Republicans gear up in "War on Christmas"

[Mr. Capitalism]

I always enjoy the "War on Christmas" Season. Righties going all PC on us. Using the term "Merry Christmas" as a verbal weapon. Watching people have hissy fits because someone had the NERVE to say "Happy Holidays."


Ah...the memories.

The "War on Christmas" bullshit has lost steam recently though. There is something to be said for that.

 

[bodecea]

I always enjoy the "War on Christmas" Season. Righties going all PC on us. Using the term "Merry Christmas" as a verbal weapon. Watching people have hissy fits because someone had the NERVE to say "Happy Holidays."


Ah...the memories.

The "War on Christmas" bullshit has lost steam recently though. There is something to be said for that.

It depends on where you look.


Lots of fun watching people complain about the Obamas sending out Holiday Cards instead of Christmas Cards....even tho they've been "Holiday" cards since at least Reagan. Some people forget...all too easily...that not everyone in this country is a Christian.

 

[ihopehefails]

You happen to be very wrong about the first amendment because it was meant to prevent the creation of a official federal church witch is why it says "laws respecting an establishment of religion" which could mean any law that respects an establishment as in existing establishment but it could also mean any laws for the creation of as in "to establish" as in "to create".

I tend to believe they meant it in a way that means the government can't create its own church because many of the founders did mention the word God in their public speeches without any apprehension and even the Declaration of Independence used the term "creator" in it so I can't really say it was intended to prevent religion in public life but more to prevent the creation of a state church.

And to be honest with you it would bother me if a town dominated by Muslims had muslim holidays but it is not unconstitutional to do so. My only recourse would be to press for the removal of it using the democratic process but even if I failed I would be protected from being forced to participate in their "church" simply because they can't fund the creation of a muslim relligion in which its creators would compell me to participate in it in my non-citizenary private life.

Do you see how this works? By preventing the government from creating a religion it ensures that religion flourishes in the private sphere which is exactly what happens in this country despite all the govt funded Christmas trees and decorations. Everyone else is still able to establish and participate in any religion they want.

 

[ihopehefails]

We need a constitutional ammendemnt that states:
For any new law passed by congress one old law shall be abolished.

That one I actually agree with but a better one would be to put a twenty year moratorium on all laws so that congress has to revote each one into existence. This will ensure that only good laws will get repassed while bad laws will pass away and it will simplify the legal code.

 

[Ravi]

You happen to be very wrong about the first amendment because it was meant to prevent the creation of a official federal church witch is why it says "laws respecting an establishment of religion" which could mean any law that respects an establishment as in existing establishment but it could also mean any laws for the creation of as in "to establish" as in "to create".

I tend to believe they meant it in a way that means the government can't create its own church because many of the founders did mention the word God in their public speeches without any apprehension and even the Declaration of Independence used the term "creator" in it so I can't really say it was intended to prevent religion in public life but more to prevent the creation of a state church.

And to be honest with you it would bother me if a town dominated by Muslims had muslim holidays but it is not unconstitutional to do so. My only recourse would be to press for the removal of it using the democratic process but even if I failed I would be protected from being forced to participate in their "church" simply because they can't fund the creation of a muslim relligion in which its creators would compell me to participate in it in my non-citizenary private life.

Do you see how this works? By preventing the government from creating a religion it ensures that religion flourishes in the private sphere which is exactly what happens in this country despite all the govt funded Christmas trees and decorations. Everyone else is still able to establish and participate in any religion they want.

I realize this resolution isn't a law...but doesn't it violate the 1st Amendment? Is Congress allowed to formally recognize any religion?

 

[Misty]

I know, it's hard to believe the things congress fights for in the name of liberty for the people.

Who couldve believed that congress would fight tooth and nail to klll babies but they did and won.

 

[Misty]

Oh and merry Christmas everyone. Lol

 

[ihopehefails]

I always enjoy the "War on Christmas" Season. Righties going all PC on us. Using the term "Merry Christmas" as a verbal weapon. Watching people have hissy fits because someone had the NERVE to say "Happy Holidays."


Ah...the memories.

Why would you say "Happy Holidays" when 99% of the people you meet either are christian or are particpating in the holiday in some form. I can't figure our why we have to alter the entire word and dilute my particular beliefs for a belief I may not hold or completely disagree with such as satan worship (I'm just using that as an example).

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Nonbinding resolutions are a waste of taxpayer time and money. Any employee engaging in such actions should be rebuked by his or her employers.

 

[ihopehefails]

You happen to be very wrong about the first amendment because it was meant to prevent the creation of a official federal church witch is why it says "laws respecting an establishment of religion" which could mean any law that respects an establishment as in existing establishment but it could also mean any laws for the creation of as in "to establish" as in "to create".

