'Holiday' Tree?

[MontanaRed]

Let go of your bias.

Ok, let's start from the beginning, shall we? The definition of bias that you keep accusing me of is: "such prepossession with some point of view that the mind does not respond impartially to anything related to this point of view." I don't think that you can respond impartially. Saying that those who object to the name "Christmas" tree is are an "intolerant minority of bigots" sounds pretty biased.

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.

Mine? Please do tell me what I do that tries to actively change someone elses religion or stop them from celebrating it? See that's the difference here. You accuse me of bias because you caught a tone you didn't like in one of my comments. I accuse you of bias because you openly support to removal of religious context from the public space. Only one of us is targetting a group for any action.

Don't know where you got this. What I said was:

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."

As for your only christian comment, anyone that goes out and starts to spout off about their religious belief being the right one....is doing the same thing. If you mention hell or not is irrelevent. Your need to single out Christianity as somehow special in this aspect is wrong.

Also the "distinctly Christian" thing is nonsense. I have met a lot of people from different belief system that try to convince me they have it all figured out. The most energetic tend to be atheists and jehovah's witness.

I don't know if you actually read the posts (replies)or if you are too biased to actually entertain other opinions and debatable stances, but once again, the only thing I singled out Christians for was proselytizing. And even then, admitted that I wasn't sure if it was a unique position, or it there were other world religions that promelgated it.

Convincing someone they have it figured out and proselytizing are two completely different things. An atheist (usually an intellectual type) likes a good debate. (Like this one!). Telling me I'm damned to hell if I don't accept Jesus as my savior is proselytizing.

And I think jehovah's witnesses are christians.

The only thing that I singled out Christians for was the proselytizing. It's a tenet of the christian faith that the word be spread. I can't speak about some of the other world religions, and maybe there are others who know more than I about it. But I've never met anyone on the hypothetical "list" telling me that I need to convert, or I'll go to wherever or whatever.

So I stand by that. Christians=Proselytizers

So for the third time, convincing another I have it all figured out it is believing in my convictions, and proselytizing is:

1. To induce someone to convert to one's own religious faith.

2. To induce someone to join one's own political party or to espouse one's doctrine.

3.To convert (a person) from one belief, doctrine, cause, or faith to another.

I really can't keep saying the same thing over and over. So back to the whole tree thing, I think Wally said it pretty well.

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=128791&page=9&pp=15

[Prosperity]

It is just a damn tree, let whoever owns it call it whatever they want and you guys can call them Holiday Trees or Christmas trees, or Mithra trees, or whatever you want.

[Thiebear]

If calling it a holiday tree offends you so much, then maybe we shouldn't have a tree at all.

You didn't get it did you? Just because I don't do any religion doesnt mean I have to fight every attempt of it to exist: I love my Christmas tree... That's what it is.

Its been a Christmas tree since its inception and will be upon completion.

To call it something else is no different than changing a Marker from Red to Purple in school. Its just trying to redefine the obvious.

You want to make sure a Draddle and Minerva and Kwanza scene is next to the Christmas scene on the Park grounds: I'm there for yah brother.

You want to remove Christmas from the season: It completely goes Against the 1st Amendment of the Free expression thereof.

Why do you hate freedom?

[Destino]

You tell me, why is it not ok to have the ten commandments on public property, but it is ok to have a Christmas tree?

Who said it's not ok to have the 10 commandments on public property? You think that a few court cases that go your way make it the law of the land?

Ever been to the supreme court?

[jbooma]

If you guys are so adament about ruining the holidays then call everything "holiday"

holiday tree

holiday candles

holiday lights

holiday dradel

holiday beads

holiday cake

holiday ham

holiday jingles

holiday songs etc.....

soon you will want to chang the name of churches and temples to places of worship :doh: :doh:

the PC crowd has gone to far, christmas is a christian holiday, yes others might observe it but it is mainly a christian holiday, i know many of different religions that don't even care what you call it because it is not their holiday

[jbooma]

As I've said earlier, I couldn't care less about this tree and what it is named.

And, as I said earlier, I find it pertinent that you care more about what this tree is named than you do the detainees' civil or human rights.

is this what it is about, the detainees'???

how can they have rights when they have no constitution in place, sorry but if you are a war criminal i don't think you should have rights like all of us, especially terrorists, now if they were captured wrongly or are not terrorists then they should have complete rights

[Destino]

Ok, let's start from the beginning, shall we? The definition of bias that you keep accusing me of is: "such prepossession with some point of view that the mind does not respond impartially to anything related to this point of view." I don't think that you can respond impartially. Saying that those who object to the name "Christmas" tree is are an "intolerant minority of bigots" sounds pretty biased.

