False "war"

The supposed "war on Christmas" is just another straw dog created by Fox News -- right alongside the "mainstream media" and numerous others. If you didn't hear about this "war" on Fox you'd be going about your life and celebrating as always instead of getting all worked up about nothing. The anecdotal reports of an "assault" are usually wrong or distorted.(See Kevin Haglund's enlightening article in today's Citizen about the 'Grand Tree' controversy.)What has really damaged Christmas is the mean streak that this trumped up "war" has engendered among people who are all too eager to see themselves as part of some sort of persecuted sect. Five years ago no one knew, let alone cared, what some store called it's Christmas tree. Now we've managed to make the phrase "Happy Holidays" an insult. That takes some doing.

bowser's blog | login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by bowser on Fri, 12/16/2005 - 8:56am.

I would not have believed this had I not seen it with my own eyes:
Friend of mine got Fox News's corporate card at his office. You'd think after all the fuss they've raised it would show the baby Jesus in the manger, or at least wish a Merry Christmas. Nope. It features Santa's sleigh flying past a skyscraper with the Fox News logo on it, and these words: "HAPPY HOLIDAYS."

Inside is a poem, set to the tune Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer and extolling the Fox anchor people -- including Christmas warriors John Gibson, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity.

Not a mention of the holiday's religious roots to be found. I'm sure Gibson, O'Reilly and Hannity will resign in protest when they discover this.

Community Guy's picture
Submitted by Community Guy on Fri, 12/16/2005 - 7:22pm.

OK...time to chime in, here.

Highgreen said it well, but I'll try to put a finer point on it:

The Hannity's of the world and other radio/TV personalities like him are ENTERTAINERS! They do what they do to ENTERTAIN so they can make MONEY!

If they happen to make a person think while they are listening or watching...well...how can that be a bad thing?


Submitted by Sailon on Fri, 12/16/2005 - 8:27pm.

I know this is what these jokers say everytime they make a mistake or are pinned down, but all liars are that way. We can do without fabrications and gollowing a straight line--even when it goes through mule manure. Too many of us are just gullible enough to believe the crap.

Submitted by Sailon on Fri, 12/16/2005 - 12:18pm.

Will NOT resign from FOX as long as the big checks keep coming. They work for money, not principles, just as does Limbaugh. People like these dangerous ones will eventually destroy America if we don't do something.

ArmyMAJretired's picture
Submitted by ArmyMAJretired on Fri, 12/16/2005 - 1:16pm.

Who elected you to be the judge of free speech and political opinion in America?

Read Bernard Goldbergs books: "Bias" and "Arrogance" and you will see who is really out to destroy America.

Liberals are upset because they set the agenda and controlled information for years. Now that one cable channel and a few radio stations do not tow the NY Times line it is doom and gloom.

Don't Katie Couric and Dan Rather work for money also?

What something do you propose doing? Limit their freedom of speech? Shout them down like the college students did to Ann Coulter?

I love tolerant liberals!


Submitted by Sailon on Fri, 12/16/2005 - 4:38pm.

Coulter and Limbaugh manufacture attitudes to make money. If you ignore that because they take the "conservative" twist, then you can't be helped.

PTC Guy's picture
Submitted by PTC Guy on Fri, 12/16/2005 - 1:12pm.

Does your comments on destroying America and needing to be dealt with extend as well to Alan Combs and the other liberal commenators?

Or, are only those on the right dangerous?

For your info, I am an independent. I do not agree with a lot said by those on the right. But I sure don't agree with a ton said on the left.


Submitted by Sailon on Fri, 12/16/2005 - 4:41pm.

I do try hard to watch what they do--not what they say out of their big mouths. I'm surprised Limbaugh can still talk due to the thousands of illegal meth pills. If he had been black, he would now be in jail.

PTC Guy's picture
Submitted by PTC Guy on Fri, 12/16/2005 - 10:17pm.

You didn't answer my question.


Submitted by Sailon on Sat, 12/17/2005 - 7:58am.

