(NEWS) Today's Cultural Warfare Update
Nov. 26th, 2005 10:10 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
solarbirdShort update today; most of them actually have taken the long weekend off, yay.
I've been thinking of writing up an article about this whole effort to force retailers, via boycotts and other pressure, to use 'Merry Christmas' - and specifically not use 'Happy Holidays' or other language inclusive of other holidays and other religions. There is a point to discuss, aside from the obvious one of THANKS FOR TRASHING THE HOLIDAY SPIRIT, ASSHOLES.
I personally am starting to wonder, when I see 'Merry Christmas' posted, whether that's a political statement. Or, if it's not one they'd have preferred to make, whether they've given in to fundamentalist pressure. Most of the time, intellectually, I know it's not - particularly not around here, where fundamentalist strength is low. But, I still wonder.
I never used to think things like that. But now in the second year of CHRISTMAS CHRISTMAS UBER ALLES, I'm starting to.
I'm not a Christian. I'm also not an athiest. But I've never minded "Merry Christmas," and I always thought that people who would get bitchy about that really needed to get lives. Most Americans identify as Christian. They've got a big holiday this time of year. I like the lights very much; they're pretty, and I always go on walks to look at the displays.
Sure, the assumption of Christianity is a little annoying sometimes, but not so much as to make that big a deal out of it, and National Jews and Pagans Go to the Movies Day is pretty fun too. "Merry Christmas" a bother? Not hardly.
Now, though, it's starting to be, because they've decided to make it one. Because they're out there threatening people who want to be a little more inclusive in their marketing, and telling them to stop. It's not just "you must use Merry Christmas;" it's "you must not use anything else, either." (Concerned Women for America has specifically talked, and I've quoted them verbatim in these updates, about companies "trying to have it both ways." The demand is for "Merry Christmas" only.) Aside from the high hypocrisy of fundamentalist Christians using the annual retail shopping orgy to demand exclusive recognition of the religion they've pretty much distorted out of all recognisability, it's the injection of organised fundamentalist boot-stomping that upsets me.
It's the demand to hang the Christian sign in the window, lest they do their best to ruin you. It's the demand to fall in, to live as they want, to obey their will here, too, as in everything else. They've been saying not to market to queers for a while, mostly because that acknowledges we exist. Now, apparently, don't market to Jews or atheist or neopagans or anyone else who has a holiday now either, because that's "banning Christmas."
It's Christianity only, by order of of them. And when I see that, now, I wonder whether somebody's company has decided to fall in to line, to walk away from everyone else in favour of the dominionist fuckhead demand of the week. And I do resent that.
And now, the news.
This just kind of amused me - Focus on the Family's approved bibles list. They'll take nonliteral translations, they'll take cultural paraphrases - but only as long as they are not paraphrased in such a way as to make them not "gender specific" in rhetoric; "man" should be used, and not "human"; in almost all cases, male pronouns should be used; in cases where the gender in rhetoric is not male, "one" or "a person" can be used. In no cases listed should female pronouns be used. Also, there's apparently one out there which is abbreviated NirV, which is close enough to NERV that I luled;
Arizona Concerned Women for America "gears up" for anti-marriage, anti-civil-unions ballot initiative;
American Family Association claims they are hurting Target's holiday sales with their boycott;
Christian Civic League of Maine gears up for legislative push after popular defeat in their ballot attempt to overturn Maine's GBLT civil protections law;
Fundamentalist and conservative Christian leaders urge hard line against gayfolk.
----- 1 -----
Focus on the Family
FAQ
Long URL here
Question: What Bible translations are recommended by Focus on the Family? I heard that Focus on the Family doesn't recommend gender-neutral Bible translations. What translations does Focus recommend?
Answer: Since Focus does not employ textual or translation experts, we have relied on outside scholars for advice regarding Bible translations -- notably the conservative leaders who signed the Colorado Springs Guidelines for Translation (this link will take you to The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood organization's Web site) in 1997.
Based on their input, we use or recommend the following Bible versions:
Gender-Specific Translations
Essentially Literal, "word-for-word" translations:
KJV - King James Version
NKJV - New King James Version
NASB - New American Standard Bible
ESV - English Standard Version
HCSB - Holman Christian Standard Bible
RSV - Revised Standard Version
Dynamic Equivalence, "phrase-for-phrase" translations:
NIV - New International Version
NIrV - New International Reader's Version (1998 Revision)
Gender-Specific Paraphrases* (culturally adapted imaginative renderings of the Bible)
LB - The Living Bible -- Paraphrased by Kenneth Taylor
MSG - The Message by Eugene Peterson
* Please note that if a paraphrase is used, it should always be in conjunction with one or more of the above "regular" Bible translations. Paraphrases can be helpful as a form of commentary or for inspiration, but they should not be one's only source of reading.
