Posted by wirewatt (anonymous) on November 27, 2009 at 9:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This is a Christmas Program, why is it not called as such? Its about time we started taking back our heritage, and do as the founding fathers set up the United States to do as we please. If people don't like it they don't have to participate and if it really bothers them, leave.

Posted by truelovecharlie (anonymous) on November 27, 2009 at 10:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

When we were a FREE country, this was a Christmas Pagent. It was the most awe inspiring of them all. I remember being in it so many years; the last as Joseph. I would so love to get a copy of a video if there were one of the CHRISTMAS pagent. The last year I was in it was 1979.

Posted by alanemporia (anonymous) on November 27, 2009 at 10:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

fine then wirewatt..........if you dont want to take part in our towns seasonal program than dont come........or better yet do as you said.......leave.......like it or not other religions have become part of our culture.....this is the new world now.......so deal with it........

Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on November 27, 2009 at 11:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

CHRISTmas is a CHRISTian celebration. If the world wants to invent their own winter holiday of materialism, they need to name it and pass it through legislation as a national holiday. Until then, this holiday that they are participating in of their own free will is Christmas.

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on November 28, 2009 at 3:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

oh4theluvof

I'm sure you understand that if a new holiday of winter materialism were instituted to avoid conflict with Christmas.....Christmas would have to be dropped from the calendar. As a strictly religious observation it would not qualify for holiday status.

Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't it be a seasonal celebration where appropriate [like in the public schools where all religion must be given equal due]....and a religious celebration in the churches [and in your hearts if true]? Why must everything in this country anymore always be my way or the highway? Why must it always be "as the Founding Fathers set up to do as we please."? Which incidentally is not what the founding fathers were trying to set up.

Posted by marko (anonymous) on November 28, 2009 at 4:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It seems it has already been replaced with a celebration of the seven deadly sins.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on November 28, 2009 at 8:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Not everybody believes in the same things. I am not going to put my belief structure on display here, but think about this for a moment. How would you feel if your kids were nudged into participating into a muslim, hindu, etc ceremony? I'll leave you with one last point, I'll bet the Indians wanted their country back at some point to, it didn't work out to well.....

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on November 28, 2009 at 8:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Just a few quotes by some of our founding fathers concerning religion.

“I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life, I absenteed myself from Christian assemblies.”

Lighthouses are more helpful than churches.”

Ben Franklin

George Washington was born an Episcopalian, but did not practice this and his writings and speeches lean more toward Deism. During his presidency he sometimes attended church services but this may have more to do with pleasing the people since he did not take communion and often left before the services were over. After his death the minister of the church, Rev. Abercrombie was asked about his beliefs and stated “Sir, Washington was a Deist.”

“The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity.” John Adams

“The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” John Adams, Treaty of Tripoly, article 11

“Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined, and imprisoned, yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites.” Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia

“In no instance have . . . the churches been guardians of the liberties of the people.”
“Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise.” James Madison, April 1, 1774

“He was an avowed and open infidel, and sometimes bordered on Atheism...He went further against Christian beliefs and doctrines and principles than any man I ever heard.” John T. Stuart, Lincoln's first law partner

In closing, the founding fathers were never for creating a CHRISTian country.

Posted by ToxicPink (anonymous) on November 28, 2009 at 8:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Some of you guys are mentally stunted. XD

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on November 28, 2009 at 9:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This much vaunted freedom of religion that people like to bandy about so much now was not freedom from Muslim tyranny nor Hindu aggression any way. What they were seeking was freedom from the my way or the highway doctrines of the Church of England.....a CHRISTian church that used the power of the state to enforce adherence to its beliefs weather the people wanted it or not.

Funny now how so many Christians in this country want to use the power of the state to enforce adherence to their beliefs.......in the same way our founding fathers left England to get away from.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on November 28, 2009 at 10:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Biscuit,

The facts are irrefutable; some people just seem to have this made up notion in their head about our founding fathers, no doubt perverted by the 2 warring political parties.

Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on November 28, 2009 at 1:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes, biscuitboy, I realize that it would be dropped to be replaced, and that is what I'm getting at. I don't want to make anyone adhere to my religion, but at the same time, I don't want to be told that a holiday that only exists because of my religion is to be changed and that those very foundational principles will be ripped out of it to accommodate all. I am not telling people "my way or the highway" when they are the ones infringing on my religion's holiday. I think that we Christians could live with Christmas being treated like Passover and Kwanza are. Those who celebrate Kwanza and Passover have to ask for vacation days on those days or take them unpaid, if allowed, to celebrate as they believe. Christians could surely do the same. My proposal is actually what "Freedom of religion" truly meant.
Why was this Christan holiday originally named a national holiday? You would have to go back and ask those who instituted it as one(likely those same men who goodoleboy quoted), but I'm sure you would find that they were representing the belief of the majority in that time, never dreaming that the country would abandon its collective belief system. As for your quotes, goodoleboy, I have heard some of those in context which changes how you quoted them, and I have heard other letters from the same authors that refute how you portrayed them, but no matter.
About the "Christian nation" thing, I will say the same to you as I say to the ones who claim that it was a "Christian nation:" The founding fathers never claimed that it was to be a Christan nation, only that it was to be founded on Christan principles so that it could be free. As mostly Christian men, they did express the desire that it could be a Christian nation, but that was a hopeful outcome rather than the actual design.
Now, I'm going to go put up my Christmas tree and nativity sets and thank God for His Son and ask Him to make me meek instead of pridefully indignant about the theft of a celebration that was not started in America and is supposed to be for and about Him no matter what country it's celebrated in.

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on November 28, 2009 at 3:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

oh4theluvof

And I do believe that you and many other Christians would be happy to forgo the holiday as is and celebrate Christmas as a truly religious holiday. I believe that because I believe that you do really understand the concept of freedom of religion.

Unfortunately I cannot say the same for others including some of the original posters on this thread....and it was towards them that my remarks were aimed.

As for you and yours oh4theluvof, I wish for you the best of Christmas's and may it bring you all the peace and joy that you deserve.

Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on November 28, 2009 at 5:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you, biscuit. I wish each and every one of you a Merry Christmas....meaning not compromised......and also a joyful holiday season!
Note: I meant Hanukkah more than Passover, above, but the same principal applies to both. Thought I'd clarify in case I confused anyone other than myself. :-)

Posted by E_PLURIBUS_UNUM (anonymous) on November 28, 2009 at 7:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Feliz Navidad !

Posted by Beo_Saoirse (anonymous) on November 28, 2009 at 7:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I love the Seasonal Celebration. I find it inspiring, uplifting and a renewal of my Christian beliefs. I also truly enjoy the inclusion of other faiths, including some that don't recognize Christmas. It is an opportunity to grow and understand one another.

However, I have a very real problem with calling it a Christmas Celebration when our children, through the school district, are "encouraged" to participate, even when they aren't Christian. My 12-year-old received a grade for participating in two of the rehearsals. Tell me again that student who don't participate aren't penalized.

Bottomline: It is not just a Christian celebration, so why define it with a Christian term. Instead it is a festival of all the celebrations of the season, so Season Celebration works.

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on November 28, 2009 at 9:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And that is why it is called a Seasonal Celebration rather than a Christmas Program...but that is apparently very hard for some to understand.

And YY4U is quite right about the date being tied to an ancient pagan holiday. In fact Christmas celebrations in England and some parts of Colonial America were quite risque and ribald involving significant drinking and debauchery.

Posted by create (anonymous) on November 29, 2009 at 7:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Excellent post, goodoleboy!!! I hope the quotes you have offered help to clear the air for so many who continue to make the mistake of referring to a Christian belief system as the way "the founding fathers set up the United States...". However, my guess is that folks don't really read much about our country's history, or for that matter, our language itself which is absolutely rich with words that have been borrowed from other cultures.

Why shouldn't we embrace all cultures in our seasonal celebrations? We Americans are a tossed salad anyway.

Mele Kalikimaka, everyone! Wassail!!!

Hmmmm, is that where the word "ale" came from?

