81% Celebrate Christmas As A Religious Holiday

1Perry said:

Would the pay of every single chaplain in the military even reach the cost of one bomb?

Click to expand...

Why is everything about bombs?

We could easily discharge one chaplain and keep two enlisted guys in (if not three). The salary of a chaplain is going to be much higher than that of an enlisted. So for every chaplain we stopped paying, we could pay for two or three enlisted guys and maybe we wouldn't be seeing such a huge problem with not having enough people in certain places. Maybe our guys could have better working conditions because they aren't expected to take on so much with so few people that it is wearing them out.

roguenuke said:

It's funny, I've heard more military guys say "get rid of military chaplains" or at least don't pay them, than I've heard from outside the military. And then it is for what they perceive as a practical use of funding issue. Most people would rather drop chaplains than reduce their own pay, take a chance that they'll be kicked out due to reduced funding, or be short on gear.

Click to expand...

Heh. I am an atheist and I think military chaplains do a wonderful job. I remember being deployed and listening to the nightly prayer on the 5MC and being oddly comforted by the Catholic priest who did the prayer(with a heavy Irish accent) always ending with "and all of Ike says good night". I know people who when things went bad in their life turned to those chaplains and got wonderful support that really helped them. They are more than worth their weight in gold.

roguenuke said:

Why is everything about bombs?

We could easily discharge one chaplain and keep two enlisted guys in (if not three). The salary of a chaplain is going to be much higher than that of an enlisted. So for every chaplain we stopped paying, we could pay for two or three enlisted guys and maybe we wouldn't be seeing such a huge problem with not having enough people in certain places. Maybe our guys could have better working conditions because they aren't expected to take on so much with so few people that it is wearing them out.

Click to expand...

Would the pay of every single chaplain in the military even reach the cost of one bomb?

Krhazy said:

Sounds like a war on Secularism to me.

Click to expand...

Would you like to borrow my hearing aids either way Merry Christmas has gained alot of favor back with americans and I like that.

Phys251 said:

My question is how the rights of the other 19% can be preserved.

Click to expand...

What rights are we talking about for the 19%...just what rights are infringed upon BY the other 81% liking christmas

lpast said:

Would you like to borrow my hearing aids either way Merry Christmas has gained alot of favor back with americans and I like that.

Click to expand...

I still don't care. People are free to say whatever they want.

lpast said:

What rights are we talking about for the 19%...just what rights are infringed upon BY the other 81% liking christmas

Click to expand...

i think that nobody would know about "the (ghost) war on christmas" except for faux news. seriously, it's up to the individual towns and cities and municipal properties what they have on their lawns, and it's up to everyone else to say whatever they feel is appropriate. people should be offended by neither "merry christmas" nor "happy holidays", "happy hanukkah", or whatever. dumb and dumber, this entire subject. if you are religious, celebrate christmas your way, and don't worry about what others do. do you REALLY think jesus gives a **** about a manger in front of a courthouse? if you are not religious, fine, don't complain about people saying "merry christmas"......christmas is only a day. they are wishing you a merry DAY.

Wessexman said:

You really need to calm down and not get over excited. I'm really not sure what your point is. I admit I stereotyped the ACLU position, but I don't think most will disagree with me, but whatever.

Click to expand...

What you did was get their position completely wrong. We call that lying.

You didn't answer the most important point, why would Fisher Ames give the motion if he didn't agree with it? You have also not shown that Madison was responsible for the outcome. It seems his input was repeatedly and deliberately revised(and I was well aware the amendment was revised and Ames only came up with the final statement);

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

Click to expand...

Your source actually explains it pretty well. The framework of what was to be in the amendment was decided on already. The only question was how it would be worded. If Ames actually opposed the concept of no state religion, then he may have done his part because that was the compromise reached. I know, compromise, what a radical idea.

You also have far from proved that most of those at the convention were even as 'radically' secularist as Madison and most importantly that even he, let alone them, wanted to ban things like municipal Christmas trees or prayers in schools or had anything like the modern viewpoint of secularists who want absolute separation of church and state, done to Christmas trees and Ten Commandment statues. Also that amendment was meant only for the federal government.

Click to expand...

And now you are building straw men. I never claimed most where "racially secularist". Nice try though. Note also: christmas trees are not banned, nor is prayer in school. Why is honesty so hard for you? And lastly note that I brought up the federal vs state thing in my first reply to you, including(as usual) more details than you.

The judicial activist and constitutional interpretation argument stands. My argument is of course only meaningful to those who care what the writers and ratifiers(the latter are even more important than the writers) meant and respect it, and generally want to enforce it.

Click to expand...

No, actually it does not stand for a couple reasons. You are basing your opinion on what the writers and ratifiers wanted based on limited information. You are also failing to notice what they actually put into law. We have a very clear legal system that those writers and ratifiers put into place. If you do not like it, then you best go back and cry to them. The whole holier than thou bull**** is just that, bull****. I can play that exact same game: if you do not like the separation of church and state, you hate one of the key premises and protections in the constitution and piss on the memory of Jefferson.

