PeterDavid.net

The same can be said for the extreme left, the left that thinks no war is ever justifiable and that anyone who dons a uniform, be it police or military, is a fascist. The Noam Chomskys of the world.

Extremism sucks on ALL sides, Peter. Even on your side.

Which is why I hate both extremes. Both parties, both false idealogies.

Pragmatism, look into it.

Well said, PAD.

ElCoyote, grind that axe some place else. I agree that psycho-extreme liberalism is bad, just as any other zealotous extremism. But, since PAD, and most liberals, do not hold those extereme views you attack in your post, you overwhelm your own valid point. PAD is not an extemist liberal.

"I am not going to let oppressive, totalitarian, anti-Christian forces in this country diminish and denigrate the holiday and the celebration. I am not going to let it happen. I'm gonna use all the power that I have on radio and television to bring horror into the world of people who are trying to do that."

Any guesses to the source of that quote? Bill O'Reilly.

This thing with Bush isn't the first shot fired this year. Fox "News" Channel has been ramping up the war machine for its new crusade of the month. Christmas is under attack. "They" are stopping "you" from having Christmas. "They" want to keep "you" from being able to celebrate a public holiday devoted to generosity, peace, and love.

The talk radio nitwits have picked it up and run with it as well. It's strange to walk around in the real world and enjoy all the nice holiday things to be found this time of year (Christmas front and center in just about every place you go)and then to come into some conservative nitwit talk show and hear that the dark forces of the world have shut down Christmas and forced the U.S. of A. into removing all ideas of Christmas from public life as well.

I can't figure out what's wrong with "Happy Holidays" as a greating. Made a great Christmas song. Made quite a few great Christmas songs over the decades.

But, beyond the odd song, what gets me the most is that these monkies can't grasp two tiny little nuggets of fact through all their fiction making. There is a reason to say happy holidays. See, there's this thing that comes about a week after Christmas called.... what is that... oh, yeah... New Years. What's New Years? Well, for this argument, it's part of the holiday season. The same holiday season that starts after everybody is done burping from Thanksgiving I might add. It's part of the time of year that I wish people to be happy in. It's why I say happy holidays. There are two of them. And that's staying in Christian belief only.

It's also very stupid sounding to say "Merry Christmas" on Dec. 1st. Why? well, it's not Christmas. Why not sound like a complete jackass and wish people a happy New Year the day after Thanksgiving while you're at it. You are in the holiday season however. Why not just say happy holidays until about a day out from Christmas? It's always seemed to work quite well in the past.

But Bush is getting pounded for politics with this. See, Bush is getting nailed because he forgot to read the talking points memo. Christmas is the new culture war front. It's the new straw dog to hold up and use as a weapon to hit anyone they don't like with over the head until they submit. It's the new thing to hold up and point to as a target of "those people" that want to destroy "your" way of life and undermine everything that's good a true about "our" country. Bush can't wish a happy holiday to people unless they worship his God and that holiday is called, by him and them, Christmas. Why, to do anything but that would be to destroy the very fabric of America.

PAD said

One is left shaking one's head at a people who are claiming their holiday, their very beliefs, are being threatened. No. When Romans were throwing them to the lions, THEN their beliefs were being threatened. Here, in this country, their core philosophies have complete dominance over just about every aspect of life in this country.

And why were Christians being thrown to the lions in ROme?

Because a sizable segment of Christians of the day blatantly refused to honour Rome's laws mandating religious tolerance, disrupted the observances of other religions, and vandalised other religions' temples and other places of worship and smashed their idols and other paraphenalia. ("Iconoclasts", they were called.)

In later years (a parodied in L. Sprague de Camp's time travel novel, "Lest Darkness Fall"), when Rome was ruled by the Ostrogoths (a thoroughly civilised rule, as Theodoric, King of the Ostrogoths, had had a thorough education while growing up as a hostage at the Byzantine Court), similar laws requiring tolerance of others' religious beliefs were decried by members of almost all Christian sects, because they forbade them going out and doing their most important duty to God -- smashing all those other heretical sects.

Fanatical monotheists are a terrible thing to have around, and ought, of course, be suppressed by the Government.

And when the time for such suppression comes, it just so happens, you know, that i know the One True Faith, and if enough people will join me, we can mash all the False Faiths, suppress the Secular Humanists, sweep away everyone whose sexual preferences don't match mine, and return this country to True Christian Principles...

Amen

And to add to Luke K's comment: I don't believe I've *ever* seen PAD defend the views and opinions of the extreme left, even as I've seen him *vigourously* defend the ability and right of not just the extreme left, but the extreme right and everyone in between, to voice their opinions.

Well said, Peter. It's fortunate that the people beating this "War on Christmas" drum are such an extreme minority, but it's equally unfortunate that they have such a deceivingly disproportionately loud voice with which to scream about this imaginary injustice.

Wildcat

The most fun little facts from this whole "War on Christmas" have come from MSNBC's "Countdown with Keith Olberman". On the same episode where Olberman showed President Bush's Holiday Card he also showed the webpage for Fox News' Gift Shop. Every item with a Christmas theme was titled Holiday (Holiday Ornaments, Holiday Cards, etc.). A few hours later all the names where changed to Christmas, but the html address still has the word holiday in it.

Add to that stuff that many a mega-church has decided to cancel Christmas services this year and I'm starting to wonder if the Extemist Christians are really trying to manufacture a since of doom in their members. Not just saying that the sky is falling, but actually trying to bring it down. Keep the base nice and paniced.

I've already run into one guy on another message board claiming that his town switching to a "Winter Festival" this year was the work of Atheist ACLU Feminists trying to make everyone a Pagan. How these three groups got so much pull in a small rural southern town is a question he has yet to answer. Also curious why Atheists would try to make people Pagans. Go figure...

1Well, what do you expect from FNC? I mean they's love to tout to us that we're winning the war, the economy is growing, the debt is paid off, the borders are more secure, there's no danger of another terroist attack, that there's plenty of money to rebuild the Gulf Coast. Ect.
But they can't say those things, because their not true! I mean, yeah they can say those things, but then someone calls them on it.
So they need a new enemy. Enter the one or two werido's who think Christmas is bad and suddednly we have a threat greater than 9-11.
Jeez.
Next thing you know we'll be hearing about a secret Al-Quada/ Grinch plot to poison Christmas trees or something. God help us if we should have to occupy Hooville so we can fight the terriosts there!

This post, and others like it, is the reason I come to this site on a regular basis. I am not really into PAD's comic books (although I love his ST, Arthur and Apropos writings) but he often sums up my feelings on a current topic so much better than I ever could that it is a pleasure to read what's here.

Well said, thanks and Happy Holidays!

I'm a bit curious to know what some of the people around here who routinely play the "Christians are under constant attack" card think of this, personally.

As for this whole tempest in a teapot -- I'm pretty much with PAD on this one, except that I'm a little more willing to show public glee about Shrubbo reaping the whirlwind on this one. He wants to hitch his wagon to a bunch of scorpions, that is (unfortunately) his call -- but when the scorpions turn around and bite him, he'll have to excuse me if I don't leap in to save him.

Oh -- and happy holidays, all. :-)

TWL

"God help us if we should have to occupy Hooville to fight the terrorists there"

If we don't fight them in over there in Hooville,
we'll have to fight them at The Island of Misfit Toys or Candy Cane Lane...

Okay, since Mr. David is primarily a writer of dramatic fiction, he should be familiar with the axiom of dramatic tension. Namely, you can't have a hero without a villain. And you can't have a powerful, impressive hero unless your villain is equally impressive and powerful.

The Christian Extremists (although Christian Terrorists might be equally applicable) need an enemy so they can feel self-righteous. That's the important feeling about the movement. Mayberry, North Carolina had no contentious scenes in church ...except when Aunt Bee's huckleberry pie was stolen. They'd already cleared the area of any other faiths.

