Merry Christmas..or not?

[Broken Parachute]

I don't know if this is considered political, but I'll post it here anyway.

I don't know if it's everywhere, but over here in the stores K-Mart, Sears, Target, and Wal Mart, the employees are NOT ALLOWED to say Merry Christmas to the shoppers. If they do, they'll be fired that day. The phrase "Happy Holidays" has to be used at all times. Also, the local Court Houses are forbidden to put up Christmas Trees anywhere inside the building.

Does anyone else think this is BS? Come on, you're telling me that if someone 'slips' in Wal Mart and says Merry Christmas or Have a Nice Christmas at the checkout, they're going to be fired? This is real dumb.

[aolsux]

no










haha, i think political correctness is kinda gay, some things it's good....like we don't go calling blacks ******s...or italians wops....or, you get the point

[Dan Hollister]

You can thank the democrats and the politically correct movement for that.

[Justin_stacy]

Political correctness generally is disgusting and idiotic.........but with the whole holiday thing I really have a hard time caring. Companies do what makes them the most money. If they think they are offending too many customers by saying Merry Christmas, and are therefore losing money, then so be it if they decided to say Happy Holidays instead. And vice versa. But they must live with the consequences of their actions, in many traditional parts of the nation a company that doesn't say Merry Christmas can kiss a large portion of their customer base bye-bye (just ask sears).

But it also must be noted that on this subject public property and corporations are very different things.....

[Cal Smith]

Political correctness generally is disgusting and idiotic.........but with the whole holiday thing I really have a hard time caring. Companies do what makes them the most money. If they think they are offending too many customers by saying Merry Christmas, and are therefore losing money, then so be it if they decided to say Happy Holidays instead. And vice versa. But they must live with the consequences of their actions, in many traditional parts of the nation a company that doesn't say Merry Christmas can kiss a large portion of their customer base bye-bye (just ask sears).

But it also must be noted that on this subject public property and corporations are very different things.....

That's what doesnt make sense to me though. Ecspecially when you have a nation that's over 80% Christian

[crit]

eh. that's pretty lame.

[yeat182]

i think its ridiculous. 70%+ of the country is christian or celebrates christmas, so by trying not to offend a small minority they are in reality offending the vast majority. firing someone for saying merry christmas is probably illegal, and if it isn't, it should be.

also, christmas is a federal holiday, so the PC police need to get over it.

[Justin_stacy]

That's what doesnt make sense to me though. Ecspecially when you have a nation that's over 80% Christian

That 80% (some say 90%) is so subjective, i hardly think it reflects the true religious portion of the nation....

[Justin_stacy]

also, christmas is a federal holiday, so the PC police need to get over it.

Corporation's marketing departments are not bound by that...

[yeat182]

Corporation's marketing departments are not bound by that...

no, but schools, cities and towns, are. also, i'm sure that firing someone because they said something in support of a federal holiday, would probably be illegal.

[Justin_stacy]

no, but schools, cities and towns, are. also, i'm sure that firing someone because they said something in support of a federal holiday, would probably be illegal.

The kid didn't say anything about those issuses, he just brought up Company's choosing to not say it.........which is a completely seperate topic.

[siberianxkiss]

A Festivus for the rest of us!

[yeat182]

The kid didn't say anything about those issuses, he just brought up Company's choosing to not say it.........which is a completely seperate topic.

true, but i thought the overall tone of the thread was how political correctness is running amok.

[I am all talk]

You can thank the democrats and the politically correct movement for that.
and war is a creation of overzealous republicans. way to overgeneralize

[apoemtothedead]

How would you feel if I came up to you and said "Happy Hanukah" or "Adjective Kwanza"

And now before you say you wouldn't care, has it ever happened? If so, does it happen frequently? Enough to get you annoyed?

[I am all talk]

How would you feel if I came up to you and said "Happy Hanukah" or "Adjective Kwanza"

And now before you say you wouldn't care, has it ever happened? If so, does it happen frequently? Enough to get you annoyed?
mark is only mad because he is a jew

[getupkid53]

The way this country deals with religion is hypocritical. We refuse to let christians have prayer groups in schools, but we give special rooms for muslims to worship allah in. We let them wear religious garments but tell students they can't have a cross necklace. Now they are trying, and somewhat successfully, are having God taken out of the pledge of allegiance. Right now, congress is debating taking the phrase "In God we trust" off of our currency. We're slipping away quickly.

[Americant1984]

The way this country deals with religion is hypocritical. We refuse to let christians have prayer groups in schools, but we give special rooms for muslims to worship allah in. We let them wear religious garments but tell students they can't have a cross necklace. Now they are trying, and somewhat successfully, are having God taken out of the pledge of allegiance. Right now, congress is debating taking the phrase "In God we trust" off of our currency. We're slipping away quickly.

Slipping away quickly from what? religion? Good fuckin riddance. We are an advanced country with advanced schools of thought. We have no need for religion, let a lone faith based beliefs. I've never been one for being politicaly correct, but i feel like this is a valid movement. I'm not religious, and im sick of having it thrown in my face all of the time. People want to whine about "under god" being taken out of the pledge of allegiance, or "In God We Trust" off of money, but i cant wait. What do you lose when government funded systems drop religion? Nothing. And I think i remember a certain document called the bill of rights that is supposed to keep the government from establishing a religion, but i guess that doesnt matter, does it? If not seeing a praise to your christian faith everywhere you turn is killing you, move to Alabama. Just because you believe in something doesnt mean everyone else should be forced to deal with it. And where dont try to make wild accusations like schools not letting kids wear crosses. That happened in England, not the states, and i dont no where you came up with prayer rooms for muslims.

[yeat182]

How would you feel if I came up to you and said "Happy Hanukah" or "Adjective Kwanza"

And now before you say you wouldn't care, has it ever happened? If so, does it happen frequently? Enough to get you annoyed?

you know why it doesn't happen frequently? because 80% of the people you meet are christian, so the odds of it happening or slim to begin with.

[getupkid53]

Slipping away quickly from what? religion? Good fuckin riddance. We are an advanced country with advanced schools of thought. We have no need for religion, let a lone faith based beliefs. I've never been one for being politicaly correct, but i feel like this is a valid movement. I'm not religious, and im sick of having it thrown in my face all of the time. People want to whine about "under god" being taken out of the pledge of allegiance, or "In God We Trust" off of money, but i cant wait. What do you lose when government funded systems drop religion? Nothing. And I think i remember a certain document called the bill of rights that is supposed to keep the government from establishing a religion, but i guess that doesnt matter, does it? If not seeing a praise to your christian faith everywhere you turn is killing you, move to Alabama. Just because you believe in something doesnt mean everyone else should be forced to deal with it. And where dont try to make wild accusations like schools not letting kids wear crosses. That happened in England, not the states, and i dont no where you came up with prayer rooms for muslims.