I tend to believe they meant it in a way that means the government can't create its own church because many of the founders did mention the word God in their public speeches without any apprehension and even the Declaration of Independence used the term "creator" in it so I can't really say it was intended to prevent religion in public life but more to prevent the creation of a state church.

And to be honest with you it would bother me if a town dominated by Muslims had muslim holidays but it is not unconstitutional to do so. My only recourse would be to press for the removal of it using the democratic process but even if I failed I would be protected from being forced to participate in their "church" simply because they can't fund the creation of a muslim relligion in which its creators would compell me to participate in it in my non-citizenary private life.

Do you see how this works? By preventing the government from creating a religion it ensures that religion flourishes in the private sphere which is exactly what happens in this country despite all the govt funded Christmas trees and decorations. Everyone else is still able to establish and participate in any religion they want.

I realize this resolution isn't a law...but doesn't it violate the 1st Amendment? Is Congress allowed to formally recognize any religion?

No it does not because the first amendment was created to prevent the creation of a church like the medival kings did but there is something unconstitutional about it in the fact that it is a law that isn't in the 17 delegated powers of the federal government so in some way it could be unconstitutional for that reason but not because it violates the first amendment.

It could be unconstitutional for other reasons because like not being one of the 17 powers delegated to the federal government.

 

[bodecea]

I always enjoy the "War on Christmas" Season. Righties going all PC on us. Using the term "Merry Christmas" as a verbal weapon. Watching people have hissy fits because someone had the NERVE to say "Happy Holidays."


Ah...the memories.

Why would you say "Happy Holidays" when 99% of the people you meet either are christian or are particpating in the holiday in some form. I can't figure our why we have to alter the entire word and dilute my particular beliefs for a belief I may not hold or completely disagree with such as satan worship (I'm just using that as an example).

I believe in INclusion, not EXclusion. And tell me this, out of that 99% figure you threw out...what percentage only goes to Christmas MASS which is what Christ Mass means to Christians.

The rest of us are into Santa, reindeer, presents, eggnog, and trees...all none religious or at least certainly not Christian.

 

[Modbert]

Happy Holidays everyone!

 

[Vast LWC]

Whereas the Framers intended that the First Amendment of the Constitution, in prohibiting the establishment of religion, would not prohibit any mention of religion or reference to God in civic dialog

What the hell kind of circular logic is this?

So... Because the First Admendment bans a "State Religion", the right to include religious references in state dialog is protected?

LOL, only a roomful of lawyers could come up with that argument.

Now, don't get me wrong, I personally don't really care what people say about their religion, as long as they don't force me or my children to repeat their religious stuff, and as long as they don't try to impose their religion's morals upon me or my family.

I'm a non-practicing Catholic with strong agnostic tendencies.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Whereas the Framers intended that the First Amendment of the Constitution, in prohibiting the establishment of religion, would not prohibit any mention of religion or reference to God in civic dialog

What the hell kind of circular logic is this?

So... Because the First Admendment bans a "State Religion", the right to include religious references in state dialog is protected?

LOL, only a roomful of lawyers could come up with that argument.

Now, don't get me wrong, I personally don't really care what people say about their religion, as long as they don't force me or my children to repeat their religious stuff, and as long as they don't try to impose their religion's morals upon me or my family.

I'm a non-practicing Catholic with strong agnostic tendencies.

The First Amendment does not ban a state religion. Before, as well as after the ratification of the Constitution, many states had state religions. Said state religions were in no way forced upon anyone. Your statement is historically and legally incorrect.

 

[rightwinger]

IMO, this is just too fucking stupid for words. A Resolution by House Republicans:

Whereas Christmas is a national holiday celebrated on December 25; and
Whereas the Framers intended that the First Amendment of the Constitution, in prohibiting the establishment of religion, would not prohibit any mention of religion or reference to God in civic dialog: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) recognizes the importance of the symbols and traditions of Christmas;
(2) strongly disapproves of attempts to ban references to Christmas; and
(3) expresses support for the use of these symbols and traditions by those who celebrate Christmas.


The Washington Monthly​

And yet, the resolution falls short of confirming or denying there is a Santa Claus. More weak legislation from the Republicans

 

[Modbert]

And yet, the resolution falls short of confirming or denying there is a Santa Claus. More weak legislation from the Republicans

Nor do you see any laws being passed about the rights of the work elves. Basically we're trading with a "jolly" man who uses slave labor.

 

[Vast LWC]

Whereas the Framers intended that the First Amendment of the Constitution, in prohibiting the establishment of religion, would not prohibit any mention of religion or reference to God in civic dialog

What the hell kind of circular logic is this?