So, these guys need an enemy, and one of the most important tasks of their movement's leaders is to find such enemies. (Maybe "leaders" is inappropriate...they just push their flock along, so maybe they're "shepherds," although I wouldn't say good ones.)

This year it's "destroying Christmas." Next year it might be "wearing the Satanic Star of David." Whatever it is, it'll be a simple symbol they can use to move their herd animals into stampede position.

P.S. One of the most complete versions of "The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe" seems to be put out by one of these cross-burning groups, Focus on the Family. Does anybody know of an audio book version that is unabridged, and not done by somoene with a holy executioner's axe to grind?

Sometimes I wonder if the Extreme Christian Right do these things not from extreme faith in their religion, but from doubt. I think that maybe they sometimes question their chosen faith, but instead of searching their souls and maybe looking for something new to believe in (because, God forbid, they go back on a decision) they decide they want the whole world to switch over to help validate their choice of faith.

Just a strange little thought.

In fact, thinking about the matter, I don't want the audio version of "Lion, Etcetera" at all. And I don't think I'll be going to "Narnia" after all.

It isn't that C.S. Lewis told a Christian parable as a children's adventure story. That's no problem. I have no problem with the Bible or Christian metaphors, which appear in all kinds of fiction. The problem is that the right-wing Christians have latched onto this book/movie and claimed it as their own, and are using it as a propaganda tool for their peculiarly un-Christ-like Christianity.

Just watch. The attendance figures at this film will be used by Pat Robertson and his homies on Monday evening's torchlight prayer rally to claim that America supports their cause. That being the case, I'd rather not stand next to the jackboots, thank you very much.

And as you all know, Disney paid a right-wing organizing group to propagandize "Narnia" as an exclusively Christian experience to the nation's churches. These groups will claim that because I attended the film in its premiere week, I support blowing up abortion clinics and exiling all Jews to Knuckledrag, Oklahoma.

Lewis's book is still out there. I can read it for free at the library. I can buy a used copy from amazon.com that won't be counted as a new purchase in their rankings. I can wait until this whole mess is over and be part of the "after-market" audience that no one will care about. But doing anything with this stuff for the next few weeks would make me another nail in the coffin of religious tolerance.

Bravo.

On a completely unrelated topic, I've finally gotten around to reading Madrox, and I am loving it. Can't wait for X-Factor (although I keep wanting to call it "Weapon X" for some strange reason... you'd think I'd remember the title, considering I grew up with the original X-Factor).

"Sometimes I wonder if the Extreme Christian Right do these things not from extreme faith in their religion, but from doubt. I think that maybe they sometimes question their chosen faith, but instead of searching their souls and maybe looking for something new to believe in (because, God forbid, they go back on a decision) they decide they want the whole world to switch over to help validate their choice of faith."

I think you're placing a bit too much credence on the fact that most of them even think.

I grew up in a church, my father's a minister of one, and I'm sure even he'd tell you that most of the problems within churches are that people don't want to think, they don't want to change, they just want to be in their happy little zone, stand up when they're told, say Amen when they're told and sit back down again when they're told.

Actually, it's not very much different from most of the people I see on my commute into work. Sheep-like behaviour is very easy to fall into.

The people who are doing the thinking are the leaders. They're the ones doing the rabble rousing - and all the thinking. With them it's not about fear over losing their faith, it's about keeping control over the power that they wield. If they can keep the sheep under control with fear, then they hold onto their power base. If they just let the sheep get contented then their power base consists of a bunch of grass-grazers, and that's no power at all.

"Well, i wasn't expecting the spanish inquisition..."

One thing that really cracks me up is when Chritians talk about the true meaning of christmasbeing lost e.g Jesus and all that.

yet funny enough christmas as a christian festival has only been celebrated since the late 18th century round about 150 years or so.

Before that however the winter festival on December the 22nd the shortest day had been celebrated since pretty much the dawm pratically everywhere in the world to one degree or another at one time or another.

Ironicially a very religious British government once banned christmas on the grounds that it was and i quote "unchristian" eg a pagan festival celebraring the fact that the light was returning to the world.

having spent centuries uscussfully trying to ban the mid winter festival christians finally gave up and decided to to celebrate the birth of Jesus at the same time.

which leads to the strange miss-mash that is celebrated today a mixture of paganism christmas light, father christmas and christian icons.

appologies if i've been a bit general but i'm remembering a documentary about the evolution of christmas, which i saw several years ago.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/12/07.html#a6225

Check this link for a great video between O'rielly and the Daily Show. Seems FNC will do anything to promote thier fake war on christmas

Hope i'm not double posting here..First time.. check this link for a very funny retort by the Daily Show to a fake news segment by Bill on FNC...More great War on Christmas fun.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/12/07.html#a6225

While I'm not denying that overzealous extremists in the Christian Right may go overboard, let's not brush with too broad a stroke. Otherwise, what's to stop people from making John Walker Lindh the posterboy of the "extreme anti-American-involvement-in-the-war left"? After all, the vast majority of Christians and those on the right embrace those who blow up abortion clinics (which, honestly, has happened HOW often? And should we compare it to Left-Wing Animal Rights Extremists actions?) as much as those on the left would embrace the American Taliban, but hey, it makes good copy.

As for the disgusting Extreme Left, I point you all to this:

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004021.htm

I don't for a second believe that's anywhere near the mainstream, but it should sure make you think before you complain about the Extreme Christian Right, who complain that the word Christmas was left off a card, as opposed to the Extreme Left, who do what's mentioned in that article.

Incidentally, RIP Mr. Richard Pryor...just heard the news.

What is interesting is that we honestly have no way to trace who sent that card do we? We know the extreme right has no problem making up stories that don't exist. Not saying it isn't true but I like a little thing called evidence. I know full well there are crazy left wing people who would send a letter like that unfortantly, but the stories we are talking about can be fully traced to people and thier actions, not an anonymous card taht could have been sent by a crazy left winger or a crazy right winger who wanted to make the left look bad (see the previous O'reilly video for evidence of that). Regardless of which, Peter was bitching about extremists period. He did not mention nor imply that the left does not have its fair share of nuts...extremism in any manner is bad and serves no one's best interests.

"We know the extreme right has no problem making up stories that don't exist."

Only as much as the mainstream left does, I suppose.

But no, you make a good point, and I think we can all now conclude that all abortion clinic bombings are actually the result of a grand conspiracy of neo-libs, intent on framing innocent Christians for their acts.

I think that Occam's Razor applies here.

Yes, I know that PAD mentioned all extremists; he did, however, only bring up what he perceives as Christian Right Extremism, so I was helping to identify alternates. Although the more I think about it, I would be surprised to find out that 100% of the people who are upset at the perceived "war on Christmas" are all right-wingers. Hmm...anyone know of any polls?

Which was my point...to focus on the stories that can at least be attempted to be verified. If a left winger wrote the story they should have thier name printed in every newspaper so they can get all the hate mail they deserve. As for firebombing abortion clinics, you are talking about a much more serious crime than faking a news story and they have caught (again that whole evidence thing) crazy right wingers who do such things (as they did with the crazy left winger John Walker). And the only reason he mentioned right wingers was because they were the one's bashing Bush for doing such a thing. The only people I know who think there is a war on christmas are right wingers (not even far right but def strong conservatives). I would like to see a poll too. I like what MSNBC said about it. The so called war was first declared by Henry Ford in 1920, so this has been the worst fought war since 85 years have passed and they haven't even made a real dent in any way, shape, or form. Again... ALL extremists are very bad and make all the rest of us (the much more silent 95% of the Cons, Mods, and Libs) look bad. Extremism in any form by any group should not be tolerated, period.

The people I feel sorry for are the Christians whose faith is apparently so weak that Christmas can be taken from them. Because they're the only ones who can really take Christmas from themselves.

