PDA

View Full Version : X-mas?



heater451
12-28-2007, 06:04 PM
<font color="blue">I thought I posted this already, but I can't find it anywhere. I found it interesting, but not sure what ulterior motives (if any) to ascribe to the "founder of the Ayn Rand Institute". . . .</font color>

Forget About Jesus, What About Me?
Why Christmas Should Be More Commercial


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

Tuesday, December 25, 2007
By Dr. Leonard Peikoff, founder of the Ayn Rand Institute, and the foremost authority on Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand.


Christmas in America is an exuberant display of human ingenuity, capitalist productivity, and the enjoyment of life. Yet all of these are castigated as "materialistic"; the real meaning of the holiday, we are told, is assorted Nativity tales and altruist injunctions (e.g., love thy neighbor) that no one takes seriously.

In fact, Christmas as we celebrate it today is a 19th century American invention. The freedom and prosperity of post Civil War America created the happiest nation in history. The result was the desire to celebrate, to revel in the goods and pleasures of life on earth. Christmas (which was not a federal holiday until 1870) became the leading American outlet for this feeling.

Historically, people have always celebrated the winter solstice as the time when the days begin to lengthen, indicating the earth's return to life. Ancient Romans feasted and reveled during the festival of Saturnalia. Early Christians condemned these Roman celebrations—they were waiting for the end of the world and had only scorn for earthly pleasures. By the fourth century the pagans were worshipping the god of the sun on December 25, and the Christians came to a decision: if you can't stop 'em, join 'em. They claimed (contrary to known fact) that the date was Jesus' birthday, and usurped the solstice holiday for their Church.

Even after the Christians stole Christmas, they were ambivalent about it. The holiday was inherently a pro-life festival of earthly renewal, but the Christians preached renunciation, sacrifice, and concern for the next world, not this one. As Cotton Mather, an 18th-century clergyman, put it: "Can you in your consciences think that our Holy Savior is honored by mirth? . . . Shall it be said that at the birth of our Savior . . . we take time . . . to do actions that have much more of hell than of heaven in them?"

Credit: google
Cotton Mather wouldn't like this guy too much.
Then came the major developments of 19th-century capitalism: industrialization, urbanization, the triumph of science--all of it leading to easy transportation, efficient mail delivery, the widespread publishing of books and magazines, new inventions making life comfortable and exciting, and the rise of entrepreneurs who understood that the way to make a profit was to produce something good and sell it to a mass market.

For the first time, the giving of gifts became a major feature of Christmas. Early Christians denounced gift-giving as a Roman practice, and Puritans called it diabolical. But Americans were not to be deterred. Thanks to capitalism, there was enough wealth to make gifts possible, a great productive apparatus to advertise them and make them available cheaply, and a country so content that men wanted to reach out to their friends and express their enjoyment of life. The whole country took with glee to giving gifts on an unprecedented scale.

Santa Claus is a thoroughly American invention. There was a St. Nicholas long ago and a feeble holiday connected with him (on December 5). In 1822, an American named Clement Clarke Moore wrote a poem about a visit from St. Nick. It was Moore (and a few other New Yorkers) who invented St. Nick's physical appearance and personality, came up with the idea that Santa travels on Christmas Eve in a sleigh pulled by reindeer, comes down the chimney, stuffs toys in the kids' stockings, then goes back to the North Pole.

Of course, the Puritans denounced Santa as the Anti-Christ, because he pushed Jesus to the background. Furthermore, Santa implicitly rejected the whole Christian ethics. He did not denounce the rich and demand that they give everything to the poor; on the contrary, he gave gifts to rich and poor children alike. Nor is Santa a champion of Christian mercy or unconditional love. On the contrary, he is for justice—Santa gives only to good children, not to bad ones.

Credit: google
A traditional, but non-Christian decoration.
All the best customs of Christmas, from carols to trees to spectacular decorations, have their root in pagan ideas and practices. These customs were greatly amplified by American culture, as the product of reason, science, business, worldliness, and egoism, i.e., the pursuit of happiness.

America's tragedy is that its intellectual leaders have typically tried to replace happiness with guilt by insisting that the spiritual meaning of Christmas is religion and self-sacrifice for Tiny Tim or his equivalent. But the spiritual must start with recognizing reality. Life requires reason, selfishness, capitalism; that is what Christmas should celebrate—underneath all the pretense, that is what it does celebrate. It is time to take the Christ out of Christmas, and turn the holiday into a guiltlessly egoistic, pro-reason, this-worldly, commercial celebration.




========================

heater451
12-30-2007, 06:12 PM
Wow, not a peep. Tough room.



==========================

wolfdancer
12-30-2007, 06:24 PM
I read the article and found it interesting...some articles don't require any additional commentary....thanks for posting that one.
Happy New Year....may the ghost of Lester Maddox guide you through 2008 /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

heater451
01-01-2008, 05:35 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> I read the article and found it interesting...some articles don't require any additional commentary....thanks for posting that one.
Happy New Year....may the ghost of Lester Maddox guide you through 2008 /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif <hr /></blockquote>Hey wd, I just thought there might be some discussion on the meaning of Christmas after it. I thought there might be a counter viewpoint, that denied the articles of Christmas as coming from pagan sources.

I think I'll just start celebrating Winter Solstice. Santa Barbara, California has an annual Summer Solstice parade, so perhaps another parade could fit in somewhere. . . .


===========================

S0Noma
01-01-2008, 05:57 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote heater451:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> I read the article and found it interesting...some articles don't require any additional commentary....thanks for posting that one.
Happy New Year....may the ghost of Lester Maddox guide you through 2008 /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif <hr /></blockquote>Hey wd, I just thought there might be some discussion on the meaning of Christmas after it. I thought there might be a counter viewpoint, that denied the articles of Christmas as coming from pagan sources.

I think I'll just start celebrating Winter Solstice. Santa Barbara, California has an annual Summer Solstice parade, so perhaps another parade could fit in somewhere. . . .


