It’s been cold here in North Central Texas. Temperatures have dipped into the teens and ice covered everything yesterday and this morning.

It must, however, be that proverbial cold day in hell. For once I agree with something Bush has done.

Last night on Joe Scarborough ran a story about reaction to Bush sending “Happy Holiday” rather than “Merry Christmas" cards.

William Donohue and Jennifer Giroux took the position that Bush shoujlk]d satisfy his “base” by sending cards with a Christmas message. On the other hand Bill Press thought the President was correct in sending out the “Happy Holidays” cards.



<snip>



<snip>





Scarborough Country Transcript, 12-07-05

Question for debate

Is the Christian right over the top in advocating that Bush send cards with a traditional Christmas message? Why or why not?

Is the Christian right over the top in advocating that Bush send cards with a traditional Christmas message? Why or why not?

I don't think they are "over the top". It's their right to advocate for whatever their political will deems to be in line with their beliefs. While I believe they're making a mountain out of a molehill, I support their right to do so . If the only complaint they have about Dubya are his "holiday" cards, then they're doing pretty well as far as Whitehouse representation is concerned.

Three years ago I had a conversation with a liberal and I asked her at the time what her biggest gripe about Bush was.

It's was the Christmas cards. They showed "too much of a connection to Christianity." Now it's the other way around. People need to relax on both sides.

For people like me, there are many reasons to criticize President Bush. What he has written on the White House Christmas cards is not one of them.

Nemov is right; people just need to relax on this one. No one is going to gain or lose faith in the holiday or the reason for it based on "Happy Holidays" being printed on the greeting cards and not "Merry Christmas."

I've written about something similar on my blog, and have spoken to others and this is what I've told them; If you can't appriciate someone wishing you well this holiday season, whether you be Christian, Jew, or Muslim, then you've completely missed the point of what this time of year is about.

This time of year is about trying, cause we are human mind you, but trying to be better towards others than we have the other ten-and-a-half months of the year. It's about showing the rest of humanity that there is a heart within all of us that is good and that we are capable of so much better.

So, if your focus is on the words and not the message behind any thoughtful note or card, you really need to get some perspective.

While I think Jesus would be flattered that we honor the day of his birth (no matter if the date is accurate or not) I'd think he'd be much more pleased if, among other things, people not bicker about the symantics of greeting cards.

What Would Jesus Do? He'd say get a freakin grip.

Is the Christian right over the top in advocating that Bush send cards with a traditional Christmas message? Why or why not?

I don't care and UP O'REILLY'S!

Heh, didn't take long to use that one, did it.

Seriously though, the Christian right is over the top by definition. They play politics when they ought to be looking after the health of their own tushes in the light of their accepted savior.

Hey, I didn't make the rules for them. Jesus did.

What would Jesus do? He was Jewish, wasn't he. Happy Holidays!

"Happy Holidays"? How dare you wish me that?! Put 'em up. :-)

This whole ridiculous argument reminds me of Dayvid Figlar's book:
"Merry Christmas, Jewboy"

When we send out cards, its to mark an occasion or celebration of the recipient, not of ours. So, we send Christmas cards to our friends that celebrate it and Hannukah cards to our jewish friends etc. In the president's case where he is sending a single card to people of many faiths, he is right to pick a message that is appropriate to all of the recipients, not just those that share his beliefs.

I guess its going to be a cold day here in California too!.

I am not concerned about the cards, as Dubya can say what he wants, though some are right, he may be a Christian like me, but he still represents us all, and needs to keep that in mind.

That being said, may I simply say that I am tired of the "Christian-bashing." If we are over the top, then so was Lincoln, first from his 2nd inaugural:

"Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.""

And from New Haven:

"If our sense of duty forbids this, then let us stand by our duty, fearlessly and effectively. Let us be diverted by none of those sophistical contrivances wherewith we are so industriously plied and belabored -- contrivances such as groping for middle ground between the right and the wrong, vain as the search for a man who should be neither a living man nor a dead man -- such as a policy of "don't care" on a question about which all true men do care -- such as Union appeals beseeching true Union men to yield to Disunionists, reversing the divine rule, and calling, not the sinners, but the righteous to repentance -- such as invocations of Washington, imploring men to unsay what Washington did."

