1) Firstly Xmas allegedly celebrates Jesus birth but this cannot be the case as throughout Church history (still in the Armenian church) the date was universally accepted as 6th January. Regardless of calendar differentiations ie Julian/Gregorian.
2) As you admit - the 25th December is a pagan festival and was so long predating Xianity. The reasons for the Church's decision to switch are lame and need not concern us here. The point is the 25th is exclusively a non-Christian festival and always was.
3) The Santa Claus figure is the central figure of the celebrations centered around the 25th and always was. Essentially he is the representative of the 'Wild Hunt' which rides across the sky at Winter solstice (hence the flying reindeers and sleigh).
He is a shamanic figure who wears the coat of an animal he has just sacrificed. That is the red aspect (the blood) and as he is wearing the coat inside-out, the white cuffs etc are the fur showing through.
It seems even that some States recognized this non-Xian nature of the 25th. It was illegal to celebrate Xmas in Massachusetts in 1659 under a law which only repealed after many years and an influx of immigrants from europe who brought new Xmas customs with them (such as the tree).
Umm...that's it...
So that shamanic figure is called "Santa Claus"?
"decision to switch are lame and need not concern us here"
And when it was called "Chirstmas", that's the first thing that went through people's minds when deciding on this holiday as mandated by the govt?
"the date was universally accepted as 6th January"?
I guess that date is based on something in the Bible?
No, actually. I really don't. Though, that won't happen because the majority of the US population...and Alabama's population, is Christian.
The notion that we have to include every single religion or none at all is fundamentally flawed. Also, our laws are based in part on Christianity. God really cannot be removed from our legal system.
But, in the modern politically correct, hyper-sensitive, "no one can be offended and everyone must be included no matter what" country we live in, things aren;t going that way. The current trend is to exclude God from every aspect of public life. This was absolutley not the intention of the founders of this country, regardless of religious sect. The intention was to prevent the government from establishing an official religion, thereby manadating the practice of said religion...or any religion at all. The Constitution has been grossly misinterpreted in this case, just as it has been with regard to possession of firearms (it is clear the intent was to allow citizens to form a militia....not ride around in SUV's with semi-automatic weapons).
The fact is, there is no such thing as "separation of church and state". It's a myth. Read the amendment.
We have something called a Supremacy Clause. The Feds made a ruling. Mr. Moore may not agree with it but that is the system we have. There are ways of resolving disputes like this. We have an appeals court system leading all the way up to the Supreme Court. His actions, however, are in direct contempt of the Federal Court ruling. This man should be stripped of his Judge's robes. Of all people, he should know better.
Why should we trust the electoral college system, like all of the republicans who love Bush insist that we must, when those same ones refuse to trust the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States of America?
Yeah, let's not ignore this law ratified by the senate and signed into law by John Adams...
1797 TREATY WITH TRIPOLI
by Gene Garman
Was and is the 1797 Treaty with Tripoli an official treaty of the USA? Yes, all 12 articles as printed in English. See Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America , Hunter Miller, ed., 2:349-385:
?Treaty of Peace and Friendship, signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796, . . . and at Algiers January 3, 1797, . . . . Original in Arabic. Submitted [in English] to the Senate May 29, 1797. (Message of May 26, 1797.) Resolution of advice and consent June 7, 1797. Ratified by the United States June 10, 1797. . . . Proclaimed June 10, 1797? (p. 349).
?Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary? (p. 364).
?Article 11. As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries? (p. 365).
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion
I don't see your point. No, the governmet wasn't founded on the Christian Religion. That's not justification to remove God from all public life though.
I don't see your point. No, the governmet wasn't founded on the Christian Religion. That's not justification to remove God from all public life though.
No one has to remove it from public life. It just has to be removed from government.
Look, I'm no democrat. I'm no republican. I don't like Gore, Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Gray Davis, Pete Wilson, and a myriad of other politicians. Get that through your head before you start bringing up these ridiculous Gore arguments.
Ditto... and I agree those arguments by Gore were ridiculous!