I think this whole thing (plus the flap over Wal-Mart and other stores selling "holiday trees" - wouldn't the most truthful name be "druidic trees?") is what's going to be revved up for next year's elections. You may remember, in spite of the pundits who use last year's elections of proof of support for Bush's war policies, that the reason most people gave for voting for him was that they felt they shared his values, especially preventing dirty, pinko, commie gays to marry each other. (And I hope that memory warms them as they watch gas prices soar and more Americans die in Iraq.) So I think we're going to hear more about "the war on Christmas" as November 7 (I think that's the date) approaches. It's a good way to distract people from more important matters.

The problem is that the right-wing Christians have latched onto this book/movie and claimed it as their own, and are using it as a propaganda tool for their peculiarly un-Christ-like Christianity.

I was just arguing this point on the IMDb forums (why? I don't know - those forums are utterly useless).

Some moron was claiming that the film, and all of the books, are merely Christian propoganda.

I disagreed, and stated that the only propoganda going on is from the likes of Disney and the Christians themselves who are trying to get other Christians to, as you say, "claim it for themselves".

Kind of like how they claimed many aspects of how we now celebrate Christmas from other cultures. (Last I checked, Jesus and Kris Kringle weren't college dormroom buddies.)

So, I think these Christian extremists need to spend some time studying history before they open their mouths again. Although, with anything they don't like, they just ignore it.

Anyways, the whole thing is a shame, because I don't see the movie as anything more than the allegory that it's meant to be. And even then, it's not all about Christianity - there are many elements in the stories, particularly Greek mythology in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.

Only as much as the mainstream left does, I suppose.

The difference? There are no Rush Limbaughs or Pat Robertsons on the left. (And if you mention Michael Moore, I'll just laugh, as the man doesn't even compare.)

John:
For that matter, if a right-winger wrote that letter, I'd certainly like to see him or her pilloried too.

Craig:
Michael Moore doesn't compare? OK, he's worse, fine, I concede...but to that list, I'll add Dan Rather, Al Franken, and raise you Randi Rhodes, who's more vitriolic than all the others combined!

As an aside, maybe I'm just locked on the word propoganda here, but you're not seriously saying that the Narnia books aren't Christian works, are you (I may have misunderstood your point, though)? While they aren't propoganda (in the terms that I think both you or I would agree), they are undeniably Christian...

Here's the fascinating thing about Extremists: They're all the same. The philosophy of Extremist Christians is fundamentally no different than, say, that of Extremist Muslims. They believe in the same things: Exclusionary thinking. Intolerance.

They only differ in degrees of their actions. Some chop off the heads of helpless victims. Others blow up abortion clinics.

Do you really know anyone who is a Christian who is an extremist like you describe? I don't mean on TV, I mean personally? I am sure you have met a handful, but is it really more than that? There is a pitiful lack of perspective in all of this. Out of the literally hundreds of thousands of so called "extremist Christians," you have maybe one abortion clinic bombing a year?

Yes, you would find me "intolerant" in my beliefs because I do believe there are some things morally wrong (such as abortion). I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I think evolution is a fraud. So what? You do not find me -- or 99.9% of those you would lump into the "extremist Christian" category -- forcing anyone to convert? Trying to reason and prove our point? Yes. So what. You do the same about the war in Iraq. I don't consider you intolerant because you think Bush is an idiot and the war unjustified and you try to convince others of the same.

If you cannot see the difference between legitimate persuasion an coercion, then you have lost touch with reality. I know that is not the case. So go ahead and say some of the "Christian extremists" are wrong to insist the card says "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays." Just spare me the fear mongering that one of those "Christian extremists" will be engaging in acts of terror over the issue.

Iowa Jim

Here, in this country, their core philosophies have complete dominance over just about every aspect of life in this country.

You are confusing some traditions that still linger (such as government closing down for Christmas but not Yom Kipur) with actual philosophy. A very strong case can be made that Christian philosophy has not had complete dominance for at least the last 50 years. I am not claiming it has disappeared, but it is not dominant.

The most crucial example is evolution. This is more than a scientific theory. It is the foundation of a worldview that is radically different than Christian philosophy. This theory has held dominance in more than just biology classes. It influences social policies, educational philosophy, judicial practices, and even moral questions such as gay marriage and abortion. Yes, there are some do would say they believe God created the earth, but when you look at the other areas, you would find their philosophy is built on a foundation of evolutionary thought. Most on this thought would consider evolution to be a proven fact, and anyone who disagrees is as ignorant as those who still claim the earth is flat.

So is it "intollerant" by definition if I say evolution is a fraud? Am I "intollerant" simply because I want to argue that gay marriage harms society -- particularly when I argue not based on the Bible saying it is wrong but based on history and observation of human nature?

Just wondering.

Iowa Jim

Anyways, the whole thing is a shame, because I don't see the movie as anything more than the allegory that it's meant to be. And even then, it's not all about Christianity - there are many elements in the stories, particularly Greek mythology in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.

Technically, C.S. Lewis said his books were not allegorical. To use comic book lingo, they are more along the lines of an "elseworld" story. He called it "supposal" as in "suppose there was another world and suppose God wanted to redeem that world, what would happen?" So there are elements that are not Christian because Lewis was not limited to simply writing an allegory that had to be "theologically correct."

Iowa Jim

RE: Is there a war on Christmas?

I have not read every post, but the ones I scanned missed what is the main point for most Christians who are upset about "Happy Holidays." There is an atmosphere being created that forbids "Merry Christmas" being said. I don't think an employee should be forced to say "Merry Christmas" to anyone. But I do think it is wrong to say they cannot say it. The reality is the overwhelming majority in this country celebrate Christmas, either as a religious observance or as a cultural observance. If someone does not celebrate it, there is no reason for them to be offended if someone tells them "Merry Christmas." I would not be offended if someone said something to me about a Jewish or Muslim holiday.

Have many Christians over reacted to all of this? Perhaps. But only by pointing out the obvious. We are celebrating Christmas, not some other holiday.

PAD's point merits consideration: Why does the government shut down for a religious holiday? Because the majority observe it. It is not an attempt to force religion on anyone. It started out, and continues to be, simply a recognition that Christmas is a cultural phenomenon. I would argue it has largely moved away from its religious roots, but that is my opinion.

Iowa Jim

"So is it "intollerant" by definition if I say evolution is a fraud?"

No. Just ignorant of science...and spelling.

"Am I "intollerant" simply because I want to argue that gay marriage harms society -- particularly when I argue not based on the Bible saying it is wrong but based on history and observation of human nature?

Yes. And also ignorant.

PAD

"particularly when I argue not based on the Bible saying it is wrong but based on history and observation of human nature?"

Total BS, Iowa Jim. Actually, I just did a paper on this for a college class. The only time a society starts to crumble is when it outlaws homosexual relations (which is what happened to Rome.) I also took a look at primitive culture. I figured that a lot of people like to claim that tolerance of homosexuality only occurs in decadent societies. Ergo, in a society that has no room at all for decadence, homosexuality should be out the window. Obviously when you are a member of a Native American tribe in the 1300's, there is no room whatsoever to tolerate anything that weakens your society (which is EXACTLY what the Right claims will happen) SUrprisingly enough, in those cultures, homosexuality was not only common, it was revered. Especially in the Americas where there people called "two-spirts" who were men who acted like women. It was seen as good luck to have one in the tribe, and they were PREFERRED as wives to women because they were stronger and could do more work. In South America, they were said to be beloved of the Gods, and there are legends of them actually saving villages by driving off rampaging Spaniards.

Further, in many sub-saharan African tribes, homosexual relationships are not only common, but are EXPECTED of young men as a coming of age ritual. The same holds true for many South pacific tribes.

This is all not to mention that homosexuality was very common in the early CHRISTIAN church, with several saints being homosexual, including St. Aldred (who wrote poetry to his deceased lover.) and one of the St. Bernards. (there are about 10, and I forget which one it was.)

So, unfortunately Jim, your argument that quote "gay marriage harms society" would seem to be totally disproved by the actual facts of many, many, MANY societies throughout history, including Christian ones.