It's okay to be inept there buddy. It has happened stateside with the crosses, in Oregon. As for prayer rooms for the Muslims, they practice it at my sister's public high school that has 3000 students. As a matter of fact, it is practiced all over. All I was arguing is injustice. Either allow all religions or none.
Just because you don't know about something doesn't mean it didn't happen (like me railing your mom). Just remember, your lazy uninformed ass wouldn't be here today if it wasn't for people fighting for the right to worship God. I think you should take a look at american history and then come back with an argument that doesn't sound like a 14 year olds rant on society.

[Cal Smith]

Slipping away quickly from what? religion? Good fuckin riddance. We are an advanced country with advanced schools of thought. We have no need for religion, let a lone faith based beliefs. I've never been one for being politicaly correct, but i feel like this is a valid movement. I'm not religious, and im sick of having it thrown in my face all of the time. People want to whine about "under god" being taken out of the pledge of allegiance, or "In God We Trust" off of money, but i cant wait. What do you lose when government funded systems drop religion? Nothing. And I think i remember a certain document called the bill of rights that is supposed to keep the government from establishing a religion, but i guess that doesnt matter, does it? If not seeing a praise to your christian faith everywhere you turn is killing you, move to Alabama. Just because you believe in something doesnt mean everyone else should be forced to deal with it. And where dont try to make wild accusations like schools not letting kids wear crosses. That happened in England, not the states, and i dont no where you came up with prayer rooms for muslims.

Obviously some have not attended these schools of thought...............

[aminorthreat55]

Politcal correctness is so fucking obnoxious. It's often just some people trying to pretend that they actually respect another person. I refuse to use the term "african american".

[getupkid53]

Cal Smith.... always so laid back and smooth, like a fresh lager.

I will never use the term Mongolian American. It is too long. I will just refer to them as wop dego (even though there is no relation whatsoever).

[Dan Hollister]

and war is a creation of overzealous republicans. way to overgeneralize

It is not an overgeneralization. The political correctness movement was started solely by the liberals who didn't want anyone's feelings to be hurt, and to this day, they remain the only defenders of it.

By the way, it's not the corporations that are to blame. The reason why the corporations abide by this political correctness is because they don't want to get sued by idiot employees or customers who decide they are "offended" by Christmas. (Which unfortunately happens in this lovely sue-happy nation of ours.)

[Americant1984]

It's okay to be inept there buddy. It has happened stateside with the crosses, in Oregon. As for prayer rooms for the Muslims, they practice it at my sister's public high school that has 3000 students. As a matter of fact, it is practiced all over. All I was arguing is injustice. Either allow all religions or none.
Just because you don't know about something doesn't mean it didn't happen (like me railing your mom). Just remember, your lazy uninformed ass wouldn't be here today if it wasn't for people fighting for the right to worship God. I think you should take a look at american history and then come back with an argument that doesn't sound like a 14 year olds rant on society.
Youre right, i wouldnt be here if it werent for people trying to be free from religious persecution. Which is why we shouldnt force christianity on people. But i guess americans as people are too lazy to go that extra mile and consider other people.

and i stand by what i said...you dont have any proof for muslim prayer rooms or not allowing of crosses.

i could tell you that schools in alabama have posters advocating christianity with slogans such as "Love jesus, because he loves you" but you only have my word. I have no sources, and neither do you.

[Americant1984]

You arent proving any point. Were both in college, so we can be frank with each other. Whats your rebuttle Cal?

[yeat182]

i think it's probably illegal for a corporatioin to restrict a person from practicing their religion (ie. saying merry christmas).

[jsteil]

A) this country might be 70 or 80% christistian but all that amounts to is the other 20% believe in something else or nothing at all, so why not respect everyone, protect the minority from the majority.

B. 70 or 80% of the country might be christian, but our country wasn't founded on christian beliefs, even the founding fathers wern't christian, look it up, go see Thomas Jeffersons Bible that he tore pages out of and wrote in his own notes.

C.) This type of shit didn't stop christians from taking down pagan symbols off a courthouse in Jefferson City, MO, so shit flies both ways.


Were I work nothing has been said about what I can and can't say, but I respect others and if I do say something it will be have a nice day, nice night, or good weekend.

[believethehyph]

I don't know if this is considered political, but I'll post it here anyway.

I don't know if it's everywhere, but over here in the stores K-Mart, Sears, Target, and Wal Mart, the employees are NOT ALLOWED to say Merry Christmas to the shoppers. If they do, they'll be fired that day. The phrase "Happy Holidays" has to be used at all times. Also, the local Court Houses are forbidden to put up Christmas Trees anywhere inside the building.

Does anyone else think this is BS? Come on, you're telling me that if someone 'slips' in Wal Mart and says Merry Christmas or Have a Nice Christmas at the checkout, they're going to be fired? This is real dumb.


Thats so fucking stupid, in one particular shopping center or mall over here, they banned Santa Claws from working /appearing there.

[Cal Smith]

Youre right, i wouldnt be here if it werent for people trying to be free from religious persecution. Which is why we shouldnt force christianity on people. But i guess americans as people are too lazy to go that extra mile and consider other people.

and i stand by what i said...you dont have any proof for muslim prayer rooms or not allowing of crosses.

i could tell you that schools in alabama have posters advocating christianity with slogans such as "Love jesus, because he loves you" but you only have my word. I have no sources, and neither do you.

Here's his proof.................

http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2005/09/03/parents_push_public_schools_to_be_m ore_muslim_friendly(muslim prayer rooms)
http://www.post-gazette.com/localnews/20030507cross0507p2.asp (teahcer suspended for wearing cross)

Also I'd say I have no problem with prayer rooms for muslims. They're suppose to pray 5 times day so it seems natural to establish a place so they can pray. I'm not dumb enough to believe that simply because they establish prayer rooms doesnt mean they are forcing religion upon me.

[Cal Smith]

You arent proving any point. Were both in college, so we can be frank with each other. Whats your rebuttle Cal?

My rebuttle is basically a complaint of lack of thought on your part. Your argument is pretty much, "I'm not religious and am tired of seeing religious things........so I agree with removing religion". You tell people to move to "Alabama" if they don't agree with it but the flip side of the coin is.............why don't you move? You say just because you believe in something doesnt mean everyone else should be subjected to your beliefs, and the flip side of that coin is that simply because you DON'T believe in somethign doesnt mean people should be subjected to your beliefs.

In your post that lacked any thought at all you failed to consdier the major role churches, and faith based organizations provide for the US. Look at hurrican Katria and Rita as an example. Just judging from what I experienced here, churches and faith based organizations probably provided 30-40% of the shelters. No telling what % of donations they collected and dished out as well.