Query: could Lincoln be elected today?

Answer: I don't know, but I would suggest that if not, the fault is not his but ours.

And Lincoln's rejoinder to those who tell us to keep our religion [I prefer, faith] out of your and/or our politics, from New Haven again:

"What we want, and all we want, is to have with us the men who think slavery wrong. But those who say they hate slavery, and are opposed to it, but yet act with the Democratic party -- where are they? Let us apply a few tests. You say that you think slavery is wrong, but you denounce all attempts to restrain it. Is there anything else that you think wrong, that you are not willing to deal with as a wrong? Why are you so careful, so tender of this one wrong and no other? [Laughter.] You will not let us do a single thing as if it was wrong; there is no place where you will allow it to be even called wrong! We must not call it wrong in the Free States, because it is not there, and we must not call it wrong in the Slave States because it is there; we must not call it wrong in politics because that is bringing morality into politics, and we must not call it wrong in the pulpit because that is bringing politics into religion; we must not bring it into the Tract Society or the other societies, because those are such unsuitable places, and there is no single place, according to you, where this wrong thing can properly be called wrong! [Continued laughter and applause.]"

And so, know that when I hear some speak about "not legislating morality" and such like, that this is lens I read it through...

The christian right really needs to get a grip on this. I'm sorry, but I for one won't write this off simply because there are bigger issues out there. The simple fact that this demonstrates that one segment of our population can't live without excluding the others at every turn, IS important. Nearly every religious group has some form of celebration and even atheists are not against a generic holiday season to see family and friends. Yes, the president is free to do as he seems fit. Yes, people are in the right to advocate for their views by the first amendment. At the same time, it is equally true that this country is made up of more people than just protestant christians. Atheists are citizens too. So are Muslims and Jews. It is flat out ludicrous that the religious right would oppose simple wording on White House stationary simply because "their man" wants to include all citizens in celebrating the season. Yes, he's a person of faith, but the White House should reflect the values and beliefs of everyone in times like this, not just fundamentalist christians.

If Atheism is the belief that there is no god at all and at some point in time there is COMPLETE separation of God from anything associated with the government. Wouldn't then the government be establishing that there is no God thus establishing the religion Atheism?

Just curious..

The answer to your question is--No. Here's why-If there was a complete separation of church and state, atheism would not be the de facto religion of the country. This is because for it to be so, the government would have to say: "We are an atheist" nation. It would be a formally declared thing like the Soviet Union did. Simply saying: "Practice on your own, not on government property" is not an endorsement of atheism. It's a mere statement that you are free to practice your religion, but that government will not endorse one. But we digress.....

If the president discusses his faith and how it imbues him in his daily work, fine!. But during a time of year when everybody celebrates something...yes....atheists have families and they (gasp!) love them. Why is it that the religious right objects to a simple statement that is inclusive of everyone in our republic?

I really don't understand what you are driving at or how it is applicable to this thread.

Although anyone who reads this board regularly knows I am no Bush fan, I commend the President on his choice of cards. "Happy Holidays" is a message that is inclusionary rather than exclusionary, generic rather than specific. It is a simple message that can be appreciated by Jews, protestants, Catholics, atheists, agnostics and any number of other faiths.

The religious right acts as if by overwhelmingly voting for Bush in 2004 they somehow are entitled to key to the White House's padlock. Fortunately they are not.

Bush has been known to be vindictive. In some small way, this might be a payback to the religious right for the Harriet Miers fiasco.

Is the Christian right over the top in advocating that Bush send cards with a traditional Christmas message? Why or why not?

This is just silly.

When you have a small mailing list, you can pick and choose which holiday cards to send to different people based on their religious preference, but the president does not have a small mailing list, and it only makes sense to send out a general winter holiday greeting. It's a business contact, and it should be applicable to whomever he sends it to.

Happy holidays does imply Merry Christmas, Happy Hannakuh, Happy Winter Solstice, Happy Kwanzaa, etc. If a person can't appreciate the intent of a holiday greeting, than they should disregard the card, and move on with life. This should not be an issue.

Question for debate

Is the Christian right over the top in advocating that Bush send cards with a traditional Christmas message? Why or why not?

