Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays?

[Foxfyre]

No. I don't think saying Merry Christmas is offensive. I don't think nativity scenes are offensive. Unless they come from a state agency.

And that is where we differ. You are fine with a court house, a library or a president saying Merry Christmas or having a Santa Clause figure. I am.

But because there is one non-Christian who is offened, we have to consider it.

Besides, I am not saying that private businesses or individual citizens cannot say or decorate as they wish. They can and should. It is only the state that cannot.

And again, that is where we differ. Sorry for offending.

I will probably be racked, drawn, and quartered for saying this, but I am sick to death of the "individual who is offended by anything" being able to dictate policy in this country. Everybody probably finds something offensive. But should the carolers be banished because somebody thinks Christmas carols are offensive? Should the city have to take down all the Christmas decorations down town because some Atheist is offended by recognition of the season? Should you be prohibited from using a particular phrase or word because I am offended by it?

There is no Constitutional right to not be offended or to have your personal preferences accommodated. In matters in which nobody's unalienable, civil, legal, or Constitutional rights are violated, in a democratic republic, the majority should always rule. In most cases, somebody will be disappointed (or offended) no matter how a vote comes out. Some people will be disappointed or offended that there is even a vote. But the majority should not be disappointed or offended or have to accommodate the one just because somebody doesn't like a display at Christmas or any other time.

 

[Gunny]

No. I don't think saying Merry Christmas is offensive. I don't think nativity scenes are offensive. Unless they come from a state agency.

And that is where we differ. You are fine with a court house, a library or a president saying Merry Christmas or having a Santa Clause figure. I am.

But because there is one non-Christian who is offened, we have to consider it.

Besides, I am not saying that private businesses or individual citizens cannot say or decorate as they wish. They can and should. It is only the state that cannot.

And again, that is where we differ. Sorry for offending.

No, really we don't. If there is one non-Christian who is determined to be offended, he can shut the Hell up and go home. The majority should NOT have to suffer the tyranny of the minority.

 

[Taomon]

I will probably be racked, drawn, and quartered for saying this, but I am sick to death of the "individual who is offended by anything" being able to dictate policy in this country. Everybody probably finds something offensive. But should the carolers be banished because somebody thinks Christmas carols are offensive? Should the city have to take down all the Christmas decorations down town because some Atheist is offended by recognition of the season? Should you be prohibited from using a particular phrase or word because I am offended by it?

There is no Constitutional right to not be offended or to have your personal preferences accommodated. In matters in which nobody's unalienable, civil, legal, or Constitutional rights are violated, in a democratic republic, the majority should always rule. In most cases, somebody will be disappointed (or offended) no matter how a vote comes out. Some people will be disappointed or offended that there is even a vote. But the majority should not be disappointed or offended or have to accommodate the one just because somebody doesn't like a display at Christmas or any other time.

And once again, individuals and private businesses are free to do and say as they please regarding religion...the state is not.

Do you understand this or not?

 

[Taomon]

No, really we don't. If there is one non-Christian who is determined to be offended, he can shut the Hell up and go home. The majority should NOT have to suffer the tyranny of the minority.

But the minority must suffer the tyranny of the majority?
Sounds great gunny, until you are part of the minority.

 

[Taomon]

There are no more Christians trying to embed Christianity into all levels of government than there are goober secularists trying to remove, distort and/or revise every vestige of Judeo Christian tradition and history that happens to be part of our heritage as a Nation and the history of our people and government.

You are very much the extremist here. The premise of your argument is based on attempting to portray a small minority as some vast conspiracy by ALL Christians. THAT, in and of itself is an extreme and distorted view of a benign subculture.

This is the type of thing that I want to be wrong about. I would not only admit being wrong, but I would dance for joy.

So far, no one can prove me wrong about this gunny.

 

[Shogun]

Let's clarify one thing ... I'm not all up in arms over this. Taking a stance for the sake of argument is nothing more than that.

But ... the fact remains, if a group or whoever were NOT bitching about, then there would be no argument, would there? It would be "Christmas" and that would be the end of that.

Oh yes, there would still be an outcry from christians who feel their monopoly of this time of year slipping. This is why I invite anyone to name one single secular organization that is out trying to force Target and NBC into saying holdays instead of christmas. I'd love to actually see this boogeyman facade of a threat to christmas. This is why I keep pointing out that it's not we secularists robbing christians of their exclusivity, it's the same capitolist market forces that conservatives are otherwise bragging about.