=========================== <hr /></blockquote>

Xmas is a very touchy subject with some folks. Particularly those who have been raised to believe in it as if it were gospel and hasn't changed in two thousand years. When you check the history of it one soon discovers that the birth wasn't celebrated on any given date until the Pope decreed it to be the 25th of Dec. about three hundred and fifty years AD.

It's funny how people will come to attach themselves to traditions as if they've been around for ages and ages when in fact, many of them are relatively recent.

I really enjoyed Christmas back when I was a kid but in the years that have passed since then the whole season has become very repugnant to me. I don't mind the Christian celebration of the birth of their Savior at all. What I do mind is the compulsory gift giving, the incessant Xmas commercials that seem to start up earlier every year, the bad drivers and ill tempered people that seem to fill the highways and the malls - it's not fun anymore.

My favorite Christmas in many years was one we spent down in the small country of Belize a few years ago. Belize was formerly British Honduras - the citizens all speak English. The country is about the size of Massachusetts with a population of about a quarter million people. It is quite poor.

What I enjoyed about their Christmas celebrations was their low key nature. The kids all got ONE present - there were no television or radio ads blaring - no jammed highways - no packed shopping malls - a few strings of colored lights here and there and an occasional Christmas tree. It was a fine Christmas overall and one that I will always remember.

It was Boxing Day that I found a bit strange but then, hey, I'm an American - what do I know about British holididays?

heater451
01-04-2008, 06:54 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote S0Noma:</font><hr> . . .It was Boxing Day that I found a bit strange but then, hey, I'm an American - what do I know about British holididays?<hr /></blockquote>The first time that I heard a reference to Boxing Day was this year, and I think it was on BBC-America, and I thought it was just a British term for Christmas. After your mention of it here, I Googled it, and I agree it's a bit strange--not illogical, but odd to me.



===========================

LWW
01-05-2008, 05:18 AM
Sonoma, why do you go around the block to miss the point of Christmas and to point out something widely known as if it were some huge expose'?

LWW

pooltchr
01-05-2008, 07:24 AM
I look at it in a different light. I see Christmas as a Christian celebration of the birth of Christ, that is being stolen by the politically correct extremists. What are the first 5 letters in the name of the holiday?

Our society has turned it into a commercial festival, to the point where we aren't even allowed to mention the real reason behind the holiday. Santa is fine, but Christ is taboo. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

The news during the season is all about how much money consumers are spending at the mall. How many news stories did you see about Christmas Eve candlelight services at local churches?

And how many people who believe the crap in the article were quite happy to take the paid day off from work, or accept that "Christmas bonus" from their employer?

Christmas is about Christ, not Santa! Easter is about the resurrection, not the Easter Bunny! If you don't like it, don't celebrate it...but don't tell Christians how we should celebrate it! We have every right to celebrate our beliefs, just as much as anyone else has the right to not celebrate it. It's the same principle as public prayer. I won't tell you that you have to pray, if you don't tell me I can't!

I hear so much that Christians try to tell others how to live. That's BS! It's the others who are constantly trying to restrict Christians from enjoying their freedoms.

Steve

LWW
01-05-2008, 07:39 AM
Excellent points all.

LWW

hondo
01-05-2008, 10:28 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> I look at it in a different light. I see Christmas as a Christian celebration of the birth of Christ, that is being stolen by the politically correct extremists. What are the first 5 letters in the name of the holiday?

Our society has turned it into a commercial festival, to the point where we aren't even allowed to mention the real reason behind the holiday. Santa is fine, but Christ is taboo. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

The news during the season is all about how much money consumers are spending at the mall. How many news stories did you see about Christmas Eve candlelight services at local churches?

And how many people who believe the crap in the article were quite happy to take the paid day off from work, or accept that "Christmas bonus" from their employer?

Christmas is about Christ, not Santa! Easter is about the resurrection, not the Easter Bunny! If you don't like it, don't celebrate it...but don't tell Christians how we should celebrate it! We have every right to celebrate our beliefs, just as much as anyone else has the right to not celebrate it. It's the same principle as public prayer. I won't tell you that you have to pray, if you don't tell me I can't!

I hear so much that Christians try to tell others how to live. That's BS! It's the others who are constantly trying to restrict Christians from enjoying their freedoms.

Steve <hr /></blockquote>

Tap! Tap! Tap!

Gayle in MD
01-05-2008, 10:33 AM
Gee Steve,
Please tell us the stories about the people who interferred with your Christian Christmas, and your prayers. Your accusations are a bit vague. All are given the right to worship as they choose, in our society.

We're all unique, in our own ways. For me, Christmas is about being with my family, preferably skiing, /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif or beaching. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif And especially, it's about sharing the holiday with my little grand-daughter.

Adults in our family have never exchanged gifts, as we believe that Christmas is for children.

I haven't been inside a Mall in years! Only go into stores where I can park out front, either at a Mall store's door, or shopping centers. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif Mostly I avoid malls completely, but then, I'm not big on shopping, anyway.

Love,
Gayle

Gayle in Md.

hondo
01-05-2008, 10:55 AM
Gayle, you know I'm pretty liberal.
Also, I hate hypocrites who hide behind religion and I don't care much for organized religion period.
But Steve made a good point.
What does CHRISTmas start with?
It's a celebration of Christ's birth.
It also seems to me that it has been sabotaged by
PCers and commercialism.
Why not let those who wish to celebrate Christmas as a Christian holiday do so?
I'm not a racist &amp; I'm not sexist, but sometimes it
seems like the only people it's okay to make fun of are
white, Anglo-Saxon, Christian men. JMHO.

Gayle in MD
01-05-2008, 11:58 AM
I guess I don't understand why anyone feels they're being censored in their Christmas prayers, celebrations, and religious freedom.