Just how many liberals have independent radio talk shows? It is stupid to do when they never have anything good to say about the average citizen--only those who have accumulated fortunes or power and plan to take it with them.

PTC Guy's picture
Submitted by PTC Guy on Sat, 12/17/2005 - 10:57am.

They are around. Not the big names, but they are around.

They are not as big as the conservative ones because, indeed, they complain and offer no answers, right or wrong.

I am not defending all the big names say. Not at all.

But to just point fingers at the conservative ones was what I was getting at. I believe extremes in both directions is deadly.


Submitted by Sailon on Sat, 12/17/2005 - 1:14pm.

The reason there aren't any liberal talk radio hosts is because most liberals don't smoke Cuban cigars, eat at Ruth's Chris, and all of the stuff like Bose speakers, and much other things only the wealthy can afford because of their tax break. Financial advisors, banks, etc., don't make much money from liberals. These are the sponsors for the most part if you will notice. I really don't think most Conservatives realize just how devious making money has become! Sharing wealth with the poor is done less here than any other country. If the government doesn't help them, they don't get much help. I don't believe the crap that helping them only promotes more poor.

PTC Guy's picture
Submitted by PTC Guy on Sat, 12/17/2005 - 2:19pm.

Get over it. There are many liberal talk radio hosts. Alan Combs is just one among many.

Sponsors back those who attract viewing audiences because more hear their commercials. They don't give a hoot about their politics.

As for sharing wealth less than any other country, you seriously need to study those health care systems and standards of living in other countries. Seriously.

I believe in helping those in real need. Welfare States are disasters.

But, I see where you are coming from here. Conservative talk radio does not promote your agenda, which makes them a threat.

And something needing done means censorship, as liberals and humanists are trying to do in every aspect of our lives.

Yep. I clearly see where you are coming from. I have nothing more to say.


Submitted by Sailon on Sat, 12/17/2005 - 4:11pm.

Liberals want censorship? No way. If these guys want to be comedians on talk radio, then let them be comedians. Selfish ones at that. Goodbye.

PTC Guy's picture
Submitted by PTC Guy on Fri, 12/16/2005 - 10:14pm.

Double post.


Submitted by bowser on Tue, 12/13/2005 - 7:58am.

In one of the posts below it is asserted that the term "wall of separation" between church and state is an invention never uttered by the founders. Here are the facts:

In 1802 President Thomas Jefferson got a letter from some Baptists in Connecticut who feared they might be persecuted because of the primacy in that state of another branch.

Jefferson replied:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for is faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem."

That is where the term came from. People will, of course, argue over its true meaning and context. I would agree that it was not a collective sentiment of the founders, plural, who as we've already discussed held fairly divergent views on theology and its relationship to government (which is why we're still freely arguing the question today.) But it certainly was not invented and indeed came straight from the pen of a founder.

I did not know this myself until I saw an item by a very bright Kennesaw State student in today's AJC, and then did a bit of research on my own to confirm.

PTC Guy's picture
Submitted by PTC Guy on Tue, 12/13/2005 - 8:49am.

Indeed stated. And now totally misapplied.

It is a twofold statement that the enemies of Christianity fail to state in totality.

It says the government shall not declare any national religion, an issue that caused the flight of people from such as Catholicism and the Church of England, in Europe.

But it also says the government shall not impede the free exercise of religion either.

Again, the first acts of Congress were religious, but not denominational. People need to understand the distinction.

And they need to understand a number of States prior to the Constitution had indeed established State Religions.

This letter was a concern not about religion in the national level but an issue in forming the balance of State versus national power concerning a State issue.

The new definition of 'Wall of Separation' is recent in the history of our country. A part of the so-called 'Living Constitution' that evolves in meaning over time.

Humanism is a religion. Do not establish it as our National Religion.


Submitted by bowser on Tue, 12/13/2005 - 9:28am.

I'm not trying to establish anything. Just offering a fact that deserved to be aired in light of your inaccurate assertion that the term was "invented." I'll gladly let people read Jefferson's own words and your take on them and draw their own conclusions....