Well, the laws of the USA [edit: oops!] are generally based/assumed on Judeo-Christian morality. I realize a lot of people love to hate organized religions, particularly wpredominantly western ones, but the whole separation of church and state isn't about the exclusion or shunning of religion, it's about the guaranteed tolerance and inclusion of all religions. If there's a 10 Commandments sculpture in front of a government building, there should be similar symbols of all religions or religious laws there too. Separation of church and state is to ensure inclusiveness, no special treatment for any one, two or three major religions.
I don't see your point. No, the governmet wasn't founded on the Christian Religion. That's not justification to remove God from all public life though.
Wait, isn't the argument that most of these nutcases are bandying about something along the lines of "the founding fathers were christians and this is a christian nation"? Seems like the Peace and Friendship Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 blows that out of the water.
Well, the laws of the UDSA are generally based/assumed on Judeo-Christian morality. I realize a lot of people love to hate organized religions, particularly wpredominantly western ones, but the whole separation of church and state isn't about the exclusion or shunning of religion, it's about the guaranteed tolerance and inclusion of all religions. If there's a 10 Commandments sculpture in front of a government building, there should be similar symbols of all religions or religious laws there too. Separation of church and state is to ensure inclusiveness, no special treatment for any one, two or three major religions.
Don't forget the inclusiveness of those without religion as well.
I think this country has done a pretty good job of seperating church and state. And what is being done is the christian fundamentalists are trying to inject religion into government...
This isn't about political correctness... it's about one judge's attempt to interject his specific beliefs into the courts while excluding others.
And just because god is mentioned in our nation's founding documents does not mean tthat they intended
to endorse a specific belief system. If anything they purposely intended to say there shall be no specific governemnt endorsed religion and that government would not ban any religion.
And despite what conservatives and fundamentalists want... this country was founded on the idea of inclusion and opportunities for all.
No one has to remove it from public life. It just has to be removed from government.
And once again, why won't anyone agree to get rid of religious based holidays enforced by the govt? When will they be removed from govt?
Where is the action to do this?
All the history of Xmas does not stop the fact that this holiday continues to exist to celebrate the birth of Jesus. Why does the govt continue to allow the legislation on "Christmas" to stand? So far, no one has debated it is RIGHT to have Xmas as a holiday, when it is clear that the religious tones are in it.
But back to the ten commandments. Do the words "ten commandments" appear in the Bible? And everyone talks about different versions... So it would appear that unless these commandments are referenced to a specific denomination, it will be hard to figure which religion is being promoted. Sounds like someone just wants to put up some words, and everyone else had issue from where they THINK those words came from.
I think this country has done a pretty good job of seperating church and state. And what is being done is the christian fundamentalists are trying to inject religion into government...
This isn't about political correctness... it's about one judge's attempt to interject his specific beliefs into the courts while excluding others.
And just because god is mentioned in our nation's founding documents does not mean tthat they intended
to endorse a specific belief system. If anything they purposely intended to say there shall be no specific governemnt endorsed religion and that government would not ban any religion.
And despite what conservatives and fundamentalists want... this country was founded on the idea of inclusion and opportunities for all.
Of course, we all forget that the declaration of independance was merely a notification to the british that these 13 separate states were no longer part of their empire. 1776 really isn't the birthyear of the country. It came later when the articles of confederation were written and eventually scrapped 8 years later. George Washington started serving his term as president in 1789.
The Declaration of Indepedence is not a legal document.
And once again, why won't anyone agree to get rid of religious based holidays enforced by the govt? When will they be removed from govt?
Where is the action to do this?
All the history of Xmas does not stop the fact that this holiday continues to exist to celebrate the birth of Jesus. Why does the govt continue to allow the legislation on "Christmas" to stand? So far, no one has debated it is RIGHT to have Xmas as a holiday, when it is clear that the religious tones are in it.
But back to the ten commandments. Do the words "ten commandments" appear in the Bible? And everyone talks about different versions... So it would appear that unless these commandments are referenced to a specific denomination, it will be hard to figure which religion is being promoted. Sounds like someone just wants to put up some words, and everyone else had issue from where they THINK those words came from.
Really? It's hard to figure which religion is being promoted? Well, it sure isn't Judaism. The commandments there are an incorrect translation of the Hebrew in the Torah. Give me a break man.
As far as getting rid of gov't supported religious holidays? I'm all for it. Of course, christmas has become so secularized it doesn't really matter. Anyway, even if it wasn't a national holiday, it would be a de facto holiday because you still would have no one showing up to work on that day. It's a convenience issue.
