A professional politician, someone a great many people pulled a lever for, actually uses the term "war on Christmas." That's really funny.
Here's the thing I don't get: I've heard the term "Happy Holidays" my whole life. I always assumed it referred to the many holidays that take place this time of year, both secular and not, like Thanksgiving and New Year's, and yes Hanukkah and whatever else.
I think it's bullshit that we can't have Christmas decorations or activities in schools anymore.
ReplyDeleteI think it should be called "War against being a bunch of politically correct sissy little bitches"
It's not a war on anything. Retailers are in business to sell stuff. If they feel using the word "Christmas" in ads might marginalize some customers, then they won't use it and that is their capitalist right to do so.
ReplyDeleteLot of people feel the same way as State Sen. Chris Buttars he has a responsibility to represent that. I don't see why that is funny.
ReplyDeleteI also don't see why "Christmas" is offensive. Why should we have any problems hearing that? or Hanukkah for that matter.
Freedom of religion or freedom from religion?
>> If they feel using the word "Christmas" in ads might marginalize some customers then they won't use it
ReplyDeleteAnd vice versa. No law should tell them they can or cannot use that term. According to Jimmy's graph it would be in their best interest to use it.
Lot of people feel the same way as State Sen. Chris Buttars he has a responsibility to represent that. I don't see why that is funny.
ReplyDeleteBecause he's introducing legislation promoting the use of the word Christmas.
Freedom of religion or freedom from religion?
A government officially endorsing a religious holiday? That doesn't sound like freedom of anything to me.
Wait a sec here...
ReplyDeleteSince when is it funny or outrageous to introduce legislation to be voted on democratically?
Its not his job to verify that laws are Constitutionally legit.
Did you forget everything Mr. Staffeld taught you? haha
>>That doesn't sound like freedom of anything to me.
If that were passed, yes, I would agree with you.
BTW, San Francisco just introduced legislation to decriminalize prostitution... who cares, let the system work.
Decriminalizing prostitution is an issue with a legal history pretty much as long as history itself.
ReplyDeletePassing a resolution condemning the War on Christmas® is nothing but a reaction to right wing and fundamentalist christian demagoguery that has only cropped up in recent years. That's the "Manufactured Outrage" I'm referring to; The outrage isn't mine.
Absolutely, let this inane bill work its way through the system. He has every right to introduce moronic legislation that contributes absolutely nothing to society. Just as I have every right to call him on such BS.
>>Passing a resolution condemning the War on Christmas
ReplyDeleteWhoa, what article did you read? The legislation was to embrace Christmas... not to condemn anything.
>>reaction to right wing and fundamentalist christian demagoguery that has only cropped up in recent years
Are you serious?
a) Many non-right wing, non-christans, non-demagog's have major issues with the elimination of "Christmas", "Christmas Trees", even Santa in many cases, from the holiday season whether its at Mall's, schools or in front of homes.
b) It only "cropped up" when we started cropping down Christmas trees. Saying the outrage "cropped up" isn't accurate, as if it magically happened.
I don't think public concern is in any way manufactured when public schools can't have Christmas parties, give Christmas gifts, or send Valentines, or have Easter baskets.
Easter baskets and presents in schools? Really? That's what this is all about?
ReplyDeleteI know of no sweeping federal legislation or regulation to ban easter baskets from our schools, so I can only assume those decisions are taking place on a state level or lower (my guess is lower). So isn't that good? Hasn't that been the rallying cry of conservatives for years when it comes to education? Keep the feds out of it and let more local authorities decide what's best? Some local school boards decide to not put up an Xmas tree and others decide to teach that Jesus walked with dinosaurs. That's a win for small government all around.
So you really see no problem with government embracing religious iconography? God, I would love to see the reaction to a muslim elected official trying to get a governing body to resolve to embrace Ramadan.
This guy is a STATE Senator. Representing his constituents who are probably outrages at other decisions that are "taking place on a state level"
ReplyDelete>>So you really see no problem with government embracing religious iconography?
Why are you twisting my words?
I said I had no problem with this guy proposing legislation on behalf of the people he represents. He doesn't determine whether or not our government embraces religious iconography. I specifically said: Let the system work.
I would be 100% with you on this if the article in question was about legislation that passed.
Unfortunately it seems like Senator Butters is in a tit-for-tat legal frenzy with extreme atheists who are "offended" by the word "Christmas". I would appreciate it if Butters and Soulless-Liberals would stop passing laws, though I have no problem with either groups legal or Constitutional right to do so.
>> would love to see the reaction to a muslim elected official trying to get a governing body to resolve to embrace Ramadan.