Christmas has been over commercialized for decades, IMO, and my Christmas cards say Merry Christmas, along with my verbal communications.

My community has plenty of well lit Christian displays of the birth of Jesus. I honestly do not see what all the fuss is about.

People in our country go to the churches they wish to attend, and have freedom to whrship as they please. How are religious people being discriminated against? There are religious stations on cable television. Chruches everywhere. Denominational schools available. What is the big deal?

Frankly, friend, it escapes me completely. The commercialization of Christmas has been around since I was a kid. I remember my own parents complaining that the spirit of Christmas was lost due to commercialism, capitalism, our free enterprise system, lol, just joshing now, but honestly, I guess I can't see any evidence in my life, that religion, or Church, or christmas, is under any attack from anyone.

Here's what I don't get. If you can do whatever you want, believe whatever you wish, pray to any God you choose, why do Christians want everyone else involved? To each his own. What someone else thinks, or says, or believes, has no effect on my own convictions.

Just my 2c.

Love,
Gayle

hondo
01-05-2008, 01:25 PM
Why the big push for Happy Holidays?
What I always say is Merry Christmas, Happy Hannnuka,
Merry Kwaanza, and if I left your holiday out, tell me what it is and I'll wish you that too. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
It does seem that 9 out 10 times on t.v or the movies, when a Christian is portrayed, it's usually as a lying, ignorant buffoon. Why? Most Christians I know aren't like that. Just televangelists and Republican politicians. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif Just seems like there's an agenda.
And young people form much of their opinions by what they see on a screen. It's a shame, Gayle.
For every lying, scheming, deceitful, pseudo- Christian out
there, there are hundreds of decent Christians just trying to find their way in life. But you would never believe that by watching t.v. or movies.
Something else to consider. Blacks, Jews, Muslims, gays,etc., are more aware of intolerence directed towards
them than non- blacks, Jews, Muslims or gays would be.
I feel that may be true of what Christians see also.

LWW
01-05-2008, 03:00 PM
True dat.

LWW

heater451
01-06-2008, 07:43 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> I look at it in a different light. I see Christmas as a Christian celebration of the birth of Christ, that is being stolen by the politically correct extremists. What are the first 5 letters in the name of the holiday?

Our society has turned it into a commercial festival, to the point where we aren't even allowed to mention the real reason behind the holiday. Santa is fine, but Christ is taboo. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

The news during the season is all about how much money consumers are spending at the mall. How many news stories did you see about Christmas Eve candlelight services at local churches?

And how many people who believe the crap in the article were quite happy to take the paid day off from work, or accept that "Christmas bonus" from their employer?

Christmas is about Christ, not Santa! Easter is about the resurrection, not the Easter Bunny! If you don't like it, don't celebrate it...but don't tell Christians how we should celebrate it! We have every right to celebrate our beliefs, just as much as anyone else has the right to not celebrate it. It's the same principle as public prayer. I won't tell you that you have to pray, if you don't tell me I can't!

I hear so much that Christians try to tell others how to live. That's BS! It's the others who are constantly trying to restrict Christians from enjoying their freedoms.

Steve <hr /></blockquote>Steve, I think the author of the article is saying that the modern "Christmas" gift-giving celebratory acts shouldn't be considered evial, pure commercial consumerism, because in reality that's what it has become. He's not saying that we should celebrate the commercialism instead of the Christian ideal.

And even though he uses the words, "take the Christ out of Christmas", I don't think he means to take the religious (or "spiritual", if you prefer), out of being celebrated. Basically, Christians celebrating life, love, family, and humanity are good things, but don't use that particular meaning of Christmas to invalidate the positivity of gift-giving, by making it the anti-thesis of "the spiritual meaning of Christmas [which] "is religion and self-sacrifice".

Maybe, it's misleading, by exposing the Christian Christmas, as being a melding of Roman/pagan worshipping, with the ideals of the Christians. I think that makes it seem anti-Christian from the start.

To sum, the article is not about dropping the religious/spiritual idea of Christmas, but only to not "demonify" {couldn't think of the word I need to use here} gift-giving, as the giving of gifts began as an extension of the good-will of the season.



================================

Gayle in MD
01-07-2008, 07:45 AM
There is a lot of truth in what you're saying about discrimination, after all, women still are not paid the same money, for the same jobs that men do. However, the tradition of using the term, Happy Hplidays, originally took form when individuals, and businesses, began to request that term many many years ago, out of respect for the Jewish faith. It wasn't an effort to exclude anything, in fact, the opposite. Now, Bill O'Reilly has turned what was originally an effort to use a term that could include everyone, into a national crusade.

Back in the fifties, My Dad printed Christmas cards for the National Republican Party, and the National Democratic party. Both requested Happy Holidays, in place of Merry Christmas. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif Nobody took offense.

Gayle in Md.

heater451
01-07-2008, 12:12 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>There is a lot of truth in what you're saying about discrimination, after all, women still are not paid the same money, for the same jobs that men do. However, the tradition of using the term, Happy Hplidays, originally took form when individuals, and businesses, began to request that term many many years ago, out of respect for the Jewish faith. <font color="blue">It wasn't an effort to exclude anything, in fact, the opposite.</font color> Now, Bill O'Reilly has turned what was originally an effort to use a term that could include everyone, into a national crusade.

Back in the fifties, My Dad printed Christmas cards for the National Republican Party, and the National Democratic party. Both requested Happy Holidays, in place of Merry Christmas. Nobody took offense.

Gayle in Md.
<hr /></blockquote>I think that's part of the problem--the idea that we include "every" holiday, or else not have any at all, usually makes it look like Christmas shouldn't be celebrated at all. And that makes the "America was founded on God" people take the defensive.

This country was founded by many people--some which were "secular", as opposed to religious (using secular to mean non-religious, and NOT anti-religious). However, the religious settlers--say, the Pilgrims--sought to escape the religious persecution that called for them to worship God in ONE WAY ONLY, as perhaps a Catholic or Protestant. Now, that to me seems to be TWO ways, but I suppose they both fall under the single, "Christian" banner. And, that leads us to the current idea that "Christian" = Worshiping God = America's Founders = How America Should Be.

