If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(KUTV Utah)   Utah senator wants to outlaw "Happy Holidays" from retail marketing   (kutv.com) divider line 417
    More: Sad  
•       •       •

9728 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Dec 2008 at 12:36 PM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



417 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-12-02 04:11:45 PM  
Loreweaver: The greeting is NOT part of some corporate conspiracy to force you to buy and consume.

I guess that's where we disagree.
 
2008-12-02 04:12:15 PM  
Loreweaver: - My uncle.
- My grandparents.
- My (former) pastor.
All the abover a bit too devout for their own good.


Ummm. Peer pressure and family pressure are not what we are talking about when we talk about being 'forced' to say "Merry Christmas".

And if someone told you it was innapropriate to wish a jew a Happy Chanuka, then you have my permission to donkey punch them.
 
2008-12-02 04:15:59 PM  
I went to a law school with about a 30% Jewish student body, maybe 40% some brand of moderate to liberal Christians, 10% right-wing conservative Christian, and the remaining 20% split between "other," including Muslim, whatever religion celebrates Kwanzaa, atheists, and more.

Each year, the Dean of the school sent out cards to all the students that said either "Happy Holidays," or "Season's Greetings." EVERY YEAR the right-wing Christians biatchED AND MOANED about how persecuted they were because the Dean (who was himself Jewish) didn't send out Christmas cards.

What's dumber than getting your panties in a wad because someone wishes you a merry Christmas when you don't celebrate Christmas? Getting your panties in a wad because someone wishes you happy holidays when you DO celebrate holidays!

Make no mistake. Conservative Christians are Dominionists. They want their religious preferences imposed on everyone else, by force if necessary.
 
rpm
2008-12-02 04:21:37 PM  
vonster: What I can't fathom is why an atheist would want to run down the street yelling "There is no God and you are all ignorant, stupid fools!".

Get rid of all the nonsensical laws / governmental resolutions that are based only on your religion (this resolution, blue laws, abortion, birth control, marriage, teaching of science, etc.), then you're going to see a lot less of that.

I don't give a flying flip how you celebrate your holidays or observe your god. The *instant* I'm forced to acknowledge your god and follow your arbitrary rules ("thou shalt not kill", that's supportable. "honor the sabbath", notsomuch), I will lash back.
 
2008-12-02 04:23:56 PM  
BojanglesPaladin: Loreweaver: - My uncle.
- My grandparents.
- My (former) pastor.
All the abover a bit too devout for their own good.

Ummm. Peer pressure and family pressure are not what we are talking about when we talk about being 'forced' to say "Merry Christmas".

And if someone told you it was innapropriate to wish a jew a Happy Chanuka, then you have my permission to donkey punch them.


I wasn't talking peer pressure. My pastor and several of my family members would actually get upset if a complete stranger used "Happy Holidays" to greet them. I saw it way too many times growing up. It's one of many reasons I don't get along very well with my father's side of my family anymore.

/They may be a minority, but they are a vocal minority
 
2008-12-02 04:27:20 PM  
rpm: vonster: What I can't fathom is why an atheist would want to run down the street yelling "There is no God and you are all ignorant, stupid fools!".

Get rid of all the nonsensical laws / governmental resolutions that are based only on your religion (this resolution, blue laws, abortion, birth control, marriage, teaching of science, etc.), then you're going to see a lot less of that.

I don't give a flying flip how you celebrate your holidays or observe your god. The *instant* I'm forced to acknowledge your god and follow your arbitrary rules ("thou shalt not kill", that's supportable. "honor the sabbath", notsomuch), I will lash back.


Personally I would be happy just to see all the "Christian" politicians start following the "Shall not bear false witness" provision.
 
2008-12-02 04:30:44 PM  
BojanglesPaladin: captain_heroic44: 1) Employees have no legal right to wish customers a "merry Christmas" against their employer's wish that they wish customers "happy holidays." None.

Well there is that whole pesky constitutional "free speech" and "freedom of religion" thing... I'm pretty sure there are SOME legal rights in there somewhere. I'd be interested to see an employer win an employment case if they fired a Jewish person for saying "Happy Chanuka".

But my point is that it is inapropriate for an employer or a company to stipulate at all what holiday greeting is used. They CAN, but should not. Ability to do something is not itslef justification for doing so.

And I also think that the government should have nothing to say on the matter.

And just so we are clear, One can take issue with an enforced 'Happy Holiday' greeting and not be a right wing nutjob Christian. I, for instance, think it discourages Jews and Muslims (and yes even Christians) from freely expressing their religious beliefs and practices. Since there is ABSOLUTLEY NO OFFENSE given by inviting someone to share in your celebration of the holiday of your preference, it is non-sensical for companies to dictate that employees do otherwise. Inherant in the decision to replace particular holiday greeting with a 'blank' is the prior assumption that "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Chanuka" could cause offense.

