Then there is the basic incompatability of inclusion of *any* religion with the rights of our token athiest. Do athiests have rights, Wolf? Do we have the *same* rights as Christians? :eyebrow:
- Pie

re·li·gion n.

1- a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

2- The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

3- A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

4- A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
If you have enough zeal, Pie, or conscientious devotion. ;)

The problem I've got, Bruce, is that 1B is the only way it is observed in this country by that vast hulking Chrisitian majority. The promotion of organized religion is the antithesis of everything I "believe"!

Still incompatible.

From the Associated Press on 22 Dec 2005: Funny. Santorum did not have a problem back when the Dover School Board was openly promoting religion in the schools. Suddenly he has a problem with his Thomas More Law Center that was (according to the judge) Will PA reelect Sen Santorum? Probably. PA reelects 98% of its incumbents. Future victims of religious extremism have remained in denial until it is too late. Even the good people of Dover PA never saw this coming - in part because few really appreciate how serious Christian extremists are to American principles and government. As court testimony demonstrates, some on the school board voted for ID because they did not even know what it was. In PA, such ignorance is still found in the public. (However some 'always' Republican friends have recently admitted that George Jr may have been a mistake. That is a major concession for one.) Santorum, like George Jr, publically approved of what religious extremists in Dover were doing. Each specifically said so using the word ‘Dover’. Suddenly Santorum pretends not to be a Christian extremist? Suddenly he no longer approves of what he previously encouraged? Maybe he lurks in the Cellar and is now worried?

Hi Rick! You don't have a problem. Most PA residents don't care. Only Christian extremists vote with religious furvor - and vote who they are told to vote for.

You have as much right to your beliefs/disbeliefs as a Christian does to theirs. The fact that they believe in a particular Godform does not intrude upon your ability not to believe. Displays of religious iconography do not harm you, or anyone else. You are not forced to participate in their practices, nor am I.

If someone would read a Bible in your presence, that is their choice, and their right. If they ask that you read the Bible, you have the right to decline. If they would attempt to press the issue and inist that you read the Bible, accept Christ as your personal savior, or sacrifice a lamb to appease the Gods, and don't respond to your requests to desist, THEN they are harrassing you and you can pursue legal action against them.

Well, I've decided not to celebrate the whatchamacallit season at all. Solves the problem for me, and I have had a completely stress-free, non-commercial whatever-everyone-else-who-wants -to-argue-about-semantics-wants-to-call-it season. I AM going to a friend's house for that one dinner that people get together for on the 25th of December, but that is just because I want to hang out with her. I expressly asked that no one buy me a gift this year and I have bought no gifts. It is more important to spend time with people you care about.

I am a whatever-this-season-is-called drop-out. I resent that corporate America is now trying to start the (insert your favorite term here) season at the beginning of November. It is getting absolutely ridiculous. I quit--I'm not even a Christian--so, I quit.

I'm gonna sit back and let everyone else get stressed out and buy a bunch of useless junk for the holiday/Christmas/Xmas..blah, blah, blah, ad nauseum season. And argue with each other over what we are going to call a season that no longer stands for the secular or religious sentiments that it once did. Maybe we should just call it the "buying season." Because that is what it is really about.

A joyous buying and arguing season to all, and to all a good night!

My two cent...

My increasingly senile mother has already decided that I have ruined Christmas. I am not entirely sure why she has decided this. Neither is she, and hopefully by tomorrow she will have picked something else to obsess about.

hmmmmm...


:idea:


Why not, "Peace on earth"?


:rainfro: :biggrinba :stpaddy: :dreads: :muse: :us: :ivy: :earth:


:ipray:


:grouphug:



:gift:

Merry Holidays, everyone!

(even you, LJ!)

:shocking: :shocking: :shocking:

religion: a popular cult

cult: an unpopular religion

Because it's not "The American Way"tm
Because it's our duty to save the heathens from the evils of their oil, gold, diamonds, etc.
Because it's not profitable. ;)

I understand what you're saying.
My point was under "4- A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.", if you have the zeal, the government must recognize your position as a valid religion and include it as acceptable. :D

MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL THE HEATHENS OF THE WORLD

Happy Holidays! - Christmas, Yule, Kwanzaa, Hanukkah, or (insert winter solstice holiday here) to all of my Cellar friends, not-friends, and lurkers.http://www.cellar.org/images/smilies/present.gifhttp://www.cellar.org/images/newsmilies/elkgrin.gifhttp://www.cellar.org/images/moresmilies/santa.gif

I prefer Thanksgiving anyway because it is basically the same thing minus the traffic and the maxed out Mastercard.

