion. The first amendment says that Congress shall make no law respecting the ESTABLISHMENT of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. There is nothing to be read into that statement: it is to be taken to mean exactly what it says and ONLY what it says. Congress cannot establish a national religion. Congress cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion. It wasn't until the 14th amendment (I think it was the 14th) that this was expanded to state and local governments. There is nothing indirect, implied or any other such thing in the first amendment or any other amendment. It says what it means and means what it says.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Chancellor By threats of expensive and protracted lawsuits by the so-called "American Civil Liberties Union" and other decidedly anti-Christian organizations.

I believe I asked for any FACTS to support the greater power of the minority over the majority and this is what you respond with?

What you have just said is the conservatives knucle under and surrender their principles at the threat of a lawsuit. I can't speak for anyone else but I don't have such a low opinion of conservatives as you seem to.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Chancellor There you go reading things into my post that I didn't say. Pay attention: the first amendment guarantees the FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION. There is nothing else to be read into it; so, you can knock off this theocracy nonsense right now! It really annoys me when people insist on reading INTO things instead of reading them.

You must really be pissed off at the Supreme Court then, as that's their JOB to interpret the Constitution. For the sake of discussion, we can allow ourselves to interpret things as the court does and not necessarily take as gospel someone ELSE'S interpretation of it.
The Constitution is vaguely written in many areas and this is why the SC is required. I believe this was a deliberate move by the Fathers to give the document sufficient flexibility to allow it to be relevant far into the future of when it was written.

Further, there is nothing in the first amendment that guarantees a right to freedom FROM religion. The first amendment says that Congress shall make no law respecting the ESTABLISHMENT of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. There is nothing to be read into that statement: it is to be taken to mean exactly what it says and ONLY what it says.

So you are saying I can belong to a religion which uses human sacrifice in our sacred rituals. If nothing prohibits my right to freely exercise my religion then my rights to kill supercede any federal law whatsoever. Hey, I didn't write the thing, that's what it SAYS. No interpretation whatsoever, black and white, government can't prohibit my religion and it never said how I can PRACTICE my religion either. So there!

Silly, huh? But that IS what it says with NO interpretation. Or, more precisely, what it DOESN'T say.

Congress cannot establish a national religion. Congress cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion. It wasn't until the 14th amendment (I think it was the 14th) that this was expanded to state and local governments. There is nothing indirect, implied or any other such thing in the first amendment or any other amendment. It says what it means and means what it says.

Glad we got THAT clarified.

[Mia]

Who argues with saying 'Merry Christmas'? Screw them. I say Happy Rammadan to Muslims and I know when the Jewish New Year is. I can't have Christmas, though? What were you referring to, V?

[Mia]

OK, I read some more and this is crazy. SYRIA has Christmas celebrations! There's a Merry Christmas thread on the Syrian discussion board I'm on, and they have parties and parades...That's a muslim country!

(look at the front page): http://souria.com/

But we can't? Being PC is going way too far. For a long time, freedom of religion has seemed more like freedom of any religion other than Christianity, but I didn't realize Christmas was being attacked so badly.

I still want to know who told you, V, that you can't say Merry Christmas.

[Mia]

Quote by: Seeker_Of_Sins It questions the validity of christmas being a religeous holiday as there is evidence to support it being a pagan holiday that is now used by the church http://de.essortment.com/christmaspagan_rece.htm

The tree and presents and all are pagan rituals. The Day is supposed to be a celebration of Jesus's birth. I don't think it's being 'used' by the church, I think the two simply incorporated, as religion and tradition tend to do.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Chancellor But Christmas is also a NATIONAL HOLIDAY and, AS SUCH, it is unAmerican to object to Christmas expressions of any kind.

I'm guessing you are kidding there, Chancellor. If not, I'm assuming you severely chastized the traitors who objected to MLK day as well as anyone with Christmas issues.

The idiot schoo principal who told a student he couldn't go in to the place where a school Christmas dance was being held (they called it a "holiday dance") because he was wearing a Santa suit and that violated the (non-existent) separation of church and state.

Now THERE we find some solid agreement. Now, if the kid showed up and was boogieing the night away in a Jesus costume, the principal may have had a case :). As for that story, did the dope actually explain how Santa was a religious figure?