The funny thing is, Christianity itself was a replacement for the pagan/polytheism of early Greek/Roman times. And, it was spread by force of arms, during the actual Crusades. This may have been somewhat unintentional, as I have read that the Crusades were originally launched to reclaim holy lands, and NOT to specifically spread the religion. However, I think that any persons conscripted into the Roman army may have been forced to follow Christian rules, so any victory by that side caused the religion to spread by default.

Another interesting thing to me, is how the "God-fearing" people who flourished in America, also crushed the native religion(s), when the Amer-Indians/Natives were subjugated, as "heathens", "primatives", or "savages". And while we often hear cries of being too Politically-Correct, how many Christmas/Chanukkah/Kwanzaa cards do you see, that also wish you a "Great Spirit Greeting"?

Founded on Christianity? What's your definition of "founded"? /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif



================================= <font color="blue"> </font color>

Gayle in MD
01-07-2008, 01:35 PM
All good points. We were founded as a secular nation, period. No particular religion was to be enforced by the state. You don't have to be a genius to figure out that the founders were among many others whose wish was to escape religious persecution.

Having the right to worship as they please is not enough for them, as apparently, they are not sufficiently secure in their beliefs, they are seeking wide spread public support of their relentless dogma, and trying to influence politics, government, and all other American principles.

They apparently are unaware that this country embodies loads of religions, not just Christianity.

Bottom line, they're out of order. The more they push for more power, control, and dictatorship in American affairs, the more resistance they are going to face. Radical fundamentalists are a huge threat at this time, and not just in the Middle East.

Gayle in Md.

S0Noma
01-07-2008, 05:34 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> All good points. We were founded as a secular nation, period. No particular religion was to be enforced by the state. You don't have to be a genius to figure out that the founders were among many others whose wish was to escape religious persecution.

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

So said - <font color="blue">"The Treaty of Tripoli - Article 11

The official treaty was in Arabic text, and a translated version provided by Consul-General Barlow was ratified by the United States on June 10, 1797. Article 11 of the treaty was said to have not been part of the original Arabic version of the treaty, and was from a letter from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli.[1]

However it originated, it was undeniably a part of the treaty as approved by President John Adams and Secretary of State Timothy Pickering and ratified by the United States Senate by a unanimous vote.

Article 11 reads:

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.

Article 11 has been a point of contention regarding the proper interpretation of the doctrine of separation of church and state. Supporters of the separation of church and state contend that this article is significant in that it confirms that the government of the United States was specifically intended to be religiously neutral. Supporters of the "Christian Nation" theory dispute this, arguing that the article in the treaty carries little or no significance. [2]

Official records show that after President John Adams sent the treaty to the Senate for ratification in May 1797, the entire treaty was read aloud on the Senate floor, including the famous words in Article 11, and copies were printed for every Senator. A committee considered the treaty and recommended ratification, and the treaty was ratified by a unanimous vote of all 23 Senators. It was the 339th time a recorded vote was taken in the Senate and only the third time a unanimous result was obtained.[3] The treaty was reprinted in full in three newspapers, two in Philadelphia and one in New York City. There is no record of any public outcry or complaint in subsequent editions of the papers.[4][3]"

</font color> web page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli)

moblsv
01-07-2008, 07:30 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>Now, Bill O'Reilly has turned what was originally an effort to use a term that could include everyone, into a national crusade.<hr /></blockquote>

I personally don't know a single person who has a problem with the term 'Merry Christmas', and most of my friends are either Atheists of Apatheist, yet I couldn't even guess how many times, this year alone, I've heard somebody complain about all those people who are offended by it. hmm, I wonder who is really making such a fuss and what their motive might be. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

S0Noma
01-07-2008, 07:37 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote moblsv:</font><hr> hmm, I wonder who is really making such a fuss and what their motive might be. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif <hr /></blockquote>

My experience reflects much the same. It does make you wonder doesn't it? Here's an example of a certain Fox News mouthpiece giving it his best shot (and missing):

<font color="blue">The Daily Show's Stewart responds to O'Reilly's misleading attack

Summary: Daily Show host Jon Stewart took Bill O'Reilly to task for his misleading use of a year-old Daily Show clip (noted December 6 by Media Matters for America) to demonstrate what O'Reilly claims to be an ongoing "war on Christmas."

On the December 7 edition of Comedy Central's The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, host Jon Stewart took Fox News' Bill O'Reilly to task for his misleading use of a Daily Show clip (documented by The Brad Blog weblog here and by Media Matters for America here). During the December 2 broadcasts of O'Reilly's Fox News talk show The O'Reilly Factor and his Fox News radio show The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly, O'Reilly used a year-old video clip from The Daily Show to demonstrate what he claims is an ongoing "war on Christmas" by secular forces. However, O'Reilly falsely told his radio listeners the clip had aired the day before and left his cable viewers with a similar misleading impression.

To demonstrate O'Reilly's deception, Stewart invited Daily Show correspondent Samantha Bee, who was featured in the December 2004 segment O'Reilly excerpted, onto the show. Bee, who is pregnant, and according to a November 13 New York Times article (subscription only), is due in January, compared her current appearance with the one shown in the clip, pronouncing it "unmistakable" that the clip was in fact "from last December". She cited as evidence "[m]y highlights." Bee then excused herself, saying "my water just broke."

Following Bee's departure from the stage, Stewart stated satirically: "[A]pparently, we liberal secular fags here at Comedy Central ... have fired a devastating year-old six-second-long joke that doesn't barely even make any sense to us anymore across the bow of Christianity." He later added:

STEWART: Mr. O'Reilly also objects, obviously, to the use of the phrase "Happy Holidays" as anti-Christian, although, for some people, there is also a -- a celebration of the New Year. So Christmas and the New Year are actually two holidays, so there is a plural, which in the English language necessitates the use of the letter "S." Now, I suppose you could say "Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year" but you probably have (expletive) to do.

