Vet lobbies to have christmas ornaments removed from christmas trees

[bfdd]

I thought Christmas was a national holiday now and only remotely tied to the religion it came from... I don't know I'm not a big Christmas practitioner, but goddamn it if I don't love the music.

 

[HumblePie]

I thought Christmas was a national holiday now and only remotely tied to the religion it came from... I don't know I'm not a big Christmas practitioner, but goddamn it if I don't love the music.

Sigh, it didn't come from any "religion" of any sort. The winter holiday, festival, or whatever you want to call it pretty much predates most if not all religions. Harvest feast, and winter festival are two major "celebration" times that humans have had for millennium prior to Christianity.

Just because a major religion, or a large group of people come along later and say, "hey, we want that so now we can say we invented it" doesn't make it so. Don't know why people keep assuming the winter holiday time frame has its roots in anything to do with Christianity because it doesn't.

Just as retarded as all these recent Christian history revisionists claiming America was a country founded on Christianity and Christian values and other malarkey.

 

[GoPackGo]

Extremely offended by a star and cute looking angel....what a loser.

 

[IronWing]

Stupid vet. Should shoot off his other leg.

 

[Fear No Evil]

I don't think Federal employees should get off for Christmas then either. Hell the xmas tree itself is a symbol representing the holiday.. remove it completely. Any lights.. gone. Santa? Gone. Presents? Gone.. All make people think of Christmas..

 

[Vic]

I agree with the OP's sentiment, but get confused about some aspects of this argument. For one thing, despite the name, a Christmas tree is NOT a Christian symbol, it's a pagan symbol (arguably, Christmas is not Christian holiday either, but that's for another thread). For another, the word holiday is the contraction of holy day, so the use of the word holiday still has religious implications.
So in short, I guess what confuses me are the idiot atheists protesting Christmas trees as religious symbols and the idiot religious protesting the use of word holiday as being anti-religious. Are there any non-idiots left in any debate in this country?

 

[Fear No Evil]

We probably shouldn't allow anyone who is a Christian to be in government then either should we? Or military for that matter?

 

[jackschmittusa]

Selecting Dec., 25th as Christmas was simply an effort to suppress pagan celebrations that were too popular to stamp out. Demanding "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays", and using Christian symbols on festival trees is still nothing but actively trying to suppress non-Christian beliefs.

So the Church goes on a perpetual attack on other beliefs for the better part of 2 millennia and manages to convince the ignorant masses that it is they who are under attack. Amazing propaganda.

 

[Vic]

Cristman is Christ's mass. I would think it is a religious holiday. I think a Christman tree should have Christian symbols on it. I don't worship at the Christmas tree. I have one to celebrate Christmas. Nobody is forced to be celebrative just because there's a Christmas tree somewhere. We should have Atheistmas day where you celebrate around a tree hung with turds. Fuck folk who can't handle symbols. They are sticks and stones and you were instructed, countless times in kindergarten to get over yourselves.

We get Christmas once a year and 364 days of fuck you the rest of the year. What's the problem?

Christ wasn't born on Christmas day.

Luke 1:16 says that Gabriel appeared to Mary in the 6th Hebrew month of Elul, which occurs during mid-late summer, roughly August. As Mary was unaware she was even pregnant at the time, she must not have been far along. So... Jesus would have come along about 7-8 months later, or around April. The most Biblical accurate interpretation would be that Easter/Passover is both Jesus' birth and crucifixion.

There is one god though that was supposed to have been born on December 25th, and that was the Roman sun god, Sol Invictus.

However, Moonie, I do agree with your sentiment. We have the atheist assholes on one side and the christian churches on the other. In between are the normal folk who just want to celebrate their traditional winter solstice holiday in peace.

 

[FaaR]

However, Moonie, I do agree with your sentiment. We have the atheist assholes on one side and the christian churches on the other. In between are the normal folk who just want to celebrate their traditional winter solstice holiday in peace.

I'm one of the "atheist assholes" you speak of, and I happily celebrate christmas - although we call it the equivalent of Yule where I live, as our language is not English. To me, christmas is a nice family holiday where you get to be merry, eat good food, open pressies and enjoy each others' company. It's not religious at all.

I have angels in my christmas tree, they're pretty baubles amongst other pretty baubles. That's what it means to be atheist, not get bogged down in symbolics. Just because I'm an atheist doesn't mean I can't enjoy christian imagery, which really is just creativity spawned by the talented human mind.