Gender-Neutral Translations
Focus on the Family does NOT use or recommend the following gender-neutral Bibles:
TNIV - Today's New International Version
NLT - New Living Translation
NRSV - New Revised Standard Version
NCV - New Century Version
CEV - Contemporary English Version
GW - God's Word
NIVI - New International Version Inclusive Language Edition
----- 2 -----
Arizona Gears Up for the Battle to Save Marriage
Concerned Women for America
11/25/2005
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/9520/FIELD/misc/index.htm
Tammy Bellinger, CWA State Director for Arizona, says her state is in the midst of a signature-collection drive. Residents there are hoping to get a measure to protect marriage and ban civil unions on the ballot. That has been the focus of 2005, and it’s a focus that will continue until the June 2006. Members of CWA of Arizona have also launched a prayer and encouragement ministry to state legislators that is meeting with success. Click here ( http://www.cwfa.org/play.asp?id=cw20051125a ) to hear Tammy share the highlights of these efforts and her hopes for the year ahead.
----- 3 -----
Target Getting the Message - Stock Drops 7%
American Family Association
[No date visible]
http://www.afa.net/targetboycott.asp
"There is an anti-Christian bias in this country, and it is more on display at Christmas season than any other time." – Bill O'Reilly, The O'Reilly Factor, Fox News Channel – (Speaking about the decision of Target and other stores to ban the use of "Merry Christmas" in their stores and advertising.)
On October 7 we brought to your attention that Target was banning the Salvation Army's kettles from the front of their stores. Now we've learned Target is also banning the use of "Merry Christmas" from their in-store promotions and from their advertising in papers, TV, etc.
Your efforts are having an impact. USA Today (11/16/05) announced that "Target alarmed investors by saying projected sales at stores open a year in November would miss the estimated 4% to 6% growth. Shares of Target fell $4.13 to $54.30." (A 7% drop.)
Target's ban of the Salvation Army and "Merry Christmas" expresses the same attitude toward Christianity as that held by Michael Newdow, who wants to ban "In God We Trust" from our currency and "under God" from our Pledge of Allegiance.
AFA is asking individuals to boycott Target during the upcoming Thanksgiving weekend—the busiest shopping weekend of the year. Please share this request to boycott Target on that weekend with friends, family and members of your church and Sunday school class.
Please sign the petition to Target. This petition will also be sent to other major chains banning the use of "Merry Christmas" including Costco, BJ's, Wal-Mart, Sears/K-Mart and Kohl's. It is basically too late to change their policies this year, but we can change it for next year. Last year we called for a boycott of Federated Stores because they banned "Merry Christmas." This year they are using "Merry Christmas!"
A successful boycott of Target will send a message to every company!
This is your opportunity to make your voice heard. Please act today and then forward this to friends and family.
[More at URL]
----- 4 -----
Christian Activist Foresees Uphill Marriage Protection Battle in Maine
By Chad Groening
AgapePress
November 23, 2005
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/11/232005c.asp
(AgapePress) - A spokesman for the Christian Civic League of Maine (CCLM) says the recent rejection of pro-family values by a majority of Maine voters indicates a spiritual void in the state. The voters there said no to a "people's veto" that would have nullified a bill passed by the legislature giving special rights to homosexuals.
Maine voters had rejected special rights for homosexuals in 1998. However, pro-homosexual activists are celebrating across the state today, after citizens recently opted not to use a people's veto to repeal the bill pushed by the state's liberal governor and legislature -- a measure conferring special rights on gays and lesbians.
CCLM legislative liaison Tim Russell believes the voters in his state need to be made aware that "Pandora has been let out of the box." Concerned that this victory by the homosexual lobby will pave the way for the approval of same-sex marriage statewide, he asserts, "Clearly, we're going to have to address the officials that we elect. We're going to have to start to educate the Maine citizens."
One of the first issues to be addressed, Russell contends, is the spiritual climate in the New England state. "We have throughout this campaign spoken God's word, his truth, in love; and it's been turned around and spouted back that we are bigots," he says. "And clearly, scripture tells us that we can expect this." The anti-family opposition has been so vicious, he notes, that pro-family voters have been accused of hate speech simply for wearing buttons supporting traditional marriage.
The CCLM spokesman concludes that, if there is to be any hope of shoring up traditional marriage against its attackers, pro-family forces are going to have to take political action. "We could never hope to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a man and a woman in this state -- and it must be done through the legislature in the state of Maine -- until we change the House and the Senate here in the state -- and, actually, the governorship," he says.