Salvation Army in Mexico after Hurricane Wilma (http://www.redshield.org/crisis/index.cfm?mode=story&storyid=82)
Salvation Army Team in Pakistan sees hope in earthquake survivors (http://www.usc.salvationarmy.org/usc/www_usc.nsf/vw-news/6C118118EF4631B2862570AF006BCFCF?op endocument)

Facts about Salvation Army after Katrina and Rita: (http://www.redshield.org/crisis/index.cfm?mode=story&storyid=79)----The Salvation Army has served 3,556,453 hot meals, 5,537,154 sandwiches, snacks & drinks
----The Salvation Army has provided 150 Mobile Feeding Units (Canteens), 11 Field Kitchens, capable of producing 20,000 hot meals per day (each), (Incl. 8 Southern Baptist Kitchens.) in the many areas affected.
----The Salvation Army has distributed 130,173 Cleaning Kits. (Broom, bucket, mop & detergent) and 108,730 Food Boxes (groceries.)
----The Salvation Army has ministered through Pastoral Care to 195,933 individuals.
----The Salvation Army has registered and begun helping with 221,370 Social Services Cases.
----The Salvation Army Team Emergency Radio Network (SATERN) has received over 61,000 inquiries and has found 25,5o8 survivors.
----Salvation Army officers, employees and volunteers have served a total of 617,474 hours.
----The Salvation Army has assisted a total of 817,337 individuals.

Faith based organizations out peformed the US government in providing aid. Yet, you and many other like you would rather limit them from recieving federal funds and being on the front lines helping people.

[Cal Smith]

And I think i remember a certain document called the bill of rights that is supposed to keep the government from establishing a religion, but i guess that doesnt matter, does it?

News flash to me............I didnt realize that the US government established a religion?

[Cal Smith]

A) this country might be 70 or 80% christistian but all that amounts to is the other 20% believe in something else or nothing at all, so why not respect everyone, protect the minority from the majority.

B. 70 or 80% of the country might be christian, but our country wasn't founded on christian beliefs, even the founding fathers wern't christian, look it up, go see Thomas Jeffersons Bible that he tore pages out of and wrote in his own notes.

C.) This type of shit didn't stop christians from taking down pagan symbols off a courthouse in Jefferson City, MO, so shit flies both ways.


Were I work nothing has been said about what I can and can't say, but I respect others and if I do say something it will be have a nice day, nice night, or good weekend.

I won't argue that Jefferson and other might not have been Christian, but they did recongize the need for God in our society.

[siberianxkiss]

oh those poor poor persecuted Christians!
but i agree that is out of hand, both extreme liberals and conservatives are so far out of touch

and good ol Jefferson, he was a Christian but recognzied the separation of religion from politics:
Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

"I am for freedom of religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendency of one sect over another." --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:78

[heyRomanticA__x]

Well, I've never celebrated christmas, and if someone walked up to me and said "merry christmas" I wouldn't feel offended. But, I do understand how this could offend someone.

Just my two late cents.

[apoemtothedead]

mark is only mad because he is a jew
It bugs the hell out of me. Why not include a larger majority by just adding one more syllable?

[I am all talk]

It bugs the hell out of me. Why not include a larger majority by just adding one more syllable?
I agree with you. Saying happy holidays is in no way interfering with your celebration

[I am all talk]

Thats so fucking stupid, in one particular shopping center or mall over here, they banned Santa Claws from working /appearing there.
who?????

[Louballs]

Boy, there's a lot of incorrect garbage being spewed in this forum. And not surprisingly, there are a lot of posts by Cal . . .

1) Suspending a teacher (which Cal cited) from wearing a cross and preventing students from wearing them (which the other poster cited) are two completely different things. Why? The teacher is a representative of the government, and the establishment clause (arguably) keeps the government from publicly endorsing any religion. There's no constitutional barrier to kids wearing crosses, although I think there's a free exercise problem if the school prevents them from doing so-- but they didn't (at least not according to anything on this thread). And as for prayer groups, I believe that (and I haven't researched this recently, so don't quote me) the Supreme Court has said that there's no constitutional problem with kids having their own prayer groups in schools--as long as it doesn't look like the school/state are sanctioning it.

2) Which leads me to the next point: A fucking store is not a state-owned or -controlled entity. If they tell you not to say "Merry Christmas," there's no illegality. If they fire you because of your religion alone, then there may be some Title VII claim, but it's not unconstitutional. A store can decide that its business interests would be best suited by keeping its tidings generic.

3) As such, we get to Cal's point about there being something odd about the store making that decision, given that around 80% of Americans report to be Christian. Well, as a politics writer, I'm assuming Cal's familiar w/ "public choice." In this situation, it's probably reasonable to assume that those 80% won't stop shopping there just because they hear "happy holidays" instead of "merry christmas." But it's far more likely that the other 20%--Jews, Muslims, etc.--may well feel offended and stop shopping if they hear "merry christmas" as opposed to some recognition of their preferred holiday. Given the divisive nature of religion (just look at this thread) their decision is clearly justifiable.

4) To the ridiculous position that church/state overlapping is somehow justified because of all the "good works" that church groups do, that's garbage. Nobody's saying that religious charitable organizations (just like non-religious charitable organizations) shouldn't get gov. funding/tax breaks. But that's because they're charitable, not because they're religious.

5) To the kid who doesn't want religion shoved in his face: deal with it. People have a right to be religious, they have a right to practice it, and they have a right to practice it in your face, as private individuals. When your school or government does it, that's when to get pissed.

6) Finally, to the "God" in the pledge proponents: you're entitled to your opinions, but you should realize that they didn't put "God" into the pledge until the 1950s, during the Red Scare. And you should remember that this country was not founded on a "Christianity" platform, it was founded on a "religious freedom" platform. The fact that the founders "recognized the need for God in society" is explainable on two grounds. First, atheism wasn't widely recognized in the 1700s. And second, the same reason (in my opinion) religion was first propogated: to keep the riff-raff in line. How do you keep a citizenry under control when you haven't even organized your own police yet? Make 'em believe . . .

[Cal Smith]

3) As such, we get to Cal's point about there being something odd about the store making that decision, given that around 80% of Americans report to be Christian. Well, as a politics writer, I'm assuming Cal's familiar w/ "public choice." In this situation, it's probably reasonable to assume that those 80% won't stop shopping there just because they hear "happy holidays" instead of "merry christmas." But it's far more likely that the other 20%--Jews, Muslims, etc.--may well feel offended and stop shopping if they hear "merry christmas" as opposed to some recognition of their preferred holiday. Given the divisive nature of religion (just look at this thread) their decision is clearly justifiable.