Yes. In my opinion this is a nice example of the intolerant and agressive attitude of overambitious Christians. They try to impose/force their personal religious believes and values upon society and that is something I consider wrong no matter what.

Who are they to force the President of the U.S. to change his holiday cards? What do they think they can win with this action? It is only widening the gap between moderate Christians/ people with other/no religions and the radical Christians. For what reason?

As mentioned before by a lot of people: Christmas is a combination of various older religious traditions usurped by Christian traditions. I will quickly demonstrate it with a small selection of Roman history.

Saturnalia: 17 december - 25 december: ancient (6/5th century BC) yearly Roman celebration of Saturnus (ancient guardian god of Latium, district around Rome.) festivities ended with the solstice, which, according to the ancient calenders fell on the 25th instead of the 21th of december.

Sol Invictus: the official religion of Rome during the reign of Aurelian (AD 270-275). Sol Invictus (the invincible sun) was based on the celebration of the sun-god Mithras. During Winter Solstices (which fell on December 25th according to the Julian Calender) Romans would celebrate the rebirth of the Sun. From AD 270 till the death of Constantine the Great in AD 337, Sol invictus would be the dominant religion in Rome.

Christ's Mass (or Cristes maesse), mass in celebration of the birth of Christ (first reference in ancient texts: AD 379). Based on the accounts in the gospels, the time of year depicted for Jesus' birth could be spring or summer. However, Christians in de fourth century tried to tie the birth of Christ to the winter solstice, trying to replace the older Saturnalia with the new religion and thus smoothening Rome's religious transition. At the same time a lot of ancient traditions derived from the celebration of Sol Invictus were adapted by the Roman priests into their new Christian religion.

Christmas is an invention, created in the last stages of the Roman Empire, approximately three hundred fifty years after Christs crucifixion. That it later on evolved into one of the holliest days in the Christian world does not change the fact that in essence Christmas is a fabrication.

And what is wrong with Santa Claus? (Mr. Coca Cola?) He used to be a Christian holyman (Saint Nicholas from Myra, a city in modern Turkey). If the Christian movement want to make a fuss about Christmas, then they should start with changing Santa Claus back to the older bishop of Myra, Nicholas. Making such a big issue about the presidents "happy holliday card" is, in my opinion, a childish cry for attention, made by people who clearly show to have no understanding of and respect for the origines and meaning of Christmas as the majority of the people see it.

#1 Be nice and good to eachother.
#2 Spend some quality time with the ones you love.
#3 Take some time to reflect, cherish the important things in life.
#4 Just relax, finally some time off!

Editted for spelling.

Editted again.... .... to add.

It is funny did the Christian right ever make a fuss about Halloween? A pagan religious festival, later adapted by Christian missionaries and transformed into All Saints, which via "All Hallows" evolved into Halloween, the candy festival for kids? Trick or Treat ... Amen.

Or how about Easter, the most important holiday in the Christian religion, the celbration of the ressurrection of Jesus Christ? It is a continuation of the older Jewish tradition of Pesach (later Pasach) and was only transformed in the fourth century (AD 313) with the introduction of the Triduum Sacrum: Holy Thursday, Good Friday, Holy Saturday and Easter Sunday. The word Easter itself comes from the word Eostremonat, the month of the Anglo-Saxon goddess Eostre, bringer of life and fertility in the spring.

Aside from that: the Easterbunny. First off, it is not a bunny but a hare. Second the Easternbunny with his colourfull eggs, is an ancient Celtic/Germanic tradition, reintroduced in the 14th century and brought to the U.S. in at the beginning of the 18th century by German immigrants.

Well, logically if something does not exist, then it does not exist. A religion cannot exist if it does not exist.

Bringing this back to the debate question, Christmas did not exist until the Catholic Church declared its existence in the 5th century AD. Protestants took this idea forward into their versions of Christianity, and so by decree and consensus, Christmas exists.

When Christmas did not exist, nothing had to be done. It did not exist by lack of decree and lack of consensus. Paralleling this, atheism (not a proper noun, no cap) does not exist as a religion, only as a philosophical doubt. There is no religious founder, no gathering place, no creed, no symbols.

The existence of God can neither be proven nor disproved, yet enough people believe to form religions that do have founders, gathering places, creeds and symbols. The existence of religion can be proven.

