RE: The war on christmas

RE: The war on christmas (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

hot4bondage -> RE: The war on christmas (12/21/2013 7:29:21 AM)
Best summary of the Establishment Clause that I've seen in awhile: "Not being allowed governmental favoritism doesn’t take away your rights. It simply keeps your rights where they are and doesn’t take away the rights of others." More details here: http://www.chicagonow.com/an-agnostic-in-wheaton/2013/12/separation-of-church-and-state-made-easy-for-sarah-palin/

EdBowie -> RE: The war on christmas (12/21/2013 8:22:52 AM)
Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the government from policing priests who pork little boys. Nothing forces the government to allow members of any religion the 'religious freedom' to hunt down and kill 'witches' per Scripture. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the government from policing against religious terrorists. Had he lived, there wasn't a judge in the country that would have accepted 'freedom of religion' and released Jim Jones. The word 'respecting' is used in the sense of preferential treatment. No right under the Constitution is so unlimited as to become unreasonable, period. And you know this. quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie Interesting fantasy. I hope you find a planet where it comes true. Here on Earth, the US Constitution says no such thing. 'Respecting' and 'not policing' are not the same thing. Wow! Here on planet earth, the US Constitution says EXACTLY that. Look at how the word "respecting" is used. It has nothing to do with "avoiding violation of or interference with" any or all religions. It that case it means: "regarding" Before you attack what I write, perhaps you should read what I wrote (and the direct quote from the constitution) carefully. People reading your post to me might think you're just spoiling for a fight. quote: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ... quote: ORIGINAL DaddySatyr I always find it amusing that lefties like to refer to "separation of church and state" (which doesn't exist in the constitution but appears in a letter that Jefferson wrote during his presidency) but they seem to forget that government is specifically enjoined from interfering in how a person practices their religion. It's a logically flawed argument for someone to say: "You can't have a nativity display in a post office because of 'separation of church and state' and a letter carrier can't sing Christmas carols while they deliver the mail."

ThatDaveGuy69 -> RE: The war on christmas (12/21/2013 8:33:28 AM)
If there were truly a "War on Christmas" then there would be no Christmas sales in stores, no Christmas decorations on light poles, no 24-7 Christmas music radio stations, no Christmas specials on TV, etc., etc., etc... The whole concept is a fiction created by butt-hurt xians who are no longer getting their way every time. The most obvious clue that it's a fraud is that Sarah Palin and FAUX News are the biggest whiners.

Apocalypso -> RE: The war on christmas (12/21/2013 9:39:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wanderingjew So, once again I ask you. How are such laws banning certain religious practices and displays not "prohibiting the free exercise thereof"? That's always been the case. Rastafarians are not allowed to smoke cannabis in states where it's illegal. If we're going to go for absolute religious rights, surely that's a much more inarguable attack on their religious freedom then anything contained within the "War on Christmas"?

Moonhead -> RE: The war on christmas (12/21/2013 9:58:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDaveGuy69 If there were truly a "War on Christmas" then there would be no Christmas sales in stores, no Christmas decorations on light poles, no 24-7 Christmas music radio stations, no Christmas specials on TV, etc., etc., etc... The whole concept is a fiction created by butt-hurt xians who are no longer getting their way every time. The most obvious clue that it's a fraud is that Sarah Palin and FAUX News are the biggest whiners. I wonder if I could declare war on Christmas by tracking down and killing Noddy Holder? "If I hear fucking 'Merry Christmas Everybody' again, Jim Lea is next!"

ThatDaveGuy69 -> RE: The war on christmas (12/21/2013 10:09:55 AM)
Let's add Elmo & Patsy to that list. Along with Maria Carey, Neil Diamond, Babs Striesand, Carrie Underwood, every Country singer ever, and a whole herd of others who have given us such awful songs and dreadful versions of songs we once loved.

