|
22 Dec 04 - 10:56 AM (#1363177) Subject: BS: Secular vs Religious Public Celebrations From: GUEST Every year we see reports of bans and lawsuits over nativity displays on public land, and of 'Silent Night' being banned from the grade school holiday concert somewhere in the US. The feeling it always leaves me with is why, when Christian fathers still hold so much power and sway over all the other religious and secular cultures now resident in the US, do they feel such a powerful need to shove the religious aspects of Christmas down everyone's throats? Last night a couple of us public school & public university educators got together at one of our houses for a winter break solstice get together, which we try and do every year. None of us are 'pagan' or anything like that, but we are all secularists, most of whom come from Christian, Jewish, Hindu or Muslim families. Two of our numbers are Native American. We are pretty regular folks. We end up having some version of this conversation every year. However, in the wake of the election this year, one among our ranks made an interesting comment. He said that the "holiday" season this year felt like a Republican fundamentalist season of triumphalism, akin to the loyalist marching season in Northern Ireland. I have to admit, the comment really struck a nerve for me. This Christian triumphalist sort of attitudes seems to have markedly increased over the last decade or so (I would link it to the rise of both Republican and Democratic "Christian values" sorts of politicians, like Clinton and Bush), and now is becoming very blatant and 'in your face' for those of us secularists and non-Christians living in this bizarre, Christian dominated country known as the US of A. And let me say, I don't have a particular problem with the secular aspects of the holiday, except the obvious--conspicuous consumerism, and the capitalist take over of the entire Halloween to New Years time frame for the annual profit-taking. It's this 'in your face' attitude that seems to have really gotten out of hand here in the US, especially since Bush's ascension in 2000. |
|
22 Dec 04 - 11:03 AM (#1363182) Subject: RE: BS: Secular vs Religious Public Celebrations From: MMario Don't forget that the constitution garuntees that the US shall create no law forbidding the practice of religion. |
|
22 Dec 04 - 11:09 AM (#1363189) Subject: RE: BS: Secular vs Religious Public Celebrations From: Once Famous People should be able to practice their culture and religion without having to worry about offending idiot Guests as yourself who get offended way too easily. The backlash against the ACLU is happening now. As a Jew, I will be the first to tell you that Christmas is about Christ. I choose not to participate but I recognize it for what's it's worth to a huge number of people. It's not about you or secular nonsensical sensitivities. Merry Christmas to you. |
|
22 Dec 04 - 11:20 AM (#1363209) Subject: RE: BS: Secular vs Religious Public Celebrations From: GUEST,Wesley S at Home It must be like living in a forign country when everyone is celibrating Happy Whatever Day. I'm not sure that I could be upset if everyone was wishing me a "Happy Whatever Day" - I'd do my best just to try to deal with the situation. True - the media because of advertising has it in our face every few minutes - but I think I could get past that too. But this did start as a religious holiday - and then turned into a secular one. We went from Merry Christmas to Happy Holidays. I respect a persons need to NOT celibrate this time of year and I would hope that no one would be upset if I DO. I'll not drag anyone to a Christmas Eve service - so don't be upset if I have a Nativity scene in my house. But the Nativity displays need to be at my house. Not on the courthouse lawn. |
|
22 Dec 04 - 11:22 AM (#1363212) Subject: RE: BS: Secular vs Religious Public Celebrations From: GUEST,Wesley S at Home In other words - Live and let live. Mudcat posts included. |
|
22 Dec 04 - 11:23 AM (#1363214) Subject: RE: BS: Secular vs Religious Public Celebrations From: GUEST The political uses of Christmas as an American triumphalist holiday is what I'm talking about. The ways it is being tied to the 'military mission' on television, for instance. All the local TV stations, on the nightly news, show soldiers serving overseas sending "holiday greetings" to loved ones back home. There is a nightly news story about military families. The Marines running "Toys for Tots" campaigns in full military dress uniform in front of the TV cameras. One of the media messages we were talking about that sparked the comment comparing the American Christmas holidays with Northern Irish loyalist marching season, was the militarization of the holiday, and the not so subtle message that it is unpatriotic not to celebrate the American Christian holidays. We secularists are certainly getting that message loud and clear every night on our local nightly news, and when we read the American Christian moral outrage stories of banning nativity displays and Christian Christmas hymns from the public schools. As secular public educators opposed to American military imperialism, we definitely feel under siege this time of year, but especially this year, in the wake of Bush's victory, and the complete media blackout on stories like US torture of prisoners of war, failure to challenge things like the Medals recently awarded to the three men who were architects of the failed Iraq invasion and occupation strategy by Bush, etc. |
|
22 Dec 04 - 11:26 AM (#1363218) Subject: RE: BS: Secular vs Religious Public Celebrations From: Once Famous It gets forced down your throat if you let it. But if you take it to the full extent, why is it a national holiday and all government offices are closed? Most businesses are closed, also. why does America have a national Christmas tree? why is there one in the White house? I think you should work on Christmas. do not take the day off. Merry Christmas to all secularist christians. |
|