PTC Guy's picture
Submitted by PTC Guy on Tue, 12/13/2005 - 12:39pm.

No problem with that.

But, when interpreted with the wrong background on the issue many will come to the wrong conclusions.

It is invented as regards the way it is being used now. Do you hear the ones demanding a 'Wall' every references the complete statement? No!

A statement edited changes the meaning. As does moving it from a State to a Federal context.

So, let each judge. But judge from the facts, not the assumptions.

The first votes of Congress make it very clear barring Christianity from government was never intended.

'Free exercise thereof' does not mean no place within government. It just means you cannot dictate whose religion can speak and whose cannot. Including the religion of Secular Humanism.

Secular Humanists want theirs to be the only religion allowed.


CarpeDieminPTC's picture
Submitted by CarpeDieminPTC on Fri, 12/09/2005 - 11:44am.

Having a very strong belief in limited government, I am prejudiced against my government doing anything outside of the very limited role that it should be in. Having said that, an historical analysis of the meaning of freedom of religion or from religion should be made.

I think one must first decide what exactly is religion. Although I am very spiritual, I am by no means religious. The religious fanatics of Islam is what is driving many of our current problems today. Centuries ago, Christianity was doing similar things, such as killing and murdering muslim for being ungodly. Heck far, the Baptist Churches of America split for one reason alone, slavery. Some believed the Bible Endorsed it, others from the North did not.

So I'm generically opposed to any branch of my government giving a foothold on any particular religion, albeit, even if I agree with that particular religions tenents. No different than in my belief that burning the American flag is a disgrace, that however, gruesome, should be permitted as a wonderful example of the Freedom that that Flag stands for.

Having prayers in our schools, Ten Commandments glistening on the walls behind our Judges, or Islamic beheadings of adulterous women on our City Hall steps, all tend to me, to be inappropriate actions by my government.

Out of curosity, for you religious types, how do you remember and keep the Sabbath holy? Do you work, or shop? Remember in the Old Testament, the Sabbath was respected by many archaic and strict rules. Many orthodox jews still attempt to "religiously" follow those rules. Why don't you orthodox christians?

I just believe that America, although created by many religious and devote men, many were in fact diests, that does not mean we have to force others to believe the way we do. As my early comments hopefully suggest, burning the Flag is not only an horrendous thing to do, it also illustrates how wonderful the freedoms that that flag represents when we allow ignorant morons to demonstrate their freedoms of expression.

So to is our Constitutional protections in that we allow citizens to practice whatever religion they prefer, and that our Government should carefully walk down a very narrow path, both recognizing religion as part of american citizenery, but also in taking no position as to religions authenticity.

To be honest, I cringe when I hear Kwazai comments. But if that act becomes a religion of sorts, then our Government will be having Kwanzai ordained lightings of candles or Kwanzai trees or whatever they do to celebrate this invented holiday. It seems to me, when we open the door to recognizing any religion, in an official context, then we are obligated to recognize all religions, in an official context.

Oh, and although already artfully dealt with in another post, we are not a government of Majority Rule. Majority rule is another term for law of the jungle, only the biggest survive. The little guys have no rights save that of what the majority allow. We are not that at all.

Thats my opinion we welcome yours.

Seize the Day in Peachtree City


PTC Guy's picture
Submitted by PTC Guy on Fri, 12/09/2005 - 11:37am.

The American Culture and Society is what I live in.

When any form of government agency begins to strip away a rightful part in the name of political correctness and so on I am impinged upon.

A growing number of school systems have banned any mention of Christ at Christmas.

Yes, I am fully aware Christ was not born on December 25 and the origins of many of the celebration practices of Christmas today.

But Christmas was founded as a celebration of Christ. Not Mohamed, Buddha or any other religious or secular figure.

Yes, the Founders contained Deists and such. But the very first acts of Congress were to appoint Christian Chaplains to the military and Congress. The early government also empowered churches to found schools.

The Preamble says our rights come from God.