To all of you:
However you celebrate the occasion, may it be filled with happiness.
If you don't celebrate it, hell , have a great weekend! :beer:

Uh, wha? Are you sure you're talking about the Thanksgiving I'm thinking of? The Thanksgiving that involved a 7 hour drive turning into a 13.5 hour drive?

You can tell it's Christmas by the clothes people wear.

Even the pope was dressed for the holidays, looking like a cross between Emperor Palpatine and Santa Claus.

However once 'they' tell others what may and may not be displayed, (ie Target attacked for using the expression "Happy Holiday" - and this attack is for political reasons), then their religion does harm everyone. A display of "Holiday" garnish is not offensive when paid for with public money. But when only Christian symbols are displayed, then that is akin to government sponsoring religion.

Wreaths, trees, decorative lights, Santa Claus, etc in the Holiday spirit are not offensive to anyone. But by taking offense to “Holiday” and demanding that government "put the Christ back into Christmas" (as Christian extremists are demanding) is an offense to the 1st Amendment.

It is a fine line. Was not an issue when Christian extremists were not promoting their religion upon all others. Therefore (and unfortunately) a line must be drawn.

Seasonal garnish is one thing. Public spending that promotes the religion of an extremist group offends anyone American. If we have a manger, then we better have some Kwanzaa, Islamic, and Buddhist trappings as well. This only because Christian religion is now being used for a political agenda. “Put the Christ back in Christmas” is offensive because it imposes beliefs of one religious group upon all others.

Let's not miss what their agenda is. As even stated in testimony in the Dover PA school board lawsuit, Christian extremists wanted to put prayer back into public schools. So now even Holiday decorations require a legal opinion. It's shameful what Christian extremists have done to the Holidays.

Merry Xmas to all who are not so intolerant. And Happy New Year. Another part of "Happy Holidays" that are thankfully devoid of religion - so far.

Hey, Wolf, your mom sounds like my mom. Jeez, why can't they just realize that they RAISED us to be Christmas ruiners! I "ruined" Christmas last year so I'm staying over on my side of the country this year. But, wouldn't ya know it, my sister stepped up to the plate and "ruined" Thanksgiving this year. We're just a bunch of holiday ruiners--the lot of us. (We're wondering when she's going to wake up and realize that she is actually the one with the problem.)

Chin up! It must simply be something in the mentality of mother's with grown children. :headshake : :right:

Rich, do you have any insight into this issue ...

Was there any gift-giving associated with Chanukah before, say, about the 1940s (just guessing at time of culture change)? What do presents have to do with the bottle of oil lasting 8 days, anyway?

Do modern Hasids exchange gifts during Chanukah, or do they just do the prayers over the candles?

http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/4825/vishnu5id.jpg

Haha

http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/3...sracist0lo.gif

Experience a satisfactory non-denominational winter gift festival citizen

And remember to lighten up a bit, It's Christmas for fuck sakes! :fumette:

"A great many people think they are thinking when they are just rearranging their prejudices."

William James

Well, first, here is a Hanukkah story I had never heard before. Hanukkah is the celebration of a revolt, and as usual, insurgents do not play by the rules and the women are often more dangerous than the men.

I had heard in Hebrew school (say that three times real fast) that the present giving was fairly recent. This site says the same thing. Of course, we could both be wrong and repeating what we were told. BTW, it also mentions the story about Judith.

I understand the greater prevalence of gift-giving on Hanukkah to have been the influence of the Christian Christ Mass and the traditions that have grown up around it -- the Yule log and the Christmas tree are sort of competing traditions -- in a sort of cultural cross-pollination. A once rather minor holiday is becoming a bigger, grander affair. Evolution in progress, please design intelligently if at all.:3_eyes:

My Jewish mother-in-law, rest her soul, did me the favor of teaching me correct pronunciation of the holiday even when it got spelled Chanukah. We never did get around to discussing a heroine, a tent peg, and that general, though. The mallet wouldn't have gotten the job done, or was she determined to nail the guy to the spot? At first I thought that was the Judith story... oh well. Something else to put on the reading list.

