Why are some conservative types so up in arms about some ppl choosing ''happy holidays'' over "merry x-mas"????

I thought the idea that the US was a melting pot and had ppl from all different cultures and backgrounds living together, was a point of pride for us...

Why are some pointing to this as part of a ''War on X-mas"????

Because it is popular at the moment to play the whole "woe is me i'm a Christian i have it so bad i'm oppressed" card here in the United States.

Because it is popular at the moment to play the whole "woe is me because your saying 'Merry Christmas' offends me" card here in the United States.

I don't care either way, but doesn't it make more sense, if you are gonna boast about being a melting pot and being inclusive to all different types of people to also include the other holidays, whose season it is now also, in your greeting...like at Walmart foro example.

There's a war on christmas? A bounty out on Santa and Rudolph? OH NO!!!!

Yes, and you'll never guess who's out to get them: the LIBERALS!!!!!! Who else....

Well, if we are going to be a melting pot, and truly political correct and welcome all creeds and religions, then government should get their big fat warty noses out of people putting up nativity scenes and such!
Right?

But ohhhhh nooooooooo....people fly right off their friggen nut at such things, claiming "separation of church and state! separation of church and staaaaaaaaaaaaaaaate!"

And we all know it's true. It is time for those people to put up or shut up, eh?

Strapping Young Lad wrote: Why are some conservative types so up in arms about some ppl choosing ''happy holidays'' over "merry x-mas"????

I thought the idea that the US was a melting pot and had ppl from all different cultures and backgrounds living together, was a point of pride for us...

Why are some pointing to this as part of a ''War on X-mas"????

If you have noticed, and I am sure you have authoritarians love to use the word WAR.

War on drugs, War on terror, War on Christmas.

It is hyperbole and a control method to try to enforce religous Christmas on people that choose either other holidays at that time of the year or to celebrate a secular version of Christmas.

I think that those are few and far between though and not a large percentage of Americans. They just make sure their voice is heard.

CenterBHSFan wrote: Well, if we are going to be a melting pot, and truly political correct and welcome all creeds and religions, then government should get their big fat warty noses out of people putting up nativity scenes and such!
Right?

But ohhhhh nooooooooo....people fly right off their friggen nut at such things, claiming "separation of church and state! separation of church and staaaaaaaaaaaaaaaate!"

And we all know it's true. It is time for those people to put up or shut up, eh?

True, I agree w/ you...Where are ppl bitching about nativity scenes????

CenterBHSFan wrote: Well, if we are going to be a melting pot, and truly political correct and welcome all creeds and religions, then government should get their big fat warty noses out of people putting up nativity scenes and such!
Right?

But ohhhhh nooooooooo....people fly right off their friggen nut at such things, claiming "separation of church and state! separation of church and staaaaaaaaaaaaaaaate!"

And we all know it's true. It is time for those people to put up or shut up, eh?

And separation of Church and State was never meant to keep Religion out of all things Public. It was meant to keep the government out of interference with the Church!

I'm thinking they were not so keen on the idea of "The National Church of George Washington" thinking that King James guy and others already tried this one.

CenterBHSFan wrote: Well, if we are going to be a melting pot, and truly political correct and welcome all creeds and religions, then government should get their big fat warty noses out of people putting up nativity scenes and such!
Right?

But ohhhhh nooooooooo....people fly right off their friggen nut at such things, claiming "separation of church and state! separation of church and staaaaaaaaaaaaaaaate!"

And we all know it's true. It is time for those people to put up or shut up, eh?

Where has the Government denied a private citizen the right to put up a nativity scene on their own property that is not public use or a government building?

The establishment clause is a very important part of our constitution.

RoyalNut wrote:

CenterBHSFan wrote: Well, if we are going to be a melting pot, and truly political correct and welcome all creeds and religions, then government should get their big fat warty noses out of people putting up nativity scenes and such!
Right?

But ohhhhh nooooooooo....people fly right off their friggen nut at such things, claiming "separation of church and state! separation of church and staaaaaaaaaaaaaaaate!"

And we all know it's true. It is time for those people to put up or shut up, eh?

And separation of Church and State was never meant to keep Religion out of all things Public. It was meant to keep the government out of interference with the Church!

The church does not run this country the government does. The establishment clause is very clear on the matter.

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.

You are free to practice your religion. You are not free to make others follow its dogma.

Somebody walking by and seeing a nativity scene, no matter where it is, does not mean that that person will be subjectively forced by the government or a group of people or a person to attend a church, synagogue, mosque, or a cabbage patch. How in the world does anybody come up with the notion that they are now being forced into practicing that religion?!????
That idea (or nudge) is severly distorted.

Our constitution gives us the basic right of freedom OF religion.
The whole freedom FROM religion is a misguided idea at best.

Like I said, if we are going to truly be a melting pot of "race", religions, creeds, etc., then it is time to put up or shut up.

CenterBHSFan wrote: Somebody walking by and seeing a nativity scene, no matter where it is, does not mean that that person will be subjectively forced by the government or a group of people or a person to attend a church, synagogue, mosque, or a cabbage patch. How in the world does anybody come up with the notion that they are now being forced into practicing that religion?!????
That idea (or nudge) is severly distorted.