And we should not accept, acknowledge, or make attrition to the idea that the expression of any religion is offensive. Even if that religion happens to be christian or jewish or muslim.

So there. And I would suggest you go back to where I started and read what I have said on this topic before you start jumping to conclusions on where I stand here and why.


You're being intentionally obtuse. The Jewish employee in a predominantly Christian area who wished customers a happy Chaunaka, or the Muslim who wished customers a happy rahmadan, would quickly arouse the ire of--guess who--right wing Christian nutjobs, who would complain about the employee until the employee was either told to stop it or fired. I promise you, Christian customers who were wished a "Happy Saturnalia" by a Wiccan retail employee would be offended, and would complain. It would happen.

Retailers who ask their employees to say "happy holidays" are acting reasonably. Some people of all religions--Christian included--get offended when others regard them with the wrong holiday greeting. I absolutely, 100% gaurantee Christians would be offended by employees who wished them the wrong holiday greeting.

Case in point--the inclusive "happy holidays," which offends them to no end, and has aroused them to believe they are victims of a "war on Christmas."

You obviously can't make everyone happy. So you have to ask yourself, "who's being most unreasonable?" Christians celebrate holidays, so it's reasonable to wish them happy holidays. It is therefore 100% unreasonable for Christians to be offended by a "happy holidays" greeting. By contrast, it is not totally unreasonable for, say, a Jew, who does not celebrate Christmas, to feel a bit miffed when Christians tell them to have a merry Christmas. Such a greeting shows a lack of respect for his particular religious belief.

Because Christians are unreasonably offended by "happy holidays, but members of other religious affiliations are reasonably annoyed by "merry Christmas," retailers are well within reason to ask their employees to use "happy holidays."
 
2008-12-02 04:36:22 PM  
Loreweaver: I wasn't talking peer pressure. My pastor and several of my family members would actually get upset if a complete stranger used "Happy Holidays" to greet them.

Right. They can TAKE offense all the livelong day. They can take offense because someone doesn't open the door for them, but that is not the same thing as 'forcing' people to open the door for them. I'm sorry that you are at odds with your family, but that really isn't relevant to this discussion.

captain_heroic44: Conservative Christians are Dominionists. They want their religious preferences imposed on everyone else, by force if necessary.

I'm not sure if that dog will hunt.

One, there are FAR, FAR more Christians who are conservative than there are fundamentalist 'dominionists' as you put it. Your brush is wildly too broad.

Secondly, I do not think a convincing case can be made that these 'dominionists' are either representative of Christianity as a whole, in America, or even in significant numbers. Vocal and impotent would seem to be the best description - and they are impotent because there simply are not enough fellow Christians who subscribe to thier fringe agenda.

Thirdly, (and related to the second), in the last 4 or 5 decades, we have seen a steady removal of 'Christian' laws. Abortion has been untouched, blue laws have been repealed, prayer in school is gone, Sodomy laws have been struck down, gambling is more widespread and legal, prostitution has been legalized in places, etc. etc. In a nation that is overwhelmingly Christian, it is clear that there is not a concerted effort to impose Christianity on the populace, but in fact the reverse would seem to be true.

Fourthly, unless you would argue that the odd domestic terrorist who actively violates the teachings of christ and is roundly condemned by mainstream Christianity at all levels is a fair representative of conservative christianity, I think that the "by force if necessary" line is absurd.
 
2008-12-02 04:38:30 PM  
Well, I came to this thread late just to read all the outrage filled posts and I was not disappointed. It is fun indeed to see the God haters in their full righteous indignation. Still, we all know that such a law would be unconstitutional and would never make it into law ... not even in Utah.

Oh, one more thing, this country was founded on Christian principles and by Christians. Spare me the "deist" crap ... deism was just Christianity shorn of the hocus pocus. However, our founders were enlightened men and were inclusive with respect to other faiths. The Christians of this nation have been repaid for their inclusiveness by a campaign of intolerance by a small minority of atheists, Jews and Muslims. Well, no good deed goes unpunished.
 
2008-12-02 04:38:42 PM  
MaxxLarge

It always astounds me just how cripplingly ignorant Christians are about the history of their own religion. Here's a little education. (new window)

Actually, it is (and always has been) official Mormon doctrine that Jesus was born in the spring. April 6 is the date that is given usually, but I don't know if that is "official doctrine" or not.

/Utah Mormon
//Wishes Sen. Buttars would just go away.
 
2008-12-02 04:42:24 PM  
badLogic: Actually Christmas is when it is to co-opt the pagan rituals that occurred around the winter solstice.

