Skinsfan1311 Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 What??? How do we know it wasn't an Xmas tree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Spiff Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 It's a friggin Christmas tree and it should be called a Christmas tree. I reject the idea that seeing a symbol of a faith that is not your own is insulting. I walk down the street and I see muslim woman in their traditional clothing....I do not feel insulted. I have seen people from diverse backgrounds displaying religious symbols of all kinds, and I have never felt insulted by it. The idea that any exposure to a religious symbol is insulting, is laughable. It's a smokescreen used by anti-religious nut jobs to attack christians. That's all it is. The government putting up a christmas tree is not promoting religion. They are representing the population they are elected to SERVE and nothing more. A christmas tree does not make a statement about our court system, our laws, or anything else. in reality all it means these days is "go buy some **** to put under my branches before it's too late and everyone hates you". If the government came to your house and put a christmas tree on your yard, then I would agree they've gone a bit too far. If they forced your chidlren to sit in front of it and sing religious songs, then again I agree that is too far. If they outlawed all other symbols, then again that is going too far. But the act of putting up a christmas tree is not. /rant :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 Maybe we should just call it a Tree. No, wait a minute, that might offend bushes. I've got it. We'll just call it, IT. There ya' go, won't offend anyone. IT it is. You can say "let's decorate IT". Or "let's put the presents under IT". Or "let's put the lights on IT". Problem solved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Spiff Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 It's a friggin Christmas tree and it should be called a Christmas tree. I reject the idea that seeing a symbol of a faith that is not your own is insulting. I walk down the street and I see muslim woman in their traditional clothing....I do not feel insulted. I have seen people from diverse backgrounds displaying religious symbols of all kinds, and I have never felt insulted by it. The idea that any exposure to a religious symbol is insulting, is laughable. It's a smokescreen used by anti-religious nut jobs to attack christians. That's all it is. The government putting up a christmas tree is not promoting religion. They are representing the population they are elected to SERVE and nothing more. A christmas tree does not make a statement about our court system, our laws, or anything else. in reality all it means these days is "go buy some **** to put under my branches before it's too late and everyone hates you". If the government came to your house and put a christmas tree on your yard, then I would agree they've gone a bit too far. If they forced your chidlren to sit in front of it and sing religious songs, then again I agree that is too far. If they outlawed all other symbols, then again that is going too far. But the act of putting up a christmas tree is not. /rant :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winslowalrob Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 I just posted this, but still; Can people here that hate PC Liberalism actually adress that the CHRISTMAS TREE WAS NEVER AN ORIGINAL PART OF CHRISTIANITY? If Santa, presents, and the tree were all pagan additions to the Christian religion, then why is changing the name of Christmas such a big deal? You know its a Christmas tree, I know its a Christmas tree, Santa knows its a Christmas tree (and whether we've been naughty or nice), so why can we not just let it be called a Holiday tree? It is not liberal nor PC, its the move towards a more inclusive and secular society. You know, the opposite of closed and religious societies, the ones we so love to hate ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 Can people here that hate PC Liberalism actually adress that the CHRISTMAS TREE WAS NEVER AN ORIGINAL PART OF CHRISTIANITY? If Santa, presents, and the tree were all pagan additions to the Christian religion, then why is changing the name of Christmas such a big deal? You know its a Christmas tree, I know its a Christmas tree, Santa knows its a Christmas tree (and whether we've been naughty or nice), so why can we not just let it be called a Holiday tree? It is not liberal nor PC, its the move towards a more inclusive and secular society. You know, the opposite of closed and religious societies, the ones we so love to hate ... I'm sorry but there is simply nothing at all non-inclusive about sharing your culture with others. No one is forced to celebrate christmas but when you are in a majority christian nation you will likely be exposed to christian celebration and symbols, just as you would be exposed to all native celebrations in any part of the world. The idea that people have to sacrifice their beliefs in order to appease intolerant minority of bigots that can't stand to even see signs of a religion they dislike is unacceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 I'm sorry but there is simply nothing at all non-inclusive about sharing your culture with others. No one is forced to celebrate christmas but when you are in a majority christian nation you will likely be