Our constitution gives us the basic right of freedom OF religion.
The whole freedom FROM religion is a misguided idea at best.

Like I said, if we are going to truly be a melting pot of "race", religions, creeds, etc., then it is time to put up or shut up.

One more thing:

Saying that seeing a nativity scene on any sort of government (federal, state or local) property is forcing somebody to follow that religion - is like saying that a woman walking by a President (pick one)while he is sitting down in a chair at the White House means that she now has to marry that President.

See how ridiculous that argument is?

CenterBHSFan wrote:

CenterBHSFan wrote: Somebody walking by and seeing a nativity scene, no matter where it is, does not mean that that person will be subjectively forced by the government or a group of people or a person to attend a church, synagogue, mosque, or a cabbage patch. How in the world does anybody come up with the notion that they are now being forced into practicing that religion?!????
That idea (or nudge) is severly distorted.

Our constitution gives us the basic right of freedom OF religion.
The whole freedom FROM religion is a misguided idea at best.

Like I said, if we are going to truly be a melting pot of "race", religions, creeds, etc., then it is time to put up or shut up.

One more thing:

Saying that seeing a nativity scene on any sort of government (federal, state or local) property is forcing somebody to follow that religion - is like saying that a woman walking by a President (pick one)while he is sitting down in a chair at the White House means that she now has to marry that President.

See how ridiculous that argument is?

No, the government cannot endorse a religion which it will be doing if it does for one religion and does not for others.

So you have no problem with the muslims putting up their displays on government property. OR Wiccans or Hindus etc.

If it is good for one religion it is good for all religions.

And I want the spot your putting your nativity scene at.

So you have no problem with the muslims putting up their displays on government property. OR Wiccans or Hindus etc.

No. I think I would have typed that out clearly if that is what I was saying.
I don't know how many times I will have to post exactly what I'm saying, but I'll try it one more time. Pay attention! (pop quiz tomorrow)

Well, if we are going to be a melting pot, and truly political correct and welcome all creeds and religions, then government should get their big fat warty noses out of people putting up nativity scenes and such!
Right?
And we all know it's true. It is time for those people to put up or shut up, eh?
...................
Somebody walking by and seeing a nativity scene, no matter where it is, does not mean that that person will be subjectively forced by the government or a group of people or a person to attend a church, synagogue, mosque, or a cabbage patch.

CenterBHSFan wrote:

CenterBHSFan wrote: Somebody walking by and seeing a nativity scene, no matter where it is, does not mean that that person will be subjectively forced by the government or a group of people or a person to attend a church, synagogue, mosque, or a cabbage patch. How in the world does anybody come up with the notion that they are now being forced into practicing that religion?!????
That idea (or nudge) is severly distorted.

Our constitution gives us the basic right of freedom OF religion.
The whole freedom FROM religion is a misguided idea at best.

Like I said, if we are going to truly be a melting pot of "race", religions, creeds, etc., then it is time to put up or shut up.

One more thing:

Saying that seeing a nativity scene on any sort of government (federal, state or local) property is forcing somebody to follow that religion - is like saying that a woman walking by a President (pick one)while he is sitting down in a chair at the White House means that she now has to marry that President.

See how ridiculous that argument is?

Did someone say that putting up a nativity scene will force someone to follow the religion?


I said "It is hyperbole and a control method to try to enforce religous Christmas on people that choose either other holidays at that time of the year or to celebrate a secular version of Christmas."

It refers to the war on christmas. I did not state that will force people to follow the religion but it does force the religious version of christmas on people and the government would be endorsing such.

Your argument is commonly referred to as a strawman.

You make a weaker version of what is said so that you can burn it up. It fails logically.

The establishment clause is clear.

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

Not of a religion of George Washington for whoever stated that it is no law RESPECTING an establishment of religion. That means any.

It is a two part commentary. First no establishment of any religion at all. However you are allowed to exercise your religion. So there is a divide a seperation of church and state.

You are free to practice your religion. You are not free to make others follow its dogma.

That is what I was answering, in part, to.

Seeing something does not make one do something.
Seeing a nativity scene does not make somebody become a Christian. No matter where the NS is placed.

Being a christian is almost considered being a nut job in today's society. Sad..

I was thinking the other day... why do some atheist celebrate Christmas?

Look. It's clear here that I have my own point of view on this, which happens to be opposed to yours. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

CenterBHSFan wrote:

You are free to practice your religion. You are not free to make others follow its dogma.

That is what I was answering, in part, to.

Seeing something does not make one do something.
Seeing a nativity scene does not make somebody become a Christian. No matter where the NS is placed.

I will not get into why your answer is still a strawman, but I agree to disagree.

slide22 wrote: Being a christian is almost considered being a nut job in today's society. Sad..

I was thinking the other day... why do some atheist celebrate Christmas?

Because they celebrate the secular version of Christmas.

Santa Clause and Rudolph and Frosty not any of the religion aspects of it. Some view as a time of giving without religious strings attached.

bunk,

Actually, you can call my argument strawman all you want, because I'm thinking that you are no more an "authority" on the matter than I am.

slide22 wrote: Being a christian is almost considered being a nut job in today's society. Sad..

I was thinking the other day... why do some atheist celebrate Christmas?

Not really.

I will always say Merry Christmas but I won't hate on someone for saying Happy Holidays.