You can claim I am bias, but if we were talking about prayer in school you'd see that isn't the case. You see I hold no bias towards a religious group ,it's a stance on a single issue. My problem is simple, I have a strong dislike for those attempting to impose secularism on an American society that doesn't want it. Wiping away all religious mention from public areas shows a complete lack of understanding for this nations history for it's people and a complete lack of respect for its traditions.

From my experience the types of people that support such movements often present an opinion of Christians that is extremely negative and talk as if they are superior to them.

So for the third time, convincing another I have it all figured out it is believing in my convictions, and proselytizing is:

1. To induce someone to convert to one's own religious faith.

2. To induce someone to join one's own political party or to espouse one's doctrine.

3.To convert (a person) from one belief, doctrine, cause, or faith to another.

There is very little difference in "convincing another I have it all figured out" in the context of a religious discussion and "To convert (a person) from one belief, doctrine, cause, or faith to another." In both cases one belief system is being sold as superior to the another. But you are correct I really can't keep pointing out the obvious over and over so there it is for the last time.

[Prosperity]

is this what it is about, the detainees'???

how can they have rights when they have no constitution in place, sorry but if you are a war criminal i don't think you should have rights like all of us, especially terrorists, now if they were captured wrongly or are not terrorists then they should have complete rights

As usual Jbooma doesn't know what he is talking about. War criminals are tried in a court and found guilty of war crimes hence the word criminal (get it?). How would we know they are captured wrongly or are not terrorists unless they get their rights and have a trial

Secondly, his post means that there are worse things to worry about then what Bostonians call their tree.

[nelms]

As usual Jbooma doesn't know what he is talking about. War criminals are tried in a court and found guilty of war crimes hence the word criminal (get it?). How would we know they are captured wrongly or are not terrorists unless they get their rights and have a trial?

Oh, the wise one from JMU posts again. Kid, buy a clue.

[jbooma]

As usual Jbooma doesn't know what he is talking about. War criminals are tried in a court and found guilty of war crimes hence the word criminal (get it?). How would we know they are captured wrongly or are not terrorists unless they get their rights and have a trial

Secondly, his post means that there are worse things to worry about then what Bostonians call their tree.

i know about the Geneva Convention and the laws regarding it :doh:

i don't agree with it 100% thats all, if someone trys to blow up a bomb on civillians then is that looked differently if they do it against the army?? I feel the codes need to be updated to deal with what is happening today.

The problem is how do we address the crimes when it is looked differently in other cultures, if they do not abide by the laws of it what good is it?

[BlueTalon]

It is just a damn tree, let whoever owns it call it whatever they want and you guys can call them Holiday Trees or Christmas trees, or Mithra trees, or whatever you want.

The problem here is with the word "own". If Boston's ownership of the tree had come about by purchasing it, I would have absolutely no problem with them calling it a Holiday tree vs. a Christmas tree. But they didn't buy it. It was given to them by generous people who intended it to be used as a Christmas tree, and who understood that was how it was going to be used. To them, the name of the tree is a very big deal, and Boston officials changed the terms, so to speak, of the understanding with which tree was given to them after the fact! And it's a sign of disrespect to the Nova Scotians, akin to spitting in their faces, that Boston both keeps the tree and ingores the Nova Scotians' desires and intent. The right thing to do would be to return the tree, or designate the tree as a Christmas tree in honor of the Nova Scotians who gave it, and then go get (buy) another tree and call it the Holiday tree.

For those of you who are really concerned with how the rest of the world sees us, this should concern you.

(edit) Can we talk about detainees and war-related legal issues in a different thread?

:ot:

[Prosperity]

The problem here is with the word "own". If Boston's ownership of the tree had come about by purchasing it, I would have absolutely no problem with them calling it a Holiday tree vs. a Christmas tree. But they didn't buy it. It was given to them by generous people who intended it to be used as a Christmas tree, and who understood that was how it was going to be used. To them, the name of the tree is a very big deal. And it's a sign of disrespect to the Nova Scotians, akin to spitting in their faces, that Boston both keeps the tree and ingores the Nova Scotians desires and intent. The right thing to do would be to return the tree, or designate the tree as a Christmas tree in honor of the Nova Scotians who gave it, and then go get (buy) another tree and call it the Holiday tree.

For those of you who are really concerned with how the rest of the world sees us, this chould concern you.

I don't think it is akin to spitting in their faces, but that is a fair point.

[Prosperity]

i know about the Geneva Convention and the laws regarding it :doh:

i don't agree with it 100% thats all, if someone trys to blow up a bomb on civillians then is that looked differently if they do it against the army?? I feel the codes need to be updated to deal with what is happening today.