Other holidays are getting a cross-pollination, too. American-style Halloween celebrations with costuming and hijinks are becoming more and more popular in Mexican Day of the Dead, and of course Day of the Dead stuff is all over southern California anyway. All parties concerned are amused. The Halloween influence is being taken south by Mexicans returning after a stay up north, and by families with relatives on both sides of the border, which is a very frequent occurrence.

Here is a little CHRISTMAS story from the center of Christian Fundie Whackos aka Colorado Springs, home of Focus on the Family and that Dobson idiot.

Yesterday (CHRISTMAS Day) I had occasion to go to a convenience store to buy some half and half. The clerk there was ranting to any customer that would listen how she had placed a sign saying Merry CHRISTMAS on the door, despite the fact that the Jews didn't want her to do this. She went on and on about the Jews and loudly proclaimed that she'd be damned if she said "Happy Chanuka" to ANYONE! I stared at her in astonishment, paid for my half and half, and loudly said "PEACE ON EARTH!" to her and everyone else in the store as I went out the door.

We've come a long way. NOT! :eyebrow:

You're just upset because Christians have the secret to Life Eternal and The Truth, and they're right and you're not, aren't you? :lol:

BTW, too bad you aren't a Jew, because you could have sued the shit out of the c-store chain for religious persecution. I mean, you would have felt threatened and demeaned, and you'd have had your civil rights trampled and all, because of all the stuff the cashier was saying. Oh, wait...I'm sorry...its everyone else who is persecuting the Christians these days, right?

I've got to get straight with The Truth.

Tell you what, Patrick. If I were Jewish instead of Buddhist/Native American/Pagan, I doubt if the "Merry Christmas" sign would have bothered me any more than it did when I walked in the door - which was NOT at all. However, by time I walked out of the store, I wanted to tear that "Merry Christmas" sign down, rip it to shreds and set fire to the fragments. I can't imagine how I would have felt if I had been Jewish, but you're right, the only ones who are persecuted these days are the fundies. Umm hmm. :mad:

JESUS CHRIST IS LORD!!! God said it I belive it, and that settles it...

Oh, Pshaw. God said a lot of things.

I especially like that thing about, if your wife is infertile, you get to do her sister so you can have sons. Gotta love a good patriarchal sort of ethos...

In Boston, they busted an Asian Supermarket for being open on Christmas. :rolleyes:

NOt sure if this was posted anywhere, but it is Ben Stein's piece (I am told) from CBS 'Sunday Morning' on Christmas Day

++

Herewith at this happy time of year, a few confessions from my beating heart:

I have no freaking clue who Nick and Jessica are. I see them on the cover of People and Us constantly when I am buying my dog biscuits and kitty litter. I often ask the checkers at the grocery stores. They never know who Nick and Jessica are either. Who are they? Will it change my life if I know who they are and why they have broken up? Why are they so important? I don't know who Lindsay Lohan is, either, and I do not care at all about Tom Cruise's wife.

Am I going to be called before a Senate committee and asked if I am a subversive? Maybe, but I just have no clue who Nick and Jessica are. Is this what it means to be no longer young. It's not so bad.

Next confession: I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejeweled trees Christmas trees. I don't feel threatened. I don't feel discriminated against. That's what they are: Christmas trees. It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, "Merry Christmas" to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu. If people want a crèche, it's just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away.

I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat.

Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship Nick and Jessica and we aren't allowed to worship God as we understand Him?

I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where Nick and Jessica came from and where the America we knew went to.

++

Even before FERRIS BUELLER'S DAY OFF, I loved Ben Stein.

He's a smart cookie.

He was one of Richard Nixon's speech writers. :mad:

No wonder he went into comedy.

Happy New Year, all of you.

There's more to it than that, Elsp. Living offspring were the Social Security of the era. Enough nephews would be almost as good for keeping you in your old age as a few sons. The widow with no adult sons was in a world of hurt, shekel-wise, and this was a continuing problem through the first century and beyond.

Here in Boulder the Christmas Parade was renamed December Lights Festival. I'm a Witch, but I deliberately went caroling in the Pearl Street mall and telling people Merry Christmas because this PC crap pisses me off.

Happy Yuletide

Evidently it continues in the 21st century :eyebrow:

I was talking about your descendants being your retirement plan, not "honor killings." That should go in another thread, I think.

We were talking about doing the wife's sister or brother's wife in this case. ;)

And it's hard to see the intent here to make descendants because...?