In concluding the segment, Stewart stated:

STEWART: If Bill O'Reilly needs to have an enemy, needs to feel persecuted, you know what? Here's my Kwanzaa gift to him. Are you ready? All right. I'm your enemy. Make me your enemy. I, Jon Stewart, hate Christmas, Christians, Jews, morality, and I will not rest until every year families gather to spend December 25th together at Osama's homo-abortion-pot-and-commie-jizzporium.</font color>

From the December 7 edition of Comedy Central's The Daily Show with Jon Stewart:

<font color="green"> STEWART: I want to begin with something a little more personal than usual. As many in the audience know -- that are out there watching -- there is a war on Christmas.

[laughter]

STEWART: It's been devastating -- don't even know if there will be a Christmas this year. My guess is yes. But what you may not know is who's been waging this war on Christmas. Well, as it turns out, it's me.

[laughter]

O'REILLY [video clip of December 2 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor]: Predictably, the opponents of public displays of Christmas continue to put forth counter-arguments on 'Secular Central.' I -- I mean, Comedy Central. They said this:

SAMANTHA BEE [video clip]: Christmas: It's the only religious holiday that's also a federal holiday. That way, Christians can go to their services and everyone else can stay home and reflect on the true meaning of separation of church and state.

[laughter]

O'REILLY: And a Merry Christmas to you, Jon Stewart.

[applause]

STEWART: Well, thank you. And let me say to you, Bill O'Reilly, and the entire O'Reilly clan: "Feliz Navidad." Although I'm sure you're concerned that that's getting too prevalent as well in this country. Secondly, you mentioned here at "Secular Central" -- or as I call it, "Godless Central" -- that we keep putting forth counter-arguments against Christmas. But I don't recall that clip that you showed there, but, you know what, I'll ask Samantha Bee. She was in that clip. Sam, can you come out, please?

BEE: Hey, Jon.

STEWART: Hey! Samantha Bee, everybody. Let me ask you a question: Do you -- you filed that report on Christmas.

BEE: I did.

STEWART: Do you remember when we did that?

BEE: Well, let's see. Can we take a look?

STEWART: Do you want to take a look at the clip? Sure.

BEE [video clip]: It's the only religious holiday that's also a federal holiday. That way Christians can go to their services and everyone else can stay home and reflect on the true meaning of separation of church and state.

STEWART: You see, I mean, is that -- is that recent? Was that last week?

BEE: I got it. You know what? That clip was from last December.

STEWART: Now, how do you know that?

BEE: Well, it's subtle but it's -- it's unmistakable, Jon. My highlights. You see those there? Those are honey. These, clearly, caramel. Apparently, Mr. O'Reilly thought that nobody would notice. So -- Oh! Oh, my goodness! My water just broke.

[laughter]

STEWART: Oh, OK. All right. Sam Bee, everybody. I didn't -- didn't realize --

[applause]

STEWART: By the way, if that baby in there turns out to be Jesus, somebody owes somebody an apology.

[laughter]

STEWART: But apparently, we liberal secular fags here at Comedy Central --

[laughter]

STEWART: -- have fired a devastating year-old six-second-long joke that doesn't barely even make any sense to us anymore across the bow of Christianity. When you think of liberals, your thoughts naturally turn to others who are fighting against Christmas like the Puritans: the first white Americans who banned Christmas celebrations for 22 years in Boston because they deemed all of them unseemly. Godless pricks.

[laughter]

STEWART: Mr. O'Reilly also objects, obviously, to the use of the phrase "Happy Holidays" as anti-Christian, although, for some people, there is also a -- a celebration of the New Year. So Christmas and the New Year are actually two holidays, so there is a plural, which in the English language necessitates the use of the letter "S." Now, I suppose you could say "Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year" but you probably have (expletive) to do.

[laughter, applause]

STEWART: You shorten it to "Happy Holidays."

[laughter]

STEWART: Not everybody who says that is anti-Christian, but for those of you who don't feel like you want to be idiots walking around starting on November 27 saying "Merry Christmas" to people, knock yourself out. You know what, it's OK. If Bill O'Reilly needs to have an enemy, needs to feel persecuted, you know what? Here's my Kwanzaa gift to him. Are you ready? All right. I'm your enemy. Make me your enemy. I, Jon Stewart, hate Christmas, Christians, Jews, morality, and I will not rest until every year families gather to spend December 25th together at Osama's homo-abortion-pot-and-commie-jizzporium.</font color>

[applause]</font color>

web page (http://mediamatters.org/items/200512080005) <font color="green"> </font color>

moblsv
01-07-2008, 07:56 PM
lol, I saw that. Great bit.

Gayle in MD
01-08-2008, 10:04 AM
It's "the Godfather of Conservatism" who said :

"I am a conservative Republican, but I believe in democracy and the separation of church and state. The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet that people have the right to live life as they please as long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process." (in a 1994 Washington Post essay)
"The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others,"

"I don't have any respect for the Religious Right."

"Every good Christian should line up and kick Jerry Falwell's ass."

"A woman has a right to an abortion."


