Christmas Controversy?

I can't f'n believe this. Now people have a problem with Christmas I can't wait for the next topic of debate!

MAPLEWOOD, N.J. (Dec. 7) - Members of the Columbia High School brass ensemble were not allowed to play Christmas carols at their holiday concert this year - not even instrumental versions.

At a school board meeting Monday night, parents and students alike expressed their outrage.

"This is censorship at its most basic level and political correctness to its extreme," said student Ryan Dahn.

"When you close that door you are supporting ignorance, and I think it's a very sad thing," said parent Melanie Amsterdam.

The controversy is by no means an isolated case. The role of religion during the Christmas season is a source of annual angst. But this year, people in "red," or Republican, America - particularly Christian conservatives - are in an unprecedented uproar.

They are sending letters to public schools in Chicago, where the words "Merry Christmas" have been excised from a popular song; boycotting Macy's, which has removed "Merry Christmas" signs from its department stores; and protesting the exclusion of a church group from Denver's annual Parade of Lights.

"What they don't understand is that by not wanting to offend anyone, they're excluding a huge group of people, and that is all of those of the Christian faith," said Doug Newcomb, business administrator of the Faith Bible Chapel in Arvada, Colo.

Attorney Demetrios Stratis, affiliated with the conservative civil liberties group Alliance Defense Fund, is one of 700 Christian lawyers across the country poised to pounce on such cases.

"We just don't believe that you need to stamp out religion in the public square," he said.

There are those in Maplewood - and in "blue," or Democratic, America generally - who say religion should be a private matter.

"Holiday celebrations where Christian music is being sung make people feel different," said Mark Brownstein, a Maplewood parent. "And because it is such a majority, it makes the minority feel uncomfortable."

But Eric Chabrow, who is Jewish, says his son, Sam, should be able to play Christmas songs in the high school band. Chabrow is a part of "blue" America and generally supports the separation of church and state.

"I think that people have become a little too dogmatic in their beliefs on either side," he said. "And I think in this world today, we need to look at that center. I mean, the center in this country is vanishing. And maybe that's what's happening here."

He says there must be solutions that are neither "red" nor "blue" - just common sense.

Solutions may not be forthcoming: Christian lawyers may sue the Maplewood school board, while the school superintendent is vowing not to bend to outside pressure

Source: AOL

what rock have you been living under?


This trend has been going on for years. 6 Years ago when I was in 7th grade we couldn't play christmas carols.

The rock I've been living under has been called Conservative Texas. It's not a problem here

Which is the way it should be!

What annoys me about people who don't want people playing christmas carols and all that is that they will take Christmas off of work. So in other words they take the good and want to get rid of the bad so that its great for them.

I agree with you guys. I think there is too much emphasis with being "politically correct" these days. You know that it's gotten bad when the instrumental versions of Christmas songs are being protested. It's a sad thing. If people don't want to listen to the songs, they don't have to. I really don't see how one of these songs can be offensive. In fact, that is the exact opposite of what these songs are intended for.

Well I never got to took part in my infant school (kindergarten to you guys) Xmas play. I was naughty and had to sit in class.

Serves you right, you rascal.

Mick

Got me out of wearing tights though. Just think if I had to wear them, my life could have taken another path. Could've been Queen Turi. Oh who am I kidding? Womens clothes are just a hell of a lot more comfortable, I look awesome in drag.

This is not about political correctness. It's about separation of church and state.

Maplewood High School is a public school. The school, and, presumably, their brass band, is supported by the taxpayers of Maplewood.

Having Christmas music selected for them by the faculty member in charge, practicing that Christmas music on school time and on school grounds, and playing that music at a school concert can give the impression that the "state" is putting their seal of approval on that religion and what that religion represents.

I have no problem at all with the act of playing the Christmas music. I think any non-Christian band member who would be offended by playing it, or any non-Christian parent who would be offended by listening to it, is an idiot.

What I do have a problem with is the "concept" of mixing religious symbolism and public education.

It is not "censorship", as student Ryan Dahn suggests. Censorship would be if the band decided to practice off school grounds and hold a concert off school grounds, and the school told them they couldn't, which, IMO, would be wrong.

Christmas Carols, when you get right down to it, are religious in nature. They celebrate a religious holiday. In the crass commecialism that has become our "Holiday Season", people tend to forget that Christmas is the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ, who Christians believe to be the son of God and our savior.

Anything that celebrates a particular religion has no place in a public school, even if all of the students are Christians. It's a clear violation of the priciple of separation of church and state, as specified in the U.S. Constitution.

If parents want Christmas Carols, Nativity Scenes, Menorahs, and the like in their kid's school, they should send them to a parochial school.

As far as Macy's goes, that's an entirely different matter.

They are a completely private institution, and they are free to mix as much religious symbolism into their corporate identity as they wish.

And personally, I think that the groups who are pressuring Macy's to remove a "Merry Christmas" sign, although they have the right to do so, are a bit ridiculous. Macy's is exercising their right of free expression, and besides, they are doing nothing more than wishing a happy holiday to their Christian customers and employees.

If you don't like Macy's message, you are perfectly free to not shop there. And if Macy's wishes intentionally to alienate their non-Christian customers, and cater to a strictly Christian clientele (I'm not, of course, suggesting that this is the case), they have a perfect right to do so.

Removing a "Merry Christmas" sign is a foolish decision on Macy's part, I think. By doing so, they run a greater risk of offending their Christian customers, who are probably in the majority.

Besides the political motivations, what is this about? Is this about making life easier for the Jewish or Muslim child who does not celebrate Christmas? That is so stupid. How about teaching them that yes they are in the minority, but it's ok, grow up and get over it.
Plenty of children don't have fathers in their lives, but schools still make Father's Day presents on Father's Day. You know what the kids do who don't have Dads? They get over it and get on with their lives.

My daughter was in the choir her 4 years of high school. Every December they have their Christmas performances. They always sing Christmas hymns. They even have a Gospel choir. No one has ever complained.

And, yes..it is a public school.

It is not about politics, or making non-Christian children "feel better". I'm sure that they don't "feel badly" to begin with.

It's about the U.S. Constitution, and separation of church and state.

Religion does not belong in a public school.

And Father's Day is a non-religious holiday.

The same thing is happening here in Britain: Article

Which is the way it should be!

What annoys me about people who don't want people playing christmas carols and all that is that they will take Christmas off of work. So in other words they take the good and want to get rid of the bad so that its great for them. [/b][/quote]We're on the same side here. I couldn't agree with you more. This country is turning into a country of complainers. Instead of letting something not bother us, we have to press our beliefs onto others instead of just forgetting about it & now people who are religious and want to sing something as simple as Christmas carols now cannot. What the f**k is this country coming to? Is there anymore room up there in Canada?

I have to disagree with you and say that it does

Irishman, every year our local firehouse or rescue station (depends on the time of year and how busy they expect it to be) held a Hanukah party and Christmas party in the main hall of either building. The Hanukah party goes off fine no problems. My father was playing Santa Claus and I went with him (I was 14 I think) and as we are walking in people are yelling and screaming at my father and holding protests outside of the door. there were 4,5,6 year old kids there coming to see Santa and these idiots are telling the kids there is no Santa and what they are doing is violating their rights. Needless to say that is no longer a tradition in my town.

That's pitiful man. What town is that? I know this is a little off topic but I was watching a South Park episode last week I think when Cartman gets money from the toothfairy. Well, finally his mom breaks down and confesses that there isn't really a toothfairy and that she's been the one putting money under his pillow. Cartman initially laughs and says, "What are going to tell me next mom? That there's no Santa Clause, Easter Bunny, or Jesus either?"

I have to disagree with you and say that it does [/b][/quote]OK.....Which one?

All of them? There must be at least a couple of dozen or so.

And in what way?

Praying? Singing hymns? Religious displays?

Religion is a private thing, between the individual and his religion. If a person wants to "go public" with it, every religion has houses of worship where an individual is free to express himself.

The U.S. Constitution clearly calls for a separation of church and state, and for good reason. Not only to protect the people from governement intervention in their religious beliefs, but to protect the government from the influences of religion.

Be careful here; we're on the slippery slope.