Of course, if that idiot were so concerned about the separation of church and state then he was violating it for calling the dance a HOLIDAY dance because "Holiday" is a word that actually comes from "Holy Day."

Yep, just like President's day, where you have to kneel in the direction of Washington 5 times a day. Of course, you ARE correct, but the usage of the word has changed to mean anything that gives you a day off work.

We agree again. I think a lot of this stuff on both sides is pure bullshit. It's Christmas, deal with it. If you REALLY want to make a point, just celebrate the pagan part and ignore the Jesus part, or vice versa.
It's just a nice holiday either way, where a lot of people for some unfathomable reason feel they should be a little more pleasant than they are the REST of the year. But what the hell, I'll take whatever niceness I can get. :)

[what_happened87]

It is irrelevant for any school officials, government agencies, or anyone to say Happy Holidays, or host holiday assemblies with 'Non-religious" music simply because ANY holiday around this time (except New Year's) is religious. Whether Christmas, Hanukah, Kwanzaa (purportedly non-religious though containing some spud-spirituality), Ramadan all of the above Holidays are religious. In addition, it has been concluded that 98% of the US celebrates Christmas. Since when does democracy listen to the minority, especially 2%? If the framers of our Constitution had listened to the various 2%'s that were floating around, we wouldn't have any Constitution. America has sold itself into believing that we "have to stick up for the little guy." If we stuck up for all the religious "little guys" we wouldn't be able to anything: eat, sleep, go to school, walk a certain way, you name it, there are enough religious factions out there to rule out almost everything, including each other! Being fair in this sense simply won't work. It's time that our offendo-phobia takes a back seat and the real problems in our world are addressed.

[what_happened87]

It is equally irrelevant to put up the whole “pagan origins” attack toward Christmas. So what, are we all supposed to start practicing Neo-Paganism simply because you said that. Maybe you ought to do some research for yourself. It won’t do to listen to our proud social engineers (also known as liberal college professors) nor will it do to take it from our old wise mystic historians (quasi-spiritual writers). As far as I’m concerned, Christ was born in Bethlehem. And whether or not it was around this time, it is certainly worth celebrating! Just like the New Year, it it’s not like the world has a secret clock on it’s underside that resets at 12:00 on Dec 31 every year. The earth is always returning to a place it was before a year ago. But it nice to only have to decorate the streets of New York, it’s nice to only have to worry about Y2K only once a year.
That said, Merry Christmas. They also called Jesus, Emmanuel (God with us). He’s here, it’s time to act like it.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Me personally?

A guy on my bowling league freaked when I said "Merry Christmas to all!"

Went off on how offensive it was, and how it would make the league look bad.

I asked him "Sorry what holiday do you celebrate?"

The answer?

Christmas.

[Gorgo]

A guy on your bowling league says something stupid, so you think the rest of the world is that way?

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: Gorgo A guy on your bowling league says something stupid, so you think the rest of the world is that way?

"Exactomundo!"

There are always jerks on both sides of any controversy. For instance, there are those who complain about Santa, reindeer, elves... etc. All they want anyone to get for Christmas is Jesus. Although I am no Jesus freak, in fact I find the whole Jesus as God suspect at best, I do understand and sympathize with the concept that perhaps we should focus more on that myth rather than the others. (Religious fanatics... do not be offended by "myth." "Myth" doesn't mean true or untrue, it means a story told over and over. Considering several virgin births in mythology alone, that qualifies it as "myth.")

But I would never wish to ban the other myths that surround the season.

When one or two people say something, for some reason we, as humans, take that as a trend. But the concept that a tiny number of people say something makes it a trend would make any statistician laugh harder than the fat guy in the red suit.

Notice... many who are using this argument are the same ones who, if they could, probably would ban Santa and his elves and make Christmas a 24 hour worship-fest of "Super Santa Jesus." That quote from a rather odd Christmas story on the net...

http://www.politicalpuzzle.org/scribe

I believe far too many of these folks would ban "happy Kawanzaa... Ramadan... Solstice... Hanukkah..." and anything else they consider theologically incorrect if they could. They are simply exposing their own intolerence by attempting to dress it up as some complaint about a fictional large movement that doesn't want to hear "Merry Christmas." :rolleyes: THAT really is humbug.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Me personally? A guy on my bowling league freaked when I said "Merry Christmas to all!" Went off on how offensive it was, and how it would make the league look bad. I asked him "Sorry what holiday do you celebrate?" The answer? Christmas.