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

Goldwater was not always such a staunch separationist. Early in his controversial political career he supported tax breaks for private school tuition and a school prayer amendment. But the rise of the intolerant Religious Right caused him to rethink his views, a change that sparked admiration from Americans who disagreed with him on many other things.
When Sandra Day O'Connor was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1981, some Religious Right leaders suspected she might be too moderate on abortion and other social concerns. Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell told the news media that "every good Christian should be concerned." Replied Goldwater, "Every good Christian should line up and kick Jerry Falwell's ass."
The five-term U.S. senator from Arizona was equally unimpressed with TV preacher Pat Robertson. When Robertson sought the GOP nomination for president in 1988, Goldwater wasn't about to say amen. "I believe in separation of church and state," observed Goldwater. "Now, he doesn't believe that . . . I just don't think he should be running."
A few years later he told The Advocate, "I don't have any respect for the Religious Right. There is no place in this country for practicing religion in politics. That goes for Falwell, Robertson and all the rest of these political preachers. They are a detriment to the country."
While some Americans might find Goldwater's stand against all interaction between religion and politics too sweeping, many would agree with his strong commitment to individual freedom of conscience on issues as diverse as religion in schools, gay rights or abortion. In 1994 he told The Los Angeles Times, "A lot of so-called conservatives don't know what the word means. They think I've turned liberal because I believe a woman has a right to an abortion. That's a decision that's up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the Religious Right."
Goldwater, an Episcopalian, had theological differences with greedy TV preachers. "I look at these religious television shows," he said, "and they are raising big money on God. One million, three million, five million - they brag about it. I don't believe in that. It's not a very religious thing to do."
But Goldwater was also deeply worried about the Religious Right's long-term impact on his beloved GOP. "If they succeed in establishing religion as a basic Republican Party tenet," he told U.S. News &amp; World Report in 1994, "they could do us in." In an interview with The Post that same year, Goldwater observed, "When you say 'radical right' today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye."
But most importantly, Goldwater was deeply concerned about the Religious Right's relentless war on the Constitution and basic American freedoms. In a Sept. 15, 1981 senate speech, Goldwater noted that Falwell's Moral Majority, anti-abortion groups and other Religious Right outfits were sometimes referred to in the press as the "New Right" and the "New Conservatism." Responded Goldwater, "Well, I've spent quite a number of years carrying the flag of the 'Old Conservatism.' And I can say with conviction that the religious issues of these groups have little or nothing to do with conservative or liberal politics. The uncompromising position of these groups is a divisive element that could tear apart the very spirit of our representative system, if they gain sufficient strength." Insisted Goldwater, "Being a conservative in America traditionally has meant that one holds a deep, abiding respect for the Constitution. We conservatives believe sincerely in the integrity of the Constitution. We treasure the freedoms that document protects. . . "By maintaining the separation of church and state," he explained, "the United States has avoided the intolerance which has so divided the rest of the world with religious wars . . . Can any of us refute the wisdom of Madison and the other framers? Can anyone look at the carnage in Iran, the bloodshed in Northem Ireland, or the bombs bursting in Lebanon and yet question the dangers of injecting religious issues into the affairs of state?"
Goldwater concluded with a waming to the American people. "The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others," { he said,} "unless the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy. They must learn to make their views known without trying to make their views the only alternatives. . . We have succeeded for 205 years in keeping the affairs of state separate from the uncompromising idealism of religious groups and we mustn't stop now" { he insisted}. "To retreat from that separation would violate the principles of conservatism and the values upon which the framers built this democratic republic."

from CHURCH &amp; STATE July / August 1998
"In your heart, you know he's right."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Senator Goldwater was appalled by many who claimed to be "Conservative" followers of his. He planned to write a follow-up to his book, "Conscience of a Conservative", called "Conservatives without Conscience", along with his good friend, of Watergate fame, John Dean. Unfortunately, John Dean had to complete the book on his own after Goldwater passed away in 1998, and the book was published in July of 2006, and quickly became a best seller.

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

HBO movie "Mr. Conservative: Goldwater on Goldwater"
"C C Goldwater was five when her grandfather, Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater ran for President in 1964. In this biographical documentary, illuminated by interviews with major public figures and never-before-seen home movies and photos, CC looks back on the man, his morals, his missteps ... and his enduring legacy as 'Mr. Conservative.'

http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/about/goldwater.html

IMO, Religion has no place in politics, in our election process, or in the White House. All of "The People" are not religious. We have a government, of the people, by the people and for the people, hence, separation of church and state is the only appropriate safety net for democracy.

Gayle in Md.

LWW
01-08-2008, 10:08 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>IMO, Religion has no place in politics, in our election process, or in the White House. All of "The People" are not religious. We have a government, of the people, by the people and for the people, hence, separation of church and state is the only appropriate safety net for democracy.

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>
So, you agree there is no place for the Goremons?

LWW

S0Noma
01-08-2008, 10:25 AM
http://www.atheist-community.org/images/cartoon/2N121218JHy191215Q9eQ.jpg

http://www.atheist-community.org/images/cartoon/SZY1519PCW4153J11624.jpg

Gayle in MD
01-08-2008, 10:38 AM
Sad part of it is that it is so true. We're at a very dangerous crossroad for Democracy.

Gayle in Md.

LWW
01-08-2008, 11:16 AM
Yes we are.

Lucky for people like you there are people like I who will stand down the barbarians. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

LWW

bsmutz
01-08-2008, 03:20 PM
Personally, I'd rather never see a Christmas again in exchange for people who profess belief in Christ and his teachings living their lives as though they did. And why have a special day to celebrate? Why not celebrate every day by practicing what you preach?

LWW
01-08-2008, 03:31 PM
But I do sir.

That's what bothers you.

LWW

hondo
01-08-2008, 03:46 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bsmutz:</font><hr> Personally, I'd rather never see a Christmas again in exchange for people who profess belief in Christ and his teachings living their lives as though they did. And why have a special day to celebrate? Why not celebrate every day by practicing what you preach? <hr /></blockquote>

To me, it's simple. If you are a Christian and wish to celebrate these very old celebrations of the Christian faith, as millions do, why shouldn't you be able to?
If you think it's a bunch of crap, don't participate,
but why ruin it for those who do.
My Jewish friends wish me a Merry Christmas and I wish them a Happy Hannakuh.
If I wish somebody a Merry Christmas and they say they're Jewish, I just smile and say, "Well, Happy Hannakuh, then."
What's the big deal?
Over-zealous Christians, fake Christians, pompous
Christians, have soured many people on religion.
I don't like those people either.
Ah, but to meet a humble, non-invasive Christian who lives the faith! They're out there.
Not me, unfortunately. I'm an arsehole who believes in
Christ but still likes the women, booze and partying
too much. Definitely a work in progress as many Christians are.
One of my points is why do away with a long-standing celebration of one's faith just because of hypocrites or that it's not PC?