That's not what I meant. I wondered why that particular day, the day Christians celebrate the birth of Christ, was not the start of the year and was instead 8 days before New Year's Day. By that, I mean why isn't Jesus' birthday called January 1? New Year's Day celebrated Jesus's circumcision which shows his descent from Abraham or soemthing (my covenant/circumcision memory is weak), which means his birthday is 8 days prior, Dec 25, which corresponds with the old Pagan holidays.
 
2008-12-02 04:43:16 PM  
Samsaran: Oh, one more thing, this country was founded on Christian principles and by Christians.

Bad trolling.
 
2008-12-02 04:45:36 PM  
Samsaran:
Oh, one more thing, this country was founded on Christian principles and by Christians. Spare me the "deist" crap ... deism was just Christianity shorn of the hocus pocus.


Deism is when you believe there is a god/higher power. They don't follow the teachings of Christ in any way. Thats rather entirely unchristian.

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

Jefferson also called Christianity the "most perverted system that ever shone on man" when writing to Joseph Priestley on 21 March 1801.
 
2008-12-02 04:46:53 PM  
Samsaran: Well, I came to this thread late just to read all the outrage filled posts and I was not disappointed. It is fun indeed to see the God haters in their full righteous indignation. Still, we all know that such a law would be unconstitutional and would never make it into law ... not even in Utah.

Oh, one more thing, this country was founded on Christian principles and by Christians. Spare me the "deist" crap ... deism was just Christianity shorn of the hocus pocus. However, our founders were enlightened men and were inclusive with respect to other faiths. The Christians of this nation have been repaid for their inclusiveness by a campaign of intolerance by a small minority of atheists, Jews and Muslims. Well, no good deed goes unpunished.


I can assure you that you and I are more morale then anything you will find in the bible. The only people who use this "christian morales" bullcrap are people who never read the bible. God is a selfish, inconsiderate, cruel, evil bastard in that book.
 
2008-12-02 04:47:09 PM  
damageddude: badLogic: Actually Christmas is when it is to co-opt the pagan rituals that occurred around the winter solstice.

That's not what I meant. I wondered why that particular day, the day Christians celebrate the birth of Christ, was not the start of the year and was instead 8 days before New Year's Day. By that, I mean why isn't Jesus' birthday called January 1? New Year's Day celebrated Jesus's circumcision which shows his descent from Abraham or soemthing (my covenant/circumcision memory is weak), which means his birthday is 8 days prior, Dec 25, which corresponds with the old Pagan holidays.


Point taken. You do have to give the Christain's props though on co-opting the more widely celebrated pagan festival days of the time.
 
rpm
2008-12-02 04:48:26 PM  
Samsaran: Oh, one more thing, this country was founded on Christian principles and by Christians. Spare me the "deist" crap ... deism was just Christianity shorn of the hocus pocus.

Then how did "Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; " make it by Congress without any debate?
 
2008-12-02 04:48:54 PM  
badLogic: damageddude: badLogic: Actually Christmas is when it is to co-opt the pagan rituals that occurred around the winter solstice.

That's not what I meant. I wondered why that particular day, the day Christians celebrate the birth of Christ, was not the start of the year and was instead 8 days before New Year's Day. By that, I mean why isn't Jesus' birthday called January 1? New Year's Day celebrated Jesus's circumcision which shows his descent from Abraham or soemthing (my covenant/circumcision memory is weak), which means his birthday is 8 days prior, Dec 25, which corresponds with the old Pagan holidays.

Point taken. You do have to give the Christain's props though on co-opting the more widely celebrated pagan festival days of the time.


It is the easiest way to convert people without killing them. Just threaten death, but give them the easy out of calling their holiday something different.
 
2008-12-02 04:49:15 PM  
Samsaran: Well, I came to this thread late just to read all the outrage filled posts and I was not disappointed. It is fun indeed to see the God haters in their full righteous indignation. Still, we all know that such a law would be unconstitutional and would never make it into law ... not even in Utah.

Oh, one more thing, this country was founded on Christian Humanistic principles and by Christians Humans. Spare me the "deist" crap ... deism was just Christianity shorn of the hocus pocus. However, our founders were enlightened men and were inclusive with respect to other faiths. The Christians Rationalists of this nation have been repaid for their inclusiveness by a campaign of intolerance by a small minority of atheists, Jews and Muslims Religious Bigots. Well, no good deed goes unpunished.


/FTFY
//I think you seem to be ignoring the wealth of actual quotes provided above by those Deist Forefathers.
///Howzabout Dumbinionist? I think you've earned that tag.
 
2008-12-02 04:51:00 PM  
Samsaran: Well, I came to this thread late just to read all the outrage filled posts and I was not disappointed. It is fun indeed to see the God haters in their full righteous indignation. Still, we all know that such a law would be unconstitutional and would never make it into law ... not even in Utah.

