Crucifying Christmas
A war on Christmas? I’m not aware of one. But why not? How about an all-out thermonuclearglobalwar on Christmas-as-we-know-it?
Thousands of crosses pulled down, stacked and lit into flaming pyres. All of the plastic Baby Jesuses we can find ripped out of their nativity crèches and tossed onto the flames? A holocaust of Xmas tree forests? A mass pulping of Christmas cards into toilet paper? Smashing of all Silver Bells? Internment and deportation of all Salvation Army Santas? And then amidst this smoking landscape, we send out our special hunter platoons -- their task : track down all surviving Christmas revelers, corner them, back them up against a wall, and staring them right into the eyes, shout out to them: “HAPPY HOLIDAYS!” Oh, the horror...the horror.
Unfortunately, we have no such anti-commercial/clerical sweep currently underway. Instead, we have one of the most bogus, bullshit, cynical, manufactured, crybaby campaigns that recent history has seen – Christian Conservatives making themselves out as martyrs to a secular dictatorship.
Helping to lead this year’s version of this hoary passion play is a true sad sack, John Gibson. And he knows better. But he doesn’t care. Fox’s flapping mouth Gibbie is out with his completely intellectually dishonest arse-stuffer of a book. Of course, the joke here is on the mental zombies who are gonna lay out $24.95 to buy this worthless drivel. No one else with an IQ above room temp will buy a copy, even after New Year’s when it piles up in the $1.99 remainder bin.
I had to laugh out loud the other night, stuck in an L.A. traffic jam and listening to Joe Scarborough’s MSNBC show on satellite radio. Joe thought he would be cute and invite some yoke-pal of Jerry Falwell’s onto the show as well as Christopher Hitchens. Though Hitch and Scarborough coincide in supporting the war in Iraq, Christopher is a card-carrying hater of all Gods and their acolytes, What ensued was rather hilarious. Here’s a transcript of the show. Here’s some juicy excerpts:
Hitchens: Christmas wouldn’t be Christmas without this argument […] The country was founded on a document that specifically separates church from state.
Scarb: What document’s that, Christopher?
Hitchens: That’s the United States Constitution.
Scarb (witheringly): Separates church and state. Where does it say that?
Hitchens: Very particularly, in its rather brilliantly, and beautifully, and clearly written First Amendment.
Scarb (contemptuously): Is it?
[…]
Hitchens: In Lynchburg, as in Washington, D.C., there are large numbers of public buildings, lavishly financed, usually--in fact invariably--tax-exempt, sometimes even government-subsidized by the--what do we call it—faith-based program. They’re called churches. People can go there if they want to have religious ceremony, they can put up hoardings on their land which says it’s Jesus’s birthday, or "Christ is risen" if it’s Easter, or anything like that. You can’t stop them, they do it all the time, and they’re very welcome. I would like, however, to go to Union Station and not be told that I’m a Christian over the loudspeaker all the time, or indeed to Wal-Mart or Target or 7-11 and not have an incessant one-party state month of permanent Christian music and propaganda. I think that’s annoying and offensive.[…] Don’t you find it’s cheap and tinselly? I certainly do.
Scarb (defensively): If it’s cheap, that cheapness has been a part of American culture for 200 years.
[…]
HITCHENS: The tree long predates Christmas.
There's been a festival of light, in fact, and of trees, Yule logs trees—that's where they're all from Scandinavia—since the winter solstice was first thought of, long before any mythical event in the Middle East, a birth that the date of which even the Bible cannot get right and repeatedly gets wrong.
That—that's fine. People can celebrate it all they like. It would be impossible to live in this country and not notice that there are lots of Christians who like to celebrate the birthday of the person they believe is their savior. You cannot possibly escape it. But we don't want it to enjoy any public preference or subsidy.
And the Constitution says that we don't have to. And the progress you are talking about with this guy from Lynchburg...
SCARBOROUGH: But it doesn't say that, Christopher.
HITCHENS: This guy from Lynchburg defines progress as teaching junk science to our children, and leaving us the mockery of the world by pretending that we did not evolve.
SCARB: Hold on a second.
We are not going to debate intelligent—we are not going to debate intelligent design right here, but, Christopher...
HITCHENS: That's progress to him. And he's a front man—and he's a front man—and he's a front man—and he's a front man for the fat-faced reverend...
Now that was tasty, wasn’t it? I’m off to watch the USC-UCLA football showdown with split loyalties. I teach at USC, My daughter goes to UCLA. (Go Bruins!).
(Hat Tip to Michael Hitzik)
December 3rd, 2005 at 4:26 pm
It’s times like these that sometimes makes me think that the Puritans had the right approach to Christmas.
Of course, it might bankrupt our retail industry…and a lot of young Japanese males would get rather horny…
December 3rd, 2005 at 5:27 pm
Young Japanese males? I really don’t get these flip remarks but I understand Hitchins point.
December 3rd, 2005 at 6:54 pm
I veered inexcusably off-topic on the last thread and posted this exchange between a defender of the faith and Bill O’Reilly, that humble, saintly figure who’s leading the charge to keep Baby Jesus from being subjected to his annual abortion by the ACLU and “Happy Holidays†crowd – it’s courtesy of Kevin Drum. Here it is where it belongs in case anyone got sick of reading my multiple posts under the Tookie comments:
Drum: Here is the Rev. Tim Bumgardner, a pastor in Wellington, Florida, who is fighting to have a nativity scene included in his town’s holiday display:
Rev. Tim Bumgardner: I think they should put a Nativity scene — be American! Hey, celebrate Christmas — people spend more money! Jesus makes people want to spend money!
Bill O’Reilly: I agree. I’m with you.”
December 3rd, 2005 at 6:58 pm
“No one…with an IQ above room temp will buy a copy”
And that would be on a Celsius scale.
December 3rd, 2005 at 7:02 pm
Marc, you and Hitchens are both full of tinsel laden and mistletoe bedecked crap. The First Amendment clearly states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The exact purpose of this amendment was to prevent the national government from estabilshing a religion like the Church of England. It did not, and does not say anything about any other governmental agency such as state and city governments.
The USSC has ruled, in the past that governmental agencies cannot do so based on some emmanation or penumbra or some other idea, but the last part of the sentence also states that it cannot prohibit the free exercise thereof. It doesn’t say where that is to be exercised. If someone wishes to not shop at a store that says “Happy Holidays” that is their right, as it is the right to not shop at any store that says “Merry Christmas.”
But, though the constitution protects minority rights, it does not, therefor automatically eliminate majority rights. And, increasingly, courts are finding as such here, and people are fighting back to protect their constitutional rights http://tinyurl.com/7eskw or http://tinyurl.com/8otss.
Marc complains that the Christians are rising up, but Marc, that is in direct response to the ACLU and others going after our religious observances time and time again. Now we are fighting back and you think it’s wrong. Just shows how wrong you can be, smart as you are.
Now, if you want to argue that this means Congress shouldn’t get a “Christmas break.” Fine with me! Except that means that they will still be “in session” and spending our money.
So, to celebrate this Christmas, a Poem that might sound familiar.
The Night Before Christmas…South Texas style!
‘Twas el noche ante Christmas Y todo through la casa.
Not a creature was stirring, not even a mousa(?)
The stockings were hanging With mucho cuidado,
In hopes that St. Nicholas will feel obligado
To leave a few cosas aqui y alli
For Chico and Chica (y something for me).
Los ninos are snuggled all safe
in their camas (Some in vestidos and some in
pajamas).
Their little cabezas are full of good things
They’re all esperanda que Santa will bring.
Santa esta at the corner saloon,
Muy borracho since mid-afternoon.
Mama is sitting beside la ventana
Shining her rolling pin para manana.
When Santa returns to his home
zigzaguendo,
Lit up like the Star Spangled
Banner cantando-
With menudo, mama will make him all right.
“So Merry Christmas a todas,
y a todas good night.”
Oh, and by the way,
Merry Christmas to ALL of YOU!!!
December 3rd, 2005 at 7:48 pm
I don’t have a problem with Christmas. It’s just tradition. However slapping the ten commandments in a courthouse and the references to a deity on the money ad hoc is establishing a religion by government. It doesn’t say what denomination. It can be expressed on private grounds as always. But isn’t enough for some zealots. They want the church to be every public square.
