• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Christmas Tree vs Holiday Tree

Which one is it?


  • Total voters
    114
  • Poll closed .
Words and terms function because they have what are supposed to be at least generally accepted meanings. If people say that a four-legged creature that says "Meow" is a dog, they are likely on the wrong page and would need and benefit from some assistance and encouragement in updating their understandings.

Except we are not talking about something as tangible as a cat or a dog. In fact, we are referring to a very vague and controversial Maoist concept. Therefore, your analogy sucks.

As any number of examples might go to illustrate, merely calling something a "cultural tradition" is not at all sufficient to bring protection, respect, or even tolerance for it.

Whatever... But understand this, I find the term "holiday tree" offensive. Therefore, it is not "politically correct," at least not for me, and from what I can see, not for a great many other people either. Indeed, if you were ever a guest in my house for Christmas (as unlikely as that may be) and you were to call my Christmas tree a "holiday tree," I would toss you out on your ear (literally).

This is as far as I care to labor this point or continue this discussion.
 
The point is clear.
Right. My point is clear. So why did you miss it? Or did you dodge it?

On the one hand, people are not protected from insult. On the other hand, it is not acceptable to inflict deliberate and gratuitous harm onto others through slurs, insults, and other derogatory language. Is that too tough to process?
Liberalism is too tough to process. Pretend I'm a PC virgin who hasn't been able to wrap his mind around Communism, yet. Now tell me why you people decided to say "minimize" instead of "eliminate". Is that too tough to process?


Sarah Palin is a public figure.
So? She's still a human being.
 
The term must be increasing in popularity. I suppose the decline of Christianity in America might have something to do with that.
Ya think? You don't suppose it might be something a bit more nefarious, like anti-Christians trying to stamp out every trace of Christianity, do you?
 
The term must be increasing in popularity. I suppose the decline of Christianity in America might have something to do with that. There's a chance that at some point in the near term, someone will come up with a catchy new word or phrase for the holiday season that encompasses them all and that reference to any of the individual holiday names will become infrequent and even archaic thereafter. The whole point after all is just to sell stuff and boost year-end profits. The rest is essentially window-dressing.


You Democrats are probably cheering as you bring all these non-Christians to America knowing they will call it a holiday tree instead of a Christmas tree.
 
You Democrats are probably cheering as you bring all these non-Christians to America knowing they will call it a holiday tree instead of a Christmas tree.
<diabolical laughter>........
 
Well gee, thanks for your permission to call it a Christmas tree. :lol:
You have always been able to call it whatever you want. So has everyone else. The presumption here comes from Christians calling out those who choose not to follow their sacred example, not the other way around. Once again, it is the Christians who are the oppressor wannabes.

There is a connection between the decorated tree and the holiday of Christmas. For instance, most Christmas trees are topped with a star or an angel. What do you think the significance of that is?
The significance is whatever an individual wishes to attach to it. It doesn't have to go beyond or even as far as "Gee, that looks pretty."

I don't care what anyone calls it. If I was at someone's house and they said "Look at my beautiful holiday tree." I might ask why they call it that, but I certainly wouldn't take offense. I am asking WHY some people INSIST on calling it a holiday tree or else they are all "offended."
Where are those people? On Bill O'Reilly again?

I don't have an opposition to any term either. As I said, I am asking others why they are offended by the term "Christmas" tree and insist upon holiday tree instead?
Assumes facts not in evidence. People -- including me -- certainly have a right to be offended by Christian attempts to expropriate and brand the holiday season, thereby excluding the mention, expression, or even recognition of other holidays that fall at the same time of year. But no one is offended by the term Christmas tree as a personal choice of terminology by Christians and assorted non-Christians alike.

That is an untrue comment.
No, it isn't. The "War on Christmas" is just as much a seasonal fable as Rudolph. Both have proven to be reliable moneymakers, however.

I don't believe this is true. I think it has only been the past two holiday seasons when this has been made into an issue by the current Governor Chafee. I know, the jerks always have to come forward during the holiday season and have their yearly bitch fest about Christmas and Christianity.
Do some research. Nothing has changed under Chafee.

This whole thing could be easily avoided by eliminating such decorations from state/federal buildings.
Yes, it could, though local government buildings would also need coverage. But Christian lawmakers annually insist upon their naked pandering. Then the ACLU among others has to come along and smack them down. Maybe we should stop electing Jesus-freaks.