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on November 29, 2009 at 11:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

create,

I wish I could take credit for the post, but alas it is just quotes from our founders, which regarding things of nature are plentiful. What saddens me is that after posting these I read where a poster said these were taken "out of context". It would seem that some people cannot see the forest through the trees... our founders were clear on the matter, there is no room for debate, somewhere along the line Christian Supremacy was just rooted into people /shrug

Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on November 29, 2009 at 4:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

goodoleboy:
What part of this did you not understand? "The founding fathers never claimed that it was to be a Christan nation, only that it was to be founded on Christan principles so that it could be free. As mostly Christian men, they did express the desire that it could be a Christian nation, but that was a hopeful outcome rather than the actual design." --a poster

YY4U:
What part of this didn't you understand? "I think that we Christians could live with Christmas being treated like Passover and Kwanza are." --that same poster

Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on November 29, 2009 at 6:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am all for you having that...just change the name of it back to whatever those pagan cultures called it or give it a new one (Festival of the Winter Solstice would work), and leave the name "Christmas" to the Christian celebrators of Jesus' birth. That's all I'm asking as I acknowledge that the country founders that named "Christmas" as a national holiday, despite its religious meaning, didn't do the Christianity they wanted any favors.
signed
a poster aka that same poster :-)

Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on November 29, 2009 at 7:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeah, yeah, yeah.....I luv u 2 <sigh> and now you got that song stuck in my head for good. I had just gotten rid of it from when create used the phrase. > :-S
Have a joyful and peaceful Winter Solstice Festival ;-)

Posted by HenryVIII (anonymous) on November 29, 2009 at 7:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Watch out, everyone! Sounds like quite a few religious types are trying to push their beliefs on us again! This is a free country and I don't have to call it a "Christmas" celebration if I don't want to! You can't tell me what to believe! FREEDOM!
'enry

Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on November 29, 2009 at 7:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUCbZhIfQ...

(and for the record, I never said that the program in the article is or should be called "Christmas." The only comment I have on the actual story is that the number 74 that's claimed is false, as it is, in fact, a seasonal program now and not a Christmas one. The number should have been reset when it was changed. My beef is with the redefinition of "Christmas")

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on November 29, 2009 at 10:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

oh4theluvof :

goodoleboy:
What part of this did you not understand? "The founding fathers never claimed that it was to be a Christan nation, only that it was to be founded on Christan principles so that it could be free. As mostly Christian men, they did express the desire that it could be a Christian nation, but that was a hopeful outcome rather than the actual design." --a poster

Understood it just fine, the part I had a problem with was:

"As for your quotes, goodoleboy, I have heard some of those in context which changes how you quoted them, and I have heard other letters from the same authors that refute how you portrayed them, but no matter."

I picked a few of MANY quotes, I can direct you to or find literally 100's more that all speak the same message, our founding fathers were CRYSTAL clear on the matter and trying to say it was simply not contextualized properly denigrates that.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on November 29, 2009 at 10:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Speaking of stuck in your head:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edaJP3Lp0...

hate me yet?=)

Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on November 30, 2009 at 12:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

“The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity.” John Adams

Okay, was he saying that belief in Jesus is wrong or is he saying that it has been misused? Church of England, Catholicism, Fred Phelps?

“The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” John Adams, Treaty of Tripoly, article 11

So, is he saying that Christianity had no influence, or that the government was not to be partial to it?

You can find out more about his general overview of it all here, where he also refers to God as the "great Legislator of the universe" as well as acknowledges what he calls God's "benign providence." This letter talks about the two major systems of tyranny and how the Reformation brought to light the wrongs of each to people by educating them about God's actual design and through "religion," making an educated and empowered population of peons. When you read much of his complete works, you will find that he didn't attribute the word "christianity" to the Puritans or their successors. He attributed it to (defined it by) the Catholic church and the Church of England, which helps the reader to understand what he intended as the author rather than what the reader intended by imposing their own definition preferences.
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/libra...

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on November 30, 2009 at 4:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm uncharacteristically quiet because I am enjoying this conversation to much to join in at present. Plus I don't feel I have anything relevant to add at the moment.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on November 30, 2009 at 5:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Your really going to argue that many of founding fathers were not deists and unclear on religion, especially as it pertains to government? Our founding fathers were almost anti-religion in some aspects due to what was imposed upon them, they gave us our choice in the matter, don't denigrate that by making implications. I don't care what you believe, but it should have no bearing on our politics, this is what our founding fathers wanted to aspire to, and it was lost along the way, too bad people are in denial about it. How transparent do the quotes have to be before they have meaning just so I am clear on that one?

"“The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity.” John Adams"

Do I really need to interpret this for you? Need I expound what he said after?

"“The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” John Adams, Treaty of Tripoly, article 11"

Influence? Hard not to have some influence considering the populace, they were very clear that religion was not to be integrated with government, we mucked that one up along the way.

You picked John Adams, what about the others?

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on November 30, 2009 at 6:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It is difficult to grasp why the founding fathers would have been anxious to establish a state religion when one of the primary reasons they had for leaving England was the dominance of a state religion. Why would they rebel against their mother country partly because of a state religion just to re-establish one in the new world?

Posted by Landa (anonymous) on November 30, 2009 at 9:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Here you all are talking about Christmas and how it's about Christ, MY savior....But few of you are acting like Christians. Settle down. Love one another.

Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on November 30, 2009 at 10:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

goodoleboy, you really like to read in your own interpretations over what an author says, be it John Adams or me. I am in complete agreement with John Adams' stance on religion not being integrated into government and that the government was not founded on it. I am not trying to twist his words to say that he wanted this to be a "Christian" government. I have tried my hardest to clearly state that I think it was a mistake for a religious holiday to be named a national one by our government and that it should be separated back out. I have done my best to acknowledge that the founders were looking to keep religion as well as the law itself from becoming a tyranny. I have no argument with you there, but you seem determined that I do and keep reading what I write as such.
What I am trying to clarify is the impression that you gave, which was that the founding fathers were against everything that you define as "Christian" or "religious." I am attempting to help you understand that they---John Adams particularly, in this post-- had a difference in definition than you do, due to historical context. To him, and likely most others at the time, Catholicism was the "Christian" religion. It was also one of the two most oppressive religions. John Adams had a very high respect for the protestant sects(three paragraphs devoted to defending them in the letter I linked), except the Church of England, which he proceeded to lump into the category of "Christianity" with the Catholic church. The other protestant sects, he would name by denomination: Puritan, Presbyterian, etc. He did not call them "Christian" because they did not fit his definition (it was probably the cultural one of that time). I am only trying to make it very clear that these men were not anti-Christianity as that is defined today. As Christianity is defined today, they were Christians because they were believers.
And, yes, I only picked John Adams so far, because it was midnight when I read your 10:30 post and I needed to get to bed. When you first posted your quotes, I had no intention of getting into this part of the debate, but when it became clear that you wanted your context to be held on these quotes, I decided to offer a broader knowledge of them to test your context. I believe your context was half right, but left a wrong implication for the other half. Now, I have a list for the day to get on with, so I will not get to the other quotes immediately, but will address them after my more pressing goals for the day have been reached.

As for your link above, sorry, but that song just does not get stuck in my head....I think it may have helped dislodge Mele Kilikimaka to make room for Relient K's I Just Want You To Know.......so, thanks for that! :-))

Posted by HenryVIII (anonymous) on November 30, 2009 at 11:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

On the debate of religion, don't forget the forum I created! http://www.emporiagazette.com/forums/ope...

I celebrate xmas, but only because it gives me an excuse to give gifts to loved ones, spend time with them, and show them how much I appreciate them. I know I shouldn't need an excuse to do that, but the holiday allows time in everyone's schedule. I don't believe it to be the anniversary of some farcical deity’s birthday. This “Seasonal Celebration” is a means of bringing EVERYONE together; not just you selfish Christians.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on November 30, 2009 at 1:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"What I am trying to clarify is the impression that you gave, which was that the founding fathers were against everything that you define as "Christian" or "religious." I am attempting to help you understand that they---John Adams particularly, in this post-- had a difference in definition than you do, due to historical context."

How hard is it to understand?

They wanted

God <----that way Politics that way--------->

Nowadays we have candidates that are judged on their belief structure which would make our founders shudder. This alone makes freedom of religion not free because people simply say what others want to hear, not what they really think. In short I really don't need any help understanding what they meant, its very clear to me in all of their writings, we have regressed as a society on this matter, people just don't want to believe it.

Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on November 30, 2009 at 2:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Once again, goodoleboy, I am not disagreeing with you on the separation that you are talking about....just clarifying that that did not mean that these men were atheists or "God haters." I agree that there are those who don't want to believe that, but I'm not one of them and I hope that you aren't still taking your frustration about that out on me.
Also, Henry, I am not being selfish with the holiday.......I think that the holiday as it is should remain intact, simply renamed. Christmas was, as YY4U and biscuitboy posted, a religious celebration for Christians to observe while their pagan counterparts celebrated for other purposes. At what point "Christmas" became the official name for the day, as opposed to the other names, I'm unsure. It may have been that such a majority of the culture claimed Christianity of one form or another and celebrated Christmas as a result, making it seem natural, or it may have been an over-zealous push to try to convert people through a holiday. Maybe it was both...depending on what part of the world you were in. Either way, it breached the American separation that it shouldn't have breached. All I'm asking is that we separate it back out, leaving the current secular version of Christmas untouched, but returning the name of my Christ to His believers. That may be selfish in your eyes, but that is all I'm asking. I am not asking you to put Christ into your celebration. I completely understand the significance of the holiday that prompts us all, believers or not, to make time to appreciate each other, and I don't want that infringed on at all.
Mine is a peaceful request.

Posted by HenryVIII (anonymous) on November 30, 2009 at 3:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

oh4theluvof,
I appreciate your response. I guess my "selfish" comment was directed mostly at the first 2 posters... I confess I have not read through all the comments here.
It sounds to me that you agree with the current naming of the "Seasonal Celebration". Therefore, I have no quarrels with you; only the people who think only Christians should be allowed to celebrate this season.
I think we should go the Futurama route and re-name the holiday season as "x-mas" and define it as all encompassing so all faiths, beliefs, etc are included. This way, Wal-Mart can have signs saying "Merry X-Mas" and schools can have "X-Mas Break" without anyone getting upset because it will mean whatever they want it to mean to each individual. …Of course, on Futurama, Santa Claus was a robot who put everyone on the naughty list and tried to murder them every x-mas eve... Maybe we can skip that part...
'enry

Posted by Landa (anonymous) on November 30, 2009 at 3:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Henry, God loves you :)

Posted by goodjoss (anonymous) on November 30, 2009 at 3:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

some posters need to stop digging themselves deeper

Posted by HenryVIII (anonymous) on November 30, 2009 at 3:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Landa,
That's a pleasant thought and all, but can you prove it?

YY4U,
You're right. Christians will do whatever it takes so others will call a school concert a "Christmas Celebration". If the school doesn't call it that, the Christians complain that we aren't living in a free country. Ironic? I think so. Forcing others to share their beliefs is what they call freedom, I guess. I know what you’re thinking, but it’s not a 2-way street because “seasonal celebration” is generic and all-inclusive, so nothing is being forced on Christians.
'enry

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on November 30, 2009 at 4:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

goodjoss,

Care to expound a bit?

Posted by HenryVIII (anonymous) on November 30, 2009 at 5:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

goodoleboy,
One can only assume that goodjoss is with several of his/her friends and they are all posting to the Gazette site from their laptops while sitting in a ball pit. Obviously, some of his/her fellow posters are digging themselves too deep into the ball pit while posting and this is annoying goodjoss to no end.
'enry

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on November 30, 2009 at 5:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

All though often overlooked now the Crusades were one of the worst blood lettings in the history of man as Christian soldiers and hired mercenaries waded through hip deep blood in Jerusalem to wrest the holy city from the Muslim infidels and return it to God. It was written at the time that you could smell the rotting flesh for miles before you ever set foot in the city. As hard as it may be to believe....there are some Muslim radicals that still view our current war on terror as just another chapter of the Crusades.

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on November 30, 2009 at 5:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I do however think we could go a little easier on oh4theluvof. She does at least offer some rational and attempts to justify her thoughts on the matter.....and after all is just doing what we all do at times....trying to put the best face on the matter.
The real culprits here are the ones that want to return to those days the founding fathers set up when Christians could do as they please. They are the ones however that seem now to have cut and ran.

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on November 30, 2009 at 5:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I have to admit that her statement about it being a holiday for Christians to observe while their pagan counterparts celebrated for other purposes was a bit of a stretch though.

Posted by tbluma (anonymous) on November 30, 2009 at 6:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I kinda like wirewatt's take on this deal. If people don't like a Christmas program they don't have to go.
On the other hand the third poster, alanemporia, "says other religions have become part of our culture and that if we don't like we should leave, it is a new world deal with it"
Well personally I don't think there are any more religions here now than there were 50 or 100 years ago. I personally don't think other religions weren't the ones that started yelling calf rope about the shows. I think it was some damn lawyer that didn't have anything better to do.
Secondly the part about it's a new world deal with it bothers me more. It's kinda like if you can't speak spanish in Emporia then leave.
I say the hell with the argument here about religion. I say we ought to be trying to figure out how we can stop the minority from running things. I would venture to say if it were put to a vote that Christmas Program would win.

Posted by tbluma (anonymous) on November 30, 2009 at 7:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

YY4U's last post is a perfect example of non-christians believing in Christmas also, just for different reasons.

Posted by Beo_Saoirse (anonymous) on November 30, 2009 at 10:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

tbluma: It's not a Christian-based celebration so why call it by a Christian term. Seasonal Celebration is pretty generic, but it is a far more accurate description than Christmas Celebration.

Posted by tbluma (anonymous) on November 30, 2009 at 10:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You know YY4U I like history and all that but to me what Christmas is all about doesn't really have anything to do with Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddists or atheists, etc think. It is what we think about it in our own heart or (soul) if you believe in one.
What I was merely pointing out was that your post showed that all kinds of people have celebrated Christmas for hundreds of years. Be it a pagan ritual,christian or whatever.
I agree that all the songs, decorations, rituals and the like sometimes has very little to do with Christ. So what the hell, let people call it Christmas.
We all get wrapped up in being fair to this person or that sect or whatever. Fine be nice to them but hey let them be nice to us too. It's supposed to be a free country but how much freedom have any of us got left if we keep giving in to every minority that comes along. Yes I happen to believe that the people who bitch about Christmas programs are in the minority.The political correct, don't step on anyones toes crowd, has forgot that our forefathers have fought and died so that we could celebrate Christmas or any other religious or pagan rite that we want to. I am personally very tired of bending over backwards for thier ilk. And it's not just Christmas, everyday a little more of America slips on a bannana peel thrown down by some aclu lawyer in the name of cival rights, but what is happening to our cival rights.
Therefore I suggest that before you tell me that I need to learn about human life before the Romans quit killing Christians that maybe you should decide if we as a nation or as a local community are going to survive our own way of life.
I wasn't suggesting that it be put to a vote (that would be great to see if I was right or wrong) I merely believe that if it were that the outcome would be pro Christmas. As for you not carring enough to vote that is what's wrong with this whole country.
As for the program including pagan tradition, if you want to dress up in a pagan suit and perform let me know, I'll come and watch.

Posted by tbluma (anonymous) on November 30, 2009 at 10:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Beo_Saoirse millions of people for hundreds of years called it Christmas. At one time it was a Christmas celebration till people pissed and moaned that it infringed on thier rights.
Call me old fashioned. So why change it now?
I don't care for Cynco de Myo or however you spell it. So I guess I should get me a aclu lawyer and sue to get the name changed on that too. Call it something more generic. Hows that sound or lets change the name of labor day. That has always been a misnomer. Who labors on labor day if they are taking part in the days festivities.While we're at it if everybody's so concerned with the Christ in Christmas we had better take the Saint out of Saint Patrick's day too.I'd sure hate to piss off non christians twice a year.

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on December 1, 2009 at 4:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

tbluma......

You call it Christmas if you want......you call it anything you want.....I don't care what you call it.....But since the seasonal celebration is no longer about Christ and Christmas it would be a little silly for me to call it a Christmas program. There are an abundance of Christmas programs at area churches now. There will be Christmas programs at Sacred Heart where you attend....Go to them......enjoy them.....celebrate the birth of your Christ in them.