22 Dec 04 - 11:31 AM (#1363224) Subject: RE: BS: Secular vs Religious Public Celebrations From: GUEST Well, Americans especially have an extremely skewed historical belief system about the nationalist origins of this holiday. An interesting history of "the holidays" as we know them can be found in a book by a guy named Jock Elliot, called "Inventing Christmas: How Our Holiday Came To Be." Elliott (who is former chairman of the advertising firm Ogilvy and Mather) takes us on a tour of the commercialism, entertainments, consumption, and sacred-secular dualism that led to the holiday as we know it. Focusing on the "invented traditions" that define modern Christmas, Elliott explains that "Most of our Christmas customs were invented in an amazingly short twenty-five-year period, from 1823-1848-a sort of `Big Bang' of our Christmas." |
|
22 Dec 04 - 11:46 AM (#1363244) Subject: RE: BS: Secular vs Religious Public Celebrations From: GUEST,Wesley S at Home I've seen news stories and greetings from overseas soldiers ever year on the news. Really this is nothing new. I've seen them even in times of "peace". As far as "invented traditions" - all of them are invented at some time. In the same way that all of the traditional songs were written by someone at sometime. |
|
22 Dec 04 - 11:54 AM (#1363255) Subject: RE: BS: Secular vs Religious Public Celebrations From: Rapparee The Marine Corps Reserve has been running "Toys For Tots" for years. Someone should -- there are too many kids who will get little or nothing at Christmas or any other time of the year. Celebrate Christmas if you want to and however you want to. Do the same for Channukah. Do the same for Kwanza. Do the same for the Solstice, for Jul, for the feast of Janus, for the rebirth of Mithra. Or not, as you see fit. It's a phony issue -- if you feel strongly about it, fight it out in March. |
|
22 Dec 04 - 11:55 AM (#1363256) Subject: RE: BS: Secular vs Religious Public Celebrations From: Once Famous Most of the popular christmas songs I would think are 50-75 years old, tops. there are exceptions. but how many go back to say, 300-500 years? |
|
22 Dec 04 - 12:00 PM (#1363265) Subject: RE: BS: Secular vs Religious Public Celebrations From: MMario More then you would think. Not necessarily in English however. A lot are 100 to 150 years old though - and yes - the English/American Christmas was pretty much invented whole-cloth during the early parts of Victoria's reign - which doesn't mean they didn't draw from older traditions. The Creche/Manger scene dates back much further. |
|
22 Dec 04 - 12:08 PM (#1363273) Subject: RE: BS: Secular vs Religious Public Celebrations From: GUEST The founder of the Toys for Tots program was Director of Public Relations for Warner Brothers Studios. A propagandist Marine Reservist, in other words. He sure knew his stuff. The frenzy of the Toys for Tots "giving to the needy" is truly just a disguise for more capitalist greed wrapped up in seasonal sentimentality. The message is clear: buy, buy, buy "for the sake of the needy children". Another subject that came up was the Target boycott by Christian fundamentalists and their allies, for Target's decision to discontinue the Salvation Army's seasonal fundraising begging on their doorsteps. Target, very wisely in my opinion, studied the history of the Salvation Army's poor record of much too a high a proportion of donations and funds raised going to administrative costs, and decided that many charities do a much better job of managing than the Salvation Army does. But you can see how out of control this whole thing when that sort of serious decision making about the best use of charitable giving dollars gets politicized like the Target/Salvation Army controversy has. |
|
22 Dec 04 - 12:11 PM (#1363278) Subject: RE: BS: Secular vs Religious Public Celebrations From: GUEST BTW, the Toys for Tots program initially refurbished used toys for needy children. That changed during the Reagan era (of course!). From the Toys for Tots website: "From Christmas 1980 through the present, Marines have collected and distributed only new toys. Three factors dictated this change. First, the Secretary of Defense's Total Force Program, introduced in the 1970s, assigned Reserves a greater role in America's defense posture. As a consequence, Reservists had to dedicate every minute of weekend drill time to honing and polishing combat skills. No time was available to refurbish toys. Second, public awareness of the health and safety aspects of toys that developed during the 70s made distribution of used toys legally inadvisable. Third, distributing "hand me down" toys does not send the message Marines want to send to needy children. The goal is to deliver a message of hope, which will build self-esteem and, in turn, motivate needy children to grow into responsible, productive, patriotic citizens and community leaders. A shiny new toy is the best means of accomplishing this goal." Makes me sick just reading it. |
|
22 Dec 04 - 12:17 PM (#1363280) Subject: RE: BS: Secular vs Religious Public Celebrations From: GUEST And for those of you who would balk at my scepticism about the program, one need only look at their list of corporate sponsors: Disney, Best Buy, Toys R Us, Dollar Tree, Gymboree Corp (a toy company), KB Toys, Trans World Entertainment, The Time Group (has a huge book division), Scholastic & Scholastic Book Fair (children's book publishers), and whole bunch of military/RNC suck-up corporations. The fact that the above companies profit from this sort of thing doesn't make anyone the least bit sceptical of their motives? |
|