S0Noma
01-08-2008, 04:12 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote hondo:</font><hr>

To me, it's simple. If you are a Christian and wish to celebrate these very old celebrations of the Christian faith, as millions do, why shouldn't you be able to?

<font color="blue">I don't think there is really much opposition to this. The opposition I've seen has come from those wishing to move that celebration from the public square to the church and home where it belongs. I have no problems with Christians wishing to celebrate the day in any way they choose. </font color>

If you think it's a bunch of crap, don't participate,
but why ruin it for those who do.

<font color="blue">Honestly, I think it's the merchandisers who have stolen Christmas. The barrage of commercial advertising that starts around Thanksgiving and carries on relentlessly until the day after Christmas is obscene. I think of it now as more of the 'Obligatory Gift Giving Season' than a religious holiday and I loathe it for that.

In the past few decades 'Christmas' has morphed into something altogether other than a religious holiday. It's truly become my least favorite day of the year and not because of the Christian celebrations associated with it - but because of the gross expression of conspicuous consumption that it represents. </font color>

My Jewish friends wish me a Merry Christmas and I wish them a Happy Hannakuh.
If I wish somebody a Merry Christmas and they say they're Jewish, I just smile and say, "Well, Happy Hannakuh, then."
What's the big deal?

<font color="blue">The efforts to make the season politically correct are laughable. Holiday merchants who stress and strain over blaring 'Merry Christmas' over their PA systems versus 'Happy Holidays' just want your money - they don't care about your religious views or mine for that matter. </font color>

Over-zealous Christians, fake Christians, pompous
Christians, have soured many people on religion.
I don't like those people either.

<font color="blue">Secularism comes in many flavors. It's not just people who are unhappy with their perception of Christians. </font color>

Ah, but to meet a humble, non-invasive Christian who lives the faith! They're out there.

<font color="blue">I agree. Luckily I can count a few of them amongst my circle of friends. </font color>
Not me, unfortunately. I'm an arsehole who believes in
Christ but still likes the women, booze and partying
too much. Definitely a work in progress as many Christians are.
One of my points is why do away with a long-standing celebration of one's faith just because of hypocrites or that it's not PC?

<font color="blue">If by 'long-standing' you mean a little more than a hundred years or so? I'll give you long-standing. But the truth is that the holiday season encompasses a lot more than just Dec 25. It's a dark and depressing time of the year for many and the opportunity to party hearty and forget your problems is a hard one to refuse. Jewish holidays fall in the same general time frame - Wiccan and Pagan celebrations too. LOTS of people want to party during the longest night and shortest day time of the year. This is not new news - it's been that way for much longer than a Century or two. </font color> <hr /></blockquote>

wolfdancer
01-08-2008, 04:14 PM
Bill, you're behind the times...as was Goldwater. Surrounded by liberal enemies, the ethos of Christianity must be suspended..and a more militant approach adopted to defeat these Godless people.

bsmutz
01-08-2008, 04:59 PM
Whoops, looks like I made a couple of mistakes here. First, I wasn't responding to LWW's post, just the thread and his was the last post in the thread. And, LWW, I've seen how you practice what you preach. Anyone who has a differing opinion from you is a moonbat, neocon, leftist, delusioned liberal, hatemonger, etc. Actually, in your expressed opinion, everyone on this board appears to be all of these things to you.
I have no problem with anyone celebrating Christmas or any other holiday. I am disgusted by what the holiday season has become, though. I quit going to any stores where merchandise can be bought between Halloween and Xmas about 10 years ago (unless it's something I need like a car part). People were so nasty to each other and fighting over merchandise, parking spaces, etc. that it just isn't worth it to me. As has been mentioned before in this thread, you can see the stress and anxiety just from driving your car. People just don't exude the holiday spirit like they used to.
I really don't think Jesus would like our collective celebration of his birthday. Making up fictitious characters to make it more appealing, gross commercialism in its worst form, and lying to our children all seem to me to be the anthesis of what he was here to teach us. Give me a little more peace and love for all mankind and I'll be much happier. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

SKennedy
01-08-2008, 05:02 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> I hear so much that Christians try to tell others how to live. That's BS! It's the others who are constantly trying to restrict Christians from enjoying their freedoms.

Steve <hr /></blockquote>

Steve, I'm afraid it will get much, much worse before it gets any better. /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif I hope that many of our tolerant friends on here will remember that persecution, regardless of the reason, is a bad thing. Although I must admit I've seen some fellow so-called "christians" I would like to persecute. Just watched a re-run on the history channel about the KKK. As an example, those are fellow "christians" that I just can't see much "christ" in.

LWW
01-08-2008, 05:03 PM
So, you still forgive the sins of the old regime when they silenced the people I see.

Nobody has silenced you or them, but ... of course you already know that.

As has been discussed ad infinitum I have held a mirror up to the haters here and they don't like it.

I don't blame them.

Please join us in the sunshine of peace.

LWW

SKennedy
01-08-2008, 05:09 PM
SONoma you are right about fellow "christians" using religion as a marketing ploy. If I see a business that employes the fish symbol to entice business, or have it on their business cards, I have nothing to do with them.

As far as humble and decent christians. You are right. They are out there and they are a very refreshing thing to find. Just remember, none of us are perfect. Which of course, brings us back to the origin of the subject and the necessity of it all.