But NOOOO, that's not good enough for you. You want your religion but back into a program that is intended for ALLLL the people of Emporia, weather they want it there are not......and furthermore you want me to help pay for it. Aren't you the one that's always telling me how you are sick and tired of paying for other peoples needs......well guess what buddy....that's a two way street. So you go down to Sacred Heart and celebrate Christmas to your little hearts desire......then you come up and enjoy the Seasonal Celebration with me if you like.....but you have no right to demand that I do it your way any more than I have a right to demand that you do it mine.

Thank You for your patience!

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on December 1, 2009 at 4:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The truth is you don't care who you piss off as long as it's done your way.....why not be honest about it.

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on December 1, 2009 at 6:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

tbluma says

"I venture to say if it were put to a vote that the Christmas Program would win."

You mean like it was put to a vote when Obama won....so how can you now say the minorities are running everything.....unless of course by minority you mean his race which then might make you a........well you know what I mean.

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on December 1, 2009 at 6:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

NO MATTER WHAT IT IS CALLED,

It's for the children.
It's a cheap night out.
It may put you in a better frame of mind.

By the way the Christmas parade is tonight!

We hear there will be extra police presence in order to enforce the no-candy throwing from floats law. If anyone sees a violation of this important law, please call 911 from your parade viewpoint.

Merry Christmas Everyone!

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on December 1, 2009 at 6:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And I for one will be there. And I for one will enjoy the floats depicting themes about Christ and Christmas as I also will enjoy the floats depicting themes of Santa Claus and the Yuletide. I will even call it The Christmas Parade. Why.....because it is not exclusive to the religious element but includes themes of Santa and the Yuletide. And aside from security and traffic control it is not put on with taxpayer money. The old Christmas Pageant......at least the one I was in during my years in Emporia Public Schools.....was exclusively about the birth of Jesus Christ. Therein lies the difference.

I will also be steadfast in my watch for any evildoers that might stoop to throwing candy from floats......and will promptly [as promptly as my ancient legs will allow] proceed to the nearest law enforcement to report the scofflaws. Of course it might take me a week or two to get there.

Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on December 1, 2009 at 9:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

biscuitboy....I apologize that I have no clue why you think I'm stretching anything. I thought I was validating something you had already said, but I guess I misunderstood you. Every account that I have ever read, online or otherwise states that the Christian converts who used to celebrate whatever pagan ritual was held on that day in that culture(there were many) decided to celebrate the birth of the Son (of God) rather than the Sun god. Yes, they incorporated many of the decor ideas, changing their meaning for personal use, and as Christianity spread, so did those customs. One author that I ran across even speculated that because of the unpopularity of Christianity at first, they used those emblems to camouflage their celebration. True? I don't know, because despite YY4U's apparent belief, I wasn't there.
Bringing me to:
Dear YY4U:
I ask that you will please forgive me for the threats that I made to your life back in your ancient Yule celebration days. I am sorry that I made you convert to a celebration of Christmas and the horrors that I perpetrated on your people. I hope that in time, you can move past those terrible things that you had to witness and endure and go on with your new-found life of freedom (except for the running and singing naked in the streets part of the ancient ways) here in America without harboring such bitter resentment.

I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that somewhere along the line, some group that claimed the Bible and Christianity used Christmas in an unacceptable manner as well, but as was discussed in the John Adams portion of the thread, all religions who claim Jesus should not be lumped together.

Posted by tosie (anonymous) on December 1, 2009 at 9:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!!! Thanks to all of you who so graciously ruined our CHRISTMAS program and turned it into a so called Seasonal Celebration. I am glad I only had to put up with being in 1 year of the "Seasonal Celebration" before I graduated High School. It was never the same after a few people decided to slap their views upon the rest of us who were doing just fine at the CHRISTMAS program.....it is what it is CHRISTMAS time, CHRISTMAS program......have a nice CHRISTMAS!!!!!

Posted by HenryVIII (anonymous) on December 1, 2009 at 10:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

tosie,
What a narrow-minded comment! YOU may have been doing fine at the "Christmas Program", but what of those who didn't share your beliefs? Are all Christians so selfish?

You think that renaming the program to be generic and all-inclusive is how people "slap their views upon the rest of us"? Doesn't it seem like calling it a "Christmas Program" (for Christians only) would be a better example of "slapping your views" upon the rest of us? Apparently they don't teach you tolerance and acceptance in Bible school!

Practice your religion in church where it belongs; not in our schools and city-wide celebrations!

Season’s greetings and happy holidays to ALL! (not just Christians)
'enry

Posted by tbluma (anonymous) on December 1, 2009 at 10:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Bisquitboy, sorry you're so testy. You got your opinion I've got mine, that's what this page is about.
I haven't demanded anything, just aired my oppinion like you.
I'm didn't say anything about bringing religion back to the program. Go reread the first 3 paragraphs of my post to YY4U. Just said let it be called Christmas never demanded squat, reread next to last paragraph.
Once again this is an opinion page.You've got yours I got mine, so go take a chill pill or something.

Posted by HenryVIII (anonymous) on December 1, 2009 at 11:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

YY4U,
Why did God need to knock-up some chick to have his kid anyway? He created Adam with a snap of his fingers, right? Why not do the same thing for a son? Seems to me Mary needed to concoct a lie to explain to everyone how she got pregnant out of wedlock. Back in the day, folks were quite gullible and the story spread of a virgin who gave birth...silly people... Can you imagine Mary's surprise when people started calling her bastard kid a messiah? She must have been like, "Wow...I can't believe they're really buying this."
How’d she get pregnant without hanky-panky? Must have been God.
Why did it rain for 40 days? God must have been angry.
That’s the good ol’ religious logic of “If you can’t explain it, rather than investigate it, just chalk it up to God.”
'enry

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on December 1, 2009 at 12:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

But tbluma....you can call it Christmas and in fact you do......you celebrate Christmas in your church and presumably in your home as you please.....and if anyone tried to stop you from doing that I would stand side by side with you to oppose them. Christmas is all over the stores and the media....[not Xmas but Christmas]......and though much of that is the commercialized corporate spending Christmas it is still Christmas. So what is the big problem with calling this program, that after all has nothing to do with Christ and his birth, a seasonal celebration. It appears to me you want your cake and eat it too, as my mother used to say.

Now I'm going to go take a chill pill...but before I do I would sincerely like to wish you and your family a Merry Christmas....if you should feel inclined to return the greeting a simple Happy Yuletide would do. :-)

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on December 1, 2009 at 12:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

oh4theluvof

Our problem might simply be a matter of misinterpreting what the other is saying....or perhaps reading to much into it. I respect your views and feelings as much or more than any other Christians that post here on these matters. Consequently, I put a lot of effort into showing maximum respect for you while still disagreeing with your position.....some times I fail. If I did here...I apologize.

Posted by tbluma (anonymous) on December 1, 2009 at 12:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It would appear to me that I am not the only one that would like to have his/her cake and eat too, but alas that very rarely happens in this cruel old world.Seems like there's never enough cake.
Merry seasonal greetings.
Yule as described in Webster's Dictionary means Christmas
Yule'tide means Christmas season.

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on December 1, 2009 at 12:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Except that Yule was celebrated before Jesus was born.....but that's ok. As you said....you have your opinion and I have mine. Aren't chill pills wonderful things. :-)

Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on December 1, 2009 at 12:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Alexander the Great was also the product of virgin birth, according to the legend. We could call the Alexanderian Season and then try to take over the world.
MMMMWWWWHHHHHAAAAA HHHHHAAAAA HHHHAAA

Posted by HenryVIII (anonymous) on December 1, 2009 at 1:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OutsiderJ,
Don't forget about Anakin Skywalker; he didn’t have a daddy either! A disciple (George Lucas) also wrote stories about him. Praise be to Anakin! It’s written, so it must be true! May the force be with you all this holiday season!
'enry

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on December 1, 2009 at 2:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here’s a short list of other “virgin births” of other deities:

* Mut-em-ua
* Tammuz
* Zoroaster
* Tukulti-Ninurta II
* Ashurbanipal
* Ra
* Krishna
* Karna
* Attis
* Auge
* Dionysus
* Horus
* Melanippe
* Mithras

Posted by orlando (anonymous) on December 1, 2009 at 2:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why is it a "Christmas parade" but a "seasonal celebration" ? I know about the name change of the "Christmas program" (thanks to the ACLU) but still I find it interesting.....

Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on December 1, 2009 at 3:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

biscuitboy:
I do appreciate that respect that you show while we disagree and I try my best to return it...I only hope that I have succeeded.

YY4U:
The accounts that I read were that the pagans did the naked running and singing as part of their ritual before Christmas was ever instituted and that it was incorporated into Christmas because the people who converted due to peer pressure didn't want to give that up, but that it finally became blended with another culture's more clothed version, and together they became church approved caroling. The accounts that I read did mention the forcing of Jews to run naked through the streets as the pagans had to humiliate them--that was done by what became the Roman Catholic church, which also has a long history of persecuting Protestants. Of course, that was a Jewish historical account of Christmas that never acknowledged their own history of persecuting the Christians, so it may have been tainted......I don't know.
Please don't be offended at me....I didn't say I forced you to convert to Christianity...just to celebrating Christmas instead of Yule. ;-)

In response to a couple of comments/inquiries above:
Jesus (the Son) already existed in heaven with the Father. He could have been sent as anything, but the Father chose that he should experience the human life from birth to validate His humanity. The perfect law demanded that the human sin debt be paid for by a human. By sending the Son to be born of a human woman, that made Him God and man at the same time. That way He was eligible to take the penalty as well as powerful enough to withstand it. If the Father had sent Him in a more prominent and less humble way, He would have had an influence advantage that would have nullified faith.....the faith that God requires. It would have been suspect if it had, indeed, begun with Mary's story, but it was prophesied centuries prior, so it didn't start with her. There were too many details of the prophecies that were out of her control to have faked that her child was the fulfillment. I doubt that this satisfies the questions in your minds or will lessen any of the ridicule, but it is the Biblical answer, nonetheless.

Posted by goodjoss (anonymous) on December 1, 2009 at 3:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Orlando - a very good question:
When I was required to participate in the Christmas Program (there was no 'option' for those activities) there were plenty of "Amen"s. It was basically a worship service (and a beautiful one at that) - But it violated the 'establishment' clause.

There is nothing about the 'Christmas' parade that isn't voluntary. The kids aren't required to march or ride on the float. It is simply a parade in celebration of the federally recognized holiday of 'Christmas'

Now, if there's public money involved - that's a different story altogether.

Posted by HenryVIII (anonymous) on December 1, 2009 at 3:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

oh4theluvof says, "The perfect law demanded that the human sin debt be paid for by a human."

...so...we should sacrifice people to get rid of our sin debt?... What is our current sin debt in relation to what it was back then? This idea of sacrificing humans to make things "all better" is quite the novel idea... Maybe that's what the 9/11 terrorists were doing...
'enry

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on December 1, 2009 at 6:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As it has worked out I will not be able to attend the Christmas Parade tonight.....I regret that because I was looking forward to it. Will still be able to catch some of it on TV. A few random musings;

goodjoss....an excellent response to Orlando's question. And you remember the old Christmas Program as I do.....It was very much a religious service. Paid for with tax-payer money and required participation from all students. The parade is none of those things.

oh4theluvof....you have very much succeeded and I hold out a hope that someday the fates may allow us to meet. I think I would enjoy that.

Now a confession......Before I learned I would not be able to make the parade this evening, I took the dogs down to the Emporia Zoo [Emporia's one true class act] to look at the lights. Jackie...my little female....loves the Christmas lights and she will stand and cock her head from one side to the other while she looks and looks at them. They are beautiful, peaceful, inspiring, lovely, and all those other good adjectives.....and there is not one single religious thing about them. But as I stood and looked at them, one thing became very clear to me, they were here for one reason and one reason only....Christmas. They were not here to celebrate the yule log....nor Herme the Hunter....they were here because of Christians celebrating the birth of their Christ. And that is what many of you on here have been trying to say.

Now don't get me wrong. This is not a conversion....I still believe history is more on my side and I think your logic is all wrong.....but if it wasn't for your celebration...this celebration would be little more that a passing notice of the winter solstice. So for all you Christians out there celebrating the birth of your Jesus, I would like to pause for just a moment and thank you for the beautiful lights and the warmth that often goes with this season's celebration.

tbluma....these chill pills are great man...you ought to try them :-)

Posted by bdprotheroe (anonymous) on December 1, 2009 at 8:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In December 1992, I had the great privilege to be the last to play the role of Joseph in Emporia's Annual Christmas Program. I had performed in the pageant each year from 6th Grade choir through my senior year. At the closure of what was known as the Christmas Program, I was upset about the change.

Yet, in retrospect, I think the change to a Seasonal Celebration is appropriate. This allows students and the community to learn about all faiths and celebrate. We are, in fact, a nation of many faiths (and lack thereof). To use taxpayer money to recognize one religion is inappropriate, and excludes minorities and their beliefs.

If you want a Christmas Program, I'm certain each of the Christian churches in the community can provide you with a long list of their own and would for you to attend.

Separation of Church and State is a wonderful thing that we have in America. To paraphrase a line from the movie The American President, "The ACLU is an organization whose sole purpose is to defend the Bill of Rights, so it naturally begs the question: Why would anyone choose to reject upholding the Constitution?"

Thank you,
Brian Protheroe
San Francisco, CA

Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on December 1, 2009 at 10:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Henry...it isn't a sacrifice if its your own consequence.....it's just simply a consequence. It is only a sacrifice if you are doing it for another.
And speaking of sacrifices, YY4U, while the Communion emblems are symbolic, not literal, many of the pagans did sacrifice their infants and toddlers to the Sun god.

I am a bit confused about the fact that the holiday name isn't changed but the individual events often are....I figure if the name is benign enough to be nationally recognized, then it should also be benign enough to be the name of any related event and if it is offensive enough to be removed from an event, it should also be removed from national recognition.........................but I think I have maybe neutralized in my position about taking back the name since our conversation began. Earlier today, the question struck me, why don't those of us who believe it is all about Christ, just use a different name amongst ourselves? After all, the Lord's name is taken in vain in much worse ways than being attached to the holiday that prompts warmth and appreciation among mankind. Reading your post, biscuitboy, just confirmed that thought. Learning in greater detail what the Roman Catholic church did with the celebration they named Christ's Mass has absolutely lessened the appeal of the name for me as well, and I have to confess that as a Reformed Protestant, I do not participate in a Mass for it anyway. But of all the things that has removed much of my passion for my starting position is that most frustrating, puzzling and migraine inducing Christmas tradition of all...........Christmas lights!!!!! As biscuitboy was enjoying and reflecting on said objects, I was fighting round two with my own. Who wants to help me with round three tomorrow???

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on December 2, 2009 at 4:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

YY4U.......

I too have heard that sound and smelled that smell [though not in the quantities you describe] and it remains with you for life. I assume you are referring to Jonestown.....one of the true low water marks of our culture and of the Christian faith in modern times.

I also agree about the questioning. At first I believed without questioning......then I questioned and no longer believed. It is no accident that religions are so unreceptive to even the asking of real questions. Nor is it an accident that they are generally so hostile towards non-believers.......the last thing they need to have happen is large scale questioning. Just believe it on faith.

I however generally try to coexist and never try to convert believers to my view......until they start trying to convert me to theirs.....or worse start attacking me for what I am. I sincerely believe mutual respect and coexistence is the best policy......the trick then is can we pull it off.

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on December 2, 2009 at 4:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

A quick historical aside......

The Catholic Church stuck to Latin for so long because they wanted all the important information about the religion in a ,language that the flock did not speak. The Roman hold on Europe was not broken until the Protestant Reformation and the invention of the printing press made the Bible available to all people in their native language. In fact, the printing of the Bible was the major catalyst that brought English from a loose collection of local dialects [much as you have now in India] to a full blown language.

Posted by tbluma (anonymous) on December 2, 2009 at 12:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

bdprotheroe
There is nothing wrong with defending the Bill of Rights.
IMO there are too many lawyers/judges interpreting it fit their needs rather than the way it is printed.

Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on December 2, 2009 at 3:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

YY4U:
Before I get started on what I hope to be the final light hanging session, I want to take a few moments and offer you my sincerest apology. I am so sorry that I struck that nerve. In what I intended to be a flippant, "so there" remark, I hit something that I was unaware of and I am deeply sorry. I regret that you choose to identify Christianity with such horrors, but I understand now why you do identify so strongly with the victims of any terrible act done under that claim. I realize now, that this conversation which I perceived to be relatively lighthearted but with spirited defenses of our individual positions was actually a very weighted discussion for you that brought tortuously dark and painful memories back to the surface. I will do my best to consider this in any future discussions. I am also very sorry that you had to experience that and am incredibly grateful for you and your service to us.

Posted by HenryVIII (anonymous) on December 2, 2009 at 3:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGt_pSzD9...
'enry

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on December 2, 2009 at 5:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I too would like to apologize for my reference to Jonestown as a low water mark for Christianity. I realize that Jim Jones did not in any way stand for the Christianity that has been practiced by the scores of dear friends and family of mine over the years......many of which I loved as they loved me despite my lack of belief in their God. If the faith had a role in that terrible affair at all it was only in its persistence in asking people to ignore contrary evidence and always accept on faith. That faith then......in the absence of real questioning...can be so easily misguided.

Posted by create (anonymous) on December 2, 2009 at 6:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I have been uncharacteristically quiet during the whole of this discussion, but I have absolutely read every word and enjoyed this lively exchange very much.

Dear YY4U, I loved your gift of the You Tube Mele Kalikimaka number. Those images brought tears to my eyes because two of them are in the bay where my home town is located. What a trip! Thank you.

And yes, Mele Kalikimaka is indeed the transliteration of Merry Christmas. Imagine trying to teach an entire nation of people to say Merry Christmas when their language contains none of the letters in the original message. Many Hawaiian words are like that. Thank you for that too.

Now, let's all sing it again. Mele Kalikimaka is the thing to say on a bright, Hawaiian Christmas day....That's the island greeting that we send to you from the land where palm trees sway.....Yeah! Let it stay in your head for awhile.

Henry, I know you said you hadn't read all the posts. I hope you clicked on the Mele Kalikimaka one on You Tube. I want that to be stuck in your head for awhile. ...Here we know that Christmas will be green and bright....

Posted by USNretired (anonymous) on December 2, 2009 at 7:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The LEGAL Holiday is Christmas. Live with it.

Posted by create (anonymous) on December 2, 2009 at 8:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Grinch!

Hey YY4U, back at you with a terrific piece from you tube by a group called Straight, No Chaser. This piece relates heavily to what we have been discussing here. Really terrific. Enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28GUU1YbP...

Posted by Beo_Saoirse (anonymous) on December 2, 2009 at 9:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

USN....yes, yes it is. And your point?

Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on December 2, 2009 at 11:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That was perfect after my light hanging fiasco, create. I am done, but my mood needed a good lift. Here's another:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E-47VmFo...

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on December 3, 2009 at 4:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

USN Retired......

And the name of the program is Seasonal Celebration.....you live with that>

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on December 3, 2009 at 4:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

After several days of conversation we had for the most part moved closer together from both sides and were all feeling warm and snuggie.......then here comes someone who had hitherforto [I don't care if that's a word or not --I like to use it].....who had hitherforto contributed nothing to the conversation and basically moved things back to square one.

Nice job Jocko!

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on December 3, 2009 at 4:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I am a USN veteran myself [all non-combat] and I have ultimate respect for our fighting men and women.....but some people....veterans or not.....are jerks.

I apologize to everyone else for this outburst. But this had been to me the most civil and meaningful discussion on religion ever held on these boards since I have been a participant......and feelings have been moderated on both sides......and then "ALONG CAME JONES", and it p##### me off. Sorry!

Posted by create (anonymous) on December 3, 2009 at 9:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

oh4, that Straight No Chaser selection of yours is even more suited to this discussion we've been having. Great choice! That group is absolutely sensational. I saw them on PBS last night and heard that they are appearing in Lawrence next week to a sold out house.

YY, what wonderful greetings you send me. So warm. Yes, I too am looking at seed catalogs and staring out the kitchen window at the bones of my garden making changes in my head. Well, I do still have some bok choi and mustard cabbage out there and Swiss chard. Bok Choi and mustard will tolerate down to 20 degrees. I harvest some everyday for my noon meal of stir fried something or another. Being able to do that makes me feel so thrifty and healthy too.

Not to worry, Biscuit. I certainly agree with you about how meaningful this thread has been.

Fa la la la la la la la la...

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on December 3, 2009 at 12:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

oh4

I'm with create...loved your Straight No Chaser link

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on December 3, 2009 at 6:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

YY4U

Now that one I may download.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on December 3, 2009 at 9:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Speaking of the Crusades....... these battles were to re-claim the Holy Lands from the Muslims. No doubt about it.

But why is it never mentioned that the Muslims conquered it in the first place........ and I don't think they just walked in and were given the keys to the city, either. After they destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, it was eventually rebuilt, and pilgrimages were eventually allowed again, but for a time pilgrims were captured and some of the clergy were killed. I'm not saying either side is innocent or guilty but is seems the Crusades are always branded as just a wild hair undertaken by those bloodthirsty Christians at the time, while what went on that prompted them is always overlooked.

But we gotta be politically correct these days, I understand ;-)

Posted by mslater (anonymous) on December 4, 2009 at 3:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Goodoleboy,

"The Colonels or commanding officers of each regiment are directed to procure Chaplains accordingly; persons of good Characters and exemplary lives--To see that all inferior officers and soldiers pay them a suitable respect and attend carefully upon religious exercises. The blessing and protection of Heaven are at all times necessary but especially so in times of public distress and danger--The General hopes and trusts, that every officer and man, will endeavour so to live, and act, as becomes a Christian Soldier defending the dearest Rights and Liberties of his country." -- GEN George Washington, General Orders, 09JUL1776
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/July_9,_17...

"Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a Superintending providence in our favor. ... And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance. I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings that "except the Lord build they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: ...I therefore beg leave to move -- that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that service" -- Benjamin Franklin (you know, the guy who brought prayer to Congress
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Fr...

"The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity, let the Blackguard Paine say what he will." -- John Adams
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Adams#...

Matt

Posted by mslater (anonymous) on December 4, 2009 at 3:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The above having been stated, I feel this best sums up the feeling of the founding fathers:

"the Government of the United States ... gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance. ... May the children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid. May the father of all mercies scatter light and not darkness in our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in his own due time and way everlastingly happy." -- GEN George Washington, 1790

Posted by mslater (anonymous) on December 4, 2009 at 3:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

P.S.-- Jefferson was the deist, not Washington.

Posted by mslater (anonymous) on December 4, 2009 at 3:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think we all do need to remember that from 1782 to 1956, the official motto of the US was "E Pluribus Unum" (From Many, One). It wasn't until July 30, 1956, when President Eisenhower signed a joint resolution that the official motto of the US was changed to "In God We Trust."

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on December 4, 2009 at 4:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

YY4U

Your box of rocks post was excellent and right on target.

open_eyes

Welcome back....and I see you are trying very hard to be politically correct as usual. Yes, I realize the Crusades didn't just occur one day when some Middle Ages European Potentate woke up one morning with a wild idea. But since the thread was about Christmas and the origins of the Christmas tradition and the legitimacy of the Christian claim to a lock on goodness, I didn't feel it necessary to trace Jewish-Muslim-Christian relations back to "In the beginning...".

If we have to do that every time we mention something most of our post would far exceed the word limit....plus it would give those who want to disagree few points to counter with. :-)

But again....Welcome Back.....I was afraid you had gone away mad.

Posted by create (anonymous) on December 4, 2009 at 7:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

YY, loved the box of rocks story. Cool beans!

Hi Matt, are you still over there? Stay safe and Mele Kalikimaka.

Now I can't get that dreidl song out of my head.

Dreidl, dreidl, dreidl,
I made it out of clay...

Happy Seasonal Celebration!