exposed to christian celebration and symbols, just as you would be exposed to all native celebrations in any part of the world. The idea that people have to sacrifice their beliefs in order to appease intolerant minority of bigots that can't stand to even see signs of a religion they dislike is unacceptable. Better watch out Destino, you're starting to sound like an intolerant bigot that doesn't care about people's feeeeeeeeeelings:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WallyVon Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 Man, you right wingers are desperate to latch on to a winnable debate, aren't you?? I don't blame you, but this is a little ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 Man, you right wingers are desperate to latch on to a winnable debate, aren't you?? I don't blame you, but this is a little ridiculous. So tell me why a majority of us must change things like long standing traditions just to accomodate a few whiners Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 Can people here that hate PC Liberalism actually adress that the CHRISTMAS TREE WAS NEVER AN ORIGINAL PART OF CHRISTIANITY? If Santa, presents, and the tree were all pagan additions to the Christian religion, then why is changing the name of Christmas such a big deal? You know its a Christmas tree, I know its a Christmas tree, Santa knows its a Christmas tree (and whether we've been naughty or nice), so why can we not just let it be called a Holiday tree? It is not liberal nor PC, its the move towards a more inclusive and secular society. You know, the opposite of closed and religious societies, the ones we so love to hate ... :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: Christians want our society to be nice and Christian, and any attempt to actually uphold the 1st amendment is met as "another attack on Christianity." Please. Give me a ****ing break. Case in point: The idea that any exposure to a religious symbol is insulting, is laughable. It's a smokescreen used by anti-religious nut jobs to attack christians. That's all it is. :doh: Who gives a flying red **** if some jackass bueaurocrat calls it a holiday tree. It doesn't matter. Its going to have CHRISTMAS ornaments and CHRISTMAS lights on it...get over the name! JE-SUS-CHRIST some of you are touchy!! "But Ironhead, its the principle of the whole thing!" Yeah, that was a stupid reason to impeach Clinton and its a stupid reason to be upset by this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 Maybe we should just call it a Tree. No, wait a minute, that might offend bushes. I've got it. We'll just call it, IT. There ya' go, won't offend anyone. IT it is. You can say "let's decorate IT". Or "let's put the presents under IT". Or "let's put the lights on IT". Problem solved. Not quite.... :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winslowalrob Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 I'm sorry but there is simply nothing at all non-inclusive about sharing your culture with others. No one is forced to celebrate christmas but when you are in a majority christian nation you will likely be exposed to christian celebration and symbols, just as you would be exposed to all native celebrations in any part of the world. The idea that people have to sacrifice their beliefs in order to appease intolerant minority of bigots that can't stand to even see signs of a religion they dislike is unacceptable. Ok, so let me get this straight. No one is forced to celebrate christmas, as you state, but a holiday tree somehow makes people celebrate "the holidays"? And how are people "sacrificing" their beliefs? All of a sudden people become athiests because the name "Christmas" is stricken from the name? Are you implying that faith is that weak? Or are you implying that the Christian faith is strongly linked to the name "Christmas" tree? Nobody is banning Christmas, and who are the intolerant minority of bigots? Because no religion should have primacy in a secular country, when we start treating one religion better than others, well I think that is a problem. Last time I checked, we still have Christmas. The Grinch has not stolen it or anything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MontanaRed Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 I'm sorry but there is simply nothing at all non-inclusive about sharing your culture with others. No one is forced to celebrate christmas but when you are in a majority christian nation you will likely be exposed to christian celebration and symbols, just as you would be exposed to all native celebrations in any part of the world. The idea that people have to sacrifice their beliefs in order to appease intolerant minority of bigots that can't stand to even see signs of a religion they dislike is unacceptable. That last sentence is really unbelievable! As was already posted, "It is not liberal nor PC, its the move towards a more inclusive and secular society. You know, the opposite of closed and religious societies, the ones we so love to hate ..." The religious minorities in the United States I think are neither bigots or intolerant. I in no way expect anybody to sacrifice their (majority) beliefs. But I sure don't believe that "the government... [is] representing the population they are elected to SERVE and nothing more." It's NOT a PC reason to move away from the Christian name of an inherently pagan holiday - it's just right to move it into the