The First Amendment does not say religion cannot be a part of government. It says government cannot adopt an official religion.

In the writings of the founders you find statements God should be in government via the elected official.

My point being if not for Christ Christmas would not exist. Yes, it has been secularized heavily.

To forbid children to mention Christ in schools anywhere in this country impinges upon me. To forbid the placing of the Ten Commandments (not just a Christian document) from being placed on government properties any where impinges upon my rights.

How? Because it seeks to strip the historical values, beliefs and more this country was founded upon. It attempts to deny religious freedom and Christ were the reasons the first settlers came here to begin with.

It wants to reinvent America into a secular nation where Christ and God are to kept behind walls. And will later not even allow those buildings to exist when they become offensive.

This is about far more than Christ in Christmas. This is about their very core of our society and culture.

And remember, Secular Humanism is a legal religion per the Supreme Court. So no matter how you go at this there is religion in the government.

And by definition Atheism and Humanism are religions because one does not have to have a living god to be a religion. They simply have to hold some values above all others, which they do.

There is no such thing as a religiously neutral person.


Submitted by bowser on Fri, 12/09/2005 - 10:41pm.

Nice try, ptcguy. At least you know that impinged is a word. But my question remains unanswered. The fact that government institutions and public schools don’t do as much as you wish they would to drive home the Christmas-Christian connection does not deprive you of any right to celebrate the holiday however you see fit. It only deprives you of the pleasure of living in the type of society you’d prefer (which would then, sadly, deprive you of the pleasure of considering yourself an aggrieved victim.)

And what on earth do you mean by "rightful part?" There is no “right” to have the government support or reinforce your personal religious views via public institutions. Fact is, you’re not talking about rights, just your own ‘druthers. Big difference.

Couple other points:
We can soundbite founding fathers all day long. James Madison (an underrated giant among the founders) was president when the first chaplain was appointed. He opposed the idea. He said: “The Constitution of the United States forbids EVERYTHING LIKE (my caps) an establishment of a national religion.” There are plenty more where that came from.

Yes, the preamble and our currency, among other documents, refer to God. They do not refer to Christ. It is a conceit to think that any mention of a deity automatically endorses Christianity. It does not.

To forbid schoolkids from mentioning Christ would indeed be an infringement of their rights. Fortunately it’s not happening. Schools are full of voluntary clubs for Christian youth. (They are also full of coaches who give Christian team prayers and even some Christian teachers who proselytize, which they should not be doing.)

There is no rule against the 10 commandments on public buildings, nor against nativity scenes in public places. The relevant Supreme Court rulings say these symbols are okay as long as they are alongside representations of other religions (as is the case of the 10 commandments on the Supreme Court building in Washington) or part of a holiday display that also includes secular symbols such as candy canes and reindeer. You can question the logic but it is a myth that these things are “forbidden.” Some places choose not to fool with them anymore, in part, ironically, because of the trumped up fear of lawsuits spread by the Christmas Warriors on Fox News.

And by the way, did I read right that two Atlanta mega-churches will be closed on Christmas morning because they don't expect big crowds and want church workers to have the day off? Say it ain't so!!

Anyway, I'm done with this. Appreciate the comments. Good debate and hopefully everyone learned a little something. I did. Merry Christmas.

PTC Guy's picture
Submitted by PTC Guy on Fri, 12/09/2005 - 11:24pm.

You were answered.

Trying to semantically phrase the question to make it seem as if no one pointing to an immediate personal loss here means they cannot loose in other ways is misleading.

It is okay for Secular Humanist to teach unproven evolution but not okay to teach facts they say it is impossible. That impacts the children and parents of PTC.

It is okay to revise and edit what history will be taught in the schools. They impacts the children and parents of PTC.

And speak all you want of equality, but that is denied when only Christian symbols are demanded to removed or not allowed in public settings.

Try to spin all you want, but those who follow the news, yes, beyond Fox, before you get onto that, know it is happening out there.

As far as Madison went, there are a good many more who were around and engaged. They did not agree with him on his interpretation of church and state issues.