If we allow religion in public schools, without giving equal time to all religions (which would get rather unwieldy, given that every other day seems to be a holiday for some group or another), then, in effect, the state is sanctioning one religion over others, which is one or two steps away from religious persecution for not belonging to the "right" religion.

I'm not saying we need to pick a certain religion to be in school, I meant that students who are religious should be, as you said, "be able to express themselves," whether through silent or public prayer, christmas carols, or however they choose. I know that in my high school guys couldn't have gotees (sp) but Jewish students were allowed to keep all of their facial hair due to their religous beliefs. So why can't religious students sing christmas carols?

This is just one more sign that the world is going to shit and we need to do anything we can to put a stop to it. I had a Jewish teacher in 5th grade and guess what? She taught us about Hanukkah and nobody complained! It wasnt a big deal! There were no protests with people screaming "You are infringing on my rite to be an Atheist". Keep in mind, this was not 30 or 40 years ago, this was 1984! What the hell is the problem with some people? What the hell happend to good old American core values? Freaks and weirdo's are crawling out of the woodwork, you cant do a damn thing anymore without someone getting offended. Want to cut that tree down on your own property? Well you cant because some endangered bug lives under it. Want to go to your kids CHRISTMAS program? You cant because it might offend that jackass that lives in a VW van in the K-Mart parking lot, you know the woman who doesnt shave her legs or armpits, smells like fishermans warf at low tide and has all the "Greenpeace" and "Save the spotted owl" stickers on her van. It's time to admit once and for all that the 60's fucked this country up and I dont see it turning around anytime soon. What did all the drugs, free love and protesting give us? Crack heads, AIDS and ultra left wing liberals who seem to care about everything but human beings. God bless Ted Nugent, Randy Weaver, Sean Hannity and George Bush, at least there is still someone to look up to in this world.

I'm laughfing
and I'm glad I don't know this woman

I tried like heck to find the words "separation of church and state" in the Constitution, but I couldn't. I did find a lot of stuff about the First Amendment and freedom of expression, etc.

I agree that "Christmas Concerts" can be exclusionary and in some cases offensive, but there has been government guidelines based on the First Amendment that offer ways and situations where religion can enter the public schools.

Some interesting facts that I came across. The U.S. Constitution is the oldest such governmental document still in effect today. And as if you didn't suspect, the U.S. is the most religiously diverse country in the world.

Here is a quote from Pres. Clinton regarding religious belief in public schools.

[QUOTE] Nothing in the First Amendment converts our public schools into religion-free zones, or requires all religious expression to be left behind at the schoolhouse door. While the government may not use schools to coerce the consciences of our students, or to convey official endorsement of religion, the public schools also may not discriminate against private religious expression during the school day.

Religion is too important in our history and our heritage for us to keep it out of our schools. It shouldn’t be demanded, but as long as it is not sponsored by school officials and doesn’t interfere with other children’s rights, it mustn’t be denied.
[QUOTE]

Also, if your interested in broadening your perspective on this issue....www.firstamendmentcenter.org

Oh, yeah......Merry Christmas

This seems to fit with the theme of this thread


December 1st

TO: ALL EMPLOYEES I'm happy to inform you that the company Christmas Party will take place on December 23rd at Luigi's Open Pit barbecue. There will be lots of spiked eggnog and a small band playing traditional carols ..feel free to sing along. And don't be surprised if our CEO shows up dressed as Santa Claus to light the Christmas tree! Exchange of gifts among employees can be done at that time; however, no gift should be over $10. Merry Christmas to you and your family.

Patty Lewis Human Resources Director

------------------------------------------------------------------------

December 2nd

TO: ALL EMPLOYEES In no way was yesterday's memo intended to exclude our Jewish employees. We recognize that Hanukkah is an important holiday that often coincides with Christmas. From now on we're calling it our "Holiday Party." The same policy applies to employees who are celebrating Kwanza at this time. There will be no Christmas tree and no Christmas carols sung. Happy Holidays to you and your family.

Patty Lewis Human Resources Director

----------------------------------------------------------------------

December 3rd

TO: ALL EMPLOYEES Regarding the anonymous note I received from a member of Alcoholics Anonymous requesting a non-drinking table, I'm happy to accommodate this request, but, don't forget, if I put a sign on the table that reads, "AA Only," you won't be anonymous anymore. In addition, forget about the gifts exchange-- no gifts will be allowed since the union members feel that $10 is too much money.

Patty Lewis Human Researchers Director

----------------------------------------------------------------------

December 7th

TO: ALL EMPLOYEES I've arranged for members of Overeaters Anonymous to sit farthest from the dessert buffet and pregnant women closest to the restrooms. Gays are allowed to sit with each other. Lesbians do not have to sit with the gay men; each will have their table. Yes, there will be a flower arrangement for the gay men's table. Happy now?

Patty Lewis Human Racehorses Director

----------------------------------------------------------------------

December 9th

TO: ALL EMPLOYEES People, people -- nothing sinister was intended by wanting our CEO to play Santa Claus! Even if the anagram of "Santa" does happen to be "Satan," there is no evil connotation to our own "little man in a red suit."

Patty Lewis Human Ratraces

----------------------------------------------------------------------

December 10th

TO: ALL EMPLOYEES Vegetarians -- I've had it with you people!! We're going to hold this party at Luigi's Open Pit whether you like it or not, you can just sit at the table farthest from the "grill of death," as you put it, and you'll get salad bar only, including hydroponic tomatoes. But, you know, tomatoes have feelings, too. They scream when you slice them. I've heard them scream. I'm hearing them right now... Ha! I hope you all have a rotten holiday! Drive drunk and die, you hear me?

The Bitch from Hell

----------------------------------------------------------------------

December 14th

TO: ALL EMPLOYEES I'm sure I speak for all of us in wishing Patty Lewis a speedy recovery from her stress-related illness. I'll continue to forward your cards to her at the sanitarium. In the meantime, management has decided to cancel our Holiday Party and give everyone the afternoon of the 23rd off with full pay.

Terri Bishop Acting Human Resources Director

That was posted last year. It's still funny.

The sad thing about that is it is supposed to be a joke but it's pretty damn close to the truth.

It sure is! I heard yesterday where one little elementary school couldn't even sing "Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer" because it mentions Christmas Eve.

This shit makes me sick. Totally.

There's nothing religious about celebrating a holiday that has lost most of its religious meaning to begin with! Santa Clause/St. Nick is not mentioned in the Bible at all, okay?

This holiday isn't even of Christian origin - it's of pagan decent for chrissakes! (pun intended)

It's tradition, not religion, any more. Everyone has the right to celebrate as they see fit, religously, in private or in a house of worship (as Plaw said) -- but there's nothing religious about Santa and reindeer!

These fockin' people would rather hate "Silent Night" and have it banned from all public displays but at the same time we got shit-ass offensive music blasting out of our radios! WTF is that about? No one gives a shit about that - cuz it's not religious!

I don't get offended at all at the mention or hearing of something outside of my religious beliefs. In fact, I EMBRACE IT! I WANT to know more about others' customs and beliefs. I don't want this hidden away like we should be EMBARRASSED by it! Screw that!

In God We Trust. It's written on all our money. Those who are atheist spend it anyway, haha!

People need to lighten up, cuz nothing bugs me more than political correctness JUST for the sake of it. Like there's nothing better to be concerned about?!

Oy vey.

People would be a hell of a lot more tolerant if kids were still taught what Christmas is, Hahukkah is, Kwanzaa is...! It's not being taught religion, it's being taught cultural difference. And from learning differences, we learn to appreciate differences, and become more tolerant. Nothing breeds prejudice like ignorance!

We learned about Hanukkah in school when I was a kid -- I never knew much about it -- we played with dradels in class! OMG!! How horrible!! OMG, get this: we even sang Christmas carols! Call the (thought) police!!

:rolleyes:

[/Rant]

Its shit like this why I cant respect liberalism. I dont really feel like getting into it, but you can imagine where I Stand.

Ironic, isn't it? The more liberal, the more stifling it seems! Everything is offensive to someone -- pretty soon we'll all be living alone in boxes!

But I do respect liberalism, and do agree with much of it - it's just sometimes it drives me nuts! :rolleyes:

Really?

Well then why bother having a winter break for students? Why does it have to, coincidentally, fall during both the Jewish and Catholic holiday celebrations?