secular society that so far we've all agreed that it represents today - Santa, presents and the almighty dollar. In it's origins it didn't have anything to do with Jesus' birth, and doesn't seem to today, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 Who gives a flying red **** if some jackass bueaurocrat calls it a holiday tree. It doesn't matter. Its going to have CHRISTMAS ornaments and CHRISTMAS lights on it...get over the name! JE-SUS-CHRIST some of you are touchy!! "But Ironhead, its the principle of the whole thing!" Yeah, that was a stupid reason to impeach Clinton and its a stupid reason to be upset by this. The problem is the motive. If a bunch of people that really hated democrats, and attacked them every chance they got in every possible way suddenly came up with the idea that a rainbow peace sign would be a better symbol then a donkey....how do you think that would go over with the democrats? I mean everyone loves peace right and colors are really cool too...and it would still be the democrats right? But we all know why it was suggested. The problem is the motive is not well intended and everyone willing to be honest knows it. So I will not support the idea of bowing down to bigots. I'll treat them the same way I treat the bigots in white robes and pillow case hats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 The problem is the motive. If a bunch of people that really hated democrats, and attacked them every chance they got in every possible way suddenly came up with the idea that a rainbow peace sign would be a better symbol then a donkey....how do you think that would go over with the democrats? I mean everyone loves peace right and colors are really cool too...and it would still be the democrats right? But we all know why it was suggested. Point out in the article to me where they said they were going to change the appearance of the tree. What I read said they were changing the name of the tree, but that the lights were still going to be put up on December 1st. So NOTHING will have changed with the tree, only the fact that it will be called a Holiday tree and not a Christmas tree. Your example is completely irrelevant. The problem is the motive is not well intended and everyone willing to be honest knows it. So I will not support the idea of bowing down to bigots. I'll treat them the same way I treat the bigots in white robes and pillow case hats. Bigots? Are you effing serious? Dude....seriously, get a clue. Bigots? :insane: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 That last sentence is really unbelievable! As was already posted, "It is not liberal nor PC, its the move towards a more inclusive and secular society. You know, the opposite of closed and religious societies, the ones we so love to hate ..." The religious minorities in the United States I think are neither bigots or intolerant. I in no way expect anybody to sacrifice their (majority) beliefs. But I sure don't believe that "the government... [is] representing the population they are elected to SERVE and nothing more." It's NOT a PC reason to move away from the Christian name of an inherently pagan holiday - it's just right to move it into the secular society that so far we've all agreed that it represents today - Santa, presents and the almighty dollar. In it's origins it didn't have anything to do with Jesus' birth, and doesn't seem to today, either. The religious minorities in the US have their own beliefs. I do not demand that they soften them to better suit my wants. I also do not acknowlegde that these little anti-christian crying fits are lead by "religious" minorities. They are almost always lead by people whom the word "religious" does not describe at all. I also reject this nonsense that christmas is invalid due to it's pagan roots. All cultures evolve and their current state is the product of hundreds of years of changes. To claim them all to be invalid because every last detail did not remain constant from the very start is foolish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeaponXDawkins Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 I'm not. I could see how some people would be less offended, though. More importantly, as a Jew, while all the Christmas overload doesn't offend me per se, it does annoy the hell out of me. So yeah, I'd rather it be called a holiday tree. Merry Christmas Chopper Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winslowalrob Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 The problem is the motive. If a bunch of people that really hated democrats, and attacked them every chance they got in every possible way suddenly came up with the idea that a rainbow peace sign would be a better symbol then a donkey....how do you think that would go over with the democrats? I mean everyone loves peace right and colors are really cool too...and it would still be the democrats right? But we all know why it was suggested.The problem is the motive is not well intended and everyone willing to be honest knows it. So I will not support the idea of bowing down to bigots. I'll treat them the same way I treat the bigots in white robes and pillow case hats. Please define a bigot, and how a holiday tree is bigotry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 Point out in the article to me where they said they were going to change the appearance of the tree. What I read said they were changing the name of the tree, but that the lights were still