Christmas Celebrations Becoming Politically Incorrect?

They are getting the backlash because they are an outspoken majority. People just love to be miserable and complain. If this country were founded by a majority of Jews then the Jewish holidays would not be P.C. That's all it really comes down to. Is it so offensive to have someone wish you any kind of happiness or joy? I mean really, people are just being petty. In a country where you have so many different cultures, races and religions you'd think people would be able to tolerate the person next to them. Isn't that why many people come here, to escape those societies that have no tolerance? This country was made to allow anyone, not just xtians, but anyone to believe and practice how they choose. And to live here is to tolerate those choices because you would understandably want others to tolerate yours. Otherwise we can all live the communist lifestyle and have these things chosen for us...at which point you no longer have the right to complain about them.

I saw a piece on the news last night about a school who did just this. They hold a multicultural holiday pageant every year and guess what? This year, anything to do with Christmas was scrubbed yet the portions about Hannukah and Kwaanza were left in.

This is reverse discrimination. Worse yet a very small group is beginning to enjoy ruling by fear. The school I mentioned above, the principle is a practicing Christian, however, he was afraid of litigation if he left the Christian parts in the pageant. I would imagine the same goes for the Christmas ads been scrubbed by dept. stores.

I am agnostic. However, I do celebrate Christmas because my family does. I just view it my own way, ignore the religiousity of it and we all get along fine (in my family). I wish the HUMAN family could do the same. I really see a much deeper seated disdain for Christianity here than shows on the surface and I am wondering what the end goal is.

As far as Christianity being *shoved down our throats* after Halloween, I do agree that the marketing folks are out of control, however, not Christianity (as far as this point goes). I guarantee you that even without any religious references what so ever, we would still be bombarded by ads after October ends.

What this comes down to is tolerance. If you don't like something, simply don't participate. Don't preach against Christianity and then turn your eyes away as other religions enjoy their faith in public. When Christianity is overtly sponsored or supported by government agencies (especially in Bush's *good vs. evil* scheme of things) or institutions that are supported by the tax base I concur, they have no business doing so. However, if you're going to take it out of schools, you had better not leave the other religions in, or I am going to start to suspect an agenda which extends far beyond just the separation of church and state.

Last but not least, do we not have enough stuff to worry about in this country? Are we going to have a few anti-Christian zealots scaring people into hiding their religion? Sounds eerily familiar doesn't it?

I agree with you that what that school did was inappropriate and unfair. The situation would have been easily avoided by not trying to mix religious celebration with secular education. I think what I quoted above is a gross overstatement though. There's an annoying and thoroughly indoctrinated cultural meme at work here that says any discussion (and god forbid, dissent) about religion is inherantly intolerant and impolite. It's so ingrained that a discussion such as this automatically makes people uncomfortable. Religion exists in this kind of untouchable intellectually off-limits territory that mostly protects it from discussion and is quick to label anyone who offers a contrary view to be at best insensitive, and at worst a bigot. I find it very disingenuous... a contrived guilt trip to silence critical discussion. The force of that meme, combined with increasing diversity, leads to irrational decisions like the one made by that particular school. Religion shouldn't be immune to discussion. Nothing should be. It only stunts cultural development. Your statment reflects what I see as a seriously skewed perception where neutrality is seen as a force of destruction instead of a desire for inclusion. It's not just you. The majority of people operate on the same tilted scale.

If it were neutrality, I would agree. It's gone beyond that point unfortunately, and crossed into the realm of supression by fear. Fear of ostracization and/or litigation. Hardly inclusive.

In ways that's true, but it doesn't make the concerns that got us to this point less valid. Everyone in the middle aslways suffers at the expense of the lunatic fringes on both sides. What we're seeing is a backlash from decades of non-Christians actually being ostracized, not just feeling ostracized.

I agree. This should be a poster child for the need for temperance in any campaign. it's too easy to overshoot your initial goals with a touchy subject like this, which brings me to another point which you touched upon. You mentioned the taboo like deference towards speaking about religion. I don't see it as fear so much as I do courteous respect of other belief sets, in other words, tolerance.

That would be a good example of an overshot goal, hehe. I think it's something that needs to be talked about more. If everyone just confines themselves and their opinions to their own bubble, and it's taboo to opine about things outside of it, then we only succeed in being a society of insular communities ever more divided from each other. And on that note, very happy holidays everyone!

I agree with this completely.
However, it becomes difficult when you have two people or more who are all deeply convicted to thier beliefs to understand that one person expressing how they see it to be is not always an argument intended to sway the listener from THIER beliefs.