[More at URL]
----- 5 -----
'Compromises' on Human Sexuality Undercut Biblical Standards, Say Renewal Leaders
By Jody Brown
Agape Press
November 22, 2005
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/11/222005b.asp
(AgapePress) - A coalition of denominational renewal groups is warning Christians in America that an "assault" on biblical standards regarding sexuality -- in the guise of supposed "compromises" -- is in reality subverting those standards so that church bodies and officials can disregard them whenever they wish.
For decades, it seems, several mainline Protestant denominations have wrestled with the issue of homosexuality among their clergy, their laity, and society at large -- and how to deal with it in their official denominational procedures and doctrine. Seemingly unwilling to simply declare the lifestyle as sinful, instead they have taken to adopting different strategies toward homosexuality. The Episcopal Church USA, for example, concluded in 1996 that traditional Christian teachings opposing homosexuality were not "core doctrine." Eventually ECUSA consecrated the first openly homosexual bishop, V. Gene Robinson, who now oversees the Diocese of New Hampshire.
Other examples include the United Methodist Church, which last year almost approved a resolution that would have added to the Book of Discipline a phrase "recogniz[ing] that Christians disagree" on the question of whether the practice of homosexuality is or is not compatible with Christian teaching. In a similar vein, the Churchwide Assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America this year turned away a proposal that would have permitted exceptions to be granted even though ELCA ministers would be expected to "abstain from homosexual sexual relationships."
And next year, the Presbyterian Church (USA) is expected to consider a resolution that would permit local churches to deem as "non-essential" the constitutional requirement of "fidelity in the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness."
While those who hold a liberal theology might consider such strategies as progressive, the Association for Church Renewal (ACR) -- a roundtable of conservative leaders from these denominations and others such as the American Baptist Churches, the United Church of Christ, the Church of the Brethren, and the United Church of Canada -- sees the moves as a "compromise" intended to win the Church's affirmation of homosexual acts. That, says the ACR, is an attempt to indirectly "subvert the [biblical] standards" and to invent "procedural devices permitting church bodies and officials to disregard the standards at will."
[More at URL]
I've been thinking of writing up an article about this whole effort to force retailers, via boycotts and other pressure, to use 'Merry Christmas' - and specifically not use 'Happy Holidays' or other language inclusive of other holidays and other religions. There is a point to discuss, aside from the obvious one of THANKS FOR TRASHING THE HOLIDAY SPIRIT, ASSHOLES.
I personally am starting to wonder, when I see 'Merry Christmas' posted, whether that's a political statement. Or, if it's not one they'd have preferred to make, whether they've given in to fundamentalist pressure. Most of the time, intellectually, I know it's not - particularly not around here, where fundamentalist strength is low. But, I still wonder.
I never used to think things like that. But now in the second year of CHRISTMAS CHRISTMAS UBER ALLES, I'm starting to.
I'm not a Christian. I'm also not an athiest. But I've never minded "Merry Christmas," and I always thought that people who would get bitchy about that really needed to get lives. Most Americans identify as Christian. They've got a big holiday this time of year. I like the lights very much; they're pretty, and I always go on walks to look at the displays.
Sure, the assumption of Christianity is a little annoying sometimes, but not so much as to make that big a deal out of it, and National Jews and Pagans Go to the Movies Day is pretty fun too. "Merry Christmas" a bother? Not hardly.
Now, though, it's starting to be, because they've decided to make it one. Because they're out there threatening people who want to be a little more inclusive in their marketing, and telling them to stop. It's not just "you must use Merry Christmas;" it's "you must not use anything else, either." (Concerned Women for America has specifically talked, and I've quoted them verbatim in these updates, about companies "trying to have it both ways." The demand is for "Merry Christmas" only.) Aside from the high hypocrisy of fundamentalist Christians using the annual retail shopping orgy to demand exclusive recognition of the religion they've pretty much distorted out of all recognisability, it's the injection of organised fundamentalist boot-stomping that upsets me.
It's the demand to hang the Christian sign in the window, lest they do their best to ruin you. It's the demand to fall in, to live as they want, to obey their will here, too, as in everything else. They've been saying not to market to queers for a while, mostly because that acknowledges we exist. Now, apparently, don't market to Jews or atheist or neopagans or anyone else who has a holiday now either, because that's "banning Christmas."
It's Christianity only, by order of of them. And when I see that, now, I wonder whether somebody's company has decided to fall in to line, to walk away from everyone else in favour of the dominionist fuckhead demand of the week. And I do resent that.
And now, the news.
This just kind of amused me - Focus on the Family's approved bibles list. They'll take nonliteral translations, they'll take cultural paraphrases - but only as long as they are not paraphrased in such a way as to make them not "gender specific" in rhetoric; "man" should be used, and not "human"; in almost all cases, male pronouns should be used; in cases where the gender in rhetoric is not male, "one" or "a person" can be used. In no cases listed should female pronouns be used. Also, there's apparently one out there which is abbreviated NirV, which is close enough to NERV that I luled;
Arizona Concerned Women for America "gears up" for anti-marriage, anti-civil-unions ballot initiative;
American Family Association claims they are hurting Target's holiday sales with their boycott;
Christian Civic League of Maine gears up for legislative push after popular defeat in their ballot attempt to overturn Maine's GBLT civil protections law;
Fundamentalist and conservative Christian leaders urge hard line against gayfolk.
