War on Christmas

[Zoom-boing]

Originally Posted by catzmeow
I'm saying that if Christ has disappeared from Christmas, rather than blaming those of us who are secular, the believers should take ownership of the perceived problem and solve it themselves.



How can secular people take christ out of your christmas celebration? That is what I don't unerstand about your complaint. If you want christ in your celebration, who is stopping you?

Y - try going back an actually reading what I posted. You continually try to spin this around and go back to the 'who is stopping you from celebrating Christmas' wagon.

Lame excuse. We do not see it because you haven't given a reasonable explanation.

I've given explanation more times than I can count. You refuse to acknowledge this and continually cry 'lame'. Go back and read.

Originally Posted by YWN666 View Post
Can you give us an example where you think the secular agenda is pushing christ aside?



Perhaps the way christmas is celebrated is a reflection of the way religion is taking a less important role in people's lives so your issue is with christians, not secular folks. If your not seeing religious displays the way YOU prefer them outside your home, then that is YOUR problem. You want everyone to cater to YOUR wishes.

See this bolded statement? This is exactly what I have NOT been saying. I have repeatedly said to have both 'holidays' and 'Christmas', yet you continue to spin it into something else. I can only surmise that your reading comprehension skills need work.

Your not having time for it is the fault of the secular folks?

No and I never even implied this. But again, you twist things around in order to distort. Go back and actually read what I wrote.

I actually don't believe this is true. We never had Christ in Christmas in the first place, so it would have been impossible for us to remove him.

But, I love how the agnostics and atheists serve as convenient scapegoats for all that is wrong with society.

"Oh, society started to go to hell in a handbasket when the atheists reared their nasty evil heads."

While you're at it, make sure you give proper credit to Madeline Murray O'Hare and the ACLU.

Do you not get that this is a pluralistic society, and always has been? That's why our national slogan is "E Pluribus Unum": out of many, ONE. People who came from many races, creeds, and countries, willingly choosing to join together as one nation. For the record, that idea predates the "In God We Trust" nonsense by at last 180 years.

This is why Thomas Jefferson, one of the founding fathers, and the author of the Declaration of Independence, wrote in 1802:



It should be duly noted that Jefferson himself, along with Thomas Paine, were ALSO primarily secular in their beliefs. See, evil atheists were here, all along, and their rights are just as important as yours.

You have ALWAYS had the right to put Christ in your Christmas. You just don't have the right to force OTHERS to do so.

This ain't rocket science, y'all. If you, or your church, want to have a manger scene, MORE POWER TO YOU. Your right to do this is protected by the First Amendment. If you want to wish me Merry Christmas, by all means, do so. I promise I won't be offended. And, if I want to put dancing reindeer on my lawn to express my own views of the holiday season, and wish you a happy yule, or seasons greetings, or happy holidays, or merry solstice, then by gosh, I have the same right to do so.

What you don't have the right to do is to ask government to endorse a specific type of celebration of this holiday for other people, or force other people to celebrate in the manner of your choosing. So, if you put a manger on the courthouse lawn, be prepared to accept a dancing Shiva or a whirling dervish, or a hannukah candle display right next to it. That's how it works.

Nice rant. Please point out where I ever, even once, stated anything about asking the government to endorse a specific type of celebration.

And, the marketplace is a reflection of this fact. People celebrate in the manner OF THEIR CHOOSING. If they haven't put Christ in Christmas, or if they choose to celebrate Hannukah, Yule, Eid or Kwanzaa instead, who are you to tell them that they are wrong or unAmerican?

Once again, you are misunderstanding or playing dumb. All Christians want is for Christ to be kept in Christmas in the public forum, as Christ is what Christmas is all about. In a country where the vast majority of people who celebrate Christmas believe it is the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ, why is it ok for the minority of non-believers to have everything just be 'holidays' and have nothing pertaining to Christ? (the 'have everything just be 'holidays' and nothing pertaining to Christ part is where we see Christ being shoved aside.)

That's the part I just don't understand about Christians. You've ALWAYS had the right to celebrate this holiday AS YOU WISH. Why is it so important for you that others celebrate in the same way?

Once again you are either misunderstanding or not compreheding what is being said. No one is saying that others must celebrate Christmas the same way. I used the words 'in conjunction' in a past post in making this point specifically so that you would understand and stop posting false statements about Christians wanting it to be 'all or nothing', yet here you are once again posting that very thing.

Let's try this one last time. In the public forum (and by public forum I DO NOT mean government, I mean stores, commercials, references to the season, etc.) Should it be just 'holidays', lumping everything into one secular term? No. Should it be just 'Christmas', excluding anything secular? No. Should it be 'holiday' AND 'Christmas', therefore including Christian and secular? Yes.

I can't possibly explain this to you any more. If you want to continue to play dumb, you'll have to find someone else to play with.