But, if you can find one single secular group trying to FORCE companies to say anything in particular at the doorway to their stores I'd be more than happy to review it. Otherwise, this is one more thing that makes the joke of christianity funnier by one more degree.

 

[Taomon]

Oh yes, there would still be an outcry from christians who feel their monopoly of this time of year slipping. This is why I invite anyone to name one single secular organization that is out trying to force Target and NBC into saying holdays instead of christmas. I'd love to actually see this boogeyman facade of a threat to christmas. This is why I keep pointing out that it's not we secularists robbing christians of their exclusivity, it's the same capitolist market forces that conservatives are otherwise bragging about.

But, if you can find one single secular group trying to FORCE companies to say anything in particular at the doorway to their stores I'd be more than happy to review it. Otherwise, this is one more thing that makes the joke of christianity funnier by one more degree.

Exactly.

 

[Shogun]

In many respects I think the best way to judge the propriety of these sorts of situations is to reverse them. What would the response be if the local library had a sign up every March declaring that "There is No God", or an annual exhibit heralding the wonders of Satanism?

That's exactly it... How many christians would accept a Buddha statue at the court lawn? Openly Pagan observations at the Library? If this were a two way street and christians would accept other American beliefs as they expect others to respect theirs I wouldn't care. As it is, we all know how christians would react to the state respecting anything other than christianity.

 

[Shogun]

No, really we don't. If there is one non-Christian who is determined to be offended, he can shut the Hell up and go home. The majority should NOT have to suffer the tyranny of the minority.

and yet the constitution protects the minority from the TYRANNY OF THE MAJORTY which is, I believe, why we have an enumerated bill of rights.... of which the very first says....

 

[Gunny]

This is the type of thing that I want to be wrong about. I would not only admit being wrong, but I would dance for joy.

So far, no one can prove me wrong about this gunny.

Y'think?

Well, how about YOU prove YOU right? You've made the accusation, back it up with some evidence.

I'll wait ....

 

[Gunny]

But the minority must suffer the tyranny of the majority?
Sounds great gunny, until you are part of the minority.

If the choice is only one or the other? Better the minority suffer than the majority. Common sense 101.

And dude, you have NO idea what minority groups I may or may not belong to. The only REAL monority group you've shown yourself to belong to so far is the one for whiners.

 

[Gunny]

Oh yes, there would still be an outcry from christians who feel their monopoly of this time of year slipping. This is why I invite anyone to name one single secular organization that is out trying to force Target and NBC into saying holdays instead of christmas. I'd love to actually see this boogeyman facade of a threat to christmas. This is why I keep pointing out that it's not we secularists robbing christians of their exclusivity, it's the same capitolist market forces that conservatives are otherwise bragging about.

But, if you can find one single secular group trying to FORCE companies to say anything in particular at the doorway to their stores I'd be more than happy to review it. Otherwise, this is one more thing that makes the joke of christianity funnier by one more degree.

What outcry? I see no huge outcry from Christians. Get your groups straight. The outcry is from the non-PC saying enough of that secular progressive PC shit already.

If you are going to champion your right to free speech to gripe about it, please DO allow those who disagree the same latitude.

I see plenty of secular groups trying to force companies to bow to their will using the same argument you are. That some nameless, faceless group of Christians I have yet to see are trying to force their religious beliefs on you.

My original point was the fact Christmas no longer carries the religious connotations it once did. It's an exercise in overindulgence and rampant capitalism. Neither of which are Christ-like at all.

 

[Gunny]

That's exactly it... How many christians would accept a Buddha statue at the court lawn? Openly Pagan observations at the Library? If this were a two way street and christians would accept other American beliefs as they expect others to respect theirs I wouldn't care. As it is, we all know how christians would react to the state respecting anything other than christianity.

If it was a cool statue, who cares? I would just to know how you PC, SP types could reconcile the no transfats thing with Buddha's belly.

 

[Shogun]

hehehe...

Let's put a cool one up and see what happens... I know what horse IM betting on.

Like with guns I might just surprise you with my opinion of the trans fats tangent.. AND the Emminant Domain decision...

Hey, Have a great new year, Gunny!

 

[Gunny]

hehehe...

Let's put a cool one up and see what happens... I know what horse IM betting on.

Like with guns I might just surprise you with my opinion of the trans fats tangent.. AND the Emminant Domain decision...

Hey, Have a great new year, Gunny!

You too.

 

[Foxfyre]

And once again, individuals and private businesses are free to do and say as they please regarding religion...the state is not.