22 Dec 04 - 12:26 PM (#1363285) Subject: RE: BS: Secular vs Religious Public Celebrations From: GUEST And just in case anyone is wondering why Target was uncomfortable with the Salvation Army begging on their doorsteps, perhaps a reading of the SA's doctrine will help you understand: From the Salvation Army website: The Doctrines of the Salvation Army. 1. We believe that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments were given by inspiration of God, and that they only constitute the Divine rule of Christian faith and practice. 2. We believe that there is only one God, who is infinitely perfect, the Creator, Preserver, and Governor of all things, and who is the only proper object of religious worship. 3. We believe that there are three persons in the Godhead - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, undivided in essence and co-equal in power and glory. 4. We believe that in the person of Jesus Christ the Divine and human natures are united, so that He is truly and properly God and truly and properly man. 5. We believe that our first parents were created in a state of innocency, but by their disobedience, they lost their purity and happiness, and that in consequence of their fall, all men have become sinners, totally depraved, and as such are justly exposed to the wrath of God. 6. We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ has by His suffering and death made an atonement for the whole world so that whosoever will may be saved. 7. We believe that repentance toward God, faith in our Lord Jesus Christ and regeneration by the Holy Spirit are necessary to salvation. 8. We believe that we are justified by grace through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ and that he that believeth hat the witness in himself. 9. We believe that continuance in a state of salvation depends upon continued obedient faith in Christ. 10. We believe that it is the privilege of all believers to be wholly sanctified, and that their whole spirit and soul and body may be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 11. We believe in the immortality of the soul, the resurrection of the body, in the general judgement at the end of the world, in the eternal happiness of the righteous, and in the endless punishment of the wicked. As a citizen of the same blue state in which Target has it's corporate headquarters, I am pleased to see that this year they finally had the guts to stand up and be counted. This sort of religious charity will never get my donations. Target has been a responsible corporate citizen in many ways, not so responsible in others (like allowing union organizing, and getting labor concessions from municipalities in exchange for land and finance deals for building stores). But they have my support on this one. The Salvation Army, to me, represents the absolute worst of Christian proselytizing being shoved down the throats of "the needy" before they are given help and assistance. |
|
22 Dec 04 - 12:28 PM (#1363290) Subject: RE: BS: Secular vs Religious Public Celebrations From: Bill D about the "forbidding the practice of religion" ..the amendment reads: "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. if you want to read a learned, complex and detailed exposition of the issue, start here ...especially this section it seems that some, like Alan Keyes wish to claim that "Congress shall make no law..." means that they must stay out of the issue altogether, and that thus, each state may therefore do anything it wishes...including imposing religious observances and aiding and supporting particular religions. In the 2nd link above, there are detailed expositions of what Madison intended, of challenges to his views, of judicial decisions over the years and of the relevance of those decisions. What *I* see right now is similar to what 'guest' notes...that is, more insertion of Christian programming on TV..("The Greatest Story Ever Told" ran last night, a Discovery channel production on "Armageddon" is about to run...etc.). It may be argued that sure..you always see lot of this during the holiday season, and I understand this....but I see more 'stridency' in the productions and emboldenment by more conservative religious factions since Bush was elected. Time will tell. I, personally, hold to the view that congress shall, indeed, "make no law...forbidding the free practice therof"....but I also want to retain the interpretation that 'congress shall do NOTHING to support, advocate or allow the precedence of one religion over another, OR to support or advocate religion in general over nonreligion. This is easy to say, but quite difficult to administer when a school wants to put on a Nativity play, or a courthouse wants to put a creché on the lawn. The line between private practice and public 'enablement' is pretty fuzzy in many cases. I do predict that in the coming few years, we will see the issue hotly debated as religious institutions try to gain more leverage and secular interests try to limit the situation...... |
|
22 Dec 04 - 12:33 PM (#1363294) Subject: RE: BS: Secular vs Religious Public Celebrations From: MMario I've donated to The Salvation Army charities for over 40 years - rung bells for their collections - shopped in their thrift stores - and the closest I have ever gotten to having anything "shoved down my throat" is watching the meeting scene in "Guys and Dolls". I've helped in Salvation Army soup kitchens - and yes, they did say a grace before eating; and pamphlets were available if desired - but I NEVER saw any pressure of any kind |
|
22 Dec 04 - 12:43 PM (#1363305) Subject: RE: BS: Secular vs Religious Public Celebrations From: GUEST So says you, so we should accept your word over the excellent work of charitable giving watchdog groups MMario, that have faulted the Salvation Army for empire building and lining the SA executives' pockets? This is an old article from the San Francisco Chronicle, but it gives some idea of the political extortion engaged in by religious charities like Salvation Army and Catholic Charities. Charities Balk at Domestic Partner, Open Meeting Laws Don Lattin, Chronicle Religion Writer Friday, July 10, 1998 San Francisco's neediest citizens -- the homeless, the elderly and people with AIDS -- are caught in the middle of an escalating political battle between gay activists and two of the city's largest religious charities. For years, the city has contracted with Catholic Charities and the Salvation Army to feed the poor, shelter the homeless and revive the