OK. Spin away. Those who care will do honest research and find what I have said is true.

Wall of separation was an invented term neither stated or implied by the founders.


Submitted by bowser on Sat, 12/10/2005 - 8:29pm.

Like I said, nice try. Merry Christmas, ptcguy

PTC Guy's picture
Submitted by PTC Guy on Sat, 12/10/2005 - 8:41pm.

Repeat that all you want. You were answered.

Merry Christmas to you as well.


Submitted by bowser on Sat, 12/10/2005 - 9:27pm.

answered, perhaps. refuted, no.

since i've already wished you merry christmas, i suppose all that's left is happy holidays. don't take it the wrong way. Smiling

and now i bid farewell and this time i mean it.

Submitted by tripp on Wed, 12/07/2005 - 11:10pm.

The whole thing annoys me, including the "reason for the season" zealots and the "holiday tree" crowd. Let's face it. If you're Jewish, you probably couldn't care less about decorating a tree in December. And I have no need for a dreidel.

Neither crowd is as annoying as catching myself feeling compelled to rephrase my words in politically correct language at work. I used to wish people a Merry Christmas, but I don't think I've said it even once yet this year. It makes me angry that I've let myself be brainwashed that my traditions and customs aren't meaningful because I'm a white, Christian male.

White, Christian men are the only unprotected class at this point in our society. I think that's the real reason why so many are identifying with the "war" on political correctness. It's okay to make fun of Christians and caucasians and to trivialize their beliefs and contributions. They can celebrate Christmas all they want, as long as they keep it in the closet.

So, I think it has precious little to do with what's happening this year. From my memory, we've been building upon this foundation of political correctness since the 80's, when we began to employ hyphenated-Americanism, yet began celebrating "Black History Month."

We really need to get over ourselves. We're all Americans and we all bring heritage and the contributions of our cultures to the table.

I wish you all a Merry Christmas, no matter if you are Jewish, Muslim, or Christian; white, black, yellow, or red. If you toss me a "Happy Kawanzaa, cracker", I promise I'll not be offended, even though I think your secular celebration is a bunch of new-age crap.

Submitted by bowser on Wed, 12/07/2005 - 10:41pm.

Thanks for the interesting comments. For those of you who believe this "war" is real, I ask: Give me one specific example of how it has impinged on your individual right to celebrate Christmas in the manner you see fit.

Submitted by bowser on Thu, 12/08/2005 - 8:03am.

Still waiting....

Submitted by dkinser on Thu, 12/08/2005 - 9:09am.

First off, can you explain what impinged means? If you mean infringed, then I will make one case.

This so called "war" that you are referring to is not simply about Christmas, rather the first 6 letters; Christ. The Christian faith has been under a persistent attack by people with no alignment towards any god. We see this in the lawsuits and the effect it is having in public areas.

Display's of the 10 Commandments are being prohibited, prayer in school, The Pledge of Allegiance, and now the removal of the phrase "In God We Trust" from our currency.

This country was founded by Christian Forefather's seeking religous freedom. Today, we have a minority taking away the majorities rights. This is wrong. People come to this country seeking a better life, then want to change the country to fit their lifestyles. This too is wrong.

So the fight over the phrase Christmas Tree is seen as just another assault on the Christian belief's. At some point in time, the line must be drawn in the sand and the majority must fight for their freedom's too.

A return to majority rule is the only solution. We have stood by too long and allowed our freedoms to be trod upon by a minority of people.

Dana Kinser

Submitted by bowser on Thu, 12/08/2005 - 12:15pm.

Thank you for your thoughts Dana, and I hope you have a Merry Christmas.

Impinge is in the dictionary, with this definition: 1. to have an effect or impact. 2. to make steady inroads, ex: to impinge upon another's rights.

On your other points,
The personal religious views of our key founders were quite mixed. Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin, for instance, admired Jesus as a philosopher but they were Deists, theologically. Some founders, like Patrick Henry who tried but thankfully failed to impose a tax to support Christian sects, were indeed devout. Others were anything but. Thomas Paine, a hero of many conservative thinkers, also wrote The Age of Reason, a devastating critique of the religion. In general, our founders were religious libertarians who did not want the new country's government distorted or consumed by any particular creed.