Oh, one more thing, this country was founded on Christian principles and by Christians. Spare me the "deist" crap ... deism was just Christianity shorn of the hocus pocus. However, our founders were enlightened men and were inclusive with respect to other faiths. The Christians of this nation have been repaid for their inclusiveness by a campaign of intolerance by a small minority of atheists, Jews and Muslims. Well, no good deed goes unpunished.


I agree with everything you said except that "no good deed goes unpunished." I prefer, "no, good deeds go unpunished."

Everyone should know that it isn't the good deed that is punished.

Otherwise great post though.
 
2008-12-02 04:52:34 PM  
captain_heroic44: The Jewish employee in a predominantly Christian area who wished customers a happy Chaunaka, or the Muslim who wished customers a happy rahmadan, would quickly arouse the ire of--guess who--right wing Christian nutjobs, who would complain about the employee until the employee was either told to stop it or fired. I promise you, Christian customers who were wished a "Happy Saturnalia" by a Wiccan retail employee would be offended, and would complain. It would happen.

So? People get offended about all kinds of stuff. The correct approach is to let them be offended and take their business elsewhere not to side with their inane percieved slights and accomodate them. It is not appropriate to require people to NOT freely express their own religion.

We aren't talking about people wearing "Your God is dead" t-shirts or saying "fark your religious holiday!", or even wearing "Christmas is a lie" buttons. We are talking about people who are inviting others to join them in a celebration. This invitation can be declined.

I have no beef with companies that want to be efficient by printing and advertising materials all saying "Happy Holidyas" as described above instead of printing out various versions for every major demographic. That's just being cost-effective, and it's their money to spend. But a line is being crossed when a company forbids employees from freely expressing their religion in an utterly non-offensive way. And employees shouldn;t stand for it either. Not cashiers, not management, not buyers, not dock workers, not the President.

Capitulating to nonsensical offense whores is never good policy.
 
2008-12-02 04:55:31 PM  
BojanglesPaladin:

Thirdly, (and related to the second), in the last 4 or 5 decades, we have seen a steady removal of 'Christian' laws. Abortion has been untouched, blue laws have been repealed, prayer in school is gone, Sodomy laws have been struck down, gambling is more widespread and legal, prostitution has been legalized in places, etc. etc. In a nation that is overwhelmingly Christian, it is clear that there is not a concerted effort to impose Christianity on the populace, but in fact the reverse would seem to be true.


In the past decade, there has been a clear effort to impose Christianity by force. Within the past week, even, Fark posted a link regarding the lawsuit by military personnel against a mandatory Dominionist suicide prevention presentation for US Air Force Psychiatric personnel. The gist of the presentation was that, from a psychiatric perspective, airmen should be converted to Protestant Christianity to prevent them from committing suicide.

Maybe for some reason you missed that. I get the impression you're not well schooled at all in the assorted victories of the Dominionist movement. Or maybe you are, and you're just downplaying them intentionally. Vocal the Dominionists are. Impotent they are not, especially when the Republicans held power.

The very resolution which is the topic of this thread is an example of Dominionist exertion of power. Though it is only a resolution, it is still the exertion of the state to express the preference for Christianity against an inclusive, secular society which welcomes religions other than Christianity.

And, of course, the effort to repeal the successes of those who would give us a free society in which every individual has a choice on matters like abortion, when and where they consume liquor, whether they pray, of their own volition on school property, instead of at the command of school authorities, and whether or not they gamble or engage in prostitution are themselves Dominionist efforts. In this decade, Dominionists have succeeded in shifting the median justice of the Supreme Court one to the right, and packing the federal courts with activist Domininonist judges dedicated to undermining our rights and freedoms.

Additionally, Dominionists have succeeded in banning federally funded stem cell research, having a gag order placed on talk about abortion for physicians who receive federal moneys, and getting gay marriage and adoption banned in many states.

Vocal, yes. Impotent, no. Yes, the latter half of the 20th century was, in general, a success for proponents of a free society. But the last decade has seen a major, and generally successful effort by Dominionists to roll back those efforts.



 
2008-12-02 04:58:27 PM  
Samsaran: Well, I came to this thread late just to read all the outrage filled posts and I was not disappointed. It is fun indeed to see the God haters in their full righteous indignation. Still, we all know that such a law would be unconstitutional and would never make it into law ... not even in Utah.

Oh, one more thing, this country was founded on Christian principles and by Christians. Spare me the "deist" crap ... deism was just Christianity shorn of the hocus pocus. However, our founders were enlightened men and were inclusive with respect to other faiths. The Christians of this nation have been repaid for their inclusiveness by a campaign of intolerance by a small minority of atheists, Jews and Muslims. Well, no good deed goes unpunished.


Would that be the original "inclusiveness" where the founding fathers murdered the local "savages" or this new "inclusiveness" in which people in Utah are forced to say "merry christmas?"
 
2008-12-02 05:02:03 PM  
Helios1182: They don't follow the teachings of Christ in any way.