intoxicated. Government money always has strings attached, but religious leaders say the tightening of purse strings threatens freedom of speech and the separation of church and state in San Francisco. And so those leaders are taking an increasingly hard line with the city. They cite several instances in which clergy have been investigated by city officials for publicly questioning the morality of homosexuality or legitimacy of gay marriage. Last month, the Salvation Army said it would rather give up $3.5 million in municipal contracts than comply with the new city law requiring domestic partner benefits for gay and lesbian employees. Ten days later, Catholic Charities threatened to pull out of more than $5 million in city contracts -- or sue -- over new rules requiring it to hold public hearings about its programs. Meanwhile, the dispute has become an increasingly personal one between San Francisco Archbishop William Levada and Supervisor Tom Ammiano, who is gay and Roman Catholic. Ammiano said Catholic Charities has to decide whether it is a religion -- with all the historical prohibitions against interference by the state -- or just another nonprofit corporation doing business with the city. ``They can't have it both ways,'' he said. ``When it comes to city regulations, they are a religion. What the city is asking is very minimal. But if it violates their religious creed, they don't have to take the money. |
|
22 Dec 04 - 12:46 PM (#1363308) Subject: RE: BS: Secular vs Religious Public Celebrations From: Rapparee Nor have I, Mario. Those eating the food provided by the SA or any other group should remember that these groups might be religiously funded and if you eats their food, you prayers their prayers (if any). Gummint sure ain't doin' much to help.... (And GUEST, before you go flying off into space, I contribute time, money, and "stuff" to various helping organizations, religious and secular.) |
|
22 Dec 04 - 12:50 PM (#1363311) Subject: RE: BS: Secular vs Religious Public Celebrations From: Once Famous mmario, this guest is just a bitter,pent-up and constipated socialist who has his onw political agenda and thinks he knows whats good for society. The Salvation Army has it's flaws probably but does a fine job for generations helping the needy. like most groups but unlike this Guest who thinks he knows everything and shouts it out so arrogantly. Ho Ho Hum. |
|
22 Dec 04 - 12:54 PM (#1363314) Subject: RE: BS: Secular vs Religious Public Celebrations From: MMario guest - I will point out that your example deal with the SA accepting monies and taking contracts - not with conditions to the charity they dispense. and several of your examples are Catholic charities - not Salvation army - which is what I was referring to. Nor did I disagree regarding their overhead and administrative costs. I just said that in 40 years of contact I have never observed anything except the mildest of prosolytizing. |
|
22 Dec 04 - 01:26 PM (#1363333) Subject: RE: BS: Secular vs Religious Public Celebrations From: Metchosin Regarding the history of Christmas Carols the Coventry Carol dates from 15th century Mystery Plays and following the original French tradition of caroling, the earliest Canadian one, The Huron Carol was written in 1643 in the Huron language. Those are two of the older ones of which I'm aware. |
|
22 Dec 04 - 01:35 PM (#1363345) Subject: RE: BS: Secular vs Religious Public Celebrations From: GUEST Most people don't realize this, but it is very difficult to assess the effectiveness of religious charities like the Salvation Army, because many religious organizations are exempt under Internal Revenue Code from filing the Form 990, the document most often used by charitable giving watchdog groups to evaluate a charity's effectiveness. As a result, we lack sufficient data to evaluate their charitable giving effectiveness. From one of the watchdogs, the American Institute on Philanthropy, a 1998 article: "Salvation Army Rates High on Finances but Low on Governance After repeated requests from AIP, The Salvation Army has prepared consolidated audited financial statements of its 9,347 centers of operation that provide counseling, shelter and other assistance to nearly 27 million people. AIP is particularly pleased with this development since The Salvation Army, unlike most other major charities, is not required to file public information because it is considered by the IRS and state authorities to be a church. These statements show over $2 billion in income and $1.6 billion in expenses for fiscal 1996. The Salvation Army of the United States consists of six corporate entities: four regional territories, the National Corporation (headquarters) and the World Services Office. Since the Headquarters and the World Service Office do not report fundraising costs, and their expenses account for only about 2% of the Salvation Army's total budget, AIP is not presently rating these entities. While the parts of The Salvation Army that have been evaluated receive a high rating from AIP based on their financial performance, AIP members should be aware that the organization lacks an independent governing board. AIP encourages all religious and secular nonprofit organizations to demonstrate good governance by electing an outside board of directors that consists predominately of members who do not receive compensation or other financial benefits from the organization that they are governing. Otherwise, nonprofit directors may be tempted to place their own interests over the best interests of the organization. The absence of outside directors at any nonprofit could also lead to serious problems being swept under the rug and away from public scrutiny. " Salvation Army is not on the list of Top Rated Charities for any of it's charitable giving categories (ie not hunger programs, homeless programs, human services programs, drug abuse programs, international relief programs, mental health programs, youth programs, veterans programs, women's programs, seniors programs, etc) by AIP except for the category of