So... Because the First Admendment bans a "State Religion", the right to include religious references in state dialog is protected?

LOL, only a roomful of lawyers could come up with that argument.

Now, don't get me wrong, I personally don't really care what people say about their religion, as long as they don't force me or my children to repeat their religious stuff, and as long as they don't try to impose their religion's morals upon me or my family.

I'm a non-practicing Catholic with strong agnostic tendencies.

The First Amendment does not ban a state religion. Before, as well as after the ratification of the Constitution, many states had state religions. Said state religions were in no way forced upon anyone. Your statement is historically and legally incorrect.

Well:

1. I didn't say it did, the bill said it did, as in: "Whereas the Framers intended that the First Amendment of the Constitution, in prohibiting the establishment of religion"

and

2. From the text: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.." - First Amendment to the US Constituition

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

What the hell kind of circular logic is this?

So... Because the First Admendment bans a "State Religion", the right to include religious references in state dialog is protected?

LOL, only a roomful of lawyers could come up with that argument.

Now, don't get me wrong, I personally don't really care what people say about their religion, as long as they don't force me or my children to repeat their religious stuff, and as long as they don't try to impose their religion's morals upon me or my family.

I'm a non-practicing Catholic with strong agnostic tendencies.

The First Amendment does not ban a state religion. Before, as well as after the ratification of the Constitution, many states had state religions. Said state religions were in no way forced upon anyone. Your statement is historically and legally incorrect.

Well:

1. I didn't say it did, the bill said it did, as in: "Whereas the Framers intended that the First Amendment of the Constitution, in prohibiting the establishment of religion"

and

2. From the text: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.." - First Amendment to the US Constituition

You did state such. Read your previous post again. Nothing you posted here contradicts the fact that many of the respective states had an official state religion for years, and said recognition was not against the First Amendment. The First Amendment is an infringement on the federal government not the respective states. You were, and still are, incorrect in your (previous post) assertion.

As to what the resolution says, that is legally meaningless, seeing how it is a nonbinding resolution. It is nothing more than empty political grandstanding.

 

[ihopehefails]

I always enjoy the "War on Christmas" Season. Righties going all PC on us. Using the term "Merry Christmas" as a verbal weapon. Watching people have hissy fits because someone had the NERVE to say "Happy Holidays."


Ah...the memories.

Why would you say "Happy Holidays" when 99% of the people you meet either are christian or are particpating in the holiday in some form. I can't figure our why we have to alter the entire word and dilute my particular beliefs for a belief I may not hold or completely disagree with such as satan worship (I'm just using that as an example).

I believe in INclusion, not EXclusion. And tell me this, out of that 99% figure you threw out...what percentage only goes to Christmas MASS which is what Christ Mass means to Christians.

The rest of us are into Santa, reindeer, presents, eggnog, and trees...all none religious or at least certainly not Christian.

I'm glad but you know what I actually like practicing the holiday that exists instead of watering down the one I believe in. What other holiday exist around Dec 24th other than Christmas that people are getting into Santa, reindeer, presents, eggnog, and trees... ?

I don't know what percentage are hard core Christians but the ones who are not that way participate in the same holiday that the hard core ones do so it is still the same holiday and since when did we have to have litmus test to see if we are christian enough to practice a holiday. Has it every occurred to you that most people believe in the Christian religion in this country yet may not attend church every Sunday because if they are not christians like you say then what religion are they?

Do you apply the same logic to Cinco De Mayo where we all celebrate the holiday and its meaning yet none of us are Mexican citizens. Would you say "happy independents day of all nations" on Cinco De Mayo or the Fourth of July? Would it be correct to do so in order to appease the feeling of other nationalities?

 

[ihopehefails]

Whereas the Framers intended that the First Amendment of the Constitution, in prohibiting the establishment of religion, would not prohibit any mention of religion or reference to God in civic dialog

What the hell kind of circular logic is this?

So... Because the First Admendment bans a "State Religion", the right to include religious references in state dialog is protected?

LOL, only a roomful of lawyers could come up with that argument.

Now, don't get me wrong, I personally don't really care what people say about their religion, as long as they don't force me or my children to repeat their religious stuff, and as long as they don't try to impose their religion's morals upon me or my family.

I'm a non-practicing Catholic with strong agnostic tendencies.

The first reason that anyone in public life can express a religious value is the free speech which is protected under the constitution and the second reason is that it says "establishment" as in to establish or to create.

And having a bunch of christian politicians does not inhibit you from having or participating in your own religion that you choose simply because they can't force you to attend their church which would happen if you let the government create a religion or official state church.