Many of the founding fathers were in fact Christian. Many were more properly diests. Many were church goers, many were not. All felt that it was a matter of duty and honor as an American to not only tolerate, but actively embrace diverse religions, and that religion on the whole was a GOOD thing that brought about the betterment of man. See George Washington's thoughts on army chaplins for instance. See the specific accomidations made for jews and even 'mooslims' and 'hindoos' in the founding documents.

And Thomas Jefferson's comments about the perversion of Christianity had to do with the degree to which the teachings of Jesus had been corrupted and perverted by the organized church, and should not be read as a blanket denouncement of Christianity itself, but in the same vein as much of the protestant reclamation and enlightenment thinking of his time. He was decrying the bathwater, not necessarily the baby. But even if you do treat it as a blanket denouncement, you should remember that Jefferson's views on a wide range of topics were not shared by many of his fellow founding fathers and often actively and vigorously opposed. Jefferson is not a good choice for general representative of the founding fathers. He tends to be the exception more often than the rule.
 
2008-12-02 05:04:10 PM  
BojanglesPaladin: captain_heroic44: The Jewish employee in a predominantly Christian area who wished customers a happy Chaunaka, or the Muslim who wished customers a happy rahmadan, would quickly arouse the ire of--guess who--right wing Christian nutjobs, who would complain about the employee until the employee was either told to stop it or fired. I promise you, Christian customers who were wished a "Happy Saturnalia" by a Wiccan retail employee would be offended, and would complain. It would happen.

So? People get offended about all kinds of stuff. The correct approach is to let them be offended and take their business elsewhere not to side with their inane percieved slights and accomodate them. It is not appropriate to require people to NOT freely express their own religion.

We aren't talking about people wearing "Your God is dead" t-shirts or saying "fark your religious holiday!", or even wearing "Christmas is a lie" buttons. We are talking about people who are inviting others to join them in a celebration. This invitation can be declined.

I have no beef with companies that want to be efficient by printing and advertising materials all saying "Happy Holidyas" as described above instead of printing out various versions for every major demographic. That's just being cost-effective, and it's their money to spend. But a line is being crossed when a company forbids employees from freely expressing their religion in an utterly non-offensive way. And employees shouldn;t stand for it either. Not cashiers, not management, not buyers, not dock workers, not the President.


There's no line being crossed. Employers routinely ask that their employees not wear religious parephenalia of any kind on the job. They do so because they want to maintain an atmosphere in which all customers feel welcome, not just members of the retail workers' religions.

Capitulating to nonsensical offense whores is never good policy.


Exactly. Which is why retailers are best to instruct their employees to say "happy holidays." The nonsensical offense whores here are Christians who are offended by "happy holidays." But it's not nonsensical for someone to be a bit miffed if they're wished the wrong holiday greeting. It shows interpersonal disrespect.
 
2008-12-02 05:08:12 PM  
captain_heroic44: Within the past week, even, Fark posted a link regarding the lawsuit by military personnel against a mandatory Dominionist suicide prevention presentation for US Air Force Psychiatric personnel.

That is not force, and tell me... how succesful was that again?

The very resolution which is the topic of this thread is an example of Dominionist exertion of power.

LOL. You mean the not yet written, but only talked about IDEA of maybe trying to pass a non-binding resolution in a state legislature with no other named supportersthat has not even been submitted as a bill much less co-sponsored or voted on?

Yes. Truly thes dominionist boogeymen are POWERFUL! Behold the might with which they can TALK about TRYING to do something as powerful as wagging a finger at people for saying "Happy Holidays!". I too tremble in my boots and begin making arrangements to move the family to Canada to avoid the coming theocracy!

But the last decade has seen a major, and generally successful effort by Dominionists to roll back those efforts.

What do you count as 'generally succesful'? Because where I stand, 'christian law' is losing ground, not gaining.
 
2008-12-02 05:09:20 PM  
I have a feeling this has nothing to do with religion. When politicians make a big deal about something unimportant but emotionally charged, chances are they are simply placing a distraction. The question is, what is a conservative politician trying to distract the people in Utah from? The economy? Bush's mad dash to make laws? Some local issue?
 
2008-12-02 05:09:42 PM  
Santos L. Halper Actually, it is (and always has been) official Mormon doctrine that Jesus was born in the spring. April 6 is the date that is given usually, but I don't know if that is "official doctrine" or not.

That would explain why my highschool boyfriend, who was Mormon, was such a pompous ass. He probably thought sharing his birthday with that date made him the second third coming of Christ.
 
2008-12-02 05:17:55 PM  
BojanglesPaladin

I dunno. I would probably count two terms as POTUS as "generally successful." That's just me, though. I don't ever aim very high.
 
2008-12-02 05:19:19 PM  
BojanglesPaladin: Helios1182: They don't follow the teachings of Christ in any way.