Redress said:

What you did was get their position completely wrong. We call that lying.

Click to expand...

Whatever.

Your source actually explains it pretty well. The framework of what was to be in the amendment was decided on already. The only question was how it would be worded. If Ames actually opposed the concept of no state religion, then he may have done his part because that was the compromise reached. I know, compromise, what a radical idea.

Click to expand...

Actually it shows great revision. And my collected works of Ames show that this was a heated debate, specifically because they didn't want to surrender so much ground to Madison's more secular attitude.

And now you are building straw men. I never claimed most where "racially secularist". Nice try though. Note also: christmas trees are not banned, nor is prayer in school. Why is honesty so hard for you? And lastly note that I brought up the federal vs state thing in my first reply to you, including(as usual) more details than you.

Click to expand...

This, though, is what I thought our debate was above; whether the Founders meant the sort of radical secularism and separation of Church and State I associated with the ACLU.

No, actually it does not stand for a couple reasons. You are basing your opinion on what the writers and ratifiers wanted based on limited information. You are also failing to notice what they actually put into law. We have a very clear legal system that those writers and ratifiers put into place. If you do not like it, then you best go back and cry to them. The whole holier than thou bull**** is just that, bull****. I can play that exact same game: if you do not like the separation of church and state, you hate one of the key premises and protections in the constitution and piss on the memory of Jefferson.

Click to expand...

This is belied by the rancour over that legal system and how the constitution should be used and interpreted, and the role of the judiciary. Jefferson was not at the convention, and was more radical than most of the Founding Fathers on this topic, and several others.

lpast said:

What rights are we talking about for the 19%...just what rights are infringed upon BY the other 81% liking christmas

Click to expand...

That isn't the problem. The problem is when a vocal minority of this 81% believe they have a God-given right to not let the 19% have the same public celebrations of their beliefs as the rest do. Or to not hound those who do not want to participate in these ceremonies.

Phys251 said:

That isn't the problem. The problem is when a vocal minority of this 81% believe they have a God-given right to not let the 19% have the same public celebrations of their beliefs as the rest do. Or to not hound those who do not want to participate in these ceremonies.

Click to expand...

How is saying Merry Christmas or having a Christmas Tree up on public land stopping anyone from having thier own public celebrations of thier own beliefs? Or how is it hounding them?

Kal'Stang said:

How is saying Merry Christmas or having a Christmas Tree up on public land stopping anyone from having thier own public celebrations of thier own beliefs? Or how is it hounding them?

Click to expand...

That is why only a very tiny few people on the very fringe are going after those things. No serious group is. I think Jewish groups have more issue with both those than any liberal/atheist groups, and even then it is very very few people.

Ikari said:

81% of people claim to celebrate Christmas as a religious holiday, is what it should read as. Do 81% of the people go to Church on Christmas? Doubtful. People love to pretend they're more devout than they are.

That being said, why the **** do I care? I celebrate Christmas as an American holiday, not in any religious context. But I go to church that day...which probably puts me ahead of some of that 81%.

Click to expand...

Let us consider the many myths of Christmas:

First, Christmas is not the anniversary of the birth of Christ. It is merely an arbitrary celebration of his birth. No one knows exactly when Christ was born, but most scholars believe it was in the spring, perhaps as late as May. The Catholic Church hi-jacked a pagan celebration of the winter solstice and declared it the birth of Christ. Frankly, there is a very good case for such pagans to rightfully tell us all to get the Christ out. Second, true Christians (which are a very small subset of those that think of themselves as Christians) should take offense at 1) the idea that the birth of Christ should be celebrated on a single day; 2) that such a day is so overrun with materialism, as this is completely against anything Christ taught (he spoke of worrying about your treasures in heaven and renouncing your treasures on earth), and 3) the birth of Christ being more remarkable than his death and resurrection.

I consider myself a strong Christian. As my faith has grown, my thinking of Christmas as some type of high holy day has been greatly diminished. I celebrate the birth, but far more importantly the death and resurrection of Christ every single day, with no day any more significant than the other. The idea of Christmas, as it has become in 21st Century America, really having much to do with Christ, I am increasingly finding almost offensive.

That all said, we do use Christmas, in our family, to tell the biblical story of the birth of Christ. But, I think of it much more as a family day, but enjoy the tradition. To me, it is an excuse (or powerful rallying point) to teach the word, drawing sharp contrast to Christ's intention for us and how we treat the day.

The exact date of Christ's birth is not relevant to the meaning of the current celebration of Christmas. Also those pagans no longer exist. The people who dress up like Druids are not their successors.

I do agree about the commercial aspect of Christmas, certainly. Christians, while celebrating Christmas, should minimise that aspect.

Phys251 said:

That isn't the problem. The problem is when a vocal minority of this 81% believe they have a God-given right to not let the 19% have the same public celebrations of their beliefs as the rest do. Or to not hound those who do not want to participate in these ceremonies.

Click to expand...

do you have evidence of these people "not letting" the 19% have the same public celebrations of their beliefs?.. or hounding those whom don't want to participate?