services for the disabled (though not for services for the blind). Now then, the services the Salvation Army provides are as follows (from it's own website): 1) Christmas - from their website: "millions of dollars donated each year to aid needy families, seniors, and the homeless" Odd that they aren't highly rated as a charity in any of those areas, isn't it? 2) League of Mercy - a "visitation program that connects volunteers and Salvation Army officers and soldiers to those with special needs in hospitals, nursing homes, and correctional facilities" - but again, it doesn't receive high ratings in services provided in any of these areas either by AIP. 3) Seniors - "Contemporary residences are provided, as well as retirement developments for the elderly. They provide safe and comfortable living accommodations at moderate cost. Cooperative efforts with federal, state, and local programs help provide hot meals to housebound seniors" - again, Salvation Army receives no mention in the top rated charities list for provision of these types of services. 4) Men's community service clubs - "The Salvation Army operates active men's fellowship clubs in many communities, providing a service program similar to those of the Rotary, Kiwanis, or Alliance clubs. Men meet for dinner meetings to plan community-service projects, special events, and weekend retreats. They enjoy fellowship, music, and speakers who present information on topics of interest." Well, there is a reason why there are no rankings for this type of "charitable giving program". They are men's business clubs. 5) Armed Forces - the Sallies and the USO, largely community centers and clubs for members of the Armed Forces. They aren't ranked highly among veterans services organization category by AIP either. 6) Disaster relief - the largest component of this service program of theirs is providing "spiritual relief" and distribution of meals and basic goods. Again, it doesn't rank among the top charities in this category either. 7) Music - an evangelizing tool for recruitment of volunteers mostly, to perform in the Salvation Army brass bands. This isn't considered a legitmate category by charity watchdog groups unless the program provides instruments, lessons, camps for youth, etc. That isn't the purpose or function of the Salvation Army's music services, evangelizing is. 8) Human trafficking - a rather new category for the Salvation Army, they seem obsessed with the international sex trade (in keeping with all that godliness, I'm sure), not so much with trafficking of humans for the drug trade, child soldiers for wars, and child and sweatshop labor for manufacturing, etc. Again, they don't rank for this type of international relief and development work either. In all fairness though, they are top ranked in one category, and that is the category of disabled services. |
|
22 Dec 04 - 01:43 PM (#1363350) Subject: RE: BS: Secular vs Religious Public Celebrations From: Bill D if one goes to Salvation Army functions, it SHOULD be expected that religious observance will be part of the program. They are a religious based group. Nothing wrong with that, and anyone who partakes of their charity should recognize that a religious message will be part of the deal....as with any church. I do choose to make my personal contributions to charitable groups who are not directly connected with churches, hoping that the the main purpose of charity will be served anyway. If various religious groups cannot enter into contracts with a city like San Francisco because of 'moral' considerations based on religious beliefs, so be it. This article is several years old--I wonder if and how it has been resolved since. Since one tenet of many religions IS to 'witness' and evangelize and send out missionaries, they will inevitably come into disputes with those who wish not to be bothered or to have public funds and institutions devoted to religious causes....and as I note above, the line gets fuzzy and neither side is happy with most decisions. I do not see Quakers, Amish/Mennonite and similar groups pressing for more access to public funds and displays....they simply (pun noted) practice their religion and create no waves. Others DO make waves of various heights. Judge Moore of Alabama was just a more extreme example. It would be a VERY good idea, in my opinion, to explicate the rules clearly, both protecting private religious practices and limiting what is done publicly. (Yeah....I DO know how hard that would be...but to leave it to the changing whims of whatever party or judges are currently in power is to invite swings which will eventually injure the rights of one side or the other) |
|
22 Dec 04 - 01:44 PM (#1363354) Subject: RE: BS: Secular vs Religious Public Celebrations From: GUEST The question that needs begging is why do these evangelical "missions" receive church status from the federal government, and thereby escape public scrutiny? Why are these militaristic evangelical missions given so much clout when it comes to the national winter holidays in the US, and preferential treatment by federal and state agencies like the IRS and state Depts of Revenue? Answer: the power of the Christian business class in the US over our political life. As Martin Gibson has pointed out, Christmas is both a federal and state holiday in all 50 states. I would question that as well. I don't think it should be a federal holiday. I would be perfectly happy to stick with Thanksgiving and New Years as federal holidays. But I am opposed to Christmas being promoted as a national holiday, particularly when it is linked so strongly to Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox evangelicalism, to exploitation by Christian politicans (of all races and ethnicities) and to promotion of American militarism. |
|