Many of the founding fathers were in fact Christian. Many were more properly diests. Many were church goers, many were not. All felt that it was a matter of duty and honor as an American to not only tolerate, but actively embrace diverse religions, and that religion on the whole was a GOOD thing that brought about the betterment of man. See George Washington's thoughts on army chaplins for instance. See the specific accomidations made for jews and even 'mooslims' and 'hindoos' in the founding documents.

And Thomas Jefferson's comments about the perversion of Christianity had to do with the degree to which the teachings of Jesus had been corrupted and perverted by the organized church, and should not be read as a blanket denouncement of Christianity itself, but in the same vein as much of the protestant reclamation and enlightenment thinking of his time. He was decrying the bathwater, not necessarily the baby. But even if you do treat it as a blanket denouncement, you should remember that Jefferson's views on a wide range of topics were not shared by many of his fellow founding fathers and often actively and vigorously opposed. Jefferson is not a good choice for general representative of the founding fathers. He tends to be the exception more often than the rule.


True, but I was really responding to the post that said they were all Christians or deists (which are really Christians). They held a host of beliefs and were by no means homogeneously Christian.
 
2008-12-02 05:20:02 PM  
BojanglesPaladin: captain_heroic44: Within the past week, even, Fark posted a link regarding the lawsuit by military personnel against a mandatory Dominionist suicide prevention presentation for US Air Force Psychiatric personnel.

That is not force, and tell me... how succesful was that again?


It is force. It is more force than is involved in the retail store situation. These are US Air Force psychiatric workers being subjected to a mandatory Dominionist presentation, instructing them to approach their work in a Dominionist way.

It was totally successful. To date, the presenter has given the presentation, and received no discipline for his conduct whatsoever. Slides from the Power Point presentation are going to be used as evidence in a lawsuit by military personnel alleging a pervasive pattern and practice of enforced Christian religious practice during the Bush years. This isn't the only instance of this kind of conduct The slides, if you see them, are indisputably religious, anti-science, and egregiously unconstitutional. This is the world envisioned by conservative Christians--one of enforced religious practice.


The very resolution which is the topic of this thread is an example of Dominionist exertion of power.

LOL. You mean the not yet written, but only talked about IDEA of maybe trying to pass a non-binding resolution in a state legislature with no other named supportersthat has not even been submitted as a bill much less co-sponsored or voted on?

Yes. Truly thes dominionist boogeymen are POWERFUL! Behold the might with which they can TALK about TRYING to do something as powerful as wagging a finger at people for saying "Happy Holidays!". I too tremble in my boots and begin making arrangements to move the family to Canada to avoid the coming theocracy!


Ooh. Sarcasm. Good argument.

Yes. The fact that a resolution will probably pass asking retailers to say "merry Christmas" is evidence of the power of conservative Christianity to impose theocratic will. I stand by that.


But the last decade has seen a major, and generally successful effort by Dominionists to roll back those efforts.

What do you count as 'generally succesful'? Because where I stand, 'christian law' is losing ground, not gaining.


1) Shifting the median Supreme Court justice one to the right.

2) Banning federal funds for stem-cell research.

3) Banning a certain medical procedure for abortions.

4) Banning gay marriage in many states.

5) Banning gay adoption in some states.

6) Packing the federal courts with conservative activist judges.

7) Gag order on abortion talk by physicians who receive federal funds.

8) Pervasive pattern of unpunished enforced religious practice in the military.
 
2008-12-02 05:22:53 PM  
BojanglesPaladin: And Thomas Jefferson's comments about the perversion of Christianity had to do with the degree to which the teachings of Jesus had been corrupted and perverted by the organized church, and should not be read as a blanket denouncement of Christianity itself, but in the same vein as much of the protestant reclamation and enlightenment thinking of his time. He was decrying the bathwater, not necessarily the baby. But even if you do treat it as a blanket denouncement, you should remember that Jefferson's views on a wide range of topics were not shared by many of his fellow founding fathers and often actively and vigorously opposed. Jefferson is not a good choice for general representative of the founding fathers. He tends to be the exception more often than the rule.

Very nicely said. Welcome to my very underpopulated favorites list.
 
2008-12-02 05:25:22 PM  
schmarmbly: Would that be the original "inclusiveness" where the founding fathers murdered the local "savages" or this new "inclusiveness" in which people in Utah are forced to say "merry christmas?"

Well, it was the inclusiveness that permitted you to worship as you pleased without pogroms, hangings or burnings at the stake. This may not seem like much to you now ... but in the 17th and 18th centuries it was quite enlightened.
 
2008-12-02 05:28:46 PM  
vonster: Tastes Like Chicken: market forces and trends and by changing national demographics

Can you define these?


Been working, not avoiding. Ok, I'll have a go at it.

