This spirit of inclusiveness has had a negative effect on minority religions as well. Take Hanukah for example. It is a very minor Jewish holiday, never associated with gift giving until it was taken up as an equivalent to Christmas. Now most Christians and even a number of Jews believe that Hanukah is the most noteworthy Jewish holiday. If the PC crowd and/or retail marketers wanted to really show respect for Judaism they would emphasize Passover or at least Purim, which is the traditional gift giving boozing it up holiday. But that wouldn't fit in with the late December Holiday Season. In an attempt to show respect for everyone, the secularization of Christmas ends up perverting minority religions as well. The only group that seems to be benefiting are atheists, who have a great deal of power considering their numbers in this country.
The only group that seems to be benefiting are atheists, who have a great deal of power considering their numbers in this country.
And that, Conservobabe, is precisely the purpose of shoving religions large and small through the politically correct filter.
Plus, your point about Hannukah (spelling?) is a good one, although I would add that the various sects of Christianity seem to be the targets of most of the P.C. angst, with the Roman Catholic Church as public enemy number one.
I for one am very thankful to be working for a company that will be having a Christmas party this year.
Thanks for posting this, GC, because even though this is a sore subject with me, I also worry about spending too much time and effort complaining about it myself. I will simply point to a Zach Brissett cartoon from Southern Appeal that I think captures the spirit. But as Grover Gardner said in the comments section, we need to focus more of our attention on things like not honoring the Sabbath and the commercialization and materialism that has profaned one of the holiest days of the year.
Atheists have a great deal of power?
Good lord.
it's the agnostics that you really have to watch out for...they've hedged their bets.
This paragraph from the Trib article bothered me for some reason:
"The whole area is a bit confusing, and it could get more confusing if Judge [Samuel] Alito becomes Justice Alito," said Rodney Blackman, a constitutional law scholar at DePaul University's law school. "He seems to be quite supportive of religion, and he probably would tilt the court in favor of allowing religious displays by themselves without anything to secularize them or show tolerance for other religions."
I guess it just sounded more Fox newsy, political, and MSM-y than what I'd like to expect a "constitutional law scholar" would have to offer. Are there many more such conlaw scholars? Or is this just how they've learned to address reporters?
I guess it just sounded more Fox newsy, political, and MSM-y than what I'd like to expect a "constitutional law scholar" would have to offer. Are there many more such conlaw scholars?
I would hazard a guess that most MSM-quoted con law "scholars," given their likely liberal leanings, are frightened by any constitutional thinker that might think religious statements could stand alone absent some secular dilution. The First Amendment can apparently be selectively administered in such fashion.
Again, note the misleading portrayal of the concept of tolerance in Blackman's quote (I refer you back to Jacoby's piece in the Boston Globe).
Commenting by HaloScan