Why not just give the children who celebrate these holidays off, and then the rest of the nonbelievers can have school?

I bet the teachers would LOVE that.

Give me a break. This is leftist crap at it's best. I can't say "God" or sing about Jesus being born, because it might offend someone.

Fuck off, that school can be used as a PUBLIC forum. My taxpayer dollars, which, coincidentally, go to funding that very building, and others like it, are worth just as much as an athiest.

So, and this is for all liberals, spare us this crap about how it's seperate church and state. The school isn't promoting one religion or another. It's having a damned holiday concert for the parents and members of the public who want to hear it. They aren't giving everyone some holy water and telling them to convert.

After all, Jesus is the reason for the season! Or wait, maybe he's not, I mean, you never know. I can't say Jesus.

This is hysterical!

Great last post Double-J! Keep it coming!

Can someone please tell me what the hell is going on here? Did I wake up this morning in Bizzaro land? JJ and Irish are agreeing, on a religious topic no less?

I don't think the issue is whether or not it's offensive.

I am not in the least bit offended by people praying, or religious music, or religious displays, and I don't think many people are.

I just think it belongs in a private venue.

I wonder how everyone would feel if Maplewood High School found itself with a Muslim faculty member in charge of the brass band, who wanted to put on a concert of Muslim marching music (if there is such a thing).

But why all of a sudden? Christmas carols & parades and the likes have been in schools for decades. Why is this year any different??

Does anyone besides me find it strange that Irish is supporting the CONSERVATIVE side of this argument?

But why all of a sudden? Christmas carols & parades and the likes have been in schools for decades. Why is this year any different?? [/b][/quote]That doesn't mean it was right for decades.

We had slavery for decades, women didn't have the right to vote for decades, there was segregation for decades......

But why all of a sudden? Christmas carols & parades and the likes have been in schools for decades. Why is this year any different?? [/b][/quote]That doesn't mean it was right for decades.

We had slavery for decades, women didn't have the right to vote for decades, there was segregation for decades...... [/b][/quote]That's irrelevant to the issue. I don't think that Muslims, as you mentioned, should have the right to oppose something that is American as apple pie - christmas parades, parties, and concerts, if it isn't infringing on their right to practice their religion (which it clearly isn't). If a muslim teacher wanted to have a "muslim" christmas concert (strange, since I don't know of too many muslim music teachers, let alone ones who celebrate christmas...I thought they celebrated Ramadan, and that was one or two months ago), then that's his and the districts business. However, the taxpayers decide what is right in the district. And not the minority.

I don't find it a coincidence that our society, as we have moved away from morality, and yes, religion, we have degraded to the point we have reached now. It's sad when we can't have a christmas concert, supported by the majority, because one person who doesn't like it, the minority, disagrees.


Why? Do tax dollars not come from people who are religious? Why should, by default, the agnostic or athiest people have the final say over whether we can have "Christmas" or not? And in public? Please.

We have tax dollars that support a bible club at schools, is that wrong? Our tax dollars support all other activites, ethnic clubs, gay/lesbian clubs, etc.

Yet probably the least threatening thing, a CHRISTMAS CONCERT, an innocent concert where people can come and hear old fashioned songs (regardless of their content), is now brought to this point. It's as if God is some kind of dirty word. It's ridiculous.

Forgive me for thinking it's a tad hypocritical to say we have to have clubs for blacks and for gays in schools, but to have a Christmas concert, a tradition that has probably been a part of schools and even longer with battle hymns and such.

When I was in the school chorus during high school, I didn't tweak because my conductor was a hook. I didn't find it offensive if we sang a jewish song or something.

Pretty soon they will outlaw the public display of Christmas lights and nativity scenes in your front yard. Then you will have to buy your Christmas tree from some shady guy in an alley. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

He'll probably be of some ethnic-minority descent. :p

True it might not have been right but again, why is this year so different? What happened in these last 365 days that hadn't happened for decades? Also, your examples of slavery & womens rights are extremes. I don't think singing christmas carols is nearly as extreme as either of these.

PS-Nice Guy Eddie, why are you so surprised? If I had to "classify" myself, I'd probably say I'm a Conservative Republican (but I hate Bush and on issues I go with how I feel on them, not how a particular party feels about them)

When they do, I'll be the first one on line to fight for people's rights to do what they wish on their private property.

And what they choose to display can be as inoffensive to me as Christmas lights, or as offensive to me as a statue comemmorating the good deeds of Adolf Hitler.

it doesn't matter. It's their property.

But I'll say it again: Religious displays do not belong in government facilities.

I think that'd be AWESOME! Too bad I (apparently) stand alone; the world would be a better place. :p

Pick apart my entire post, please; or are you avoiding it cuz I'm right? :p

Here 'ya go..... The fact that it has lost it's religious meaning does not detract from the fact that Christmas is still a religious holiday which is not celebrated by non-Christians.

Exactly. Celebrate as they see fit in private or a house of worship. Reindeer are OK. They're non-sectarian. Santa, though, represents Christmas.

The difference is that people have the freedom to listen to whatever music they choose to on their radio. It's different when someone walks into the Department of Motor Vehicles because they have to and get bombarded with Christmas music.

As far as the "blaring" of offensive music from radios goes, most municipalities have ordinances against excessive "blaring", because such noise interefers with the peace and tranquility of others. And I support such ordinances.

So do I. But there's a huge difference between learning about other religions in an academic sense and what we're talking about here.

Because they have no choice. And the words themselves do not promote one specific religion over another. All religions, I think, have their "God".

Again, this is not about being politically correct. It's about the government's "promotion", if you will, of Christianity.

Not much i can say about that.

I agree. Nothing wrong, as I said above, with learning about other religions. But that's not the issue here.

I don't think kids should be singing Christmas Carols in public schools.

And it's dreidel, BTW. :p

Just "saving" this for tomorrow, when I reply to this... :p

Haha - I caught it before you fixed it!

As I've explained in the past to FS......There's a difference between a typo and a spelling error.

Gimme a break.....I'm sitting here in the dark.

Turn a light on -- it's called humor. :p

And, I looked the word up. It just so happened that so many people misspelled it, I assumed it was correct!

Normally my natural sympathies would lie with plaw on issues but I'm leaning towards the Don and the other guys on this one. To me Christmas while it has its roots in religion is not a religious holiday anymore. St Patrick's Day has its roots in religion, the coming of Christianity to Ireland, but these days it's just a celebration of Irishness (i.e. an excuse to get rat assed!).

In American terms I would probably be classed as a liberal (and happy to be so), but really, people who manage to get offended by Christmas trees and carol singing don't do anything to defend or promote liberal values...in fact they probably need to get out more. They are as narrow minded and reactionary as the most fundamental conservative (yes, you Double J )

Plaw's main point is about the promotion of one particular set of religious values and beliefs over another (or all others) in state funded schools. On this I am broadly in agreement with him. If you want faith based education for your kids send them to a faith school. However I cannot see that the playing of Christmas melodies nor the hanging of lights or a tree promotes Christianity over Judaism, Islam or Voodoo for that matter.

The issue is for some of the people complaining about Xmas symbols, "Do I see something that offends me" or "Do I decide I'm going to get offended and then look for something that fits the bill"

700 posts...congrats Senza Mama

I'm starting to feel like the "Broken Record" that JG accused me of being.

I cannot speak for others with respect to their reasons, but for me.....

It is not about being offended by Christmas displays, decorations, music, etc. in government facilities.

It's about the idea that such things do not belong in government buildings, since it may give the appearance that a particular religion is being sanctioned or promoted by the government.

And, yes. Christmas has become, sadly, a "non-religious" holiday to a certain extent.

I have no problem with a wreath that symbolizes the "Holiday Season", but I do object to a nativity scene, because it is a religious decoration, not a holiday "seasonal" one.

And Rudolf The Red Nosed Reindeer is about as non-religious a song as you can find, and I have no problem with it.

But making kids in a public school glee club or choir or band sing or play songs like Silent Night or Little Drummer Boy, which are clearly religious in nature, is another matter.

Again, in case anyone missed my POV, looking at a nativity scene or listening to relgious Christmas music in no way offends me.

But this religious stuff doesn't belong in government facilities because it gives the appearance that, whatever the religion involved, it is being promoted by the government.