going to be put up on December 1st. So NOTHING will have changed with the tree, only the fact that it will be called a Holiday tree and not a Christmas tree. Your example is completely irrelevant. Are you serious? lol. OK fine instead.... If a bunch of people that really hated democrats, and attacked them every chance they got in every possible way suddenly came up with the idea that the name "peace rainbow" would be better for the democratic party....how do you think that would go over with the democrats? I mean everyone loves peace right and colors are really cool too...and it would still be the democrats right? But we all know why it was suggested. Is that better? Bigots? Are you effing serious? Dude....seriously, get a clue. Bigots? :insane:I call it like I see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 Merry Christmas Chopper Dave Was that really necessary? I mean...if you want to add to the discussion, go ahead, but that was just ignorant and hateful. Dude is Jewish and doesn't like seeing Christmas stuff everywhere, so you go and do that. Classy. I guess you can't expect much more from an Eagle fan though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 Are you serious? lol. OK fine instead....If a bunch of people that really hated democrats, and attacked them every chance they got in every possible way suddenly came up with the idea that the name "peace rainbow" would be better for the democratic party....how do you think that would go over with the democrats? I mean everyone loves peace right and colors are really cool too...and it would still be the democrats right? But we all know why it was suggested. Is that better? Its still a completely irrelevant argument...there is no freedom of politics amendment in our constitution. The name or image of a political party is MUCH different than the name of a religious symbol. I call it like I see it. Okay. But to me, the bigot is the person who does not care about any other race, religion or creed because "dang it, I likes it that way and you's sure as hell ain't gonna change that there name of that there tree!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 Please define a bigot, and how a holiday tree is bigotryTargetting a specific religious group with intolerant behavior is bigotry. Also I never stated that a holiday tree is bigotry, try to be honest, it really helps the discussion move along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 Its still a completely irrelevant argument...there is no freedom of politics amendment in our constitution. The name or image of a political party is MUCH different than the name of a religious symbol.There is no freedom from religious symbols in the constitution either. The point of seperation is to keep the government from imposing a specific religion on you. Putting up a tree and calling it by the right name is not imposing a belief on anyone. If a teacher forced her students to celebrate christmas in class that would be forcing it down their throats. Having a christmas tree anyone is free to acknowledge or ignore is not. Okay. But to me, the bigot is the person who does not care about any other race, religion or creed because "dang it, I likes it that way and you's sure as hell ain't gonna change that there name of that there tree!"So not wanting to change to avoid insult is bigotry in your mind. But insisting on change and knowinlgy insulting most people is not. OK.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MontanaRed Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 The religious minorities in the US have their own beliefs. I do not demand that they soften them to better suit my wants. I also do not acknowlegde that these little anti-christian crying fits are lead by "religious" minorities. They are almost always lead by people whom the word "religious" does not describe at all.I also reject this nonsense that christmas is invalid due to it's pagan roots. All cultures evolve and their current state is the product of hundreds of years of changes. To claim them all to be invalid because every last detail did not remain constant from the very start is foolish. A) Why on earth is someone who is not the majority (and I take it, your own) religion starting "anti-christian crying fits"? Changing the NAME of the damn tree is not anti-christian. Is it FEAR that gets Christians so defensive? B)Never said that Christmas is invalid. It's the NAME I was referring to. Cultures do evolve over hundreds of years, and Yule is one of those celebrations that has existed in some form for thousands of years. Saternalia was the Roman celebration to welcome the return of the SUN (not SON) and people brought live tree boughs into the house to celebrate the triumph of life (the evergreen that doesn't die) over death (the end of the agricultural year). Good ol' American Christmas as we know it has been celebrated in this country (where we fled to avoid religious persecution) oh, for just over 100 years. Go figure. So which is invalid? The birth of the SUN or moving JC's b-day to disrupt the pagan holiday? The tree doesn't have anything to do with Christ - which, incidently, was why it was outlawed in American when celebrating Christmas was against the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 So tell me why a majority of us must change things like long standing traditions just to accomodate a few whiners Anyone? Anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.