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on December 4, 2009 at 9:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

YY4U - loved your box of rocks analogy! - Hilarious ;-) (Although Mother Teresa didn't seem exactly fat when she died).

biscuitboy - no, it's going to take more than some dishonest posters to drive me away - LOL. Have been having some medical issues to deal with and haven't been keeping up much lately.

If the thread was about Christmas and the origins of the Christmas tradition, I don't see why the Crusades were brought up in the first place.

If the thread was about the legitimacy of the Christian claim to a lock on goodness, I'd like to know who made the claim? Last time I checked the Bible it said all have sinned....... then along comes the John Adams quote about Christianity being above all religions...... well...... now I have to retract, darn - LOL. Well, some people claim Logjam is the best band ever, some of us disagree..... LOLOLOL ;-)

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on December 4, 2009 at 10:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think they should put out a Christmas album. It's bound to sound better than Bob Dylan's..... ;-)

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on December 4, 2009 at 12:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes indeed open_eyes some Christians do make a claim on a Christian lock on goodness.....Christians other than John Adams...but the reason I included it was because of the discussion about Christian vs. Pagan atrocities that had taken place between two other posters. It may not have been relevant to the conversation but it was as at least as relevant, if not more so, then the Muslim sacking of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre since the thread really had nothing to do with Muslims at all.....JMO

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on December 4, 2009 at 12:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

open_eyes

I am sorry to hear about your medical issues and hope everything is going well. :-)

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on December 4, 2009 at 3:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And I will do that before I go to bed this evening YY4U. Thanks!

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on December 4, 2009 at 3:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you, biscuitboy. Everything is going as well as can be expected at the moment, it will take some time.

You are absolutely right about some Christians making a claim on a Christian lock on goodness. But then so does pretty much every other religion. Heck, we're all "infidels" according to some........ I've also seen quite a few atheists, in a way, claim much the same sort of thing. That religion leads everyone astray and only they by just adhering to their own sense of right and wrong are the "correct" ones. I don't see alot of difference in any of it.......

I guess I just view the current fad of Christian-bashing as somewhat slanted in that we are so politically correct to not offend any other religion. Timothy McVeigh is widely regarded as a Christian terrorist, but we don't DARE use the label "Muslim terrorist" if someone kills a bunch of soldiers while shouting "Allahu Akbar".

Example question for you: I assume you are aware of the HBO show where the drunk fellow accidentally sprayed some urine on a picture of Jesus. My question is: Will we see an episode somewhere where he accidentally sprays urine on a picture of Mohammed, or on the Koran? What do you think would be the reaction if they did? (Not that they would even DARE to show a pic of Mohammed on TV, anyway). Sure, people are upset over this, some outraged - do you think the response would be the same if they showed my scenario? Do you think the apologies would be the same?

Sorry if I get offtrack (again) - idle musings.......

YY4U - thanks for the info on the Cards :)

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on December 4, 2009 at 5:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes, I realize he is a comedian, and it was "meant" to be funny.
My question still stands: Why doesn't he try the same skit on a Koran or pic of Mohammed? It's just comedy, right? And what do you think the reaction would be? Should there be any difference?

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on December 4, 2009 at 5:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

My guess is Larry David probably didn't do a similar skit using Mohammad because he didn't want international hits put out on him. I guess that also explains pretty much what I believe the reaction would be to your scenario. But I would like to think that we both as Americans....and the Christians I know as Christians are bigger than that and do not need to stoop to that level. Anyone who becomes to self righteous to laugh at himself is way to self-righteous.....and that includes Muslims, Jews, Christians, Atheist, or just plain old pedestrians.

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on December 4, 2009 at 5:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Probably my favorite thing about the Jewish faith is their abilty to enjoy a good laugh at their own expense.

Posted by Beo_Saoirse (anonymous) on December 4, 2009 at 6:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Open eyes: I'm curious about your use of the term Christian-bashing. What do you define as Christian-bashing? Can you give some examples. I'd like to see if we define the term the same way.

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on December 4, 2009 at 6:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

There is an aspect of the Larry David skit that I find both amusing and perplexing. All the hub-pub is about the urine drop getting on the picture which is necessary to set up what I consider the real slap at Christians......the ease with which they drop to their knees and accept it as a miracle which they then hurry forth to tell the world. No questions, no investigation, no doubts......nothing but blind acceptance on faith. That is also the thing I find most fearsome about true believers of most religions. That blind acceptance on faith without doubts or questions.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on December 4, 2009 at 10:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Beo - I think I already gave several examples. I don't have a problem with poking fun at religion to a certain extent (I realize some people are offended at ANYTHING but hey, if they believe God created everything, then he created humor too, so they need to lighten up some) - but when I use the term Christian-bashing one example or class of examples is as I listed above - the fact that we can make fun of that religion ONLY - but we wouldn't dare think of offending the sensibilities of any other religion. I say you should be able to treat them all the same - if one is your source of comedy, then you shouldn't treat any other any different. If you are going to respect one enough to not offend, then treat the others the same. It seems in this country tearing down and belittling all things Christian these days is all the rage - but it doesn't seem that mocking ALL religions gets the same.

And biscuitboy, I think there have been plenty of questions, investigation, and doubts about the authenticity of much of what is in the Bible (beyond the early Genesis stories) - including the life of Jesus. I've watched many a documentary such as those often shown on the History Channel and others digging into and trying to both verify and disprove the authenticity of much of the same. The only thing I see here is that some blindly accept the notion that Christians never doubt or question, and all archeological evidence that supports it seems to be discounted. Its my nature to question everything - and believe me, I didn't arrive at my present faith by blindly believing everything I'm told.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on December 4, 2009 at 10:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

biscuitboy, you bring up a good point. If people don't make fun of Islam the same way they do Christianity because they're afraid of having international hits put out on them.........

Then maybe Christianity DOES have more of an inside line of "goodness"....... than at least some other religions do.........????

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on December 4, 2009 at 11:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Of course, I don't mean to imply that everything is or even can be proven. Some things, ultimately, have to be taken on faith.

Which is the exact thought that runs thru my head every time I vote....... LOL

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on December 5, 2009 at 5:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Come on open_eyes....you are the master of the twist and dodge. Few if any dispute the historical accuracy of some parts of the bible. The old testament in fact is accepted as a literary history of the Jewish people. Few if any question the life or the death of a Jude-an named Jesus....few question the city names or much of the history of the times as it related to the Bible.

But to go from that to a claim that the accuracy of the beliefs of Christianity have been documented by the History Channel is a stretch of Biblical proportions. (pun intended) None of the beliefs about the existence and nature of God.....the divinity of Jesus.....the existence of heaven and hell.....or our special place in the universe.....have been proven by anybody....and are accepted by Christians on blind faith. And yet all of the above are much more important to the definition of a Christian than the historical accuracy of some things mentioned in the Bible. You must make a terrific apple-orange juice....you mix them so well. :-)

One more comment on Larry David. It would be a little hard to do the same skit about Islam since they accept no images of Mohammad and I'm certain would accept none hung above the toilet...a practice I have frequently observed in some Christian homes.

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on December 5, 2009 at 7:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Uhhhhh,

The Christmas Program or Seasonal Celebration, whatever you want to call it is this coming Mon. and Tues. nights.

HAPPY HANUKKAH!

Posted by Beo_Saoirse (anonymous) on December 5, 2009 at 8:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks, Open eyes. Honestly, I don't see that as Christian bashing but more like just poor taste.

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on December 5, 2009 at 9:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Is it poor taste or is it only a matter of making fun of what you know. This country is predominantly Christian. It would be a little silly to set around and make fun of Hindus or Zoroastrians because the vast majority of us would not have a clue what you were talking about. This is evidenced by the fact that the second largest religious group in this country are Jews.....and Jude-ism receives almost as much ridicule as Christianity.

A central part of Christian dogma and ritual involves the persecution and suffering of Jesus.....I sometimes think many Christians all too readily adopt that mantle for themselves....JMO

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on December 5, 2009 at 12:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As someone who constantly has to point out to debaters things I wrote that were completely overlooked or misinterpreted, accused of things I never did, posts twisted and taken out of order, etc....... and especially the fact that I hardly ever get a direct answer to a direct question (especially when I always try to answer directly myself) I get a real chuckle out of your label of me as the master of twist and dodge. Maybe one has to do a lot of twisting and dodging to catch and nail down some rather elusive opponents. Or to win a game of dodgeball. ;-). I'm also quite familiar with the parable of the fox and the grapes.