LWW
01-08-2008, 05:19 PM
I guess you refuse to visit ZONDERVAN'S then I guess? /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

LWW

wolfdancer
01-08-2008, 05:25 PM
maybe if you can ever take the barbed comments out of your peace bs, and take you, as the decider, out of the offer....maybe someone will take you up on that....until then you can take your phony peace offer....and
well, you already knew "and...." didn't you?

http://photos-738.friendster.com/e1/photos/83/75/1805738/512776127784l.jpg

LWW
01-08-2008, 06:03 PM
Sadly, I did brother wolfie.

Put down the haterade and join us.

LWW

S0Noma
01-08-2008, 06:28 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SKennedy:</font><hr> SONoma you are right about fellow "christians" using religion as a marketing ploy. If I see a business that employes the fish symbol to entice business, or have it on their business cards, I have nothing to do with them.

<font color="blue">I really don't worry about that too much. When it comes to the Christmas season retailers have gotten so that they depend on it to make their entire year. They've managed to make a whore out of Christmas and the holidays and I for one am way past being tired of it. </font color>


As far as humble and decent christians. You are right. They are out there and they are a very refreshing thing to find. Just remember, none of us are perfect. Which of course, brings us back to the origin of the subject and the necessity of it all.

<font color="blue">I fully agree about the lack of perfection but I will disagree that belief in a higher power is required to lead a good and honest life. Morality and ethics did not start two thousand years ago - they've been around for much longer than that. Christians do not have a corner on the market for ethical behavior. In spite of what many of them may believe to the contrary. </font color><hr /></blockquote>

Gayle in MD
01-08-2008, 06:48 PM
[ QUOTE ]
If you are a Christian and wish to celebrate these very old celebrations of the Christian faith, as millions do, why shouldn't you be able to?
<hr /></blockquote>

You are able to, my friend. Again, I'll ask you what I asked Steve, (although he never answered me) who is stopping you?

I did some shopping, (one day only) this year. Every time a salesperson rang up my charges, when the transaction was complete, I said, "Merry Christmas!" All day long, not one single person wished me a Merry Christmas first, or happy holidays, or happy new year,... zilch. In fact, I only saw one person smiling all day, a glimpse of myself in the window. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

I love our Christmas times together, because they are free of stress. Learning to live life well, is an art form. We are into comfort and joy, around here, and if we stay home for Christmas, we all wear our pajamas on both Christmas Eve, and Christmas day. It's about being happy, and being together. It's about love.

Gayle in Md. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

wolfdancer
01-08-2008, 08:31 PM
Sorry "Bro", but while you are trying to reinvent yourself as the voice of reason here,your posts prove that you remain an agitator,a trouble maker, and an egotist, who thinks he can sell the new you to the crowd, because he is so much smarter. (IMO)
Not sure who "we" are, unless you have elected yourself as a spokesman.
I don't like phony people, and you stand out here as one....

LWW
01-09-2008, 05:00 AM
Cry me a river bro.

LWW

hondo
01-09-2008, 06:30 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote LWW:</font><hr> So, you still forgive the sins of the old regime when they silenced the people I see.

Nobody has silenced you or them, but ... of course you already know that.

As has been discussed ad infinitum I have held a mirror up to the haters here and they don't like it.

I don't blame them.

Please join us in the sunshine of peace.

LWW <hr /></blockquote>

Tell em, buddy. All we are saying is give peace a chance.
Nah nah nah nah, nah nah nah nah, hey hey hey, okay.

hondo
01-09-2008, 06:37 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SKennedy:</font><hr> SONoma you are right about fellow "christians" using religion as a marketing ploy. If I see a business that employes the fish symbol to entice business, or have it on their business cards, I have nothing to do with them.

As far as humble and decent christians. You are right. They are out there and they are a very refreshing thing to find. Just remember, none of us are perfect. Which of course, brings us back to the origin of the subject and the necessity of it all. <hr /></blockquote>

In my area we have a festival that combines fishing and Christianity.
We even crown a beauty queen. We call her "The Trout Tramp." First runner-up is called "The Haddock Hussy."
Then there's "The Perch Peach," " The Tuna Tart."
Well, you get the idea.
We had a brief scare with our queen last year.
We lobster but we finally flounder.

SKennedy
01-09-2008, 03:16 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote S0Noma:</font><hr> <font color="blue">I fully agree about the lack of perfection but I will disagree that belief in a higher power is required to lead a good and honest life. Morality and ethics did not start two thousand years ago - they've been around for much longer than that. Christians do not have a corner on the market for ethical behavior. In spite of what many of them may believe to the contrary. </font color><hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote>

I never said belief in diety was a requirement to live a decent and moral life. I have a good friend that is an atheist. He is a very decent human being. But, none of us is perfect....and hence........, etc.
I think my friend is wrong, but I will stand up for him anytime. I will also defend his choice. But I am saddened by his choice because I feel like he is and will be missing out on something of great joy. If I'm right, I'd have preferred that he was there to enjoy it with us. If he's right and I'm wrong, then I'm the idiot, but we both end up nothing but dust anyway. In my view, he has much more to lose than me. However, I did not make my choice based upon that viewpoint. My choice is just as valid as his....we are not judgemental toward each other...by the way, he is not a "scientist." He does tell me that he feels he is more "enlightened" than I am, at least on the topic of "religion". I'll continue to smile and be patient. He is very intelligent and very well-read and traveled. And when we do discuss this topic, he does listen to me out of respect because he feels I do actually try to live a "christian" life (of course I fail that task every day).

SKennedy
01-09-2008, 03:19 PM
Hondo....that not too bad but I don't think it's as good as LWW's fun with Honda vehicle names....

I bet the last line use to get a few eyes rolling in the class room. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

hondo
01-09-2008, 04:08 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SKennedy:</font><hr> Hondo....that not too bad but I don't think it's as good as LWW's fun with Honda vehicle names....

I bet the last line use to get a few eyes rolling in the class room. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif <hr /></blockquote>

Haaruumph. See if I waste my humor on you anymore! /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif