lol....certainly more ammusing than Bill O'Riley taking everything way too seriously and making himself look retarded in doing so (for instance, by arguing for "Yuletide Spirit" and "Christmast Trees," both of which have clearly pagan roots. If I wasn't Christian myself, I would just sit back and laugh at those who say there's a "war on christmas" because those symbols are under attack. I don't remember there being Yule logs and pine trees in the nativity....
Well, Mike, since you seem to find it all sooooooo humorous, it's more that now to say "Merry Christmas" is somehow viewed as offensive that is the problem. It's not about yule logs (wtf?) or pine trees. It's that you can't call a Christmas Tree a "Christmas" tree even though no other holiday uses said tree as part of its festivities. It's that Christianity has been singled out for removal from public life. You have the ACLU with its panties in a wad because someone at Macy's/ Target/ Hecht's/ Wal-Mart might say "Merry Christmas" to you, and then turning around and whining that Muslims don't have prayer rooms in public schools. And not to mention that they argue that Santa Claus is a religious figure because the character is based on a priest, and "Santa" means "Saint." It is serious in that this nation is majority Christian, and yet, the majority is being singled out for elimination from full participation in society by a minority.
For the record, Easter has far more pagan roots than Christmas, and at what point do you stop hiding behind the "pagan" moniker, anyway? That would be like insisting that even though the Statue of Liberty is in the United States, it's still French. Additionally, the Christmas tree comes from Germany, not pagans. The date selected for Christmas coincides with the pagan celebration of the winter solstice. (Not a right-wing attempt at history revision- I have a religion degree, and we spent lots of time discussing the various emblems and traditions of the major Christian holidays.) Nice try. I don't even know (or care) what a yule log is.
That squirrel did remind me of O'Reilly actually, which is perhaps why I was both annoyed and amused. There has been nothing sleazier than his interview with Howard Stern, simply because they both love themselves too much. It was just disgusting.
I am not sure if there is a "War On Christmas," but I strongly feel that Christmas is becoming entirely too secularized for its own good.
The cartoon made me laugh, and I feel that the point is that people should be allowed to celebrate what they will in a peaceful positive fashion. In that spirit, I will have a post desecrating Kwanza by the end of next week.
Jess - by whom? That is my main question. You assert that a vast majority don't care (and I agree). The trend is a choice - no one is stopping these businesses or private individuals from saying anything that they want. "Happy Holidays" is and should be totally acceptable. Besides the fact that it means "holy days," its also more of a general way to lump New Years and Christmas together without having to say both.
I'm well aware of Easter's origins as well - I'm not hiding behind it, I just think its humorous that people are so uptight against some de facto war on Christianity that doesn't really exist. My "Yuletide" rant come directly from an O'Riley column and history - I only used it to prove the point that many making these arguments lack any real background on the subject and are just attempting to win sympathy for their other radical causes by exploiting people's attachment to a holiday a vast majority celebrate. Doing so is a greater desecration to Christmas than wishing someone "Happy Holidays" instead. There is still scholarly debate over the origins of the tree, though I stand by my assertion that it has nothing to do with the true origins of the holiday.
Ryan - I wholly agree with you, but I'd argue that it is the corporate/consumer culture that has driven the secularization of Christmas, far more than any church/state issues.
I generally don't think of 'Happy Holidays' referring to Christmas and New Year's. When that phrase is said to me, I think 'Generic Secular Winter Holiday.'
It seems to me that if a store decided to wish everyone 'Happy Chanukah' or 'Happy(?) Kwanza,' no one would bat an eye (unless the store was Abercrombie & Fitch). It does seem that Christianity is taboo. Bush constantly has to remind people that we are in a war against Islamo-fascism, not Islam itself, even though there are plenty of Christians in Egypt, Lebanon, etc.
The 'corporate/consumer' culture seems to only be part of the problem. America seems to becoming more French in our marginalizing of Christianity.
Religion in the public square is fine, as long as there is room for all (except Scientology and Satanists).
How brave of you not to list your blogging name as "John Smith" after that post 
France's battle isn't just with Christianity, but all relgion, and I'd cetainly agree that they go to far. Much of it is due to their history, as they've seen much bloodshed over the issue. However, that doesn't justify the suppression of expression.
I see nothing of the sort in the US. The religious right is alive and well, and remains quite influential (too influential some, including myself, would argue) in modern politics. Our "marginalization" as you call it, is merely a recognition of our minority cultures, something France, even in their secularization, has failed to do, producing the uprising we saw last month. However, that in no way implies that we should simply reject the notion of accommodating our diversity, which has always been a critical facet of American culture.
I think you can accomodate withhout having to subjugate.
I am not sure what the question "by whom?" is being asked of. However, it is not a baseless claim. You seem to say that a lot when you disagree with things. Mr. O'Reilly has pointed out many times that the ACLU is the frontrunner in the "War on Christmas." I personally think that term is silly, but the point is that there has been a widescale effot to make the term "Christmas" wrong.
The ACLU sued a friend of my parents for wearing a cross to school. She never said anything to students about it; she never mentioned a word of it to anyone. The school certainly didn't require her to wear it. Additionally, they sued to have prayer removed from public schools (rightfully so), are threatening to sue universities if RAs lead Bible studies ON THEIR OWN TIME (a violation of the First Amendment), but are also now suing for prayer rooms to be put into public schools for Muslim students. So, exactly how is this not evidence of a clear vendetta against Christianity.
And I stand by my assertion regarding the origins of the tree because I spent four and a half years of my life studying religion, and you have/ are not (so far as I can gather). No, there was no Christmas tree at the manger, but it originated as a part of the celebration of the holiday in Germany.