I think evolution is a fraud.

"Fraud" is an extremely strong word, Jim. It implies that the scientists in question (including my wife) are knowingly perpetrating a falsehood with the intent of hoodwinking the general public.

I don't think you have any evidence to that effect, Jim -- but I think you're nicely providing evidence that not only don't you understand how science works, you don't care to. You're also maligning a huge number of scientists and teachers, some of whom are themselves very Christian and incredibly moral people. (Yes, I'm specifying both; despite what you undoubtedly would like to think, the two are not synonymous.)

In other words, you're acting like a jerk. I'll leave it up to you whether that qualifies as you being intolerant or not, but you're not exactly doing the public face of Christianity any favors with this response.

TWL

First, for anyone who has trouble viewing the Daily Show video, here's a transcript:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200512080005

--------------
Also, a short history of Christmas in the U.S.:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/12/07/opinion/edcohen.php

Have many Christians over reacted to all of this? Perhaps. But only by pointing out the obvious. We are celebrating Christmas, not some other holiday.

However, just about every other religion sets aside time during this point in the year for some kind of observance. To the Christians: Christmas, to the Jews: Hanukkah, to the Pagans: Yule. There's also the African Kwanzaa festival.

I have no problem with someone wishing me a Merry Christmas, or a Joyous Yule or a Happy Holiday. It's a blessing from one person to another, and I will always respect the intent of that individual, which is to share some form of human compassion and love.

Too many people are making WAY too big a deal about this.

PAD what a great post. It makes me laugh when I see things like this "war on Christmas", not only because it gets so much play in the media, but because if there is a war, it is perpetrated by monotheists, not the other way around. It is a shame that so few people know how much of the entire christian religion has been absorbed from pagan religions to make christianity more palatable to the people they were forcing into it. They did the same thing with the Greeks and Romans, co-opting certain aspects so that the people they were beating into their beliefs would have something of their previous religion to hang onto. I laugh every time I see the big wind up for Christmas and hear all the cries of how their holiday is being watered down. How watered would it be if they stripped out all they stole from the pagans? As a Pagan myself, I have no issue with Christmas, Holidays, or whatever else folks say in greeting to each other. To me, it seems to be much about nothing, but then christians have never been much for living and letting live.

Michael Moore doesn't compare? OK, he's worse, fine, I concede...but to that list, I'll add Dan Rather, Al Franken, and raise you Randi Rhodes, who's more vitriolic than all the others combined!

Rather is a left-wing extremist? Ok, time for your annual head exam.

Franken just wants some attention, but at least he's not saying all conservatives must die (like, oh, Ann Coulter). Nor is Moore.

I've never even heard of Rhodes, so I can't say he's in the same league as a Coulter, Limbaugh, or O'Reilly.

But maybe that's just because the media is liberal... oh, wait, if it were, I should've heard of the guy by now. ;)

As an aside, maybe I'm just locked on the word propoganda here,

Yes, you are, considering I did say that the stories are an allegory of many things, not just Christianity.

Now, Jim may be right, and, much like Tolkien with Lord of the Rings, Narnia isn't meant to be allegory* and I just haven't read about it. But it is easy to view it that way, due to elements such as Aslan's resurrection and so forth.

In the end, I do find it all amusing that there's this big thing over Aslan when Gandalf really fills the same role (fatherly, leader, higher power, death & resurrection) while Tolkien was Christian as well. :)

* Although Tolkien was, from what I've read, far more forthright in saying his stories weren't, specifically with regards to WWII. Heck, even Tolkien's introduction to the trilogy says "don't read this as allegory". I have not read Lewis' other writings or anything where he would've said that, no, Narnia isn't an allegory.

Oh, yes, and the even greater hypocracy by some Christians that nobody has mentioned yet, but I have been thinking about:

Why is it acceptable for copies of Chronicles of Narnia to be read by children, but not something like Harry Potter?

Is it because the only witch in the story is a bad one and she's being defeated? And that you can't use magic because magic is supposedly pagan, etc?

Quick, somebody take that magic healing potion away from Lucy!

Or is part of the reason they're acceptable because they are assumed to be Christian allegory?

In all my time in fundimentalist churches who were active in the pro-life movement in Pensacola, FL, I sortof/kindof knew of one man who later was convicted murdering an abortion doctor. I knew hundreds of people who worked at save a life clinics, donated, helped the parents and children of the unborn... And the murderer? I was told to stay away from them.

People don't want to think for theirselves normally, they want to use broad strokes to paint the world. Conservative Christians want the world to end because they have painted it in black. Christian Left sees the harm and still sees hope.

I see time and time again how people can paint Christians, many thousands who don't deserve it as evil, vile, racist people just by looking above.

Tim,

Do I think those who accept evolution are knowingly perpetuating a fraud? No. But evolution is based on assumptions that cannot be proved. The biggest assumption is that God does not play an active role in the universe. That is different than the assumption that the universe has laws and operates in an orderly manner. For hundreds of years there have been scientists who believe in a God who created the universe and who can even do miracles today, but who also believed the same God was orderly and gave us a world we could understand and interact with. It is not necessary to take God out of the equation to be a good scientist. For that matter, it is not necessary to believe in God to be a good scientist.

So do I think you are trying to commit fraud? No. Absolutely not. But I have looked at the evidence and have found it lacking. It is not out of blind ignorance that I reject evolution. I just have a different set of pressupositions.

Iowa Jim

Let's put Christ back in Christmas
Right back where he belongs
Let's put Christ back in Christmas
And back in your favorite Christmas songs...

Frosty the Snowman, was Jesus Christ's best friend
He stood there melting by the cross, until the very end...

Oh, you better not shout, you better not cry
Better not pout , I'm tellin' you why,
Jesus Christ is coming, again....

Jesus the long-haired Savior,
Had a very shiny glow,
And if you ever saw it,
You would call it a halo

Oh, let's put Christ back in Christmas
Right back where he belongs
Yes, let's put Christ back in Christmas
And back in your favorite Christmas songs.

Jingle bells
Go to hell
If you do not pray .....

(Thanks to the genius that is Pat Godwin)

Boy, I don't know what's more annoying--this whole "War on Christmas" deal or the idea that someone would boycott Narnia because they don't want Pat Robertson to gloat. Dude, you've just given him way to much power over you.

There are also those who, when given the common courtesy of a "Happy holidays" "Merry Christmas" "have a nice day" or whatever, use it as an opportunity to tell you about their personal philosophy of life. Here's a tip--get over yourself. It's not about you. I wish you a Merry Christmas as a kindness that we extend to strangers, a way of just making life a bit more friendly and courteous. All things being equal, I hope you have a nice day but if, in fact, you are crushed by a paint truck later that day it won't really have any major impact on my life so just take the kindness, smile, say "Happy Hannukah" "A fruitful Winter Solstice" "Happy Kwanzaa, cracker" or whatever is your personal pleasantry and let's move on, ok?

As for the folks on this board, who I would miss, I hope you all have a Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, etc. Watch out for paint trucks.

One solution to this whole what greeting to use option is to require everyone who goes shopping between Thanksgiving & New Year's to wear a badge, like a nametag, announcing what holiday they're shopping for. Then when store employees see the badge they can use the approiate greeting.

PAD,

Nice. Just call me ignorant. Guess it is impossible for someone to have actually studied these issues and come to a different conclusion. (Oh, and pick on my lack of checking my spelling before I hit "send.")

Your post obviously pushed a button with me. I am rather tired of Christians being seen as the neo-nazis out to eradicate those who disagree. I happen to think that those who are mad at Bush about his card are over reacting. He is president of a country that does include many religions. It is fine with me if he chooses to say "Merry Christmas," and it is also fine if he prefers "Happy Holidays." That said, the reaction by Christians should in no way lead to a diatribe about the dangers of Christian extremists, painting us as just slightly better than terrorists. I could understand your thinking it was a joke, but a threat? Get real. Better yet, be a little more tolerant of those who disagree with you. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

Iowa Jim

The biggest assumption is that God does not play an active role in the universe.