----- 1 -----
Focus on the Family
FAQ
Long URL here
Question: What Bible translations are recommended by Focus on the Family? I heard that Focus on the Family doesn't recommend gender-neutral Bible translations. What translations does Focus recommend?
Answer: Since Focus does not employ textual or translation experts, we have relied on outside scholars for advice regarding Bible translations -- notably the conservative leaders who signed the Colorado Springs Guidelines for Translation (this link will take you to The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood organization's Web site) in 1997.
Based on their input, we use or recommend the following Bible versions:
Gender-Specific Translations
Essentially Literal, "word-for-word" translations:
KJV - King James Version
NKJV - New King James Version
NASB - New American Standard Bible
ESV - English Standard Version
HCSB - Holman Christian Standard Bible
RSV - Revised Standard Version
Dynamic Equivalence, "phrase-for-phrase" translations:
NIV - New International Version
NIrV - New International Reader's Version (1998 Revision)
Gender-Specific Paraphrases* (culturally adapted imaginative renderings of the Bible)
LB - The Living Bible -- Paraphrased by Kenneth Taylor
MSG - The Message by Eugene Peterson
* Please note that if a paraphrase is used, it should always be in conjunction with one or more of the above "regular" Bible translations. Paraphrases can be helpful as a form of commentary or for inspiration, but they should not be one's only source of reading.
Gender-Neutral Translations
Focus on the Family does NOT use or recommend the following gender-neutral Bibles:
TNIV - Today's New International Version
NLT - New Living Translation
NRSV - New Revised Standard Version
NCV - New Century Version
CEV - Contemporary English Version
GW - God's Word
NIVI - New International Version Inclusive Language Edition
----- 2 -----
Arizona Gears Up for the Battle to Save Marriage
Concerned Women for America
11/25/2005
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/9520/FIELD/misc/index.htm
Tammy Bellinger, CWA State Director for Arizona, says her state is in the midst of a signature-collection drive. Residents there are hoping to get a measure to protect marriage and ban civil unions on the ballot. That has been the focus of 2005, and it’s a focus that will continue until the June 2006. Members of CWA of Arizona have also launched a prayer and encouragement ministry to state legislators that is meeting with success. Click here ( http://www.cwfa.org/play.asp?id=cw20051125a ) to hear Tammy share the highlights of these efforts and her hopes for the year ahead.
----- 3 -----
Target Getting the Message - Stock Drops 7%
American Family Association
[No date visible]
http://www.afa.net/targetboycott.asp
"There is an anti-Christian bias in this country, and it is more on display at Christmas season than any other time." – Bill O'Reilly, The O'Reilly Factor, Fox News Channel – (Speaking about the decision of Target and other stores to ban the use of "Merry Christmas" in their stores and advertising.)
On October 7 we brought to your attention that Target was banning the Salvation Army's kettles from the front of their stores. Now we've learned Target is also banning the use of "Merry Christmas" from their in-store promotions and from their advertising in papers, TV, etc.
Your efforts are having an impact. USA Today (11/16/05) announced that "Target alarmed investors by saying projected sales at stores open a year in November would miss the estimated 4% to 6% growth. Shares of Target fell $4.13 to $54.30." (A 7% drop.)
Target's ban of the Salvation Army and "Merry Christmas" expresses the same attitude toward Christianity as that held by Michael Newdow, who wants to ban "In God We Trust" from our currency and "under God" from our Pledge of Allegiance.
AFA is asking individuals to boycott Target during the upcoming Thanksgiving weekend—the busiest shopping weekend of the year. Please share this request to boycott Target on that weekend with friends, family and members of your church and Sunday school class.
Please sign the petition to Target. This petition will also be sent to other major chains banning the use of "Merry Christmas" including Costco, BJ's, Wal-Mart, Sears/K-Mart and Kohl's. It is basically too late to change their policies this year, but we can change it for next year. Last year we called for a boycott of Federated Stores because they banned "Merry Christmas." This year they are using "Merry Christmas!"
A successful boycott of Target will send a message to every company!
This is your opportunity to make your voice heard. Please act today and then forward this to friends and family.