The existence of atheism can be proven too. However, it has as much to do with establishing a religion as not believing in the tooth fairy, not believing in Atlas holding up the world, not believing in any particular existence. Lack of belief does not constitute belief. Lack of belief is the antithesis of belief, and so atheism is the antithesis of religion. Actually, it is the precedent of religion, just as the lack of Christmas preceded the establishment of Christmas.

Let's consider government. Can it exist without religion? I see no reason why this cannot be so. So would this existence without religion actually establish a religion? Well, there's a commonality in the principles of decree and consensus. Government and religion cannot exist without decree and consensus. But is there a difference beyond this?

Yep. Government has to do with the physical world. Religion has to do with the metaphysical world. One government might decree that royalty rules, and royalty follows certain blood lines. Another might decree that all people are equal under the law. A religion might decree that lots of gods exist, another that only one exists. But what does atheism decree? Only that God or gods does or do not exist. It is the denial of metaphysical existence, and that existence cannot be proven.

Atheism does not decree that government does not exist. That's called anarchism. Anarchism to government is what atheism is to religion. Thus, an atheist could very well lead a government and an anarchist could very well lead a religion, but the roles cannot be reversed without bringing in philosophical contradiction.

I think we see this today with government leaders in power who do not believe in government, and as a result they are incompetent in their leadership roles. This is due to a fundamental philosophical contradiction. The same can be discerned among many religious leaders, where they really don't believe what the religion proposes, and so incompetence comes out.

Heh, contradictions commonly exist, don't they, and so the world is run by incompetent ninnies. Carry on.

Actually, All Saint's Day still exists in some cultures, it is November 1st. Halloween is All Hallow's Eve, the day before all Saints Day, It was a day for festivities and drinking before the quiet religious austerity of All Saint's Day.

Just goes to show that given the passage of time, an excuse for a good party always outlasts a dull religious event.


Why do the 'Christian' right in this argument asume that Happy Holidays excludes them? Christan Christmas is as some have pointed out, the main holiday at this time, and the majority of the nation celebrates the holidays around Christmas in one form or another...

So how exactly is 'Happy Holidays' a problem? It is a greeting and well wishing to all those who are taking holidays at this time, of whome the majority are Christians.

Had Bush Jr. sent out Christmas cards which read:

* * * Happy Holidays * * *
(Except Christians, I hope they have rotten holidays)


Then I could have understood the fuss. But he wished everyone a Happy Holidays. EVERYONE. Are the 'Christian' right so out of touch with reality that they would prefer if Bush Jr. wished them and only them a happy holidays, and nobody else?

1. I am a Christian who celebrates Christmas as a religious holiday.

2. I am not offended by being wished Happy Holidays or Season's Greetings by other people who either don't celebrate Christmas or don't know whether I do. It is about on a par with "Good afternoon" or "Hello" at this time of year. Why people want to make such a big deal out of it is beyond me.

2a. Being wished "Merry Christmas" does not translate as "you are a heathen and God is going to kick your butt if you don't repent." It is a pleasantry, nothing more.

3. Titus's statement made a lot of sense.

4. I am far more offended by the commercialization of Christmas and the emphasis on presents and consumerism than by being wished a generic Happy Holidays by some store clerk I don't even know.

5. Conservative Christians will not be happy until the entire world is Christian. Since there are as many sincere Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, agnostics, and atheists as there are conservative Christians, I don't believe they will be happy for a very long time yet.

6. My agnostic mother and my minister father were married for 58 years until her death last year. It *is* possible to get past religious differences if you really want to.

That's not nice at all!!!

I don't think that conservative Christians in the US are particularly concerned with "pleasantries" of what happens on foreign shores, but moreover that Christmas doesn't digress into something completely different here in the States.

To add to the commercialization comment, I also believe that most practicing Christians are generally conservative in nature, and are upset about the commercialization of the holiday.

If you remember, the ground that is now predominantly held by Muslims was originally held by Jews and/or Christians (later). I don't think Christians are positioning themselves (ourselves!) to begin a crusade against the world... but considering the nature of the American celebration, simply wondering when our society took a turn away from the holiday's true meaning and/or began to detach religion from cultural norms (i.e. schools, courts, sporting events, etc...). Regardless of what our "founding fathers" meant by seperation of Church/State... Religion has been a part of the thread of our nation's culture for the majority of its existence. Prayer leaving schools, leaving our courts, leaving our companies, etc... it all fits into the same bucket...