I would like to hear what it is that makes you believe that evolution demands, as a basic presupposition, that God does not play an active role in the universe. It doesn't, which is why religious people like the Pope have no trouble accepting evolution for the reality that it is.

True, if you do not accept evolution there is nothing much left to replace it other than the supernatural. But you could just as easily use that argument to argue that the universe revolves around the sun. If that were true it would be such an impossible thing that only the supernatural could explain it.

But here's the thing--just because it's true that if a certain belief were true it would prove the existence of God, it does NOT follow that not accepting that belief DISPROVES God, or even implies doubt. If someone wants to think that God pulls the sun across the sky on a golden chain it doesn't make him one single bit more devout than someone who recognizes that this is not how the solar system works.

Why is it acceptable for copies of Chronicles of Narnia to be read by children, but not something like Harry Potter?

Apparently it isn't. From Cathy Seipp comes word of this site: http://www.balaams-ass.com/journal/homemake/narnia.htm

According to these folks Narnia is part of Lewis' evil plan to indoctrinate kids into Satanism. Or something, I just skimmed. Life is short.

At any rate, the movie pulled in 23 million on Friday, more than the next 10 or so films combined. Not too shabby.

"There are also those who, when given the common courtesy of a "Happy holidays" "Merry Christmas" "have a nice day" or whatever, use it as an opportunity to tell you about their personal philosophy of life."

For what it's worth, if someone says either of those to me, I just reply, "You, too." I don't think someone who's just trying to say something nice to you deserves a lecture in response.

PAD,

"Nice. Just call me ignorant."

Already did. Got it covered, thanks.

"Guess it is impossible for someone to have actually studied these issues and come to a different conclusion."

No. Just impossible for you to have studied them with an open mind. Nothing you have ever said, in any posting, indicates that you have an open mind about anything. Yours is a mind slammed shut to anything that doesn't fall within your narrow-minded, intolerant fundamentalist religious doctrine.

"(Oh, and pick on my lack of checking my spelling before I hit "send.")"

That's not lack of checking spelling. Spelling "intolerant" incorrectly twice in the same post is, as noted, ignorance of spelling.

PAD

For what it's worth, if someone says either of those to me, I just reply, "You, too." I don't think someone who's just trying to say something nice to you deserves a lecture in response.

It's worth plenty. It's the exact correct response. But then you have achieved enough in your life that you are pretty secure in who you are and not likely to feel that a stranger is attacking you by their expressions of kindness. I think that most people who take offense where none is intended probably have some serious unhappiness in their lives. When you're happy you tend to assume the best of people.

"Happy Holidays" is used because it covers Christmas, Boxing Day, New Year's (Years'?) Day, Hanukkah, Ramadan, Yule, Solstice, Enlightenment Day, Kwanzaa, and any other holidays you might want to toss into the mix. Insisting that only "Merry Christmas" is allowed is prejudicial in the extreme.

If The Chronicles of Narnia is Christian propaganda because of the resurrection of Aslan, so too should be The Matrix, due to the resurrection of Neo (and his subsequent defeat of the evil Agent Smith). Oddly enough, I have yet to hear any of the fundamentalist Christian churches in these parts offer up the Wachowski brothers as examples of Christian thought..

Jim, I take offense at the idea that because I believe some parts of the Universe are explicable through natural processes (such as the process of evolution), that I must then deny that God could possibly have any had in said process. Which solution would seem the more elegant, nay, Divine, to you - patching everything together as one goes, like an old-school computer hack, or constructing a universe whose basic rules lead, with hypnotic inevitability, to the conditions one sought in the Beginning?

Personally, I've always found that when read as allegory, the first chapter of Genesis matches nicely with modern cosmological thought...

The benefit of "Happy Holidays" is that it's all-encompassing, letting the recipient fill in their holiday. If you're Christian, it refers to Christmas. If you're Jewish, it can be for Chanukah. If you're Wiccan, it can be for Solstice. (Incidentally, I highly recommend the Dar Williams song "The Christians and the Pagans," a charming holiday tune showing how the differences can be bridged.) If you're an athiest, it can be for a day off (well, not this year) or a time to exchange gifts with friends and family. If you're an agnostic, it may or may not mean anything. So what's wrong with that?

Plenty, if you think your way is the only way. Just as the people who are after prayer in school only want their prayers (not many Catholics looking for Jewish bessings or Muslim prayers), they want the holiday time to be for Christian messages only. Kinda ironic, considering the date for celebrating Christmas was chosen because it was close to the date of the pagan Solstice.

Everyone can celebrate the holiday season, and everyone can enjoy a wish of Happy Holidays. Unless you're an extremist who can't tolerate the idea that people can celebrate anything other than Christmas. And they are Christians in name only.

Can I just say, that being a Christian and raised in "The Church" I can't help but take a lot of what you guys say personally. Even though I know your not commenting on me (I've never blown up an abortion clinic, or feel the need to) it's hard not to get defensive.

I just wanna remind everyone that Extremists of any political or religious party is very small minority of the true beleivers. We have a Christian political party over here in Australia, and one of the back benchers said, and I quote "All lesbians are witches and deserve to be burned at the stake." That became the soundbite for the entire party (media wise). Not a single thing they said to support families, homeless, whatever, was taken into consideration in the lection.

I guess what I'm saying is that in my experience the freak minority is the one with the loudest voice. I've seen interview after interview with Muslem clerics (I think that's the word) who have condemned the violence and what-not, saying (as someone else on this very thread has said) that it contradicts the Koran (spelling?). Most of us Christians have our head screwed on right, and we really don't care what you say... Happy Holidays OR Merry Christmas (Remember when X-Mas was disrespectful to Christ?) because the holiday is an important rememberance time to me no matter what you wanna call it.

I hope I've made sense.

Do I think those who accept evolution are knowingly perpetuating a fraud? No.

Then you might want to avoid statements like "I believe evolution is a fraud," as it rather blatantly and obviously suggests the exact opposite.

I'm not getting back into the evolution/creation debate with you right now; I've got too many other things going on, and I frankly haven't seen much evidence that you'll listen anyway. Maybe some other time. For now, I just wanted to point out that your words do not exactly present you as a kind, pleasant, mellow, tolerant person. Your back-pedal here does not change that assessment.

TWL

Pad let me go ahead and wish you and yours a happy holiday. Now lets break that down and wish you a happy hanakuh. And now that we have covered your faith just to go all out merry christmas, and krazy kwanzaa too. (I hearby admit to not having a clue what an appropriate Kwanzaa greeting would be.)

JAC

"Can I just say, that being a Christian and raised in "The Church" I can't help but take a lot of what you guys say personally. Even though I know your not commenting on me (I've never blown up an abortion clinic, or feel the need to) it's hard not to get defensive."

See, whereas I believe that if I'm certain I'm not the type of person being discussed, I have no trouble not getting defensive. Notice that I was VERY careful to emphasize that I was talking only about the most extremist of beliefs. I never claimed (or believe) that Extremists represent the majority of thinking. I didn't take aim at Christianity, the Catholic church, priests, or even the relative silliness of getting passionate about celebrating Jesus's birthday on December 25 when we've no historical reason to conclude that that was his birthday (at least to my knowledge; I'm more than happy to hear from anyone who can present empirical evidence). Plus my wife and youngest daughter are both Catholic, so obviously I've no personal problem with the Church.)

So if you know in your heart that you're not within the type of group I was mentioning, then please, don't feel offended.

PAD

One of the few lines of poetry my mind can call up consistently:

"The best lack all conviction; the worst are filled with a passionate intensity."

I remember it because I believe it.

"Have many Christians over reacted to all of this? Perhaps. But only by pointing out the obvious. We are celebrating Christmas, not some other holiday."