The alternative of course is to declare a public forum on public property where the holiday expressions of all are welcome. Then you could indeed have sweet baby Jesus in his little manger on the city hall lawn. But you'd have to be prepared for him to have this as his next-door neighbor...

FFRF_sign.jpg
 
Except we are not talking about something as tangible as a cat or a dog. In fact, we are referring to a very vague and controversial Maoist concept. Therefore, your analogy sucks.
The terms "dog" and "cat" likely include more variability withn them than the term "political correctness" does. The problem is your need to muddy and smudge the boundaries of a term that has nothing to do with Mao so that your self-serving and abusive corruptions of that definition might be snuck in without anyone noticing. Try again.

Whatever... But understand this, I find the term "holiday tree" offensive. Therefore, it is not "politically correct," at least not for me, and from what I can see, not for a great many other people either. Indeed, if you were ever a guest in my house for Christmas (as unlikely as that may be) and you were to call my Christmas tree a "holiday tree," I would toss you out on your ear (literally).
You continue to err grossly in identifying the extents of your realm. You can do whatever you like in your personal litte world. You cannot reach out and prevent others from doing as they would like in their worlds, nor can you literally toss people about. Those are tortious acts.

This is as far as I care to labor this point or continue this discussion.
That's a relief. Particularly I would imagine to those who on some level at least might agree with you.
 
Right. My point is clear. So why did you miss it? Or did you dodge it?
I plainly stated it. Your point is to play dumb as a means of avoiding a confrontation with the facts.

Liberalism is too tough to process. Pretend I'm a PC virgin who hasn't been able to wrap his mind around Communism, yet. Now tell me why you people decided to say "minimize" instead of "eliminate". Is that too tough to process?
Asked and answered...

"On the one hand, people are not protected from insult. On the other hand, it is not acceptable to inflict deliberate and gratuitous harm onto others through slurs, insults, and other derogatory language."

Apparently that was indeed too tough to process the first go around, so give it another shot. By the way, do you understand going in that laws against murder are not intended to eliminate killing? Is the why and how of that yet another thing you've long been wondering about?

So? She's still a human being.
Read the law. As a public figure, she has fewer rights than a private person would.
 
Last edited:
Ya think? You don't suppose it might be something a bit more nefarious, like anti-Christians trying to stamp out every trace of Christianity, do you?
No, not at all. In fact, I don't typically subscribe to the paranoid rants of irrationalists. This would just be another occasion of that.
 
The funny thing about this so called war on xmas is that despite how hard Christians try Atheists are not having a war on Christmas. The reality is that Christian's are having their own war on the word "Holiday". Comically the word holiday derived from the notion "Holy Day". So Christian's are upset that some people call a xmas tree a holy day tree. Makes you wonder if Christian's own dictionaries? Christmas dare I say is a holiday, therefor a tree put up on a holiday would be a holiday tree.

Christmas is a official holiday, but if we officially call it a holiday its somehow an attack on Christmas?

I love each year that Christians ramp up this war on Christmas, it just shows why we would be better off without Christianity.
 
See below....
 
Last edited:
I love each year that Christians ramp up this war on Christmas, it just shows why we would be better off without Christianity.
Chritianity in general, or just some of the pretenders who call themselves Christians?
 
The point is clear. Playing dumb as a means of avoiding a confrontation with the facts.
Actually, that's your point. My point simply explains how you've confused political correctness with common courtesy. You had zero explanation over the televison commercial example, and you've been trying to twist the subject to your warped point of view ever since we started. Your point is to obfuscate. My point is to keep you focused.

Sarah Palin is still a human being, and no law allows for the reckless language that has been thrown at her. Nice try, but you and I both know you're wrong.

And "on the one hand", your goal should be to 'eliminate', regardless of the situation. Using words like 'minimize' or 'law' leaves the door open for your brand of enlightenment.

Now, back to Political Correctness. We're going to break this down even more so that you can't run further interference:

In your opinion, do you believe intent political correctness allows equal treatment for everyone? Aside from certain public figures, of course, as you've already excused those who wish to be perfect a**holes toward them.
 
Last edited:
My point simply explains how you've confused political correctness with common courtesy.
There is no confusion. At their core, the two are the same thing.