For starters, immigration. The demographics of American consumers aren't even close to what they were in the 80s, let alone the 60s. As companies attempt to appeal to a broader range of people, they are going to change the way they represent themselves. One of those ways is by attempting to be as innocuous as possible during their best season.

As for market forces and trends they kind of go hand in hand. The big box retailers pay as little as possible to their employees and attempt to streamline the entire process to get you in and out as fast as possible. As these giant companies are pushing out the little guys, like it or not things are getting homogenized. Maybe your old local toy store guy knew who you were, and cared enough to go out of his way to make sure he gave you the appropriate greeting. But not now. The local guy is gone, out of business, and the big box toy store employs about 6-7 kids for a 15000 square foot store, and every decoration in the place gets market researched and tested.

So the combination of a growing diverse consumer demographic and the trend towards bigger and more impersonal stores creates what you see, meaningless, friendly greetings that apply to as many people as possible and take absolutely the least possible brain-power for the person giving them to deliver. It's called homogenization. Yes, it's a bad thing, but it's not a war on Christmas.
 
2008-12-02 05:30:34 PM  
captain_heroic44: Employers routinely ask that their employees not wear religious parephenalia of any kind on the job.

Wishing someone a Merry Christmas When it is Christmas is not the same thing. And so that you know, employers do not forbid the wearing of religous jewelry, so long as it is within the dress code rules. Wearing a 3 foot silver cross might be a problem. But because it is 3 foot, not because it is a cross.

But it's not nonsensical for someone to be a bit miffed if they're wished the wrong holiday greeting. It shows interpersonal disrespect

That is nonsensical. There is no disrespect if you have no way of knowing what the other person's religion is (and short of wearing a turban, or being dressed as a hasidic Jew who can tell in a retail enviornment?). But even then, there is no disrespect in wishing someone be happy during the time of Christmas, or Rhamadon, or Chanuka. It is an invitation. If you said "Happy Independance Day!" at a 4th of July party, you are celebrating the holiday, not requesting an englishmen to change his citizenship.

schmarmbly: I dunno. I would probably count two terms as POTUS as "generally successful."

Maybe you don;t know. Can you point to what 'christian law' or 'dominionist' policy GW has implemented? And I'll give you one for free : Pushing for abstinance teachings with African AIDs funds.

Now you go. Show me the new 'Christian laws' here in America.
 
2008-12-02 05:31:15 PM  
elemenopy: Santos L. Halper Actually, it is (and always has been) official Mormon doctrine that Jesus was born in the spring. April 6 is the date that is given usually, but I don't know if that is "official doctrine" or not.

That would explain why my highschool boyfriend, who was Mormon, was such a pompous ass. He probably thought sharing his birthday with that date made him the second third coming of Christ.


To be fair, MOST mormons are pompous asses.

Trust me, this is 20 years of experience with them.

It's generally considered good churchgoers if they avoid bad influence - Funny thing, Most mormons consider non-mormons bad influence.

They frown on immodesty, swearing, drinking, smoking, gambling, caffiene, 'lascivious' music and at one point, dancing. Footloose was based on Lehi, in Utah.

Hell, They even consider showing above the shoulders and knees immodest.

Even the word piss is considered a swear.
 
2008-12-02 05:32:16 PM  
Except it didn't happen that way. Pogroms, hangings and burning at the stake for religious reasons was all the rage. Our history is full of examples of religious persecution. We killed all those Indians because they were "savages" (read - not the right religion.) Innocent women were burned at the stake for being "witches."
And it does seem like much to me right now. I'm very upset that christian dominionists in power in Utah want to tell me how to worship as I please.
 
2008-12-02 05:32:53 PM  
Samsaran: schmarmbly: Would that be the original "inclusiveness" where the founding fathers murdered the local "savages" or this new "inclusiveness" in which people in Utah are forced to say "merry christmas?"

Well, it was the inclusiveness that permitted you to worship as you pleased without pogroms, hangings or burnings at the stake. This may not seem like much to you now ... but in the 17th and 18th centuries it was quite enlightened.


You do realize that a big reason we have a separation clause is because of the Puritans? They were tired of the government telling them how to conduct themselves within their faith and worship. It protects both Church and State.
 
2008-12-02 05:34:29 PM  
Samsaran: Oh, one more thing, this country was founded on Christian principles and by white Christians who owned slaves.

FTFY! The Founders may have been Christian and wanted to give birth to a "Christian nation," but they also felt that some humans were only worth 60% of others. The Founders were wrong about many things...
 
2008-12-02 05:35:17 PM  
That freebie made it too easy. Abstinence only sex education in the US. Funding increases in faith based initiatives. Killing funding for stem cell research. Banning gay marriage (not Bush's deal, but theocratic nonetheless.) Shall I go on?
 
