How would you feel if every year at the approriate time, the streets, schools, and stores were plastered with signs and displays exhorting us all to have a "Joyous Ramadan?" Uh, just curious. Today's Seattle papers remind us that school districts and many retailers have gotten skittish about using the word Christmas. Some are catching major flack in response, with conservative media leading the charge. It's the over-commercialization of Christmas in the public square that bugs me, not the word itself. But there's something distinctly un-Republican about conservatives in a lather over this supposed war on Christmas. As I mentioned at my own blog yesterday: the power of Christmas and of faith reside with the individual, the family, and the church, temple or mosque. With exhortations for broad public deployment of the word "Christmas," culture warriors are again dragging down the GOP. Freedom of religion also encompasses freedom FROM religion in the public square. Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukah, everyone!
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at December 07, 2005 09:53 AM | Email ThisIt is not strictly limited to people of a particular faith.
As a child I grew up in a household with no religious affiliation. We had a tree, sang christmas songs and did presents. In school er sang all the traditional songs, even the religious ones. Santa Came each year too. Somehow we avoided becoming damaged or converted to some faith by our proximaty to nativity scenes and singing about baby Jesus.
It is a traditional seasonal event. It is as American as apple pie and Baseball.
The religoius right may be making too much ado of this, and by focusing on it as a religious issue, they are likely harming their own cause, but the secular/atheistic side is making far bigger issue of this then need be as well and they are forcing us tino accepting a sterile environment on the holidays.
They are ruining an american tradition, and somehow we need to stop it.
Posted by: Karl on December 7, 2005 10:17 AMI cannot stand quietly by and watch em sing that awful "Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer" and "Jingle Bell Rock" crap.
No Can Do...........................Sorry Matt
If I were in Jordan or Turkey, it wouldn't bother me at all. I would not expect the people of those countries to abandon their religion and culture for me.
Then again, I'm not silly or historically-ignorant enough to think that "Freedom of religion also encompasses freedom FROM religion in the public square."
Posted by: ScottM on December 7, 2005 10:46 AMI don't mind the paganism or the commercialism. Let's have a drink and celebrate, either for Christ's birthday or for the fact that the days are getting longer. Whatever floats your boat!
Posted by: Libertarian on December 7, 2005 10:49 AMThis is just a sad commentary to the evil that is perpetuated in today's society.
Posted by: C. Oh on December 7, 2005 10:51 AMJust as I do not find it offensive to be so greeted, I would hope that others would accept my greeting of "Merry Christmas" in the spirit of friendship with which it is offered. In other words, some of these folks need to lighten up.
As I've often said, offense cannot be given - only taken. Those who are offended by a thing choose to be - it cannot be forced on them.
Posted by: Patrick on December 7, 2005 10:54 AMThis is a fight the GOP should fight. Celebrate religions, don't attempt to take them out of our society.
The ACLU is very busy pushing it's belief on the subject. We have a right and duty to protect American traditions, values, and beliefs on this subject.
I think you need to read your constitution once again. The 1st Amendment says that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, not that you have the right to be free from any mention of religion in public spaces. What the framers were trying to prevent was any requirement for membership in a particular church being used as a requirement for holding office, and to allow people to follow whatever religion they chose. The intention was not to suppress all religious expression in the public square to avoid offending people. I would suggest you read "The Words We Live By", by Linda Monk for an excellent discussion on the history behind the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses.
Posted by: S. Nelson on December 7, 2005 10:58 AMAlso, the eason why the conservatives want to keep the religion in the holiday, is that they want folks to be more religious. Remember what Marx said "Religion is the opiate of the masses" Keep 'em drugged and uninformed, and for God's sake (juxtaposition intended) don't let them think for themselves.
Posted by: Larry The Urbanite on December 7, 2005 11:01 AMChristmas aint goin' nowhere! There are plenty of christians in the country and the retail industry lives and dies by it.
So, if non-christians would prefer that the government doesn't push the religious holiday on them, what's the big deal? You still have your church, plenty of media and TV, christmas movies, and the entire retail industry to turn to.
Posted by: BananaLand(aka Iguana) on December 7, 2005 11:01 AMThe US was also founded with slavery and without the right of women to vote, but we don't pine away for those antiquated things.
The US was founded by Christians, but it is now made up of many religious beliefs. I agree with Matt, in that Christmas should be supported in its secular sense, but should be given no more (or less) prominence in its religous sense.
Here's an example of what I mean. I have no problem with Christmas Caroles being sung in my kids school, and would be concerned if they were banned. However, I do have a problem with the school allowing or encouraging authority figures to discuss Christian religious dogma with my kid. Its up to me to ensure my child understands the range of religious beliefs that exist (something many outstanding youth learn in their own places of worship), not schools.
It possible to make Christmas a national holiday without alienating those who have beliefs other than Christianity.
Let there be peace on earth, and goodwill among men.
Posted by: KO on December 7, 2005 11:03 AMI for one would be completely unoffended by a profusion of "Joyous Ramadan!" signs deployed by whomever, where ever, at the appropriate time. (I might even learn when that appropriate time is!) Your concept that the first amendment encompasses freedom FROM religion in the public square is not founded on the language or the historical meaning of the amendmen: religious displays, even if sanctioned or even funded by government, cannot be and are not an establishment of a religion, or a prohibition of the free exercise of religion, regardless of how much supposed "liberals" shout and scream that they are.
I am not a religious man, but I am a tolerant man. And while I disagree with the in-your-face attitude of some Christian activists, I happily use the word "Christmas" during this time, for it is the word that describes the reason this particular date is a national holiday. The folks who object to that, but still take the holiday from work, celebrate with friends, partake of the joy that comes with the season, are just hypocrites.
Hanakah and Ramadan will never be a national holiday in the US because the country was founded by Christians, and Christianity runs deep here. The vast majority of us are either Christians, agnostics, or atheists - there are few, relatively, who practice the other great world religions. But more power to them - and if they wish to practice their religions in a manner that brings it into public view, that's great - we all have things to learn about each other.
Posted by: srogers on December 7, 2005 11:10 AMI find Faldwell's Thought Police "friend or foe?" idea just silly. He's on tv saying they are "kicking ass" on getting businesses to back off of Happy Holiday talk. Is this really what Jesus would want? Of course it is all the more funny with the arguments over a Christmas tree considering that is a pagan symbol used long before Christians took it over.
Christians get their national holiday, we haul the kids out for 2 weeks, everything shuts down on the 25th; give me a break and quit whining.
Posted by: westello on December 7, 2005 11:12 AMI have nothing else to add that wasn't already written above, except my best wishes for you and yours---Merry Christmas!
Posted by: HappyGoLucky on December 7, 2005 11:24 AMTolerant religious persons are wonderful.
Too bad the debate tends to focus on the fundamentalists way too often (and too many of them have the power of the press and political office).
As far as I know, "Christmas" trees in fact have absolutely nothing to do with Jesus' birth, and therefore have about as much "religious connotation" as Dunder and Blixem.And to answer your question (although I'm not sure what the "approriate" time would be exactly), I certainly wouldn't take offense or insist that people not use the word "Ramadan." I just wouldn't care, because it's not something I celebrate. To make a poor analogy, just because I think coffee is nasty doesn't mean I froth at the mouth and throw out accusations of "insensitivity" any time I see a Starbucks commercial.
If it's so offensive, just lobby congress to make it a day ON at work and leave it at that. Then religious people can quietly celebrate it to their heart's content without bothering anyone else.
At least that's what some seem to want.
Posted by: Michele on December 7, 2005 11:41 AMThe troubling aspect for some Christians is the commercialism, but even more troubling for some is that Christmans traditions are primarliy based in the old pagan religions of Northern and Western Europe.
Does this make sense? Why would most American Christians object to residual trappings of ancient Northen and Western Europe? Most of us descend from that culture. And our European ancestors had the good sense to be early adopters of the new, universal faith. Isn't a little Christmas tree worth the price of a mass?
Posted by: huckleberry on December 7, 2005 11:45 AMOur basic justice system is founded on religious principles the same as other countries around the world. Throughout the history of America the majority of citizens were christian, it is reflected in our traditions, our shared values and our culture. We WERE the big melting pot of a lot of traditions and cultures from around the world. We were tolerant of other people and their cultures, we shared and we were stronger because of our diversity.
America as a society is breaking down, we are growing less and less tolerant of those with differences everyday. We are selfish and self-serving. We are pandering to each and every social, religious, political, secular, and special interest group possible. We are sterilizing our culture by taking out any and all references to religion and by doing so, we are robbing ourselves of our culture, our history, our traditions and our differences. We self-righteously think we know how everyone else should live.
I grew up with a Christmas Tree, it isn't a Holiday Tree, it's never been called a holiday tree until very recently. I've never related my christmas tree with Christ and I am definitely not a bible thumping christian. Still, I am appalled at the corporations, the school districts, and the local and state governments who are bowing to the pressure of secular special interest groups into sterilizing our culture. Washington State has a so-called "Holiday Tree." I boycotted Target last year, because they stopped the Salvation Army from ringing bells, I have shopped for years with the bell ringers and I miss them, they are a part of our culture.
The Salvation Army was targeted, because they are a religous based organization. Does anybody care about the hundreds of thousands of people that the Salvation Army helps feed every year? A school district in Washington State last year cancelled Halloween, because they didn't want to offend the Wiccans. Now we don't have a State Christmas Tree.
Freedom of religion does NOT encompass freedom from religion in the public square. The SCOTUS has ruled on this many times. It's called Freedom of Speech. The public square can have 10 different ministers all shouting their words. They can have Crosses, Pentagrams, Creches, Menorahs, Advent wreaths, yule logs, and every other possible religious symbol in the world. What they cannot do is allow only one religion and not provide the space for others.
If retailers are losing business because they have failed to adequately research the market, so be it. I will spend my money where I want and where I feel comfortable. You try to take away my christmas holidays and my christmas tree and you lose my business.
Mery Christmas and Happy New Year to All!
Posted by: sgmmac on December 7, 2005 11:46 AMIf the attack were only against a largely secular holiday with non-Christian roots, it wouldn't be a problem to most conservative Christians. But the attack is against the 'Christ' in Christmas, not against a commercialized holiday.
I guess this is just one more way you left leaning pseudo-Republicans have lost touch with the real America.
Posted by: JB on December 7, 2005 11:58 AMAt least religious people have a moral keel, which is probably the thing lefties hate most about religion.
Posted by: fred on December 7, 2005 12:03 PMI think you're a bit off the mark on this one.
Apparently, you are suggesting that if some individuals make an effort to remove Christmas (by converting it to "Winter Holiday", or some other insipid non sequiter), that's okay, but if I object, I'm intolerant.
I disagree.
If someone pushes me on this, I'm going to push back, because I believe that this is an issue that is worth defending.
I believe that the true intolerance here is on the part of such bodies as the schools, the ACLU, and others, who are arrogating to themselves the right to decide what is correct for the rest of us, and what we ought to think.
Posted by: ewaggin on December 7, 2005 12:48 PM"How would you feel if every year at the approriate time, the streets, schools, and stores were plastered with signs and displays exhorting us all to have a "Joyous Ramadan?""
If I were in Jordan or Turkey, it wouldn't bother me at all. I would not expect the people of those countries to abandon their religion and culture for me.
Then again, I'm not silly or historically-ignorant enough to think that "Freedom of religion also encompasses freedom FROM religion in the public square."
And to JB: "I guess this is just one more way you left leaning pseudo-Republicans have lost touch with the real America."
Stop pretending Matt. You are more than left leaning, you ARE a LEFTIE.
Posted by: EW on December 7, 2005 01:00 PMMy friend obliged, we sang, we learned and we had a good time, but most of all, we had a greater appreciation of each others traditions. We felt that we were better and closer for the experience.
Tell the "progressives" to punt and let's enjoy our traditions.
Posted by: Fed Up on December 7, 2005 01:16 PM
Nothing, that is, except the twisted tyranny of those who so fear that others will 'take offense' that they've launched an anti-crusade to purge the public areas of America of any expression of Christianity. And except the yet more savage tyranny of those who take such offense.
When I visit a community which varies in its beliefs from my own traditionally Christian upbringing, I am honored when they offer me their own traditional greetings at such times as they celebrate their holydays. In that way I honor diversity.
And I damned well expect that they will extend me the same courtesies. Diversity for one, diversity for all. And no sniveling countercultural mavens should have the faintest right to suppress the following:
Peace and goodwill to the men, women and children on earth. And Merry Christmas to all of you.
Why someone would be shocked or offended by "Christmas" in a Christian nation amazes me.
Posted by: Art on December 7, 2005 01:30 PMSecond while Christmas has Christian connotations, it is as much an American cultural event as a religious event.
Beyond that there is no freedom from religon as some, Matt included claim. You have freedom to practice any or no religion. Because you are free to practice religion of your choice, does not mean you have the right to ban the symbols or practices of a religion from anyplace.
As long as government does not "establish" a religon, the use, placement, observance, celebration is under pervue of legislative bodies. Establish means state support of a religon in financing with public funds, special preferances giving in laws etc...
Also note the only questionable practices are Christian, which makes the whole anti religous symbolism crusade (pun intended) suspect.
Posted by: JCM on December 7, 2005 02:10 PMyou and I are essentially in agreement, but you completely misunderstood me. Also, your comparison to what's happening with Christmas tradition and slavery or women's rights to vote is completely off-base. The Christmas tradition is social tradition (well, maybe with an exception that it is a gov't sanctioned holiday) while the latter are legal tradition. I wouldn't even mind if government removed the sanctioined holiday. What I mind is removal of Christmas tradition in the name of diversity/tolerance, resulting in people getting squeamish about ordinary traditional things such as wishing merry Christmas or singing Christmas carols in school. Why is it wrong to teach why Christmas became holiday in this country or why this day is celebrated? What's wrong with a "holiday" giving tree? Simply objecting to a simbol of Christmas (though it has nothing to do with Christianity) by few and the society embracing the notion that burying the whole tradition is the way to go is what's wrong with this.
Like you said, let there be peace on earth, and goodwill among men. However, goodwill among men isn't being shown by those objecting to even a mention of Christmas.
I was at my Boy scounts meeting last night and it is always refreshing to hear them in their pledge of Aligence "One Nation Under God" is always clearly spoken. They know where they stand on this one. It looks like the Boy Scouts are already taking the lead against the ACLU over their stands.
Ba Humbug to the ACLU
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/12/8/162709.shtml
Also cudo's to Wal Mart for leaving it to their store as to what greetings they want to make say to their customers based on their location.
I for one am through shopping at Target, and those places that act like this is just some HOLIDAY from a deep dark past.
Posted by: gs on December 7, 2005 02:28 PMParts of our society are going way overboard in trying to remove Christmas from secular society due to some irrational fear of offending the non-Christmas observers. True, saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" will not diminish the true meaning of Christmas to many of us. But sometimes you just have to stand up for what you believe in.
Posted by: Gary on December 7, 2005 02:39 PMThis is hardly what the framers of the constitution envisioned.
Posted by: karl on December 7, 2005 02:48 PMAnd that's fine. That keeps religion out of state. People are free to celebrate the religion of their choice during the holidays. The fact that we call it Christmas is mostly semantic at this point. "Merry Christmas" does not necessarily have any religious meaning whatsoever, espeicially when it is uttered in a purely commercial sense from sellers to buyers during this season.
This is the biggest reason for the whole backlash against the de-Christmasing movement. People view it far more as a politically correct movement of the left than an anti-religious movement.
And that's somoething both secular moderates and conservatives can get behind Christmas and the reason why the anti-Christmas movement reached its zenith last year.
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 7, 2005 03:09 PMI think what concerns me is the backlash at people who wish a happy holiday. I wish people a happy holiday because I am not Christian, and I don't assume anyone elses religious beliefs. Wishing someone a happy holiday is not an insult, or an attempt to hide Christmas (not that you could, given its huge place in American society), its my way of wishing someone a Happy Hanukkah, Merry Christmas, or whatever their celebration during this holiday season may be in one short phrase.
That said, for my overtly Christian friends, I certainly wish them a Merry Christmas. Its the polite thing to do.
Posted by: ko on December 7, 2005 04:03 PMI do the same sometiems as you.
The issue here is being required to *only* say "Happy Holidays", and being forbidden to say "Merry Christmas".
Posted by: Karl on December 7, 2005 04:10 PMJeff: Maybe Christmas doesn't have religious connotations to you, and for that fading away, I am truly sorry. For me Christmas means just what is says, the Mass for Christ. And I'm not even Catholic. However, much as we wish, we just cannot rewrite history. And, much we wish, we cannot claim that the heralded diversity movement is one of inclusion, because it is Hell bent on excluding Christianity and, for that matter, conservatism.
Posted by: katomar on December 7, 2005 04:20 PMSee where this all leads?
Posted by: Michele on December 7, 2005 04:31 PMObviously, just like any other miserable person living in a Moslem country, but it's irrelevant because instead I live in a Christian country where we have Christmas and the freedom to worship it or not as we like. Gee whiz Matt if the "over-commercialization of Christmas" bothers you then you are certainly tortured by a reeeeel dilemma aren’t you. Awfully tough to tolerate a prosperous, generous religious holiday isn’t it?
While under the establishment clause of the constitution, freedom of religion doesn't encompass freedom FROM religion (esp. religious symbols) in the public square. It does however allow everyone freedom to mind their own business. Liberals enjoy citing the chimera of a “separation clause” (that doesn't exist) because it objectifies rights as granted by men not God, and because it means men can both easily define new rights but also just as easily take those we have away. The ruse of being offended is simply part of the liberal con job. What's especially amusing here is that so many on the left are taken in by their own bull$hit.
”Supposed war on Christmas?” We could allow the left to repeat here what is happening in France where fear of offending others by celebrating their HARMLESS Christian heritage of good will and toleration has disarmed the populace to terrorism from the GENUINE religious extremism of Islam. Or would you claim that the generosity shown by the French people to Moslems came from French Moslems?
No Matt, I don’t have to worry about exhortations of Ramadan because I live in a Christian nation. My freedom comes from the Judao/Christian ethic of individualism and a government based on Judao/Christian principles. If I can tolerate an expressly disingenuous racist pseudo-religion called Quanzaa, you can tolerate a commercial and even a publicly supported Christmas.
Merry Christmas, and Happy Hanukah.
Posted by: Amused by the easily bruised on December 7, 2005 04:56 PM"Ba Humbug"
Christmas is an eternal time of giving.
If people find offense to giving then
"Ba Humbug". Don't give!
If you find offense to the word "Christmas", then call it anything you like, I will respect that, but give if you wish!
I will not be offended
I will however call it Christmas, and will proudly do so until the day that I die.
Posted by: GS on December 7, 2005 05:28 PM`Bah!' said Scrooge, `Humbug!'
He had so heated himself with rapid walking in the fog and frost, this nephew of Scrooge's, that he was all in a glow; his face was ruddy and handsome; his eyes sparkled, and his breath smoked again.
`Christmas a humbug, uncle!' said Scrooge's nephew. `You don't mean that, I am sure?'
`I do,' said Scrooge. `Merry Christmas! What right have you to be merry? What reason have you to be merry? You're poor enough.'
`Come, then,' returned the nephew gaily. `What right have you to be dismal? What reason have you to be morose? You're rich enough.'
Scrooge having no better answer ready on the spur of the moment, said `Bah!' again; and followed it up with `Humbug.'
`Don't be cross, uncle!' said the nephew.