That's very arguable on both accounts. Out of the 20% or so of non-Christians in the US, I'd guess perhaps 2-3%, at the most, would be so offended by hearing "Merry Christmas" that they wouldn't shop at the store.

Now that this small % of people have made such a big deal about it you might see a larger number of people who reject this PC notion to not shop there.

4) To the ridiculous position that church/state overlapping is somehow justified because of all the "good works" that church groups do, that's garbage. Nobody's saying that religious charitable organizations (just like non-religious charitable organizations) shouldn't get gov. funding/tax breaks. But that's because they're charitable, not because they're religious.

What you just said is garbage. I didnt say anything about church/state overlapping. Look at what I said, in the context with what he was arguing. He was arguing for the abolish of religion all together and didnt look at all they've done, so yes, he was arguing that faith based organziations should be getting gov. funding and tax breaks........because he doesnt feel they should exist.

[apoemtothedead]

who?????
http://www.centralohiovet.com/Gallery/Dog%20Santa%20w%20%202181.jpg

And I guess I'm one of 2-3%.

[Americant1984]

My rebuttle is basically a complaint of lack of thought on your part. Your argument is pretty much, "I'm not religious and am tired of seeing religious things........so I agree with removing religion". You tell people to move to "Alabama" if they don't agree with it but the flip side of the coin is.............why don't you move? You say just because you believe in something doesnt mean everyone else should be subjected to your beliefs, and the flip side of that coin is that simply because you DON'T believe in somethign doesnt mean people should be subjected to your beliefs.

In your post that lacked any thought at all you failed to consdier the major role churches, and faith based organizations provide for the US. Look at hurrican Katria and Rita as an example. Just judging from what I experienced here, churches and faith based organizations probably provided 30-40% of the shelters. No telling what % of donations they collected and dished out as well.

Salvation Army in Mexico after Hurricane Wilma (http://www.redshield.org/crisis/index.cfm?mode=story&storyid=82)
Salvation Army Team in Pakistan sees hope in earthquake survivors (http://www.usc.salvationarmy.org/usc/www_usc.nsf/vw-news/6C118118EF4631B2862570AF006BCFCF?op endocument)

Facts about Salvation Army after Katrina and Rita: (http://www.redshield.org/crisis/index.cfm?mode=story&storyid=79)----The Salvation Army has served 3,556,453 hot meals, 5,537,154 sandwiches, snacks & drinks
----The Salvation Army has provided 150 Mobile Feeding Units (Canteens), 11 Field Kitchens, capable of producing 20,000 hot meals per day (each), (Incl. 8 Southern Baptist Kitchens.) in the many areas affected.
----The Salvation Army has distributed 130,173 Cleaning Kits. (Broom, bucket, mop & detergent) and 108,730 Food Boxes (groceries.)
----The Salvation Army has ministered through Pastoral Care to 195,933 individuals.
----The Salvation Army has registered and begun helping with 221,370 Social Services Cases.
----The Salvation Army Team Emergency Radio Network (SATERN) has received over 61,000 inquiries and has found 25,5o8 survivors.
----Salvation Army officers, employees and volunteers have served a total of 617,474 hours.
----The Salvation Army has assisted a total of 817,337 individuals.

Faith based organizations out peformed the US government in providing aid. Yet, you and many other like you would rather limit them from recieving federal funds and being on the front lines helping people.
What you said has nothing AT ALL to do with my arguement. I said i dont like the GOVERNMENT throwing religion in my face, and i went on to say that i support stores saying happy holidays becuase im part of the non christian 20 percent. So throwing some facts about faith based orginizations does nothing to prove any sort of point on your part. When it comes to beliefs being thrown in peoples face, i dont understand what your saying.

And how is getting rid of government established religion forcing everyone to deal with my beliefs? it shouldnt be there in the first place.

I did move, far away from alabama. I couldnt go to school, or get a drivers license without seeing some sort of notification that if didnt devote my life to jesus that i was going to hell. Thats a government establishment respecting the christian faith...just like on our currency and in the pledge of allegience. It needs to be stopped.

And i never said we needed to get rid of religion all together, i said there was no need for it in our society. Religion was made to controll the lesser classes in earlier society, when there was a high level of ignorance and a low level of information. thats what i was getting at. Ive worked very closely with faith based groups on thanksgiving and christmas, and they do wonderful things, and so do the non religious charitable group....but it has nothing to do with anything i was saying.

[Louballs]

That's very arguable on both accounts. Out of the 20% or so of non-Christians in the US, I'd guess perhaps 2-3%, at the most, would be so offended by hearing "Merry Christmas" that they wouldn't shop at the store.

On what counts? It's a theory; it doesn't purport to be absolute, but it is a widely recognized vision of political and social activity. And it's not at all weakened by the fact that only 2-3% might be offended. The point is, that 2-3% are the ones who rally support for their position--in the form of boycotts. People often sign petitions that they aren't quite passionate enough about to start.

Now that this small % of people have made such a big deal about it you might see a larger number of people who reject this PC notion to not shop there.

That evinces a clear lack of understanding of public choice theory. [BTW: (And this is not intended to be smarmy; serious question) are you in any way educated in political science, or are you just the local "politics writer"?] The point of public choice is that the 80% don't care one way or the other: they're not sensitive to it either way. In this case, Christianity is the dominant religion in America; Christians aren't really on the lookout for people overlooking or ignoring their religion (at least when it comes to winter holidays). The only people who are sensitive to it are the people who's holidays get overlooked.

What you just said is garbage. I didnt say anything about church/state overlapping. Look at what I said, in the context with what he was arguing. He was arguing for the abolish of religion all together and didnt look at all they've done, so yes, he was arguing that faith based organziations should be getting gov. funding and tax breaks........because he doesnt feel they should exist.

My brief perusal of his statements (which I'm declining to read again) left me with the impression that he was just not in favor of government-endorsed religion. But I don't see how that leads to the more specific conclusion that he's against funding/tax breaks for non-profits in general, which happens to include religious groups. I'm not a big fan of organized religion, but I still recognize that groups that do public good--religious or not--are worth providing with incentives to exist.

And now that you mention it . . .
And i never said we needed to get rid of religion all together, i said there was no need for it in our society. Religion was made to controll the lesser classes in earlier society, when there was a high level of ignorance and a low level of information. thats what i was getting at. Ive worked very closely with faith based groups on thanksgiving and christmas, and they do wonderful things, and so do the non religious charitable group....but it has nothing to do with anything i was saying.

So there.

[Cal Smith]

What you said has nothing AT ALL to do with my arguement. I said i dont like the GOVERNMENT throwing religion in my face, and i went on to say that i support stores saying happy holidays becuase im part of the non christian 20 percent. So throwing some facts about faith based orginizations does nothing to prove any sort of point on your part. When it comes to beliefs being thrown in peoples face, i dont understand what your saying.