No, YOU are celebrating Christmas. I am celebrating Christmas. Others may be celebrating any one of the other holidays that fall in the late December time period that includes Christmas. Some of those hilidays, by the by, have been around hundreds and thousands of years longer then Christmas.

See, I just don't get why the "War on Christmas" crusaders won't get that. It's somehow a slam on Christians and an insult if you say, "Happy Holidays." It's Christmas and you're being insulting!!!! Ok, then, under that logic, isn't it an insult to keep saying to people of a non christian faiths, "Merry Christmas to you." You're snubbing their faith.

Happy Holidays seems a perfect fit for the season. It covers everybody that you may see and, as I noted above, it also covers the holidays (see the s at the end of holiday to point out that there's more then one) that Christians observe and enjoy this time of year. How is that an insult to Jesus?

It's also dumb to go after stores over this. They are in the real world (rather then the conservatives make believe Earth C) and deal with a base of consumers from all walks of life. The people that walk into these stores celebrate many different holidays. "Merry Christmas" only covers one holiday. Why snub 15% to 20% of your patrons? More then that in some areas.

Why force a store to shell out extra ad money each year to put out ads for just you and then one for the rest of the people? you want Christmas plastered on everything so bad then how about paying for it. Why not ask the Christmas Crusaders to pony up the funds out of their own pockets to cover the costs of getting what they want. They won't do it mind you. They don't care about the idea enough to actually give up anything themselves. They just want everybody else to give up something.

For the record, when I dismiss my classes the last day before we all go on break, I usually try to cover all the bases -- "Merry Christmas, Happy Chanukah, Happy Kwanaaa, Happy Solstice, or just have a great two weeks off." When I'm in a hurry, I'll just go with "whatever your holiday of choice, have a terrific one." Nobody's ever taken offense.

TWL

I want to wish everyone Happy Holidays, no matter what that holiday may be, if there is even a holiday. That especially goes out to the extremists on all fronts, who I hope can find some time to just be happy and chill out for a while, and not at the expense of others.

Just to be fair to Iowa Jim .... We're on opposite sides politically, and a belief in some sort of a higher power is probably the only common ground we would have in regards to religious thought. But I have not found him to be a close-minded, intolerant extremist such as those we have been discussing, and as he suddenly seems to be being lumped in with. He believes what he believes and sticks to it - but there are very few of us here who don't. He doesn't attack people for their "faithlessness"; he argues his points but doesn't try to convert (religiously); he has always seemed to me to be respectful of the right of others to their own opinions. He may take a different position than some of us on many issues; but I have certainly seen many more rude, intolerant, close-minded, and offensive - perhaps extremist - posters on here than Iowa Jim (not even including the banned and semi-banned). Now, maybe there's some communication which I've missed or am not privy to; but from what I have seen, Iowa Jim, agree with him or not, has practiced the kind of respectful discourse which should be encouraged in our debates around here.

I think that the next male stranger who wishes me a "Merry Christmas", I will respond with a "thank you, ma'am".

After all, if he's willing to presume that I'm in the majority in terms of religious affiliation and celebration, I should feel free to assume he's in the majority in terms of sex.

Luke, I'll agree that Jim is certainly not the sort of closed-minded extremist PAD is discussing in his original post, and I'll also agree that there are many more posters who are clearly and explicitly rude, intolerant, etc. There are times when I think Jim and I have had some excellent discussions.

However, Jim is (at least to me) in the far more frustrating category of someone who *thinks* he's far more polite and tolerant than he frequently is. He makes very broad generalizations that he doesn't realize are hurtful or offensive, and when challenged says things like, "well, we'll have to agree to disagree." That's not apologizing for causing offense. Jim claims to be tolerant, but is awfully quick to blame "liberal extremists" for anything that goes wrong, and to insist that he's merely being misinterpreted when in fact he's explicitly saying the things other people are taking offense to.

Am I more likely to take offense than some, given that I teach science and Jim's a young-earth creationist? Probably, I'll have to admit. But Jim *sounds* respectful a great deal more often than he actually *is* respectful, and there are times, like now, when I have to step in and point that out.

TWL

I think that the next male stranger who wishes me a "Merry Christmas", I will respond with a "thank you, ma'am".

After all, if he's willing to presume that I'm in the majority in terms of religious affiliation and celebration, I should feel free to assume he's in the majority in terms of sex.

No offence to you personally, Nat, but this is the sort of thing I was talking about. This person is just exchanging a pleasentry. It has no greater meaning.Turning it into something more than that is an attempt to elevate yourself into something far more important to this person than is really called for. In a world where there are plenty of truly awful, mean spirited people, doesn't this seem a bit petty?

I'd wish you a happy day but I'm afraid you'll turn out to be a masochist and take offense. :)

PAD, I know you're jewish, but I'll just use my standard generic so it can apply to everyone else here:

"Happy Whatever-the-hell-you-freaks-Celebrate!"

;)

PAD,
First, please let me say that I have enjoyed your work as an author and have read both comics (Hulk, Spidey 2099, Captain Marvel, and others) and books (Arthur and Apropos, not big into the ST novels). I've been lurking on the site for some time, and was unhappy but resigned when I found out that we are on two different ends of the political spectrum. What the hey, it takes all kinds, right? I did want to comment on this particular post, however, and please excuse me if it rambles a bit.
I certainly relate to the earlier poster who felt defensive regarding the topic. I share those feelings. You later responded by pointing out that you were only speaking about "the most extremist of beliefs." What I didn't really get was a solid understanding of what YOU define as extremist? If it is those who believe that blowing up abortion clinics is a godly act, then no, your post didn't apply to me. However, you also seemed to lump those of us who feel that there is a continued attempt to remove religious symbolism from Christmas into that same category. Am I correct in this? Because I have seen such changes, and believe they need to be resisted, does that make me an "Extreme Christian?" (does anyone else get a mental image of a guy on a snowboard, carrying a bible and wearing a cassock while going down the side of a snow-covered mountain when they hear the phrase Extreme Christian, or is it just me?)
One thing I have found online is a large number of people willing to mock and condemn anyone who states that they are Christian, along with another group who seem to view Christians with a kind of amused contempt. Please excuse me for perhaps being overly sensitive on the subject, but quite frankly I'm sick of it, just as anyone would be irritated at generalizations that unfairly included them. Yes, there are extremists in Christianity, just as there are in any grouping in this world. The true sadness of it all, in my opinion, is that people want an easily followed set of rules to follow and are unable or unwilling to think for themselves, and this leads to them falling victim to their fears and prejudices.
One side note related to Narnia, it is the Christian allegory, neither Lord of the Rings nor the Matrix quite qualify. Think of it this way, while all three contain a similar theme of resurrection, only in Narnia is it the death of an innocent, who gave up his life to wipe away the "sin" of another.

Oddly enough, I have yet to hear any of the fundamentalist Christian churches in these parts offer up the Wachowski brothers as examples of Christian thought..

Oh, it has been done. Many times. While there is a lot of eastern thought in the first matrix movie, there is also a lot of themes that resonate with Christian philosophy.

Jim, I take offense at the idea that because I believe some parts of the Universe are explicable through natural processes (such as the process of evolution), that I must then deny that God could possibly have any had in said process.

You are confusing two different issues. Perhaps I should have used the term "naturalistic" evolution. The issue is not could God have used "natural" means to create the universe. The issue is whether I must not allow God to ever be a part of the equation in the first place. It is a central creed of naturalistic evolution that things MUST have a natural origin and explanation. Even the origin of the universe itself had to have a natural beginning. You and I may choose to believe God did it through natural means or in a literal 6 days. Either way it is bad science to even consider God in the equation.

Which solution would seem the more elegant, nay, Divine, to you - patching everything together as one goes, like an old-school computer hack, or constructing a universe whose basic rules lead, with hypnotic inevitability, to the conditions one sought in the Beginning?