[More at URL]
----- 4 -----
Christian Activist Foresees Uphill Marriage Protection Battle in Maine
By Chad Groening
AgapePress
November 23, 2005
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/11/232005c.asp
(AgapePress) - A spokesman for the Christian Civic League of Maine (CCLM) says the recent rejection of pro-family values by a majority of Maine voters indicates a spiritual void in the state. The voters there said no to a "people's veto" that would have nullified a bill passed by the legislature giving special rights to homosexuals.
Maine voters had rejected special rights for homosexuals in 1998. However, pro-homosexual activists are celebrating across the state today, after citizens recently opted not to use a people's veto to repeal the bill pushed by the state's liberal governor and legislature -- a measure conferring special rights on gays and lesbians.
CCLM legislative liaison Tim Russell believes the voters in his state need to be made aware that "Pandora has been let out of the box." Concerned that this victory by the homosexual lobby will pave the way for the approval of same-sex marriage statewide, he asserts, "Clearly, we're going to have to address the officials that we elect. We're going to have to start to educate the Maine citizens."
One of the first issues to be addressed, Russell contends, is the spiritual climate in the New England state. "We have throughout this campaign spoken God's word, his truth, in love; and it's been turned around and spouted back that we are bigots," he says. "And clearly, scripture tells us that we can expect this." The anti-family opposition has been so vicious, he notes, that pro-family voters have been accused of hate speech simply for wearing buttons supporting traditional marriage.
The CCLM spokesman concludes that, if there is to be any hope of shoring up traditional marriage against its attackers, pro-family forces are going to have to take political action. "We could never hope to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a man and a woman in this state -- and it must be done through the legislature in the state of Maine -- until we change the House and the Senate here in the state -- and, actually, the governorship," he says.
[More at URL]
----- 5 -----
'Compromises' on Human Sexuality Undercut Biblical Standards, Say Renewal Leaders
By Jody Brown
Agape Press
November 22, 2005
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/11/222005b.asp
(AgapePress) - A coalition of denominational renewal groups is warning Christians in America that an "assault" on biblical standards regarding sexuality -- in the guise of supposed "compromises" -- is in reality subverting those standards so that church bodies and officials can disregard them whenever they wish.
For decades, it seems, several mainline Protestant denominations have wrestled with the issue of homosexuality among their clergy, their laity, and society at large -- and how to deal with it in their official denominational procedures and doctrine. Seemingly unwilling to simply declare the lifestyle as sinful, instead they have taken to adopting different strategies toward homosexuality. The Episcopal Church USA, for example, concluded in 1996 that traditional Christian teachings opposing homosexuality were not "core doctrine." Eventually ECUSA consecrated the first openly homosexual bishop, V. Gene Robinson, who now oversees the Diocese of New Hampshire.
Other examples include the United Methodist Church, which last year almost approved a resolution that would have added to the Book of Discipline a phrase "recogniz[ing] that Christians disagree" on the question of whether the practice of homosexuality is or is not compatible with Christian teaching. In a similar vein, the Churchwide Assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America this year turned away a proposal that would have permitted exceptions to be granted even though ELCA ministers would be expected to "abstain from homosexual sexual relationships."
And next year, the Presbyterian Church (USA) is expected to consider a resolution that would permit local churches to deem as "non-essential" the constitutional requirement of "fidelity in the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness."
While those who hold a liberal theology might consider such strategies as progressive, the Association for Church Renewal (ACR) -- a roundtable of conservative leaders from these denominations and others such as the American Baptist Churches, the United Church of Christ, the Church of the Brethren, and the United Church of Canada -- sees the moves as a "compromise" intended to win the Church's affirmation of homosexual acts. That, says the ACR, is an attempt to indirectly "subvert the [biblical] standards" and to invent "procedural devices permitting church bodies and officials to disregard the standards at will."
[More at URL]
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-11-26 06:15 pm (UTC)I think I'm going to hit Target tomorrow.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-26 06:37 pm (UTC)I'm an atheist myself, but I still participate in the midwinter lights&gifts&food celebration. Which in these parts is fortunately called 'jul' both by christians and non-christians, so the 'happy holidays' problem doesn't arise.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-26 06:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-26 11:23 pm (UTC)I don't say Happy Holidays either. I use every specific holiday I can find, dang it! I believe I was the only one celebrating Diwali earlier this month, though Eid had a few more takers. Next month, I can say Happy Hanukah and Happy Kwanzaa and Joyful Yule and Good Solstice and Have a Great Longest Night and Happy Saturnalia...and what the heck, Merry Christmas too! And Happy New Year, which I celebrate at Rosh Hashona, the beginning of the school year, Jan 1st, and on the Chinese New Year. I'll celebrate anything that involves chocolate, interesting foods, and/or candles. I just skip the gods part. ;)
Cathy
Politicizing Christmas
Date: 2005-11-27 07:13 pm (UTC)As a Christian I have long thought that the commercialization of Christmas weakened it. Of course, the faith has long been politicized, going back to the first Christian Roman Emperor and probably beyond.
Edgar Rice Burroughs wrote a wonderful parody of Nazi Germany in one of his Venus books. In it a clever man sabotages the dictator's popularity by feeding his ego, and having him require the people to perform silly and demeaning gyrations when saluting his public appearances.
Familiarity - especially trivializing familiarity - can indeed breed contempt.
Stickmaker
no subject
Date: 2005-11-27 09:24 pm (UTC)There is a movement afoot (led by the ACLU among others) to stamp out Christmas completely. It's blatent, and it's obvious, and this will be a worse country for it. We need to bring back public displays of religious holidays on government property, because this is part of what we are and what our society is based on. And yes I think even wiccans should be allowed to put up public displays on government property for their biggest religous holidays too.
It's what we are. Taking it away diminishes all of us, and teaches us that we shouldn't tolerate each other's religous beliefs! And I for one am getting pretty tired of the large amount of Religous Intolerance that -I- run into on an almost daily basis! And I am not a church going, bible thumping, zealot - so if I'm finding it annoying and getting regularly insulted over it, it must be getting pretty bad.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-28 11:26 am (UTC)It's you who seems to have missed the point. Nobody's coming anywhere remotely close to "taking away" your holiday, and the point of the entry is how incredibly evil it is for these people to pretend that anything short of full and total acceptance of your holiday, at the exclusion of everyone elses, is semantically equal to "taking away christmas".
The idea that there's a "movement afoot" to stamp out Christmas is paranoid and retarded. I don't mean that as allegorical or a flame, either. "Just the facts, ma'am."
At least the assertion that all religions should have governmental access and support is less offensive, because it's just as wrong. The inclusion of religion into government is absolutely not "who we are", even if for no other reason than the deadly obvious fact that it's absolutely not even any small part of what our society is based on.
May I take a moment to remind you of our society's foundational document? It reads, in part, "Government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
What you're getting insulted over is just more of the same... When we fail to let your religion walk all over us, you scream out "intolerance!". At least you seem to dissent from your co-conspirators who then scream "church and state!" if anyone else's views are tolerated.
And, not for nothing, but let's consider the origin of your oh-so-important-to-your-faith religious holiday, shall we? It was an deliberate overwrite of pagan and jewish holidays that pre-date it by a thousand years, as part of a blatant political maneuver to bring people under the control of the church.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-28 06:09 pm (UTC)First you ignore all of the attempts to stamp out Christmas by renaming Christmas trees as 'holiday trees', as well as the new prohibitions on people saying 'Merry Christmas' on pain of being fired.
Then you mis-quote a section of the Bill of Rights that you obviously do not understand. Let me guess, you failed English as a kid, right? Go look up what 'an establishment' means, it does not mean 'any establishment' it means 'an' as in 'a specific'. Also that prohibition only extends to THE CONGRESS not 'Government' (which it DOES NOT SAY, have you even read the Bill of Rights? How 'Animal Farm' of you to change it).
So if you had ever actually read the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, you would know that The Congress, and NOT the Executive Branch, or the Judicial Branch, or any State Government, may not write any laws repecting a specific religion.
And as for the Origins of Christmas, that is not what this discussion is about, please keep your Strawmen at home. And you will never hear me scream 'church and state' because it's a strawman as well, there is no 'Separation of Church and State' anywhere in the Constitution, it is a complete legal fiction.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-29 08:38 am (UTC)On the subject of language lessons and definitions, let's look at a bit of latin that's been adopted into educated English usage... Argumentum ad hominem means argument to the person, rather than to the facts at hand. When indulged in honestly, it's merely a logical fallacy. When employed in such a fashion as you've illustrated above, it's a rather simple attempt at bullying. In either case, it's considered to be a strong indication of an exceptionally weak argument. From that point of view, I can easily see why you'd stoop to it's use, even if I wouldn't do so myself.
As long as you've opened the conversation to English lessons, misquote is one word, straw man is two, and ignorant means one who doesn't know, not one who ignores... None of which points really matter to me, since they are truely not important to the current discussion as it stood before you attempted to turn it into a name-calling match.
However, what is germaine is the legally accepted definition of an establishment, which, in this context, does indeed mean any and all faiths, organizations, groups, and/or recognized or theoretical establishments of religion, with the notable exception of purely non-substantive "ceremonial deism" such as "in god we trust" making specific reference to no particular faith, religion, god, or gods. And there are a lot of us who'd like that bit gone, as well... Since it is both offensive and innapropriate.
Returning to the subject of the first amendment and the rest of the constitution... Pointing out that the words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the United States Constitution is an excellent example of a "straw man" argument... Weak, fallacious, and presumably intended to be easily knocked down. I'll go ahead and play along by stating the obvious.
The Constitution is, of course, the foundation of American law, not the whole body. The vast majority of our body of law lies in the form of legislation and judicial precedent... So it doesn't matter that the magic words aren't in the constitution because the supreme court has repeatedly and consistently defined that passage, with the assistance of the fourteenth amendment, to indicate that no branch or agency of government at any level can make any law or policy, nor take any action that favors any particular religion, or even favors the belief in the existence of a god. I understand that it's beneficial to your argument to pretend that the constitution is the entirety of US law, and anything but it's reverent words are a mere "legal fiction", but that assertion is itself a fiction we can't even charitably call "legal".
(cont)
no subject
Date: 2005-11-29 07:28 pm (UTC)I find it funny how you consistantly stray from my point. I believe there is also a 'latin term' for that as well. As for screaming 'ad hominem', well if the shoe fits - wear it. If you're ignorant and I cal you on it, it's not 'ad hominem', it's a fact. And in this case an important one.
As for the rest of your argument, it is really just so much BS. But you have your head firmly planted in the sand, because you like it there, and after all, it's not -you- or -your- religion that anyone is going after, so you're perfectly happy to let others be persecuted, and maybe even help a little.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-29 10:57 pm (UTC)First, my discussion of constitutional and precedential law pretty much precludes any significant degree of ignorance on that subject. My discourse on religious history, sociology, language... What is it, exactly, that points to ignorance?
And yes... Even if I were ignorant, or short, or ugly, or dressed funny, calling me on it instead of addressing the facts of the debate is argumentum ad hominem abusive, and a fallacy of logic. You're saying "What you say cannot be true because you are uneducated." but that is unfounded. First, you haven't shown me to be uneducated, second the two are not corelated.
It doesn't matter if the person making the argument is ignorant, so long as the argument itself is sound... If the argument itself is unsound, then attack the argument, not the person making it.
And no... I didn't stray from the point. I answered and elaborated on the points you made.
And, to further discuss logical fallacy, "It's not your religion that's being attacked!" is also argumentum ad hominem, circumstantial this time. You attempt to use it to distract from the substance of my argument by suggesting that my circumstance makes me predisposed to take a certain position. My position is either valid or invalid, regardless of why I may have taken it. If you want to disprove my argument, you'll have to do better than calling into question my religious views.
Did you notice that all you did in the last post was attack me? You didn't answer any of my arguments at all. So let's get back to the point, shall we?
Argument: The inclusion and acceptance of the celebrations and traditions of non-christians does not constitute an attack on christians or Christmas.
Argument: The statement you originally made that "public displays of religious holidays on government property" is "part of what we are and what our society is based on" is demonstrably false. Both constitutional law, additional legislation, and supreme court jurisprudence clearly show that supporting the belief in any diety or dieties over the belief in none is in violation of the purview and charter of government.
Can you actually argue any of these points... Or are you just going to attack me personally again?
no subject
Date: 2005-11-30 03:54 pm (UTC)Since you didn't actually do that, and it seems to have been meant to discredit her argument; by it's simply being stated, it seems to rise to ad hominem.
As to things you either don't know, or choose to ignore, the first ten amendments do do apply to the states, because the 14th makes it requisate. The case-law and legislative history since the adoption, and implementation of the amendment make this pretty clear.
One might choose to argue that, as the amendment (like the 13th) was passed while a significant portion of the electorate were disenfranchised, as a result of a small insurrection, it ought not be binding, but the mechanism to change that (repeal) hasn't been so much as attempted (though various efforts have been made to avoid it, not the least of which the continuing attempts to say the first ten amendments are mere limits on congress, not states, which is anathema to the tradition of expanding social equality to the minority; and the weak, in our history. Remove the principles of Equal Protection and Miranda, the right to speak to a lawyer, to be secure in one's person from unreasonable searches and siezures, free speech, all become dead letters; if the state decides they aren't important), so by simple silence (which equals assent) over the course of more than 100 years, the 14th has moved the restrictions of the first ten past the bounds of Congress.
Christians, are not persectuted. not less than 60 percent of the country says it is devout. All of the elected officials are self-declared Christians. No one has tried to make it illegal for them to practice the rituals of their faith (as has happened in Texas where people tried to make it impossible for Wiccans in the military to practice their faith on the posts at which they served), the money says, "In God We Trust" and we force children; no matter the faith they, and their families, practice, to say we are, "one nation, under God," even if they don't believe it.
No one has been denied the right to pray, and in one case the courts upheld that 1: a town could have a prayer before the business meeting of the council, and they could exclude those faiths they didn't like (which happened to be, shocker here, a non-christian).
So your definition of persecution is at great odds with both the dictionary's (Persecution is persistent mistreatment of an individual or group by another group. The most common forms are religious persecution and ethnic persecution. The terms have some overlap, as religion is an aspect of culture that can be a barrier.), or the common, nor yet the legal.