You said: "We are an advanced country with advanced schools of thought. We have no need for religion, let a lone faith based beliefs. I've never been one for being politicaly correct, but i feel like this is a valid movement."

You say there's no need for religion because we are in a country with advanced schools of thought. I showed you the importance faith based groups play on our society, and how much better they do many things than the federal government.

And how is getting rid of government established religion forcing everyone to deal with my beliefs? it shouldnt be there in the first place.

I did move, far away from alabama. I couldnt go to school, or get a drivers license without seeing some sort of notification that if didnt devote my life to jesus that i was going to hell. Thats a government establishment respecting the christian faith...just like on our currency and in the pledge of allegience. It needs to be stopped.

Recognizing a God is establishing a Christian faith? You're really off based with your argument because what religion is exactly established by recognizing God?

How many religions do you think recognize a higher being?

And i never said we needed to get rid of religion all together, i said there was no need for it in our society. Religion was made to controll the lesser classes in earlier society, when there was a high level of ignorance and a low level of information. thats what i was getting at. Ive worked very closely with faith based groups on thanksgiving and christmas, and they do wonderful things, and so do the non religious charitable group....but it has nothing to do with anything i was saying.

So wait........if there's no need for it, why shouldnt we be getting rid of it?

[yeat182]

A) this country might be 70 or 80% christistian but all that amounts to is the other 20% believe in something else or nothing at all, so why not respect everyone, protect the minority from the majority.

why not respect every one and let them practice what they wish?

B. 70 or 80% of the country might be christian, but our country wasn't founded on christian beliefs, even the founding fathers wern't christian, look it up, go see Thomas Jeffersons Bible that he tore pages out of and wrote in his own notes.

actually, our country was founded on judeo-christian beliefs.

C.) This type of shit didn't stop christians from taking down pagan symbols off a courthouse in Jefferson City, MO, so shit flies both ways.

shit shouldn't fly either way, thats the point.


Were I work nothing has been said about what I can and can't say, but I respect others and if I do say something it will be have a nice day, nice night, or good weekend.

thats fine. but that is your choice. others may choose to say "merry christmas" or "have a nice holiday" and they shouldn't be told not to, nor should their job depend on it.

if the world has come to the point where it is wrong to say to some one "merry christmas" then i think we are all doomed.

[Americant1984]

You said: "We are an advanced country with advanced schools of thought. We have no need for religion, let a lone faith based beliefs. I've never been one for being politicaly correct, but i feel like this is a valid movement."

You say there's no need for religion because we are in a country with advanced schools of thought. I showed you the importance faith based groups play on our society, and how much better they do many things than the federal government.



Recognizing a God is establishing a Christian faith? You're really off based with your argument because what religion is exactly established by recognizing God?

How many religions do you think recognize a higher being?



So wait........if there's no need for it, why shouldnt we be getting rid of it?
I never doubted the importance of faith based religions, or religion at all for that matter. What i said was our intelligence level is better than religion and we dont need it to function. I never said that religion in no way, shape, or form helps our country because it undoubtedly does. I was simply stating something to give weight to my opinion that there is no need for religion in government affairs.

the recognition of god in our governments establishment is most definately a sign of christian faith, but if you want to play the "what if" game we can. There are only 3 major religions that believe in one definative god. They are christianity, Islam, and Judaism. They all believe in the same god one god. There is no other major religion that supports one god, so the refferences must be refferring to one of these, or all three by your arguement. That still allienates Atheists, Agnostics, Bhuddists, Hindus, Confucianists, Doaists, Shinoists, and any Polytheists in our country. So my arguement stands that it should be gotten rid of. and what i mean by "gotten rid of", so you arent confused, is to be removed from the government establishments in our country. It has no place there.

And what i mean by saying there is no need is this: FOR THE FINAL TIME: There is no need for religion on an intellectual, educational, or governmental level.

[Cal Smith]

I never doubted the importance of faith based religions, or religion at all for that matter.

Then you can see how this statement, "We are an advanced country with advanced schools of thought. We have no need for religion, let a lone faith based beliefs." might lead me to think differntly. Because here it does seem you don't think religion is all that important seeing as how we have advanced schools of thought.


What i said was our intelligence level is better than religion and we dont need it to function. I never said that religion in no way, shape, or form helps our country because it undoubtedly does. I was simply stating something to give weight to my opinion that there is no need for religion in government affairs.

You might have meant that, but that's far from what you said. I've quoted exactly what you said and it did not say that.

the recognition of god in our governments establishment is most definately a sign of christian faith,

Why do you think it's a sign? Let me first say i to believe it is a "sign" of Christian faith, but that's because i think we were founded on judeo-christian beliefs, and it makes perfect sense that it is reflected. Yet you keep saying it's "establishing religion", and I'm not seeing how it's forcing Christian beliefs upon you? Are you being forced to accpet Jesus? Are you being forced to pray to the Christian God and Jesus? Are you being forced to read the Bible? Are you being forced to attend a Christian church? Are you being forced to give money to a Christian church? How is it establishing it?

[Americant1984]

Then you can see how this statement, "We are an advanced country with advanced schools of thought. We have no need for religion, let a lone faith based beliefs." might lead me to think differntly. Because here it does seem you don't think religion is all that important seeing as how we have advanced schools of thought.




You might have meant that, but that's far from what you said. I've quoted exactly what you said and it did not say that.



Why do you think it's a sign? Let me first say i to believe it is a "sign" of Christian faith, but that's because i think we were founded on judeo-christian beliefs, and it makes perfect sense that it is reflected. Yet you keep saying it's "establishing religion", and I'm not seeing how it's forcing Christian beliefs upon you? Are you being forced to accpet Jesus? Are you being forced to pray to the Christian God and Jesus? Are you being forced to read the Bible? Are you being forced to attend a Christian church? Are you being forced to give money to a Christian church? How is it establishing it?
Im sorry for the confusion, ill admit sometimes i have trouble articulating.


I believe it forces beliefs on me because im having to recognize a god. I have to accept that belief when i use money because it is imprinted on every dollar is use. It would be the same as if our currency was crosses. I would have to acknowledge that religion like its a valid and acceptable idea, or belief even if i dont believe that it is.

And yes, i am being forced to give money to churches, due to the funding of faith based initiatives churches get my tax money all of the time. Im not saying faith based initiatives shouldnt get funding, but i am being forced to do it wether i like it or not.

[Cal Smith]

I believe it forces beliefs on me because im having to recognize a god. I have to accept that belief when i use money because it is imprinted on every dollar is use. It would be the same as if our currency was crosses. I would have to acknowledge that religion like its a valid and acceptable idea, or belief even if i dont believe that it is.

