X-mas or "holidays"?
Got a question for anyone who might be reading this. Please feel free to either respond on the blog or treat it as a rhetorical question:
If it's OK for others to be offended by Christmas, (which is why we bend over backward to accomodate them) is it OK for me to be offended by other religions, and if so, should those other religions have to bend over backward to keep a low profile, the same way Christianity is now expected to?
In other words, should Jews be expected to refrain from any public mention &/or display of Hannakah or should Muslims be expected to refrain from public mention &/or display of Rammadan?
One argument might be, "As a Christian, you're supposed to accomodate everyone." I say to that, look at the first commandment.
Another question: in a democracy, do we believe in majority rule or minority rule? It's obvious that in America, the majority of the population is either practicing Christian, or not offended in any way by Christianity.
One last question: in a city like Dearborn, Michigan where the majority of the population is Muslim, is it OK for public mention &/or display of Muslim icons?
I myself, don't have a problem with Muslims and their public mention &/or display of Muslim icons in an area where Muslims are the majority.
Just wondering.
BTW: Merry Christmas!
If it's OK for others to be offended by Christmas, (which is why we bend over backward to accomodate them) is it OK for me to be offended by other religions, and if so, should those other religions have to bend over backward to keep a low profile, the same way Christianity is now expected to?
In other words, should Jews be expected to refrain from any public mention &/or display of Hannakah or should Muslims be expected to refrain from public mention &/or display of Rammadan?
One argument might be, "As a Christian, you're supposed to accomodate everyone." I say to that, look at the first commandment.
Another question: in a democracy, do we believe in majority rule or minority rule? It's obvious that in America, the majority of the population is either practicing Christian, or not offended in any way by Christianity.
One last question: in a city like Dearborn, Michigan where the majority of the population is Muslim, is it OK for public mention &/or display of Muslim icons?
I myself, don't have a problem with Muslims and their public mention &/or display of Muslim icons in an area where Muslims are the majority.
Just wondering.
BTW: Merry Christmas!
posted by Boris Yeltsin @ 8:14 PM
8 Comments:
At 8:23 AM, November 30, 2005,
Anonymous said…
oh this stuff for some reason really bothers me. i make a huge point at CHRISTMAS to pick out CHRISTMAS cards that say MERRY CHRISTMAS instead of HAPPY HOLIDAYS. the HOLIDAY started out as CHRISTMAS. was it not a christian event? wasn't it CHRISTMAS before HOLIDAY? i could be wrong. i'm catholic...but pretty non-practicing right now. i'm not against other religions in any way shape or form...but EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID: "...bend over backward to keep a low profile, the same way Christianity is now expected to?"
WHY THE HECK IS IF OFFENSIVE TO USE THE WORD CHRISTMAS! IT WAS THEIR DAY TO BEGIN WITH NOT A FREAKING HOLIDAY FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! makes me mad. oh well. guess i'm not the best christian! haha.
At 3:47 PM, November 30, 2005,
Boris Yeltsin said…
exactly!!!!!
At 4:34 PM, November 30, 2005,
MZPEACH said…
It is funny, that I don't really think about other people's religion. I can't tell a Jew from a Caucasion person. Call me ignorant. But I guess ignorance is bliss when it comes to something that billions have feuded about for thousands of years. Everyone should have a connection with their spirituallity. It is one of the self-actulization process. With that said, I love being American. We have our faults, but ultimately we are such a beautiful and accepting country. We have grown so much. Why not allow people of other religions celebrate openly. Christianity in America will always be a majority.
At 4:36 PM, November 30, 2005,
MZPEACH said…
My blogger friend Mahndisa is so intelligent. I am sending her over too, I know you will enjoy her. Good question.
At 4:54 PM, November 30, 2005,
Mahndisa S. Rigmaiden said…
11 30 05
Hey GP: Thx for sending me here; these are good questions. Let me try to answer them from how I see it:
1. The Establishment Clause says that the state cannot establish its own religion. It says nothing about if the state has the power to proscribe practicing any religion at all. And it also doesn’t clearly state whether the state can or cannot endorse theism or include religious symbolsUnder the free expression and assembly rubric, people can practice their religion SO LONG AS THAT DISPLAY DOES NOT CAUSE PHYSICAL HARM TO ANYONE ELSE. And if a person wants to be a satanist they can, although it is offensive to many of our sensibilities. Here are a couple of links illustrating my point.
2. We should show RESPECT for other religions and not balk at public displays of anyone's religious icons. However, that also has limits according to any dangers to public welfare. Basically a private business owner or someone in the town square can practice their religion with impugnity. However, the GOVERNMENT cannot endorse practicing any ONE religion->so in public schools the issue is to not discuss religious holidays at all, or celebrate ALL religious holidays so everyone has a free chance and the focus isn't on just ONE religion.