Sarah Palin is still a human being, and no law allows for the reckless language that has been thrown at her. Nice try, but you and I both know you're wrong.
LOL! It's the march of the toy strawmen. No one has contested Sarah Palin's humanity or suggested an endorsement of everything ever said by anyone about her. It has only been pointed out that she is a public figure and is legitimately a target of some forms of criticism that would be out of line when directed toward a private citizen. And you and I both know that you've already gone down in flames and are only hoping here to signal for help from the wreckage.

"On the one hand", your goal should be to 'eliminate', regardless of the situation. Using words like 'minimize' or 'law' leaves the door open for your brand of enlightenment.
So, you're one of those black-and-white only thinkers? Can't process shades of gray, so none of those are allowed? Such a surprise to learn that. I take it then that a difference between murder and killing in self-defense is one that you've never been able to recognize?

Now, back to Political Correctness. We're going to break this down even more so that you can't run further interference: In your opinion, do you believe Political Correctness is intended to cover all people, equally?
On one level, yes, on others, no. It is certainly meant to discourage equally all those who profess a right to inflict deliberate and gratuitous harm onto others through slurs, insults, and other derogatory language.
 
Chritianity in general, or just some of the pretenders who call themselves Christians?

By better I meant it in a rhetorical fashion. I fully support an America where people have the liberty and freedom to call a damn tree whatever that they wish. But right now it seems that mainstream Christians do not really believe in liberty or freedom unless you are just talking about Christian's.
 
The funny thing about this so called war on xmas is that despite how hard Christians try Atheists are not having a war on Christmas. The reality is that Christian's are having their own war on the word "Holiday". Comically the word holiday derived from the notion "Holy Day". So Christian's are upset that some people call a xmas tree a holy day tree. Makes you wonder if Christian's own dictionaries? Christmas dare I say is a holiday, therefor a tree put up on a holiday would be a holiday tree.

Christmas is a official holiday, but if we officially call it a holiday its somehow an attack on Christmas?

I love each year that Christians ramp up this war on Christmas, it just shows why we would be better off without Christianity.

So I take it Labor Day, Independence Day, Presidents Day and the rest are Holy Days?

I submit calling these days Celebration Days as a matter of common courtesy and proper functioning of a secular government.
 
Not catchy enough. Days of Rays for Spring Break is kind of catchy. Celebration Days? Mmmmm...I don't think so. Carnival of All-Inclusive Consumerism, maybe? Rio at least has gotten good use out of that initial C-word. And for once you could have your CAIC and eat it too!
 
So I take it Labor Day, Independence Day, Presidents Day and the rest are Holy Days?

I submit calling these days Celebration Days as a matter of common courtesy and proper functioning of a secular government.
Lol Im a Atheist I dont really take any of this seriously. People will call a tree what they want no matter what. I think that most people just laugh off the technicality of a holiday tree while continuing to call it whatever they normally do.

But I still wonder what all the fuss is about though. It s not like you cannot have a Christmas tree in your own house any time of the year.
 
I plainly stated it. Your point is to play dumb as a means of avoiding a confrontation with the facts.
My point is to bring you back into reality.


"On the one hand, people are not protected from insult. On the other hand, it is not acceptable to inflict deliberate and gratuitous harm onto others through slurs, insults, and other derogatory language."

Apparently that was indeed too tough to process the first go around, so give it another shot. By the way, do you understand going in that laws against murder are not intended to eliminate killing? Is the why and how of that yet another thing you've long been wondering about?
So you're not interested in trying to eliminate insults, but you are interested in trying to minimize them. Why shoot for the stars when the moon is so much closer? It's sort of like an under achiever's anthem, which makes sense, as this kind of reasoning falls in line with your side of the political spectrum.

Read the law. As a public figure, she has fewer rights than a private person would.
I see. So is it safe to say that the law is the sole foundation of Political Correctness?
 
Uh-huh. What's your read on this:
LOL! Depends on what they are doing, obviosuly. In this case, they seem to be pointing out quite correctly that government at all levels is prohibited from acting through any of its auspices so as to appear to be favoring any one religion over another or religion over non-religion. You can't put the Ten Commandments in a courthouse. You can't put a manger scene on the City Hall lawn. You can designate an area where citizens of all faiths and none can express their views, but you have to understand that all of them might try to do that. If you establish a lottery for display plots somewhere and atheists win 18 of the 20 drawings, that's too bad. No do-overs on that account.
 