That doesnt make much sense to me. Simply because you use the currency doesnt make you have to accept there is a God. I'm guessing you don't believe in God, so obviously this isnt the case with the currency.

I'm not seeing an establishment of religion?

And yes, i am being forced to give money to churches, due to the funding of faith based initiatives churches get my tax money all of the time. Im not saying faith based initiatives shouldnt get funding, but i am being forced to do it wether i like it or not.

Good point, but I'm getting at more along the lines of churches gaining money for the church. The faith based inciatives are not helping the churches in the sense of money to the congregation.

[kennethagee]

Louballs has def. made the best argument by far, and Cal pretty much got burned. And Americant also makes good points, though not quite as strong. When you say "one nation under god" you are recognizing a god. You are being forced to recognize the presence of a god. Same with the money. I'm not against religioun at all, but I have a very strong beliefe in the seperation of church and state and I'm not much of an acomodationist. I do get sick of the whole "America was founded as a Christian nation so if you don't like it you can get out" spiel because it's total BS. America was not founded as a theocracy. Far from it. The framers knew better and so should everyone now. And to address prayer at school. There is nothing wrong with it, but don't make a special part of class set aside for it. I am a slightly spiritial/slightly agnostic still on the verge kind of person, but I don't want a prayer time in class. If you want to pray, do it at home. With Muslims i can understnad if they had a group that met outside of class since they have to pray 5 times a day, and that is fine too.

[yeat182]

Im sorry for the confusion, ill admit sometimes i have trouble articulating.


I believe it forces beliefs on me because im having to recognize a god. I have to accept that belief when i use money because it is imprinted on every dollar is use. It would be the same as if our currency was crosses. I would have to acknowledge that religion like its a valid and acceptable idea, or belief even if i dont believe that it is.

And yes, i am being forced to give money to churches, due to the funding of faith based initiatives churches get my tax money all of the time. Im not saying faith based initiatives shouldnt get funding, but i am being forced to do it wether i like it or not.

i don't believe in god and none of this bothers me. i mean, spending money really forces you to believe something you don't want to? you can't even read it unless you look for it.

[yeat182]

Louballs has def. made the best argument by far, and Cal pretty much got burned. And Americant also makes good points, though not quite as strong. When you say "one nation under god" you are recognizing a god. You are being forced to recognize the presence of a god. Same with the money. I'm not against religioun at all, but I have a very strong beliefe in the seperation of church and state and I'm not much of an acomodationist. I do get sick of the whole "America was founded as a Christian nation so if you don't like it you can get out" spiel because it's total BS. America was not founded as a theocracy. Far from it. The framers knew better and so should everyone now. And to address prayer at school. There is nothing wrong with it, but don't make a special part of class set aside for it. I am a slightly spiritial/slightly agnostic still on the verge kind of person, but I don't want a prayer time in class. If you want to pray, do it at home. With Muslims i can understnad if they had a group that met outside of class since they have to pray 5 times a day, and that is fine too.

no one said it was a theocracy when it was founded, but to say that it wasn't founded on judeo-christian beliefs is ridiculous.

and as for being forced to recognize the presence of a god, if you don't believe in it, what difference does it make? If you don't believe in a god, then they aren't forcing you to believe anything. I'm looking at a ten dollar bill right now, if i don't believe in Alexander Hamilton, should i be offended?

tell you what, all that money that offends you guys, you can send to me, i'll "take care of it"...:)

[getupkid53]

We are an advanced country with advanced schools of thought. We have no need for religion, let a lone faith based beliefs.

So, if people believe in God, they are relegated to the thought process of apes? You just stated that we are too advanced of a society to have religion. Are you saying that you are superior in some way to me because I have faith in something that you don't understand? It sounds an awful lot like that.

[Louballs]

That doesnt make much sense to me. Simply because you use the currency doesnt make you have to accept there is a God. I'm guessing you don't believe in God, so obviously this isnt the case with the currency.
I'm not seeing an establishment of religion?

no one said it was a theocracy when it was founded, but to say that it wasn't founded on judeo-christian beliefs is ridiculous.
and as for being forced to recognize the presence of a god, if you don't believe in it, what difference does it make? If you don't believe in a god, then they aren't forcing you to believe anything. I'm looking at a ten dollar bill right now, if i don't believe in Alexander Hamilton, should i be offended?

The argument (and I'm not sure I completely agree with this, but I'm just articulating it) is that the "establishment" comes in the form of the government endorsing one religion (or type of religion: a monotheistic one) over all others. The fact that an individual is not forced into believing in a Judao-Christian god is of no consequence. The point is that non-believers are made to feel like outsiders or second-class citizens in their own country, by constantly being confronted with the fact that their beliefs are not consistent with their government's.

Further, I don't think it's fair to say that this country was "founded on" Christian beliefs. Granted, a majority of the citizens here at the time may have been Christians. But more indicative of what this country was founded on is one of the major motivating factors in the revolution: Freedom of religion, and separation of religion from government. The simple fact that the people who sought those goals were Christian does not mean that we should attribute to them some intent to found a country on Christianity.

[getupkid53]

Religion was made to controll the lesser classes in earlier society, when there was a high level of ignorance and a low level of information. thats what i was getting at.

Once again, ignorance to beliefs you don't understand. Religion wasn't founded to control anything. If you were to glance through the bible ever, you would realize that Christianity didn't control anything. If anything, it made things worse. It was those without religion that controlled society in early days of christianity. Nebuhkannezer (im sure im spelling it wrong) and Pharoah, with societies like Sodom and Ninevah being commong place (debauchery - sex, drugs, and rock and roll). Christians were outcasts that were completely shunned for their beliefs and many were martyred. Obviously none of these societies were controlling anything with religion so please don't use that argument here.

Your consistent insults of peole believing in God is absurd. You talk about tolerance and you spew insults. You are a hypocrite.

[Louballs]

Religion wasn't founded to control anything. If you were to glance through the bible ever, you would realize that Christianity didn't control anything.

Looking to the bible misses the point. The idea is that the bible itself was written (and the characters/stories within it created) as a way of making the mass populous--most of whom were completely without regard or respect for others in society--control their behavior. Back then (just like today) there were a whole lot more people in the lower class than in the ruling class. What would happen if the lower classes caught on, and decided to just take some of what the ruling classes had? The ruling class wouldn't be able to stop 'em: they were outnumbered. So they needed some kind of psychological control to keep them from rising up.

It was those without religion that controlled society in early days of christianity. Nebuhkannezer (im sure im spelling it wrong) and Pharoah, with societies like Sodom and Ninevah being commong place (debauchery - sex, drugs, and rock and roll). Christians were outcasts that were completely shunned for their beliefs and many were martyred.