PERSECUTION - The infliction of suffering or harm upon those who differ (in race, religion or political opinion) in a way regarded as offensive.
Courts have cautioned that "persecution is an extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as offensive." Fatin v. INS, 12 F.3d 1233, 1243 (3d Cir. 1993) (treatment of feminists in Iran is not so harsh as to amount to "persecution"). Discrimination on the basis of race or religion, as morally reprehensible as it may be, does not ordinarily amount to "persecution" within the meaning of the Act. See Bastanipour v. INS, 980 F.2d 1129, 1133 (7th Cir. 1992) (distinguishing persecution "from mere discrimination or harassment").
But don't let the facts sway you, feel free to excercise your free speech to claim you are being supressed because you get a legal holiday recognising one of your religious holidays, which is a facvor granted to no other religion in America.
TK
no subject
Date: 2005-11-29 08:38 am (UTC)It's ridiculous to assert that the inclusion of other faiths and traditions is equivalent to "stamping out" the predominant ones. It's an old and well worn argument, and it's just as wrong minded in every case it's used. It wasn't really long ago at all that conservative white males were arguing that extending the rights and protections of white males to blacks, hispanics, asians, and women would erode and "stamp out" the rights of white males. Small minded reactionaries argue to this day that extending rights of marriage to homosexuals will somehow destroy the marriage rights of heterosexuals. It's ridiculous, and it would be laughable, if it weren't so directly evil in it's intention to deprive one group of people of rights deemed "natural" to others.
Here's why the origin of Christmas is demonstrably not a straw man argument... You may or may not have noticed that other religious and secular groups hold festivals and celebrations during this season, and have been doing so, in some cases, since before there were Christians. It can do no possible injury to Christians, Christmas, or Christianity to recognize and allow for those other celebrations in a non-exclusionary way.
Holiday trees? Altogether proper, since similar traditions were in practice in other groups before christians used them. Non-religious people buy and decorate them. Pagans buy and decorate them. How could it possibly damage Christmas for those who produce them to try to sell more of them by making the product name more acceptable to a broader market?
Tell us... Have the holiday police ever come to your house and made you stop calling it a Christmas tree at home? Then why should you give one half a rat's arse what it's called on the street corner?
As to "Happy Holidays" being company policy, it's equally ludicrous to say that that in any way damamges Christmas. Again... Have you not noticed there are other holidays going on at the same time? Is Christmas not a holiday? Then how does "Happy Holidays!" not include Christmas??
Would you insist that stores not greeting all customers with "Welcome, Caucasians!" were trying to stamp out white people? Businesses have every right to be polite to all of their customers... Trying to insist they can only be polite to you, or they're being discriminatory, is twisted and wrong.
Again... It would appear that you're not looking for equality and fairness, you're looking for supremacy... And you're not above making inflamatory and obviously false arguments in order to build on the unfounded dissatisfaction of dangerous reactionaries.
Small Note Regarding the ACLU
Date: 2005-11-30 12:02 am (UTC)http://www.aclu.org//religion/gen/19918prs20050804.html
There's an interesting mix of cases on
http://www.aclu.org/religion/tencomm/16254res20050302.html
in a fair number of which the ACLU defends Christian expression.
Rebecca
no subject
Date: 2005-11-30 03:51 am (UTC)From an abstract point of view, there are a lot of holidays across this time of year, and making it a more open recognition of all of them in no way removes from the private enjoyment of Christmas by Christians (and allegations the ACLU is against Christianity are absurd, as they have filed amicus briefs on behalf of Christians, even to the display of Christmas related materials when those were not supported by gov't, but I digress).
The argument that we must "return to our roots" is nonsense.
We should begin by setting conscience free. When all men of all religions ... shall enjoy equal liberty, property, and an equal chance for honors and power ... we may expect that improvements will be made in the human character and the state of society.
-- John Adams, letter to Dr. Price, April 8, 1785
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."
James Madison
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign 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.”
Thomas Jefferson, letter to the Danbury Baptist Association (January 1, 1802)
He also made what is perhaps the best expression of the effect of removing the ties of state and church, “Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than on our opinions in physics and geometry....The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” in the Virgina Statue of Religious Freedom.
In the same way that someone else marrying doesn't diminish my marriage, be they marrying between races, in plurality, or homsexually, my marriage is what it is, it stands on it's own.
The same with my faith, in fact if my faith (as a Roman Catholic) is so fragile that I need the state to support it (even so vaguely as being, "generically Christian," than I am weak in it.
The best summation on this is probably to be found in the Bible, where Jesus abjures us to "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and undo God that which is God's."
God, I think can look after his own interests.
TK