 

[catzmeow]

Let's try this one last time. In the public forum (and by public forum I DO NOT mean government, I mean stores, commercials, references to the season, etc.) Should it be just 'holidays', lumping everything into one secular term? No. Should it be just 'Christmas', excluding anything secular? No. Should it be 'holiday' AND 'Christmas', therefore including Christian and secular? Yes.

Well, you're definitely off my solstice card list.

 

[YWN666]

All Christians want is for Christ to be kept in Christmas in the public forum, as Christ is what Christmas is all about. In a country where the vast majority of people who celebrate Christmas believe it is the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ, why is it ok for the minority of non-believers to have everything just be 'holidays'

That just ain't happening.

and have nothing pertaining to Christ? (the 'have everything just be 'holidays' and nothing pertaining to Christ part is where we see Christ being shoved aside.)

First it was a complaint that Happy Holidays was being used together with Merry Christmas. Now you are upset that christ is not in the spotlight when christmas IS mentioned? Whose fault is that? Not non-believers. The christians who celebrate christmas are the only ones who have the power to exclude christ and many of them do because the religious aspect of it isn't important to them. Go complain to them instead of blaming it on non-believers. Everyone celebrates christmas in a different way. I still fail to understand why someone else's greeting or a store display bothers you because you would choose to do it differently? You want christ and some don't. Who are you to decide that your way is the only way? I know you're going to say again that we don't understand what you're saying but I don't think that is the case.

 

[YWN666]

Let's try this one last time. In the public forum (and by public forum I DO NOT mean government, I mean stores, commercials, references to the season, etc.) Should it be just 'holidays', lumping everything into one secular term? No. Should it be just 'Christmas', excluding anything secular? No. Should it be 'holiday' AND 'Christmas', therefore including Christian and secular? Yes.

I was just in the stores last night and I saw a huge number of displays that said "Merry Christmas" as well as "Happy Holidays". The point you are missing is that no one is asking that Merry Christmas be eliminated and it hasn't been eliminated.
If that is your complaint, then it is moot but I thought you were just complaining about Christmas displays that didn't mention christ. Which is it?

 

[Zoom-boing]

I have repeatedly said to have both 'holidays' and 'Christmas', yet you continue to spin it into something else. I can only surmise that your reading comprehension skills need work.

.

First it was a complaint that Happy Holidays was being used together with Merry Christmas.

This sentence, once again, proves to me that you neither read nor comprehend what it is that I am saying and that you are wrong. The original complaint wasn't that Happy Holidays was being used together with Merry Christmas, the original complaint was that Christmas was dropped and everything became 'holidays'. What part of that do you simply not get?

Now you are upset that christ is not in the spotlight when christmas IS mentioned?

Please reference which post I implied this.

Whose fault is that? Not non-believers. The christians who celebrate christmas are the only ones who have the power to exclude christ and many of them do because the religious aspect of it isn't important to them. Go complain to them instead of blaming it on non-believers. Everyone celebrates christmas in a different way.

Once again, for the umpteenth time, you change the argument and jump back to the 'why do Christians need affirmation of their faith from outsiders' bandwagon. Try, just try, to go back and read what I have previously posted.

I still fail to understand why someone else's greeting or a store display bothers you because you would choose to do it differently? You want christ and some don't. Who are you to decide that your way is the only way? I know you're going to say again that we don't understand what you're saying but I don't think that is the case.

LOL and once again, YOU bring up the irrelevant store greeters. Priceless.

Again (and I gotta tell you, this is really getting old so please try to comprend this very difficult concept (that was sarcastic and I posted that it was sarcastic just in case you didn't get the sarcasim or decided to make some non-point about it):

In the public forum (and by public forum I DO NOT mean government, I mean stores, commercials, references to the season, etc.) Should it be just 'holidays', lumping everything into one secular term? No. Should it be just 'Christmas', excluding anything secular? No. Should it be 'holiday' AND 'Christmas', therefore including Christian and secular? Yes.

Having it JUST be 'holiday' or JUST be 'Christmas' would have it be just one group's way. Get it? This is NOT what I am saying. I am saying BOTH. How you come to the conclusion that including 'holiday' AND 'Christmas' is having it be 'my way' is beyond logic.

 

[catzmeow]

This sentence, once again, proves to me that you neither read nor comprehend what it is that I am saying and that you are wrong. The original complaint wasn't that Happy Holidays was being used together with Merry Christmas, the original complaint was that Christmas was dropped and everything became 'holidays'. What part of that do you simply not get?



Please reference which post I implied this.



Once again, for the umpteenth time, you change the argument and jump back to the 'why do Christians need affirmation of their faith from outsiders' bandwagon. Try, just try, to go back and read what I have previously posted.





LOL and once again, YOU bring up the irrelevant store greeters. Priceless.

