Sometimes the truth is painful, but if you find the truth insulting, it says more about you than I. I was merely answering of my own opinion. If I found myself that gullible, I would need the sort of respite a strictly superstitious perspective of the holidays might provide. While that might be an insulting opinion to you, you haven't demonstrated that it answers the question of intelligence at Sciforums. You did, however, answer the question of spelling ability, though I wouldn't say this equates to intellect by itself.
How far back, and how far away, you want to go ? Your own childhood was maybe like that. Very few other times, or places, have been. Gift giving has AFAIK been central to Christmas since its adoption as a Christian holiday - and I like the tradition. Along with community singing, it's a warm and attractive feature of the revamped solstice celebration. The modern wrinkle of focussing on children and family, rather than the serfs and community poor and traveling sqauds of wassailers, hasn't done it all that much harm either, surely ?
Everyone can celebrate anyway they want. They can even stand on a street corner handing out money to homeless people. You dont even have to touch them you can throw it at them.
In the US, maybe. Santa is only a department store prop in India's Christmas, while Jesus and midnight mass are an essential aspect. Even the gift giving is secondary (and not as commercialised) to the dinner with the whole family and some friends. We also have some wonderful carolling competitions.
Santa Claus, and the family focus of Christmas, was introduced into and popularized in the US on purpose, beginning with the controlling elite of New York City faced with the industrial society transmogrification of a feudal tradition among their imported laborers. Riots, essentially, and demands for feudal generosity from Dutch corporate warehouse owners. The tree and the wreath, the singing and the gift giving and the feast, are older and community based traditions.
Yet, it is YOU who denies that Christians actively recruit. I answered, you are lying. You are not free to put words in my mouth. The facts are that Christians actively recruit, a fact that you deny.
So, your cult's institutions don't pay taxes. That is an abomination and an afront to everyone else who must pay taxes. I'm not referring to the buggering of small boys behind the alter, although that would be preferable. But, I refer to the abuse of indoctrinating children into their parents cults. So, now you admit Christians DO recruit? Christians will never stop actively recruiting, that is, until Christianity is eradicated from the planet. All in good time. You need not deny your indoctrination. It is quite evident. I see you are in favor of keeping mankind divided and ignorant and could care less that your cults abominations to society run rampant. Hence, you will happily continue to ram your beliefs down my throat.
Okay. That's fair. But, to clarify, I was pointing out that your response characterized the situation I had put forth incorrectly, as it seemed to ignore the same point in the post you were replying to: Tiassa: Other people shouldn't have to hear about your faith half the year in order to have a job. If they want to work in a Christian bookstore, fine. John99: When i go into the Muslim shop and they are playing religious music i dont tell them- 'Shut that off, for i am not Muslim. Thus you insult me'
I have no problem with "Happy Holidays" and "Holiday Trees" myself. It's not where my mind goes immediately when I am speaking, but I don't see it as a rejection of the Christian faith (except for those prone to leaps in logic), nor does it *in any way* weaken Christianity itself. If it doesn't weaken Christianity, then it's not really an "attack." If it's not an "attack" then it can possibly be part of a "War." There are other holidays at or about the same time and, as a retailer, business owner or government you have to decide whether you want your actions to include as many people as possible ("Holiday Tree") or only those who agree with your subjective vision of the truth ("Christmas Tree"). I'm indifferent between the two, but I could see how good and devout Christians might go the "Happy Holidays" route too; after all, non-Christians sometimes (for more obvious reasons, i think) get offended if you simply assume they're Christian, or worse, treat them as if they were Christian knowing full well they are not. Let's assume that there is an assault on Christmas. What's the worst that could happen? Is there any non-zero chance that "secularists" could kill Christmas? Could make *anyone* otherwise inclined to do so to stop celebrating it? Christians are a sizable majority in the U.S., people who celebrate Christmas are an even larger percentage, according to what I've read (probably because so many atheists celebrate Christmas). Even assuming the doomsayers are correct and there is an effort to kill Christmas, plainly this is a cabal that is doomed to fail. (By the way, in my experience, it's not atheists who dislike Christmas, it's my Jewish friends.) So...why do some people decry the War on Christmas? I'll tell you. Because they like playing the victim card. It's fun to be the plucky underdog—to feel oppressed, yet righteous. It's especially fun when you feel the sense of oppression, without actually losing your superior power and position, as with Christians in the "War on Christmas" or people who make it seem as if being white and/or male is a disadvantage in this country (typically, because of all the affirmative action). In the past, conservatives used to (rightly) point out the liberal love of victimization narratives, but now they are clearly used by both sides. Some people are also I think a little bored, and just like to argue. (I just had a long debate about why "Xmas" was not some impertinent anti-Christmas plot.) (For, the record, if it were a plot, the plotters are very patient, as Xmas is a very old word, older than Modern English itself.
Where in the Bible does it state that a pine tree must be decorated at the taxpayer's expense? ...or the Constitution? Obviously Christmas will be important as long as there are Christians, but don't make me pay for a religious display. It's the principle of the thing. Do you want to pay for a Ramadan celebration, or Hannukah?
The thing is, not everyone is Christian, and not everyone celebrates Christmas; in fact, a significant minority of people celebrate Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Yule, or a simple Solstice festival rather than Christmas. Even at this, a large amount of atheists celebrate Christmas anyway because it's become a social convention and often is a traditional family custom, due to the festival's secular elements in the modern day. Eh. Not that big of a deal. It's the same fucking tree- just with a name more palatable to the vast numbers of non-Christians in the area. I think you're making a minor incident into a big deal, as are the mass-media organisations operating on the internet and on television channels.