Slightly off topic - I don't know if you saw this in any of the news. Apparently, Madame Tussaud's Wax Museum in London has done a nativity scene with some unlikely figures. Here's a portion of a newspaper article with a picture:

(from CNN.com) -

LONDON, England (Reuters) -- Church leaders united on Wednesday to condemn a Christmas Nativity tableau depicting soccer star David Beckham as Joseph and his pop singer wife Victoria as the Virgin Mary.

Anglicans, Catholics and Presbyterians called the exhibit at Madame Tussaud's waxwork museum in London a new low in the cult of celebrity worship.

In the tableau, Australian pop star Kylie Minogue hovers above the crib as an angel while "Posh Spice" Victoria lays her shawled head tenderly on Beckham's shoulder.

Tony Blair, George W. Bush and the Duke of Edinburgh star as The Three Wise Men. The shepherds are played by Hollywood star Samuel L. Jackson, British actor Hugh Grant and camp Irish comedian Graham Norton.

The Vatican was not amused.

As a practicing Catholic, I agree with our esteemed plaw....and I might add - religious displays being funded by taxpayer dollars isn't right either. I might condone it if the ENTIRE town was one religion.

In the words of Silent Night, "sleep in heavenly peace."

Wow!! Some good points here. I don't know why though some imply that liberals don't have a religious faith, or at the least, surprised that there are liberals who do practice a faith and don't object to Christmas displays in public places.

I don't believe in anyone shoving their beliefs down anyone's throat, but I see no harm or wrong doing in seeing religious symbols, or saying "under God" in the pledge, or having school plays celebrating the holiday. I understand that there are those who do not practice or believe in any faith, but I don't see where this is trampling on any of their rights. Then again, all of us are so used to it, and lived most our lives without anyone objecting to it.

We have Christmas plays/concerts at our school. No one is forced to go, and I am sure if a student objected to participating and honestly didn't hold a faith, they'd be permitted not to particpate. My personal opinion is, if it were any other faith than Christianity, and people objected, they'd be considered prejudice. But that's my opinion.

TIS

While not in the constitution itself, one of the writers of the document, Thomas Jefferson, wrote as an explanation of his intent:

"I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

The intent of the law was to protect religions from becoming a national religion, like the Church of England, and to prevent persecution for observing a different religion.

That being said, I don't really have a problem with not playing religious Christmas carols at the concert. If I want to hear religious music, I'll go to church. Both my sons were in our high school's music program and when it came to their holiday concerts they would play songs like "Winter Wonderland" and "Let it Snow". Occasionally they would play a religious song, but the director explained that, for the most part, Christmas carols are very simple songs and not very challenging to play. Since music is an academic class, the music they chose to play was a lot more complex and challenging.

This is somewhat off-track, however there are a couple teachers at our school of Jewish faith. What is the proper thing to say to them during a Jewish Holiday? I hear people say "Happy Hannukuh (sp?). I assume that's correct. Is happy Yom Kipper (again sp???) the approriate thing to say? I never know, and don't even know what the holiday signifies. I want to wish them a greeting, but usually refrain for fear of saying "Happy" something when it's not appropriate.

Thanks

TIS

I would like to know where the hell you people came from? Where were all these weirdo's 40 or 50 years ago who are "offended" by every little thing that someone does? I feel like a big problem is that alot of you people have way to much free time. Worry about something that matters. :rolleyes: I must have been born 50 years to late. That liberal Tom Brokaw got at least one thing correct, the people born in the late teens and early twentys were "The Greatest Generation" it's been all down hill since then. Those people went to war and defended freedom in Europe and the Pacific and banded together and sacrificed at home to make sure our soldiers had what they needed to do the job. I would hate to think what would would happen today if we had a war on a much larger scale.

Being a completely non-practicing member of the faith, I could be wrong here, and if so I'm sure someone will correct me, but to my way of thinking.....

The only holiday on which it would be appropriate to wish a Jewish person a "Happy" would be Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year. But I don't think any American Jews would be even the slightest bit offended if their gentile friends or associates failed to give them a Jewish New Year's greeting.

With respect to Hanukkah, or Hanukah, or Chanukah (all three spellings are acceptable), this is a holiday which celebrates the victory of the Maccabees over the Syrians (who I think were a Jewish tribe who had been enslaved by the Syrians at the time) in 165 B.C., and the rededication of the Temple at Jerusalem (Don't ask me -- I got that straight from the dictionary. You now know pretty much as much about it as I do).

It is traditional for adults to give children presents, and since it usually falls somewhere around Christmas, it all works out rather neatly I think.

While an adult would wish a child a "Happy Chanukah" when giving him or her a gift, I have seldom heard adults wish each other a greeting, and again, I don't think a Jew would expect such a greeting from a gentile.

As far as Yom Kippur goes, that is the "Day of Atonement", on which practicing Jews fast all day to atone for their sins of the previous year.

Because of the holiday's solemnity, any type of holiday greeting in this case would be quite inappropriate.

Interesting. I've said "Happy Chanukah" on occasion to my Jewish neighbors. Commercially, the "Happy Chanukah" and "Merry Christmas" seem to go hand in hand in stores and on various advertisements. I guess it's not too inappropriate or some group would be making a big stink.

How about Happy Ramadan? Is that appropriate?

In the big scheme of Jewish Holidays, Chanukah has, I think, taken on a much greater importance than the event that it actually celebrates. It's primarily celebrated, and looked forward to, mostly by children.

This is due, I'd guess, to the gift giving and it's proximity to Christmas.

The "Happy Chanukah" greetings that you see in stores and advertisements are there strictly to get people into the gift giving (and, necessairily, gift buying) frame of mind.

You never see Purim (which is a holiday that, in its historical context is as important, I think, as Chanukah) greetings, for example, because there is no gift buying involved.

I think it is kind of naive to think that the country wouldn't band together and do what was needed to defeat an enemy that was threatening our safety and freedom. The fact of the matter is, there has been no such conflict since WW2 so any inference of American citizens "going downhill" since then is a guess at best.

It is appropriate to say "Happy Ramadan". It is not exactly a holiday though, it is the ninth month in the Muslim calendar and as you may know this calendar is based on the moon so it is not fixed. Ramadan like all other months of this calendar can be observed anytime in the year, months are being shifted like 10 days each year compared to the 365 days calendar that is based on the Sun. During this month those who practice Islam and have the ability should fast from sunrise to sunset. The first day of the following month is being observed as the holiday of Ramadan, which is called "Fitre". On this day Muslims celebrate their ability to follow order of God to fast for a month and every Muslim family gives out food to poor. The amount of food depends on the number of family members. Also on this day nobody should fast. It is said that Quran has been presented as a whole book to the prophet in this month.

I'm not practicing Islam but I don't think that "happy Ramadan" really fits. It is exactly like "Day of Atonement" in the Jewish practice and it is more solemn than anything. I think it is more appropriate to say "happy Fitre" at the end of Ramadan, that fits better but Muslims would not being offended by saying "happy Ramadan" either, actually what lately I've seen them doing is to promote "Happy Ramadan" more than ever. That was just my personal opinion of someone who has been in direct touch with this religion.

So I'm guessing that we will not hear Cat Stevens (Yusef Islam) singing "Feliz Ramadan" anytime soon?

Feliz Ramadan? Well, I still think "Feliz Fitre" is more appropriate. Although, you never know, nowadays you hear so many things that are not in a religion but are being said or being attributed to it, so I'll not be surprised if Cat Stevens sings Feliz Ramadan might as well!

I have to disagree here. Christmas is celebrated by many, not just Christians. All my athiest and most Jewish friends "celebrate" Christmas: most have Christmas trees, outdoor lights, exchange gifts with family and friends, etc. What non-Christians do NOT celebrate, necessarily, is the Birth of Christ. While for Christians these go hand-in-hand, for others, they don't. And none of my athiest or Jewish friends have a problem with it. Some even have religious-type decorations.

Santa Claus represents the spirit of Christmas, sure. He was based on St Nicholas (Santa's name came from the Dutch Sint Nikolaas), as is a fairly new concept (as we know Santa, only since the 1800's in America). Here is a brief history if anyone's interested.

In any event, while Santa has traditionally represented a religious icon, nowadays you have to admit he's used to sell toys and used by parents to threaten their kids to be good!