"Majority rule" is not and never was the basis of our political system. We live in a federal republic with a democratic tradition (that is straight from the CIA Fact Book), which is not the same thing as a majority rule democracy. As the old saying goes, love it or leave it.

As for religious symbols, if you can't get your fix at the tens of thousands of churches and mega-churches in America, or in your own home, I doubt a tree at city hall or the mall is going to help no matter what it's called.
And by the way while we don't have mandatory prayer to start the school day, like they do in some Middle Eastern countries, the dreaded ACLU has fought FOR the rights of voluntary student organizations to distribute religious materials.

Anyway, my question stands: In exactly what way has your right to celebrate a Christian Christmas been impinged -- or infringed if you prefer?

Submitted by bowser on Fri, 12/09/2005 - 7:54am.

The question again to all you War on Christmas Warriors: Give me one specific example of how your right to observe the holiday in the way you deem appropriate has been impinged. Just one. Anyone got anything for me? Anyone? Hello, out there....

Submitted by mewsicpstr on Mon, 12/12/2005 - 5:03pm.

First, let me say that my answer to this challenge comes from a passage in the Bible. Yes, I realize that many people don't recognize the Bible as a source of authority, but I do and since I'm answering the question, I'll answer it my way! The prophet Hosea said these words in chapter 4:1, "There is no faithfulness, no love, no acknowledgement of God in the land. There is only cursing, lying and murder, stealing and adultery; they break all bounds, and bloodshed follows bloodshed. Because of this the land mourns, and all who live in it waste away; the beasts of the field and the birds of the air and the fish of the sea are dying." History has shown that when a nation turns it's back on the moral principles found in the Bible to a more "enlightened way of thinking," that is the beginning of the end of that civilization. Hosea even indicates that the environment suffers when this happens. When there is "no acknowledgement of God in the land," whether at Christmas or any other time of the year, all of the descriptors used in the verse begin to appear. Watch the evening news tonight. You'll hear about lots of cursing, lying, murder, stealing, adultery and bloodshed. So how are my rights impinged? The U.S. is going the way of all of the past great nations who threw out the moral compass and soon, maybe not tomorrow, but soon my religious freedom will disappear as well.

Submitted by insidelookingout on Wed, 12/07/2005 - 10:03am.

I found it interesting that a guy goes to such great length in trying to convince his readers that he is not motivated by political correctness, but he refers to the needy families of the county as "under-resourced people". I'm not buying.

Submitted by curious on Fri, 12/09/2005 - 1:34pm.

There is a difference between being politically correct and just being polite. I do go to Dogwood Church and am very familiar with the Real Life Center. They don't just minister to the poor if that's what you mean. They also minister to people who are in need in other ways. Ever since Hurrican Katrina they have had a group of different people go to different areas and help in several ways, not just material things. They have certified people in disaster aid. They havae helped rebuild houses and other buildings. They have ministered to people from an emotional stand point, and of course have sent truck loads of food, clothes and other supplies that are needed. They are not just about handing out food to the poor. They are also about helping their physical,emotional, and spirtual needs. They help those that have lost their jobs to find new ones. So I believe his comment of calling these people under resourced quite appropriate since they help in whatever way that people need. They are not just the typrical food bank. They help people with furniture needs and even cars. I know Kevin Haglund and politics is not his motivation. It's a caring heart for people that ALL their needs be met. For all the work that he put into making the Christmas program at the Fred Peachtree City would be blessed if he continued to organize it each year. Thanks for allowing my comments.

Submitted by historybuff on Wed, 12/07/2005 - 10:17am.