But you are right with your point about separating the historical accuracy of the Bible from tenents of Christian faith. I did read back and after realizing what I had said I did add a post afterwards stating that (there's another example of what I just said) - but I am afraid I did not expound on it well enough - thank you for further and better clarifying for me.

But I also think you just helped make my point about Larry David. "They accept no picture of Mohammed". (something else I also already stated). Well, lots of Christians don't accept alot of the poor-taste being shown towards Christianity (as Beo put it) - but that doesn't seem to stop anyone. So it doesn't have to necessarily be the exact same scenario. He could have accidentally dropped or kicked a copy of the Koran. Or made fun of Muslim beliefs much as you and others do of Christian beliefs on these forums often. It could be anything. But....... we don't dare. I ask why? Just because "Muslims don't allow it"....... has that stopped any comedy routine making fun of Christianity? What are you afraid of and, more importantly..... WHY? Your answer that it is because Christianity is the majority in this country does have some merit. Anti-Semitism however is a global phenomenon (especially in the Muslim world). Not to mention Jesus himself was Jewish so the 2 are intertwined somewhat.
You also make a very good point that often Christians assume the mantle of suffering for themselves.

Beo - thank you for a direct question and a direct answer, and your appreciation of such. So refreshing around here. I guess I don't view it quite so much as just poor taste (although I agree it is) as much as hypocrisy that we bend over backwards for other faiths, especially Islam, because we "don't want to offend them", (but we don't care if we offend anyone else) or "they don't allow it". Part of that may be due to the reason that biscuitboy gave above.

PS - You should try apple-orange juice sometime - you might be surprised ;-)

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on December 5, 2009 at 12:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Better cool it fellas, you might get censored for expressing your opinion and haivng a disagreement!

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on December 5, 2009 at 1:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Right, goodoleboy - I just now read the Negative Comments thread (and posted my opinion there). I should have checked with the Gazette staff first to see if my comment was deemed positive (meaning, did it agree with their point of view) first.......

Biscuitboy, I have the utmost respect for you. However, in the course of debate, usually the only times I can ever keep from getting slightly emotional or heated is when the discussion is something like do I pick the apple or the cherry pie? (A win-win situation)

Oh, darn! Sorry! I forgot this thread wasn't about pies!

LOLOLOL ;-)

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on December 5, 2009 at 1:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes goodoleboy. I for one think that the Seasonal Celebration......which is really a Christmas Program because we all here in Emporia are Christian...that was denied to us by evil outsiders that are not Christian.....is never the less a n absolutely wonderful thing as is all things that occur in our beautiful little town that goes by the wonderful name of Smallville as covered accurately and completely by the Smallville Gazette under the noble guidance and
tutelage of it's esteemed editor Mr Walker.

For all I hope the most wonderful of Christ's seasons as I'm sure that it will be here in Smallville. LOLOLOLOL

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on December 5, 2009 at 1:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And open_eyes.......I would also like to be able to say that I too have much respect for you and even though you sometimes are able to get my goat....you add greatly to this conversation and I am very glad you are back. I would like to be able to say that but because it would be off-topic I must not.

I would certainly hate to be the one who caused the plug to be undemocratically pulled on an entire thread because of my actions. So you will just have to accept my silence and realize that it is intended to say nice things about you.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------!

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on December 5, 2009 at 2:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO biscuitboy ;-)

You get my goat more than I admit too - LOL.

But often in a good way - one in which I learn.

But I'm putting a Christmas ribbon and bells around its neck, so for this thread it's a Christmas Goat!!!

No....wait..... can't have red and green...... all lights must be white (color-neutral)...... no reindeer antlers on the goat.... darn..... well....... I can only think of one more use for the goat....

Who's up for some Seasoned (not "Seasonal") Celebration goat? A few more turns on the spit and she'll be ready to eat! All are welcome to come and enjoy! (Darn.... I'm anonymous...) well, you'll have to be content with me telly you how tasty and yummy it was!

Merry Christmas to all!!!!!

Posted by wirewatt (anonymous) on December 5, 2009 at 5:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If you really want to be fair the people whom don't believe in Christmas and what it stands for shouldn't take the holiday. The judges and attorneys who want to change the USA should work and hold court right on through the holiday. The official language in the USA is English, yet we have another language printed on signs in the Court House. What about all the other languages that are spoken in the county? We have at least 7 or 8 other ethnic groups in the county. I am looking forward to the day that we take back our heritage of the USA, and we got it through the service by men and women who gave their all for this country. The day will come when all of the new world liberals will regret all of the PC baloney. The country down under has decided to take back their country, I hope we aren't far behind.

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on December 5, 2009 at 5:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well wirewatt....those were certainly some positive and useful comments and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you were not in the least affected by all the negative and not useful comments that have been expressed here in the seven days,twenty hours, and twenty four minutes since you started it all by going off the date-time-and no flash photography topic. Proving once and for all that a good positive and useful comment can stand unaffected by negative and not useful comments to the contrary.

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on December 5, 2009 at 5:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sarcasm fully intended but it was done with a positive attitude......see.....:-)

Posted by create (anonymous) on December 5, 2009 at 7:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sooo, YY, the dreidl is an instrument of gambling is it?

Oh, and thanks for that address to which I can send a card. Am doing that tonight with a few bucks inside for the coke machine.

It's worth repeating. Here it is again, everyone:

A Recovering American Soldier
c/o Walter Reed Army Medical Center
6900 Georgia Avenue,NW
Washington,D.C. 20307-5001

open_eyes, I'm so glad you're back. Even though you sometimes irritate me, and I have told you so, but for the most part, I enjoy your posts. BTW, if you're doing goat, I'll bring the basil sauce. Now how about that for a positive message? Get weller soon.

wire watt, May God bless you with an understanding of why we post signs in more than one language in this country. May God help you understand that the Native Americans did not understand English, but they came forward anyway, and helped the starving newcomers from England by sharing their corn and squash seed and teaching them where to hunt deer and to find other forms of food.

Also wirewatt, my people were forced, yes FORCED, to speak English by missionaries from New England. MISSIONARIES! Their language was nearly lost entirely until little by little the elders began teaching the little ones -- in the mid 20th century!

Mele Kalikimaka, Adeste Fidelis.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on December 5, 2009 at 7:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you very much, create. I thought about making the Gazette happy and only posting "I totally agree" to each editorial/article, and thus not irritating anyone else in the process, but I decided that would only end up irritating me, and in my present condition I don't need any more of that.
Not to mention Seasoned Goat usually doesn't sit too well with me. I'll have to remember to try it with basil sauce next time ;-)

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on December 6, 2009 at 4:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

YY4U

.That's the best cover of that song I ever heard.

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on December 6, 2009 at 6:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Speaking of seasonal music,

I recommend any one of Bob Rivers Christmas albums.

Classics such as "Yellow Snow,Yellow Snow ,Yellow Snow, Chipmunks roasting on an open fire, Hey you, get off of my house and my favorite, Merry Christmas Allah.

Really puts you in the spirit of things.

Posted by Pinkpintopony (anonymous) on December 8, 2009 at 2:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Whoa! Our family just moved here to Emporia from another state. We happen to have a child who was involved in the program tonight. Our family are not Christians and I thought the program was nice and festive. I enjoyed the music. I'm suprised by the controversy. I guess I am responding to Wirewatts very first post about the name assigned for the program. Does it really need to be called a Christmas program? Most of the music was religious music! Where we moved from...a Christmas program involving public school children would have never had the music that this program had. ( And we came from a Red State) There should be some compromise. It can be called a Seasonal Celebration and then when you get inside the doors...it's all about Jesus. In fact, it may have been a little misleading to me ( I was thinking Jingle Bell Rock and Frosty the Snowman) Who cares? You know what you and your family believe and that should be good enough. We live in a Country where we are free to have differing religious beliefs and as much as I respct yours, I wish you would respect mine.