Gays Are Ruining Christmas

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI

Here is the issue. We have religious TRADITIONS in this country that are getting swept under the rug by the Religious Establishment.

Fixed.

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI

Here is the issue. We have religious TRADITIONS in this country that are getting swept under the rug by secularists.

Swept under the rug by whom? Have you walked into a store lately? They had xmas stuff out before halloween. The airwaves and internet are chock full of xmas campaigns.

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI

Our nation was founded by Christian men who integrated religious practices into much of the tenants of law and legal practices

Actually quite the reverse. The tenants of law and legal practices came about through "pagan" sources (can you say greece and rome?)

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI

Now that we have established that religion WAS accepted by our founding fathers and early politicians, let's look at the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s... Christmas became a national event. Everywhere you went, christmas trees lined stores, merry christmas became a common saying from storekeepers, etc... It was a great way for the NATION to come together regardless of religion. Everyone acted just a little happier and looked out for one another just a bit more. Groups like Salvation Army would have their workers dressed as santa asking for donations to further aid to those who needed it.

I won't speak for the 50's and 60's. But, the 70's and 80's christmas was passe. (It was then that it got its label of xmas, much to the fury of christian leaders). The NATION didn't come together. Families came together for more misery in one month than they had the other eleven. "merry christmas" from shopkeepers and christmas tree lined stores went out of favor not by some "war on christmas" but because the country became more religiously diverse. There were more people of more faiths and a growing number of atheists and agnostics. The shopkeepers turned the merry christmas volume knob down and sales went up. Because "happy holidays" was more inclusive to their customers. Everyone may have "acted" happier, that doesn't mean they were. It was just that, an act. As people became less concerned with "keeping up appearances" of the June Cleaver life, the facade slid. You assume that people are always truthful about what they say and do, especially in public. You know darn well that is a false assumption.

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI

And now today? My mother can't have a crucifix, tree, or santa on her desk out of fear that a student might complain that he feels discriminated against. Somehow merry christmas is offensive to those who don't believe in Christianity.. Ironically, jewish public schools teachers get away with menorah's in their classroom as that is somehow less offensive.. or is it really just that people don't feel the ability to openly attack Jews as they are a smaller chunk?

I will grant you that is unfair. If a crucifix is banned and menorah needs to be treated the same way. But, I grant you I may be the minority. I fought for the removal of all religious symbols, christian or otherwise, when I was in school in the 70's and early 80's.

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI

This is an attack on Christianity regardless of what Stewart or other pundits would have you believe. The goal is to remove religion from the public eye.. unless of course you're of a faith OTHER than Christian in which you're protected by this notion of "freedom of religion"...

Not from the public eye. Who has proclaimed that churches need to remove their signage? There is a difference between the public eye and the use of public space. But, I have certainly seen plenty of christians who love having their persecution complexes. I guess it makes them feel more like their alleged savior or the so-called apostles.

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI

The "attack on christianity" doesn't bug me.. but what does is this notion that the minority groups (whether it's muslims, blacks, jews, whatever) can get away with just about any negativity towards the majorities (whites, catholics, etc) and the majority groups are just supposed to sit back and take it (affirmative action for example).

So what you are saying is that it sucks and is unfair when you are discriminated against. Well, to the "majorities (whites, catholics, etc) and the majority groups" out there, I can only say this. Payback is a b!tch.

Bill O'reily I can't believe some of the sh!t they let him spew on national television.

Originally Posted by Fergo_the_mule

Bill O'reily I can't believe some of the sh!t they let him spew on national television.

eh, Glen Beck was worse. Can't stand that Hannity guy though.

Why anyone allows their lifestyle and happiness to be subjected to religious morals and ruling is beyond me.

Originally Posted by bimmerfan08

Why anyone allows their lifestyle and happiness to be subjected to religious morals and ruling is beyond me.

Why anyone allows their lifestyle and happiness to be subjected to morals is a mystery to me.

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI

Now that we have established that religion WAS accepted by our founding fathers and early politicians

LOL.

You didn't establish ****.

Originally Posted by rdsesq

Why anyone allows their lifestyle and happiness to be subjected to morals is a mystery to me.

Because without them civilization wouldn't exist.

Originally Posted by Scooby24

LOL.

You didn't establish ****.

Excuse me? Formally recognized official state religions and prayers said at the offset of every congressional meeting... and that ISN'T ESTABLISHING a religious precedent? Really?

Originally Posted by 330iPilot

Because without them civilization wouldn't exist.