Man, I'm just gonna call you Ebenezer Scrooge from now on! :p You left out the "Bah, humbug!!"

I just don't see it that way, so, what can I say? It's not like the government is holding religious masses on the steps of every county courthouse and forcing everyone to attend.

I guess I could see how a nativity scene or a display of The 10 Commandments may offend some people. (Altho the latter is Judeo-Christian). I'm not gonna repeat my previous post, but will just say: I wouldn't be offended at all if other groups celebrated their own holidays with the same enthusiasm.

Opinion noted.

BTW - Do you object to the word holiday, being that its etymology is from the Old English for "Holy Day"? See, I thought "happy holidays" was P.C., and I say it all the time myself. But maybe I should now stop since it may offend someone who doesn't think it's holy at all. Dag, now what? :p

I'm an athiest. Christmas is my favourite time of the year. The rest is bullshit and you know it.

Mick

In the words of Cosmo Kramer, "You're freakin' me out!" Holiday - from the Old English "Holy Day". Holy Shiite, I can get the connection. Don't most European substitute "vacation" for HOLIDAY? What are they thinking? They could be offending someone! Good thing we have that First Amendment stuff to keep things in line. I'm all for separating that Church and State; like the wheat and the chaff, the cream from the milk, the rich from the poor.

In the interest of Constitutional Unity let's invoke the Costanza holiday of Festevus (for the rest of us). Now that's a real Holi-day!

I think your all crazy. :rolleyes:

Gee, if non-christians don't celebrate Christmas (as Plaw claims), there are quite a bit of consumers out buying gifts for NO reason. :p

I don't see how the clause in the constitution is even relevant; a Christmas concert featuring religious selections is not ADVOCATING a particular religion, or promoting the establishment thereof. And as I said, there are plenty of taxpayer dollars the come from as many, if not more, people who are not offended, and in the majority.

I buy gifts for business associates and clients because it is expected of me, not because I'm "celebrating" a holiday.

That's a matter of interpretation. If a Catholic Church holds a Christmas concert with religiously themed music, they are promoting their religion. But if the same music is played at a public school concert, you don't see how some people could construe that as promoting Christianity? Everything in this country is not about what the majority wants.

I'll give you one example, and I'll pick one that runs counter to my usually liberal viewpoint:

If I own a building and have an apartment to rent, the law says that I cannot discriminate by not renting it to someone bsed on their color, religion, etc.

But I say "It's my private property. I should have the right to do with it as I wish".

I believe that a vast majority of Americans would agree with my position, yet we have laws that state otherwise in order to protect the minority from discrimination.

Surprisingly I'm with Plaw on this one. What it comes down to is culture and change. People don't like change and especially when it's religious tradition that is lost. No one will read this but let me quote a little anecdote that I've mentioned before.

Start with a cage containing five apes In the cage, hang a banana on a string and put stairs under it. Before long, an ape will go to the stairs and start to climb towards the Banana. As soon as he touches the stairs, spray all of the apes with cold water.

After a while, another ape makes an attempt with the same result -all the apes are sprayed with cold water.

Turn off the cold water.

If, later, another ape tries to climb the stairs, the other apes will try to prevent it even though no water sprays them.

Now, remove one ape from the cage and replace it with a new one. The New ape sees the banana and wants to climb the stairs. To his horror, all of the other apes attack him. After another attempt and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs, he will be assaulted.

Next, remove another of the original five apes and replace it with a new one. The newcomer goes to the stairs and is attacked. The previous Newcomer takes part in the punishment with enthusiasm.

Again, replace a third original ape with a new one. The new one makes it to the stairs and is attacked as well.

Two of the four apes that beat him have no idea why they weren't permitted to climb the stairs, or why they are participating in the beating of the newest ape.

After replacing the fourth and fifth original apes, all the apes which have been sprayed with cold water have been replaced. Nevertheless, no ape ever again approaches the stairs.

Why not?

"Because that's the way it's always been around here."

Sometimes it's time for things to change.

You're right. Christmas has nothing to do with religion. It's all about pwesents pwesents pwesents. Jebus who?

So just because times change, we all of the sudden have a bunch of paranoid lefties getting their shorts twisted over something that's been a part of American culture for the last century, at least (holiday concerts at schoolhouses)?

I don't see how anyone is promoting religion by having a concert that, by some sheer coincidence, happens to have a song or two that features a religious theme (which, also coincidentally, is the reason there is a holiday to begin with. There wouldn't even be an issue here ABOUT it if Christians and Jews didn't celebrate Chaunakah and Christmas. You wouldn't even get Festivus, if it was the left's view. We'll just have to start having generic holidays). Good golly miss molly. How are we "hurting" anyone by doing that? By having a song that says the world "Jehovah," or "Jesus," good God (literally)!

I continue to enjoy the pertinent leftist agenda that continues the downward spiral of moral values and ethics, until we end up with Orwellian organizations against such things as love, religion, and war.

Funny, and I thought they blamed the right for our eccentrism.

No mate, what I'm saying is, you get used to something because it's a part of your culture and tradition and it doesn't feel right when it's taken away. I really understand that. But because "that's the way it's always been around here" doesn't mean it should stay that way. That was the point of the Ape anecdote.

Orwellian values are traditionally associated with the far right. Animal Farm is an attack of leftism views but 1984 is clearly an attack on totalitarianism. But the Orwellian organizations you refer to are easily the result of control from the right.

Excuse me while I load my Mossberg and read my copy of American Rifleman. Soon I will be moving to my new compound in Idaho, JJ, Don Cardi, Sicilian Mafia, Don Michael Corleone and Mr. Baggins are all invited to stay.

Excuse me while I put a flower in the barrel of my rifle and read my copy of The New York Times. Soon I will be moving to my new commune in Massachussetts. Patrick, Senza Mama, Don Ferro, Dons Advisor, and Flopsie & Mopsie are all invited to stay.

THIS IS IN NO WAY AN ATTACK ON ANY SPECIIFIC RELIGION, BUT IS JUST A SINCERE QUESTION ON MY PART.


I have stayed out of this debate....up until now. I have read the different feelings and opinions regarding this whole debate. Basically it seems as though most who are against have quoted the seperaton of church and state. I am not taking a side here, but if the seperation of church and state applies to public schools, than maybe someone could answer this :

Pubic schools no longer label thier week off for Christmas "Christmas Vacation." It is now reffered to as "Winter Reccess."

Public school's no longer label thier week off for Easter "Easter Vacation." It is now refferred to as "Spring Recess."

Obviously these Public School vacation names were changed because it would not be a seperation of church and state if the vacations were labeled for a specific religious holiday, etc. I have NO problem with this.

Now the question is, if these holidays are not supposed to be recognized by the public school system, than why is it, in the begining of the school year, a letter is sent home with the public school children, by the public school system anouncing that the public schools will be closed in observance of YOM KIPPER and RUSHASHANNA!!! Where is the speration of church and state here?

AGAIN. I AM NOT PICKING ON THE JEWISH RELIGION, AS I HAVE MANY JEWISH FRIENDS AND FAMILY THAT I RESPECT AND LOVE, AND I HAVE A HIGH REGARD FOR THE JEWISH FAITH!

But it turns out that these two holidays are the only religious holidays granted a day off on my child's public schoool calender! As far as I am concerned it wouldn't bother me one bit if all religions were listed on the calender.


Don Cardi

The school closings for those two holidays is more of an economic decision than anything else. The New York City school system has a very sizable Jewish population (both student and teacher) and the fact that this percentage would be absent for those holidays is the determining factor in closing the schools.

I suspect the public schools in, lets say, Wyoming, wouldn't be closed on those days (for the same reason - the percentage of Jewish students is probably very low).

Right. But my thought is that the left seemingly wants our society to reach a point of bland-ness, of seemingly generic mush so as not to offend anyone. For instance, a public school Christmas...err, holiday concert. The school is using taxpayer dollars to fund the education of the children, and funding the use of the building for them (the children) to express what they have been working on during the semester.

Yet, because some selections may have some sort of religious connotation, we are all of the sudden offending someone? Now, the school is advocating and promoting a specific religion, and encouraging the establishment thereof?

I seriously don't see how a school concert is advocating the establishment of a national religion. Goodness gracious, again, I see the logic of the left - legalize prostitution, but we can't say God in school.