There is a third option: God, like a master painter, lovingly crafting the universe over a 6 day period. Crafting it with basic rules that allow for life in all of its diversity. Making a being who is in God's image, meaning we are relational like God (in Christian trinitarian theology) is relational by his very nature. And therefore, as in any free relationship, open to us choosing to love or reject God.

But that view is obviously built on what I believe to be divine revelation. That is my presupposition. I fully admit that, though I think my presupposition is more congruent with the real world than the idea that God, if he exists, has no active role in the universe around us.

My assertion is that naturalistic evolution does not measure up. I have studied the evidence that life itself came from inanimate matter, and it is not convincing. You don't have to agree with me, but my hope is that you study not just the evidence but the presuppositions that underly the interpretation of the evidence.

Iowa Jim

But Jim *sounds* respectful a great deal more often than he actually *is* respectful, and there are times, like now, when I have to step in and point that out.

Tim,

Have I been guilty of broad generalizations? Yes, at times. Have I been less than polite. Perhaps. But I have always have maintained a respect of others on this site. I would not claim I am "tolerant" since that seems to be defined as allowing others to do as they please unless it directly harms another individual.

Regarding evolution, I feel our presuppositions are so different that we would have to start there first. Perhaps another time (by email) would be appropriate.

Iowa Jim

Does anyone else get a mental image of a guy on a snowboard, carrying a bible and wearing a cassock while going down the side of a snow-covered mountain when they hear the phrase Extreme Christian, or is it just me?

Well, I didn't before, but I do now... ;-)

But evolution is based on assumptions that cannot be proved.

And so is religion. Religion is far more based on assumptions than evolution ever will be.

But I'm not going around calling Christianity fradulent like you are with people who "believe" in facts of the real world like evolution.

AdamYJ, re your December 10, 2005 03:58 PM:

My sig on SlashDot reads:

"People who need the govt to enforce their religion must not have much faith in the power of its message."

To Nemo at December 10, 2005 10:14 PM:

Actually, Chanukah is a very minor holiday in the Jewish calendar. It has been blown out of proportion simply due to its proximity in the calendar to Christmas.

This person is just exchanging a pleasentry. It has no greater meaning.

Then I would be at least as happy if he would forego it. Really, if he's seeing Christmas as the celebration of Christ, then he's making an inaccurate assumption that I join in; if he's seeing Christmas as other than that, at some level he is disrespecting Christians and their beliefs, seeing their holiday as just something to coopt. In either case, giving him a bit of food for thought would likely not be the worst thing to happen to him.

If you think that saying "Merry Christmas" to everyone is a "common courtesy" and a way of being "friendly", but have trouble with people objecting to it... perhaps the thing is to question whether it is really as courteous and friendly as you believe or intend. If you're addressing a large group of people, that might be an appropriate thing to say as little addressed to a large group can expect to match with all. Say it to an individual, however, and it seems quite appropriate to be corrected by the individual.

(I spent yesterday at a memorial service that was filled with songs praising G-d and Jesus. However, it was a service for someone who was specifically not a believer. The folks selecting the music may have felt it the appropriate thing to do, kindly and courteous, but it was actually offensive to the memory of the man.)

Nat,
"Say it to an individual, however, and it seems quite appropriate to be corrected by the individual."

I suppose it depends on what kind of thing is said back. It almost seems the equivalent of saying "Hello" to someone as you walk by and having them respond by saying "Go to hell!" Of course you are going to be taken aback by such a reaction. If I were to say "Merry Christmas" to someone and have them respond "I'm Jewish" then I would reply "and Happy Hanukkah as well!" Two potential ways of replying to someone who is most likely only offering you a warm greeting and good wishes. One way tells them a little more about the person's beliefs, the other response about that person's lack of manners.

It almost seems the equivalent of saying "Hello" to someone as you walk by and having them respond by saying "Go to hell!"

I'm not clear what response you think is equivalent to being told "Go to hell!" -- a cheery "Thank you, ma'am"?

Of course, some people may believe that hell is an inviting place and thus "go to hell!" a cordial greeting...

There comes a point, though, where thought policing oneself before saying anything becomes ludicrous. I understand the Merry Christmas argument, really, I do, but I agree that it is really basically just a pleasantry--the same as saying "god bless you" after someone sneezes.

Shall I refrain from saying "Happy holidays" to someone because he or she may not celebrate any of the holidays of the season?

I have no problem with anyone saying anything they wish to celebrate the season provided that it doesn't go anything further than saying.

>>It isn't that C.S. Lewis told a Christian parable as a children's adventure story. That's no problem. I have no problem with the Bible or Christian metaphors, which appear in all kinds of fiction. The problem is that the right-wing Christians have latched onto this book/movie and claimed it as their own, and are using it as a propaganda tool for their peculiarly un-Christ-like Christianity.

Just watch. The attendance figures at this film will be used by Pat Robertson and his homies on Monday evening's torchlight prayer rally to claim that America supports their cause. That being the case, I'd rather not stand next to the jackboots, thank you very much.

And as you all know, Disney paid a right-wing organizing group to propagandize "Narnia" as an exclusively Christian experience to the nation's churches. These groups will claim that because I attended the film in its premiere week, I support blowing up abortion clinics and exiling all Jews to Knuckledrag, Oklahoma.

Lewis's book is still out there. I can read it for free at the library. I can buy a used copy from amazon.com that won't be counted as a new purchase in their rankings. I can wait until this whole mess is over and be part of the "after-market" audience that no one will care about. But doing anything with this stuff for the next few weeks would make me another nail in the coffin of religious tolerance.

Wow, I've been saying the same exact thing on various news boards about why I dont have any intrest to see Narnia. I even get the "I dont unnderstand why you let Pat Robertson have control over you" BS talkback as well!

Actually, Chanukah is a very minor holiday in the Jewish calendar

That's the reason for the phrasing I used. I didn't say "major holy day", I said "some kind of observance". My first draft was written differently, but I realized that it didn't fit with Hanukkah very well.

Thanks for pointing it out, though. :)

I've got it. The perfect solution for retailers. Now it does leave out Wicca, other pagans, and non-celebrators (you know some hard core Christian faiths here in the deep south don't acknowledge Christmas) Anyway the solution....

HAPPY CHRISTMAKWANZANANUKAH!

(And when you say this to someone they can use the traditional response, happy googledgook to you too.)

It is a central creed of naturalistic evolution that things MUST have a natural origin and explanation. Even the origin of the universe itself had to have a natural beginning. You and I may choose to believe God did it through natural means or in a literal 6 days. Either way it is bad science to even consider God in the equation.

Evolution does NOT have a central "creed". The idea that things have a natural explanation is central to ALL science. Why is it only evolutionists that get crap? If I say that a pencil falls when I drop it due to the theory of gravity why don't a bunch of people write angry letters to my school saying that I'm contradicting their belief that Satan is actually trying, always trying, to suck our souls to the fiery pit (located somewhere between the Moho and the Outer Core) and that THIS is why things are inexorably drawn toward the center of the Earth?

Also, and I will keep saying this until you hear it, evolution has little to nothing to say about either the origin of the universe or the origin of life. Those are entirely different things. The origin of the universe isn't even biology and, speaking as someone who is a biologist by training, makes my head hurt to think about it. It's Physics. Talk to Tim.

I have studied the evidence that life itself came from inanimate matter, and it is not convincing.
Then you haven't really studied evolution. Read Darwin. For a guy who wrote when our knowledge of genetics was, well, nonexistent, it's amazing how well Origin of the Species holds up. (I suspect the book is more often bought than read. Too bad. It's quite good and you even get a sense of the man behind the words. Poetic, in its way.)

Well, Nat, I guess we just don't see it the same way. I suppose there may be a small group of people who intend a "Merry Christmas" or "happy Holidays" as some kind of snide attack but personally I see that as such a small minority of people that it hardly seems rational to assume it as such. Your reply, far from "giving him food for thought" will probably just make him or her wonder what it was that made you so embittered.

