Once again a linguine spined two faced politician has erred on the side of upsetting the majority (Christians in this case) by renaming the annual CHRISTmas tree and the "holiday tree".

Let's see if the majority will rise up and get it turned around.

Proof positive that politicians are truly enraptured with keeping the minority special interest groups happy.

How do you feel about the annual resurrection of the use, by some, of holiday in place of Christmas.

I am advocate of not patronizing any establishment that uses the stupid concept of political correctness by utilizing the word holiday where Christmas was previously used. Linguine spined management says it all.

btk

What would your reaction be if the Governor had to have Yule Trees, menorahs Chanukkah and any other religious holiday icon? I'm not being sarcastic.

A quote from Thomas Jefferson: "All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression."

Quite frankly, to me, "Holiday" seems the 'easy way out' as opposed to having to recognize each and every religion's tradition name.

Christmas trees are representitive of Christmas. Menorahs are symbols of Hanuka. Both can be displayed. Why make the Christmas tree become a symbol of anything and everything? I always make sure my Christmas cards mention Christmas. That is the holiday I am celebrating. I send my Jewish friends Hanuka cards. What is wrong with celebrating both religous holidays separately?

to continue as it has for the 74 years I have been on the planet.

I object to spinelss politicians giving up our core values, as we have known them, for the sake of the few.

The country was founded on Christian principles.....it is what it is....or was until the permissive pacifist politically corrct nonsense came into vogue.

btk

"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology."

- Thomas Jefferson

or perhaps:

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."


Our founding fathers were Deists. They believed in God but also knew that there were many different ways of worshipping.

And while the Declaration of Independence mentions our "Creator", "Divine Providence" and "Nature's God", it is not 'law'. The Constitution, which is law, makes no mention of God.

Christmas tree VS holiday tree.....majority vs minority

Pretty simple...straight forward........ I thought!

btk

Back of the bus vs. Rosa Parks - pretty simple and straight forward.

Would it surprise you to learn there are some FORTY MILLION atheists (depending on how you count "non-religious" peoples - the BBC did a poll that would peg the number at just under thirty million) in this country?

What's wrong with including everyone?

By the same token, I would consider it a more "gutsy" move if space were allowed for other religions. If you acknowledge one, you have to acknowledge all or you're showing favoritism. I know this also opens up the whole "what constitutes a religion" can of worms.

If you've never been in the minority, I can't explain how it feels. And then to be told to shut up and swallow it?

I'll give you an example. My ex-wife is pagan. Without going into details, it's not Satan worship or anything like that. It's more the New Age touchy-feely stuff. They call themselves Wiccans - yes, witches. (FYI - A male witch? Is called a 'witch' - 'warlock' is a translation from an old word for 'traitor')

In the pre-internet days we used to chat on a series of BBS's that were linke up worldwide. You'd dial into a 'local' number and youre messages would be 'echoed' throughout the network during overnight phone calls between the systems.

The owner of the 'local system' was a Christian. We didn't think much of it since most Christians we knew were ordinary people (I'm an ex-Catholic myself). But something he said one day sent a chill down my spine. He said that he thought it was ok to kill my wife except that there were civic laws against it. Since the Bible said "Thou shalt not suffer a 'witch' to live.". It didn't matter that the word "witch" was deliberately mistranslated form the greek "pharmaika", which means "poisoner".

Think about that a moment.

Think of what it would be like for you, as a good Christian, to live in some place like Saudi Arabia. All around you, Muslims saying "majority rules".

We are not a democracy. We are a representative republic and have charged our government with treating people EQUALLY.

Originally Posted by djplong

"And while the Declaration of Independence mentions our "Creator", "Divine Providence" and "Nature's God", it is not 'law'. The Constitution, which is law, makes no mention of God.

Really?

Under Article VII - Ratification you will find the term "in the year of our Lord" clearly written.

The term Anno Domini is Medieval Latin, translated as In the year of (the/Our) Lord.[1][2]:782 It is sometimes specified more fully as Anno Domini Nostri Iesu (Jesu) Christi ("In the Year of Our Lord Jesus Christ").http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:...&ct=clnk&gl=us

This reference in the Constitution to our Lord and Saviour acknowledges the existence of God and would seem to dispute your claim to the contrary.