Huh?... it's Alabama... the Judge who put them up has no confusion as to where it's coming from.
And I'm sure there are people who would read those words as they see fit too. They are just words - some of which are based on laws that exist (like do not steal). Where within them is the govt promoting a specific religious denomination? How by having them posted is the govt enforcing following them? So far, we've learned a lot of history, but no one has indicated how this posting will create a problem.
How about the swearing in of witnesses on a Bible? Sure you can opt out and "affirm", but why does this option still exist? What meaning does this have in a courtroom? If I remember my New Testament correctly, Christ advised against swearing by anything and said let you yea be yea, and your nay be nay.
And I'm sure there are people who would read those words as they see fit too. They are just words - some of which are based on laws that exist (like do not steal). Where within them is the govt promoting a specific religious denomination? How by having them posted is the govt enforcing following them? So far, we've learned a lot of history, but no one has indicated how this posting will create a problem.
How about the swearing in of witnesses on a Bible? Sure you can opt out and "affirm", but why does this option still exist? What meaning does this have in a courtroom? If I remember my New Testament correctly, Christ advised against swearing by anything and said let you yea be yea, and your nay be nay.
You swear on whatever is sacred to you such that you will tell the truth. I will bring in the swimsuit issue of sports illustrated to swear in on.
Really? It's hard to figure which religion is being promoted? Well, it sure isn't Judaism. The commandments there are an incorrect translation of the Hebrew in the Torah. Give me a break man.
As far as getting rid of gov't supported religious holidays? I'm all for it. Of course, christmas has become so secularized it doesn't really matter. Anyway, even if it wasn't a national holiday, it would be a de facto holiday because you still would have no one showing up to work on that day. It's a convenience issue.
Finally. No more holidays!
And please, tell me which religion it is promoting.... Catholic, Anabaptist, Branch Davidian, Seventh-Day Adventist.
I can't for sure say it is even one of the Christianity... Christ isn't even mentioned in them. So once again, it sounds like they are generalized words.
Comments
Originally posted by segovius
I'll go for that.
1) Firstly Xmas allegedly celebrates Jesus birth but this cannot be the case as throughout Church history (still in the Armenian church) the date was universally accepted as 6th January. Regardless of calendar differentiations ie Julian/Gregorian.
2) As you admit - the 25th December is a pagan festival and was so long predating Xianity. The reasons for the Church's decision to switch are lame and need not concern us here. The point is the 25th is exclusively a non-Christian festival and always was.
3) The Santa Claus figure is the central figure of the celebrations centered around the 25th and always was. Essentially he is the representative of the 'Wild Hunt' which rides across the sky at Winter solstice (hence the flying reindeers and sleigh).
He is a shamanic figure who wears the coat of an animal he has just sacrificed. That is the red aspect (the blood) and as he is wearing the coat inside-out, the white cuffs etc are the fur showing through.
It seems even that some States recognized this non-Xian nature of the 25th. It was illegal to celebrate Xmas in Massachusetts in 1659 under a law which only repealed after many years and an influx of immigrants from europe who brought new Xmas customs with them (such as the tree).
Umm...that's it...
So that shamanic figure is called "Santa Claus"?
"decision to switch are lame and need not concern us here"
And when it was called "Chirstmas", that's the first thing that went through people's minds when deciding on this holiday as mandated by the govt?
"the date was universally accepted as 6th January"?
I guess that date is based on something in the Bible?
Didn't think so.
Originally posted by SDW2001
No, actually. I really don't. Though, that won't happen because the majority of the US population...and Alabama's population, is Christian.
The notion that we have to include every single religion or none at all is fundamentally flawed. Also, our laws are based in part on Christianity. God really cannot be removed from our legal system.
But, in the modern politically correct, hyper-sensitive, "no one can be offended and everyone must be included no matter what" country we live in, things aren;t going that way. The current trend is to exclude God from every aspect of public life. This was absolutley not the intention of the founders of this country, regardless of religious sect. The intention was to prevent the government from establishing an official religion, thereby manadating the practice of said religion...or any religion at all. The Constitution has been grossly misinterpreted in this case, just as it has been with regard to possession of firearms (it is clear the intent was to allow citizens to form a militia....not ride around in SUV's with semi-automatic weapons).