This is nauseating.

Mick

I find it offensive that some people are offended. :p :p

Correct me if I'm wrong here, Don Cardi, as I do not have a NYC Public School Calendar, but......

What we, in our public school days used to call "Christmas Vacation" would very often vary in length, depending upon the days of the week on which Christmas Day and New Year's day fell.

In other words, if both fell on a Sunday, we would only be off from school the Monday through Friday in between.

But if both fell on a Thursday, we would be off Wednesday Dec 24th (Christmas Eve) through the following Friday (Jan 2).

If my recollection is correct, we were always off the day of Christmas Eve.

So here's my question:

Since Christmas falls on a Saturday this year, are the schools closed on Friday December 24th?

Because if they are, although it's being called "Winter Break" or whatever, closing the schools for the extra day on Friday is, in effect, for a "religious holiday", since if Christmas fell on Sunday, the schools would not be closed on Friday.

As I say, this is how I remember it and I could be wrong. But since you have a copy of the public school schedule, I'd be curious to know.

I also seem to also remember that school was closed for "Easter Vacation" on Good Friday, which, if that policy is still in effect, is closing schools on that day for religious reasons as well.

SC is correct about the economic realities. I believe that the city gets money from the state based on attendance, and it makes more economic sense to close the schools on a day when there would be many absentees, and, in turn, extend the school year by a day or two, or start a day or two earlier.

Finally, in the interest of "Political Correctness", and to be assured in the future that no one will be offended, I suggest changing the name of the reason for closing the schools from "Observance of Rosh Hashanah" and "Observance of Yom Kippur" to "Early Fall Holiday Number 1", and "Early Fall Holiday Number 2".

PLaw,

Here in CA (at least in my county), schools are closed from Dec. 20 thru Jan. 2. It IS called Winter Break. Although I am at a year round school, the traditional schools get the same dates off for Christmas. It's always a two week break for us, and we never end or begin our break in midweek. It's always two consecutive Mondays - Fridays.

Our Spring Break is in April, and not any longer the week of Easter. Every now and then, it falls the week of Easter. Although, myself, being year round, do not get a spring break, unless I take some personal vacation time in that period. Yet, when our school was traditional, I cannot tell you how many times parents will call the school and be shocked that our break wasn't the week of Easter. We'd have to explain that it was a "Spring Break" not an Easter break.

TIS

TIS, are your schools closed for any Jewish holidays?

Also, in a previous post in this thread, I neglected to invite you and SaladBar to my Massachusetts commune.

Plaw,

Let me first respond to SC's explaination regarding as to the reason the schools close for those two days. SC has brought up a very good point and has given me the answer to my original question. It makes 100% sense!

Now getting to your post, the kids are off from Friday the 24th to Sunday the 2nd. And for the spring break vacation, that is exactly what they have off for this year, spring break. However, they do have off for good friday. So both you and SC are both correct. You in pointing out that the kids will get the friday off for Christmas, and good friday off, and SC's explaination that the schools make these decisions based on finacial reasons. Thank you both for clearing this up for me. Oh and Plaw, those alternate names for those jewish holidays, not neccesary in my eyes as I really beleive that all religions should get the proper recognition by thier named days and they all should receive the proper respect! But your idea was a cute one!

Let me close by saying again, that my question was not intended to offend anyone. If the two days that I brought up were Christian holidays, or Islamic holidays, I would have asked the same question. But I just want to make it perfectly clear that I would never set out to offend anyone's religious beliefs, especially the two of you, who I really have the most admiration and respect for.


Don Cardi

PLaw,

Although our schools are NOT closed for any Jewish Holidays, we do have 3 Jewish teachers, one of whom takes the day off (excused absence) for all of these holidays (don't know if others are not practicing Jews, or just don't take the time off).

As far as the students go, in CA the only excused absences are Dr. App'ts, Illness and Court appearances. However, any religious holiday and/or service (i.e. Ash Wednesday), we are required to "excuse" the absence. I've never really had any problems with anyone taking off for religious purposes, and have never heard any comments one way or another from any staff/parent or student.

BTW, thaks for the invite to the Mass. Commune. Haven't heard that word in a while. Is this like a "flower power", "make love not war" type commune. :p I'll dig out my bell bottoms and love beads.

TIS

Are the bell bottoms and beads BLUE?

Peace Baby!

Don Cardi

This is getting quite ridiculous.

What's the difference between schools in NYC or anywhere else with a large Jewish population being closed for Jewish holidays due to lack of overall attendance (which is fine) versus: most of the United States of America which has a huge Christian population all over getting the same courtesy on Christmas Eve and Good Friday??



I'm about done with this grasping for straws and nitpicking and stand by my original posts. Agree or not, I respect your opinions. No one's gonna "win" this argument, as innocent as this discussion seemed in the beginning. :p

And I noticed I wasn't invited to either commune. :p Just as well, I'm too messy and stay up too late!

Nothing wrong with it at all.

Don Cardi implied, or maybe I just inferred, that since they changed the vacation names from Christmas and Easter to Winter and Spring, the Christian school population didn't have any religious holidays off, while the Jewish school population did.

My question about extra days being added to the vacation to accomodate Christmas Eve when necessary, and Good Friday, was meant to illustrate that they were, in fact, being given extra time off for religious reasons, even if the vacation period itself is named something else.

Why they renamed the vacation periods is still a mystery. To me, and I think to most NYC school kids and their parents, it's still "Christmas Vacation" and "Easter Vacation", and always will be.

Oh, and BTW, you're not far enough to the left to join my commune. You have to be almost a communist, like Patrick.

Plaw, I saw post after post regarding a controversy over Christamas, which in fact is the TITLE of this post. I did not reply to any right away, but instead ingested everything that was said. Than after ingesting all these veiws and opinions about Christmas, I pulled out my child's public school calender and upon looking it over I found those two days listed and was sincerely curious as to why no religious references were made by the schools to any of the other holidays accept those two days. I never implied anything! I came right out and asked it! SC answered it and you contributed to SC's answer! Nothing more to discuss! End of story!


Don Cardi

What ever happen to live and let live?

The only slippery slope I see here is one person trying to stick it up the ass of another.

There is room on this earth for everyone.

And if someone has nothing better to do in his life then to knock things down and jam points down others throats then they better take a look at themselves.

This world would soon lose the color of life itself if you made everything black and white.

Who said gray is not a great color. That church and state bullshit is lame. What ever happen to FAIR and EQUAL?

After all we have come a long way on women's rights, gay rights and such. Why back peddle because some jerks want to jam their views down America's throat?

First of all, DC, allow me to be the first to welcome you back. I read your post above about five minutes after you made it, but I was unable to respond immediately, as I was about to go out to pick up some bagels and lox.

Anyway, "live and let live" as well as "fair and equal" are certainly two very admirable sentiments to which I subscribe fully.

I believe in gays rights, abortion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion. In fact, I believe that people should be allowed to do almost anything they wish to with or on their private property as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of others.

As far as what people do in public, of course, I'm not as liberal with my viewpoint, but I still believe that if their actions to not interfere with or trample on the rights of others, almost anything goes.

I agree with you as well when you say that not everything is black and white.

While I support a woman's right to choose abortion, for example, or the rights of gay couples to marry (to name but two), I understand fully that these issues are far from black and white for most people, including myself.

There are very compelling arguments that can be and are made for both sides of the coin for either of these issues, and while I have my own opinion, I certainly respect and understand the position of those who do not agree with mine.

The free interchange of differing points of view is one of the things that has made America great, and, accordingly, I would never accuse anyone, regardless of the issue or their position on it, of "trying to stick it up the ass of another" or trying to "knock things down and jam points down others throats" or being "some jerks (who) want to jam their views down America's throat".

In fact, with only one or two exceptions -- those who choose to reduce the discussion to a personal level and resort to name-calling and personal criticism rather than the presentation of a logical argument and who shall remain nameless -- I greatly admire the passion that some of the members here bring to the discussions, regardless of their particular stance on the issue under consideration.

Strangely enough, when watching "Sunday Best" on Fox tonight, I found that Bill O'Reilly and myself share quite equivocal feelings.

Paul,
please don't feel that I was talking about you or any other person on this board when I used the terms in my prior posts.