3. Sorry for ranting and here are some links:)
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=4463 –Capitalism Magazine on Freedom of religion.
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=3290 – Capitalism Magazine on capitalism and Christianity.
www.stoptheaclu.com for fifty million reasons why the ACLU has NO RESPECT for Christians and their practices.
http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1105797159.shtml A Stitch in Haste-Satanists are protected by freedom of religion.
Great post!
At 4:59 PM, November 30, 2005,
Mahndisa S. Rigmaiden said…
11 30 05
OOps, one more thing. Our country is not a democracy. We are a democratic republic. The Founding Fathers intentiionally set it up this way to protect us from pure participatory democracy because of the whole "tyranny of the majority" thing. So a better question to ask is: "How far do democratic and individual rights go in a democratic republic?" Excellent Questions!
At 4:17 PM, December 01, 2005,
Boris Yeltsin said…
Mahndisa S. Rigmaiden, there's no doubt you're smart. I can see that in this debate, you're a very worthy opponent. That's cool, because I get so tired of bloggers who just copy and paste the same hate driven crap over and over, and think they're engaging in some kind of constructive dialog.
Hell, I can't even talk about this stuff at work because I like my job and I don't want to get canned because someone doesn't like my ideology and looks for an excuse to get me canned. Anyhow:
Your point about America being a representitive republic is well taken.
I think the whole purpose of that was to prevent fads that grip the general public, from governing our nation. If you're smart (or more likely: rich) enough to get elected, you're probably less likely to be persuaded by flash-in-the-pan fads (you know, political correctness, etc.). I'm thinking that's what the whole "tyranny of the majority" thing is all about.
Trouble is, the PC crowd has figured out a way around the safegaurds our Founding Fathers set up to guarantee that the public is protected from fads (like political correctness) in our national policy: the public who electes those who represent us? Change their thinking. Here's how:
Ever notice how a person used to be able to apprentice at a company for positions like engineer, supervisor, electrician - just about anything except doctor and lawyer - and if they apprenticed long enough, they were hired for those positions with little more than a high school diploma? Maybe you're too young to remember those days, but I'm not.
Now, we've got all these computers that're supposed to make our lives easier - and they have. So why is it, the education requirements for just about anything includes a minimum of a B.A.? Haven't computers made things easier? Sure they have! Back just about 10 or 15 years ago, they didn't have the benefit of amazingly powerful computers, driven by software written in fourth generation languages, and you didn't need a minimum of a B.A. to do your job. What's changed? Have things gotten so complicated that we need high-powered computers AND people with at least a B.A. to do regular jobs like supervisor or electrician? Of course not. Here's what's happened:
The universities in this country are cranking out these secular humanists in huge quantities. What happens in college when you don't regurgitate the secular humanist dogma? You're treated like you're not "enlightened." You're marginalized at best, mocked and flunked at worst. Large companies and large universities have the same thing im common: those who spend the money, aren't spending their own (or anyone's money they know) so spending money on unproven, abstract ideas is no skin off their ass, because it's not their money.
The more large universities crank out secular humanists - who, by nature of their college degrees, wind up being those who run our country - the more our country is going down the 'ol crapper.
Before secular humanism became the standard in our public schools, the worst things kids did, was chew gum in class and run in the hallways.
Now that secular humanism is all the fad - uh, I mean rage - the worst things that kids do runs the gammut from murder to gun possesion to AIDS, to unwed pregancies by teens in large numbers: very large numbers; oh yeah, gang violence, metal dectors, police officers patrolling the hallways, etc.
This is what happens when the safegaurd of our democratic republic is bypassed, and fad-dish thinking is allowed to take place.
So, what does this have to do with the villianization of Christmas? Secular humanists are trying to destroy anything that has to do with Christianity - but any other religion is A-OK. There's a war against Christianity. Don't believe me?
What about Kwaanza? Will there ever be a war against Kwaanza like there is against Christianity? Absolutely not. How about Islam? Will there be a huge outcry by college professors about Islamic icons offending the general public? Absolutely not. If there is an outcry by college professors against Muslim or Kwaanza icons - on a mainstream basis, like there is against Christian symbols and icons, please, let me know.
At 4:46 PM, December 01, 2005,
Mahndisa S. Rigmaiden said…
12 01 05
Boris: Your points are well taken. In terms of Kwanzaa, Michelle Malkin wrote a really mean story about the guy who started it. I disagreed with her take because I have always said Respect the Msg, irrespective of the Messenger. I think Kwanzaa embodies many ideals that can benefit not only Blacks,but everyone in our society.
In terms of the war against Christians, my God you are right aobut that. It really hurts. I found some scientists that seemed cool, but they are irreverent. Geesh! OK sorry for rambling, thx for visiting my site and I will frequent yours more often:)
Post a Comment
<< Home