Again (and I gotta tell you, this is really getting old so please try to comprend this very difficult concept (that was sarcastic and I posted that it was sarcastic just in case you didn't get the sarcasim or decided to make some non-point about it):

In the public forum (and by public forum I DO NOT mean government, I mean stores, commercials, references to the season, etc.) Should it be just 'holidays', lumping everything into one secular term? No. Should it be just 'Christmas', excluding anything secular? No. Should it be 'holiday' AND 'Christmas', therefore including Christian and secular? Yes.

Having it JUST be 'holiday' or JUST be 'Christmas' would have it be just one group's way. Get it? This is NOT what I am saying. I am saying BOTH. How you come to the conclusion that including 'holiday' AND 'Christmas' is having it be 'my way' is beyond logic.

Maybe we would understand better if you typed a little louder.

 

[YWN666]

This sentence, once again, proves to me that you neither read nor comprehend what it is that I am saying and that you are wrong.

I wasn't saying it was YOUR complaint. I was referring to the general war on christmas complaint that others make.

The original complaint wasn't that Happy Holidays was being used together with Merry Christmas, the original complaint was that Christmas was dropped and everything became 'holidays'. What part of that do you simply not get?

I get your complaint but I am telling you that this is not happening.

LOL and once again, YOU bring up the irrelevant store greeters. Priceless.

I wasn't talking about store greeters, I was talking about an individual greeting you.

Having it JUST be 'holiday' or JUST be 'Christmas' would have it be just one group's way. Get it? This is NOT what I am saying. I am saying BOTH. How you come to the conclusion that including 'holiday' AND 'Christmas' is having it be 'my way' is beyond logic.

And I am telling you that is the way it is now so your point is moot. I never said that having both Happy Holiday and Merry Christmas is having it your way. Maybe the problem here is YOUR poor reading comprehension.

 

[Zoom-boing]

I wasn't saying it was YOUR complaint. I was referring to the general war on christmas complaint that others make.

Since you posted this to me I believed you were stating that this is what I said.

I get your complaint but I am telling you that this is not happening.

I disagree. In the past many years I have heard Christmas less and less and have heard it replaced with holiday instead. You know when they show the five day weather forcast on tv and on Christmas they put up a picture? When I was a kid they used to put up a picture of the baby Jesus in a manger. That changed -- I really don't know when -- but it changed to Santa instead. Maybe a tree or candy cane, but I never see any religious reference to Christmas day. Now that may seem small in insignificant to you because you do not believe in Christ. But can't you see how even that small (to you) thing just might seem like Christ is slowly being booted from Christmas? Combine that with the term Christmas being replaced with holidays (holiday trees, holiday parades, holiday lights, holiday whatever) and, at least from our point of view, yes it does feel as if Christ is being shoved aside. Is it too much to have a picture of the Babe on that weather calendar along with a tree and Santa? They always show a menorah during Hanukkah, why the lack of Jesus during Christmas?

I said this way earlier in this thread. As a non-believer I don't expect you to see this type of erosion. As a believer, I see it very much. And as I also stated several times, this year I have heard both Christmas and holidays used in several different venues. Would I like to see a little more of the religious aspect in the public forum? Yes. Would I want it to just be religious and nothing else? No. Would I want it to just be secular? No.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Okay, folks. How about THIS story for a war on Christmas?

Through the month of December new “holiday” ads will appear on buses around Washington DC that read “Why believe in God? Just be good for goodness sake”.

The ads came from the American Humanist Association (AHA), “Being a Humanist means trying to behave decently without expectation of rewards or punishment after you are dead,” says AHA quoting Kurt Vonnegut.

DC Metro spokesperson Candace Smith told The Examiner “As a public agency, Metro must observe the First Amendment with respect to the acceptance of commercial advertising”.

“Although we understand that feelings and perceptions will vary among individuals within the community, we cannot reject advertising because an individual, or group, finds it inappropriate or offensive,” said Smith.

Uh huh. I'll just BET that's their policy. Anyone think they'd accept a counter ad that said, "Why be an atheist? They're all going to Hell"?

As I asked my husband while reading this article, do you think when they hired that spokeswoman, they actually advertised for a "bullshit artist"?

 

[Steerpike]

DC Metro spokesperson Candace Smith told The Examiner “As a public agency, Metro must observe the First Amendment with respect to the acceptance of commercial advertising”.

The spokesperson is correct.

Whether they'd take the counter-ad or not, I don't know. But if they didn't, it would be the rejection of the counter-ad, not the acceptance of the ads reported in the story, that would be the problem.

 

[WillowTree]

Breaking News | Latest News | Current News - FOXNews.com






oh! the effen outrage of saying Christmas.. ohhhhhh!

 

[catzmeow]

Okay, folks. How about THIS story for a war on Christmas?