I agree that he could write volumns, but calling the Christmas Tree the Grand tree and the poor "under resourced people" is political correctness at it's best. See how brainwashed some folks are. It happens so slowly sometimes nobody notices. By the way, isn't that Steve Brown's church? Doesn't that speak volumns? Everytime I hear or see something on the news about PTC it is negative. Enough already. The new "inexperienced" elected officials have a chance to restore us to our former status before Brown Weed Rapson. After all Brown Weed Rapson were inexperienced when they were elected. Let the City Manager manage like the charter is written. No more meddling from part time elected officials.

PTC Guy's picture
Submitted by PTC Guy on Wed, 12/07/2005 - 8:57am.

There most assuredly is a Political Correctness and anti Christian anything movement out there.

Happy Holidays and such are fine. But not when they are the required words over Merry Christmas.

It is the 'Christ' in Christmas they detest.


Submitted by bowser on Thu, 12/08/2005 - 8:15am.

The only required words I've heard about are the new demand that everyone use "Merry Christmas" every time you address anyone in any circumstance in a holiday (oops, sorry) setting. For many years I have said 'have a nice holiday' to people at work or at stores, not out of political correctness but out of the simple reality that I don't know what their personal beliefs are or whether they celebrate at all. Nor do I care. I do know they are about to have a holiday, and I hope it will be pleasant in whatever form they take it. So I tell them to have a nice holiday. Then I go home and admire my Christmas lights and Christmas tree.

Submitted by historybuff on Wed, 12/07/2005 - 10:22am.

We must all work at putting Christ back in Christmas. Today I am purposely buying Christmas cards that have a bible verse and say Merry Christmas. And no more Xmas. Even though X is supposed to mean Christ in the original Greek. Nobody gets it.

Submitted by Sailon on Fri, 12/09/2005 - 9:39am.

I take it you wouldn't mind getting a card quoting the Koran? Would a picture of Budda upset you? I don't know what a billion East Indians may send on their card---a cow, I suppose.

PTC Guy's picture
Submitted by PTC Guy on Fri, 12/09/2005 - 12:19pm.

Buddhists, Islamics, Hindi, Judaism and such do not celebrate Christams.

They recognize it as a Christian holiday.


Submitted by bowser on Thu, 12/08/2005 - 8:23am.

You will find a wide selection of such cards at all those godless stores where they tell you to have a happy holiday. By now they will even be half price.

Submitted by Sailon on Fri, 12/09/2005 - 8:33pm.

Why are these right wing nuts so afraid they are wrong about their beliefs? If they weren't, they would mind their own business and their private religion and not continue to make me bolster your confiidence. There are several billion other people in the world who don't even know what a Christmas tree is, and have no desire to make you one of them. Then leave them alone, you aren't qualified to interfere. As to lack of resources as a name for people, humans are now known in industry as CAPITAL ASSETS.

PTC Guy's picture
Submitted by PTC Guy on Fri, 12/09/2005 - 10:23pm.

Listen to yourself.

Let me get this straight. No mention of God or such to please you is right. Mentioning God, who is a daily part of our lives, is wrong.

You can practice what you believe everywhere but we can only do so behind closed door.

The rights of the Secular Humanists are superior to the rights of all religions.

We don't live in the rest of the world. We live in the US.

Where has this road been traveled before and what was the result? Communist China, Soviet Union and all the other secular humanists governments.

In the EU religion is now a crime. You must be secular.

Yep. We can see where this path leads to.

The State Religion of Secular Humanism.


PTC Guy's picture
Submitted by PTC Guy on Fri, 12/09/2005 - 12:32pm.

True.

But Christmas still means 'Christ's Mass' in fact.

So, while there is a secular celebration of it that disregards this fact why is there such an virulent effort to take away the actual meaning of the very word itself?

Let those who celebrate it secularly do so. Let those who celebrate its given meaning do so. Neither should deny the other their rights here.

Hence, Christmas programs can have both songs of Christ's birth and Rudolph. It has been a Christmas tree for many centuries.

Are we going to attack Easter next because it literally means the celebration of Ishtar(Asherah) or the actual literal word from the New Testament means Passover?


DanTennant's picture
Submitted by DanTennant on Fri, 12/09/2005 - 2:06pm.