Redress said:

That is why only a very tiny few people on the very fringe are going after those things. No serious group is. I think Jewish groups have more issue with both those than any liberal/atheist groups, and even then it is very very few people.

Click to expand...

The very fact that teachers must say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" or that there are stores that refuse to say "Merry Christmas" shows that that "tiny fraction" has been able to do quite a bit of damage for being so "tiny".

Kal'Stang said:

The very fact that teachers must say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" or that there are stores that refuse to say "Merry Christmas" shows that that "tiny fraction" has been able to do quite a bit of damage for being so "tiny".

Click to expand...

Teachers can say Merry Christmas, unless their administrator is an idiot. Stores most likely choose happy holidays(though all I have heard so far this year is merry christmas) because they perceive it will cost sales(that dang capitalism). Got any other asinine objections based on myths and lies?

Redress said:

Teachers can say Merry Christmas, unless their administrator is an idiot. Stores most likely choose happy holidays(though all I have heard so far this year is merry christmas) because they perceive it will cost sales(that dang capitalism). Got any other asinine objections based on myths and lies?

Click to expand...

Know what, I had this whole long post done up but decided to forget it. Its just not worth it trying to open closed eyes and minds. If you wish to continue to think that people are not attacking Christmas and religion to the point that we shouldn't say anything about it then fine, go ahead and think that way. But if this were so true.....then why did the Mods (including you *looks at your moderator status*) have to create a special section on this forum where attacking religion was expressly forbidden?

Kal'Stang said:

Know what, I had this whole long post done up but decided to forget it. Its just not worth it trying to open closed eyes and minds. If you wish to continue to think that people are not attacking Christmas and religion to the point that we shouldn't say anything about it then fine, go ahead and think that way. But if this were so true.....then why did the Mods (including you *looks at your moderator status*) have to create a special section on this forum where attacking religion was expressly forbidden?

Click to expand...

No one is saying you shouldn't talk about it. That is what we call a straw man. Talk all you want, but prepare to defend your comments, just as the rest of us expect. What we will do is present evidence, which is something you have failed to do.

There is a significant difference between a message board and the laws of a country, just so you know. The reason for the religion forum have exactly jack **** to do with any "war on christmas".

liblady said:

i think that nobody would know about "the (ghost) war on christmas" except for faux news. seriously, it's up to the individual towns and cities and municipal properties what they have on their lawns, and it's up to everyone else to say whatever they feel is appropriate. people should be offended by neither "merry christmas" nor "happy holidays", "happy hanukkah", or whatever. dumb and dumber, this entire subject. if you are religious, celebrate christmas your way, and don't worry about what others do. do you REALLY think jesus gives a **** about a manger in front of a courthouse? if you are not religious, fine, don't complain about people saying "merry christmas"......christmas is only a day. they are wishing you a merry DAY.

Click to expand...

Thats not true...the ACLU threatened two lawsuits at the High School my daughter teachs at...one for having a christmas tree and nativity scene..along with a menorrah and islamic symbols...the threat of lawsuit only named the nativity scene...the menorrah and islamic scenes werent mentioned...and they threatened suit over Christmas Holiday being named in the school calendar...So I didnt hear that on foxnews..

Kal'Stang said:

How is saying Merry Christmas or having a Christmas Tree up on public land stopping anyone from having thier own public celebrations of thier own beliefs?

Click to expand...

One example would be when it literally is stopping them - such as when only a Christmas tree is allowed on public land, and no other religious symbols.

lpast said:

Thats not true...the ACLU threatened two lawsuits at the High School my daughter teachs at...one for having a christmas tree and nativity scene..along with a menorrah and islamic symbols...the threat of lawsuit only named the nativity scene...the menorrah and islamic scenes werent mentioned...and they threatened suit over Christmas Holiday being named in the school calendar...So I didnt hear that on foxnews..

Click to expand...

Would like to see details if you have them.

Kal'Stang said:

The very fact that teachers must say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" or that there are stores that refuse to say "Merry Christmas" shows that that "tiny fraction" has been able to do quite a bit of damage for being so "tiny".

Click to expand...

Happy Ramadan!

Redress said:

No one is saying you shouldn't talk about it. That is what we call a straw man. Talk all you want, but prepare to defend your comments, just as the rest of us expect. What we will do is present evidence, which is something you have failed to do.

There is a significant difference between a message board and the laws of a country, just so you know. The reason for the religion forum have exactly jack **** to do with any "war on christmas".

Click to expand...

So if I go to the religious fora and attack Christmas what will happen?

lpast said:

Thats not true...the ACLU threatened two lawsuits at the High School my daughter teachs at...one for having a christmas tree and nativity scene..along with a menorrah and islamic symbols...the threat of lawsuit only named the nativity scene...the menorrah and islamic scenes werent mentioned...and they threatened suit over Christmas Holiday being named in the school calendar...So I didnt hear that on foxnews..

Click to expand...

You should of course be able to show the lawsuit to us since it is public information.