However, all this applies to my own personal opinions and beliefs, this guy is concerned with society actually following its own laws. One of those laws says government is not allowed to sponsor any particular religions. That's a very good basic standpoint, as too often have one religion or a particular interpretation thereof been used as a bludgeon to clobber those of different beliefs, and a government should always treat everyone equally, regardless of faith or lack thereof. A government that embraces christianity can by its very definition not treat everyone differently, particulary as christianity is mutually exclusive of all other faiths.

So those who oppose what this guy is doing (and want to sever his limbs, nail him to trees etc, yech) really are saying that society can ignore its own laws, if it suits part of its population. But that's not how things work.

Imagine society wants to ignore the people's right to bear arms and want to take your guns away. You people would go apeshit.

So remove that beam from your own eye first, because double standards are uncool mmkay?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It seems this fellow belongs to the "Church of I'm an Bitter Idiot".

I think it would be fun to forbid using words which have religious connotations. People would have to be careful when swearing etc. Couldn't use the word "conversion" for example because it has religious meaning in the dictionary. I mean someone might not know what it meant and see the religious definition. Damn, get rid of the dictionary right away, and get those internet filters up, and don't say "Damn"
I'd find it amusing

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm one of the "atheist assholes" you speak of, and I happily celebrate christmas - although we call it the equivalent of Yule where I live, as our language is not English. To me, christmas is a nice family holiday where you get to be merry, eat good food, open pressies and enjoy each others' company. It's not religious at all.

I have angels in my christmas tree, they're pretty baubles amongst other pretty baubles. That's what it means to be atheist, not get bogged down in symbolics. Just because I'm an atheist doesn't mean I can't enjoy christian imagery, which really is just creativity spawned by the talented human mind.

However, all this applies to my own personal opinions and beliefs, this guy is concerned with society actually following its own laws. One of those laws says government is not allowed to sponsor any particular religions. That's a very good basic standpoint, as too often have one religion or a particular interpretation thereof been used as a bludgeon to clobber those of different beliefs, and a government should always treat everyone equally, regardless of faith or lack thereof. A government that embraces christianity can by its very definition not treat everyone differently, particulary as christianity is mutually exclusive of all other faiths.

So those who oppose what this guy is doing (and want to sever his limbs, nail him to trees etc, yech) really are saying that society can ignore its own laws, if it suits part of its population. But that's not how things work.

Imagine society wants to ignore the people's right to bear arms and want to take your guns away. You people would go apeshit.

So remove that beam from your own eye first, because double standards are uncool mmkay?

Err, we're talking a couple angels, which I'd bet the Founding Fathers wouldn't have had a cow about. The intent was the prevention of a state religion, AKA an Anglican Church sort of thing. It's only been recently that it's been expanded to include almost everything because one's testicles got knotted. There is the freedom of religion, which includes YOUR choice to not follow one, and the prohibition of the ESTABLISHMENT of a state run one, but while Jefferson was a Deist, he wasn't a bitter old bastard trying to be Scrooge.

 

[fskimospy]

It seems this fellow belongs to the "Church of I'm an Bitter Idiot".

I think it would be fun to forbid using words which have religious connotations. People would have to be careful when swearing etc. Couldn't use the word "conversion" for example because it has religious meaning in the dictionary. I mean someone might not know what it meant and see the religious definition. Damn, get rid of the dictionary right away, and get those internet filters up, and don't say "Damn"
I'd find it amusing

This is a governmental restriction, not an individual one.

This comes down in the category of 'this guy is right, but he's still an asshole'. While the church/state separation doctrine has some unfortunate and silly side effects like this one, it's an American principle to keep religion out of government business and it should stay that way. Religion has a pretty unfortunate history throughout the ages as to what it does when given the coercive power of the state and I have no desire to give it even a foot in the door.

 

[Robor]

I'm one of the "atheist assholes" you speak of, and I happily celebrate christmas - although we call it the equivalent of Yule where I live, as our language is not English. To me, christmas is a nice family holiday where you get to be merry, eat good food, open pressies and enjoy each others' company. It's not religious at all.

I have angels in my christmas tree, they're pretty baubles amongst other pretty baubles. That's what it means to be atheist, not get bogged down in symbolics. Just because I'm an atheist doesn't mean I can't enjoy christian imagery, which really is just creativity spawned by the talented human mind.

However, all this applies to my own personal opinions and beliefs, this guy is concerned with society actually following its own laws. One of those laws says government is not allowed to sponsor any particular religions. That's a very good basic standpoint, as too often have one religion or a particular interpretation thereof been used as a bludgeon to clobber those of different beliefs, and a government should always treat everyone equally, regardless of faith or lack thereof. A government that embraces christianity can by its very definition not treat everyone differently, particulary as christianity is mutually exclusive of all other faiths.