LOL! Depends on what they are doing, obviosuly. In this case, they seem to be pointing out quite correctly that government at all levels is prohibited from acting through any of its auspices so as to appear to be favoring any one religion over another or religion over non-religion. You can't put the Ten Commandments in a courthouse. You can't put a manger scene on the City Hall lawn. You can designate an area where citizens of all faiths and none can express their views, but you have to understand that all of them might try to do that. If you establish a lottery for display plots somewhere and atheists win 18 of the 20 drawings, that's too bad. No do-overs on that account.

You wouldn't happen to be putting something in the first amendment that is not there would you? :cool:
 
You have always been able to call it whatever you want. So has everyone else. The presumption here comes from Christians calling out those who choose not to follow their sacred example, not the other way around. Once again, it is the Christians who are the oppressor wannabes.

Come on, you know the atheists can't stand the word Christmas. Same with crosses and any type of religious symbolism, etc.

The significance is whatever an individual wishes to attach to it. It doesn't have to go beyond or even as far as "Gee, that looks pretty."

So?


Where are those people? On Bill O'Reilly again?

What? There aren't groups out there who take it upon themselves to make phone calls, send e-mails and perhaps even write letters to complaint about such public displays? You must come out from under that rock! :lol:

Assumes facts not in evidence. People -- including me -- certainly have a right to be offended by Christian attempts to expropriate and brand the holiday season, thereby excluding the mention, expression, or even recognition of other holidays that fall at the same time of year. But no one is offended by the term Christmas tree as a personal choice of terminology by Christians and assorted non-Christians alike.

Sounds like you're jealous to me.

No, it isn't. The "War on Christmas" is just as much a seasonal fable as Rudolph. Both have proven to be reliable moneymakers, however.

Perhaps there aren't enough scrooges around to actually make it count as a "war," but you can't deny that there are a lot of bitchers and moaners around when it comes to anything to do with Christmas things, especially those related to Christianity.

Do some research. Nothing has changed under Chafee.

Perhaps he and the previous governor referred to it as a "holiday" tree. Check it out.

Gov. Lincoln Chafee: It's Not 'Tradition' to Call It a Christmas Tree | CNS News

Yes, it could, though local government buildings would also need coverage. But Christian lawmakers annually insist upon their naked pandering. Then the ACLU among others has to come along and smack them down. Maybe we should stop electing Jesus-freaks.

That I can agree with. I don't think any politicians should be approving this kind of decorating.

The alternative of course is to declare a public forum on public property where the holiday expressions of all are welcome. Then you could indeed have sweet baby Jesus in his little manger on the city hall lawn. But you'd have to be prepared for him to have this as his next-door neighbor...

Now that's just douchy. Really. Celebrate your Winter Soltice, but there is absolutely no need to denigrate others while you do it. Scrooge.
 
My point is to bring you back into reality.
You'll have to find it first, something you've greatly struggled with here.

So you're not interested in trying to eliminate insults, but you are interested in trying to minimize them. Why shoot for the stars when the moon is so much closer? It's sort of like an under achiever's anthem, which makes sense, as this kind of reasoning falls in line with your side of the political spectrum.
Weak would be an apt word here. Maybe consider that the worst sort of diet is a crash-diet, but it's really just a matter of prioritizing. As long as we still have those who really, really, really want to be allowed to deliberately and gratuitously attack and hurt others with slurs, insults, and other derogatory language just so they can continue to believe that there really are people out there they can feel superior to, that's sort of where we need to begin.

I see. So is it safe to say that the law is the sole foundation of Political Correctness?
No, that's obviously not safe. It is the case that public figures have fewer legal protections against harsh words than private citizens do, and it is also the case that in choosing to become a public figure, Sarah Palin knowingly and willingly accepted all the criticism -- the good, the bad, and the ugly -- that comes with making such a decision.
 
You wouldn't happen to be putting something in the first amendment that is not there would you? :cool:
The amendment itself is very general. The rules for how the generalities apply in specific situations have to come from someplace else. Any ideas for where to look?
 
Back
Top Bottom