The fact is, there is no such thing as "separation of church and state". It's a myth. Read the amendment.
We have something called a Supremacy Clause. The Feds made a ruling. Mr. Moore may not agree with it but that is the system we have. There are ways of resolving disputes like this. We have an appeals court system leading all the way up to the Supreme Court. His actions, however, are in direct contempt of the Federal Court ruling. This man should be stripped of his Judge's robes. Of all people, he should know better.
Why should we trust the electoral college system, like all of the republicans who love Bush insist that we must, when those same ones refuse to trust the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States of America?
Originally posted by JimDreamworx
Why start injecting reason at this point?
Squeaky wheel gets the grease.
It's just that thing that I do that frustrates political party whores, left and right alike, to no end.
*dons his cape and flies off into the sunset*
Originally posted by BR
Yeah, let's not ignore this law ratified by the senate and signed into law by John Adams...
1797 TREATY WITH TRIPOLI
by Gene Garman
Was and is the 1797 Treaty with Tripoli an official treaty of the USA? Yes, all 12 articles as printed in English. See Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America , Hunter Miller, ed., 2:349-385:
?Treaty of Peace and Friendship, signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796, . . . and at Algiers January 3, 1797, . . . . Original in Arabic. Submitted [in English] to the Senate May 29, 1797. (Message of May 26, 1797.) Resolution of advice and consent June 7, 1797. Ratified by the United States June 10, 1797. . . . Proclaimed June 10, 1797? (p. 349).
?Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary? (p. 364).
?Article 11. As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries? (p. 365).
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion
Black and white.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tripoli1.htm
HELLO? *taps the mic* Is this thing on? Hello?
I don't see your point. No, the governmet wasn't founded on the Christian Religion. That's not justification to remove God from all public life though.
Originally posted by SDW2001
I don't see your point. No, the governmet wasn't founded on the Christian Religion. That's not justification to remove God from all public life though.
No one has to remove it from public life. It just has to be removed from government.
Originally posted by the cool gut
he's braking the law.
Well, the law was going 95 in a 60 zone. *rimshot*
Sorry.
Originally posted by BR
Look, I'm no democrat. I'm no republican. I don't like Gore, Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Gray Davis, Pete Wilson, and a myriad of other politicians. Get that through your head before you start bringing up these ridiculous Gore arguments.
Ditto... and I agree those arguments by Gore were ridiculous!
Originally posted by SDW2001
I don't see your point. No, the governmet wasn't founded on the Christian Religion. That's not justification to remove God from all public life though.
Wait, isn't the argument that most of these nutcases are bandying about something along the lines of "the founding fathers were christians and this is a christian nation"? Seems like the Peace and Friendship Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 blows that out of the water.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
Well, the laws of the UDSA are generally based/assumed on Judeo-Christian morality. I realize a lot of people love to hate organized religions, particularly wpredominantly western ones, but the whole separation of church and state isn't about the exclusion or shunning of religion, it's about the guaranteed tolerance and inclusion of all religions. If there's a 10 Commandments sculpture in front of a government building, there should be similar symbols of all religions or religious laws there too. Separation of church and state is to ensure inclusiveness, no special treatment for any one, two or three major religions.
Don't forget the inclusiveness of those without religion as well.
This isn't about political correctness... it's about one judge's attempt to interject his specific beliefs into the courts while excluding others.
And just because god is mentioned in our nation's founding documents does not mean tthat they intended
to endorse a specific belief system. If anything they purposely intended to say there shall be no specific governemnt endorsed religion and that government would not ban any religion.
And despite what conservatives and fundamentalists want... this country was founded on the idea of inclusion and opportunities for all.
Originally posted by BR
No one has to remove it from public life. It just has to be removed from government.
And once again, why won't anyone agree to get rid of religious based holidays enforced by the govt? When will they be removed from govt?
Where is the action to do this?
All the history of Xmas does not stop the fact that this holiday continues to exist to celebrate the birth of Jesus. Why does the govt continue to allow the legislation on "Christmas" to stand? So far, no one has debated it is RIGHT to have Xmas as a holiday, when it is clear that the religious tones are in it.