You seem to be laboring under the assumption that Christmas hasn't already digressed into something completely different in the US aevans. That ship sailed a long time ago. I've supplied a few quotes now about people complaining about that fact in the 1920's. The only reason it is an issue this year is because people like Bill O'Reilly need a reason to exist so they have to complain about something.

For as long as the most of the people that debate here have been alive Christmas has been largely a commercial holiday that has some religious roots but remains due to tradition. Most of those traditions have absolutely nothing to do with the religion that claims the holiday.

I've underlined the portion of the text that I more than agree with, I do see that as a positive thing. Inclusiveness is not something that can really be associated with atheism, though that tenuous form of argument is being utilized by the right on this issue. What the right is ultimately afraid of, is best encapsulated by this parody article in The Onion. I don't see christianity under attack here, to me, the bigger issue is that with the red/blue divide, there must be a way that we can celebrate the holidays together as a nation.

Interesting theory regarding the holiday deal as a payback for the Miers nomination. I would imagine that the reason why their rhetoric on this holiday thing is gaining no traction is that the White House is just letting them bog their wheels down in the mud while concentrating on other things, I totally see that happening here. Then again, it could merely be accidental-just as O'Reilly chided businesses for saying *holidays* and not *christmas* when goods offered online by fox did not contain the christian preferred *christmas*

I believe that you are right and that the extreme right has gone too far with this.

The President is the leader of a Nation. The nation is made up of people of many different faiths.

Some of these faiths believe the Holiday is one of deep faith, and I applaud them for that. But others believe it is simply a day off from work. That view must also be respected. To lead the "united people", then lead in a way that unites.

I am a "Christian", but I have for years used the greeting "Happy Holiday". I used it NOT because I wanted to alienate anyone, but simply because there are too many Holiday's this time of year to list them all during a greeting and not come off as a head case.

I don't think they're going too far at all. Not that I agree with them but I can see why they would want Bush to stand up for his faith. Just because I'm not Christian it doesn't mean that my President can't be and it really doesn't even affect me seeing that I'm not getting a card from him. If he were to send me a card I guess the PC thing to do would be to say 'Happy Holidays.' If he really wanted to mean something by doing this then maybe he should stop mentioning God in his speeches as well. It's not the words that matter, it's what they mean to the receiver. Thats what he should base his logic on. He's not exactly a very PC president anyway.

I like this! If one has a larger card list, especally if it is made up of diverse people, then this simplifies the matter.

Anything that simplifies such things is fine with me.

I'm sure Bush has enough on his plate without worring about whether his cards upset someone or some group. You don't always have to '"dance with the one that brung you," as the song said. Too bad he didn't dance with the religious right.

I can't even express how much I dislike Donahue...and I'm a Catholic for God's sake. Of course, they're being absolutely ridiculous...and disingenuous. A member of my household received this Christmas card, and while it didn't say "Merry Christmas" on it...it did have a quote from the book of Psalms in it...Isn't that "Christ-y" enough for you Donahue...Scarborough? This is ridiculous...it's a Christmas card, get over it.

CP

Perhaps I still don't get it. How is "happy holidays" offensive to a christian?

Some people are just offended by everything. They are offended by the sun for shining, they are offended because the wind blows. Or they disagree with gravity. The best thing is to ignore these people. They are not even worth paying attention to.

Btw I always thought Christmas was about peace, love, respect and happiness. Apparantly these offended "Christians" have forgotten about that part.

where can I find that book?

It isn't, it's offensive to the self-absorbed hypocrites who want to identify themselves as Christians. They're offended because they're not in charge of everyone's lives and they can't force everyone else to share their shallow beliefs. The very existence of religions other than theirs is offensive to them, they want everything but their particular brand of Christianity stomped out with an iron boot and then handed the keys to reality.

In short, these people have very active fantasy lives. It's really about time someone dropped a 16-ton weight on them and let them learn a little about the real world.

I'm right there with you. What would Thomas Jeffereson do about it?