`What else can I be,' returned the uncle, `when I live in such a world of fools as this? Merry Christmas! Out upon merry Christmas! What's Christmas time to you but a time for paying bills without money; a time for finding yourself a year older, but not an hour richer; a time for balancing your books and having every item in 'em through a round dozen of months presented dead against you? If I could work my will,' said Scrooge indignantly, `every idiot who goes about with "Merry Christmas" on his lips, should be boiled with his own pudding, and buried with a stake of holly through his heart. He should!'
`Uncle!' pleaded the nephew.
`Nephew!' returned the uncle sternly, `Keep Christmas in your own way, and let me keep it in mine.'
`Keep it!' repeated Scrooge's nephew. `But you don't keep it.'
`Let me leave it alone, then,' said Scrooge. `Much good may it do you! Much good it has ever done you!'
God bless us, everyone!
-- Huckleberry
But dare not in ye haste wander to the darker site of the HA blogworld, for there the socialist word will cause you to be forever blocked to eternal noblogation and Hark ye harold angel cannot possibly sing.
Thee Master Goldy locks down the S word and any other S word and ye get may get condemned to eternal unblogination.
And Merry Christmas to you to boot!
Posted by: GS on December 7, 2005 06:43 PMIt's not necessary to trash Matt to disagree with him.
Posted by: South County on December 7, 2005 07:13 PMWhy on earth would we, as Americans, opt to change and cancel one of our most valued traditions in order to appease a few "tolerance-challenged" individuals?
Yo Matt? You really should move to France! Don't move to Israel...they celebrate Christmas there too......Go figure?
WELL NEXT YEAR YOU WILL GET YOUR WISH.
SEE THE BUSHBOTS GO DOWN TO THE GREATEST DEFEAT IN US POLITICAL HISTORY.
You ask where will we go? Well we will just not vote. That is where we will go!
Posted by: Scott on December 7, 2005 07:31 PMYou want to chase good people away from the Republican party. Well you might just be successful in doing that.
Your hatred towards Christmas indicates that deep down you hate America too.
Why the hell are you even a Republican? You support tax breaks for small business. Well that isn't enough for me to go to the polls and you will find out next year what chasing good American out of the Republican party will lead to.
I am Staying Home in '06. Many of the people I know have said the same thing. Why vote for a Mainstream Republican RINO (Republican in Name Only) when at the end they vote the same way the Democrats do but you have to feel guilty because you helped get that person in there. If my legislator is going to be a socialist regardless of the party they are from, I rather them be a Democrat.
Matt the only thing that separates you from a bag of crap is the bag. Go to Hell you anti-American piece of trash.
Posted by: Larry on December 7, 2005 08:05 PMMainstream Republican = a person with no values or ethics.
Posted by: Scott on December 7, 2005 08:14 PMI have many close friends that are not religious, but celebrate Christmas. They believe in a time of giving and of family. I believe in that and in Jesus Christ and celebrate his Birth as I do his Death. Both the greatest gifts to all mankind.
Anyways, Happy Festivous!! (One of the funniest Seinfeld's ever)
Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night!
Posted by: Dengle on December 7, 2005 08:47 PMGod please, bless you and your family and friends right back.
Thanks.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on December 7, 2005 09:41 PM"Ted Bundy worked for Dan Evans - A Mainstream Republican.
Mainstream Republican = a person with no values or ethics."
You are a moron.
Thanks for posting a comment that proves it.
Merry Christmas moron.
Posted by: Amused by liberal morons on December 7, 2005 09:46 PM"With exhortations for broad public deployment of the word "Christmas"
From many of our perspectives, I believe our wording of the above statement would read:
With exhortations for broad public preservation of the word "Christmas"
It has been in this country for 200 years, and needs not be removed at this time.
It will always be a special time that we remember as Christmas.
Posted by: GS on December 7, 2005 09:49 PMSo let's start a list of days with religious significance to Christianity that are celebrated as Holidays. Christmas. Easter. Good Friday. Halloween. New Year's Day. To a much lesser extent, Thanksgiving. Possibly Valentine's Day (named for a Saint). All have some degree of religious significance and all have morphed into a generally accepted non-denominational national holiday.
Since these are legal holidays, saying happy holidays is ok, but should you not have the same greeting for Labor Day? Veterans Day? Memorial Day?
These holidays all have specific names set forth in the legislation declaring them a holiday. Using the specific name is OK. Pretending it has no name is butt-ugly stupid. Trying to change the name via stealth substitution is dishonest. Remember, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Acknowledging or ignoring that there is a Christian religious foundation to these legislated holidays is up to you, as is acknowledging or ignoring the plagarizing of pagan traditions and specifics, but they have clearly become national agnostic holidays and celebrations. Taking offense at their legislative names is butt-ugly stupid.
"Happy Holidays" is a legalistic summary, but legally accurate and acceptable. "Season's Greetings" can pass muster, originating more than 50 years ago. "Merry Christmas" is a simple acknowledgement of the obvious, though it often is obtuse to the oblivious.
"Winter Holiday" or "Winter Vacation" are dishonest dissembling by the overly-sensitive. It might be credible if they were scheduled outside Christmas and New Years, but they aren't.
So what is it that offends you? The day is Christmas Day and it is set out in legislation in numerous places. Take it up with the legislators. Leave the rest of us alone. We are tired of dealing with the loonies trying to change the culture and tear down the cultural norms.
Posted by: Tee Jay on December 7, 2005 11:08 PM
If it is being turned into just another generic day, then treat it as such and go back to work.
It cannot be both ways.
Christmas is a religious holiday for Christians.
Hence Christmas, Christians.
No Suprise there, there never has been.
To us Christians, it is the day we celebrate the birth of Christ.
That is not open to discussion or change or renaming or retiming, from a Christian's perspective.
I say no to the attempt to somehow morph this day into some other "Holiday".
You can recognize Christmas, or choose not to, but it is still Christmas, you can't rename it.
It is not looking for a new name, it is Christmas.
It is Christmas, and I wish each of you the Joys of family, faith, and love that Christmas means to many a Christian.
Posted by: GS on December 7, 2005 11:46 PMFreedom OF religion is not freedom FROM religion. They are mutually exclusive.
Religion cannot be barred from public life. If it were, then Christian acts of Christian charity (love of neighbor, love of enemy, and love for those who aren't of one's faith) would be illegal. Yes, if there were a law that prevented people from openly practicing their religion, I would not be allowed to treat you kindly in public.
People are free to exercise their religion provided they don't break any laws. And laws can't be written to prohibit the free exercise of one particular religion or to endorse the practice of another. That's just common sense. (Unfortunately, not as common today as it was a half-century ago.)
You will be wished a Merry Christmas, visited by Mormon and JW evangelists, and forced to allow people of all faiths to broadcast and publish their message freely, even if it makes you uncomfortable. You will hear people shout "Praise the Lord", "Jesus loves you", and even, "If you don't repent you are damned to hell." And there is nothing you can do to make yourself free FROM expressions and practices of religion unless you withdraw completely from society.
And yes, even public officials are allowed to practice their religion freely, during taxpayer-paid time even.
Lets call it the holiday candle holder instead!!! YA!!! That will stop dragging down the precious compromising, spaghetti spined precious GOP. I am going back to queer eye makes fun of the real guy so I can be Matt's friend.
More Braveheart and a lot less brown nosin' where it farts.
Folks once some GOP guys show up with some spine they will win....Rossi's campaign will be the same and is simple, I am a man and he'll win. Not well did what I say offfffffffffeeeeeeeeeennnnndddddddddd you? Oh sorry I really meant it this way.
Posted by: Col. Hogan on December 8, 2005 07:32 AMAnd for all who repeatedly insist that the US is a christian country and was intended to be by the founders of our Republic, I would remind you that one of our earliest founding congresses passed the Treaty of Tripoli, which states explicitly that the US "is not, in any way, a Christian nation" or something like that.
Having said all this, I have no problem with religious displays in public spaces, so long as they aren't exclusive, and I regularly wish others a Merry Christmas.
As far as the secular fundamentalists who wish to run all religion out of public areas, I have as little affection for them as I do the religious fundamentalists attempts to impose their religion on everyone. Both are intolerant of others, and both violate the deepest norms of our society.
As for those fundamentalists among you who accuse Matt of leftist leanings and/or being a spineless Republican, I would suggest that it is you who are alien to the values of the Grand Old Party of Lincoln, Roosevelt and Eisenhower, and I, a fourth generation Republican who can barely recognise his party for the wackos who populate it now, wish you'ld crawl back under your intolerant rocks and return the GOP to its roots.
And having said that, I wish a Merry Christmas to all men and women of good will, and to hell or hades with the rest.
Posted by: MJ on December 8, 2005 10:42 AMNo offense in return. You are correct in saying that the Establishment Clause was (and is) intended to prevent the state from supporting particular religious organizations from pushing their views on us by establishing a national church. That in no way means that religious views and symbols are not allowable in the fabric of our constitution, including our government through the establishment of the Bill of Rights, and as the very founding basis of our Constitution and thus our Government.
Like many, you have allowed your tenuous historical understanding of our founding and our American Constitution to be overshadowed by liberal propaganda. What do you suppose the founders meant when they said “[t]o assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, . . . “?
If Department stores wish to remove “words” like Christmas from their stores, fine. They will meet with the totally justifiable disapproval of Christians. The institutional problem behind the war on Christmas that exists parallel to the war against Christianity around America is the prospect and the consequences of its success. Without Judao/Christian precepts supporting individualism and divine right to natural law, property ownership, and equality, everything worth while about America would quite simply cease to exist.
It would (and is currently being) replaced with ideals of “Human Nature” as envisioned in the Port Huron Report by the erstwhile founders of modern liberalism. It serves to establish human nature as infinitely malleable and hence infinitely perfectible but only when religion in any form is removed as the obstacle to reason. Perfectible to who’s standard, and malleable to what end? This radical egalitarian secular humanism was tried in the Soviet Union and it failed miserably. Those who lived in the old Soviet Union universally praise Ronald Reagan for having saved them–among other things but most significantly–to celebrate Christmas, and to openly sing Christmas carols.
The Treaty of Tripoli said no such thing about our nation, but even if it had, such citation reaches for an obscure irrelevancy in a vain effort to argue against an already well-established fact. America is undeniably a Christian nation. Do some reading about those founding fathers who established our government and those philosophers and precepts they studied as guidance for their statecraft rather than listening to the droning mantra of people (liberals) who don’t know any better than to ignore the difference between America and France. You will find that Christianity and its ethical/moral precepts are indispensable to our liberty.
You say,
”As for those fundamentalists among you who accuse Matt of leftist leanings and/or being a spineless Republican, I would suggest that it is you who are alien to the values of the Grand Old Party of Lincoln, Roosevelt and Eisenhower, and I, a fourth generation Republican who can barely recognise his party for the wackos who populate it now, wish you'ld crawl back under your intolerant rocks and return the GOP to its roots.”
1. The power of Christian faith doesn’t reside also as the founding basis of our government and its’ institutions. This is the mantra of those who believe our country should be a secular humanist one insular from any reference to religious precepts.Aside from being inverted Bull$hit hyperbole, Matts comments display insular secular humanism at its best that is decidedly in the bailiwick of the left, not the right. The GOP was founded on Christian faith, cemented together by its Judao/Christian precepts and is currently overwhelmingly populated by Christians. What more do you need to conclude that Matt’s comments are left leaning?
-
2. That protests against the EXTRICATIONS of the word "Christmas," from our midst equals EXHORTATIONS for broad public deployment of the word "Christmas," that it makes the protesters (rather than simply justifiably offended Christians), “CULTURE WARRIORS,” that somehow inordinately burden the GOP, as though the GOP isn’t predominantly a Christian party.
As a fundamentalist, i.e. a student of and adherent to fundamental principles like inherent rights, States and Laws of Nature, historical accuracy, and facts over sentimentality, I tell the truth as I see it. However, I am neither a liberal nor a fool, and I refuse to stand by quietly when liberals or so-called *conservatives* who support modern liberal views say things that are untrue. When you invoke ”the values of the Grand Old Party of Lincoln, Roosevelt and Eisenhower,” it appears that you believe these leaders were not fundamental conservatives. None of them would stand by quietly while anti-Americans foolishly dissemble religion from the fabric of our country. The GOP’s roots are traced to the whigs of antiquity who based their common fortunes on a faith that a man with a God given right has no reason to be grateful to benefactors, but the most profound reason for grievance when they are denied.
From your comments, while I think you mean well, you have a very limited understanding of religion and its role in American Society, and its place in our government. Unless you want to be regarded as a liberal, read up, or shut up.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on December 8, 2005 02:06 PMThe Treaty of Tripoli said no such thing about our nation, but even if it had, such citation reaches for an obscure irrelevancy in a vain effort to argue against an already well-established fact. America is undeniably a Christian nation.
um, sorry. MJ is correct
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries
Now, the phrase "christian nation" may or may not be at odds with this article, because while the Government has no specific religous affiliation, the people certainly did. I will let you too argue semantics.
I post this only for clarification, I really dont have a dog in that aspect of the fight.
Posted by: Karl on December 8, 2005 03:10 PMThe Treaty of Tripoli said "The United States of America is not founded on the Christian Religion," not that the US "is not, in any way, a Christian nation."
Nevertheless as I said earlier ”even if it had, such citation reaches for an obscure irrelevancy in a vain effort to argue against an already well-established fact. America is undeniably a Christian nation.”
MJ,
“would remind [us] that one of our earliest founding congresses passed the Treaty of Tripoli, which states explicitly that the US "is not, in any way, a Christian nation" or something like that.”
-
Article 11 of the treaty of Tripoli (June 10, 1797) says”As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
There is a considerable difference between saying that “the US "is not, in any way, a Christian nation,” and saying that “the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.”
This is like saying that a nation of more than 98% profoundly religious Christian inhabitants is not Christian because its government is not founded upon a constitutional incorporation of the New Testament of the Bible or presided over by the Deacon of the Anglican Church. It’s also like saying that a government not founded on the Anglican Church could not also be a government founded on uniquely Christian precepts.
Proclamations in treaties that have as their purpose to defuse a standing conflict with a foreign power based on perceived religious enmity don’t bind America to a recognition of some limited composition of its founding principles. Nor do they alter the fact that America was based on Christian precepts.
Thanks for the clarification.
Christmas, December 25th, is a Christian clelbration of the Birth of Christ. Those who want to rewrite this historical day will not succeed. Christmas will always be Christmas, it will always be on Dec 25th and it will always be the Birth of Christ.
They will not rename Hanukkah for the Jewish, Or Christmas for the Christians.
Don't fall or be swayed by their political misguidance.
Merry Christmas to all!
can't wun. If they do nothing, their religious freedom is erroded.
If they complain they are whiners and making enemies.
Better to stand on principle at that point.
Posted by: karl on December 8, 2005 10:35 PMWhat?
Who cares about making enemies?
When defending the truth against lies, why should anyone care?
Matt spins an issue in a way that obscures the facts and misrepresents its proponents and you are worried about telling the truth for fear of MAKING ENEMIES?
Matt is free to respond, but he doesn't. He is free to take my comments off his board, but he doesn't.
Gee whiz there South, please take your pills.
I realize nobody will likely even read this, but I couldn't get back any sooner and didn't want to leave your rantings unanswered. Normally I would. I long ago learned, as a wise person above remarked, that offense can't be given, only taken, and that it's best to walk away from a fool rather than to try to reason with him (as by definition he has none). But I really didn't appreciate being told 'to read up, or shut up.' I wasn't rude to you.
So, where to begin? Wow, you really are full of yourself, aren't you. You come across as somebody who spends too much time listening to himself and not enough learning from others who are not of your limited mindset.
I'm not going to try listing all of your inane errors. I do have better things to do than try to reason with a fool. But...
The Establishment Clause forbids a little more than just a national church. It forbids the national government from favoring any one religion in any way over another. No, it doesn't, in my mind, preclude religious displays in public, unless these are exclusive. By the way, what exactly are you trying to say when you deny "that religious views and symbols are not allowable in the fabric of our constitution, including our government through the establishment of our bill of rights, and as the very founding basis of our Constitution and thus our government." Whoa, are you a bureaucrat on crack? Did you ever consider getting some help with your writing skills? I take it you're trying to say that religion played a role in the founding of our government. Well, duh. That's hardly news. And it is not at issue here.
But while I'm on the subject of miserable writing skills, what exactly does it mean when you rail in a later paragraph about those who "foolishly dissemble religion from the fabric of our country?" Do you have any idea what the words you use actually mean? I think not. I think you're an ignorant blowhard who likes to use big words to try to impress and/or intimate others, but who lacks the intelligence to know what they really mean. Kinda like your theories in general.
Anyway, back to your rant, in which you first question my 'tenuous historical understanding' and then ask what "I suppose the founders meant" when they included the phrase "and of Nature's god."' Well, I suppose that Jefferson, that accused atheist, was referring to the deist god of the Enlightenment. So? What's your point. How does this remark prove anything about the role of religion in government? You are aware that Jefferson, as well as Washington, were Deists who did not believe in revelation or miracles and who wanted nothing to do with religion in government. I suspect your remark is another example of how you pull statements out of context and try to use them to impress people with your knowledge. Why don't you try actually studying what went on in the minds of the founders so you can speak intelligently on this subject. Myself, long ago I wrote a master's thesis on the classical and religious influences on earlier American political thought, and spent an entire winter reading the very voluminous diaries and correspondence of the founders (and especially of John Adams, my personal favorite), as well as all of Madison's notes on, and the many arguments surrounding, the constitutional convention. I'm not saying that my views are right or better than yours, only that, unlike yours, they are at least well informed. When you can say the same, we can talk. Until then, impress the double degit IQ's you surround yourself with, but don't try to impress me or any other reasonable person (as the first sign of reason is an open mind, and you my friend, do not have one).
What else: you seem to want to credit the Judeo-Christian tradition with the whole of western civivlization, but again, your understanding of what you speak is mud puddle deep. Without denying the importance of this tradition, which I revere, it is not the main root of western individualism, or the other values of which you speak. The J-C tradition is more collectivist in its essential nature than it is individualist, and anybody who'd read the bible or studied religious history would know that. Individualism does owe something to the Reformation, but more to the Enlightenment and the rise of capitalism. And while religion again played a role, how could it not, in the development of ideas of natural law, private property and equality, I would argue that classical philosophy, especially the ideas of the Stoics from whom early Christianity borrowed freely, and the modern Enlightenment thinkers, especially Hobbes, Locke and later, Mill, played a much larger role. And their arguments, as those of the French Enlightenment thinkers, especially Montesquieu, who influenced the American founders, were based overwhelmingly on reasonable and not religious grounds. True, the English dissenting tradition was important, but even without it our core political values would look much the same, if not as rich. So again, read before you write....and what the heck is "a divine right to natural law" anyway (besides another example of your ignorance).
What else? Oh ya, anybody who thinks the Port Huron Report, which I'll admit I've never read, is the source of modern liberalism or that the Soviet Union ever practiced "radical egaliterian secular humanism" is an idiot, or better an ignorant demogogue. And it was the classical Greeks who first stated that 'man is the measure of all things' and for the life of me I can't understand why the rabid right, as opposed to the reasonable right, is so terrified by the evil boogyman of "secular humanism." God Lord, talk about mindless paranoia. Haven't we bigger things to worry ourselves about in today's world?
And finally (I'm becoming bored): you really stuck your foot in it when you demonstrated your complete ignorance of the Treaty of Tripoli, didn't you. And while I'll freely admit, and rejoice in, the fact that America is a christian nation, that treaty makes it very clear that the founding generation did not, "in any sense", believe that they had founded their government on christian principles. Kinda blows the crap out of your whole argument, doesn't it?
By the way, go ahead and take offense. It was intended this time.
MJ
Posted by: MJ on December 10, 2005 12:21 PM
Well, you gotta admit, it sure beats, "Death to the infidel!"
Posted by: Will on December 10, 2005 04:27 PMThank you very much for your comments; they go a long way toward explaining the two major sides of this issue.
In context with the subject and earlier comments, they establish the following: 1.) The emotion filled content of your comments belies the weakness of your opinions on this subject; 2.) They show that my earlier admonition that you should “to read up, or shut up,” is particularly good advice to you; and 3.) They showcase common, stylish “modern liberal” beliefs--marked by prejudice over facts--about the so-called “Separation of Church and State.” While there are arguments in support of your position, you are clearly not aware of them. “Master’s thesis” notwithstanding, you are full of crap.
You are hardly in a position to critique anyone’s writing let alone assess their character. My most recent comment made rational sense and directly addressed the issues. Yours on the other hand jumped around from one thing to another in an amusingly disconnected and spiteful way. They display your hyper-sensitivity to criticism, your corresponding retaliatory nastiness (strongly suggesting deep emotional and intellectual insecurities), and a monumental ego with nothing to back it up. Clearly you have deluded yourself into believing that your feelings are thoughts, your vitriol is wit, and baseless statements are arguments.
The subject here is what Matt Rosenberg characterized as the “supposed war on Christmas,” and the larger related movement against the Christian religion by radical secular humanists in our country under the disguise of a supposed Constitutional doctrine termed the “Separation of Church and State.”
MJ, you really should read up, or shut up.
You ask,”[w]hat the heck is "a divine right to natural law." It is a paraphrase of Locke in his Second Treatise on Government. Locke’s whole proposition of Natural Law is based on God. Thomas Jefferson considered Locke’s work seminal on Natural Law and Fundamental Rights, and if you read anything significant on Jefferson or Locke you will know that.
-
You say, ”[a]nybody who thinks the Port Huron Report, which I'll admit I've never read, is the source of modern liberalism or that the Soviet Union ever practiced "radical egalitarian[sic] secular humanism" is an idiot, or better an ignorant demogogue.” I never said “source” dolt, I said, “ideals of ‘Human Nature’ as envisioned in the Port Huron Report.” Despite your inability to read and comprehend, the Port Huron Report happens to be the seminal work (list of objectives) of the founders of modern liberalism. Facts don’t need defense against your indolence.
Let’s get this straight . . .
--you admit that you have no idea what the “Port Huron Report” is, but still you profess a certainty that it is of no consequence. Your sluggish arrogance precedes you, and it accounts for you’re empty pretensions.
-
You say, ”The evil boogyman of "secular humanism." God Lord, talk about mindless paranoia.” Good Lord indeed.
Secular humanism is no evil boogyman, but it is the culture of a worldview centered upon human beings absent religious faith. Secular humanist elites directly substitute faith in God and/or religious dogma for faith in human institutions based solely on human reason and intellectual and moral relativism. Intellectual and moral relativism insists that there are no fundamental God given rights, only relative ones based on human reason, and therefore our Constitutional rights are only applicable to the extent that the current intellectual elites approve of them.
-
It is not paranoid to observe that our fundamental rights, important institutions, and religious freedom including the existence of Christian symbols (public Christmas displays, words in documents, on money, on public walls etc.) are daily threatened through the phony secular humanist transformation of the Constitution (“Establishment Clause” as a “Separation Clause”). This further opens the door to other false alterations of our fundamental laws. Should you or other liberals desire to change the laws, you should do so through the amendment process, not perversions of the Constitution. Your refusal to acknowledge this fact is testament to your typical liberal defense of baseless hogwash.
-
Then you say, ”And finally (I'm becoming bored): you really stuck your foot in it when you demonstrated your complete ignorance of the Treaty of Tripoli, didn't you. And while I'll freely admit, and rejoice in, the fact that America is a christian [sic] nation, that treaty makes it very clear that the founding generation did not, "in any sense", believe that they had founded their government on christian[sic] principles. Kinda blows the crap out of your whole argument, doesn't it? ”
-
Hardly MJ, on the contrary, it proves that you are too stupid to make a simple distinction. Proclaiming in a treaty that “the US "is not, in any way, a Christian nation,” and saying that “the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,” are two entirely different things. Your inability to discern the difference speaks for itself. It also explains why you are simple enough not to comprehend that proclamations in treaties don’t constitute binding authority over America’s founding principles.
Your bloated palaver about the Reformation, and the Enlightenment is one of numerous examples of how you pull statements out of context and try to use them to impress other liberals with your knowledge. It is also utter nonsense to divert attention away from the facts about the relevant authorities you cite including Hobbes, Locke, and others. It allows you to avoid conducting a direct examination of these authorities, their ideals and religiosity, and their importance to the founding of our country. It also proves that you are full of crap.
Our founders based our government on established ideas that worked for them, not some abstract pseudo-intellectual theory you pretend was important. Belief in God as the basis of fundamental rights was pivotal in America during the Revolution, and it was more influential in European philosophic circles than you arrogate to your sophistic historical nonsense. Jefferson based the words in the Declaration of Independence on “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God that came from Locke directly or indirectly through Lord Kames, Montesquieu, and Burlemaqui among others. Locke’s “Natural rights” and “Natural laws” were based on direct references to God and numerous citations to the bible. Montesquieu’s attitude similar to that of Locke asserted that God laid down all of the laws which govern the physical world upon which men are governed. Burlemaqui’s “moral empiricism,” was based on impressions made on human hearts by God.
Some latter day hacks like you believe (in service to a secular agenda) that Jefferson and Washington were deists. Most reputable historians do not agree at all, but there is no proof either way. Your statement of certitude to this effect is disingenuous and false, and further proves that you are full of crap.
John Adams (your personal favorite) was a Christian who believed deeply in the religious foundations of our country. He argued in opposition to secular humanist leanings saying “the ideal of perfectibility of man abstracted from all divine authority” is “unacceptable.” He also said that the doctrine of human equality is founded entirely in the Christian Doctrine that we are all children of the same father, all accountable to him . . .“ Adams believed that “men are only equal in the eyes of God,” and that “worship was both a right and a duty.” He went so far as to place a clause into the Massachusetts Constitution that affirmed the “duty of all people to worship.”
Go read up or shut up fool. MJ, it is not enough to simply trace your fingers across lines of text. Reading requires a native ability to reason, and the concentration necessary to engage the materials. While I’m sure you have some of these capacities, you exhibit none of them.