But back to the ten commandments. Do the words "ten commandments" appear in the Bible? And everyone talks about different versions... So it would appear that unless these commandments are referenced to a specific denomination, it will be hard to figure which religion is being promoted. Sounds like someone just wants to put up some words, and everyone else had issue from where they THINK those words came from.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
I think this country has done a pretty good job of seperating church and state. And what is being done is the christian fundamentalists are trying to inject religion into government...
This isn't about political correctness... it's about one judge's attempt to interject his specific beliefs into the courts while excluding others.
And just because god is mentioned in our nation's founding documents does not mean tthat they intended
to endorse a specific belief system. If anything they purposely intended to say there shall be no specific governemnt endorsed religion and that government would not ban any religion.
And despite what conservatives and fundamentalists want... this country was founded on the idea of inclusion and opportunities for all.
Of course, we all forget that the declaration of independance was merely a notification to the british that these 13 separate states were no longer part of their empire. 1776 really isn't the birthyear of the country. It came later when the articles of confederation were written and eventually scrapped 8 years later. George Washington started serving his term as president in 1789.
The Declaration of Indepedence is not a legal document.
Originally posted by JimDreamworx
And once again, why won't anyone agree to get rid of religious based holidays enforced by the govt? When will they be removed from govt?
Where is the action to do this?
All the history of Xmas does not stop the fact that this holiday continues to exist to celebrate the birth of Jesus. Why does the govt continue to allow the legislation on "Christmas" to stand? So far, no one has debated it is RIGHT to have Xmas as a holiday, when it is clear that the religious tones are in it.
But back to the ten commandments. Do the words "ten commandments" appear in the Bible? And everyone talks about different versions... So it would appear that unless these commandments are referenced to a specific denomination, it will be hard to figure which religion is being promoted. Sounds like someone just wants to put up some words, and everyone else had issue from where they THINK those words came from.
Really? It's hard to figure which religion is being promoted? Well, it sure isn't Judaism. The commandments there are an incorrect translation of the Hebrew in the Torah. Give me a break man.
As far as getting rid of gov't supported religious holidays? I'm all for it. Of course, christmas has become so secularized it doesn't really matter. Anyway, even if it wasn't a national holiday, it would be a de facto holiday because you still would have no one showing up to work on that day. It's a convenience issue.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Huh?... it's Alabama... the Judge who put them up has no confusion as to where it's coming from.
And I'm sure there are people who would read those words as they see fit too. They are just words - some of which are based on laws that exist (like do not steal). Where within them is the govt promoting a specific religious denomination? How by having them posted is the govt enforcing following them? So far, we've learned a lot of history, but no one has indicated how this posting will create a problem.
How about the swearing in of witnesses on a Bible? Sure you can opt out and "affirm", but why does this option still exist? What meaning does this have in a courtroom? If I remember my New Testament correctly, Christ advised against swearing by anything and said let you yea be yea, and your nay be nay.
Originally posted by JimDreamworx
And I'm sure there are people who would read those words as they see fit too. They are just words - some of which are based on laws that exist (like do not steal). Where within them is the govt promoting a specific religious denomination? How by having them posted is the govt enforcing following them? So far, we've learned a lot of history, but no one has indicated how this posting will create a problem.
How about the swearing in of witnesses on a Bible? Sure you can opt out and "affirm", but why does this option still exist? What meaning does this have in a courtroom? If I remember my New Testament correctly, Christ advised against swearing by anything and said let you yea be yea, and your nay be nay.
You swear on whatever is sacred to you such that you will tell the truth. I will bring in the swimsuit issue of sports illustrated to swear in on.
Originally posted by BR
Really? It's hard to figure which religion is being promoted? Well, it sure isn't Judaism. The commandments there are an incorrect translation of the Hebrew in the Torah. Give me a break man.
As far as getting rid of gov't supported religious holidays? I'm all for it. Of course, christmas has become so secularized it doesn't really matter. Anyway, even if it wasn't a national holiday, it would be a de facto holiday because you still would have no one showing up to work on that day. It's a convenience issue.
Finally. No more holidays!
And please, tell me which religion it is promoting.... Catholic, Anabaptist, Branch Davidian, Seventh-Day Adventist.
I can't for sure say it is even one of the Christianity... Christ isn't even mentioned in them. So once again, it sounds like they are generalized words.