'Merry Christmas' or 'Happy Holiday'

[barefoot serpent]

oh, and BTW: Feliz Ano Nuevo...





*ahem* I mean: Año

[Elspode]

That means mrnoodle is a classic anti-American in the tradition of Nazism, McCarthyism, Spanish Inquisition, and the Ku Klux Klan.

Trust TW to weigh in on the extreme *other* side of the discussion.

Mr. Noodle is expressing a valid concern of millions of Americans, who feel frustrated that their firmly held beliefs are prevented from permeating all aspects of their lives. Like it or not, Government *is* a big part of our lives as citizens, and I for one understand the frustration that Mr Noodle and others like him have. I don't agree with it, but I understand it. However, calling him unAmerican and comparing him to Nazis and Tail Gunner Joe is just plain ridiculous, and is just another form of extremism, no prettier than any other form.

It might be much simpler to just ask him a straightforward question:

Mr. Noodle - do you believe that your religion should be the National Religion, the only one promoted and supported by the State? And do you believe that our Constitution allows for that?

Also, along this line, I just heard Rush Limbaugh puke out a couple of choice stupidities this morning on his two-minute Conservative Agena Promotional spot, one of which was along the lines of "Liberals want you to believe that your Constitution builds a wall between Church and State; it does no such thing." He also said that the Constitution provides no guarantee of privacy, and that it was Liberal BS that made us think it does.

[mrnoodle]

I'm trying to get a bunch of work done before the holiday, so I can't spend as much time on this as I'd like (and I haven't read all the arguments after my last post), but let me try to clarify who I'm addressing..

I'm not against people of other religions, or people who don't follow a religion. I'm specifically addressing the small, vocally anti-Christian crowd that is actively involved in trying to mute all references to faith outside of a church building. I support the freedom of any religious group to practice their religion, and I support the right of non-religious people to abstain.

What I don't get is how one can draw a parallel between a theocracy and a government that simply doesn't work against people of faith at every opportunity. I think that if a local body, such as a city council, pays for the electricity for a "Christmas light" display, it is not guilty of religious tyranny. If the white house wants a "Christmas tree", that's not the same thing as a federally mandated celebration of Christmas. If Chaim Abraham Finkelstein is elected president and wants a 400 foot menorah on the White House lawn, that doesn't mean that they're forcing me to celebrate Hannukah.

To say that ALL faiths must be represented simultaneously or NO faith can be mentioned by ANY public official while he or she is on the clock is unrealistic, and the pursuit of such a goal is more than futile -- it goes against what this country is about. This isn't a melting pot anymore, it's a carefully segmented TV dinner, with each course demanding that it be given its own serving tray.

America celebrates Christmas. You don't want to? You are free to celebrate something else without persecution. Good luck getting the same treatment anywhere else. But just because you don't celebrate Christmas doesn't mean you're entitled to have it hidden from view so that you're not "offended". Furthermore, a government that recognizes the main holiday of the vast majority of its citizens is not a theocracy. A theocracy would prohibit you from celebrating yours, and nothing of the sort has ever happened or will happen here.

[Elspode]

Let's say I'm elected Mayor of a medium sized town, and I want to erect a big lighted Pentacle and a Yule tree on the lawn of City Hall. As long as I'm mayor, it will be alright for me to spend tax dollars on this, right? Even if the majority doesn't agree with me, right? After all, if we can just discount the opinions of the minority, can't we discount the opinions of the majority where this subject is concerned?

Of course, there's not a snowball's chance in Jerusalem that this will ever happen, because, thanks to the co-opting of the political process by the Right Wing Conservative Christians, the first question you have to answer these days is, "Do you believe in God?" When I reply, "Yeah...lots of 'em!", I'm thinking that's gonna be the end of the political campaign.

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

I support the freedom of any religious group to practice their religion, and I support the right of non-religious people to abstain.

Okay, so why does the line "...freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM..." keep appearing in so many of the debates? Does this simply mean that people who wish to abstain must tolerate seeing displays of it or that they must endure a government biased to a religion of that government's selection?

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

What I don't get is how one can draw a parallel between a theocracy and a government that simply doesn't work against people of faith at every opportunity. To say that ALL faiths must be represented simultaneously or NO faith can be mentioned by ANY public official while he or she is on the clock is unrealistic

Well, I've always viewed government as a representative body that provides a function and that function has not ever been religious, nor does any require any religion to operate. Does a courthouse need a star of david to determine court cases? Does a town hall need a crescent moon and star symbol to levy taxes? Does a state run elementary school need a Christmas tree to teach chemistry? No. Religion simply serves no purpose at any of these places besides making one group of people feel more recognized and powerful than another. The government biasing itself one way or another only discredits some portion of the population, but remaining netrual affects no portion of the population in a negative way. This, to me at least, seems both logical and simple.

So, if this group you fear gets its way and removes religious displays from government, what will happen? Does society degrade and collapse? My view is that people will feel free to practice their religion as they please in their churches, worship areas, in public, etc. I even think that the lack of a government recognized religion might even make many of the minor religions in this country feel even more open and free to do as they wish.

I suppose I've never seen these groups that you speak of actually do anything to try to prohibit private individuals from celebrating or observing their beliefs, only the collective government. Maybe you have some instances in the media that you'd like to point to us that provide a different story?