I used these terms to describe the people who are the ones that would force people or groups to change things that have been done year after year without hurting anyone.
Why, Because it betters their own lives?

Because it makes them feel that much better over another? Maybe...or is it that they just want to be a prick.

Maybe it is a control issue, like so many things are these days. Maybe it is just that these people are so unhappy in their lives that they must pass it along to all others....

So if I sounded like I was name calling, maybe I am. But, rest assure that it was not to any one on this board, but that unseen face that forces the issues that rips the heart out of the country and the people I love.

Freedom shouldn't end just because it is a public place. I feel it is more important to be Fair and Equal rather then no, no no....

Now this is getting interesting plaw. I'll bring the whiskey and potatoes...Irish soul food.

O'Reilly seemed to actually make sense!

I also am posting so Plaw's avatar gets updated to his latest one -- one more appropriate for this holi-day season!

* Federated Department Stores, which includes Macy's, has suggested that managers avoid displaying "Merry Christmas" banners and have ordered employees not to talk about it.

A rather silly decision on the part of Federated, I think. Assuming that most of their clientele is Christian, they run a much greater risk of costing themselves business once this news gets out than they would by celebrating Christmas in their stores.

Everyone seems to think that this argument is about offending non-Christians.

I don't think that's it at all. It's about the mixing of religion and government.

* In Denver, a church was banned from the "Festival of Lights" parade because it wanted a religious theme to its float.

More stupidity.

Even if it's a government organization sponsoring the parade, the float itself is sponsored by a church, not the governemnt.

As long as any religious group is given the same opportunity to have a religious float, then it's no problem.

And if it's a private organization sponsoring the parade, then they can do whatever they wish, although a decision like this could backfire on them, just as Federated Department Store's might.

* The Maplewood, New Jersey school board has banned all religious music from "holiday" concerts. (Would somebody please tell me exactly what holiday this is?)

This is the issue that started this thread.

It depends on the music itself. Some has a non-religious theme, which is OK I believe.

But music with clearly religious theme is not appropriate in a public school.

* And New York City Mayor Bloomberg insists that the lighted tree outside City Hall is not a Christmas tree, it's a "holiday tree." (What holiday, Mr. Mayor?)

A Christmas tree by any other name is still a Christmas tree.

But please. No nativity scenes at City Hall.

Surveys show that more than 90% of Americans celebrate the Federal holiday of Christmas, signed into law by President Grant in 1870. Despite that overwhelming number, the tradition of Christmas in America continues to get hammered.

Depends what you mean by "celebrate".

To me, celebrating a religious holiday should at least include a visit to your place of worship or some recognition of the holiday's religious significance.

By that definition, the 90% figure seems kind of high.

If "celebrating" simply means that it's an excuse for a day off from school or work, then every public school child in New York City "celebrates" the Jewish New Year and the holiday of Yom Kippur

The anti-Christmas forces say it's all about diversity, protecting the sensitivities of those Americans who get offended by the mere mention of the birth of Jesus. Somehow, I haven't been able to locate any of these people--folks who find a baby in a manger so off-putting, it ruins their day.

I can only speak for myself here. The sight of a baby in a manger certainly does not ruin my day or offend me. I respect people's religions, and their right to religiously themed displays on their private property.

As Don Cardi, or SC, or Turnbull can tell you, there's a section in brooklyn that is noted for the way people decorate their homes.

Totally, and I mean totally, decorated with lights, nativity scenes, etc., and electric bills that supposedly run into the thousands of dollars for the month.

They are quite a tourist attraction, with traffic jams and cops to control the crowds and everything.

And I go there at least once every year to marvel at these displays.

But I don't think they belong in government buildings.

So the diversity excuse is a bunch of bull. What's really going on here is a well-organized movement to wipe out any display of organized religion from the public arena.

And I support that, while making the distinction between "public arenas" and government venues.

Macy's, I think, is a Public arena, and, as i said, I believe it's foolish of them to eliminate Christmas from their stores. I mean, why the hell do they think that their business is probably up 50% or more in December?

But I just don't think that religious displays and the like belong in schools or government buildings.

The secular-progressive movement understands very well that it is organized religion, most specifically Christianity and Judaism, that stands in the way of gay marriage, partial birth abortion, legalized narcotics, euthanasia, and many other secular causes. If religion can be de-emphasized in the USA, a brave new progressive society can be achieved.

That's the idea. And to counter the reactionary religious right

It has happened in Canada. Once a traditional religious country, Canada has become like Holland in its embrace of the secular movement. Some facts: In 1980, 79% of Canadians said that religion was important to the country. That number has now fallen to 61%, according to an Environics Focus Canada poll.

In 1971, less than one percent of the Canadian population reported having no religion whatsoever; now that number has risen to 16%.

If people can be so easily influenced to "lose" their religion, maybe religion is something that has begun to outlive its usefullness a bit, at least for many people.

Clearly, the trend throughout recent history has been to de-emphasize religion.

What's happening in America, though, is that both sides are moving further away from the center.

The fall of religion in Canada has corresponded to a change in public policy. Unlike Americans, Canadians have legalized gay marriage and any kind of abortion. Also, the age of consent for sex up north is just 14 years old. Can you imagine American adults being allowed to fool around with children that age? I can't.

Change in public policy that for the most part is positive, I think.

But with the notable exception of lowering the age of consent to fourteen.

Fourteen? Sheesh......

Even drug legalization is close to being a reality, as the city of Vancouver is developing a heroin give-away policy, and pot has been largely decriminalized across the country.

Something must be done for heroin addicts besides treating them as criminals. We should start by figuring out what it is in our society that makes people turn to drugs, and correct the problem.

And marijuana should be basically de-criminalized, I think, at least for the end-user.

The Canadian model is what progressive Americans are shooting for, and so religion must be dealt with. Since Christmas is the most demonstrative display of organized religion, the strategy of minimizing the birth of Jesus makes perfect sense.

Again.....I don't seek to minimize the birth of Jesus. Believe what you want. That's completely up to you, and I respect a person's right to believe what they wish.

But I also believe that a person's religious beliefs should be a basically private affair, to be shared with their families, loved ones, and co-religionists.

Nativity scenes and religious Christmas music doesn't belong in government buildings or public schools.

I know this sounds kind of conspiratorial, but it really isn't. Most of those marginalizing Christmas have no idea about the big picture I've just presented. They simply think they're looking out for the minority of Americans who don't celebrate the birth of Christ.

Keeping religion out of schools and government buildings is in no way "marginalizing" the holiday.

It's a religious holiday, first and foremost, and, as such, the religious display of the holiday doesn't belong in schools or government buildings.

But committed secularists in the media, in the courts, and in the education system know exactly what's going on.

Secularism: The view that the consideration of the present well-being of mankind should predominate over over religious considerations in civil affairs or public education.

Don't see anything wrong with that.

Is that the street where the guy has the HUGE toy soldiers up?

Mr. Plaw,

Please get your blood pressure checked. This has become the Gangster BB filibuster. You're doing great, but I worry about you.

Thanks for your concern, MC.

But someone has to carry the torch, and it looks like it'll be me on this one.

It seems as though I'm getting it from all sides here. Why, even Camillus Don came out of retirement to join the fray

Besides, a day without a good argument is like a day without sunshine.

I think I'll move to Seattle.

It's not? We're not talking about some random holiday, we're talking about censoring and "genericizing" a traditional Christian holiday into something bland and non-offensive to the minority of non-believers.

Ah yes, but without the religion, there would clearly be no reason to have holiday, now would there? So there is no logical reason to ban all religious-themed music.

Why not? If we can have bloody Kwanzaa signs/advertisments/whatnot at a public university, funded by taxpayer dollars, we certainly should be able to have a nativity scene, if the majority wants it.

In the context used by O'Reilly (and what I suppose most people would conform to) would be the observance of December 25th and it's surrounding days as traditional holy days for the Catholic faith. Regardless of their faith, they do not work (if at all possible), and take it as a day of rest, regardless as to whether they exercise traditional customs.


So let's bring the issue down a notch - if a gradeschool kid makes a Star of David, or a Crucifix, alongide a Christmas wreath, out of construction paper (hypothetically), they should be banned from taping them to the windows, or hanging them on a school tree, etc.?


I'd consider it more of a private firm.