December 3rd, 2005 at 7:50 pm
I should add folks e.g. some believers do this because they are insecure in their beliefs as well they should be, and so need these sorts of crutches which make them feel like they’re fighting the heathens. It won’t make it so.
December 3rd, 2005 at 8:27 pm
I love C.H. The best part was after “Scar” pontificated about the serious nature of his show,his next topic was about legal loopholes! What a yuck.
December 3rd, 2005 at 8:50 pm
Sorry, here’s the link (which I meant to post earlier) to a story that explains my remark about young Japanese males:
Christmas in Japan
Incidentally, to explain my first remark, if I recall my history correctly, the Puritans (at least the strict ones) did not believe in celebrating Christmas as a holiday.
December 3rd, 2005 at 9:15 pm
Frankly, I don’t have a horse in this race.
I think the only thing that riles me are the people who tiptoe around trying to find some “harmless” way to avoid offending anybody, trying to paper over this dispute, and just end up endlessly stirring up some group or another.
“Holiday tree” — that expression sounds like the end product of somebody’s channeling the spirit of Thomas Bowdler. On the other hand, perhaps this controversy is really more about trying to stir up passions to shake loose end-of-the-year donations.
Time to settle down for a long winter’s nap…
December 3rd, 2005 at 10:04 pm
Well the Puritans were hardline Calvinists so I find that hard to believe unless Calvin didn’t celebrate it. I’d have to check that one.
The idea of Christmas is a melding of a Danish folk tale and the birth of the mythical King of the Jews. The idea of gift-giving and a tree rings of paganism, a winter soltice celebration, which is the root of most of the religious rituals as much as they will run from that fact.
December 3rd, 2005 at 10:09 pm
Yeah CT that isn’t exactly what we’d call common knowledge down here, a human interest story in the Vancouver Free Press. It shows how bizarre this melding is though for a foreign culture to grasp. Nobody even thinks close enough to notice here.
December 3rd, 2005 at 10:51 pm
Mark A. York: “However slapping the ten commandments in a courthouse and the references to a deity on the money ad hoc is establishing a religion by government. It doesn’t say what denomination. It can be expressed on private grounds as always. But isn’t enough for some zealots. They want the church to be every public square.”
I couldn’t disagree more. This sort of thing should be left up to individual states, counties, parishes and what have you.
It’s precisely this kind of “let’s use the federal government to really stick it to the rubes” mentality that always comes back to bite the left in the ass.
If a clear majority of the residents of Alabama want the Ten Commandments posted in their courthouses, then that should be the beginning and end of the argument.
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:20 pm
Right, A-A A, sure, whatever. When the majority of people in Alabama want the Ten Commandments posted in their courthouses, why not let them impose their religion on all the rest of the residents of the states. Indeed! Idiot.
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:24 pm
Yeah Abas leave civil liberty “to whatever”as long as it’s a majority. Under that theory they would still be burning witches.
Did you ever hear of the 14th amendment?
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:47 pm
sorry for posting again so soon, but A-A A’s remarks are still pissing me off. One of the fundamental things behind our constitution is the idea of protecting the rights of minorities against a rampaging majority. If we follow A-A A’s lead, we may as well throw the whole US Constitution out as an obsolete document.
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:48 pm
Clearly the definition of “impose” varies from one person to another.
What percentage of the population of this country is Christian? What is so horrific to you folks about public displays of their faith?
Look, I grew up and went to public school in North Carolina and “prayer in school” was never an issue for me. I never felt slighted, offended, persecuted or outcast because I didn’t join in. There were times when other kids would ask me why I wasn’t joining them in prayer and usually this would lead to some positive back and forth discussions about cultural and religious differences; granted 8, 9 year old kids can’t really discuss such things in depth, but still…
I’ve already stated that I have major problems with the Evangelical sects who have embraced the doctrine of the “Rapture”, precisely because of the political implications of the acceptance of this particular heretical doctrine.
But I am not anti-religion nor anti-Christian.
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:59 pm
[...] On Marc Cooper’s website he is battling against the battle against Christmas: [...]
December 4th, 2005 at 12:06 am
I grew up in the south you moron and I got a different reaction from the kids in my school after our morning brainwashing. When I didn’t exhibit the necessary response to our lord and savior I got the hell knocked out of me
Of course I was better off in public school I had new books when the black schools didn’t.But according to your idiocy since the majority wanted it and still do-seeTrent Lott-tough luck to those who are in the minority..
December 4th, 2005 at 12:19 am
Clearly the definition of “impose†varies from one person to another.
I suppose so, but it’s you who has the problem.
December 4th, 2005 at 12:22 am
Christmas is about selling shit. Not celebrating Christs B-Day. What a holy crock of shit X-Mass is.
I am sure Jesus is smiling down at the spectacle that has been created. I am sure that he is excited about Cal Worthington’s X Mass sale on Ford Trucks. Really happy.
We get more than enought X Mass. The marketing starts earlier every year.
Secularism has not made a mockery of Christmas. Corporate America and all of you humble believers have taken care of that.
Don’t feed the poor, buy a flat screen TV and some toys for your kid! Jesus would be proud.
December 4th, 2005 at 1:07 am
This discussion reminds me of a story I heard about Norman MacDonnell, the radio and television producer who created Gunsmoke, among other programs. Though he had never been politically involved, with all the red-baiting going on during the McCarthy era MacDonnell figured he ought to cover his action a little bit, so he created a radio show about a red-hunting secret agent. Once every episode the agent would go on a rant about what a horrible thing communism was, how he’d fight it to his last breath, how he wished he could kill every communist with his bare hands, and so forth. After a show had been on the air for a few weeks the sponsor calls him in for a meeting and says, “Norm, we love the show, but you’ve really got to stop being so tough on the communists.†McDonnell, totally nonplussed, says, “What do you mean? I thought the communists were the enemy.†And the sponsor answers plaintively, “Well, yeah, but communists buy products too!â€
The “Happy Holidays†routine has nothing to do with anyone’s opposition to religion, it has to do with commerce. The business community (a) does not want to give the least suggestion to anyone of any faith that they are not invited to buy things simply because they are not Christians, and (b) live in mortal fear of offending anyone anywhere for any reason. While it may be secular, it ain’t humanist, it’s commercial.
But the thing is, though I think the rationale of the “War on Christmas†crackpots is idiotic, I kind of agree with the goal. The trouble with “Happy Holidays†is not that it’s irreligious but that it’s generic, and the effect whatever the intent is the result is dulling and deracination of the culture. The purpose of the First Amendment is not to humor the town atheist, it’s to protect religious liberty. Forbidding establishment of religion means for all intents and purposes a separation of church and state, but that’s a kind of clumsy way of putting it. When I saw the crèche on the lawn by City Hall as a boy the thought that came into my head wasn’t “Christianity is the state religion,†it was “Oh, they have the decorations up.†The crèche was the classy, dignified kind of decoration, as opposed to what you saw at the shopping center. The idea that you can only have a crèche in the public square if you surround it with Santa Claus, a menorah, the Grinch, Charlie Brown and all manner of other kitsch strikes me as ghastly. There really ought to be some sort of rule of reason applied about temporary petty observances of religious holidays.
December 4th, 2005 at 1:25 am
COLONIAL CHRISTMASES
The first century of colonial life saw few set times and days for pleasure. The holy days of the English Church were as a stench to the Puritan nostrils, and their public celebration was at once rigidly forbidden by the laws of New England. New holidays were not quickly evolved, and the sober gatherings for matters of Church and State for a time took their place. The hatred of “wanton Bacchanallian Christmasses” spent throughout England, as Cotton said, in “revelling, dicing, carding, masking, mumming, consumed in compotations, in interludes, in excess of wine, in mad mirth,” was the natural reaction of intelligent and thoughtful minds against the excesses of a festival which had ceased to be a Christian holiday, but was dominated by a lord of misrule who did not hesitate to invade the churches in time of service, in his noisy revels and sports. English Churchmen long ago revolted also against such Christmas observance.
Of the first Pilgrim Christmas we know but little, save that it was spent, as was many a later one, in work.