So those who oppose what this guy is doing (and want to sever his limbs, nail him to trees etc, yech) really are saying that society can ignore its own laws, if it suits part of its population. But that's not how things work.

Imagine society wants to ignore the people's right to bear arms and want to take your guns away. You people would go apeshit.

So remove that beam from your own eye first, because double standards are uncool mmkay?

Awesome post... :thumbsup:

You said exactly what I was thinking and how I feel about religious holidays in general. My wife (a christian) and I (an agnostic) are headed over to my bro, sis-in-law, and nieces place this afternoon. My dad will join us there and we'll hang for a bit then head over to my sis-in-law's parents place where we'll join much more family. Some will attend church, some will not, all will have a great time either way.

 

[Robor]

This is a governmental restriction, not an individual one.

This comes down in the category of 'this guy is right, but he's still an asshole'. While the church/state separation doctrine has some unfortunate and silly side effects like this one, it's an American principle to keep religion out of government business and it should stay that way. Religion has a pretty unfortunate history throughout the ages as to what it does when given the coercive power of the state and I have no desire to give it even a foot in the door.

Exactly. And what if instead of an angel atop the tree it was a pentagram or star and crescent? :awe:

 

[fskimospy]

Err, we're talking a couple angels, which I'd bet the Founding Fathers wouldn't have had a cow about. The intent was the prevention of a state religion, AKA an Anglican Church sort of thing. It's only been recently that it's been expanded to include almost everything because one's testicles got knotted. There is the freedom of religion, which includes YOUR choice to not follow one, and the prohibition of the ESTABLISHMENT of a state run one, but while Jefferson was a Deist, he wasn't a bitter old bastard trying to be Scrooge.

The idea of a 'wall of separation of church and state' came from Jefferson, and most historians do not believe he intended it to mean only that the state could not establish a church. The bredth of his quotations on the subject clearly show that he did not want the state to show a preference to any religion over any other, and obviously the state erecting Christian imagery does that.

While I'm not trying to play 'quote the founders', as there are surely several of them who completely disagreed with Jefferson, I do think that while we're talking about the separation of church and state that we keep in mind what its main proponent thought.

 

[fskimospy]

Awesome post... :thumbsup:

You said exactly what I was thinking and how I feel about religious holidays in general. My wife (a christian) and I (an agnostic) are headed over to my bro, sis-in-law, and nieces place this afternoon. My dad will join us there and we'll hang for a bit then head over to my sis-in-law's parents place where we'll join much more family. Some will attend church, some will not, all will have a great time either way.

I'm an atheist and you'll rarely find a Christmas-i-er person on your block. It's one of my favorite holidays.

 

[Vette73]

This is a governmental restriction, not an individual one.

This comes down in the category of 'this guy is right, but he's still an asshole'. While the church/state separation doctrine has some unfortunate and silly side effects like this one, it's an American principle to keep religion out of government business and it should stay that way. Religion has a pretty unfortunate history throughout the ages as to what it does when given the coercive power of the state and I have no desire to give it even a foot in the door.

Thats the dumb thing cities and closed minded people don;t get. They can have THEIR religion stuff, they just have to allow everybody elses. I remember the town that had people mad when other religious stuff went up yet were still mad when they were told to also take their stuff down.

Cities have a option, allow all or allow none. 1 town allowed all and they had dinosaurs and all types of stuff. People came out and had a blast and it did not break the law as the city did not put up anything, they just let EVERYBODY put up something.

The SC in 1989 case even said...
"On the contrary, for purposes of the Establishment Clause, the city's overall display must be understood as conveying the city's secular recognition of different traditions for celebrating the winter-holiday season."

So cities have a option, they just don;t want to allow others to put up things not tied to them.

 

[TechBoyJK]

I agree with the OP's sentiment, but get confused about some aspects of this argument. For one thing, despite the name, a Christmas tree is NOT a Christian symbol, it's a pagan symbol (arguably, Christmas is not Christian holiday either, but that's for another thread). For another, the word holiday is the contraction of holy day, so the use of the word holiday still has religious implications.
So in short, I guess what confuses me are the idiot atheists protesting Christmas trees as religious symbols and the idiot religious protesting the use of word holiday as being anti-religious. Are there any non-idiots left in any debate in this country?

Well I stand corrected about the christmas tree then. I grew up calling it a christmas tree, so the idea of taking christmas ornaments of a christmas tree seemed like taking the bikini off the bikini model. Well, maybe not as fun, but still..

 

[StageLeft]

He must be an absolutely delightful individual to be around. Reminds me of this article from the onion:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/31858

 

[ericlp]

I know you are pretty dumb... but really?