Do you understand this or not?

Do you understand that the United States Constitution was written by the people and for the people? Do you understand that the people ARE the state and that the state operates at the will of the people? Do you understand how much religion, including the national holiday Christmas, is woven into the history, heritage, laws, mores, values, rights, privileges, and economy of this country?

At the dictate of the people, the state cannot and does not with display of a nativity scene or any other religious symbol, motto, or slogan or through any other means require you to believe, worship, or pay tribute or homage to anybody or anything, much less anything religious. It cannot reward you nor impose any consequence of any kind on you for what you do and do not believe.

It is for all these reasons that a display of a nativity scene on public or private property, or any other religious symbol representing any other traditions or religious influence that has had a significant part of our history and heritage, is not only legal but also appropriate if the majority of the people enjoy having it there.

Claiming that it is somehow coercive or even a promotion by the state is ludicrous when it does not encourage or influence you in any way, when it violates not a single right you possess, and when it requires nothing from you nor takes anything of any kind away from you.

To acquiesce to your personal preference and/or prejudices, however, is to take something pleasurable away from others, and that would be wrong.

 

[Shogun]

Fair enough... NExt year you can have your nativity scene on one side of the lawn and I'll hang a burning candle pentegram on the other side.. Like you just said, observing pagan rituals wont make anyone worship the devil! Just wait until the Jahovas Witness and Santarian's hear the good news about religious symbols on the courthouse next year!

 

[Taomon]

Do you understand that the United States Constitution was written by the people and for the people? Do you understand that the people ARE the state and that the state operates at the will of the people? Do you understand how much religion, including the national holiday Christmas, is woven into the history, heritage, laws, mores, values, rights, privileges, and economy of this country?

At the dictate of the people, the state cannot and does not with display of a nativity scene or any other religious symbol, motto, or slogan or through any other means require you to believe, worship, or pay tribute or homage to anybody or anything, much less anything religious. It cannot reward you nor impose any consequence of any kind on you for what you do and do not believe.

It is for all these reasons that a display of a nativity scene on public or private property, or any other religious symbol representing any other traditions or religious influence that has had a significant part of our history and heritage, is not only legal but also appropriate if the majority of the people enjoy having it there.

Claiming that it is somehow coercive or even a promotion by the state is ludicrous when it does not encourage or influence you in any way, when it violates not a single right you possess, and when it requires nothing from you nor takes anything of any kind away from you.

To acquiesce to your personal preference and/or prejudices, however, is to take something pleasurable away from others, and that would be wrong.

Would you have the same sentiment if the people were a Muslim majority?

You do realize that for the State to represent the people, they must represent ALL people. So the whole majority rules notion is BS.

What if the majority in Alabama condoned racism against blacks? Should we allow that to continue? What if the majority condones slavery? Should we allow slavery? What if the majority condoned molestation of children? Should we allow it to happen?

Do you see where your logic is flawed?

 

[Foxfyre]

and yet the constitution protects the minority from the TYRANNY OF THE MAJORTY which is, I believe, why we have an enumerated bill of rights.... of which the very first says....

The Constitution is designed to protect the unalienable, civil, and legal rights of the individual from a tyranny of the majority. It is also designed to allow the majority to decide on all matters that do not violate the unalienable, civil, legal, or constitutional rights of the individual. Such majority is not a tyranny but is rather democracy in action.

Some seem to have a difficult time with that concept,.

 

[Shogun]

The Constitution is designed to protect the unalienable, civil, and legal rights of the individual from a tyranny of the majority. It is also designed to allow the majority to decide on all matters that do not violate the unalienable, civil, legal, or constitutional rights of the individual. Such majority is not a tyranny but is rather democracy in action.

Some seem to have a difficult time with that concept,.

Not at all.. what YOU seem to have a difficult time with is the first amendment, the very first addition ot the bill of rights, that addresses your lil dogma fueled tantrum regarding our government RESPECTING any religion. Here, let me cue up the actual Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.



So, enjoy your personal freedom to worship however you see fit while I enjoy the FACT of a first amendment that CLEARLY indicates what we are trying to avoid by telling you no. By assuming that a christian majoirty represents a non-christian MINORITY we see exactly why this was added to the very first amendment.

too bad for you, eh? Hell,I was looking forward to matching you pagan symbol for christian symbol! I'm sure those American Hindu's will LOVE an opportunity like this to get the word out about their beliefs!


You take the east lawn and THIS can go up on the front lawn, eh?