And why do you think all that happened in the bible? That's the whole point of the argument. If you follow christianity, you believe that the bible is history, and that's the way things really happened. But some people who don't believe that the bible is history actually believe that it's fiction. A fiction that was created to give people an image of what terrible things could happen if "immoral" people ruled society, and "good" people were persecuted. And what happened? God rained helll on all the bad people. Lesson? Don't be bad. It's like a fable.

[Cal Smith]

no one said it was a theocracy when it was founded, but to say that it wasn't founded on judeo-christian beliefs is ridiculous.

and as for being forced to recognize the presence of a god, if you don't believe in it, what difference does it make? If you don't believe in a god, then they aren't forcing you to believe anything. I'm looking at a ten dollar bill right now, if i don't believe in Alexander Hamilton, should i be offended?

tell you what, all that money that offends you guys, you can send to me, i'll "take care of it"...:)

Thankyou.........I don't know what other countries have on their currency, but if I went to India and they had a picture of Shiva on a bill I know I wouldn't have to stop and think, "Hey they're forcing me to believe in, and accept Shiva".

[Cal Smith]

The argument (and I'm not sure I completely agree with this, but I'm just articulating it) is that the "establishment" comes in the form of the government endorsing one religion (or type of religion: a monotheistic one) over all others. The fact that an individual is not forced into believing in a Judao-Christian god is of no consequence. The point is that non-believers are made to feel like outsiders or second-class citizens in their own country, by constantly being confronted with the fact that their beliefs are not consistent with their government's.

I've never seen any hint of non-christians being outsiders or second-class citizens.

Further, I don't think it's fair to say that this country was "founded on" Christian beliefs. Granted, a majority of the citizens here at the time may have been Christians. But more indicative of what this country was founded on is one of the major motivating factors in the revolution: Freedom of religion, and separation of religion from government. The simple fact that the people who sought those goals were Christian does not mean that we should attribute to them some intent to found a country on Christianity.

I think it's obvious the fouding fathers lookd towards God in their time in establishing a nation, and recognized and looked towards God in the early days of the government. Opening Congress with Prayer, recognizing that there is a Divine Creator in the Declaration of Independence, this same Congress also purchasing Bible for schools and citizens. It's clear to me at least that the people who created our nation would have no problem recongnizing God. This in turn henders no one who doesnt believe in God from pursuing their own way or life and beliefs.

[Nate_]

no one said it was a theocracy when it was founded, but to say that it wasn't founded on judeo-christian beliefs is ridiculous.

and as for being forced to recognize the presence of a god, if you don't believe in it, what difference does it make? If you don't believe in a god, then they aren't forcing you to believe anything. I'm looking at a ten dollar bill right now, if i don't believe in Alexander Hamilton, should i be offended?

tell you what, all that money that offends you guys, you can send to me, i'll "take care of it"...:)
I agree with this. Nobody is forcing you to believe in God. Like Cal said, in India they have pictures of their god on their money, but just because you use it doesn't mean you subscribe to that faith. I just don't understand why everyone is so offended by God.

[justinevans]

How would you feel if I came up to you and said "Happy Hanukah" or "Adjective Kwanza"

And now before you say you wouldn't care, has it ever happened? If so, does it happen frequently? Enough to get you annoyed?

i'd say thanks, but i'm not jewish.

[Louballs]

I've never seen any hint of non-christians being outsiders or second-class citizens.

That's because you're not one. My point is the impression it gives non-Christians subjectively. If I'm an atheist, and I see Christmas everywhere, and God on our money, and God in the pledge, etc., it's not unreasonable to see the government as some big monotheistic club that I'm not a part of. Granted, on a day to day basis it's not affecting my primary conduct (i.e., practicing or not practicing religion) but the argument (and as I said before, I'm not sure I totally agree with it) is that what matters is that they feel like outsiders, not that they're affirmatively being treated as such.

I think it's obvious the fouding fathers lookd towards God in their time in establishing a nation, and recognized and looked towards God in the early days of the government. Opening Congress with Prayer, recognizing that there is a Divine Creator in the Declaration of Independence, this same Congress also purchasing Bible for schools and citizens. It's clear to me at least that the people who created our nation would have no problem recongnizing God. This in turn henders no one who doesnt believe in God from pursuing their own way or life and beliefs.

This goes back point I made earlier: the founding fathers may have made mention of "god," but I think there's a strong argument that it was by default: atheism and polytheistic religions just weren't widely practiced or acknowledged at that time. It was all intra-Christianity conflict that spawned the religious clauses, to be sure, but I don't think that means that Christianity (or any monotheistic religion) were the only things meant to be protected-- they were just the only ones the founders knew about.

In fact, if you look at the Supreme Court's justification for things like opening Congress with prayer, itisn't that the founders recognized a "divine creator"-- it's that they've done it for so long (like putting "god" on money) that it has lost any religious significance through"rote repetition."

[justinevans]

Im sorry for the confusion, ill admit sometimes i have trouble articulating.


I believe it forces beliefs on me because im having to recognize a god. I have to accept that belief when i use money because it is imprinted on every dollar is use. It would be the same as if our currency was crosses. I would have to acknowledge that religion like its a valid and acceptable idea, or belief even if i dont believe that it is.

And yes, i am being forced to give money to churches, due to the funding of faith based initiatives churches get my tax money all of the time. Im not saying faith based initiatives shouldnt get funding, but i am being forced to do it wether i like it or not.

you're what 18 or 19, do you even pay taxes? do you get most of them back?

fuck it, fuck welfare...the judeo-christian idea is to help thy neigbor. fuck em' right? fuck anything that any belief system or anything taught me. it was a way of teaching people to do good. yes it is highly outdated now and you should take from the ideas what you can or want, but that was its main purpose.

I don't like seeing fat people wear tight clothing. should we eliminate them from the population. they probably believe in some type of god so i mean wow, we should just get rid of them anyway because they do not have an advanced education.

If you don't like seeing it on your money start using a debit card.

get over it and quit crying.
This is why the world hates us...our government doesn't give a fuck and our population bitches and complains about everything they can just to complain.

10 years ago you wouldn't have cared until some obese atheist bitch decided it was a problem. There are more important things to fret about instead of hearing the word God. You don't have to pray, you don't have to donate $$, you can do whatever you want. If you don't believe in a God it is not hurting you. These "faith-based" initiatives - whatever they are, tend to help people of all color, religion, and ethnicity. Atleast it is being done some how.

Take the sand out of your vagina and stop complaining.

[yeat182]

That's because you're not one. My point is the impression it gives non-Christians subjectively. If I'm an atheist, and I see Christmas everywhere, and God on our money, and God in the pledge, etc., it's not unreasonable to see the government as some big monotheistic club that I'm not a part of. Granted, on a day to day basis it's not affecting my primary conduct (i.e., practicing or not practicing religion) but the argument (and as I said before, I'm not sure I totally agree with it) is that what matters is that they feel like outsiders, not that they're affirmatively being treated as such.