"God is dead" Nietzsche

"Nietzsche is dead" - God

Did your kids believe in Santa Claus or were you against it?

Cabo: That's a stretch. They're talking about the YEAR. It's identifying the *calendar*. And if you really want to get picky on that, last I heard, Christ was most likely born aorund 4 B.C. - which is why archaeologists and anthropologists now refer to "BCE" for "Before Common Era".

Cashman - I had no qualms at all with Santa Claus. My ex-wife, who was considerably more radical than I, had no problems at all with the secular celebrations. We *also* celebrated Yule in the house.

You have to understand something. I'm rather relaxed about religion in a personal sense. I was raised Catholic and left the church in the early 1980s for a variety of reasons. Not the least of which was fallout from my having a Near Death Experience from drowning in a river in NH's White Mountains back in 1978. Only getting bashed up against some rocks caused me to start breathing again, as near as I can tell.

Because of that, religion is something VERY personal to me. Also, I'm not arrogant to think that I've got some magical insight into "the way" and that I have to force that on anyone else. Sure, if someone wants to talk to me about my experiences, I'm more than willing - just as I've had long and informative/educational chats with Orthodox Jews, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and many others.

Seeing what's going on now in the Middle East, looking at history where religious-based wars carry on for CENTURIES and how even in modern days you don't have to look too far for some scary scenes (Northern Ireland not too long ago), however, highlights a red button issue for me - state support or sanction of religion.

For me, if you allow one religion to do something, you have to allow them all. You can't pick and choose or play favorites. If you allow a nativity scene on the town common (which is fine by me), a menorah and Yule wreath should also be allowed (just to pick two examples off the top of my head). Notice I said *allowed* and not "provided". It's up to the people to make their voice heard, and the government to not silence it.

I have nothing against Catholics. I have major beefs with the Vatican. I bear no ill will towards most Muslims. But that doesn't extend to the mullahs we see in the media. I've never had a problem with Jews. Doesn't mean I support continued settlements in occupied areas.

It's best summed up by a bumper sticker I saw a long time ago. "I love Jesus too - it's his fan club that scares me"

I have very little respect for congregational Religions.

I believe in God and I don't think God has much respect for them either.

"Once again a linguine spined two faced politician" - No personal attack there!

BTW, I agree with you- it is a Christmas Tree. But it's no longer a question of "majority"- the Christmas Tree, like poinsettias and santa represent the secular national holiday of Christmas, not the religious one. That is ingrained in our national tradition.

The Christmas Tree has nothing to do with the birth of Jesus- it was an appropriation of a pagan symbol for a christian symbol.

If you start talking mangers anf the Holy Trinity, then you're talking religion.

Regarding, "Really?

Under Article VII - Ratification you will find the term "in the year of our Lord" clearly written.

The term Anno Domini is Medieval Latin, translated as In the year of (the/Our) Lord.[1][2]:782 It is sometimes specified more fully as Anno Domini Nostri Iesu (Jesu) Christi"

That's the vernacular usage of the time, not a religious reference. To make more of it is to be a historical revisionist by claiming some meaning is there is in the "original" constitution that really wasn't.

Saying "Bless you" when someone sneezes is proslytizing, nor is it a religious incantation. Those of you who are strict "contructionist" or "originalists" should live by your own words.

Here's a few quotes from those who continually claim our Founding Fathers were devout Christians, rather than Deists. (Christian in that "Born again," "saved" in the southern Baptist sense that is).

"Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than on our opinions in physics and geometry....The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

-Thomas Jefferson 1823, Statutes of Virgina on Religious Freedom

"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."

-Thomas Jefferson

"And the day will come, when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His Father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva, in the brain of Jupiter." Notation by Thomas Jefferson in his own bible- 1825

Jefferson's interpretation of the first amendment in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association (January 1, 1802):

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his 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."

As Thomas Jefferson wrote in his Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom:

“Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting “Jesus Christ,” so that it would read “A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination"

and James Madison, whom many refer to as the father of the Constitution, also held similar views which he expressed in his letter to Edward Livingston, 10 July 1822:

“And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”