Through the month of December new “holiday” ads will appear on buses around Washington DC that read “Why believe in God? Just be good for goodness sake”.

The ads came from the American Humanist Association (AHA), “Being a Humanist means trying to behave decently without expectation of rewards or punishment after you are dead,” says AHA quoting Kurt Vonnegut.

DC Metro spokesperson Candace Smith told The Examiner “As a public agency, Metro must observe the First Amendment with respect to the acceptance of commercial advertising”.

DC agencies are often bombarded with partisan advertising. If they accept an advertisement for a local church, they have to accept this ad. it's a matter of free speech.

And, if you don't like these ads, do what I do whenever I see churches advertising: ignore it.

 

[Steerpike]

DC agencies are often bombarded with partisan advertising. If they accept an advertisement for a local church, they have to accept this ad. it's a matter of free speech.

And, if you don't like these ads, do what I do whenever I see churches advertising: ignore it.

If you are a city official in a position like this, you are in a no-win situation. If you turn down the Humanist ad, you are on shaky Constitutional ground and risk a lawsuit, which costs the city taxpayers a bunch of money to defend. If you allow the ad, people who think the Constitution only protects their viewpoint are up in arms.

 

[catzmeow]

If you are a city official in a position like this, you are in a no-win situation. If you turn down the Humanist ad, you are on shaky Constitutional ground and risk a lawsuit, which costs the city taxpayers a bunch of money to defend. If you allow the ad, people who think the Constitution only protects their viewpoint are up in arms.

The christians amuse me when they think that free speech only applies to them.

 

[WillowTree]

The christians amuse me when they think that free speech only applies to them.

what amuses me is when everybody denies there is a war on Christmas! wink wink nod nod and smile and bob!

 

[Zoom-boing]

Okay, folks. How about THIS story for a war on Christmas?

Through the month of December new “holiday” ads will appear on buses around Washington DC that read “Why believe in God? Just be good for goodness sake”.

The ads came from the American Humanist Association (AHA), “Being a Humanist means trying to behave decently without expectation of rewards or punishment after you are dead,” says AHA quoting Kurt Vonnegut.

DC Metro spokesperson Candace Smith told The Examiner “As a public agency, Metro must observe the First Amendment with respect to the acceptance of commercial advertising”.

“Although we understand that feelings and perceptions will vary among individuals within the community, we cannot reject advertising because an individual, or group, finds it inappropriate or offensive,” said Smith.

Uh huh. I'll just BET that's their policy. Anyone think they'd accept a counter ad that said, "Why be an atheist? They're all going to Hell"?

As I asked my husband while reading this article, do you think when they hired that spokeswoman, they actually advertised for a "bullshit artist"?

Actually, the ad reads 'Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness sake', not 'why believe in God'. To me, there is a difference in this but maybe not to others.

If they don't allow this, then they don't allow those God billboards either. Freedom of speech applies to everyone. I don't agree with what the KKK spews but I'd defend their right to say it.

As for the ad . . . my guess is it was worded like this to spark debate and get them noticed. Seems they hired themselves some smart marketing types because it worked. Personally, I'd have been more intriqued if they just said 'be good for goodness sake'. I'd want to know what was the idea or business or whatever behind it.

 

[KittenKoder]

Actually, the ad reads 'Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness sake', not 'why believe in God'. To me, there is a difference in this but maybe not to others.

If they don't allow this, then they don't allow those God billboards either. Freedom of speech applies to everyone. I don't agree with what the KKK spews but I'd defend their right to say it.

As for the ad . . . my guess is it was worded like this to spark debate and get them noticed. Seems they hired themselves some smart marketing types because it worked. Personally, I'd have been more intriqued if they just said 'be good for goodness sake'. I'd want to know what was the idea or business or whatever behind it.

Actually, the ad seems like a damned good idea to me. Why not just be good regardless of having religion or lack thereof. I know many who are very religious (most in the christian faith but others as well) who are not good because they think they are already 'safe' from their evils just by believing.

 

[tigerbob]

Personally, I'd have been more intriqued if they just said 'be good for goodness sake'. I'd want to know what was the idea or business or whatever behind it.

Doubt it. If you did, you'd be in the minority.

 

[KittenKoder]

Doubt it. If you did, you'd be in the minority.

Actually, not really. The most successful advertising campaigns give one catch phrase (often one that can go either way) and a link to a website. They get millions of hits from just that tactic. So he wouldn't be in the minority in this case.

 

[tigerbob]

Actually, not really. The most successful advertising campaigns give one catch phrase (often one that can go either way) and a link to a website. They get millions of hits from just that tactic. So he wouldn't be in the minority in this case.

I wasn't making a generalization. I was talking about a piece of ambient media that gives a single line (Be good for goodness sake) being unlikely to generate much response. So he would be in the minority in this case.