Lucylastic -> RE: The war on christmas (12/21/2013 11:32:25 AM)
yanno, I rarely share ads but this just got me in the "right" mood for christmas... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImlmVqH_5HM I hope you have memories, and hopes of a happy Christmas Now, in the past and the future. SO there!

vincentML -> RE: The war on christmas (12/21/2013 12:07:56 PM)
quote: It is important to keep in mind that the US Constitution and it's Bill of Rights (with the exception of the 6th) do not actually grant anybody the right to anything, they only prevent the government from interfering in certain rights which the people already possess. The Constitution is based on the idea that the people have these rights, and the amendments were passed to make sure that the government did not interfere with them. This concept is clearly laid out in the preamble of the Declaration of Independence, which is the real philosophical foundation of the country. The Declaration is the actual founding document of the US, not the Constitution, the Constitution is merely a set of rules on how to implement a workable system of government based on the principles so nobly laid out in the Declaration - and it is not even the first such attempt. The Declaration is one of the most flawed documents contrived by the Founders. Ask the black slaves and the women whether they were treated as being created equal. Maybe they didn't get the memo on inalienable rights. Basing any argument for freedoms on the Declaration is pure folly. As for the religious practices prohibition of the First Amendment, you're right Congress can violate that absolution prohibition whenever it prevents the religious sacrifice of virgins to the God of the volcano or as was done in prohibiting the Santeria sacrifice of animals years back in south Florida. Time and again Scotus has overturned absolutist interpretations of the Constitution. That's why we have a Supreme Court and an appeals Court system. We live in a world of ambiguities and require referees. Get over it!

vincentML -> RE: The war on christmas (12/21/2013 1:09:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wanderingjew It may be flawed, but the reasons you cite have naught to do with those flaws - they are solely in the implementation of the principles, and that in no way alters the fact that it is the actual foundational document of your country and that it sets forth the entire philosophical basis and justification for the existence of your country.. The Declaration was a justification of rebellion by rich, white farmers and merchants, and breaking financial ties and tithes to George III. The misapplied principles of egalitarianism (but not too much) were already well known in the philosophical debates of the Enlightenment. Actually, the justification for the existence of America is better seen in Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, if only we would elevate that document. quote: And the Supreme Court has made so many exceptions and interpretations that they have stretched the constitution beyond the breaking point. the constitution is, in actual fact, nothing more than a quaint historical footnote that has almost nothing to do with the modern reality that is the US. Your constitution, while a noble document, has almost no relevance anymore. All in realization that times, cultures and technologies change and there is no benefit to be gained by slavish obsequiousness to a document constructed during an agrarian age that exploited racial labour. We are doing quite well with our modern corporate capitalist system of exploitation, tyvm. [8\|]

Moonhead -> RE: The war on christmas (12/21/2013 1:27:24 PM)
"We" aren't doing all that well. A small minority are doing great, while making things harder for almost everybody else, I'm told. [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0f/Citizen_smith.jpg[/img]

Greta75 -> RE: The war on christmas (12/21/2013 6:47:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Apocalypso quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 And of course African Americans are allowed to refer to each other as "niggas" but not any other races. That's easy enough to explain. I can refer to my friend as a "fat fuck", but if you did it he'd tell you to fuck off. I don't have any friends that I can "refer to" as "Fat Fuck".

Greta75 -> RE: The war on christmas (12/21/2013 6:51:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: Apocalypso I got a Merry Christmas from my local (Muslim) newsagents and the (Hindu) guys in the off license. Perhaps nobody has told them there's a war on? I've had that frequently from Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists (at the localChinese takeaway - whose proprietors gave me a calendar again this year) . . . and many whose religion I couldn't even name. And I've seen their shops and restaurants festooned with xmas decorations. They don't care. Why should they? They probably think, 'Hey, people in this country get all excited and have fun this time of year. Feck it: we should join in.'. Exactly! Note that Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, and especially Buddhists would have no issues with Christians celebrating Christmas, and would greet them with "Merry Christmas" with no issues at all, so why should it be offensive in public areas where Malls think it's great business decision, not to mention "Merry Christmas!"

deathtothepixies -> RE: The war on christmas (12/21/2013 6:53:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead "We" aren't doing all that well. A small minority are doing great, while making things harder for almost everybody else, I'm told. [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0f/Citizen_smith.jpg[/img] segueing citizen smith into a war on xmas thread is part genius, part insanity. Either way I salute you sir

Zonie63 -> RE: The war on christmas (12/22/2013 3:43:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wanderingjew And as far as your claim that the taxpayers are somehow paying for it if they happen to say Merry Christmas on taxpayer owned property, I never made such a claim.