The problem is how do we address the crimes when it is looked differently in other cultures, if they do not abide by the laws of it what good is it?

That is different than your original post, I will just assume your first one was careless, even if you still don't see the contradictions in it.

I'll leave it that so we don't get too far off topic

[jbooma]

That is different than your original post, I will just assume your first one was careless, even if you still don't see the contradictions in it.

I'll leave it that so we don't get too far off topic

it might be better then this holiday mess :laugh:

[BlueTalon]

I don't think it is akin to spitting in their faces, but that is a fair point.

This is a stretch, but follow me. If you gave me $100 to use for helping AIDS patients, and then I turn around and use the money for teaching abstinance in school, how would you feel about that? I could make the case that the two things are related, others could make the case that it's no big deal, or that once you gave the money to me you lost any say in the matter.

But I'm willing to bet that if this really happened, you'd feel violated. I don't think "spitting in their faces" is an unreasonable comparison. At the very least, you'd be ticked. Probably ticked enough to do something about it -- to follow up on your money and try to get it used for what it was originally intended, or get it forwarded to someone who would use it that way, or get it back. Yes?

[Prosperity]

This is a stretch, but follow me. If you gave me $100 to use for helping AIDS patients, and then I turn around and use the money for teaching abstinance in school, how would you feel about that? I could make the case that the two things are related, others could make the case that it's no big deal, or that once you gave the money to me you lost any say in the matter.

But I'm willing to bet that if this really happened, you'd feel violated. I don't think "spitting in their faces" is an unreasonable comparison. At the very least, you'd be ticked. Probably ticked enough to do something about it -- to follow up on your money and try to get it used for what it was originally intended, or get it forwarded to someone who would use it that way, or get it back. Yes?

You are right if I gave it to you for an expressed purpose I would be angry if it was misused.

The problem with that is the the tree was more of a gift than a donation to use for a purpose.

Every fall, the province sends a tree to Boston as a thank-you gift to that city for helping Halifax after the devastating explosion in 1917.

And I don't think it was stipulated to be used as AND to be called a Christmas tree. The Bostonians are still using it as a Christmas tree, they are just calling it a holiday tree. I don't like the feigned indignation after the fact. If they wanted it to be specifically called a Christmas tree then maybe they should have stipulated that before hand (like me stipulating that the $100 must be used for AIDS patients.)

Upon further review, the grower may be the one that is angry, but the article says that the province of Nova Scotia gave the tree. So I think I am correctly assuming that the local government of the province bought the tree then gave it to Boston. I have seen no evidence that any Canadians are angry except for the guy that grew and presumably sold the tree to the province.

[Burgold]

A rose by any other name... You call it a holiday tree it is still a Christmas tree and it should be called that.

This is like that parent who sued the school system because they allowed the game of tag which was viewed as detrimental to the development of slow kid's self image. Some PCism is politeness, some considerateness, and others promote a different form of intolerance. We should celebrate all cultures, including the majorities.

[BlueTalon]

You are right if I gave it to you for an expressed purpose I would be angry if it was misused.

The problem with that is the the tree was more of a gift than a donation to use for a purpose.

And I don't think it was stipulated to be used as AND to be called a Christmas tree. The Bostonians are still using it as a Christmas tree, they are just calling it a holiday tree. I don't like the feigned indignation after the fact. If they wanted it to be specifically called a Christmas tree then maybe they should have stipulated that before hand (like me stipulating that the $100 must be used for AIDS patients.)

Upon further review, the grower may be the one that is angry, but the article says that the province of Nova Scotia gave the tree. So I think I am correctly assuming that the local government of the province bought the tree then gave it to Boston. I have seen no evidence that any Canadians are angry except for the guy that grew and presumably sold the tree to the province.

The indignation wasn't feigned, it was real. You can say "The Bostonians are still using it as a Christmas tree, they are just calling it a holiday tree", but even if you are correct about that (which I don't necessarily agree with), the fact remains that what the tree is called is very important to the Nova Scotians who are upset.

It strikes me that your point about stipulation comes from someone who grew up in lawyer-land (America). If you'd given me $100 with an understanding but not a legal stipulation that the money was to be used a certain way, you'd be no less upset about it being used differently. Had Boston told the Nova Scotians prior to them giving the tree that it would be used as a Holiday tree and not a Christmas tree, and they went ahead and gave it anyway, no problem. But the understanding has always been that it would be used as a Christmas tree. It was a curveball thrown by the Bostonians after the fact, this year, that caused this whole mess.

The Boston move was a slap in the fact to Christians. It's like saying "we don't respect your traditions because we respect all traditions." If they had simply established an new tradition of having a Holiday tree, no problem. But they took the traditional Christmas tree and changed it. You may not see it that way, but that's certainly the way the upset Nova Scotians (as well as many on this board) saw it.