[Elspode]

At this point, the biggest problem I have with what I'm hearing here is paraphrased something like this:

"Why are you worried if the Government is Christian biased? They won't mess with anyone who isn't."

I'd like to see *one* single historical example of this having been the case anywhere, ever, regardless of which religious bias the government held. It is especially unlikely in the case of Christianity, since the central tenet is that you have to attempt to convert everyone else who isn't Christian (Evangelism), and that little gem has been used down through the ages to subvert entire races and separate them from their property. Take the gold and land, give 'em Jesus and smallpox. Not a very fair trade, IMHO.

[tw]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

I'm not against people of other religions, or people who don't follow a religion. I'm specifically addressing the small, vocally anti-Christian crowd that is actively involved in trying to mute all references to faith outside of a church building. I support the freedom of any religious group to practice their religion, and I support the right of non-religious people to abstain.

Above is a different post compared to mrnoodle's earlier one. That earlier post so agreed with intolerant religious extremists who, for example, condemn Target for using the expression "Happy Holidays". Based upon mrnoodle's most recent post, then my last post no longer applies to him.

However I have no problem associating this quote with religous extremists whose intent is to promote their religion upon America:

That means [replaced with 'Christian extremist'] is a classic anti-American in the tradition of Nazism, McCarthyism, Spanish Inquisition, and the Ku Klux Klan.

Concepts by Christian extremists are same principles that Hilter defined (to rally Brown Shirts) in his book Mein Kampf. Throughout history, religion in politics has created so much death and destruction. For example, in a war between different factions of Catholics for religious reasons, the conquering general was asked how to tell the difference between good and bad Catholics. He replied, "Kill them all. God will know his own." Classic example of decisions based upon religious extremism.

The difference between my position verses those of Elspode and Kitsune is that I consider religion in politics that dangerous. That is not to say that religious leaders doing secular work (being careful to remove any religious bias from their agenda) cannot perform as politicians. That the Catholic Church would protect pedophiles at the expense of kids, however, should surprise no one. The nature of any institution that can make decrees without question, doubt, or public accounting can become satanic. An honest Catholic Church would instead welcome reforms from "Voices of the Faithful". In other venues, these religious institutions would be called a dictatorship with all the associated intolerance.

A good religion is only a relationship between you and your god - completely devoid of government and political attachments. 1st Amendment demands same. A Federal court ruling in Dover PA even demonstrates the evil of a religious political agenda. Those religious extremists would even lie ("repetitious, untruthful testimony") - which is what happens when religion is promoted by a political agenda.

[Clodfobble]

Okay, I know this was said relatively long ago in the thread, but it sums it up quite nicely for me:

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

Just don't tell me I can't have a manger scene next to it.

That's exactly the problem. You CAN have a manger scene next to it. Anyone who feels like it has the right to display their religion. Wonderful. But by this token, if there's a single Jewish kid in your class, he has the right to request that the class sing at least a few Hannukah songs at the school Christmas play.

"You can have your Christmas carols, just don't tell me I can't have a round of Hava Nagila right after it."

And that one atheist kid? He gets to make everyone sing "Grandma Got Run Over By a Reindeer." And the Muslim kid gets to add in whatever songs he wants. And the Kwanzaa kid. At some point, it's just too much of a pain in the ass to be inclusive to everyone. So you create a generic substitute. No one is happy, but no one is left out either. It's just not practical in a lot of situations to allow one of everything.

[xoxoxoBruce]

No, no, no, if the Jewish kid wants Hava Nagila and the Atheist wants "Grandma Got Run Over By a Reindeer", I have to LISTEN to it, not sing it. They don't have to sing Christmas Carols either.

[Elspode]

Hmmm...TW and I agree on something. Mark this date. I, too, feel that religion and politics is *that* dangerous. History proves it, and I don't see anything different in what is going on in this country and what has happened over the centuries in other lands.

All you need to know about a theocracy can be seen in the Middle East. *They* think their religion and tenets are Right. Having our own government adopt any religious tenets that people here think are Right is going to produce the same results. That's why we need to just leave it out. If it is a restrictive practice to do so, if it is discriminatory...at least it restricts *everyone* equally. At least it discriminates against *all* religions.

[Griff]

These are interesting dilemmas created by the totality of state interference in all aspects of life. For many believing Christians or Moslems or whatever to exclude their faith from any enterprise in their life is unnatural. This becomes easy pickings for evil politicians, naturally they will choose the most coercive response because that is what statists do. Fortunately, private schools are still legal. Home schooling is an oppressively regulated option most places as well. A public system of smaller community based schools might help ease tensions but they'd still exist. The bottom line is a lack of respect for each others beliefs/disbeliefs and ways of life which is exascerbated by two ugly political parties trying to rally their militants.

[wolf]

If it becomes acceptable to marginalize, deny access to, and ban expressions and celebrations of the "big" religion, what do you think will happen to all the "little" ones?

[Happy Monkey]

They'll remain exactly where they are now, in the hearts and homes and places of worship of their practitioners. Where do you think?

[Elspode]

The denial of access to any religion is only applicable to Governmental entities, in my mind. Are you suggesting that there is a functional way to allow equal inclusion and protection for *all* religions within the Governmental milieu?

[xoxoxoBruce]

But it takes a whole village to persecute a minority.