Dang, here you are teaching us about "Asherah" and the like and all I thought you knew anything about was storm water!

Just kidding, PTCGuy! Merry Christmas buddy.

Dan Tennant


PTC Guy's picture
Submitted by PTC Guy on Fri, 12/09/2005 - 3:25pm.

Merry Christmas to you as well.

I love to learn. Smiling


Submitted by SandySue on Fri, 12/09/2005 - 3:22pm.

Dan it is good to see some humor and to know from whom it comes.
I have been trying to figure out why we have so many anonymous contributors to this site.
Straight from Webster’s:
Anonymous
• having no known name or identity or known source;
• not known or lacking marked individuality;

I think the second bullet may sum it up.
Merry Christmas to all anonymous' and yes to you too Dan.

Regards,
Cass Poolman

birdman's picture
Submitted by birdman on Fri, 12/09/2005 - 5:57pm.

The reason so many of us assume a "pen name" is because we were so viciously attacked over the years by Brown and some of his "henchmen." I was not interested in having my lineage, mother, friends, job, etc. publicly assaulted by mayor Bozo and his clowns. So the only way I would put in my "two cents" was under an assumed name. I like it that way. It keeps the "mystery."
Besides, since you don't know me what difference does it make? Most chat rooms and blogs are done by "pen name." Read the content, don't stereotype the author.


PTC Guy's picture
Submitted by PTC Guy on Fri, 12/09/2005 - 10:03pm.

Lowering yourself to the level you accuse others of being makes you no better than them.

Chat rooms and Forums are not the same thing. Forums are suppose to actually have purpose and useful content.

That type of a post would find you the door on moderated forums.

Here, we are actually suppose to be grown up reputable citizens that do not need it.

Get over it, guy!


birdman's picture
Submitted by birdman on Sat, 12/10/2005 - 9:19pm.

Whatever! Apparently you haven't been called some very nasty names in the "Free Speech" section. I have. I didn't appreciate it. My friends didn't appreciate it. My family didn't appreciate it. I have also been called a few names in this blog. Difference is, if my friends don't know it's me then it isn't as personal. You deal with it your way, I'll deal with it mine. By the way, exactly what type of "name" is PTC Guy?


PTC Guy's picture
Submitted by PTC Guy on Fri, 12/09/2005 - 3:35pm.

As I explained elsewhere User Names is the norm of Internet Forums.

Many have learned making your real name and location known invites all kinds of email, mail, telephone and so on attacks by nut cases and those who lack principles.

There are a few on here that appear to use real names, but do not.

On a Forum the issue is the message, not the messenger, except when the messenger is the issue themselves.

So if the points are valid it does not matter what name is attached to it.

Not cowardice, but practicality.

And in the Admin panel and elsewhere, depending on the scripting, if someone gets way out of line they can ban them by username, email address and IP Number.

Plus, with that IP Number if there was a real need, they could track down all the info on a person.

But woe to the Administrator that abuses that ability.

But, with that said, Merry Christmas to you and yours! Smiling


DanTennant's picture
Submitted by DanTennant on Fri, 12/09/2005 - 3:50pm.

Oh, that's GREAT news! Everybody knows WHO I am, was a nut case I am, and now they're going to steal by identity.

OK, my real name is Bernice Spankanowicz,

Dan Tennant


PTC Guy's picture
Submitted by PTC Guy on Fri, 12/09/2005 - 3:54pm.

Spank your whatsis?


DanTennant's picture
Submitted by DanTennant on Fri, 12/09/2005 - 4:29pm.

You know, PTCGuy, for someone with stormwater on the brain, you're a pretty funny dude!

Dan Tennant


PTC Guy's picture
Submitted by PTC Guy on Fri, 12/09/2005 - 5:03pm.

Well, a time to be nothing but serious and the rest of life.

But, thanks.

I agree my more serious side what was seen most of the time here.

But, with that over, I love a good laugh and a smile.

Nope, Stormwater is not on my mind all the time. Often a good burger, pizza or calzone intrudes.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.