[Winslowalrob]

The Boston move was a slap in the fact to Christians. It's like saying "we don't respect your traditions because we respect all traditions." If they had simply established an new tradition of having a Holiday tree, no problem. But they took the traditional Christmas tree and changed it. You may not see it that way, but that's certainly the way the upset Nova Scotians (as well as many on this board) saw it.

Talon, you were right up until this point. I agree that, in the spirit of the season Boston should have told them about the name change prior to the gift. It is the "slap in the face to Christians" that I think you misinterpret what the Holiday tree is about. Your analogy is a little off-base. If Boston had set up a Nativity scene and then called it "Some Palistinean was born and stuff happened scene," THAT would be offensive to Christians. Or if Boston got the tree, decorated it, and burned it down, THAT would be offensive. But to change the name of the tree, how is that disrepecting traditions? It was not the most diplomatic move, to be sure, but I wonder if Boston HAD said we were changing the name, and Nova Scotia gave the present without reservations, would we still have this discussion?

[nelms]

Political correctness run amuck.

There was a news report recently about some schools in the U.S. removing jump ropes from gym classes. These schools now have their kids jump rope with "imaginary" jump ropes. Why? Because real jump ropes may hurt the self-esteem of kids. :doh:

The pussification of America. One more small step towards the fall of the American empire.

[Thiebear]

So the guy that grew the tree for 36 years still doesn't rise to a point in this conversation?

They went back to calling it a Christmas Tree because that was what the guy wanted.

If you didn't want to call it what they guy gave it to you for: YES he raised it and gave it... Then give it back.

Fortunately they didn't, they pulled their head outta their arse and ended it.

Now you want to put ring it with Menorah's with Dradles spinning perpetually to the right of it.. Go ahead...

[BlueTalon]

Talon, you were right up until this point. I agree that, in the spirit of the season Boston should have told them about the name change prior to the gift. It is the "slap in the face to Christians" that I think you misinterpret what the Holiday tree is about. Your analogy is a little off-base. If Boston had set up a Nativity scene and then called it "Some Palistinean was born and stuff happened scene," THAT would be offensive to Christians. Or if Boston got the tree, decorated it, and burned it down, THAT would be offensive. But to change the name of the tree, how is that disrepecting traditions? It was not the most diplomatic move, to be sure, but I wonder if Boston HAD said we were changing the name, and Nova Scotia gave the present without reservations, would we still have this discussion?

Oh, if Boston HAD said they were changing the name and Nova Scotia gave the present anyway, I certainly wouldn't have any problem with it. Whether or not others would make an issue of it I couldn't say, but there would be far less to discuss IMO.

But I continue to think the move was a slap in the face to Christians. With the exception of some hardcore atheists, nobody is really offended by a Christmas tree. Boston basically made the decision that a tradition associated with Christmas is less important than a tip-of-the-hat to people that might be offended by it. It has the appearance of wanting to disassociate from all things Christian, kind of like wanting to get "in God we trust" off the money. The tree has nothing to do with Christian theology, but from the Christian perspective, they seem to want to take away everything with the name Christ in it. And the Christmas tree is so innocuous, the response is an incredulous "you want to take that from us too?"

[WallyVon]

I'm always in favor of slapping christians.

[Sarge]

I'm always in favor of slapping christians.

Well.....that added to the thread

[Prosperity]

BT, there are a few problems with that

We are not sure that most or even many Nova Scotians are angry about this event. We know that the one tree farmer is angry, but we can't use one person and expect it to be a represenative sample of all of Nova Scotia. Like I said, the article indicated that the province (ie the government) of Nova Scotia gave the tree. So they could have either 1. bought the tree from the farmer in which case the farmer would have no justified reason to be angry about what his tree is called since he was compensated, or 2. received the tree from the farmer for no compensation. I find number 2 to be less plausible, but even if it is true there is still the other problems.

If the farmer was not compensated then there is still another reason why he should not be angry. For one the gift is intended to thank Boston for aid that they gave in 1917. Now when you give someone a gift in thanks for an earlier favor is it justified to be angry about what they call it or do with it as long as it doesn't hurt you? I don't think so.

Lastly, if our stereotypes of Canada as land of PCism, socialism, multiculturalism, and liberalism are correct then should Canadians really be surprised that Boston named it a Holiday tree in some sort of attempt to make it PC?

The way I see it is that Boston received the tree as a gift for a prior favor and decided to name it a holiday tree. Given the political environment of Canada and the fact that we only know one person that is angry about this and also that the one person probably did not give the gift but instead sold it to his province, I don't think it is wrong for Boston to call its tree whatever it wants.