Why not? Why should the majority of the public, who does not object, have to conform to a generic, non-offensive practice, simply because they are on government property? It's not as if the Constitution doesn't say our unalienable rights are endowed by a divine creator. Our money says "In God We Trust." And the Pledge still says "One nation, under God."

By reactionary right, I'm assuming you mean the majority of Americans who don't object to Christmas carols at school and such. You know. MOST people.

Says who? The idealistic left? Perhaps we should examine this "loss" of religion, and the escalation in teen pregnancies, violent crimes, and domestic abuse since 1950?

Really? By whom? The liberal media...yes.


Reform is fine to an extent, but I still think a crimnal should be punished to the fullest extent of the law, and there are people who can't be reformed. Though I agree, laws like the Rockefeller Drug Laws are not effective, there has to be some kind of mediation on these narcotics and other illegal substances.

How can you say that, when you want to eliminate any acknowledgement of Christ from schools, public buildings, and other public forums?

I don't see how you can logically say that. 50 years ago, it was Christmas Recess. Now it's "holiday break." I remember my junior year, after 9/11, I was censored for putting "God Bless America" on an electronic sign board for our Broadcast Club.

You keep saying that, but there is still no logical reason, if the majority disagrees and it is not offensive to that same majority. This is America.


Except that the left clearly doesn't want what is best for mankind, and it's agenda continues to degrade at the very fabric of our morals in society today.

Well, Double J, I think we've gone about as far as I care to go on this particular issue.

I could, as I am quite sure you know, respond intelligently and logically to every one of your responses, and then you could respond intelligently and logically to my responses to your responses, and we could go on and on, as nauseam, ad infinitum.

You believe that religion belongs in public schools and government venues, and I don't.

Like almost all issues, this is not a case of black or white. I understand your points, and I'm sure you understand mine.

I don't expect to change your mind, and I'm sure you don't expect to change mine.

We don't really know what the majority of Americans want in this case, and I suspect that we never will. And even if we did, deomcracy is not always about what the majority wants.

I think you would find that a fairly sizeable majority of Americans who live in the deep South, for example, would be very happy to return to the days of segregation and Jim Crow laws, but that doesn't mean that the majority should get what they want.

And I think you would agree that what the majority wants is not always the direction in which we should move. Not necessarily on this question, but in general.

So, for my money, I'm satisfied to say that we should simply agree to disagree here.

Besides, MarCas is starting to worry about my blood pressure.....

I agree with your analysis, the only point that I'm going to respond to would be the following:

The argument was more about whether it is appropriate to remove religion and personal beliefs from government/public schools, which I disagree with. Religion, spirituality, whatever you want to call it, is a core part of many people's lives, and because a minority object to something, that doesn't mean it is right, or for the common good of the people.

Personal beliefs are, and should be, just that: Personal. There are enough opportunities for people to express their personal beliefs in the privacy of their homes or in their respective places of worship where, I believe, they belong and are more appropriately expressed.

There are many "core parts" of people's lives which do not warrant a public celebration in a government building or school.

Homosexuality, for one. I'm sure you would agree with me that a huge banner celebrating Gay Pride Week would not be appropriate in a government building or a school.

And it's not about what the majority of people want or believe. As I've said on a number of occasions, democracy is not necessarily about "Majority Rules" at all times.

And even if it is, I'm not convinced that prayer in schools or nativity displays in government buildings is what the majority really wants.

Sure, I'll agree that the majority of Americans are religionists, but it does not necessarily follow that they agree with your position.

Anyway, I have to go take my blood pressure medication now......

Incredible but true, the same Christmas "politically correct" obsession is happening here in Italy. Honestly, I'm speechless. Some teachers in some public schools decided not to let the nativity (in Italian, PRESEPE) being displayed in order to be respectful of not christian children. This is outrageous, IMO. Thanks God, this is a Christian country. Children have been having their Christams trees and nativities and carols at schools for AGES and nobody got offended. Democracy is not giving up your own traditions not to offend someone else's. Democracy is letting anyone celebrate their own traditions. Majority is not a dictature, why should minority be?

I find it very interesting that the people who work in these public building are no longer able to display things that for them, make the work place a little better.

That personal expressions MUST be kept out of the public view if you work in such a place.

That the workers personal happiness can be walked all over, but the people who may have force this to happen can then come there, demand from these same workers, that they help them with their personal problems. ( serve the people)

You want something, you turn to the government. You can't afford something, ask the government to pay for it.

They get old, they ask for a reduction in their taxes. You can't feed yourself? Then ask for food stamps, hand outs, discounts, supplements and free programs. Your special interest group need start up funds, you go to the government. You have special needs you go to the government.

Your kids lose their father and they get SSI checks each month. Sounds like a personal problem to me, maybe they should have gotten some life insurance to protect their family.

Maybe the people who force these things to happen should close their eyes and walk pass the displays. Just like posting here on the boards.
I get sick of hearing that it is the princple of things. Live and let live. There is room for all.
Gives others a break, you just may need one yourself one day.....

Again....Fair and Equal.

Boy, Cam, you're becoming like a little child that everyone can't wait until the day they talk, now we can't shut you up. :p

J/K. Welcome back.

So I take it, then, that during Gay Pride Week you would have no problem with the homosexuals who worked in a government building hanging a huge banner in the lobby celebrating homosexuality?

Or members of The American Nazi Party who worked in the same building hanging a banner to celebrate Hitler's birthday?

I would have a problem with either, BTW. The argument, for me anyway, is not only about religion.

I wouldn't automatically assume that those who seek relief from the government are the same people who don't want religious displays in government buildings.

I'm sure there are many people who share your viewpoint who need government help, just as I am sure that there are people who don't who share mine.

Yet, at my University, we have gender week, with big gay pride banners, sidewalk chalk, etc...but I can't put Jesus is the Reason for the Season because it might be offensive. :rolleyes:

It is about the majority, because traditionally the majority wants what is the common good; minority values tend to cater to a specific good that is not good for the entire populus.

Well, I'm pleased to say that we finally agree, JJ.

UB is a publicly funded state university, and, as such, none of that stuff belongs in a public display.

Let the university fund a club for Christians, and you guys can do whatever you want to in your clubhouse.

Same for the gays.

But keep it private. A person's religion and sexual preference should be personal matters.

No way sista!!! Honey if you've got it flaunt it. Gay is the new black.

Seems to me, that if you keep making people keep things in private then it sends the message that there is something wrong with it.
What does a person or group have to fear if there is something displayed that they don't agree with?

Paul, you bring up the point of the GAY PRIDE WEEK. You make it sound like there is something wrong with that group. No one should have a problem with any Temporary banner being put up announcing it. Along side Black History month, Presidents' Day or any other recognized event. Should I fear any of these just because I don't agree with some of them? Hell NO!

Should I demand that the counter girl be removed because she has a tattoo or a piercing? Or the guy working behind the counter has blue colored hair, is Catholic, a Jew or is openly gay?

Why do some people have to demand that others rights be taken away or not be seen just because they fear or dislike something's?

Why do we allow government sponsored help without an open door for other things?

Why do people FEAR others religions that much?

If our elected leaders had told people that placement of these displays is to inform the public. Nothing more. The government is not forcing people to follow any of them.

I still find it funny that the left still continues to stress "Seperation of Church and State," as if those words are in the constitution, yet the only words that even have anything to do with that are (from Thomas Jefferson):

This is designed to protect religion, not censor, blockade, etc.

And James Madison, 4th President, federalist, and chief framer of the Constitution:

The first time the separation came to light was in the 1947 Supreme Court case of Everson v. Board of Education, where Justice Black decreed, but this is an interpretation, and not the actual writing of the Constitution:

In The People of the United States v. Ballard in 1944, Justice Douglas stated:

Hence, the left would like you to think that those words, "separation of church and state" are in the constitution, but, they are not.

I think it came up a little before 1947. Like I said in an earlier post, Thomas Jefferson himself wrote an explanation of constitutional intent:

"I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

I guess Jefferson was a true liberal and would have no place in present day America.

There was also a part of Jefferson's original constitutional draft that essentially gave blacks equal rights. But, much like the "separation of church and state," it never made it into the final document signed by the Constitutional Convention.

And since neither are in the document, it makes the idea that Jefferson said that (?) or wanted to free blacks (despite owning slaves himself) rather moot.