22 Dec 04 - 01:50 PM (#1363359) Subject: RE: BS: Secular vs Religious Public Celebrations From: GUEST Excellent point about organizations run by the Quakers especially, Bill D. Quaker organizations, along with Catholic Relief Services (though not Catholic Charities, a much more conservative charitable organization than Catholic Relief Services), are on the top-rated lists for their charitable work, and rarely are accused of evangelizing and proselytizing. Though I do have some Native American friends who would argue that the Quakers historically were fairly brutal when "civilizing" them. That said, one of my best friends, a Native American woman, has served on AFSC's national board for years. |
|
22 Dec 04 - 01:51 PM (#1363361) Subject: RE: BS: Secular vs Religious Public Celebrations From: GUEST And yes, these are old articles. The "controversies" seem to have disappeared after Bush the Evangelical was selected in 2000. |
|
22 Dec 04 - 02:18 PM (#1363385) Subject: RE: BS: Secular vs Religious Public Celebrations From: Once Famous As usual, Guest postings continue to confuse as to who is saying what, so they screw up a thread more than me deciding to talk about Hot dogs. |
|
22 Dec 04 - 02:23 PM (#1363389) Subject: RE: BS: Secular vs Religious Public Celebrations From: MMario beef, pork, chicken, or white hots? |
|
22 Dec 04 - 02:37 PM (#1363402) Subject: RE: BS: Secular vs Religious Public Celebrations From: Rapparee Lordy, Mario! Chicago hot dogs! Nothhing else even comes close! A Chicago 'dog with everything is a treat for jaded taste buds, the closest thing to the manna of the desert, to the food of gods in Valhalla or on Olympus, that you are likely to experience during you time on Earth. |
|
22 Dec 04 - 03:11 PM (#1363436) Subject: RE: BS: Secular vs Religious Public Celebrations From: Once Famous Rapaire knows. The other blows. Kosher all-beef is a Chicago hot-dog. Use ketchup and you are banned from the city and surrounding suburbs. |
|
22 Dec 04 - 03:20 PM (#1363446) Subject: RE: BS: Secular vs Religious Public Celebrations From: GUEST And is it any surprise that Wal Mart, Target's largest competitor, has announced it will match the Salvation Army's collections at it's stores this year, in the wake of the conservative evangelical "protest" against Target? Other major retailers such as Toys "R" Us, Kohl's department stores and Barnes & Noble also don't allow bell ringers because of blanket no-solicitation policies. But it is Target, the Minneapolis-based retailer receiving all the attention from conservatives and evangelicals. Target had been the Salvation Army's second most profitable collection point, accounting for nearly $9 million of the $93.8 million bell ringers raised nationwide in the 2003 holiday season. Wal-Mart, whose stores are the Salvation Army's most lucrative collection point, continues to allow the red kettle collections. Salvation Army has known about the Target decision to ban the bellringers since last January, which begs the question, why the news frenzy now? Answer: Wal Mart getting the word out to it's Christian and conservative base to stage a boycott that would send shoppers their way instead of Target's way. |
|
22 Dec 04 - 03:20 PM (#1363447) Subject: RE: BS: Secular vs Religious Public Celebrations From: MMario but but but but - what about white hots? |
|
22 Dec 04 - 03:24 PM (#1363450) Subject: RE: BS: Secular vs Religious Public Celebrations From: Once Famous So what, Guest. Your rant shows that you know nothing about marketing and business. They did not do anything illegal. Belittling your competitor is fair game. It's your choice whether you want to be motivated by that. If some are, fine. but they know that not enough will have any problem whatsoever. |
|
22 Dec 04 - 03:27 PM (#1363452) Subject: RE: BS: Secular vs Religious Public Celebrations From: Rapparee And you have to have celery salt. No (shudder!) ketchup, but yes! to celery salt. If you put (shudder!) ketchup on a Chicago hot dog you should be made eat it with the fish -- and I don't mean in the Shedd Aquarium, either. |
|
22 Dec 04 - 03:37 PM (#1363463) Subject: RE: BS: Secular vs Religious Public Celebrations From: GUEST From Google News links: "The decision has raised the ire of shoppers across the nation. Many say they'll take their dollars elsewhere. Some accuse Target of being politically correct and anti-Christian. For example, this week, the American Family Association, a Christian activist group based in Mississippi, sent an "action alert" to the 2.2 million people on its mailing list, asking members to consider shopping at retailers like Wal-Mart, which allows bell-ringers as an exception to its no-solicitation policy. "Scrooge lives," wrote an e-mailer from California, supporting a petition to boycott Target on dontshoptarget.com. "Banning the Salvation Army is a perfect example of political correctness unmasked," said another. "Unless your shareholders are willing to live in blue states only (check the census figures. I'd bet population growth in blue states is negative, the red states are where the growth is) Target will need to restrain its secularist hostility to morality and religion," wrote a man from Texas. "You choose to make a point to discriminate against a Christian charity at Christmas (or do you now only call it the Holiday?) Better think about what it really means spiritually as well as financially." This article I quote from above talks about the very politicized Christmas/Christian triumphalism I mentioned in the opening posts to this thread. The organizations promoting this boycott are Republican fronts, and are well connected to Wal Mart. And I think most people know where Wal Mart stands on the political spectrum, whose political campaign for president they've supported, etc. These sorts of Republican evangelical non-controversies are becoming the tactical norm. The Republican capitalist greed for power is what drives this beast, and they attack anyone and anything they think they can use to successfully gut the American political system of any vestiges of secularity. Because secular societies use brains not brainwashing, to govern. The trend in the US is to use brainwashing and emotional right wing religious proselytizing to further a political agenda by people who care nothing for the US and it's secular form of constitutional governance. |
|
22 Dec 04 - 04:30 PM (#1363506) Subject: RE: BS: Secular vs Religious Public Celebrations From: Once Famous Yep, Republican are out marketing Democrats resulting in more votes. Political Science 101. Are you stiil counting votes in Ohio? |
|
22 Dec 04 - 04:55 PM (#1363522) Subject: RE: BS: Secular vs Religious Public Celebrations From: Rapparee I don't care for the jalapenos on my hot dogs, but then I don't care for jalapenos anyway. But everything else (except ketchup). |
|
22 Dec 04 - 04:57 PM (#1363525) Subject: RE: BS: Secular vs Religious Public Celebrations From: Once Famous Actually, Rap, we call them sport peppers. guaranteed to clear out the sinuses. |
|
22 Dec 04 - 06:11 PM (#1363585) Subject: RE: BS: Secular vs Religious Public Celebrations From: Rapparee My brother Tony asked me to get him some dried habeneros. I did, he bit into one, turned red, and steamed for 20 minutes. I like interesting, but non-toxic, hot dogs. I also don't eat hot peppers on the Mexican food out here. Tang, yes; toxicity, no. |
|
22 Dec 04 - 08:35 PM (#1363666) Subject: RE: BS: Secular vs Religious Public Celebrations From: Cruiser I understand what Guest is saying and agree with much of it. Bill D, as usual, has good input. Even though I am an atheist, I send Christmas cards to those closest in my immediate family, who are devout Christians. I see no problem with others singing Christmas carols, although I turn those songs off as soon as I hear them mostly because I tired of them many years ago. I also see no problem with any religion displaying their "scenes" on all but public grounds. If that is allowed then any miscreant religious cult could demand that their "scene" be displayed on public property. Then this holiday season, and perhaps throughout the year, we could be besieged with all manifestations of religious symbols in public, similar to political party campaign signs during elections. Man, would I like to go back to the 1950s before PC was heard of. Cruiser |
|
22 Dec 04 - 10:58 PM (#1363716) Subject: RE: BS: Secular vs Religious Public Celebrations From: Ebbie Cruiser, I'm not nostalgic for these things: The Korean War Women paid less, even upfront and in the open (Quote: What do they pay women there? ) People smoke anywhere McCarthy hearings UnAmerican Committee Above ground nuclear tests The Cold War Children taught to duck under the desk, closing eyes, holding ears Conformity, above all (Don't rock the boat) Nope |
|
23 Dec 04 - 08:56 AM (#1364020) Subject: RE: BS: Secular vs Religious Public Celebrations From: GUEST,Ron Davies Guest 22 December 2004 1:44 PM--"Christmas linked so strongly to....promotion of American militarism" Proof please, with specific incidents showing the direct connection, and direct quotes with exact attribution. Also, get a handle---lest you be lumped in with the courageous but wild-eyed and loopy thinking amorphous mass of "Guests" (ghosts) we are honored to have. This is an urgent request. I have already sung 3 Christmas concerts this year, including one for kids, and I have another to sing today. It would be extremely helpful for me to identify the pitfalls, lest I cause more military adventurism by singing Christmas songs. As somebody who has fought Bush tooth and nail for years, and considers he is a disaster for both the US and possibly the world, I would still like the link between Christmas and militarism established more clearly than you have done so far. Please explain. I trust you did have the sense to vote for Kerry--neither voting for Nader nor sitting home since your perfect candidate somehow was not on the ballot this year. We'll certainly endeavor to do better for you in future. |
|
23 Dec 04 - 10:06 AM (#1364070) Subject: RE: BS: Secular vs Religious Public Celebrations From: Once Famous Merry Christmas, Ron Davies Keep singing those Christmas songs you dearly love, loud and strong. sing them on the steps of city hall if you want to. I sincerely mean this. |
|
23 Dec 04 - 10:13 AM (#1364080) Subject: RE: BS: Secular vs Religious Public Celebrations From: Blissfully Ignorant Anyone who claims that celebrating Christmas as a Christian festival is intolerant is guilty of intolerance themselves. Let everyone celebrate as they see fit, i say...and keep religion out of politics. |
|
23 Dec 04 - 10:35 AM (#1364106) Subject: RE: BS: Secular vs Religious Public Celebrations From: Once Famous Personally I am sick of the words tolerant and intolerant and how it's overused by the far left. I am sure that there are many things that they are also intolerant of. It's like they spend their whole waking life deciding what they are tolerant of and what they are not tolerant of and who is tolerant of this and who is intolerant of that. How about, "mind your own business." |
|
23 Dec 04 - 10:54 AM (#1364124) Subject: RE: BS: Secular vs Religious Public Celebrations From: Cruiser Ebbie, I agree to not being nostalgic about all things 50s. The "Holy Wars" of Christianity vs. Islam that are likely on the horizon portend far greater danger to world stability than that posed by the Korean War, or possibly other wars. Yes, there was an extreme differential pay scale for men over women. That was unfair. The Civil Rights strife of White vs. Black was wrong too. Now it seems to be all cultures against each other and that could get worse. It is important that we remain the United States and avoid the fragmentation other countries have experienced. Above and below ground nuclear tests could increase as more sovereign nations gain nuclear capabilities. At least there was some control, if only by the number of countries doing the testing, "back then". I don't miss the smoky atmosphere either. I remember the 'Hit Parade' when; I think it was Perry Como who while smoking a Chesterfield (or Lucky Strike) stated how good they were for you! (paraphrased). I used to shoot pool in the 60s and still recall the about 5 foot high thick layer of smoke haze my head was in when I wasn't bent over the pool table taking a shot. Notwithstanding the Cold War, I think we are worse off with the current fragmentation of the Soviet Union. We had only one Giant to watch; now we have a multitude of potential nuclear threats. Ah, the nuclear attack drills as a school child. Now children have to worry about planes crashing into buildings or homemade bombs exploding in their daycare or schools; or their classmates slaughtering them with assault weapons. I will also take getting swatted with that "electric paddle" from that mean old Principal or teacher over the current undisciplined school climate today. Conformity: my military service reinforced my thoughts that humans work well together when you conform to certain standards. If you are a nonconformist you are out, period! High standards are slipping away in America today, I don't like it, and I attribute many of society's ills to nonconformity to higher standards of conduct. If you "rock the boat" too much society has the right to demand that you do not reap its benefits. I strongly defend the death penalty. There is no "God" to mete out justice on "Judgement Day" so society must do so for the benefit of those that strive to follow the rules. I still prefer the 50s and early 60s...before those darned Beatles and the ensuing drug culture! Cruiser |
|
23 Dec 04 - 06:16 PM (#1364477) Subject: RE: BS: Secular vs Religious Public Celebrations From: GUEST,Ron Davies Hey Cruiser-- You can't blame the Beatles--at least not the early years, before they decided they needed to expand their minds artificially. |
|
23 Dec 04 - 06:26 PM (#1364481) Subject: RE: BS: Secular vs Religious Public Celebrations From: GUEST,Ron Davies Also--thanks, Martin. Hope you had a great Hanukkah. My groups' Christmas concerts are all in concert halls. We're not trying to make a political point---just provide good music at this time of year (there is certainly no dearth of it, especially now---and there's such a huge variety that I don't see how anybody should be bored of it (just from a musical standpoint). As to not believing every word, if I had to believe every word, I couldn't sing the Verdi and Mozart requiems---and I'd be really deprived of the opportunity to sing a lot of other wonderful music. |
|
23 Dec 04 - 06:57 PM (#1364503) Subject: RE: BS: Secular vs Religious Public Celebrations From: McGrath of Harlow When it comes to heavy proselytising, the 14 posts-so-far nameless GUEST seems pretty adept (or maybe it's a team of fourteen nameless GUESTS who more or less agree about something). There's three issues here - one is the evidence that Christmas is being stolen and distorted by money-grubbing cynics. And that's something that people who actually value Christmas as a Christian celebration, and who don't buy that kind of thing, should be resisting, by the way they celebrate Christmas themselves, and I am sure many of them are doing exactly that. And the second issue is that, for some people, there is an objection to the idea of Christmas as a Christian celebration. And I can't see that as any more worthy of regard than people who object to other types of religious celebrations, just because it's not a religion to which they adhere. And I think that is a kind of bigotry. The more celebrations there are, the better. And the third issue is the claim that there is an oppressive and triumphalist Christo-Americanism on the march here - and if that's true, the way to challenge it is as being anti-American, and anti-Christian. In political terms that kind of movement would amount to a kind of treason, and in religious terms to a kind of blasphemy. |
|
23 Dec 04 - 07:01 PM (#1364504) Subject: RE: BS: Secular vs Religious Public Celebrations From: GUEST Lawyer's Christmas card From me (`the wishor`) to you (hereinafter called `the wishee`): Please accept without obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, politically correct, low stress, non addictive, gender neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, practised within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasions of your choice or secular practises of your choice with respect for the religious/secular traditions of others or their right not to practise religious or secular traditions at all and a financially successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2005, but with the due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures or sects, and having regard to the race, creed, colour, age, physical ability, religious faith, choice of computer platform, or the dietary choice of the wishee By accepting this greeting you are bound by these terms that: This greeting is subject to further clarification or withdrawal; this greeting is freely transferable provided that no alteration shall be made to the original greeting and that the propriety rights of the wishor are acknowledged; this greeting implies no promise by the wishor to actually implement any of the wishes; this greeting may not be enforceable in certain jurisdictions and/or the restrictions herein may not be binding on certain wishees in certain jurisdictions and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wishor; this greeting is warranted to perform as well as reasonably well may be expected within the usual applications of good tidings, for a period of one year or until the issuance of subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first; the wishor warrants this greeting only for the limited replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wishor; any references to the Lord, Father Christmas, Our Saviour, or any other festive figures, whether actual or fictitious, dead or alive, shall not imply any endorsement by or from them in respect to this greeting; and all propriety rights in any referenced third-party names and images are hereby acknowledged. |
|
24 Dec 04 - 02:59 AM (#1364700) Subject: RE: BS: Secular vs Religious Public Celebrations From: Peace The card is from the following site, lest anyone wish to verify the accuracy of the cut and paste. www.wilk4.com/humor/humorm132.htm |