2008-12-02 05:38:22 PM  
Diogenes: Samsaran: schmarmbly: Would that be the original "inclusiveness" where the founding fathers murdered the local "savages" or this new "inclusiveness" in which people in Utah are forced to say "merry christmas?"

Well, it was the inclusiveness that permitted you to worship as you pleased without pogroms, hangings or burnings at the stake. This may not seem like much to you now ... but in the 17th and 18th centuries it was quite enlightened.

You do realize that a big reason we have a separation clause is because of the Puritans? They were tired of the government telling them how to conduct themselves within their faith and worship. It protects both Church and State.


I'm not getting your point. You say the christians are so inclusive, then side with me that laws had to be enacted to keep everybody safe from being killed by their lovely "inclusiveness."
Are you in favor of the separation clause? I am. Buttars is obviously not. What are you trying to say here.
 
2008-12-02 05:39:33 PM  
patrick767: "Go fark yourself!"
"Thanks, I think I will!"
/fapfapfapfapfapfap
//what?


Now that's one greeting exchange I think wouldn't go over well in public... unless you're into that...
 
2008-12-02 05:40:21 PM  
oops, yelled at the wrong guy. Sorry Diogenes
 
2008-12-02 05:43:43 PM  
vonster: Cyberluddite: vonster: retailers and such have indeed been pressured over the last decade or so to move away from what has been the traditional greetings by a small, selfish and cynical part of our society. That Christians would be a little irked by this should be understandable.

Poor baby. I guess that's just a cross you'll have to bear.

I imagine you feel that's very clever.


I think it's a testament to his humor. :D
 
2008-12-02 05:47:37 PM  
schmarmbly: oops, yelled at the wrong guy. Sorry Diogenes

NP. But you did confuse me ;-)
 
2008-12-02 05:50:27 PM  
pb-crunch: FTFY! The Founders may have been Christian and wanted to give birth to a "Christian nation," but they also felt that some humans were only worth 60% of others. The Founders were wrong about many things...

Not all people in revolutionary times approved of slavery. In fact, quite a significant number did not. Moreover, the abolitionist movement was lead by Christians. The black Christian church was a source of great strength to our enslaved fellow Americans, giving them hope and teaching the lesson of Moses and the Exodus from slavery by the Israelites. Ultimately we fought a war in which many thousands of white Christian men fought and died for Union and for freedom for all Americans.
 
2008-12-02 05:59:05 PM  
Helios1182: True, but I was really responding to the post that said they were all Christians or deists (which are really Christians). They held a host of beliefs and were by no means homogeneously Christian.

I think that 'diest' as applied to the Founding Fathers can generally be understood to mean 'soft christian' (with a few important exceptions), but in modern times, I'm not sure it is as applicable. Certainly the term definition is used to describe something different from Christianity.

I think we are in general agreement.

captain_heroic44:
1) Shifting the median Supreme Court justice one to the right.
2) Banning federal funds for stem-cell research.
3) Banning a certain medical procedure for abortions.
4) Banning gay marriage in many states.
5) Banning gay adoption in some states.
6) Packing the federal courts with conservative activist judges.
7) Gag order on abortion talk by physicians who receive federal funds.
8) Pervasive pattern of unpunished enforced religious practice in the military.


Many of these may be potentialy sources of problems, but they are NOT any actual changes in major laws. And Banning things like Gay marraige doesn't apply here. There has never been such a thing as a gay marraige in American civil law, and therefore no one has changed anything pro or con. And there are some states that have legalized it, so it's probably a wash. Same for most of your 'bans'. it's a status quo, not a change. And when you consider how often thsi stuff gets knocked down or repealed, I think you are proving my point with weak counter-examples. In short, if that is the best you can muster, then I think you have proven my point - they are largely innefective and are losing ground.
 
2008-12-02 06:00:11 PM  
Samsaran: Very nicely said. Welcome to my very underpopulated favorites list.

Thank you. It's comfy in here :)
 
2008-12-02 06:05:54 PM  
schmarmbly: I'm very upset that christian dominionists in power in Utah want to tell me how to worship as I please.

You live in Utah? Cause otherwuise he ain;t telling you shiat.

More to the point, you might notice that this is nothing more than "I'm thinking about planning to write a bit of non-binding crap that no one has gone on record as supporting and which doesn't actually exist, has not been brought to the floor of my little state, much less get voted on and will never see the light of day, but I wanted to get my name in the papers during Christmas by dragging out this same stupid sopabox just like I do every year." and will never go anywhere.

Might I suggest that you save your righteous indignation for something that actually EXISTS?
 
2008-12-02 06:07:51 PM  
Woops! 3 post rule.

I've killed the thread and must now banish myself :(
 
2008-12-02 06:28:38 PM  
/ Checks pulse.

Barely alive.
 
Displayed 50 of 417 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report