This goes back point I made earlier: the founding fathers may have made mention of "god," but I think there's a strong argument that it was by default: atheism and polytheistic religions just weren't widely practiced or acknowledged at that time. It was all intra-Christianity conflict that spawned the religious clauses, to be sure, but I don't think that means that Christianity (or any monotheistic religion) were the only things meant to be protected-- they were just the only ones the founders knew about.

In fact, if you look at the Supreme Court's justification for things like opening Congress with prayer, itisn't that the founders recognized a "divine creator"-- it's that they've done it for so long (like putting "god" on money) that it has lost any religious significance through"rote repetition."


but if you are in the minority, then, sort of by defenition, you are on the outside...

[Louballs]

but if you are in the minority, then, sort of by defenition, you are on the outside...

In terms of the public at large, then sure--but in terms of the government, that shouldn't be the case (at least not according to that interpretation of the Establishment Clause).

[justinevans]

That's because you're not one. My point is the impression it gives non-Christians subjectively. If I'm an atheist, and I see Christmas everywhere, and God on our money, and God in the pledge, etc., it's not unreasonable to see the government as some big monotheistic club that I'm not a part of. Granted, on a day to day basis it's not affecting my primary conduct (i.e., practicing or not practicing religion) but the argument (and as I said before, I'm not sure I totally agree with it) is that what matters is that they feel like outsiders, not that they're affirmatively being treated as such.



This goes back point I made earlier: the founding fathers may have made mention of "god," but I think there's a strong argument that it was by default: atheism and polytheistic religions just weren't widely practiced or acknowledged at that time. It was all intra-Christianity conflict that spawned the religious clauses, to be sure, but I don't think that means that Christianity (or any monotheistic religion) were the only things meant to be protected-- they were just the only ones the founders knew about.

In fact, if you look at the Supreme Court's justification for things like opening Congress with prayer, itisn't that the founders recognized a "divine creator"-- it's that they've done it for so long (like putting "god" on money) that it has lost any religious significance through"rote repetition."

So if I move to India, it is okay for me to challenge the majority belief just because I feel like an outsider?

Talk to a Christian about going to school in Boca Raton, FL. Ask them if they feel like an outsider. Ask them if they care.

[Louballs]

So if I move to India, it is okay for me to challenge the majority belief just because I feel like an outsider?

Congratulations, you've successfully missed the point: India (to my knowledge) doesn't have a constitution with an Establishment Clause in it.

Talk to a Christian about going to school in Boca Raton, FL. Ask them if they feel like an outsider. Ask them if they care.

Again, if they feel like an outsider vis-a-vis private citizens, then it doesn't matter. That's not the point. But if our money suddenly said "in Satan we trust," or had a Star of David on it, you bet your ass there'd be some Christian complainin' going on.

[justinevans]

Congratulations, you've successfully missed the point: India (to my knowledge) doesn't have a constitution with an Establishment Clause in it.



Again, if they feel like an outsider vis-a-vis private citizens, then it doesn't matter. That's not the point. But if our money suddenly said "in Satan we trust," or had a Star of David on it, you bet your ass there'd be some Christian complainin' going on.

In God we trust - jews believe in the same god...just a different savior...abraham was 6, jesus was 7, mohammed (islam) was 8.

like i said, use plastic if it really bothers you.

our country is made up of people that do things because it is the cool thing to do.

[yeat182]

In God we trust - jews believe in the same god...just a different savior...abraham was 6, jesus was 7, mohammed (islam) was 8.

like i said, use plastic if it really bothers you.

our country is made up of people that do things because it is the cool thing to do.

i agree with that

[commatosa]

What I don't understand is where is all of this coming from? From both sides. It's kind of lame that these big corporations are now calling Christmas trees "holiday trees." A christmas tree is what Christians have chosen to symbolize their savior's birth. It shouldn't offend anyone. It's the equivalent to retailers suddenly calling menoras "holiday candle holders." On the other side though, it's retarded that conservatives are objecting to people saying "happy holidays" instead of "merry christmas." This country is and has always been about diversity. Our constitution, right off the bat, says "freedom of religion." So the Christians need to get over themselves cause no one's taking Christmas away. It's refreshing that suddenly people aren't secluding the minority and are now thinking about them. I mean, Christians should be the most understanding of all of this cause (sorry to get cheesy) isn't everyone supposed to be treated nicely during the Christmas season? Where's your Christmas spirit Christians?

[jsteil]

I won't argue that Jefferson and other might not have been Christian, but they did recongize the need for God in our society.



true! true!

[jsteil]

why not respect every one and let them practice what they wish?



actually, our country was founded on judeo-christian beliefs.

sort of, it depends on how you look at it, but sure.



shit shouldn't fly either way, thats the point.

Thats exactly my point




thats fine. but that is your choice. others may choose to say "merry christmas" or "have a nice holiday" and they shouldn't be told not to, nor should their job depend on it.

People are going to say what they want and companies are going to tell employee's what they can and can not say and if that influences their decision to fire that person then so be it, I would find it crappy for an employee to be fired for saying merry xmas, but we could say the same thing about political talk during an election, there are so many times were i just want to tell people that im not voting for your candidate because...... , im pretty sure I could be fired for that and I know I would be because the company I work for comes out with a policy hand book that specifically states that your not allowed to show your political beliefs or views while on their time.

if the world has come to the point where it is wrong to say to some one "merry christmas" then i think we are all doomed.

Yeah I feel the same way. Too be honest I start to wonder if people say merry christmas because their celebrating Santa clause and not Jesus Christ. I celebrate Christmas for Santa Clause not Jesus Chris.

[Louballs]

Yeah I feel the same way. Too be honest I start to wonder if people say merry christmas because their celebrating Santa clause and not Jesus Christ. I celebrate Christmas for Santa Clause not Jesus Chris.

It's funny; one wonders whether devout Christians aren't the ones who actually lose something when religious holidays are incorporated and recognized by commercial society. I think a strong argument could be made that, at least on a public level, Christmas has lost much of its religious significance: it's an "American" holiday now.

[YouMadeTheScene]

It's funny; one wonders whether devout Christians aren't the ones who actually lose something when religious holidays are incorporated and recognized by commercial society. I think a strong argument could be made that, at least on a public level, Christmas has lost much of its religious significance: it's an "American" holiday now.

I'd tend to agree that it has lost much of its religous purpouse.

I think the bottom line is people in America need to be less touchy and just relax. Christmas isn't affecting anyone really in a deep moral way if you don't believe in it. I mean last time I checked Wal Mart wasn't pushing all those who don't celebrate Christmas into a gas chamber.