It is on Gov property. If this was on a persons house then no problem.


And they, the city, did have a option. Allow other items to be put up. That includes islam, pagans, satanist, etc... Many cities have done this and is was ok/

Well, Xmas is a Pagan holiday. I has nothing to do with religion. That being said, the Xmas Tree and gift giving came right out of the pagan text. Tho I think gift giving was from a roman god or something. The rest of the stars and angels is religion trying to once again take over everything.

I mean holy shit! Jesus wasn't even born on Xmas. Oh well...

Personally, I don't have a problem with it... Where I do have the problems is when they start putting out the cradle with little baby jesus display right next to the fucking tree. What's next? Are we gonna turn Thanksgiving into Noah's Ark day?

Gotta admit these religious people have taken it too far...

 

[Moonbeam]

I'm one of the "atheist assholes" you speak of, and I happily celebrate christmas - although we call it the equivalent of Yule where I live, as our language is not English. To me, christmas is a nice family holiday where you get to be merry, eat good food, open pressies and enjoy each others' company. It's not religious at all.

I have angels in my christmas tree, they're pretty baubles amongst other pretty baubles. That's what it means to be atheist, not get bogged down in symbolics. Just because I'm an atheist doesn't mean I can't enjoy christian imagery, which really is just creativity spawned by the talented human mind.

However, all this applies to my own personal opinions and beliefs, this guy is concerned with society actually following its own laws. One of those laws says government is not allowed to sponsor any particular religions. That's a very good basic standpoint, as too often have one religion or a particular interpretation thereof been used as a bludgeon to clobber those of different beliefs, and a government should always treat everyone equally, regardless of faith or lack thereof. A government that embraces christianity can by its very definition not treat everyone differently, particulary as christianity is mutually exclusive of all other faiths.

So those who oppose what this guy is doing (and want to sever his limbs, nail him to trees etc, yech) really are saying that society can ignore its own laws, if it suits part of its population. But that's not how things work.

Imagine society wants to ignore the people's right to bear arms and want to take your guns away. You people would go apeshit.

So remove that beam from your own eye first, because double standards are uncool mmkay?

You do understand that I was exercising my constitutional right to express an opinion, not act out on one, right? I was expressing what I feel, not what my reason tells me is right.

In all things a balance is required, and from the point of my reason, I would not push this matter of a tree in city hall as something that offends me so that I, in tern, might expect to place at city hall, something that you might totally agree with. I think live and let live is superior to sue and petition for redress of every manner of grievance. The more I tolerate the more tolerant society becomes. But in everything one needs balance and reason.

Note also, that if you want to be free of double standards you will need to know what you feel, because they become double only by being unconsciously held, and what we suppress is the knowledge of what we feel.

 

[ebaycj]

People get too worked up about shit. Why doesn't he just go and set up a tree with non-angel decorations at the top?

I'm an agnostic and I think he needs to relax.

Fixed for me.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The idea of a 'wall of separation of church and state' came from Jefferson, and most historians do not believe he intended it to mean only that the state could not establish a church. The bredth of his quotations on the subject clearly show that he did not want the state to show a preference to any religion over any other, and obviously the state erecting Christian imagery does that.

While I'm not trying to play 'quote the founders', as there are surely several of them who completely disagreed with Jefferson, I do think that while we're talking about the separation of church and state that we keep in mind what its main proponent thought.

That's rather like someone saying that if a person wrote a bill, it doesn't matter what it says, but what he thought. The Constitution was strongly influenced by his thinking, but it wasn't unilaterally approved by him.

Now a good question is did Jefferson mean that this is an absolute standard? I can't find anything which suggests that he said that ornaments were the sort of thing he was thinking of. He didn't want a Puritan state, nor a Fourth Branch of government much like the Anglican Church.

Jefferson wouldn't want Creationism taught in public schools because then we are talking something of substance which has clear religious meanings. He didn't gripe about the 10 Commandments, which despite what anyone claims part of the Jewish/Christian background. Saying that they are common themes found in law doesn't change the specific origin.

So it comes down to a few things. First, does Jefferson's opinion supersede what actually was adopted by the Congressional Convention, and if you believe it does, did Jefferson act in a way that indicated he supported the effective sterilization of government from all things that some person at some time might point at? I've found no evidence that he did.

People in government use the word God, which is clearly religious regardless of context. Should we provide people in government an "approved" dictionary of terms they may use in public?

You might say that's extreme, and I would agree, but not long ago one who wants to do as this man has would be viewed the same. WWTJ do?