I have no problem with "Happy Holidays," but I have a problem with the corporations "explanations" for the term. They speak not at all to being "inclusive," and Wal-Mart outright sold fabrications and a complete revision of history in theirs.
Oh, and the efficiency argument- brilliantly dumb! Are we so lazy we can't say "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Hanukah" (or any of the others) and "Happy New Year?" That is just stupid. I only say "Happy Holidays" to liberals I know who would be offended to hear me mention any religious. I suppose, given you gave me the unnecessary lesson about "holy days," I should stop that, lest someone be offended, which nowhere does the Constitution mention protection from.
And although I don't like the "religious right," I'm sorry that they are allowed to have influence, Mike. Heaven forbid people who believe in Christ have any power! That would be like treating them as equals!
I make sure I say "Merry Christmas" to any liberals who mght be offended. Because people who get pointlessly offended should be.
As I make sure to say "happy holidays" to any Conservative who for some reason forgets that Christmas is a holiday. To be honest, the only time I don't just spout "Merry Christmas" is when I know I'm in the company of non-Christians, as I know how awkward it can be for Jews who are wished (?) a "Merry Christmas."
Once again, I will not defend the ACLU. We've been through that already.
The "Christmas" part of the Christmas tree is German, but, as I'm sure you are aware, evergreens were a part of verious pagan celebrations prior to that. From what I've learned, St. Boniface cut down a tree the pagans were worshipping out of anger, and out of the trunk spawned a fir tree, which he took as a sign of heavenly approval. The Druids used misltetoe, holly and evergreens in various rituals as well.
I wasn't trying to give you an "unnecessary lesson" about the word holiday, but was only trying to point out that the change is part of the absurdity of it all - its really no change at all, except it possibly includes Jews because of the Haunakka celebration. It actually wouldn't suprise me if the ACLU went after that next, as though they truly have nothing better to do.
Thank you for taking my comments regarding the religous right completely out of context. I have no problem with them having an equal say, but as of late, they've had a MORE than equal say. Though I don't like it, primarily because it makes the rest of us Christians look like wack-jobs as well, that's politics, so whatever. All I was arguing is that this flies in the face of the "persecuted Christian" story you were trying to tell. They aren't marginalized, but are an integral part of the mainstream.
I always say "Happy Holidays" if I know my Jewish friends are around, and it's a general greeting. And it's spelled either "Hanukah" or "Chanukah." (Sorry, it's a habit.)
The religious right comment had no reason to be made earlier, so I responded to what I thought was a pointless comment. And you can't simultaneously call them "wack-jobs" and then "integral part of the mainstream." "Wack-job" generally doesn't imply "mainstream." But if it flies in the face of the argument I'm making, why not give examples where it hasn't, as I gave you examples to support my claims? No, they are not being "persecuted" in the true sense of the word, but they are being pushed out of the public square. You have yet to show evidence this is not the case.
Whatever on the Christmas tree. The point is that, at this point in time, it is tied specifically to that holiday. It has been for centuries, and further, there was quite a time elapse between Boniface and the German use of the tree in the celebration of Christmas. So, at what point does it cease being "pagan" and become a part of "Christmas?" Again, that is like saying that the Statue of Liberty is French even though it has been an American icon for a very long time.
This is all I'm willing to say to this, as you have yet to offer evidence to support that there hasn't been a push to remove Christianity from public life, and there's not point as neither is going to persuade the other anyway.
MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!
"You're going to get coal in your stocking 'cause you're yuppie scum!"
hmm, yeah, I should probably start using spell checker more often. oh well. "they are being pushed out of the public square. You have yet to show evidence this is not the case." - I don't think that further evidence is needed besides the fact that they're clearly NOT out of the public square. They have deep influences in the White House and both houses of Congress. They have more to do with current policy decisions than the Democrats. The fact that we're still fighting the Scopes trial should be evidence enough that they are back in force in the public squre.
The French gave us the Statue of Liberty, so its ours (unless they want to be Indian givers...probably not a p.c. term anymore). At any rate, my whole point, hell, my whole problem with this debate is that those who are waging it are generally fighting for the more secular aspects of the holiday. Perhaps if its pushed out of the public enough, Chritians can get back to celebrating what its actually about.
At any rate, Merry Christmas to you too (though I'm sure we'll argue again before then...lol).
PS. I hate yuppies.
It is not the responsibility of the ACLU, Wal-Mart, Target, Hecht's, Macy's, Nordstrom, et al., or the government to get Christians "get back to celebrating what its actually about." It is up to each individual to choose how they celebrate.
The Democrats lost in the last election, so by default the White House has no obligation to give them influence over policy. And let's face it, when the President let Harry Reid pick Harriet Miers, it was proof as to why they shouldn't, or at least, why he shouldn't trust their judgment. Never trust your enemies. Democrats don't grant that same influence to Republicans unless they have to, such as Clinton after 1994. I suspect that will change next year because the Senate is going to shift back to the Democrats. Reagan did, with brilliant results, when he had to work with a Democrat-controlled Congress. Yeah, I know, "it's not fair." Well, life's not fair.
Yeah, on that note, 99% of 'bipartisanship' is a load of crap IMO.
We're refighting Scopes? I'm not sure that's an accurate representation of the "intelligent design" debate as it's not about not teaching evolution, but finding a place for the other point of view.
OK, now I'm done.
I simply meant that the Christian Right has a lot of influence relative to their proportion of the country. That's all - I wasn't really whining about the Dems; alas, maybe if we had some better leadership nationally, we'd win elections and have more influence. But that's a whole other story, as is the intelligent design debate. I'll spare Ryan's blog the headache. lol.
If I had my preference, I'd keep the RR out of the GOP, the government, the ACLU , and the media out of my life, and intellingent design out of schools.
Commenting by HaloScan