Do you usually bowl with idiots?

Sorry, let me rephrase that.

Do you usually bowl with morons?

Since I know you from this forum, I'm dying to hear what your comeback was. It's GOT to be a good one! :)

[Mr.Vicchio]

Quote by: Gorgo A guy on your bowling league says something stupid, so you think the rest of the world is that way?

No the stories on the news, the newspapers and internet showwing Christmas Displays banned, Schools telling parents to only bring WHITE platees/napkins and the like ot the kids "WINTER BREAK PARTY" stuff like.

It filters down.

Course, you probably don't see any of those stories with your news sources...

[Mr.Vicchio]

Quote by: Scribbler1 Do you usually bowl with idiots? Sorry, let me rephrase that. Do you usually bowl with morons? Since I know you from this forum, I'm dying to hear what your comeback was. It's GOT to be a good one! :)

My comeback?

Oh hehehe I just said:

"Sorry, happy Ramma-Hanna-Kwaz-Mas to you, and only you."

He had no clue what that was....

[Gorgo]

Again, no one is stopping you from saying Merry Christmas. Schools have an obligation not to promote religion, and to be respectful of all religions and ethnic origins.

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio No the stories on the news, the newspapers and internet showwing Christmas Displays banned, Schools telling parents to only bring WHITE platees/napkins and the like ot the kids "WINTER BREAK PARTY" stuff like. It filters down. Course, you probably don't see any of those stories with your news sources...

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio No the stories on the news, the newspapers and internet showwing Christmas Displays banned, Schools telling parents to only bring WHITE platees/napkins and the like ot the kids "WINTER BREAK PARTY" stuff like. It filters down. Course, you probably don't see any of those stories with your news sources...

Seems that's a different kettle of fish than a supposed large number of people being offended by someone just saying "Merry Christmas."

Some Christmas displays are banned because they take up public space and therefore use public money. I actually have no problem with them, as long as the other traditions are allowed to be displayed. Of course this could create a god-awful and confusing mess so I understand some who might decide "nothing," although that is sad. You also have the problem of government and public school officials having to decide which religions are so "out there" they shouldn't be allowed to add to the confusion. A very difficult position to be put in.

It's a tough time for public schools being pulled apart by idiot parents who want their tradition displayed, or none. It must be like a rack and screw that pulls from all directions and angles. Then you always have the anal rententive school official or teacher who gets upset because a door's not closed or a student doesn't clean his finger nails exactly the way he thinks he should. Displays are just another excuse for him to act like the jerk he is. (Or she... goes both ways.)

Of course then you have reliability of "Internet" as a source and who blogged it. Enough said.

[Mia]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Me personally? A guy on my bowling league freaked when I said "Merry Christmas to all!" Went off on how offensive it was, and how it would make the league look bad. I asked him "Sorry what holiday do you celebrate?" The answer? Christmas.

Weird. Woe is the day where there is no Christmas!

[Mia]

Quote by: Gorgo Again, no one is stopping you from saying Merry Christmas. Schools have an obligation not to promote religion, and to be respectful of all religions and ethnic origins.

It's not respectful to all religions when every religion BUT Christianity is allowed to be expressed. No one would object to a Ramadan banner or what have you, but try to put up something Christian and suddenly everyone freaks out.

Even back when I was high school (10 years) they stopped letting Christian groups meet on campus. Every other group was allowed, including one that everyone knew was worshiping Satan!

Respectful of all would be expressions of all everywhere. In the halls, you'd pass nativity scenes, things about Ramadon, and Hanakka. We still have 'In God We Trust on our money, so I think we can leave the Satan worshipers to be private). Or just commercial Chiristmas (non-religious) stuff.

I am friends with both a Jewish and Muslim and both celebrate commercial Christmas. The Muslim even celebrates it as a Jesus holiday, and I don't know any athiets who object to commercial Christmas.

[Gorgo]

That's ridiculous if they allowed other religions to do things and stopped just one.