Moonhead -> RE: The war on christmas (12/22/2013 8:24:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: Apocalypso I got a Merry Christmas from my local (Muslim) newsagents and the (Hindu) guys in the off license. Perhaps nobody has told them there's a war on? I've had that frequently from Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists (at the localChinese takeaway - whose proprietors gave me a calendar again this year) . . . and many whose religion I couldn't even name. And I've seen their shops and restaurants festooned with xmas decorations. They don't care. Why should they? They probably think, 'Hey, people in this country get all excited and have fun this time of year. Feck it: we should join in.'. Exactly! Note that Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, and especially Buddhists would have no issues with Christians celebrating Christmas, and would greet them with "Merry Christmas" with no issues at all, so why should it be offensive in public areas where Malls think it's great business decision, not to mention "Merry Christmas!" And why is it anybody's fault besides the owners of said malls, and the businesses they house?

EdBowie -> RE: The war on christmas (12/22/2013 11:14:33 AM)
Some people are simply looking to be offended. And there is a school of PC thought, that any terminology which is referenced by the majority, is a reminder that the oppressed don't have the power to create the lexicon. That's the argument behind complaining about 'othering' words like 'Oriental' (it presumes that the West - the Occident - was the norm.), 'foreign', 'barbarian', and my personal favorite 'history'. [8\|] {Note: These are PC constructs, not necessarily etymological fact}. In any case, it is still overblown to think that the PC rhetoric has gained the strength of law. quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 Exactly! Note that Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, and especially Buddhists would have no issues with Christians celebrating Christmas, and would greet them with "Merry Christmas" with no issues at all, so why should it be offensive in public areas where Malls think it's great business decision, not to mention "Merry Christmas!"

truckinslave -> RE: The war on christmas (12/22/2013 11:16:20 AM)
quote: And the Supreme Court has made so many exceptions and interpretations that they have stretched the constitution beyond the breaking point. the constitution is, in actual fact, nothing more than a quaint historical footnote that has almost nothing to do with the modern reality that is the US. Your constitution, while a noble document, has almost no relevance anymore. QFT And therein lies the problem.... we have gone from a nation of principles to one of conveniences.

vincentML -> RE: The war on christmas (12/22/2013 11:32:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wanderingjew quote: The Declaration was a justification of rebellion by rich, white farmers and merchants, and breaking financial ties and tithes to George III. The misapplied principles of egalitarianism (but not too much) were already well known in the philosophical debates of the Enlightenment. Actually, the justification for the existence of America is better seen in Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, if only we would elevate that document. I see you entirely missed the point. Good for you. quote: We are doing quite well with our modern corporate capitalist system of exploitation, tyvm. Ah but how the slave clings to the familiarity of his chains. Lame replies, indeed. Couldn't think of a substantive argument, hey?

vincentML -> RE: The war on christmas (12/22/2013 11:40:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave quote: And the Supreme Court has made so many exceptions and interpretations that they have stretched the constitution beyond the breaking point. the constitution is, in actual fact, nothing more than a quaint historical footnote that has almost nothing to do with the modern reality that is the US. Your constitution, while a noble document, has almost no relevance anymore. QFT And therein lies the problem.... we have gone from a nation of principles to one of conveniences. Well, golly gee, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 7 empowers Congress to build post roads. What could be a more important principle? Let's just ban all email traffic and go back to horse delivered mail. Damn the inconvenience. [8\|]

Zonie63 -> RE: The war on christmas (12/22/2013 11:45:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wanderingjew quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: wanderingjew And as far as your claim that the taxpayers are somehow paying for it if they happen to say Merry Christmas on taxpayer owned property, I never made such a claim. Yes you did, right here quote: If it's on property owned by the taxpayers, then the taxpayers are paying for it. http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4605900 Now perhaps words have a different meaning in Arizona, but where I come from that statement is indeed a claim that taxpayers are paying for it if somebody happens to say Merry Christmas on taxpayer property (remember, that is the topic of this thread). That being said, however, I am terribly interested in hearing how you see it being otherwise.. I didn't say anything about saying Merry Christmas, though. You were saying that I made a claim about saying Merry Christmas on taxpayer-owned property. I never said that. Perhaps you incorrectly extrapolated that I was making such a claim, or perhaps I may have inadequately explained my position. In any case, I don't think there's any problem with saying "Merry Christmas" on public property. Nobody's gone to jail for it, and nobody has been prohibited from doing it, so I'm not sure what you're complaining about. I was thinking more like overtly religious displays in public parks or other public-owned land, not people saying "Merry Christmas."

Page: << < prev 7 8 9 [10] 11 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.152344E-02