Ho Ho Ho Banned

[kate42]

Isn't this ridiculous?? What next?? It's going too far.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22738300-2,00.html

[Sponsored Links]

[ddmoit]

And, they're replacing it with "ha ha ha", which sounds like diabolical laughter to me.

Ridiculous? Yes. But, ultimately I respect their property right to make rules like that. The market will decide how ridiculous it really is.

I'm surprised that Santa himself hasn't weighed in on the issue in order to protect his intellectual property rigths.:rolleyes:

[irish tileguy in michigan]

totally ridiculous, and in london england there making their santas work out and slim down because it sets a bad example to kids that been fat is bad.
next thing we;ll have is a santa running round in a little pink fairy dress.
ridiculous.

[Shaughnn]

I agree with Dan. "Santa Claus" as we know him now is a very different version from the one which greeted the 1900's. He's an evolving icon and if his language changes and his profile becomes a bit more "svelte", and it catches the imaginations of his fans, then that's just the way things will be. I know that in Hawaii Santa Claus has been arriving by out-rigger canoe and shouting a joyful "Aloha!" since my Dad was a tiny pineapple picker. I may be wrong, but I don't think that that led to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor? I hear that in some other places around the world, which aren't as Anglo-centric as suburban America, Santa Claus even has "dark skin". :eek:
Shaughnn

[MudMaker]

Shaughnn,
I think Dan's coming from a different direction than you. He's saying "Let the Market decide".. I'll let Dan defend his position..
You're saying that there is an evolution to the process just as the Constitution is a "Living Document"..
I believe that companies that eliminate Christ, Santa, Christmas, and replace with non religious PC alternatives will pay in the end with lost sales..
Businesses are trying not to offend the few in lieu of offending the masses..

[Shaughnn]

Frank,
Of course Dan and I are coming from different angles. You've read our posts, haven't you??? :stick:
And I'll have to take issue with your inclusion of "Santa" with the "Reason for the Season". There is absolutely nothing proprietorial "Christian" about Santa Claus. While he's founded in a historical character, just like Johnny Appleseed, he's evolved into a global icon which ignores many cultural and ethnic barriers.
And you really don't want to get into a comparrison discussion about "Christmas" and "Dies Natalis Solis Invicti" do you??? Many scholars agree that any "birth in a manger" would have occurred during the early Summer. So, what exactly is our modern "Christmas" but an appropriation of someone else's holiday??? Seems to me like the "Wheel" keeps turning. :)
Shaughnn

[MudMaker]

Shaughnn,
There are some things in life that I have "Accepted" and will not dispute. Jesus Christ is one of them.. I am not overly religious but I have a belief system and he is included in that system. Christmas is a time of the year that I can celebrate this belief.. MERRY CHRISTMAS :santa5:

[Rd Tile]

Bunch of morons, what's next to change, These too? :tongue:

http://www.hostesscakes.com/hohos.asp

[tilerite]

Gentlemen, I have bad news. I'm afraid I'm going to have to shut down this thread. I've retired from tiling to become the new director of the ACLU. Sorry.

[cx]

Bah! Humbug! :mad:

[Shaughnn]

Frank,
I'm not challenging your belief in Christ. What I am questioning, with complete sincerity, is the notion that the completely fictional character of "Santa Claus"(tm) is the exclusive possession of any sect or culture.
You are welcome to celebrate Christmas any way you like. That's the beauty of a secular society. We ALL have that right to individual observance. Now, when you start putting demands on people that they have to observe certain occasions by the standards which YOU have defined then I think you are crossing the line. Hang your "Christmas Lights" from your house and "Deck the Halls" to your hearts content but the twinkling illuminations hanging from my city hall should be non-denominational, please. It's both respectful and humble, which I would hope any good Christian would appreciate?
Cheers!, :aparty:
Shaughnn

[ddmoit]

Maybe we need a Constitutional amendment to define the physical and behavioral characteristics of Santa Claus. It could serve as another litmus test to help us determine which countries are either with us, or against us.
:x: :usflag: :x:

[kevjob]

HO HO HO MERRY CHRISTMAS AND FESTIVUS FOR THE REST OF US :santa5:

[Dave U.K.]

have a nice xmas.dont post t/many replies/.. lads..

[pa_tileman]

Gee's I thought the question was a lot more direct :tongue:

Yes, Kate it is ridiculous and quite funny. I thought kids were supposed to cry when they sat on Santas lap. Remember the Christmas story! I'm really quite simple minded though. I still just want a BIG MYSTERY BOX under the tree, even if Santa didn't really bring it. I was really upset when I found out the fat guy was just a hoax.

I still would like to see someone still up a "Hair" fairy, or how about a "Money fairy, but I'm sure someone would get offended by by that too. Like the Hair club for men.. or Donald Trump....... Your Fired!!!!!! :suspect:

Brian

[dcousins]

I hear that in some other places around the world, which aren't as Anglo-centric as suburban America, Santa Claus even has "dark skin".


Well, Santa Claus is not an American invention. Many countries have Santa Claus stories where his appearance is not like it is described in mainstream US shopping malls. Even here, Santa has been portrayed as other than what is mainstream. Why does it matter? What is wrong with non-white kids getting to see a non-white santa in a mall? Why does santa always have to fit some norm?

Regarding the initial question, I think the change is ridiculous. 'ho,ho,ho' sounds like 'ha,ha,ha' anyway. plus, i don't let my kid sit on a strange man's lap anyway.

[HS345]

You simply cannot take the Christ out of Christmas. SANTA (latin for Saint) Claus has Christian origins, like it or not. Ever heard of Jolly ole non religious secular Nick? Ne meither. :suspect:

[Shaughnn]

Greg,
No body is talking about taking the "Christ out of Christmas". Those people who chose to celebrate Christmas are COMPLETELY welcome to continue doing so. All that's being said by these changes is that the rest of the citizens of the United States aren't *required* to celebrate with you. Perhaps these complaints from the religious extremities are due to too much indulgence in the past? Maybe an even standard of cultural observance impacts some insecurity which some harbor? I know that, were the tables switched and Menorahs and Prayer Rugs more prominent during their respective observances, there would be a "Holy Crusade"(tm) wiped up to "preserve American freedoms".
All I'm saying is that the trapping of "Santa Claus" are absolutely open to interpretation by those choosing to invite him into their lives.
For historical reference, "Santa Claus" is loosely based on the Saint Nicholas of Myra, who was a Christian Bishop of the 4th Century who resided in what is now Turkey. He was the patron saint of "seamen, merchants, archers, children, prostitutes, pharmacists, lawyers, pawnbrokers, prisoners, the city of Amsterdam, and of Russia" and he was noteworthy because of his generosity toward the poor.
In the Slavic region, another folkloric tradition developed where children would put their boots by the door to their homes and fill them with carrots, straw and sugar during the longest night of the year (Winter Solstice; Dec. 21st). While the children slept, Odin (Wodan) and his cohort of fallen heroes would ride out of Valhalla in a Great Hunting Party and Odin himself would place candy in the children's boots in return for their gifts to give to his horse Sleipnir (sp). After the Christianizing of Germany, this tradition evolved into "Sinterklass" and presently takes place in December 5th in many European countrys.
The first appearance of "Santa Claus" here in the United States was in 1809 in a book called "The History of New York" which portrayed Sinterklass in an Americanized version named Santa Claus as a derogatory representation of Dutch culture. Santa Claus was then a fat Dutch sailor who smoked a pipe and wore a big green Winter coat. It wasn't until the publication of "The Night Before Christmas" in 1823 that the modern version of Santa Claus began to take shape.
So, which tradition are you looking to preserve again??? The 1600 year-old memory of the patron saint of prostitutes who gives generously to the poor or the thankful Odin who leaves candy for good children, which is even older? Surely you couldn't mean the relatively recent invention of a jolly fat man who flies through the aisles of Wal-Mart to deliver toys painted with Chinese lead-based paint to kids who neither appreciate nor warrant a gift at all?
Shaughnn

[MudMaker]

Christmas is Christmas.. The U.S is the U.S. If people don't like this they can leave and go to somewhere like France where this tolerance is practiced. Christmas is not evolving. Christmas is Christmas.. It's like all those HollyWood types that were gonna leave the U.S. if Bush was elected.. Did they go? No they stayed here and tried to change our base beliefs..
Hell, they don't even believe in our monetary system... Make their fortunes here and diss our monetary system.. Hell, lets change everything about our culture to suit the needs of a few.. Lets let gays marry.. Heck, if a father wants to mary his 5 year old daughter that's just fine.. I once really like a dog I had.. hummmm
Don't like all the scripture on the Supreme Court Building, tear it down and put up a commune in it's place. What do we need to Supreme Court for? It seems to be meaningless anyway...
At some point in time you have to stop hating America and believe in what America has stood for and still stands for.. although it seems to be deteriorating every year with the Liberal concept of what's right and what's not... :shrug:

[Shaughnn]

Wow, Frank. I can see that you've completely embraced this "Christian" thing. You got the t-shirt and bumper sticker and EVERYTHING. Now, if you can just get around to reading that book. :stick:
Shaughnn

[T_Hulse]

Shaughnn I thought your rant up above was hilarious, but actually the whole holiday is so wrong from a Christian perspective that it's no laughing matter. Everything about the holiday comes from non-Christian religions (mixing religious customs is soooooooo clearly forbiden in the Bible). Do some research for yourselves guys. Find the origin of gift giving, the tree, the yule log, mistletoe, etc., etc. Even the date is wrong by at least a season. Instead that came from the worship of a pagan sun god. A google search is good place to start with thousands of references: The History of Christmas (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22history+of+christmas&btnG=Search)
An American tradition? Even the Puritans who emmigrated here to practice devout Christianity without persecution, knew that it was wrong & forbade the celebration of it.
"But all those pagan practices & date don't matter as long as I focus on celebrating Christ's birth". Does the Bible agree? Ephesians 5:10,11 and 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 (along with many other scriptures) say emphatically no. Also read Exodus 32:4-10, where God's people adopted an Egyptian religious practice but slapped a new name on it, calling it a "feast to the Lord". Over 3000 people paid with their lives for that one. The god of the Bible is serious about not mixing religious practices even a little.
Does Jesus even want us to celebrate his birth? He commanded us to specifically celebrate his death (Luke 22:19), but said nothing about his birth. Historians say the early Christians would never have celebrated birthdays at that time, and the Bible only lists two birthdays, both of very bad people. There is no biblical basis for celebrating Christ's birth.
True Christians want to please God and follow his will. They won't have a head-in-the-sand attitude and they'll keep seeking to find out what God truly wants us to do. (Matthew 7:7)

[FrankFLA]

I heard the real reason they did. It was a preemptive measure. They were worried one of the santas may refer to a child as "nappy headed" and then follow with ho ho ho.

[Rd Tile]

AMAZING, this thread is about using the words HO HO HO, not a pissing match about Santa and religion, amazing how things get turned around, HO HO HO should stay forever and those that don't think so can KMA. :moon: :moon:

[irish tileguy in michigan]

What RD said , big time

[SevrinJ]

Seriously how many prostitutes are walking around that are going to get offended by " Ho Ho Ho " . This is rediculous . These people have way to much time on there hands. :stupid2:

[HS345]

First off, my apologies to Kathleen for hijacking this thread. Ya had to know any mention of Christmas would spark heated debate around here. If you'll indulge me just a bit longer I'd appreciate it.

No body is talking about taking the "Christ out of Christmas". You're correct about this thread, but the're are plenty of people that would love to take the Christ out of Christmas. I was speaking more litterally, if you take the word Christ out of Christmas you get, mas. Just doesn't have the same ring to it.

Tom, you're correct that there is no biblical basis for celebrating Christmas, but there is no admonition against it either. With all due respect, the Bible verses you provided are given out of context. The Bible is all about context.

Here are a couple of well written viewpoints about Christmas and Christians.

Should Christians observe Christmas? (http://www.equip.org/site/c.muI1LaMNJrE/b.2713901/k.AF39/DC335.htm)

Is Christmas Christian? (http://www.equip.org/site/c.muI1LaMNJrE/b.2880271/k.BDA3/CP9001.htm)

Oh yeah, keep the Ho Ho Ho. It's kind of a tradition to for Santa to frighten small children. Isn't it? Builds character. :eek:

[Jeremy]

The words "HO HO HO" are being discussed for the same reasons our right to bear arms are being infringed upon. Certain people CHOOSE to live in a non productive manner, and the rest of the world has to kiss ass so as to not be "degrading", when its those very people, whom degraded themselves in the first place. Lets call it as it is.

Was the world such a bad place when there wasnt open gay sex, pedophiles who were PROUD and telling their story on TV, organizations such as NAMBLA, abortion, people trying to end Christmas, and many other issues we face today??? Liberalism isnt doing a damn thing to better this country, NOTHING. Sorry to burst the equality bubble here, but everyone is NOT equal, everyone isnt cut from the same mould. The world revolved just fine without affirmative action, and a big fat white Santa Clause on every corner. If you dont like it, stay in your house.

[Shaughnn]

Tom,
Excellent points but I'm still not willing to argue *against* the celebration of Christmas. I'm just pointing out that there is no historical basis for a rigid depiction of "Santa Claus", which is still on topic.
I strongly feel that everyone should be allowed to make their own observances in what ever way they choose. And in that vein, I'm reminded that the public celebration of such holidays is an affront to your very strong Christianity. So, it's not just Muslims, and Jews, and Hindus, and Atheists who might appreciate a more modest display of Christmas, it's some Christians too! As well as your arguements, I've met some Christians who feel that all of the tinsel and lights and marketing and pomp which has been culturally-welded to this occasion has "cheapened" the sentiment and made a sincere and joyous occasion into a kitschy exercise in self-indulgence rather than celebration.
Shaughnn

[ddmoit]

I can't disagree with anything in Shaughnn's previous post.

I's also like to point out that it's my understanding that the most popular depiction of Santa Claus was brought to us by none other than the Coca-Cola Company. The Santa we know got his start hawking for Coke!

[MudMaker]

The Santa we know got his start hawking for Coke!
Dan, even more reason to keep the Ho Ho Ho tradition... :lol1:

I've met some Christians who feel that all of the tinsel and lights and marketing and pomp which has been culturally-welded to this occasion has "cheapened" the sentiment and made a sincere and joyous occasion into a kitschy exercise in self-indulgence rather than celebration.
Shaughnn... Had to look up Kitschy... :(
Kitsch /kɪtʃ/ is a term of German or Yiddish origin that has been used to categorize art that is considered an inferior, tasteless copy of an existing style. The term is also used more loosely in referring to any art that is pretentious to the point of being in bad taste, and also commercially produced items that are considered trite or crass.
Yep, this is correct.... Maybe due to over agressive entrepreneurial types. There goes Capitalism again...
Over the years, I have developed more reverance for Christmas than I have in the past.. It has taken on more meaning the older I get.
Am I certain that Christ was born in a manger? rose from the dead? turned a few fish and wine into a feast? No.. Still doesn't matter.. I just accept it.. I don't try to refute it anymore through fact or fiction..

[ddmoit]

OK, my Coke-Santa story is not altogether correct. Here's the straight dope...

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/msantaclaus.html

http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/santa.asp

[Theold--scottyb]

shaughnn
Your right about your last post. But why cant I have the choice to see santa in the mall, or christmas trees? Why is it the people that say they are offended get it their way? I dont go around knocking others beliefs. but yet they always stick their nose where it dont belong. They say ho ho ho offends someone. I say not having santa say it offends me..

I say we just blow the hole freaking world up and be done with it.. Way to many ignorant asses in this pathetic world, that have nothing better to do then stick their nose where it dont belong.

[Shaughnn]

Scott,
You're painting yourself "the victim" when you don't have a credible claim. The passive party in these complaints are those who do not wish to endure these displays. If Ed Asner were to parade down a city street wearing nothing but a thong and a smile, you would have every right to ask that his "offensive presence" be censured. These people aren't demanding that Christmas be banned. All they are asking is that Christmas not be forced down their throats. Believe it or not, there are many people who find it rude and offensive to force one's personal preferences upon others. There are actually people out there who are devoutly religious and who find public discussion of Faith to be crass and insincere.
If you have found solace in some Faith, that's peachy for you! But living in an arrogant bubble where you imagine that yours is the "only" way is bound to find you disappointed more often than not.
Shaughnn

[MudMaker]

I think FDR said it best...
'In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.'
Theodore Roosevelt 1907
Again, only if you want to live here..... ;) Otherwise - git going :shades:

[Shaughnn]

Frank,
That's a "Teddy" Roosevelt quote, not one from FDR. Secondly, it addresses immigration issues. Who in this entire thread has suggested that the call for a more respectful and modest holiday season has come from anyone besides 100% American citizens? I think your right paddle is a tight in the oarlock , Buddy. :)
Shaughnn

[Hamilton]

Did i miss something in the story? I thought I read they were changing
hohoho because it frightend some children. :scratch:

[jjwq8]

All I know is that if Sandy Claus (the desert cousin of Santa) pitches up on any radar screens this 24 December in his sled pulled by 6 camels, unless he has had a shave, he will be deemed hostile and his ass will be fragged shonuff:nod::shades:

[MudMaker]

Shaughnn,
Well I did get his last name right.. :rolleyes:
Damn Shaughnn, I can't get anyting past you... :uhh:
but........
The Liberals on this Forum - still haven't gotten it right... :blah:

[bbcamp]

That story is nothing new to me. When I was working part time in high school, my boss dressed up as Santa, but never used the booming "Ho-Ho-Ho" around toddlers. "That might scare them," he said. It made sense then, and it makes sense now.

Which is a lot more than I can say about the debate that got stirred up here... :scratch:

(Holiday greetings)*, one and all!


* insert the one you like here. I'll mean it, whatever you put there. :D

[Theold--scottyb]

The victim part is very wrong Shaughnn. I personally dont care what anyone does. They can have a gay nude parade on christmas and it wouldnt bother me the least. I just wonder, why cant everyone just keep their mouths shut? If you dont like the TV show, turn the channel. same with the radio. If you dont like the christmas stuff, dont go where its at. Thats pretty simple.

BTW. Im not for or against anyones religion. I personally dont believe in it. That being said. I wouldnt deprive my kids or family of something my wife and kids believe in..

[Theold--scottyb]

And where do you get the impression that I am arogant and live in some type of bubble?

[Rd Tile]

Bump. :bang:


AMAZING, this thread is about using the words HO HO HO, not a pissing match about Santa and religion, amazing how things get turned around, HO HO HO should stay forever and those that don't think so can KMA. :moon: :moon:

[T_Hulse]

Rd, the HO HO HO is a religious thing. Plain and simple. Has it become something different to you? It kinda sounds like you don't get what it's about from the tone of your posts. :shrug:

[cx]

Rd, the HO HO HO is a religious thing. Plain and simple.Well, I can believe that, Tom. Yep, and it makes as much sense as the rest of that "celebration." :rolleyes:

[Rd Tile]

Why, because Santa says it? :shrug:

I know everyone has there point of view, it just seems amazing that anyone here talks to each other after the way things blow up on some of these threads. I find it very amusing at times, but that's me.

Have very Merry Christmas, HO HO HO, don't think 2 to 5 year olds sitting on Santas lap in the mall are going to offended by Ho Ho Ho.

Maybe if any Ho's are walking by, they might be, well, tough on them. :D

CX, bah humbug. :D

[Scooter]

Ultimately, this is about the commercialization of Santa and this holiday.

The original post was an article about a commercial company that supplies Santa Clauses for shopping malls, another commercial enterprise.

Maybe Dan is getting to me, or I am turning into a Ron Paul clone, but this is the choice of business and private enterprise ought to be able to select the Santa Clause they want. If the business experience of the Santa company reflects that small children are frightened having their mothers force them to sit on the lap of some fat ass drunk loser who can't get a real job, with a fake beard and B.O. saying Ho Ho Ho, then thats their decision.

If you guys don't like the concept, then you form your own Santa company and go to Austraila and compete with them.

Sheesh!

[Rd Tile]

:)

[T_Hulse]

Rd, Ho Ho Ho is part of Christmas, Christ-Mass, the celebration of Christ's birth. You seem to have the most hostile speech on this thread by far. I'm just curious how you reconcile that kind of speech with defending a celebration about Christ? I'm guessing you're an atheist? In which case I wonder why you care about a Christian celebration? :scratch:
Perhaps one of the many reasons Ho Ho Ho doesn't deserve any special protection is that all the hypocrisy surrounding the holiday tends to make it offensive to some. :o

[HS345]

I find it hard to believe that anyone would be offended by the celebration of Christmas.

We have a constitutional right to freedom of religion. We have no constitutional right to not be offended.

So, to anyone that is offended by the celebration of a Christian holiday, sorry 'bout your luck. :rudolph: :gettree: :santa5: :santa: :tree:

Feel free to work on December 25th. :) I'll be celebrating the birth of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

[Shaughnn]

Greg,
Again, it's not about "banning" Christmas. It's about not shoving it into the faces of people who don't hold your same Faith. And it's especially about public institutions not promoting one Faith above any other, which is actually expressly prohibited by our Constitution. If business enterprises find that it also makes financial sense to tone things down, then that's perfectly within their "rights" also. While you've got a "right" to hold whatever Faith you choose, you are not "entitled" to the municipal "welfare" of cities footing the bill to dress things up with lights and tinsel just so you can feel complete. :)
Shaughnn

[HS345]

It's about not shoving it into the faces of people who don't hold your same Faith.
No one is shoving CHRISTmas into anybody's face.
And it's especially about public institutions not promoting one Faith above any other, which is actually expressly prohibited by our Constitution.
Wrongo Shaughnn me boy. While it is true that a bad supreme court decision has put us in the place we are now, the original intent of the framers was never as such. Christmas decorations on the town square is not, making a law respecting an establishment of religion. What part of "nor prohibit the free excercise thereof " is so difficult to understand?

This nation was founded on Christian principles. The vast majority of it's population is Christian. This fact is inescapable. The libs always cry "The tyranny of the majority" :cry: There is no such thing. It's called, THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.
What about the tyranny of the minority? Eh?
If business enterprises find that it also makes financial sense to tone things down, then that's perfectly within their "rights" also.
On this we agree. :)

[Shaughnn]

That's fascinating, Greg! A panel of legal scholars blundered and nobody has ever thought to correct their obvious mistake in all of these intervening years? It's a really good thing that we've got you here to channel the "Founding Fathers" for us, Greg. Tell Thomas Jefferson, "Hi!" from me, will you please?
Meanwhile, would you care to look up the word "myopic" and see if it might apply to your comments above, please?
:shake:
Shaughnn

[HS345]

Shaughnn, I don't need to channel the founding fathers. The language of the constitution is plain and clear.

Perhaps you should do a little study on the history of the Supreme Court. Mental illness, personal agendas, racism. All part of it. You might learn something.

You can feel free to simply use the word myopic without asking me to look it up. I have a fairly expanded vocabulary. :tup1:

[hubbard53]

well, like everything else, its open to interpretation. My interpretation of the constitution is that the gov't will not prevent anyone from practicing whatever religion they want. . . that doesnt prevent gov't figures from practicing what they want to practice. The white house will still have a tree and they'll still get sworn by taking the oath on a bible. . . majority DOES rule

[Theold--scottyb]

ahhhhhhhh screw it, who cares.. :bonk:

[CRB]

"shoving it in their faces" ...in UK we've had all this debate, although it still rumbles on each Yuletide - whenever minorites are asked (mediawise) are you offended by Christmas stuff in towns - they laugh. If its a Christian country (which gives freedom for all to practice other faiths) then why not celibrate Christmas in either religious or 'holiday season' fashion is the reply. Its been done for years, people enjoy it. Hey the postal Service this year even issued stamps designs for December with - shock - Christian images on! We were all astounded. Thought the government had banned that kind of prosthelytizing....
CB

[CRB]

forgot - :rudolph: :rudolph: ho, ho,h.....ohno stop that..look what trouble its caused here. :)

Cb

[dgunnels]

People are SO serious. Folks need to lighten up and not worry about these things. It's Santa for cryin' out loud, tell the PC Police to find something else to mess with. I'm sure they can find plenty. At this rate no one will adress ANYONE in fear of offending SOMEONE.

[John Bridge]

I'm not addressing anyone in particular here, but I do feel obligated to clarify a couple things on what the Constitution actually means.

There is no proscription on anyone making public religious displays, and that includes Christian displays. If you want to do it in your front yard or in the front window of your business downtown, it's perfectly fine -- so long as it's private property. The hitch comes about when the displays are made on government property because that belongs to every citizen, and a citizen of one faith should not have to suffer the displays of another, because that implies a religious preference on the part of government, a sort of "establishment" which is proscribed by the First Amendment.

The founders did not bring about a "Christian" nation. They instead founded a country with religious freedom, and this includes freedom from religion, even freedom from Christianity. It just happens that at the time of the founding there were very few citizens who would admit to being non-Christian. It's not that way now, and it probably never will be again. People need to get used to that idea, and we'll all get along a lot better. ;)

[dgunnels]

Well said Sir! And while we're at it let me offer a furtherance to your statements, Christmas should not be a paid holiday. That's right and I'm a govment employee. Religious holidays should not be a paid day or an off day for the employees of any governmental agency, myself included, as this is showing favoritism of one religion over another. As John said, it just so happened that the dudes who wrote the thing were Christian and these traditions have been in place for a long time; it doesn't make them right.

[John Bridge]

Well, now I have to disagree with you, Neesie. I don't think Christmas IS a religious holiday, not when it's based on Santa and ho ho ho. :D

[dgunnels]

I think Christmas has also become quite secularized but you can't have your cake and eat it too. Of course, the obvious solution is to change the name of the holiday we celebrate on 12/25 but then that would put me in the same camp as those wishing to ban "Ho Ho Ho." wouldn't it? Interesting dilema, no? :scratch:

[Rd Tile]

TOM, an atheist? good one my friend, I was going to invite you over for Christmas eve, but I'll be at midnight mass, you can come over Christmas day if you like, it's the house with nice nativity scene under the Christmas tree with the 5000 lights or so we place on our home.

Thanks for the history lesson though, almost forgot what Christmas is.

As for my hostility, it's aimed solely at those responsible for this stupid crap in the first place, not any members here. :mad: :mad:

Next time I walk into the mall and Santa says Ha Ha Ha, I'd be more inclined to ask him what he's laughing at instead of placing my donation in the box for the needy, pure nonsense if you ask me.

What's next, some gay rights activist telling me not to use Tooth Fairy anymore.

[MudMaker]

Good one Rich.. :lol1:

[Shaughnn]

Rich,
What, pray tell, do you *use* the Tooth Fairy for? :eek:
Shaughnn

[MudMaker]

Shaughnn,
Now that Thanksgiving is over, "Celebrated it yesterday", I have a lot more breathing room.. er.. maybe less breathing room.. :D
But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American
I interpreted that speech by FD.. er... Teddy.. to mean that every person coming to America has a responsibility to become an American in every sense of the word.. i.e. "Every Facet"
This obviously hasn't taken place by droves entering this Country.. and... by saying that... T. Roosevelt implied that people here must have an allegiance to this Country and it's customs and traditions also,
i.e.(Every Facet)
People entering the U.S. and becoming citizens here and having children here, have continually argued against our customs, disputed most of our laws, mores, traditions, idiology that just downright defines America...
The United States Congress in it's abounding wisdom has not done it's job to preserve what makes us the U.S. It has failed miserably in protecting our heritage and our beliefs, and has succumbed to the people pleasing Political Correctness so indicative of the Liberal Democrats and so called environmental forces whose roots stem from Socialist and Communist organizations.
From finding it offensive to show your face on a drivers license, arguing against being sworn in on the bible instead of the Koran (Keith Ellison),
refusing to say the Pledge of Aligance (Barack Hussein Obama) and omitting "Under God" from it, desecrating our flag, ignoring our language,
suggesting that two men could marry each other, asking that all Christian words or symbols in government be removed, demanding the removal of all crosses from highways that denote the loss of life from police killed in the line of duty... ya know what? I think I could go on all night, but I'll spare everyone..
Yea, I think the root cause begins with immigration and how children are not taught these expectations by previous generations nor expected to adhere to "Every Facet"..
As James Madison once said:
Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.
Which is where I think we are today...
Government Of the People by the People... We've done it to ourselves.
It's time to draw a line in the sand and say "No More"..

[MudMaker]

Shaughnn,
He said Tooth Fairy.... Not the Tooth Fairy.. to be precise.. :D

[sdaniels7114]

I wonder if the Pagans, who celebrated this holiday much more than 2007 years ago, got offended when the n00b Christians came along? Its not so hard to imagine that ancient people might celebrate the day when the 'gods' stopped taking the sun away for longer and longer periods each day and began to give it back (Winter Solstice,) and its not at all coincidental that Christmas Day and Winter Solstice are so close together. Anyway I think its interesting that at one time the traditionalists worked to keep the 'Christ' out of Christmas. I wonder if those traditionalists called the Christians Communists too?

[Beaux]

What! There's No Santa, No Tooth Fairy, No Easter Bunny....damn life must realy suck around ya'lls house. :stick:

[MudMaker]

Steve,
I be talkin bout this Great Country... and when it all began..
It began with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution... Birth :nod:

[HS345]

The Mudmeister wrote:
There is no proscription on anyone making public religious displays, and that includes Christian displays. If you want to do it in your front yard or in the front window of your business downtown, it's perfectly fine -- so long as it's private property. The hitch comes about when the displays are made on government property because that belongs to every citizen, and a citizen of one faith should not have to suffer the displays of another, because that implies a religious preference on the part of government, a sort of "establishment" which is proscribed by the First Amendment.

The founders did not bring about a "Christian" nation. They instead founded a country with religious freedom, and this includes freedom from religion, even freedom from Christianity. It just happens that at the time of the founding there were very few citizens who would admit to being non-Christian. It's not that way now, and it probably never will be again. People need to get used to that idea, and we'll all get along a lot better.
How do you get to that from this:
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.

I wonder if the Pagans, who celebrated this holiday much more than 2007 years ago, got offended when the n00b Christians came along? Its not so hard to imagine that ancient people might celebrate the day when the 'gods' stopped taking the sun away for longer and longer periods each day and began to give it back (Winter Solstice,) and its not at all coincidental that Christmas Day and Winter Solstice are so close together. Anyway I think its interesting that at one time the traditionalists worked to keep the 'Christ' out of Christmas. I wonder if those traditionalists called the Christians Communists too?

When Christmas was originally instituted, December 25th was a pagan festival which commemorated the birthday of a false god. While this is a historical fact, what is often overlooked by the church is its intent in choosing December 25th in the first place. The church was not Christianizing a pagan festival, but was establishing the celebration of the birth of Christ as a rival celebration. Today the world has all but forgotten about the pagan gods of Greece and Rome, but at least a billion people on planet earth today consider themselves to be followers of Jesus Christ.

[jjwq8]

Christmas is no longer a religious festival.

Come here and watch the locals, Moslems to a man (all bar about 3 small families) celebrate it with gusto, buy christmas trees, decorations, santa suits, snow shovels (oops wrong thread), and anything the vendors can foist upon them.

Sandy Claus rules!

[MudMaker]

Jeremy,
I need a translation here.. Can you splain? :confused:
Moslems to a man (all bar about 3 small families)

[Shaughnn]

Frank,
It means that there are only three small families who are NOT Muslim. But the rest seem to enjoy celebrating Chrstmas just fine. I'll bet Wal-Mart;Dubai even sell through their fruitcake inventory?
Shaughnn

[ddmoit]

Frank,

I've seen every episode of Monty Python's Flying Circus, and I have consumed countless pints of Guinness. I believe I am qualified to translate Jeremy's banter.

Moslems to a man : Every person of the Islamic faith. To a man suggests a margin of error less than one person.

bar about 3 small families: Three families (small ones) are the exception to the previous statement.

:D

[John Bridge]

Greg,

How do I get from where to where? I think I stated it pretty plainly. The Bill of Rights, which includes the First Amendment, was conveyed to the states and to the people by the Reconstruction-era amendments. "Congress" now means any government. "Law" means any act. Erecting a display upon government property (anywhere in the country) that favors one religion over another represents an "establishment" by government. I can't state it any simpler than that. :)

[John Corley]

Nice translation Dan, that's exactly what I thought it meant. :deal:

[Dave Taylor]

Is it just me..... or does this thread seem to be going in
Ever Decreasing Circles (http://www.johnbridge.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=56176&page=6)

[ITO]

...The Bill of Rights, which includes the First Amendment, was conveyed to the states and to the people by the Reconstruction-era amendments. "Congress" now means any government. "Law" means any act.

With all due respect I dont think that is the definition of law that I would use.

Erecting a display upon government property (anywhere in the country) that favors one religion over another represents an "establishment" by government. I can't state it any simpler than that.

The Supreme court would disagree with you:

The inclusion of religious symbols in public holiday displays came before the Supreme Court in Lynch v. Donnelly (1984), The Court upheld the public display of a crib and nativity scene, ruling that any benefit to religion was "indirect, remote, and incidental."

[Brad Denny]

As a believer in Christ, I fully agree with the separation of church and state. Christians as a whole tend to forget that sufferings are to be endured for their faith (myself included). If we make it mandatory for all to do as we do that makes it awfully easy on us. ;) I pray for God to favor our country and the folks in it (soldiers, elected officials, you, etc.) in hopes to have his protection, but do not expect for God to be forced into anyone's life. Where's the glory for Him in that, and do I really want "the people" as a whole determining how I worship? Let's just keep it open to all religions to prevent hangings in the street for now. :D

[Scooter]

The Celtic Gods to whom I pray do not celebrate Christmas--However March 17th is our coopted holiday.

[HS345]

How do I get from where to where? I think I stated it pretty plainly. The Bill of Rights, which includes the First Amendment, was conveyed to the states and to the people by the Reconstruction-era amendments. "Congress" now means any government. "Law" means any act. Erecting a display upon government property (anywhere in the country) that favors one religion over another represents an "establishment" by government. I can't state it any simpler than that.
John, That is precisely my point. I wasn't necesarilly asking how you personally arrived at that conclusion. But, how supposed legal scholars arrived there.

I do not see how any intelligent, sane, individual could glean those meanings from the wording of the first amendment. It is plain for all to see, wrong.
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.

[Scooter]

Then I guess the Supreme Court isn't sane, Greg?

[HS345]

Then I guess the Supreme Court isn't sane, Greg?
I don't know about the current makeup. (Although Ruth Bader Ginsburg makes me wonder).
But history certainly records cases of mental illness on the supreme court.

[Scooter]

Under our system, the Supremes make Supreme law. They have, along with various Courts of Appeal, banned muicipal sponsered "Christian" themes in parks and buildings. I would suspect if Islam took over, would likewise prohibit Ramadan decorations in government buildings.

Accept this process, or move to Canada.

[HS345]

Under our system the Supreme Court isn't supposed to MAKE any law. :stupid2: We have a legislative branch for that. They are only supposed to INTERPRET law.

I would suspect if Islam took over, would likewise prohibit Ramadan decorations in government buildings.
You just don't get it. Do you?

Accept this process, or move to Canada.
No way Hoser! I will NOT accept it, I will fight to change it. Change it back to the way it was meant to be. If I fail, so be it, at least I will take comfort in that fact that I wasn't just another :sheep: :sheep: :sheep: :sheep: :sheep: :sheep: :sheep:

[John Bridge]

We are in disagreement. I don't think that's going to change. ;)

But I've got to ask a question or two. How would you interpret the meaning if you were a member of a minority faith -- say a Muslim or a Jew? Or if you were a non-believer?

And although it's true that the majority rules, it only rules so long as it acts in accordance with the Constitution. In that respect, the Constitution was written to protect minorities, because it can be assumed the majority will take care of itself. Do you or do you not agree with that? :)

[MudMaker]

We are in disagreement. I don't think that's going to change.
Boy John, You can say that again.... :nod:

[HS345]

Hi John, I would hope I could separate my personal feelings from the decision making process, and simply interpret the words before me. But I see your point. I agree with your second point.

[Brad Denny]

Interesting p.o.v. kinda related to Christmas/religion/politics from Ben Stein.http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/benstein2.asp

I think it pertains to the discussion at hand. :shrug:

[kate42]

Brad :wave:

That article, IMO, is right on the money.
Mr. Stein says "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."
I agree with those words. Instead of banning Christmas displays in public areas, let all people of all religious persuasions display their religious objects during their times of celebration.
This country has been called the great "melting pot". Let’s keep it that way. Let’s get along with everybody. Let’s share our different cultures. Let’s not let the small minority ruin it for the majority. :)
BTW, I am not a student of the Constitution and do not feel qualified to argue on it. I am going to study it and see what I get out of it. Watch out. :D

[John Bridge]

Well, I agree with that commentary. I don't want anybody to get pushed around. :)

[T_Hulse]

Kate it is a very common (dishonest) tactic of skilled debaters to try to prove their point by restating their opponents view in a twisted ridiculous way. Hence when Ben says "...no idea where the concept came from that America is an explicitly atheist country", it's a false premise. It's a very appealing argument though to those who want the governement to pay for public displays of their personal religion, but nobody really thinks that the US is atheist.
Another reframing of the argument is that it is all about "banning" Christmas in public. It's not. Instead it's about paying for it with taxpayer dollars. The government would go broke if it gave equal displays to every religion in our airports, courtrooms, city streets, etc. How do you feel about paying for Wickan and Satan-worshiper displays, and displaying them all up and down the center streets of idyllic country towns throughout the heart of the country?
Here is an anology for those that can't understand why anyone else could object to Christmas. Imagine a large crowd of people went to a man's home and they said they went there to celebrate his birthday. He does not favor the celebration of birthdays. He does not like to see people overeat or get drunk or engage in loose conduct or be materialistic. But many of them there do all those things, and they bring presents for everyone there except him! On top of all that, they pick the birthday of one of the man's enemies as the date for the celebration. How would that man feel? Would you want to be part of that crowd? This is exactly what is being done at Christmas.

[HS345]

Wow. You must be a master debator yourownself. That's one of THE most twisted descriptions of Christmas I've ever heard.

[T_Hulse]

But the analogies are true Greg. I hope it might show why some object to the holiday because they are Christian.
Could I ask your thoughts at least on the part of the analogy about celebrating a man's birthday not on his own date, but on that of his enemy?

[MudMaker]

Tom... Whose the enemy in your analogy as it relates to Christmas??
Ho Ho Ho :shrug:

[Shaughnn]

Frank,
Look up "Sol Invictus" and you'll see not only the origin for the modern Christmas calendar but also some celebration "traditions" which neither the Old Testament or the New Testament God would appreciate.
Shaughnn

[Scooter]

Ben Stein's commentary is of course episdoic--it is personal and relates only to him--he does not speak for the world of Jews, Arabs, and Buddahists, some of which take offense at the iconization of Christmas. Unless, of course, someone appointed him to speak for all the rest of religions.

Would you be OK with your Town Hall or Courthouse having a Ramadan display for the month of Rammadan?

I'm not hearing that.

[Shaughnn]

Or your city offices shut down every afternoon to honor afternoon prayer?
Shaughnn

[Brad Denny]

Stein is Jewish.

[John Corley]

"Would you be offended by your courthouse having a Rammadan display"

My answer is no, I would not be offended by anyone having a display celebrating there religious holiday.

[Brad Denny]

For those who read the Stein link, any comments on the "Update" section at the bottom?

[T_Hulse]

Brad I would disagree with her that God has stepped back away from protecting us because of any recent actions. He actually stepped back long ago, after Adam & Eve decided to eat from the forbidden fruit. It wasn't about food, it was about whether or not God had the right to decide good & bad for us.
He's currently allowing us to prove on our own that we're not able to 'even direct our own steps' (Jerimiah 10:23) after he was challenged by Satan. 1 John 5:19 says that "the world is lying in the power of the wicked one", and John 14:30 calls him "the god of this system of things", so anything bad that happens now is either directly or indirectly related to him, not to God.

Even if he had stepped back because of recent backlash on religion in government, I seriously doubt he would mind restrictions on Christmas: a secularized, commercialized, holiday steeped in pagan traditions and with no biblical basis for it's celebration. :shades:

[MudMaker]

Shaughnn,
Our Forefathers came here to start a new nation, new traditions and divest themselves of all of the encumberances of previous worlds.. i.e. Start Anew.. I'm good with that...
The Declaration of Independence states that, "WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation."...
I take that to mean the God which the early settlers brought with them.. The God of all Gods.. God the Father, God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit..
The Father of all Gods.

When the Constitution and those who wrote it, refer to freedom of religion, how many different religions were they talking about at the time? Really...
When they refer to the Protection of Divine Providence, they are referring again to the God that they were praying to, to help them building a new Nation..
You can go back a fer piece to Egyptians, Mesopotanians, hell.. go back to the Neanderthals... I don't have to...
I can simplistically start with this Nation's early beginnings and accept it.. :)

[Shaughnn]

Frank,
I don't find that argument credible. If you truly felt that way, you'd be MUCH more versed in the peculiar practices of the Plymouth Rock Puritans. Can you describe how THEY chose to celebrate Christmas?
I reject the notion that this nation was founded as a "Christian Nation"(tm). That's a bit of fiction sprouted from the "Left Behind" crowd and the Flat Earthers. "Freedom of Religion" means that no one may be compelled to abandon their own beliefs. In no way does "dissolve the Political Bands" imply a religious connection which must be exchanged. It means that, once here, allegiances to one's former King or Monarch must be forgotten in favor of this blossoming Democracy. Have you ever bothered to research how many different congregations were active within Revolutionary Philadelphia ALONE at the time the Declaration of Independence was signed? Not all were "christian", not all have survived to this present day, and not even all of those Christian congregations were in concordance with one another.
Your opinion about American history is tragically skewed, my friend.
Shaughnn

[HS345]

Hi Tom, Sorry it took me so long to get back to you, I was away for Thanksgiving and my cell phone quit letting me post for some reason.

You wrote:But the analogies are true Greg. I hope it might show why some object to the holiday because they are Christian.
Could I ask your thoughts at least on the part of the analogy about celebrating a man's birthday not on his own date, but on that of his enemy?
I don't believe your analogies are true. The date that we celebrate Christmas is not as important as the meaning we ascribe to it. The Bible has no proscription for, or against celebrating Christ's birth. I linked to these very well written opinions in an earlier post, but I'll re-post them for your (hopefully) benefit. :) Should Christians observe Christmas? (http://www.equip.org/site/c.muI1LaMNJrE/b.2713901/k.AF39/DC335.htm)
Is Christmas Christian? (http://www.equip.org/site/c.muI1LaMNJrE/b.2880271/k.BDA3/CP9001.htm)

As to how Christ would feel about celebrating His birthday on the date of His "enemy", well I can't speak for Christ. I assume that by the word enemy, you mean the use of a pagan holiday to celebrate Christmas. Well, it was never intended to co-opt, but to compete. Today the pagan gods are all but forgotten, but there are over a billion Christians worldwide. Additionally, Christ DID tell us to love our enemies. Though I don't think your enemy analogy is entirely accurate to begin with.

[T_Hulse]

Thank you for posting that again Greg. :) I did read it carefully. The author makes basically one argument for celebrating Christmas: that pagan practices can be "converted" to Christian use.
That might seem a little odd to some that read the Bible and get the feeling that God has zero tolerance for mixing of religion and worship to other gods. (2 Corinthians 6:14-17), but the author uses a couple of scriptures that show that meat sacrificed to idols can be eaten by Christians. There is a problem here though, he is misusing those scriptures. Meat is a thing, created by God. The context of those scriptures is Paul telling us that those things came from God first and so it's not wrong to partake.
Similarly, if you bring mistletoe into your house as part of a bouquet at various times of the year, that is a thing created by God for us to enjoy. But if you hang it upside down by itself in doorway on Dec. 25th, that is not a thing, but a practice, a pagan practice condemed by the Bible at the scripture above and elsewhere. The same holds true for gift giving, the yule log, and almost all the other traditions that make up Christmas.

[Scooter]

Actually, many civilizations have Gods--thats plural. So the reference to Egypt is plain wrong.

[T_Hulse]

Frank here is a quote you might be interested in regarding this nation's founding father's and Christmas: :) The pilgrims, English separatists that came to America in 1620, were even more orthodox in their Puritan beliefs than Cromwell. As a result, Christmas was not a holiday in early America. From 1659 to 1681, the celebration of Christmas was actually outlawed in Boston...

After the American Revolution, English customs fell out of favor, including Christmas. In fact, Congress was in session on December 25, 1789, the first Christmas under America's new constitution. Christmas wasn't declared a federal holiday until June 26, 1870.
- The History Channel

[HS345]

Tom, There were two articles by two different individuals. Did you read them both? I am just letting you know, in case you missed one. Also, you may want to look around that website a bit, some interesting stuff there. :)

I guess you and I will just have to agree to disagree. I appreciate the dialouge though, and look forward to more in the future.

I know I can be a bit acerbic at times, and some board members simply ignore me and hope I'll go away. :D

[T_Hulse]

I'm sorry Greg, I did miss the other one. I have read it now too, and I don't see anything really different there. I already addressed the idea that pagan practices (not things) can be converted to Christian use (2 Corinthians 6:14-17). Why don't you tell me if you see other reasons why it would be ok?

[kate42]

Greg :wave:

Don't you dare go away. :shake: You can't please all of the people (moderators) all of the time. :D

:)

[HS345]

Kathleen, Thanks! I can't tell you how much I appreciate your compliment. :dance:

Tom, I think scripture supports what is written in the articles, and I agree with the authors. I still think it basically hinges on what one pours into the celebration of Christmas, including the mistletoe, yule log, etc.

Let me make it clear, I am certainly no Bible scholar. But there are Bible scholars in whom I place a great deal of trust. Not because I take their word without question, but because they challenge me to test EVERYTHING in light of what Scripture teaches. And, they back up their claims some with very convincing arguments.

Tom, it might help the discussion a bit (for me) if I asked you a personal question. Do you consider yourself a Christian? And if so, what denomination do you adhere to? Please do not feel any obligation whatsoever to answer, I just thought it might help if I had an idea where you were coming from. :)

[T_Hulse]

Greg I too am challenging you to find out what the Bible really teaches. Not just to say 'I trust these guys because...', but to really decide for yourself, from the Bible. :)
You've referred to those guys four times now. I showed you how 2 Corinthians 6:14-17 condemmed those pratices, and explained rationally how those authors misused the context of 1 Cor. 8:4-7 & 10:25-31, their main point. You don't need a bible "scholar" to think for you. This is a serious matter for a Christian. John 17:3 says "This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ". It's time to show me what you think the Bible says, or perhaps consider some more your participation in a holiday even your authors say "should not be considered essential to Christian practice".

To answer your question, I'm one of Jehovah's Witnesses. But it doesn't matter what I believe; only what the Bible says. :)

[HS345]

Tom, I didn't want to assume that you were a member of The Watchtower Society, but I did have the feeling you were. I do not wish to demean your faith of choice. We could start a whole other thread about the differences between orthodox Christianity and The Watchtower.

If you are reading from the New World translation, and I am reading from the New Living translation, I doubt we can ever come to a consensus. Our faiths have some MAJOR differences, not the least of which is the nature of Jesus Christ.

Certainly, celebrating Christmas is not essential to Christian practice, I never said it was. But neither is it against it. (Wow, I'm begining to sound like a broken record.)

I appreciate your challenging me to trust what the Bible says, and not what men say, I really do. I will look up all of the verses you have quoted, in my Bible, and I will attempt to cross reference them to a copy of yours. I'll get back to you. :tup2:

[T_Hulse]

Greg the scriptures I've quoted come from the New World Translation & the King James Version. I think you'll find they mean the same in any bible. I was careful to double check translations so as not to give any reason for distraction on that matter.
Hopefully our faiths have a major similarity: an adherance to the teachings of the Bible and of Jesus Christ. I would never try to convince anyone of anything by telling them to just trust one translation or another.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts on those scriptures. :)

[MudMaker]

Shaughnn,
Your opinion about American history is tragically skewed, my friend.
You should know by now that I don't let facts get in the way
of my opinion... :shades:

[mark.lee]

:fish2: dah :smash:

[flatfloor]

Peoples, this thread is sliding into a religious discussion. Invariably that leads to hurt feelings, nasty arguments etc. Please keep this on a secular plane.

Separation of church and state. :)

[HS345]

Are religious discussions agin' the rules flat?

[flatfloor]

No just common sense. :)

[MudMaker]

and it all started from a simple Ho Ho Ho... :santa:

[Brad Denny]

Ha Ha Ha :D

[ddmoit]

I thought the last several posts were quite civil and interesting.

[kate42]

:wave: :wave:

You guys are funny. He He He :lol1: :lol1:

[kate42]

No just common sense.

Huh? :D

[John Bridge]

No. Any discussion is fine here as long as it doesn't get personal or mean. ;)

"I take that to mean the God which the early settlers brought with them.. The God of all Gods.. God the Father, God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.."

Frank, if you can get that out of "Nature's God" and "Devine Providence" you're good to go. ;)

However, it's just not the case. When you study the biographies of the prominent founders and their own writings you'll find them a varied lot as far as religious convictions are concerned. Certainly, there were devout Christians among them -- a couple of the guys at the Constitutional Convention were ministers, for example. George Washington, president of the convention, was a dignitary at his church back in Virginia. Benjamin Franklin admonished his daughter to be a Christian. In fact, although I can't prove it, I'll bet if asked, all of the delegates to the convention claimed to be Christian, and so did many of the other founders who were not at the convention.

But like Paul Harvey, I'm going to tell you the rest of the story. Many of the prominent founders, those folks at the forefront of politics during the revolutionary and constitutional periods, were deists. Deists profess a belief in God, but they don't believe that god concerns himself with the everyday cares, tribulations, thoughts, worries of humans. Although some might, many of them don't believe Jesus of Nazareth to be God. Many, if not most, don't believe in the Holy Spirit. Few Deists pray.

Did you know, for example, that Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, compiled his own New Testament? In it there are no miracles, no resurrection, no immaculate conception, no Pentecost -- nor are there any other supernatural events. And did you know that John Adams encouraged him? Both Jefferson and Adams called themselves Christians, but they weren't like the Christians you claim founded a "Christian nation."

George Washington was famous almost all his adult life. Almost everything he ever wrote has been preserved. In all of the thousands of letters and papers not once is the name Jesus Christ mentioned. How can that be? Didn't the "Father of his Country" help found a Christian nation?

Thomas Paine, whose "Common Sense" is cited as a causal factor in the beginning of the American Revolution, proclaimed himself in writing to be a "Deist." Paine had no use for organized religion and certainly not Christianity. Would he have been able to profess this publicly in a "Christian nation"? In a nation of religious freedom, perhaps.

James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," when asked why the document does not contain a reference to "God," replied, "We forgot."

At the convention itself, when it was proposed that each session be started with a prayer, it wasn't acted on, and the entire convention was carried on without invocation of any sort.

Ben Franklin, who professed himself to be a "Christian," when he was very old was asked whether he believed in life after death. He replied that he wasn't sure but that he was about to find out (paraphrased).

Do these follows strike you as the type that would bring about a "Christian nation"?

I think you and many others are confused. The founders of our nation were students of "the Enlightenment." They were free thinkers, most of them. They would not have been prone to encumber themselves and others with ANY established religion.

A true rejuvenation of Christian evangelism did occur much later, in the 1820s, but the Second Great Awakening found few of the nation's founders still alive. :)

Sorry this is so long. It could be a lot longer.

[Scooter]

Whoaaaa

That makes me feel better about worshiping Celtic Gods. I feel better now--Thanks.

[kate42]

Sorry this is so long. It could be a lot longer.

No no no. I get what you're saying. :D

Actually, I believe in God and that's it. I was brought up in the Roman Catholic religion, but was (even as a young child) not very comfortable with all of their beliefs. There are certain religious beliefs very deeply engraved in me that I can't shake. I do consider myself a follower of Christianity, but do not know quite how I fit in.
I am convinced this country was founded on the principles of Christianity and it will take a very strong proof (which I have not seen yet ) to convince me otherwise.
The right to religious freedom is also what I believe in, but I still feel The principles of this country are Christian. That includes the right not to believe or to follow in any religious faith.
I guess I am saying, I believe in God, and that is my right.

[John Bridge]

Well, Kathleen, that's like being guilty until proven innocent. I've offered evidence to back up my belief (or non-belief). You've offered only your belief, and then you ask for proof that you're wrong. :)

By the way, I'm not trying to dislodge anyone from his or her religious belief. But that belief has very little to do with history. What proponents of the "Christian nation" theory should present are primary source documents that support their conviction. Everything I presented above can be corroborated by primary source letters and other documents.

The founders did believe that religion in general is good for the populace, and that without it their experiment in republican government would probably fail. They promoted religion, yes, Christianity, but they did not do that in the major founding documents, certainly not the Constitution and the Declaration.

[kate42]

:wave:

Well John, I don’t see it that way. Since I’m not guilty of anything, I am not trying to prove my innocence. I asked that my belief that this country was founded on Christian principles be proven wrong, which I don't believe it can be. So, what am I guilty of? :shrug: Anyway, this is a friendly forum, not a court of law. :D

They promoted religion, yes, Christianity, but they did not do that in the major founding documents, certainly not the Constitution and the Declaration.

Here we’re in agreement. This country has been a society based on Christianity. I never said or implied it was a part of the Constitution and the Declaration.

There are many of our customs and laws based on Christianity.
One of these customs is our day of rest which is Sunday. Yes, retail stores and the like are now open on Sunday, but most major corporations, the government, etc., are closed on Sunday.
The US Supreme Court outlawed polygamy in Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 (1890): “Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries. They are crimes by the laws of the United States,

PS
HO HO HO :)

[MudMaker]

Whilst we're on the Founding Fathers conversation here is the Tomb of President George Washington and the Pew/Box that he purchased in this Church and was HIS every Sunday.
(The large Box in the center)

Rev. Lee Massey, his pastor in Mt Vernon, wrote: "I never knew so constant an attendant in church as Washington.

[John Bridge]

I acknowledged that GW was a "dignitary" at his local church. See if you can locate a box for Jefferson. :)

Kate, I wasn't speaking only to you, and no, you don't have to prove a thing when you state your belief. ;)

Just do a little reading. Madison's notes taken at the Convention are online. GW's papers (not all of them) are too. Jefferson is all over the place.

There is a brief list of links that will point you at many of the source documents of which I speak at the bottom of this page:

http://www.johnbridge.com/american_history.htm

[dgunnels]

I've been following this thread with great interest. I will back John up on his account of history. He is correct when he states that many of the individuals we consider to be our founding fathers were Diests or what we might call agnostics today. As for General Washington's purchase of the box at church, let me point out that attendence at church does not a Christian make.

[kate42]

John :wave:

There is a brief list of links that will point you at many of the source documents of which I speak at the bottom of this page:

Thankyou very much for that link. I never knew it existed. Now I know what I'll be doing in my spare time. :) Or maybe I won't cook anymore. :D

[MudMaker]

Stumbled on this today..
Not as a rebuttal but just as a statement.. :)

His adopted daughter, Nelly Custis-Lewis, in response to a request from Jared Sparks in 1833 for evidence that Washington was a Christian, wrote, "He attended the church at Alexandria when the weather and roads permitted a ride of ten miles (a one-way journey of 2-3 hours by horse or carriage). In New York and Philadelphia he never omitted attendance at church in the morning, unless detained by indisposition [sickness]." She continues by saying "No one in church attended to the services with more reverential respect". She adds: "I should have thought it the greatest heresy to doubt his firm belief in Christianity. His life, his writings, prove that he was a Christian. He was not one of those who act or pray, that they may be seen of men."
attendence at church does not a Christian make
Ya gotta give him an "E" for effort though Nessie.. Travelin 2-3 hours every Sunday to attend church, is a lot more than most would do.. :gerg:

[tilerite]

Complex thread to keep up with but if I'm understanding it correctly, the debate seems to center around the idea that we are/aren't a Christian nation.
The following excerpts were taken from http://www.jeremiahproject.com/culture/heritage.html, which I admit is a Christian web site, but a site that presents interesting points of view and facts. For what its worth, I am not now and have never been a Christian, though I strongly believe in a higher power. My point; I do not have an agenda regarding this topic.

Are we a Christian Nation?

Rewriting History
The last three generations of Americans simply have not been told the truth about American history. Active humanists and the liberal media have for years undertaken a concentrated effort to misinform the American public by attacking the "Religious Right" and rewriting America's Judeo-Christian history in a humanistic tone. The motto at the heart of the American experiment "in God we trust" has been exchanged for "in Man we trust."

The Educational Establishment
One reason we have lost so many of our religious freedoms is that the liberal educational establishment has worked hard to eliminate our knowledge of the Judeo-Christian heritage of America. The facts nonetheless reveal the true convictions of our founders. Without question, they believed that although no one Christian denomination should dominate the nation, the principles of the Bible and Christianity should underlie our government and American education as well.

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ." - Patrick Henry >>

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." - U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice, John Jay

While many may squabble over who among the founding fathers was a Christian, no knowledgeable historian of early American history can deny the fact that the concept of a Creator God who endowed His creation with "unalienable rights" was an essential underpinning of the American experiment. These rights were derived not from a government that was transitory, but from a Governor who was eternal. It was the role of government to defend these rights and not dilute or remove them.

[ddmoit]

If the Constitution actually resulted in a government whose sole purpose was to secure our liberties - like it was supposed to - this whole discussion would be moot. But, it does not.:(

This leaves us in a constant state of struggle with our neighbors, each hoping to be part of the latest vocal minority parading around as a majority with the government-given "right" to tell everyone else how to live their lives.

Who is served by this state of affairs? Most of the time, it's not you or me. It is the politicians and the elite, anonymous few who control them.

[John Bridge]

" . . . and rewriting America's Judeo-Christian history in a humanistic tone."

The older folks here (not I, of course) will be able to think back and realize they never heard the term "Judeo-Christian" when they were younger. I don't know exactly when it gained popular use. I do know there was no Judeo-Christian intent at the Constitutional Convention. There were no Jews at the Convention, for one thing. And I'm reminded that Ed Koch, former mayor of New York City (himself a Jew), said, "Face it. There were no Jews on the Mayflower." ;)

Now just where in the hell did all this Judeo-Christian heritage develop in the United States? I mentioned above that a protracted period of revival took place during the 1820s. It was called the Second Great Awakening. And I can guarantee you there was no talk of a Judeo-Christian history at the camp meetings.

Certain people get together and start slinging accusations around without even knowing what they're talking about. I think they figure that if the yell it and scream it long enough and loud enough it will come true. :)

Once again, as with the article above, assumptions are made that simply cannot be backed up with actual history. I'm not talking about any perceived revisionist tactics by the "liberal" press and the "liberal" education establishment. I'm talking about primary sources. There is none better than Madison's Notes on the Federal Convention. Takes a little while to get through it, but you will have your own information, not someone's uninformed assumption.

After digesting Madison's Notes, check out the Federalist (newspaper essays written by Madison, Hamilton and John Jay encouraging ratification of the Constitution. On church and state you can read the correspondence between Jefferson (a Republican) and John Adams (a Federalist).

I love American History. I want the real thing, though. And believe me, I'm not anti-religion. It's just that I love the idea of freedom of religion.

[cx]

The motto at the heart of the American experiment "in God we trust" has been exchanged for "in Man we trust."C'mon, Rick, that "motto" didn't show up until the end of the Civil War. It had nothing to do with the founding of our nation nor government. And should certainly not appear on our currency as far as I'm concerned.

But, unlike JB, I am anti-organized religion for the most part. They have caused more harm in this world throughout our history than any other groups or concepts, bar none.

[T_Hulse]

I'm personally don't believe that way, but I have to say your feelings CX are much closer to the average founding father than any idea of a "Christian Nation". Like John said, many were Deists, acknowledging some form of god, but usually not a Christian god.
It's really a sort of arrogance on our part to read quotes from founding fathers that mention "God", and we assume it is our God. Even the quote on the back of the dollar bill (which was mentioned as much later than the founding of the country) doesn't say which god, but it is written right next to a freemason's symbol. :wtf:

John Adams, a sponsor of the Revolution, a driving force for independence, our first Vice President and our second President:"God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there will never be any liberal science in the world." Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence and our third president, believed in a god, but not a Christian god: "I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." James Madison, "the Father of the Constitution" and our fourth president: "The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries."
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." Benjamin Franklin, a principal founding father who also helped with constitution and the Declaration of Independence: "...I soon became a thorough Deist."
"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches." Thomas Paine, "the Firebrand of the American Revolution", who published the pamphlet Common Sense that swung the balance on the vote for independence: "I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any Church that I know of."How about the 1796 treaty with Tripoli, approved by President John Adams and Secretary of State Timothy Pickering, and ratified by a unanimous vote of the senators: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

[flatfloor]

That last one is pure diplomatic BS.

[T_Hulse]

It may be Jim, but what if you were to try & put that phrase in any modern treaty? Not one chance in heck that you could get more than a couple of Republican senators to agree to that phrase no matter how important the treaty. Isn't it interesting how times have changed? :)

[flatfloor]

Pity. :nod:

[tilerite]

Gentlemen;

I’m not the expert on 16th century America that some of you guys are. My historical expertise is more on 20th century America, especially from World War II through the end of the century, so I will assume most of you know what you’re talking about. Still, after reading through the posts and documents and trying to find my own answers on the internet, I’m more confused than ever. Seems that much of this subject is open to interpretation.

Let’s not forget, Christmas, not Hanukah or Kwanza, is a national holiday. Why is that, if we’re not a Christian nation? This isn’t just about religion. This is about tradition. I see the shit that’s going on today, these nut jobs that are threatened by the term “Merry Christmas”, and I don’t feel comfortable with where we’re going.

Maybe I’m nuts. Seriously, what am I missing? I’m as non-Christian as they come, and I could care less if I walk by a manger scene or if my local proprietor says “Merry Christmas”. The only threat, in my opinion is the ACLU, who would change the whole fabric of this nation, if given a chance.

CX, as for your claim that religion does more harm than good, I used to feel that way but now, I’m not so sure. Mankind fights most wars in the name of religion but I think using religion is a convenient crutch. If we didn’t have religion, mankind would just use a different excuse. We are aggressive by nature. I think you can pull mostly good out of the intentions of religion even though many people corrupt it.

Personally, I can be one with God, and I do not have a religious bone in my body, but that’s just me. If religion is what gets you through the day or keeps you on a moral path, all the power to those who seek it. For those who use and abuse religion, they are not true Christians, Jews, Buddhists, etc, etc., nor do they represent the true principals of most religions. Sorry, I do have a problem with Islam and what it teaches.

Judeo-Christian (or Judaeo-Christian, sometimes written as Judæo-Christian) is a term used to describe the body of concepts and values which are thought to be held in common by Judaism and Christianity, and typically considered (sometimes along with classical Greco-Roman civilization) a fundamental basis for Western legal codes and moral values. In particular, the term refers to the common Old Testament/Tanakh (which is a basis of both moral traditions, including particularly the Ten Commandments); and implies a common set of values present in the modern Western World.

The first-known uses of the terms "Judeo-Christian" and "Judeo-Christianity", according to the Oxford English Dictionary, are 1899 and 1910 respectively, but both were discussing the emergence of Christianity. The term is sometimes used in politics as a shorthand for religious influences upon
Supporters of the Judeo-Christian concept point to the Christian claim that Christianity is the heir to Biblical Judaism, and that the whole logic of Christianity as a religion is that it exists (only) as a religion built upon Judaism. In addition, although the order of the books in the Christian Old Testament and the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) is different, the books are the same. The majority of the Old Testament is in fact Jewish scripture, and is used as moral and spiritual teaching material throughout the Christian world. The prophets, patriarchs, and heroes of the Jewish scripture are also known in Christianity, which uses the Jewish text as the basis for its understanding of Judaeo-Christian patriarchs, prophets and heroes such as Abraham, Elijah and Moses. As a result a vast chunk of Jewish and Christian teaching is based on the same inspiration.

[John Bridge]

Well, Rick, I don't think many would argue with you on any of that. What is your point? ;)

I, for one, have already indicated I'm not offended by anything religious as long as it's not erected on government property. My wife, her family, and my two youngest sons are Christians. I don't have a problem with that. In fact, I approved it when they were little. They don't go around trying to foist their religion on anyone, though. They don't feel a compulsive need to force everyone to pray out loud with them at public events. If they want that type of fellowship they congregate with like minded people. They don't care to erect their religious symbols in front of the courthouse. They are just as happy to do it on church property or in their own front yard.