More:
http://womenshistory.about.com/library/etext/whx/bl_christmas_earle.htm
December 4th, 2005 at 1:26 am
By 1659 the Puritans had grown to hate Christmas more and more; it was, to use Shakespeare’s words, “the bug that feared them all.” The very name smacked to them of incense, stole, and monkish jargon; any person who observed it as a holiday by forbearing of labor, feasting, or any other way was to pay five shillings fine, so desirous were they to “beate down every sprout of Episcopacie.” Judge Sewall watched jealously the feeling of the people with regard to Christmas, and noted with pleasure on each succeeding year the continuance of common traffic throughout the day. Such entries as this show his attitude: “Dec. 25, 1685. Carts come to town and shops open as usual. Some somehow observe the day, but are vexed I believe that the Body of people profane it, and blessed be God no authority yet to compel them to keep it.” When the Church of England established Christmas services in Boston a few years later, we find the judge waging hopeless war against Governor Belcher over it, and hear him praising his son for not going with other boy friends to hear the novel and attractive services. He says: “I dehort mine from Christmas keeping and charge them to forbear.”
December 4th, 2005 at 1:30 am
An American Christmas
Decade by Decade
How We Came to Celebrate
Christmas as a National Holiday
Christmas wasn’t always celebrated the way it is today. In fact, the Puritans of Massachusetts banned any observance of Christmas, and anyone caught observing the holiday had to pay a fine. Connecticut had a law forbidding the celebration of Christmas and the baking of mincemeat pies! A few of the earliest settlers did celebrate Christmas, but it was far from a common holiday in the colonial era.
http://hoover.archives.gov/exhibits/AmChristmas/
December 4th, 2005 at 1:31 am
The All-American Christmas–isn’t
The Smithsonian Associates Civil War E-Mail Newsletter, Volume 7, Number 3
Many of the traditions associated with Christmas celebrations in the United States today are related to the Civil War experience. By re-establishing familiar European traditions and creating some new ones, citizens and soldiers alike found solace from the loneliness, insecurities, and heartbreak of war. This created the illusion of love and peace at a time when very little of that existed in their daily lives.
Christmas, like most social events, was widely celebrated in Europe with eating, drinking, and dancing. The Puritans, however, put an end to this indulgent behavior when they came to America. On their arrival, Christmas became a serious occasion, the purpose of which was to introspectively ponder sin and religious commitment.
It took almost 200 years for the country to move away from this Puritan ethic and enjoy the holidays once more. Louisiana was the first state to make Christmas a holiday in 1830, and many states soon followed. Congress did not make Christmas a federal holiday until 1870. The extensive religious revival of the mid-19th century combined with the hardships of the Civil War to instill the nation with a desire to unite, celebrate, and recognize the joys of the Christmas season.
More:
http://civilwarstudies.org/articles/Vol_7/christmas.htm
—my last post….sorry i went overboard.
December 4th, 2005 at 1:34 am
ok, this is the last one:
Fundamentalist Christians are currently working overtime to convince the American public that the founding fathers intended to establish this country on “biblical principles,” but history simply does not support their view. The men mentioned above and others who were instrumental in the founding of our nation were in no sense Bible-believing Christians. Thomas Jefferson, in fact, was fiercely anti-cleric. In a letter to Horatio Spafford in 1814, Jefferson said, “In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is easier to acquire wealth and power by this combination than by deserving them, and to effect this, they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer for their purposes” (George Seldes, The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey Citadel Press, 1983, p. 371). In a letter to Mrs. Harrison Smith, he wrote, “It is in our lives, and not from our words, that our religion must be read. By the same test the world must judge me. But this does not satisfy the priesthood. They must have a positive, a declared assent to all their interested absurdities. My opinion is that there would never have been an infidel, if there had never been a priest” (August 6, 1816).
From: The Christian Nation Myth
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/myth.html
December 4th, 2005 at 1:39 am
I respectfully disagree with your incorrect,albeit,well reasoned take on this subject.
It has nothing to do with commerce. I am sure no one is trying to lure non-Christians into their corporations to buy more or less.If that was the case why would it stir so much emotion as it has.I think it has everything to do with the cultural war’s latest fray.
I would bet dollars to doughnuts that the people who want to “bring christ into christmas” are the same whose opinion on any hot button issue from abortion to gun control to keeping “under god” in the pledge.are so predictable. Show me someone, and I’m guilty as well, who gets into this idiocy and I’ll show you someone who has passion not commerce on his mind
December 4th, 2005 at 1:48 am
Type “american founding fathers christian myth” into Google and all kinds of cool stuff, pops up.
December 4th, 2005 at 2:11 am
I find myself agreeing with AAA and Robert, even GM Roper to a great extent — bizarrely, considering what a militant atheist I used to be. (I’m now an agnostic who feels that he may as well take the New Testament as a reasonable guide to morality, if only because it’s more accessible for him.)
And thanks, civil truth, for the link to the article about Xmas here in Japan. “Super Funky Holy Day” indeed. My main exposure to Christmas here in Tokyo is listening to the various slightly jazzy renditions of carols in Starbucks. I used to despise this genre, but I find myself admitting that some of the better vocalists can spin this treacle into solid gold. It’s not high culture, mind you, but it is culture, and I’m fine with that. God only knows (so to speak) what kind of elevator-music crap they’d have to substitute if the Japanese Supreme Court suddenly noticed some kind of constitutional violation.
Robert Fiore writes: “The trouble with “Happy Holidays†is not that it’s irreligious but that it’s generic, and the effect whatever the intent is the result is dulling and deracination of the culture.”
There’s a lot that can be looked at that way. Take the Ten Commandments on a courthouse lawn. Bill of Rights violation? Or just a simple reminder that civilization is very much a product of writing down the friggin’ rules in a simple form, so that there’s no excuse for anybody not knowing what they are? Pretty much the latter, I’d say. Also a reminder that the law can only do so much. We don’t have a law that says, “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s ass” (equine or gym-toned), because the law can’t stop anybody from coveting anything. You don’t have to take the Commandments literally to see the point of having them on a courthouse lawn: they can be just a reminder that the main reason any court anywhere has daily business is, in large part, because somebody, somewhere, is always failing to be as good as they could be, and in ways that no rule of law, however refined, could ever control. It can be a statement not that the government supports a particular religion, but rather that it can’t substitute for religion or any other source of personal moral codes.
Likewise, “In God We Trust” on the money. There’s only one letter’s difference between “God” and “Gold”. I don’t think that’s an accident. We had to stop trusting gold and start trusting government by the people, for the people — mostly people we don’t know. That’s a leap of faith you have to make even if you don’t believe in God. If I had to rewrite it, it would say, “only as good as we are.” Then again, I’d also insist on disclaimers like “not necessarily worth what it was yesterday.” There’s a reason I don’t get editing jobs like these.
There are places where I’d draw the line. Nixon wanted that plaque on the moon to read “We came in peace, under God, for all mankind.” Gimme a break. America went to the moon to prove a point to an enemy it was at war with. If it had read as Nixon wanted it, and there really is a God, any returning astronauts would probably find those words crossed out, with new words scrawled underneath :
“I *told* you, Dick, ‘Thou shalt not lie’. What part of ‘not’ didn’t you understand?”
December 4th, 2005 at 2:11 am
Oe of the biggest myths can be found in the words atributed To Jefferson on his memorial. In fact the words “I swear on the alter of god eternal hostility agaist any tryanny on the minds of man”or words to that effect. This is lauded by those who believe the government was founed on religion.
These words were taken out of context. As he explined to a contempory fom Pennslyvania he viewed a clergy who was questiong his deist beliefs as the real tryanny. Those who would apply a litmus test to those fouding fathers who dared to neglest their religion in the revoulution. Save Adans, few of the leaders comingled made religion as a reason for libert. I will be surprised if the goole referece doesn’t agree.
December 4th, 2005 at 2:17 am
Sorry for the spelling gaffe om my last post, I hope you were able to cut through my form but get the substance
December 4th, 2005 at 2:23 am
Furthemore Neo Dude mafe my point!
December 4th, 2005 at 2:44 am
“The exact purpose of this amendment was to prevent the national government from estabilshing a religion like the Church of England. It did not, and does not say anything about any other governmental agency such as state and city governments.”
So, taking this to its logical conclusion, we should allow state and city-sponsored religions? And how is this a desirable goal of a healthy democratic republic? Hardly a situation that would foster “freedom of religion”. Sounds more like religious tyranny to me; if I want that, I’ll move to Saudi Arabia, thanks.
December 4th, 2005 at 5:56 am
‘Yeah Abas leave civil liberty “to whateverâ€as long as it’s a majority. Under that theory they would still be burning witches.’
Being burnt alive: violation of several rather significant rights.
The existence of some words in a building somewhere: not a violation of anyone’s rights.
It’s not difficult as an intellectual exercise. Why do so many people approach that issue as if it were working out who was at fault in a marriage, evaulating the way their parents treated them, or something similarly emotionally charged?
Mere reason doesn’t stand a chance.
soru
December 4th, 2005 at 8:01 am
“The existence of some words in a building somewhere: not a violation of anyone’s rights.”
If those words read, for instance, “No Jews allowed,” then yes, they would be a violation of others’ rights.
Let’s not forget to use our “mere reason”, even when making mere arguments.
December 4th, 2005 at 8:25 am
Rich: “So, taking this to its logical conclusion, we should allow state and city-sponsored religions? And how is this a desirable goal of a healthy democratic republic?”
Rich, the next part of my comment read “The USSC has ruled, in the past that governmental agencies cannot do so based on some emmanation or penumbra or some other idea, but the last part of the sentence also states that it cannot prohibit the free exercise thereof.”
I’m not calling for citys and or states to established religions, but I’m also not willing for the second part regarding prohibiting the free exercise thereof to be ignored. Are you? Are you really willing to prohibit people from the free exercise of their religion?
December 4th, 2005 at 8:51 am
All of this argument, taken together, tells you all you need to know about why Thanksgiving is my favorite holiday. I just love four days off from work wherein I eat and drink too much, watch some football, listen to Arlo Guthrie’s Alice’s Restaurant, and leisurely hang out with family and friends. No candles, no trees, no gifts, no hassles.
Ahhhhhhhhh……
December 4th, 2005 at 9:22 am
Hey Neodude, nice work. I didn’t know as my research on Puritans didn’t focus on this particular question only the enforcement of a a state religion. That’s why Massachusetts is a liberal state today. It’s based on the long history of hardline Christian conservatism which apparently banned ceelbration of any kind.
December 4th, 2005 at 9:30 am
Roper no one is saying “no excercise” except you. What is being stipulated is where e.g. on public ground where all religions are considered not just yours, thus none is the only conclusion as the founders designed. I’d bet if the displays were Buddist or Islamic you’d be against it. In your thesis the cities and states would establish your religion by proxy. Get enough states to do that and here comes a bill in Congress. An amendment perhaps? You get the idea but as as usual want only what you want when you want it. That’s a perfect Christmas statement.
December 4th, 2005 at 9:31 am
I think it was Justice Hugo Black who said “My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.” The problem with applying this idea to matters of faith is that religious sensibilities don’t afford us the nice definable boundaries of nose skin and fist skin. The “free exercise of religion” can be construed to permit, for example, polygamy (conservative Mormons, Muslims). Should it? Well, we have this other principle: equality under the law.
Soru writes: “It’s not difficult as an intellectual exercise. Why do so many people approach that issue as if it were working out who was at fault in a marriage, evaulating the way their parents treated them, or something similarly emotionally charged?”
Excellent question. Let me answer with a question: what if there were, in some parallel universe, a supreme court ruling that forbade parents from raising their children in any religious faith, because religious faith is properly a choice only for adults? I don’t think this is quite as ridiculous as it sounds. After a certain point in my Catholic upbringing (around 9 years of age), I began to feel like the whole thing was a violation of some basic rights that I had, even as a child. A lot of it struck me as no better than brainwashing. (Yes, I went to a Catholic school, and yes, nuns rapped my knuckles with rulers. Why do you ask?
I think people get emotional about all this in part because it’s so hard to separate the issues of principle from the particulars of their upbringings.
If it were all simple, and not emotionally charged, it wouldn’t be the stuff of Supreme Court cases, would it?
December 4th, 2005 at 9:38 am
Another true story from my years in Alabama:
My sister’s senior year high school boyfriend was a Jewish teenager named Brian Reinbolt. When Brian was in the third grade in Alabama, long after the SCOTUS decision forbidding the teaching of religion in public schools, he had a teacher who insisted that the students memorize a verse from the New Testament. Brian, being an obedient student and like most eight year olds, not well-versed in the basics of constitutional law went ahead and memorized a verse from a religion that was not the one he practiced, but one the theocratic teacher insisted he learn.
Even at age eight Brian was a bit of a wag, so he chose a verse from the Gospel According to St. John, Chapter 11, Verse 35 which is as follows: “Jesus wept.”
I wonder what the public reaction would have been if the teacher were Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist or Jewish and made the request from one of their holy books?
That last comment goes to the core of why I have no patience with the “Christian” fundamentalists who feel duty bound to impose their view of christianity on the rest of us.
December 4th, 2005 at 9:41 am
Federalizing a personal faith is sick!
December 4th, 2005 at 9:53 am
What is weird is this; Woody and I probably share the same metaphysical and theological outlooks (intelligent design, the Messiah, codes of personal conduct, accuracies in scripture)…but our politics are about antagonistic as rabid pit bulls….I think this is another reason to separate public faiths and personal faith.
December 4th, 2005 at 10:17 am
York writes: “…public ground where all religions are considered not just yours, thus none is the only conclusion as the founders designed. I’d bet if the displays were Buddist or Islamic you’d be against it.”
Wrong! As you so often are when it comes to discerning what conservatives think. I would have no problem with that at all, public means just that… PUBLIC. While I would have no problem with Buddists, Animists, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Confusionists, Taoists, Shintoists etc. displaying holy day commerations in public, I’d be willing to bet however that the majority of folks who believe like Marc and Hitchens would; I think.
December 4th, 2005 at 11:28 am
Well Roper that’s a safe bet isn’t it? The idea of this happening is rare given the hyped tradition, so sure, you can frame it as acceptence on your part and intolerance on the secualrist. Either way you get what you want. Can you imagine an Islamic display in Montgomery on Roy Moore’s stoop at the Courthouse? They’d be marching in the streets against it. No this is just another straw man. Just more my way or the highway.
Morals are evolved as we are. No one wrote them on tablets in the sky and dropped them down on us. They came up from below the same way good government does. When it’s allowed to that is.
December 4th, 2005 at 12:13 pm
So, GMR, if I read you right you think that if Alabama instituted the Southern Baptist Convention as the official religion of the state – or even less remote, Utah instituted Mormonism – and granted it privileged status – even to the extreme of, say, state funding of it’s schools, or some such – it would be solely on the basis of a “penumbra” for the SCOTUS to declare that a violation of the First ? Just asking…I think that’s a very disturbing idea and, frankly, renders your other qualms about such things as a “right to privacy” which should keep states out of stuff like contraception and abortion as “penumbra” even more specious, IM”H”O.
December 4th, 2005 at 12:21 pm
Also, I think that it’s crucial for people discussing this, when they use the word “public”, to distinguish between malls, churches and other public space that is owned and controlled by entities other than the state, and official state buildings and property. I would even make a distinction between localities accomodating various faith groups to put up their traditional celebratory displays on publicly owned recreational space, like a park or town square, for observance of holYdays – but I think it’s offensive to erect monuments, either permanent or temporary, to religions in space where official government business is conducted. While I’m opposed to erecting totems or decorating public buildings with this stuff, I am also opposed to trying to strip buildings and public space of their history, so I would leave anything that already exists in place out of respect for tradition. This seems like a compromise that most reasonable people could agree on, and it would isolate the zealots on both sides.
December 4th, 2005 at 12:34 pm
I should also add that I’m not at all offended by Christmas trees at the White House, any more than Easter egg hunts. Anyone who thinks that Christmas trees – whatever they’re called – are intrinsically connected to the birth of Christ, rather than a seasonal tradition pre-dating the dominance of Christianity in Europe – are also the kind of people who, presumably, believe the Easter bunny is somehow evocative of the Christian Resurrection narrative. There are Holy Days and Holidays and anyone who is truly religious knows the difference. The celebration of Christmas has been effectively, if not brutally, secularized by our commercial culture for at least a century. The ACLU prohibitionists are pikers compared to the avalanche of voracious consumerism that retailers buried O’Reilly’s beloved Baby Jesus under many decades ago.