Funny you mention that:
City Council members are calling on the state to give New York City children the day off from school on two Muslim holidays.
More Districts Closing on Muslim Holidays - New York Times <-- Read this one.
So at the very least you should call a spade a spade. At the very least recognize that nothing was manufactured. At the very least, if you have issues with proposed legislation, you should have major issues with passed legislations.
I, on the other hand, have no problem with any of this. But can we at least call it Christmas? I'll call it Ramadan and take the day off.
Ok, let's take a step back. We have like three different conversations going here. The original article in question was about a state legislator "Buttars, R-West Jordan, wants retailers to embrace Christmas in their promotions," and "is sponsoring a resolution asking the Legislature to declare its opposition to what he calls the war on Christmas." Now I am not sure if resolution=legislation, but if it is then it's just silly and an obvious infringement of the first amendment. Retailers can advertise however they want. Just like everything in Home Depot has both English and Spanish on it, and how Hallmark has mahogany cards. It's all about reaching a broad market. Besides, what would the law say? "If your ad uses the colors red and green, and falls between Halloween and New Year's, then it must proclaim the word Christmas in 28pt font on the front page..." What if the green on my website is "#008001" instead of "#008000"? If I sell pine trees, will I be required to call them Christmas Trees? Get real. Sure, this guy has the right to introduce any legislation he wishes to, but his constituents also have the right to demand that he stop wasting tax money pursuing unconstitutional legislation, if indeed he is even asking for legislation.
ReplyDeleteAs far as Holiday Trees go, such as the one at Rockefeller Center, again, that is a privately owned tree and they can call it whatever they want. In fact, they simply call it "The Tree at Rockefeller Center", as per their website.
And as for "extreme atheists", who are they? Where are they? I never heard anyone ever complain of being offended by the word Christmas. I'm atheist, I celebrate Christmas, I have a Christmas Tree, I give Christmas Gifts, I even shorten it to Xmas in email, oh noes!
As for schools and gov't ditching the word, it's just for the same reasons as retailers; to try and make everyone feel welcome and included. When I was a Cub Scout, we had two kids who were Jewish. One year we harassed one of them (we were like 8) about Santa Claus. We kept asking "do you believe in Santa Claus?" We understood that he didn't celebrate the holiday, but we were curious if he believed or not. He never answered, it was just really uncomfortable for him. We never ever harassed him but that once. But in Scouts you do religious things (God is one of the foundations of Scouting), like make crappy tree ornaments and stuff. Eventually, those two kids left our troop to join a different troop in another town that had more Jewish kids. They just didn't feel included. And so, if we were a retailer, we just lost two customers to a competitor. That's all it's really about. Not marginalizing people. There's no war on anything.
I believe the Jew Scout you're referring to was Booger.
ReplyDeleteBooger's mom used to give us Jew candy around Christmas time and my parents never had a problem with it.
I just received a Hyundai "Holiday" ad through email and there was nothing specific about any one holiday. I'm going to pay attention to all of the TV commercials and see if they ever say Christmas.
ReplyDeleteI don't really care either way, but I'm curious.
Oh no! I just got a work "Holiday Party" invite! It has snowmen, "holiday trees", red and green lights, and nowhere does it say Christmas!?!?! Goddamn liberal extreme atheists! I'm so outraged! Oh wait, I just remembered the company owners are Jewish. Maybe they are trying to be inclusive by not calling it a Hanukkah Party. How nice of them.
ReplyDelete"silly and an obvious infringement of the first amendment."
ReplyDeleteNo its not.
Just like public school districts closing schools on Ramadan is also not.
The only outrage I see is when people feel like their Freedom of Religion is being infringed upon. Passing legislation or resolutions for religion is exactly what the First Amendment was all about.
From wikipedia: the 1st Amedment "prohibits the establishment of a national religion by the Congress or the preference of one religion over another, or religion over non-religion."
One resolution from one state senator does not violate that. As long as when the law is passed it includes other resolutions or other laws, existing or otherwise, that give equal preference to other religions (or non-religions) Example: Closing schools for Ramadan. See article.
The 1st Amendment clearly allows for equal space for all religions (including non-religion)
Why has that been twisted to mean otherwise?
My stance on this will always be a preference for equal space for all religions.
Which means I agree with a State Senators right to introduce this resolution. In addition to whatever legislation allows schools to close on Ramadan.
They are both obvious infringements on nothing. (the Ramadan example being one example of dozens we could find)
btw, "extreme atheists" was a tongue-and-cheek counter to "right wing and fundamentalist christian demagoguery". Sorry if sarcasm doesn't across better in blogging.
ReplyDelete