Highly unlikely. It might not be "civilized" according to your morals. But it would be civilization, just much different than what we have today. (which wouldn't be a bad thing)

Chase hates countries who follow Islamic Law but welcomes Christian Law because its in alignment with his religious beliefs. Ironicpants.

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

Ok fair enough, but why do people then have a problem with a Christmas tree being called a Christmas tree or a nativity scene at a public building. From what I understand we have freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion. I have seen menorahs in government buildings so they are not playing favorites. I watched oreilly where he had that atheist dude on who is crying in rhode island. Now they want all these nativity scenes removed from public areas. This goes back to freedom from. Based in my understanding, any and all religions are free to demonstrate in a public building.

Demonstrating is different from allowing semi-permanent displays on public property, or using public funds to create a religious display. It's funny how some conservatives are perfectly fine diverting public resources toward typical right wing causes, however frivolous they may be.

And let's not kid ourselves. The real reason these displays are banned isn't because of people hating on Christians, it's because true equal access, allowing anyone to set up whatever display they want, would cause an uproar.

See "Skeleton Santa" - some people found it offensive, so rather than try to enforce "legitimate religious displays" Loudoun County opted to ban them altogether.

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/we...135070748.html

Originally Posted by casino is no lie

Chase hates countries who follow Islamic Law but welcomes Christian Law because its in alignment with his religious beliefs. Ironicpants.

Yes, just another way Chase demonstrated what a brainwashed tool he actually is. His performance just prior to the election was nothing short of spectacular.

Originally Posted by sea6speed

Demonstrating is different from allowing semi-permanent displays on public property, or using public funds to create a religious display. It's funny how some conservatives are perfectly fine diverting public resources toward typical right wing causes, however frivolous they may be.

And let's not kid ourselves. The real reason these displays are banned isn't because of people hating on Christians, it's because true equal access, allowing anyone to set up whatever display they want, would cause an uproar.

See "Skeleton Santa" - some people found it offensive, so rather than try to enforce "legitimate religious displays" Loudoun County opted to ban them altogether.

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/we...135070748.html




Yes, just another way Chase demonstrated what a brainwashed tool he actually is. His performance just prior to the election was nothing short of spectacular.

I don't agree and never will with government money being used for religious purposes. However, if the majority of a nation are a certain type of people, and they want christmas to be celebrated (btw, christmas is a federal holiday) they should be allowed to put a harmless scene of a bunch of people in dress and some tinsel. It hurts no one unless you are looking for something to pick at. I will never agree. Calling a christmas tree a christmas tree and having a nativity scene of a town building laws is completely harmless.....unless you WANT it to be offensive and need something to attack. Like I said, I'm not christian, but like the friendlyness, decoration, the story, the holiday spirit, etc etc etc. I think those atheists are fascists. "I DON'T LIKE IT" means "YOU CANT HAVE IT."

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

I don't agree and never will with government money being used for religious purposes. However, if the majority of a nation are a certain type of people, and they want christmas to be celebrated (btw, christmas is a federal holiday) they should be allowed to put a harmless scene of a bunch of people in dress and some tinsel. It hurts no one unless you are looking for something to pick at. I will never agree. Calling a christmas tree a christmas tree and having a nativity scene of a town building laws is completely harmless.....unless you WANT it to be offensive and need something to attack. Like I said, I'm not christian, but like the friendlyness, decoration, the story, the holiday spirit, etc etc etc. I think those atheists are fascists. "I DON'T LIKE IT" means "YOU CANT HAVE IT."

And what if citizen(s) which to put up a display in the spring (just about the time of Passover and Easter) honoring the new season and the god Priapus? Should they be able to use the same public display space? Even if some people find it offensive?

A 6 ft tall display of the Priapus in the public square, and let us just see how long it takes those in the "pro-christmas" camp to be offended.

Originally Posted by rdsesq

And what if citizen(s) which to put up a display in the spring (just about the time of Passover and Easter) honoring the new season and the god Priapus? Should they be able to use the same public display space? Even if some people find it offensive?

A 6 ft tall display of the Priapus in the public square, and let us just see how long it takes those in the "pro-christmas" camp to be offended.

Things have to be a matter of taste as well. Having a god with a giant pen0r where kids can see it our society as a whole is offensive. In greece, maybe not. Again, the majority of this nation is christian, and overwhelming majority of people believe in a religion of some form. I don't really hear muslims or jews complaining about the trees and the nativity scenes. I cannot comprehend how someone can find them offensive.

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

I don't agree and never will with government money being used for religious purposes. However, if the majority of a nation are a certain type of people, and they want christmas to be celebrated (btw, christmas is a federal holiday) they should be allowed to put a harmless scene of a bunch of people in dress and some tinsel. It hurts no one unless you are looking for something to pick at. I will never agree. Calling a christmas tree a christmas tree and having a nativity scene of a town building laws is completely harmless.....unless you WANT it to be offensive and need something to attack. Like I said, I'm not christian, but like the friendlyness, decoration, the story, the holiday spirit, etc etc etc. I think those atheists are fascists. "I DON'T LIKE IT" means "YOU CANT HAVE IT."

I have no problem putting it up for a vote and going with what the majority favors. That isn't what's going on here.

You didn't address the issue of setting aside public space for religious displays. Are you for or against using public resources (space on lawns, roofs, lobbys, etc...) for religious displays? And if so, which religions are valid for consideration? Which groups are not allowed to use this space?

And for the record, I got a 10' tall tree and decked my house out with lights, so I'm not banging some anti-christmas drum. Private residence though.

Originally Posted by sea6speed

I have no problem putting it up for a vote and going with what the majority favors. That isn't what's going on here.

You didn't address the issue of setting aside public space for religious displays. Are you for or against using public resources (space on lawns, roofs, lobbys, etc...) for religious displays? And if so, which religions are valid for consideration? Which groups are not allowed to use this space?

And for the record, I got a 10' tall tree and decked my house out with lights, so I'm not banging some anti-christmas drum. Private residence though.

Here is my take on it...

1) Government funds in ANY WAY (including labor to put up the decorations are not allowed to be used) with the EXCEPTION of christmas trees/christmas decorations. Christmas is a federal holiday and an institution in this country. Hell, the white house has 13 trees. The nativity scenes are to be put up by a local church or school, or whatever, with privately raised funds.

2) Decorations are not to be discriminated against based on religion, but a matter or taste. A lamb dangling bleeding from the neck, a pentagram on fire with devil eyes, or Priapus are inappropriate in terms of taste, not religion.

3) Any group can use the public space for their displays. This is my problem. The atheists are acting like fascists. They don't want to put their own stuff up, they are just saying "we don't like this so you cant have it." Are they trying to put up a festivus pole and are denied? If they wanted to put up a giant lit up "A" for a fake holiday they created, they should have the right, since they are also tax paying citizens and the government is here to serve them just as much as it is to serve the christians and the jews. However, this is not the case. I would agree that if a large enough group (I guess a nationally recognized would be a start) wants to put up peaceful and tasteful decorations for their holiday, they should be allowed to.

Again, I'm a jew and have a 10' tall tree in my house. Why? Because I like the way it looks and smells, nothing to do with Jesus.

Originally Posted by rdsesq

And what if citizen(s) which to put up a display in the spring (just about the time of Passover and Easter) honoring the new season and the god Priapus? Should they be able to use the same public display space? Even if some people find it offensive?

Erect A 6 ft tall display of the Priapus in the public square, and let us just see how long it takes those in the "pro-christmas" camp to be offended.

ftfy

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

Things have to be a matter of taste as well. Having a god with a giant pen0r where kids can see it our society as a whole is offensive. In greece, maybe not. Again, the majority of this nation is christian, and overwhelming majority of people believe in a religion of some form. I don't really hear muslims or jews complaining about the trees and the nativity scenes. I cannot comprehend how someone can find them offensive.

So this gets back to a matter of "taste". Just like you don't want your kids having to see some "gay guys kissing in public" you don't want them to be exposed to other religions because...HELLO...you might find them offensive. My, my, my...you WANT it to be offensive and need something to attack, when the shoe is on the other foot.

A nativity scene is OK, but, the human form....hell no.

Originally Posted by rdsesq

So this gets back to a matter of "taste". Just like you don't want your kids having to see some "gay guys kissing in public" you don't want them to be exposed to other religions because...HELLO...you might find them offensive. My, my, my...you WANT it to be offensive and need something to attack, when the shoe is on the other foot.

A nativity scene is OK, but, the human form....hell no.

You are misquoting me. I said I don't want my kids to see gays kissing in public...I, me, myself. I never said it should be against the law, nor am I doing anything to stop it. I just don't like it. If I see it, I would turn my daughter around and go the other way. The shoe is not on the other foot.