You can take it any way you want, but you have to know the historical facts. And I'm talking facts (as close as we can come to them), not wishful thinking. :)

[ddmoit]

I'm not offended by religious stuff on government property. I'm offended by government property.

[T_Hulse]

:rofl:

[Brad Denny]

I found a copy of the Baptist Faith and Message from the Southern Baptist Convention. It had a section that addresses the discussion (not Ho Ho Ho :D ).

XVII. Religious Liberty
God alone is Lord of the conscience, and He has left it free from the doctrines and
commandments of men which are contrary to His Word or not contained in it. Church
and state should be separate. The state owes to every church protection and full freedom
in the pursuit of its spiritual ends. In providing for such freedom no ecclesiastical group
or denomination should be favored by the state more than others. Civil government being
ordained of God, it is the duty of Christians to render loyal obedience thereto in all things
not contrary to the revealed will of God. The church should not resort to the civil power
to carry on its work.(my emphasis added) The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the
pursuit of its ends. The state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any
kind. The state has no right to impose taxes for the support of any form of religion. A free
church in a free state is the Christian ideal, and this implies the right of free and
unhindered access to God on the part of all men, and the right to form and propagate
opinions in the sphere of religion without interference by the civil power.
Genesis 1:27; 2:7; Matthew 6:6-7,24; 16:26; 22:21; John 8:36; Acts 4:19-20; Romans
6:1-2; 13:1-7; Galatians 5:1,13; Philippians 3:20; 1 Timothy 2:1-2; James 4:12; 1 Peter
2:12-17; 3:11-17; 4:12-19.

[tilerite]

John
I guess what I'm trying to say is; erecting a manger scene or putting up a Christmas tree, is hardly the same as pushing religion down our throats, whether on private, public or government property. I don't see it as anything more than a celebration of an American tradition, a tradition that goes back to the beginnings of this nation.

Put it a different way, if we're going to have a national holiday based on a Christian event, I can surely handle the White House, having a national Christmas tree, or my local library, in my highly Christian town, putting up symbolic Christmas displays.

I just don't see what all the fuss is about. For hundreds of years, it was cool. All of a sudden, there's a movement to remove Christian displays from public area's and the word God, from the schools, because a small but vocal and highly financed group of people, say its time to change.

Meanwhile, while we're arguing about this, Muslim organizations are trying to force American airports to provide a place for Muslim prayer. Funny how nobody says anything about that. Its always about those pushy Christians.

[John Bridge]

I'm not complaining about Christmas trees. I'm not complaining about Santa Claus or jingle bells or ho ho ho. :) I don't think we're talking about the same thing. :)

[tilerite]

Perhaps I'm missing the original point of this thread. Whatever the intent was, it seems to have morphed into a conversation about the intentions of our founding fathers in regards to religion and religious freedom for the new nation. If I'm wrong, sorry. Its a subject that greatly interests me.

[flatfloor]

John said I'm not complaining about Christmas trees. I'm not complaining about Santa Claus or jingle bells or ho ho ho.

The hell you aren't! why don't you tell them about the snowy, cold Christmas Eve you threw the tenants out of that illegally rented hovel in Houston. Four feet of snow, mother and daughter both pregnant, a crippled little boy named Tim, the father out of work, one litter of puppies and one of kittens, no coats and they took turns sharing the only blanket they had. That was just the first family there were three others.

Go on tell them about that, Scrooge! I tell ya folks, it brings tears to my eyes just thinking about it. :cry:

[cx]

Try to keep the facts straight, Flatfloor. :mad:

The mother was not pregnant.

Bah! Humbug!

[HS345]

Tom Hulse, My apologies for again taking so long to get back to this thread, it has digressed far away from our earlier discussion. But I felt it was important to return to it.

I looked again at the main scripture you cited as reason for not celebrating Christ's birth, 2 Corinthians 6:14-17. My position remains unchanged. As I said before, the meaning we pour into the celebration of Christmas, including all the modern trappings, is what is important.

I am not teaming up with pagans, or worshiping idols when I celebrate the birth of my Lord and Savior. Quite the opposite is true. Mistletoe, the Yule log, etc. don't represent pagan rituals to me. So how can that be prohibited?

Having said all that, I have nothing against people, including Christians, who don't want to celebrate Christmas. It is not essential to Christian Doctrine. Therefore, it is something we as Christians can debate vigorously, but shouldn't divide over. :)

[T_Hulse]

Greg some people ( :tongue: ;) :D ) want to keep the religion out of a discussion about a religious holiday, so I'll reply to you in a PM. :)

[tilerite]

I'm sooooooooooooooooooo confused! :shrug:

[flatfloor]

The original subject matter is purely secular. Whether uttering the exclamation "ho"is apt to offend the sensibilities of some PC correct lunatics. It had nothing to do with religion.

PC Hispanics can be equally offended by uttering "jo".

[HS345]

PC Hispanics can be equally offended by uttering "jo".
I am hispanic, and I am not the least bit offended by "jo". :D

[John Bridge]

Too much going on in this thread, Rick. In short, I'm not offended by anything that has to do with Christmas or any other holiday, but when it becomes religion I don't want to see it on government owned property. Don't know how the Christian nation thing got started, but it did. ;)

Merry Christmas, everyone (except CX) and a Happy New Year to you all. :)

[kate42]

:wave:
John said
Merry Christmas, everyone

You too John. HO HO HO

http://www.millan.net/minimations/smileys/falasmiley.gif (http://www.millan.net)

[T_Hulse]

The original subject matter is purely secular. That is not a fact agreed to by everyone Jim. :) In fact it is exactly only one side of the whole central argument. If we all believed that part of a religious holiday is not religious, then there is no argument to begin with.
Some might say people who claimed "ho, ho, ho" is strictly secular either don't know what secular means or don't understand the holiday. For me, if I say I'm a Christian and then I tried to defend part of Christmas by claiming it's only secular I would feel like I'm contradicting myself. :shrug:

[Scooter]

The original thread was about a private company that contracted with department stores for Santas and for reasons known only by them decided not to have their Santas say Ho Ho Ho.

I believe, but am not sure, that the reasons for the action were also secular in that Ho Ho Ho is not current verbage and scares some kids. The decision had nothing to do with any Anti-Christ sentiment.

The discussion ignored the facts and morphed into the idea that this was somehow connected to the government and the government should not be advocating Santa or Christmas.

It then further morphed into our founding fathers and their Christian beliefs.

It should be remembered that this is a private company, and if they want their Santas to say this or that, that is their decision, and if you guys don't like it, don't go the Department Store in Austrialia or form you own Santa Company.

[ddmoit]

What Scooter said. :wtf: :eek: :confused: :D

[T_Hulse]

Scooter there is an underlying feeling that the real reason for stopping the "ho, ho, ho" is other than they claim; that it's really about political correctness. So since obviously no one disputes they have the legal right to do that, do you think it's pathetic-lame-outrageous infringement on a secular tradition, but legal... or do you think you can understand it, and it's legal?

[tilerite]

One question. Would this (changing ho,ho,ho) have happened fifty years ago?

[kate42]

:wave:

Would this (changing ho,ho,ho) have happened fifty years ago?

Absolutely not! :shake:

[tilerite]

Thank you, Kathleen. It reeks of secularism. Like Scooter said, don't patronize the business if you don't like their practices.

[kate42]

:wave:


don't patronize the business if you don't like their practices.

Absolutely. I have the time to pick and choose were I will spend my money. :nod:

[dl]

Read the *#$* news article - they were worried about offending women, and this was in Australia.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/33/RuPaulHoHoHo.jpg

- DL

[flatfloor]

Tom- :shake: :bang:

[Shaughnn]

I guess you "traditionalists" should be voting for Senator Clinton now that she'd demonstrated that she supports the rotund home invader?
Shaughnn :stirpot:

[MudMaker]

Shaughnn,
She'd have her picher taken alongside a horses ass if'n she thought she could get a few more votes... Come to think of it - she has!!! ;)

[kate42]

Frank :wave:

She'd have her picher taken alongside a horses ass

:lol2: :rofl:

http://www.millan.net/minimations/smileys/amerxmas.gif (http://www.millan.net)

[dgunnels]

BTW Don, I don't think Rupaul would be offended as he isn't a womna, errrr or is he? I don't know but he's lots prettier than me. :rofl:

[Splinter]

:yeah:

[MudMaker]

Merry Tossmas

http://www.citizenlink.org/Stoplight/A000005834.cfm

[flatfloor]

:clap1:

[kate42]

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/weihnachten/xmas-smiley-007.gifhttp://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/weihnachten/xmas-smiley-007.gifhttp://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/weihnachten/xmas-smiley-007.gif

http://www.millan.net/minimations/smileys/amerxmas.gif (http://www.millan.net) http://www.millan.net/minimations/smileys/stockingsmiley2.gif (http://www.millan.net) http://www.millan.net/minimations/smileys/nightwreath2.gif (http://www.millan.net)

[Scooter]

Happy Festivus.

[flatfloor]

Scooter, on 12/25/08 the Tuatha Dé Danann are sponsoring a 2 day sale of marked down genuine imitation gold harps on Ebay commemorating a holiday. (Pick your own) :D

[Scooter]

Nope,

I'm counting on the Larry Craig Action Talking Doll:

http://www.stupid.com/stat/LCAF.html