America is decidedly and overwhelmingly a Christian nation and any sensible reading of our history and our founding fathers proves it. Your silly peevish critiques belie the weakness of your opinions.
Proclamations in treaties don’t constitute binding authority over America’s founding principles, and over-generalized claims about the Reformation and Enlightenment serve only to evade discussion of the facts.
In summary MJ—you are full of crap.
Thanks again for the considerable effort and time you spent posting here to prove it.
It would appear that mj followed your advice after all.
(better late then never ;'}
Posted by: alphabet soup on December 13, 2005 08:08 AMI knew I shouldn't have tried to reason with a fool. That dull organ you call a brain really didn't understand what I was saying! You don't even know what the concepts you use mean, much less what the authors you cite said. What a waste of my time you've proven to be. You don't deserve the attention of a serious post.
Posted by: MJ on December 13, 2005 09:15 AMThis is very interesting.
Clearly, MJ can't take advice. He has himself convinced that despite his complete inability to persuasively construct arguments, he knows it all. An astute person, convinced of the virtue of their arguments, would have let well enough alone. Had MJ made any rational arguments he could have simply let the substance of his comments speak for themselves about the depth of his knowledge (or lack thereof). MJ didn’t make arguments let alone good ones, just high-handed proclamations and now he's stuck with them. In his embarrassment, MJ hurls insults in retribution for (the perceived personal insult of) being exposed as full of crap. He can’t resist making spiteful comments because he has nothing else to strike out with. His slippery shtick is bald arrogance, brash belittling nastiness, and ego with nothing to back it up.
MJ’s pseudo-intellectual bull$hit is not reason, and my clear citations of facts speak for themselves. My thesis is definitely arguable, and I would have enjoyed a healthy debate, but MJ didn't argue, he just pontificated, attempted to condescend and brazen his way through with nonsense. In doing so he exposed himself. I am very interested in others opinions when they appear to have value, and value facts instead of mere opinions based on prejudice. I know that I can learn a lot from worthy adversaries who employ intellectual honesty, but the only thing useful to learn from MJ is—don’t do as MJ does. MJ makes sweeping statements without any basis in fact and asserts that others either agree with them or they are stupid fools. The polite way of describing his dilemma is that his numerous comments to this effect (esp. his latest) establish that MJ is full of crap and he knows it.
In case you are interested, the citations and quotations I make in comments on this thread are there for anyone to easily find by simply reading the books.
Sources directly used in my comments on this thread include: An Imperfect God—George Washington His Slaves and The Creation of America, By Henry Wiencek, Farrar, Strauss and Giroux N.Y., 2003., The Life of Thomas Jefferson-In Pursuit of Reason, By Noble E. Cunningham, Jr., Ballantine Books N.Y., 1987., Thomas Jefferson, The Man, His World; His Influence, Edited By Lally Weymouth, G.P Putnam and Sons, 1st Ed 1973., Thomas Jefferson, Basic Writings, Konecky and Konecky., Washington—The Indispensable Man, By James Thomas Flexner, Little Brown. Toronto., 1974., The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, By Bernard Bailyn, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press Boston, Mass. 1992., John Adams, By David McCullough, Simon & Schuster, N.Y. 2001., Montesquieu, The Spirit Of Laws—Rousseau, The Social Contract, Edited By Robert Maynard Hutchins, Britannica Great Books., 1952, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, —Locke, Concerning Civil Government, Second Essay, Edited By Robert Maynard Hutchins, Britannica Great Books., 1952, Slouching Towards Gomorrah, By Robert H. Bork, Macmillan, N.Y., 1996.
Thanks for Your Comment.
Sorry Amused, but you do sound a little green. And you MJ a little pompous.
Posted by: Smokin on December 13, 2005 03:51 PMAnd smokin sounds a little smoked out...
mj is being contentious merely for the sake of being contentious (a liberal trait).
He uses opinion and rhetoric in place of hard fact (a liberal tactic).
He resorts to insults when he doesn't get his way (a liberal failing)
He clearly is a loser (a liberal moniker)
Merry Christmas!
Posted by: alphabet soup on December 14, 2005 07:05 AMWith all due respect, who cares? What is your point? If you wish to opine about the subject, comment. Otherwise your critique is overly general and vague, and thus serves no genuine intellectual purpose. I respect serious and fair-minded disagreement, so why not engage with some?
MJ made no arguments or analysis and neither have you, so when you say “MJ’s intellectual points appear the better informed,” I am left only to conclude that you are predisposed to agree with his mere opinions regardless of the merits. While I assert that America is a Christian nation founded upon largely Christian precepts, and I provide lots of solid evidence to prove it, MJ disagrees and provides none. You say you have ”read a lot of the relevant literature,” (including several authorities that I cite) but you don’t use this supposed background to underscore the merits of MJ’s points or inform your disagreement with mine. You call yourself a serious student of American history, yet your commentary is devoid of any reasoned scholarly examination of any issues relative to the polemic.
WHY ALLOW SPURIOUS CLAIMS ABOUT IMPORTANT SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS LIKE CHRISTMAS & CRUCIAL RELATED CONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINES TO GO UNCHALLENGED? Only because you can if you’re so inclined.
Since you apparently agree with MJ’s key assertion that “the US is not, in any way, a Christian nation,” is based on a Proclamation in a treaty saying that “the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,” are the same things, you must therefore be as foolish as MJ. Nevertheless, one assertion is still . . . clearly . . . quite different from the other, and this distinction is vital to the debate.
. . . .
Moreover, if you conclude, as MJ does, that proclamations in treaties somehow constitute binding authority over America’s founding principles (our Constitution), I'd enjoy reading your declaration to that effect so I can have a good laugh at your expense, because that claim is just as foolish. Though I cogently argued both points, you and MJ ignore it, and MJ never controverted either. Mores’ the pity.
Anyone can make open-ended critiques like yours; they are meaningless. Since neither you nor MJ offer any proof for your opinions except attributions to your own erudition, they are unpersuasive. Smokin, I might enjoy reading your informed opinions and debating these issues with you—especially if you argue them sincerely. Until you contribute something more than empty gratuitous score keeping, all anyone can conclude from your comments here, is that you arbitrarily agree with someone (MJ) I aptly (and too politely) describe as full of crap.
Since by your accounts, my being “green” actually amounts to careful research, an insistence on intellectual honesty, and reasoned argumentation, I intend on staying that way for a long time and I will continue to be thus ever better informed. I will argue, toe to toe on the merits of these and other issues with you or anyone else (including bloated ego freaks like MJ) any time, but never without reason.
I refuse to back away from those who make false claims in support of lies about this issue. Smokin, MJ is full of crap and if you agree with him this easily you are as well.
Thanks sincerely for your comments.