Because it's the 21st century not the first, which was my point. :p

And I was talking about the first, which was my point. :p

That's your problem.... well one of them....you're 2000 years behind.
You rant about what a great idea it was for women to be handed off, to be knocked up for their own social security, in the 1st century.
When I pointed out it still goes on, you say it's not about honor killings. Obviously you didn't read past the headline and immediately jumped to the wrong conclusion.
It must be Urbane W. Guerrilla. :rtfm:

Rant about what a great idea...? You have confused me with someone else, Bruce -- AFAIK, someone who has not even posted on this thread. My sole remark was that it was done this way, back then, and before. I read the honor-killing article linked, and made no remark on it, as you will doubtless see when you check. Have fun with your strawman, but I think you can leave me out of that.

Post #96, you claim it was “social security” rather than patriarchal, and needed 2k years ago
Post #98, I linked to a story proving it still exists.
Post #99, you wrongly pronounce my link doesn’t belong in this thread because it’s about a different subject.
Post #100, I point out it was about patriarchal.
Post #101, you claim it’s still ok because the intent is “social security”.
Post #102, patriarchal abuse in not ok in the 21st century.
Post #103, claim 1st century exemption.
Post #104, point out it’s still happening as shown in post#98.
Post #105, who me?
Post #106, yeah you!
:eyebrow:

All of which documents in glorious detail that you persist in missing my point, and also miss that I merely observed this was how they tried to do it. I'd amplify that it seems they had little to nothing else, those being unsophisticated times economically, which from the talking they did about it in the Bible, suggests they weren't sure they were getting the job properly done in 100% of the circumstances. Sounds like everybody who had something to say about it could name a starveling widow or three.

It's the sort of thing that would have been come up with in a social order where your family and your blood relatives were the chiefest, if not the only, thing you kept allegiance with -- tribal bonds and links being a sort of extension of the family bond.

Note also that the story of Onan documents, insofar as this is documented at all, and aside from the superstitious coda of "...wherefore the Lord slew him also," the point at which the Hebrews abandoned this law in apparent hope of finding something better, that didn't rely so heavily on some other available relative being interested enough in, and happy enough with, the widow, to fix her up with descendants with the filial obligations to keep the ol' gal in comfort. Read it and see if this interpretation doesn't hold up.

I also draw a distinction between "social security" and individual "retirement plan," positing the latter and not the former, the one being governmental entitlements, the other private.

The fact remains they live in a patriarchal, abusive society now and have for thousands of years, as Elspode posited. :eyebrow:

UG, you really should leave attempts at logic alone and stick with the blatent insults. :rolleyes:

Both of his above statements are accurate.

OK, Wolf, I'll bite. How? Social security is a government entitlement program. Living offspring were the social security of the first century. How are living offspring a government entitlement, especially in 1 AD? I can understand someone making the argument that a welfare Mom with 6 illegitimate children in the 21st century has them as a "government entitlement." However, saying a child born in the 1st century was the same as a government entilement program is stretching just a wee bit.

Logic is a little bird tweeting in a meadow. Even I know you're not as stupid as you are currently pretending to be.

wolf - the statements each, taken out of context, are true because they make different assumptions. They just don't work together. In the context of the first statement, the second one should besince he is explicitly not positing "social security."

I think that when the argument has reached this level of inanity it's safe to assume we've worn it out.

What? did somebody say 'Nazi' yet?

Nazi yet

In a feudal society serfs are essentially considered posessions of the landholder and therefore are, in that sense, a form of government entitlement.

Nazi yet again?

Moved and seconded. ;)

Wait! How did we suddenly leap into a feudal society with serfs? I thought we were talking about nomadic desert peoples who followed flocks of goats and sheep around. But if we are going to talk feudal society and serfs, then the analogy of living offspring/social security makes even less sense. If a person is essentially an item of property owned by someone else, then their children also become someone else's property. Joe Serf Jr. may long to help out dear old Mom in her old age, but if the evil Lord of the Manor has decreed that he go off and dig turnips somewhere a week's journey away, there's not much little Joe or his Mom can do about it, and Mom's sure not secure in her old age.

BZZZZZT!

Next meadow lark, please.

I haven't been following the thread closely but isn't this a description of Social Security? We don't own the fruit of our labors. I'll have to go back now to see what you're not getting because I do in fact speak jive.