Geez, that was clumsily phrased. I guess what I am trying to say is, if open dialouge on these subjects is to be possible, people need to understand that just because a person feels a certain way, it doesnt mean that they are by default seeking to change how you (objectively) feel about it.

Just an observation as a veteran of many discussions on religion.

I should have clarified a bit more. When I am around friends, family, and coworkers the taboo seems to be all but non-existent. When among those I don't know well, or know at all, or who present their affiliation immediately, I refrain, just as I do from speaking about my political beliefs. I guess that could be construed as isolationist, but I prefer to make friends with the person first, then discuss beliefs second. For me it really is about respect and the end goal of tolerance. I can definately tolerate someone's belief set a lot more if they aren't thrust to the forefront. It's the same for me with sexuality, ethnic background etc. If you see things differently with respect to yourself, so be it, I just really think wearing one's political or religious affiliations on one's sleeve is not very wise, unless one intends to seek office in a religious hierarchy or a governing body. The same goes for religious zealots who pontificate unsolicted.

Blake -- Not to be a grammatical nazi, but would you please, please, please spell "simular" correctly? It's driving me insane! And, insane homos on these forums are not a good thing, lol. Repeat after me:

S - I - M - I - L - A - R

And "Bann" should be "Ban."

Ahhh, much better. I will rest peacefully, tonight.



</end hijack>

Once again another post that turned to people colabritively throwing trash around.

I didnt bother to read the rest of what every one is saying avter page 2 i was irratated.

Christmas is a FEDERAL HOLLIDAY so reguardless of what you think you know Christmas shuold not be surpressed in any way.

If seperation of church and state came up (which im betting 3:1 that it did) it simply states that there shal not be a state formed church. PERIOD, none of this "Oh we cant have *religeos* material in the public" BS. And, its not even that. Christanity is the only one getting attacked here so stuff it with this seperation of church and state crap.

/me is a very angry individual

/you needs to read up a bit on the Founders and on church/state separation.....

I agree completely, Neph I think when discussing matters of conviction the point is never really to "win" or even compete, but to atriculate various viewpoints. You're not likely to change anyone, but hopefully everyone comes away with a deeper understanding of why others feel as they do. When in the discussion I'm usually pretty rigid in my viewpoint, as most people are. It's later afterwards, and after many similar discussions, that seeds start to germinate and my views slowly change. My biggest wish is that people wouldn't see disagreement on any issue as inherantly divisive. To me, everyone's humanity comes first, and the things that make us the same are enough to make me feel kinship to almost anyone. What they believe is just spice in the stew. I just like to stir the pot

I think this is where our viewpoints differ. I don't see disagreement as disprespect. I see it as simply disagreement.

I really don't see it as disrespect either, however, I have seen it cause people to feel as though it was on many occasions, hence I tend to avoid said subjects until a have a firmer grasp and understanding of what a person is about and where they are coming from. I just feel that these type of very personal views can come later. I don't go to social events to compare notes on my religious or political beliefs (unless the event is of that nature), especially when I will be meeting new people. We have many commonalities (being humans beings at the foremost) that folks tend to overlook due to the focus on religion and politics. Let's not forget that more people have died over disagreement about religion than from any other cause save mosquito borne illness. I think possibly the aversion to open discussion about it with just anyone was borne of the realization of this fact.

That's only because no one's told you about the "Great Carrot". If you knew about the Great Carrot, you'd accept him as your personal Carrot just as I have.

If you think about it...doing away with all religions, (say you could remove the memory of all religions and religious teachings and references from everyone), would probably be humankinds biggest step toward a harmonious, peaceful and tolerant society. Hmm..perhaps I will begin to practice and preach religious intolerance against ALL religions.

WHAT?? You won't accept the Great Carrot as your PERSONAL Carrot? Well then you should be tortured and burned at the stake!

/sigh It's always the same treatment for us visionaries....

LMAO!

"personal carrot"?????

Sounds kinky!

Naughty elf!

*Stirs the Pot*

Who's to know what started morality, if not religion; then how did it start and how did we decipher good from evil to begin with?

They already said it was Elmer in conjunction with the great Carrot.

Personally, Martha Stewart deciphered it for me....

*Takes a bite of the Great Carrot* oh..thine eyes have been opened..for you now know what Sin is and the pleasure of huntin Wabbit! *Makes Wabbit Stew."

Common sense and trial and error. Morals aren't static. They vary by culture and are influenced heavily by circumstances. If morality was implanted in our minds by God then it stands to reason they would be the same everywhere, in every time, and in every culture. This is clearly not the case. If the ten commandments were written today, would not coveting your neighbor's oxen make the top ten? Methinks not.