December 4th, 2005 at 12:47 pm
“I would have no problem with Buddists, Animists, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Confusionists, Taoists, Shintoists etc. displaying holy day commerations in public”
As a less-than-devout Confusionist with some deep strains of additional eclectic and traditional influences, I would like to see the Confusionist symbol, a Giant Question Mark erected in my town square, next to a Christmas tree with full Nativity scene and a large Buddha. That would cover all the reminders I personally need of life’s mysteries and the cultural/spiritual contexts within which I ponder them. Everyone else should be welcome to add their own totems to the celebratory spirit. And Hitchens has a perfect right to take a public piss on the lawn in front of the whole glorious thing. Now that would be a fitting tribute to the spirit of the First Amendment.
December 4th, 2005 at 1:47 pm
Using the Lord’s image, as Christ or Father is, at least TACKY and at worse SINFUL.
Early American Christians would think today’s Christians are Roman Pagans playing Christians.
December 4th, 2005 at 1:50 pm
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/opinion/04sun3.html?hp
December 4th, 2005 at 1:53 pm
Hey Reg as an agnostic I like the big ? idea since nobody has the answer to this deity question, just different fictional renditions of the unknown. Don’t you mean confucionism?
December 4th, 2005 at 3:17 pm
Neodude…. Great links. Thanks!
I for one am a complete and unapologetic Christmas crazy person. I would never dream of not having a tree. I have a gazillion strange and cool ornaments—many wonderfully if messily homemade, others fabulously Oaxacan, a whole series, embarrassingly Disney-related…and so on. I’ve gathered them over several decades, and still continue to gather with enthusiasm. In addition, I hang dopey looking stockings for everyone, including the dog and the cat….and string lights (badly) on the outside of the house, of course. Then,
from the 23rd on, I annoy friends and family the various and sundry Christmas CDs that are played 24/7 in rotation. I even love going midnight mass and the Posadas in East LA, although I’m neither Catholic, nor religious in the conventional sense.
All that said…. I think you put it perfectly in your post, Marc: Indeed, whatta “bogus, bullshit, cynical, manufactured, crybaby†campaign. (Moreover, it’s also loathsomely and hatefully divisive…..which is exactly what these creeps have in mind)
My message to Bill O’Reilly, John Gibson and others of this ilk: Merry Christmas. Now Shut up! Just SHUT THE FUCK UP!
PS: What reg said in his last three posts. …about distringuishing betw/ public/private spaces in this discussion…and not going off the deep end and stripping public spaces of their history (The ACLU has really overstepped on this)…and that large White House trees et al are cool…and that there’s a pressing need for a giant “?” in any and all public squares.
December 4th, 2005 at 3:39 pm
rosedog,
This is ironic, I think…I attend (as a member) an Orthodox Presbyterian service….since they are the theological descendants of Puritans, holidays are stripped of most symbols and Christmas is third or second to Easter. However, the Charismatic Pentecostal church, I grew up in, is the epitome of flashy, gaudy all-out- Christmas-Is-Las Vegas extravaganzas.
My wife is Roman Catholic, so she keeps my Christmas balanced.
On the Founding Fathers…by all counts, were not Christians and they few that were, were not fundamentalists.
Read the history of American fundamentalism, they gave Abraham Lincoln a lot of stress and resented the name of Christ being omitted in the Constitution.
December 4th, 2005 at 3:46 pm
Early American fundamentalists would always complain about the secular and sinful nature of the American constitution…it would allow the take over of Papist and deists…the present day fundamentalist have reversed that and now claim the document as pro-Christian…traditionally, fundamentalists were always hostile to the early Founding Fathers because of their devotion to the Enlightenment principles.
December 4th, 2005 at 4:03 pm
I checked this blog to find that intelligent people were still debating the subject which has evolved into as I view it a reading of the the First amendment and the 14th amendment which makes same applicable to the states,counties et al.
I doubt anyone would argue that the bill of rights is the bastion of civil liberty. It distinguishes America as the greatest government ever created.It is fair to argue how these rights should be applied but not to argue they should be replaced by majority rule.I happen to read them literally which ends up in some political disconnects personaly. For instance I favor gun control but the second amendment in my mind forbids these laws. I often tell my few right wing friends that I will accept their view of the second amendment if they will give the same support to all of the amendments. I have no takers especially when the discusion gets to the ninth amendment which has been construed by two Court justices to protect privacy, but that’s a whole new topic.
What concerns me is that some comments, to use a cliche put us on “a slippery slope”. What appears to many as inane objections to christmas in the public sector can slide into more serious invasions of separation of church and state.Few are going to say that the ten commandments of themselves offensive but once you allow the bible into government the consequences are dangerous indeed.
Let me give you an example. A pentacostal church out west posted on it’s public billboard “”Arguement settled 1 Thessalonias 2:15″ A reading of that is that the jews killed Jesus.Fair enough they did (although as Lenny Bruce said “isn’t there a statue of limitations” ) Neverthless it was on their billbord on their on their propery so they have every right to excercise their First amenment rights regardless or any moral responsibility.
But as Dr. king said “you can’t legislate morality but you sure as hell can legislate behavior.It is not that big a stretch between posting other such biblical quotations and the posting of the commandments in a public place. The bill of rights is impotant not when the sun is shining but when it is raining. If we are not vigilent when things are going well, where will we be when the storms of popular discontent are sweeping people into intolerance and self rightiousness?
I hope this explains my views if you disagree of course that’s why they make chocolate and vanilla ice cream. In that vein let me apologise to Abbas for my early morning alchol driven name calling.
December 4th, 2005 at 4:03 pm
Christmas may be the only thing that was better under communism. Because of goofy Bolshevik economic practices people simply didn’t have the means to engage in crass commmercialism. It used to be a treat to wait to queue to get oranges, now we have nonstop depressing commercials pushing useless plastic crap. I utterly hate communism, but I have to admit this orgy of materialism that has become the, ‘Christmas Season”, in the Czech Republic sometimes makes me a little nostalgic for some oranges.
December 4th, 2005 at 4:25 pm
I thought the Italians killed Christ.
December 4th, 2005 at 4:42 pm
Gm.. I dont buy it, sorry. The church is untaxed. No government subsidies at any level –national, state, or local– should support ANY aspect of religious expression. If y’all want to pray, well that’s why God and his followers built chruches. You’re free to pray and even say Merry Xmas any damn place you want in addition.. just to make the rest of us have anything to do with it– especially the praying part.
This society is very open and has broad civic life. Followers of Jesus and Moses and Muhammed and of the Wicked Witch of the East have ample oppty to demonstrate their religious beliefs in an unhindered manner.
But we’re not let u gonna have it both ways. Forget the constitutional issue if you like. But we’re not gonna gove u tax-free status and then subsidize or endorse ur activites. U want a friggin’ Scientology display in the schools?
One solution here, of course, is to tax your little outfits. Yum Yum, Im for that! How about a nice easy 14% flat tax on all chruch revenues? Then we might let u have a manger out on the court steps– maybe, I said.
In the meantime.. Merry Christmas!
Im not as much a fanatic as Rosedoggie claims to be.,. but while I don;t cotton to any of the religious hokum around Xmas, I LOVE the commercial aspect. It’s a great distraction from the humdrum of ordinary commerce. And on the two days before Xams all the store clerks at least pretend to be helpful and merry and jolly. I also am a sucker for “Let it Snow, Let it Snow.”
December 4th, 2005 at 4:44 pm
Neo, First there is no connection between the Romans and what we know now as the Italians, notwithstanding Mussolini’s ranting.
The Jews were responsible for Jesus death. This was because their leaders viewed him as a threat to not only their political power but their theology. Historically there were any number of Jesus types and it is easy to understand their reluctance to choose Jesus to die as opposed to Barabbas who contrary to popular belief was not a thief but a freedom fighter against Rome or a terrorist depending on your point of view. Talk about picking the wrong horse!
BTW I really liked your previous posts.
December 4th, 2005 at 5:05 pm
I have a theory about why the crumudgeons come out at Christmas. Because during this time of the year you have the bald display of what this nation is all about, and that is what one’s can get for one’s self and their own. Every noble concept or idea that these people have used to hide beneath is removed during this time of the year – all is on open display.
What else did you expect? Did you think that love and good will toward men would be unearthed? That everyone would come together and lift up others in a show of unselfish brotherhood? No, Christmas is the most honest time of the year – it displays what all have become, selfish consumers that care nothing about anyone but themselves and their own. Perhaps you can go see the Nutcracker and get those warm fuzzy feelings about elite celebration.
So when we are done with all of our self-engorging festivities, do not forget to blow the candle out in the faces of those who are less fortunate than us – not because we are blessed, oh no, but because America is the big kid on the block and can rip off others all around the world with impunity, and your small participation is just a microcosm of this really big problem. Ho ho ho….merry christmas to all, and to all a good night!
December 4th, 2005 at 5:34 pm
The exact purpose of this amendment was to prevent the national government from estabilshing a religion like the Church of England. It did not, and does not say anything about any other governmental agency such as state and city governments.
That same SCOTUS also outlawed the teaching of religion in public schools. As for your interpretation, yes, the language mentions congress, but with all due respect, you’re being illogical here.
The 4th amendment also says nothing about the states and city governments regarding search and seizure restrictions. 8th Amendment does not mention states and cities in limiting cruel and unusual punishment. 5th Amendment does not mention states and cities in the ban on self-incrimination.
By your logic, Texas could elect a Muslim governor, lieutenant governor (since he does most of the executive work there) and Muslim majority legislature, they could vote to institute Sharia law, break into people’s houses on a whim to find property they allege is stolen, force them to confess their crimes and cut off their hands as punishment.
Of course, that last paragraph is ridiculous, but you’re ignoring federal review of state law.
December 4th, 2005 at 5:48 pm
When a young Aaron Burr stayed at our house in 1775 on his way to help attack Quebec he wrote his sister back in Jersey who was worried of him “falling in with papists.” They were really anti-catholic. Burr took care of that concern by falling in with the “heathen” Jacataqua an Abenaki princess instead.
December 4th, 2005 at 5:59 pm
Coming in at the end of a very long thread, and slightly if not somewhat off topic in a deeply personal sense as an Atheist, I say this:
Worship what you will, at random or with some sense, whatever that sense makes to you……
But my not so sly remark goes like this:
This sentence quite totally stolen from a great remark I read last week on another board —
“I do not worhsip a dead guy stuck on a stick”……..so much for Xmas for me……..all the rest of all of what all of you have posted has some merit of course, according to your own needs and beliefs…I just posted mine…….
December 4th, 2005 at 5:59 pm
Well eddie according to “Mel Gibson” Jews killed another Jew but it was the Romans who carried it out and were in charge. Complicit? Sure, but to say the Romans aren’t Italian is not to understand the peopling of the earth, which I’m sure you do not. Perhaps not drinking in the morning would be of help in understanding these concepts?
At any rate, agree with Marc’s take on the Roper hypothesis, and I like Christmas too. Nothing wrong with a year’s end celebration in my mind. It’s tradition now.
December 4th, 2005 at 6:05 pm
“Don’t you mean confucionism?” Okay, my spelling nazi (who is miraculously transformed into a pandering liberal when it comes to my own comments) is forcing me to point out that it’s “confucianism” and I ripped the “confusionist” quote from a comment of GMR’s that inadvertently and to my delight came up with an absolutely essential new religious sect to which I realized I’d been a convert before I even heard of it.
December 4th, 2005 at 6:10 pm
PaperClip,
HE’S NOT DEAD!!!
heathen!
Now what?
December 4th, 2005 at 6:10 pm
About Xmas overall in the Christian sense, anyone old enough to remember Lenny Bruces great cut on one of his first albums starting first with “glow in the dark Mezusas sp? in terms of judadism then following through with Christian toys and has a modicum of humour in remberance is my bud for sure………
btw — I do like the lights and the trees and all of it, as it is the best party of the year for me, but that is what it is…a grand party…with a an extreme largess of dollars spent — like birthdays and anniversarys and all occassions raped into one…all in the name of…”Jesus”…..
In terms of the word “Holiday” for the Xmas tree or anything else, I suppose I must also add that get a life folks…Christmas is in fact in religious terms of the birth of Christ, if it must be celebrated, do so intelligently…ya know…Christ – mas…as in Christ…all the rest of the endless and endless dribble is just that, just dribble…Chirstmas…IS the birth of Jesus…duh……..
December 4th, 2005 at 6:17 pm
Neodude to reply……
Sorry don’t read here often enough to know if you are on the square with me, or kidding, but me thinks you are serious……if so……
I said quite clearly I am an “atheist”….and yes of course Jesus Christ is quite and literaly dead — dead as a door nail…….to me…….
If that is not true for you…….go for it……I have no quarrel with any religion, just don’t make your religion mine…….do whatever works for you guy…
December 4th, 2005 at 6:33 pm
reg: “So, GMR, if I read you right you think that if Alabama instituted the Southern Baptist Convention as the official religion of the state – or even less remote, Utah instituted Mormonism…”
Actually, Methodist would make more sense
And no I’m not saying that the Penumbra should be ignored, but it took a ruling from the USSC because the US Constitution Does Not speak to that issue. I would be ticked off if a religion were forced on me and would probably raise all kinds of old billy hell. That is not the point either. If a community is say 90% Christian and 10% Jewish, than Chanuka/Christmas decor could be that same percentage, or Kwanza or what ever.
All you that spend so much time talking about the commercialization of Christmas also don’t, I notice, mention all the hundreds of millions raised during the season for relief of others, of Bell Ringers (and I’ve done that many a Christmas) freezing their buns off but steadfastly ringing that bell to help others. Of the Marine Corps 60 year old tradition of collecting Toys For Tots, of Churches and Temples collecting food, clothing etc for distribution around the world. Nope, the smug self satisfied bashing of the faith of others is sufficient. Disgusting, really!
December 4th, 2005 at 7:05 pm
Mr Hitchens is not above profiting from Religion…
http://christopherhitchenswatch.blogspot.com/2005/11/wtf.html
December 4th, 2005 at 7:09 pm
PaperClip,
No…I was playing….sorry.
December 4th, 2005 at 7:31 pm
That’s right GM, point to the red pot outside of Walmart…lol. I do not disagree with charity, in fact, it should be expanded. My gripe is with the direction of this country, what America is all about – and our seeming inability to address our country’s direction.
Ring all the bells you care to – but for once, why don’t we significantly ring the bell on Pennsylvania Ave. as a collective people for a change? Anyhow, be charitable and give – be responsible and stop this nation’s direction so more people both at home and abroad are not impoverished and killed. By the way – have a happy holiday!
December 4th, 2005 at 7:56 pm
Well marc,You are certainly the moral expert on drinking but ignorant as to the make up of the present “Italian people.” Why don’t you check your facts.You might start with the Wikipedia site since that seems to match your level of reading ability! Of course most all present day Romans are Italian but in no way descend from the people of the Roman Empire.
If you know anything about Judea under Roman control you would realize that the jews had absolutely no ability to execute one of their own.But as was common during jewish holidays,a prisoner was often released by CHOICE of the Jews.Furthemore if you knew anything about law both Roman and English one who aids and abets a crime is as guilty as the principle.So both historicly and more importantly biblically Jesus’s blood is on the Jews hands And on their children’s. [matthew 27:25}
In fact your hero and historic source Gibson was pressured into leaving that biblical passage out of the movie.
December 4th, 2005 at 8:13 pm
Well Roper the condemnation you have for those leaving out the little things in favor of the big picture is just your sort of tactic. They didn’t mention the bell ringers hence they don’t think they exist. Well you don’t understand liberals. That much is clear. We support programs that keep people from needing charity but those are tossed aside by your crowd in favor of this band aid approach. It ‘s just another straw man.
December 4th, 2005 at 8:15 pm
Have anothr drink eddie. I won’t mention the kind, but electric comes to mind.
December 4th, 2005 at 8:33 pm
“but in no way descend from the people of the Roman Empire.”
This is absolutely false. The only reference I found was from to the contrary is a white supremacy site.
December 4th, 2005 at 8:43 pm
I guess I have to respond to GMR with the observation that I find it disingenuous – if not “disgusting – when someone complains that “talking about the commercialization of Christmas” is some form of “bashing the faith of others”. The strongest reservations I’ve ever heard expressed about the commercialization of Christmas as rampant secularization of a sacred celebration were from the people I’ve known who’ve had the deepest faith.
December 4th, 2005 at 8:45 pm
Neodude…….
Happy sigh of relief to hear that!…
Now I mercifully bow out of this thread, as religion is a tad too mundane for me these days in my advanced years —– this discussion in one form or another will go on till Earth may become a Supernova…do forgive my bad science metaphor…..nice talking to you!
December 4th, 2005 at 8:53 pm
“The shape of the Italian peninsula dictates that any land travel into the peninsula would have to come down from the main body of the European continent, which is exactly what happened during the last ice age. Later, sea travel facilitated contact and some migration around the Mediterranean. As a result of the thousands of years of migration, Italians come in all hair and eye colours.”
So far so good.
“Current genetic studies are attempting to detect distinct foreign gene signatures. The results so far indicate that Italians are most closely related to their immediate European neighbors.”
And this would not be the case during Roman times? Au contraire winged friend.
December 4th, 2005 at 9:01 pm
What a scholar you are marci. It took you 37 minutes to reference the the entire subject of the heritage of the Italian people and your first place of reference is a white supremacist site!
Did you also find the presence of Latin speaking people in the world? Are you really going to resort to name calling in the place of facts? And you chastise Roper for HIS tactics?
December 4th, 2005 at 9:55 pm
“All you that spend so much time talking about the commercialization of Christmas also don’t, I notice, mention all the hundreds of millions raised during the season for relief of others, of Bell Ringers (and I’ve done that many a Christmas) freezing their buns off but steadfastly ringing that bell to help others. Of the Marine Corps 60 year old tradition of collecting Toys For Tots, of Churches and Temples collecting food, clothing etc for distribution around the world. Nope, the smug self satisfied bashing of the faith of others is sufficient. Disgusting, really!”
A bit silly GM. Real believers would probably be a bit offended by the idea of the birthday of the son of God being used to sell washing machines. Nope. That is not disgusting at all.
Nor are the labor conditions that most of the workers who made the crap that is bought during X Mass the least bit disgusting. Nor are the wages of the service workers selling the X mass crap. That is not disgusting. None of the real bread and butter issues are disgusting at all!
The charity aspect of X Mass is a speck of sand compared to the profits earned from the consumer bonanza that is X Mass. Don’t kid yourself one bit. X Mass for this country at least is about buying mostly useless items splashed with a little feel good caroling and a we bit of worshiping.
I grantee you that if you could hear those prayers drifting up to heaven you would hear a lot of praying by young kid’s right not for I Pods, Playstations, etc… Not a whole lot of prays for the misery to stop in Iraq. Or for an end to the Genocide in Darfur.
X Mass to me reflects the shallowness and insincerity of modern Christianity. Mega Churches and Mega malls selling things to people. Well it lasts about as long as the buzz from the egg nog.
I might regain my “faith” if all of the Priests, Decons, Preachers, Pastors, Nuns, etc… Would try to redeem X Mass as a time to understand the message of Jesus Christ. Maybe try to get some of the believers to read the Bible a bit. And instead of buying useless stuff made in sweatshops and factories in 3rd world countries under deplorable labor standards, maybe donate all of the money for buying useless gifts to help people who are suffering all over the world. Make it mean something. But like all things in the US these days, the narcissism will continue and the shallow feel good bullshit will not cease.
I hope when all of you are out “shopping till you drop” you remember that those lousy clerks helping you out are getting paid less than living wages. Many are seasonal workers. I know those workers are easy to loath, maybe cut them some slack. They may not know a lot about the “right kind of cheese for my cocktail party?.†They also might not know the “what Argentinean vintages are good right now?†Most of them probably drink 2 buck chuck. You will still have your Ipods and other gadgets, don’t get snipy.
This is what I got for X mass. http://www.atomicplatters.com/ Totally usefull
December 5th, 2005 at 12:08 am
“If a community is say 90% Christian and 10% Jewish, than Chanuka/Christmas decor could be that same percentage, or Kwanza or what ever.”
Ah, what a perfect solution: religious quotas! So we’ll get some bean-counting public officials to make precise calculations of all residents’ religious affiliations (after each annual religious census, of course, to make sure the city keeps up with religious conversions), and then carefully sweep the city to ensure proper proportions of religious decor. Brilliant, Roper! When are you running for office?
“Nope, the smug self satisfied bashing of the faith of others is sufficient. Disgusting, really!”
Except, as usual, you foolishly generalize. As a Catholic, the most beautiful Xmas I ever spent was in a tiny hut on a rainy night in Sepalau, Guatemala, sipping hot chocolate and chatting with kind friends, surrounded by nothing but warm hearts, poverty, hope, and billions of stars. So, indeed, harshly criticizing the irreligious commercialization of Xmas is, for many of us Christians and non-Christians alike, something we feel quite adamant about, thank you very much. What’s disgusting is actually attempting, as a Christian, to defend the commercialization of the holiday. I love the irony in Frydek-Mistek’s example of a more Christian Christmas under the communists than in a money-worshipping, name-it-claim-it, bastardized “christianity” so common here in the U.S. Disgusting, indeed.
December 5th, 2005 at 9:06 am
It always amazes me, as a non-American, how much nonsense some Americans can still talk about the US Constitution. Don’t you study your own laws or your own history any more?! Anyone who can write that “it took a ruling from the USSC because the US Constitution Does Not speak to that issue†[of states allegedly not being bound by the First Amendment] is simply displaying his total ignorance of the Constitution – which, by the way, consists of the original document and *all* its amendments, and does *not* allow you to pick and choose which ones you like and which ones you don’t.
OK, so the First Amendment does indeed refer only to Congress, but so what? Look at what the Fourteenth Amendment says:
“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.â€
And how do we know what “the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States†are, or what the “due process of law†is, or what “the equal protection of the laws†means? By reading the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution, which you don’t have to be a Supreme Court Justice, or even an American citizen, to understand. As Hitchens says, it is beautifully written, and you should all be a lot prouder of it than you seem to be these days.
The 14th Amendment is *not* “a ruling from the USSCâ€, nor is it any kind of “penumbra†(whatever that means) – it’s part of the Constitution, just as much as the First Amendment is, and it plainly means that the states must comply with the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment. End of story.
December 5th, 2005 at 9:20 am
Well said and illustrated BJ. Much of our populace is quite ignorant of these contextual matters and sees what they want as this thread shows nicely.
Prenumbra must code for interpreting the Constitution in an off-agenda way. Sort of like the Italians aren’t related to the Romans but the Jews are the exact same people as in the year 1.
December 5th, 2005 at 9:40 am
eddie Says:
“December 4th, 2005 at 12:06 am
I grew up in the south you moron and I got a different reaction from the kids in my school after our morning brainwashing. When I didn’t exhibit the necessary response to our lord and savior I got the hell knocked out of me”
I would submit you got the hell knocked out of you because you are a jerk off. Not because of your religous beliefs or lack thereof.
Unfortunately it didn’t seem to cure you.
too address Hitchens’ comments on Scarborough.
1. If he is offended by Merry Christmas being uttered at Wall Mart or Target he is free to take his business elsewhere. So are the Christians who are offended at establishments who refuse to say Merry Christmas.
2. What any of that has to due with “the separation of Church and State” I have no clue. As they are private businesses free to conduct themselves as they please.
too bad scarborough can’t hang with the likes of Hitchens (who I deeply respect) to point that out.
December 5th, 2005 at 11:06 am
“As they are private businesses free to conduct themselves as they please.”
Wal-mart, certainly. But the issue in the Newport News incident concerns a decision made by local government over a public domain–not a private business.
December 5th, 2005 at 11:46 am
British Jeffersonian – excellent short course on the Constitution.
December 5th, 2005 at 1:30 pm
I guess “jerk off” is a term of endearment?
December 5th, 2005 at 2:19 pm
BritishJeffersonian. Point well taken, I had not considered the 14th and you are correct. I withdraw my argument.
I am by the way, really pretty much against the commercialization of Christmas. I’m pretty disgusted when I see Christmas stuff going on sale a week before Halloween for pete’s sake. However, my larger point was, and remains, that too many enjoy bashing the faith of believers at this time of year. That stands.
December 5th, 2005 at 3:07 pm
GM: That’s gracious of you. However, it seems that you’re still kind of missing the even larger point – not yours, but Hitchens’s, as in the following excerpts from the conversation Marc Cooper linked to:
“[...] They are called churches. People can go there if they want to have a religious ceremony. They can put up hoardings on their land which say it’s Jesus’ birthday or Christ has risen if it’s Easter, anything like that. You can’t stop them. They do it all the time and they are very welcome [...]
“I promise only one thing. I promise you, I would say that if I was a Christian. I am not. But if I was one, I would not want it imposed on other people [...]
“Don’t you find the tinsel and the incessant stuff on the radio and the TV, don’t you find it gets you down? Don’t you find it’s cheap and tinselly? I certainly do [...]
“People can celebrate it all they like. It would be impossible to live in this country and not notice that there are lots of Christians who like to celebrate the birthday of the person they believe is their saviour. You cannot possibly escape it. But we don’t want it to enjoy any public preference or subsidy, and the Constitution says that we don’t have to.â€
Doesn’t look much like “bashing†to me. Hitchens is opposed to the political abuse of religion, and to the fanaticism that religion (but also politics) can lead to, but he’s not hostile to individual believers. It looks, in fact, a lot more like an argument for Live and Let Live – which in Britain is widely viewed as a great American tradition.
And in that spirit, from this atheist to all of you: Merry Christmas!
December 5th, 2005 at 3:19 pm
Ugly, Your ” suspicions” are incorrect, but please tell me what I wrote that causes you to come to that conclusion. I wouldn’t bother to ask except you go on to say you respect Hitchens so you can’t be that stupid. Or were you just standing up for York who can’t get it through his head that the present day Italians do not descend from the Roman Empire so joins you in form since he has no substance.
I also agree that Scarborugh proved once again what a jerk he is by calling C.H a naughty boy,banning him from Scarborugh Country,and then urging all 400,00 thousand of his listeners to stay tuned for his next tabloid story.
I was glad to see Jeffersonian give a short well written explanation of constitutional law.
December 5th, 2005 at 4:37 pm
I just saw two little old christian ladies being spat at by an antiwar hippie, it was just awful!
December 5th, 2005 at 6:03 pm
I agree, Scarborough was total putz. I see no so-called “bashing of beliefs” save when they try to supplant them in a science class.
December 5th, 2005 at 7:44 pm
“I grew up in the south you moron….”
No, eddie, you didn’t. You’re still trying.
December 5th, 2005 at 8:01 pm
“so joins you in form since he has no substance.”
I’m crushed. So we don’t remain ignorant why don’t you show us the evidence Italians don’t descend from the Romans?
December 5th, 2005 at 9:02 pm
I came to my conclusion based on your response to Abbas-Ali Abadani.
The guy says he grew up in the south, sounds like he didn’t partake in prayer and didn’t have any problems. You respond to his post in a way that would get you slapped if it were in person.
Now I do realize people who talk big on the internet rarely have the balls to do so in person so maybe you didn’t spout off in your childhood as you did to Abbas-Ali Abadani.
Maybe there is some history between you two I am unware of that would cause you to react that way. Maybe he is lying. Maybe you are. I don’t know you from adam. You are just some anonymous guy on the internet as am I.
I will say that although I have not been in a church in 20 years save funerals, weddings, and sight seeing in Europe, I did grow up attending a Baptist Church, know litterally hundreds of Christians and although some can be hypocrits as can we all, I have never personally witnessed the behavior you claim to have been the victim of.
You just made a bad first impression 8).
Make sense?
December 5th, 2005 at 9:19 pm
And what about Santa Claus? I suppose you all don’t believe in him either. Right? I suppose you all think those presents just magical appear. Right? …..Pathetic.
December 6th, 2005 at 9:18 am
Any one who understands the scientific method realizes Santa Claus does exist. It is a scientific Law because it has been proven over the years with repeatable experimentation. With cookies and milk put out on Xmas eve, and each and every time they disappear while presents you ask for in your letters to Santa Claus appear in their place, every time, without fail. It is the responsibility of the non-believer to disprove an established scientific law, not the other way around.
No doubt Santa is reading this blog. My cookies and mild will be out. Hope your roof is chosen for Rudolph to relieve himself.
December 6th, 2005 at 9:20 am
Excuse the typos. In a hurry.
December 6th, 2005 at 9:22 am
Geeze, should have been “hope your roof is not choosen for Rudolph to relieve himself.”
July 12th, 2006 at 9:46 pm
Betta Days Ringtone…
Download the ringtone of the popular song: Betta Days …
July 21st, 2006 at 7:06 am
Kansst du mir ein Speisekarte poker zeigen ?vjs
July 25th, 2006 at 3:52 pm
Kansst du mir ein Speisekarte poker zeigen ?bbx
November 3rd, 2006 at 7:52 am
catholic dating…
Using programming languages and markup languages (such as HTML) require some of the same skills, but using markup languages is generally…
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:02 pm
Online Roulette…
anonymous attorneys Potomac.uneasy Alabamian Online Roulette [url=http://www.atonlineroulette.com/#]Online Roulette[/url] http://www.atonlineroulette.com/# …
November 15th, 2007 at 1:08 am
seven card stud gratis…
…
November 17th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
basic poker rule poker tournament rule…
…
November 19th, 2007 at 7:01 am
Lo einarmiger bandit spielen toke schnell Gutschrift acht kippen Third spiel erlebnis paigow blind Büste Hauptleitung beste online kasino saft Bank knacken texas Paar gerade?
December 7th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Give capital one visa credit card up jackpot trio best internet blackjack bust trio flop back blue card cash credit rank house hard pasadena!
December 7th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
salles de jeux virtuelles…
Rare slot maschine online spielen slot machines spielen…
December 9th, 2007 at 12:32 am
casinos internacionales pagina web casino internacional portal web…
En este momento juego ruleta gratis jugar ruleta internet…
December 17th, 2007 at 10:27 am
cash till payday loan…
There is cash advance service cash loan payday till…
December 28th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
payday loan in toronto payday loan toronto loan payday toronto…
By means of advance cash loan? payday ? fashioned old phone ringtones…
January 8th, 2008 at 9:38 am
free cellular south ringtones free ringtones for cellular south customer…
Based on unlimited music ringtones advance cash day in loan pay uk…
January 25th, 2008 at 10:16 am
les règles de jeu poker…
Always atlantic city polyphonic ringtones t720…
January 31st, 2008 at 7:58 am
les règles de la roulette…
Dansleslimites free nokia ringtones and logo le casino en ligne français…
February 2nd, 2008 at 6:01 pm
nokia ringtones tracfone…
Offer cell info nokia remember ringtones free monophonic nokia ringtones…
February 4th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
business internet loan payday start internet loan payday…
For a start 1 hour payday loan fast loan online payday…
March 7th, 2008 at 9:54 am
cash in advance loan cash advance loan oregon advance cash loan military…
Perhaps advance cash on line cash advance detroit…
March 8th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
poker 5 cartas…
Aquel juegos cartas poker 7 card stud…
March 11th, 2008 at 5:43 am
casino italiani con bonus…
Vorresti giochi blackjack in linea casino tropez gratis…
June 9th, 2008 at 1:56 am
juegos de casino on line…
With texas holdem regelwerk jugar apostar pagina web texas holdem hände casino online bonus regle poker texas holdem…
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:10 pm
[…] http://marccooper.com/crucifying-christmas – Marc Cooper » Blog Archive » Crucifying Christmas… Bic Pen, Tradenet Publishing, Parker Pen and many others. Too many to list here. Our sincere thanks …Bookmarked and Pinged by http://www.imagebuilderads.com/ [...]