It's not limited to the holidays. I've seen people go off on people who simply said "Have a nice day." They took the opportunity to tell them that they knew that they did not really care whether or not they had a nice day and the world would be a better place if people did away with phony blah blah blah. They achieved their purpose, I guess, making everyone turn and pay attention to them, something that must not happen often enough to their liking. To what greater goal I can't imagine.

(I spent yesterday at a memorial service that was filled with songs praising G-d and Jesus. However, it was a service for someone who was specifically not a believer. The folks selecting the music may have felt it the appropriate thing to do, kindly and courteous, but it was actually offensive to the memory of the man.)

Well, that's why you should put these things down in writing. Memorials are mostly for the living, since the deceased is, presumably, not able to hear it. (If he DID hear it I guess he has reassessed his opinion of the afterlife). I've told people I want Morricone music at mine (the finale for Once Upon A Time In America would be a particularly nice send off) but if they stick in some hymns it isn't like I'll rise up out of the coffin and object (though wouldn't that be GREAT?). Whatever makes my family happy.

That said, sorry about the loss of your friend.

Of course, what got the majority of the non-extremist Christians agitated was not any sort of "happy holidays", but rather businesses forbidding the use of the word "Christmas" in relation to Christmas symbols. A Christmas tree is a Christmas tree, not a holiday tree, until the tree starts being used at the 4th of July. A hanukkah menorah is a hanukkah menorah, not a holiday candelabra (and my advanced apoligies if I mispelled or misused a religious reference here).

I have no problem with people saying "Happy Holidays". Glenn Beck, one of the top rated conservative talk show hosts spent Friday DEFENDING Bush's Holiday card. Most Christians fall into that group.

However, when businesses or cities ban employees from even mentioning a specific holiday, that gives amunition and support to the extremists, even from those of us that don't support extremists...

I even get the "I dont unnderstand why you let Pat Robertson have control over you" BS talkback as well!

Well, great minds think alike.

Don't know why you think it's BS though. If I read this correctly the fellow was implying that he WOULD have gone to see the movie but declined because he was afraid that Pat Robertson would gain some degree of pleasure from it.

Sounds to me like Mr Robertson's opinions carry a hell of a lot of weight to him. More than they ever possibly could to me. Boy, if Robertson is ever clever enough to learn about reverse psychology he will have some of you dancing on strings.

Anyway, you missed a really fun movie, in my opinion. With a 67 million dollar opening weekend (the second biggest December opening ever) you can probably feel assured that your contribution will not change Robertson's feelings one way or another.

(I hear Dick Cheney really wants you to see KING KONG).

It is a central creed of naturalistic evolution that things MUST have a natural origin and explanation.

No, Jim, it is a central tenet of scientific thought that things must have a natural origin and explanation. Looking to the supernatural is a matter for philosophers and theologians, not scientists. Your objection is rather similar to saying that if one believes in the proton-proton interaction of nuclear fusion, one is denying God His place in lighting the stars.

For myself, I agree with Dr. David Brin - if God has gone to this much effort to make the universe look as if it's fourteen billion years old, and as if life has evolved on this planet over the past three billion years, who am I to call Him a liar?

>>If I read this correctly the fellow was implying that he WOULD have gone to see the movie but declined because he was afraid that Pat Robertson would gain some degree of pleasure from it.

As do I, why is that strange? I have an intrest to see it, but as I quoted, CBN will take any huge box office and PROMOTE IT as a sign the public wants to see Christian Themed films, which is a severe misconception. I see their endorsement as a drawback, and personally do not want my box office dollar endorsing Robertson and his agenda.

>>Sounds to me like Mr Robertson's opinions carry a hell of a lot of weight to him. More than they ever possibly could to me. Boy, if Robertson is ever clever enough to learn about reverse psychology he will have some of you dancing on strings.

I really dont understand how my non-action shows he's pulling any strings. It doesn't mean im saying things like "Damn Pat Robertson, I wanted to see this, but now I cant because he's endorsing it". It's more like "It looks cool, but it can wait". Personally, I dont go to that many movies anymore for other reasons, so I usually see specific films in a year in the Theatre. Narnia doesn't intrest me as much as Kong, but thats a personal choice. If Robertson endorsed Kong (which he never would since it shows animals have 'souls") I dont think that would deter me ay all. Same with Dick.

Hey, you go or not go for any reason you want...I'm still not clear on what you're saying since your last post has parts that seem to be at odds with each other but it's probably not as big a deal as I've made it out to be.

Me, I'm such a movie buff that even the suggestion that some outside force, especially one I hold in such little regard as Robertson, could have an influence on what I go to see is just mind boggling. Hey, I watch movies I don't even think I'll like! I mean, normally I pass on movies about gay cowboys eating pudding but I have faith in Ang Lee so....

NIVEK:

That's Knuckledrag, Iowa. Leave Oklahoma out of this.

CRAIG RIES: fyi, Randi Rhodes is a woman. And is on Air America. She may be Jewish, too, but that is just the impression I get. So that's 3 reason's why ArizonaTeach wouldn't listen to anything she says.

JERRY WALL: Of course Glenn Beck defended the Bush card. Bush can do no wrong, according to the Extreme Reich. Beck worships Pope Bush the Lesser.

A Christmas tree is a Christmas tree, not a holiday tree, until the tree starts being used at the 4th of July.

Except that not only is the tree used to celebrate other holidays, specifically Saturnalia. It was borrowed (usurped) for Christmas... in curious countervention to what the bible calls for:

Jeremiah 10:2-4: "Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not." (KJV, as quoted at http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_tree.htm )

Jim,

Have I been guilty of broad generalizations? Yes, at times. Have I been less than polite. Perhaps. But I have always have maintained a respect of others on this site.

No, Jim, you haven't. You have, at least so far as I remember, taken pains to avoid being rude towards any specific person -- but when you feel equally free to condemn or otherwise disparage groups of which said person is clearly a part, that's not maintaining a level of respect. It's simply not, and I'm sorry that you don't appear to realize that.

Bill:

The idea that things have a natural explanation is central to ALL science. Why is it only evolutionists that get crap?

Because many people over in creationist-land don't realize that Big Bang cosmology *isn't* part of evolutionary theory. There is little doubt in my mind that cosmology will be a major target once somebody figures that out, however.

The origin of the universe isn't even biology and, speaking as someone who is a biologist by training, makes my head hurt to think about it. It's Physics. Talk to Tim.

If it doesn't make your head hurt, you're not grasping it sufficiently. :-)

More seriously, there is absolutely no conflict between Big Bang cosmology and the possibility of a creator. None. It's the creationist side, appropriately enough, that's creating a conflict where none exists.

And most of cosmology doesn't discuss the origin of the universe, either. The origin of galaxies, yes; early-universe nucleosynthesis, yes; events from the first billionth of a second or so onwards, yes. The origin, no. There are starting to be some hypotheses about the Big Bang itself, but that's much more speculative. Everything from about the first 0.000001 seconds up is pretty well established theory at this point. (And yes, that's a mind-blowing thing to be able to say.)

Jonathan:

Your objection is rather similar to saying that if one believes in the proton-proton interaction of nuclear fusion, one is denying God His place in lighting the stars.

Aaigh! For the sake of all that is good, don't give him more targets! :-)

And I hadn't heard the Brin quote -- absolutely lovely, and I may have to appropriate it from time to time (with proper citation, of course).

And in general: while I certainly understand Nat's point of view here (and others who share his opinion), I find the "happy holidays"/"Merry Christmas" tiff to be mostly tempest-in-a-teapot stuff as regards me personally. When the lead teacher at Katherine's day care told her that "God Bless You -- that's what we say when somebody sneezes," I didn't bother to jump in and say "um, actually that's NOT what our family says" -- it wasn't worth it, and she was well-intentioned. I prefer to save my separation-of-church-and-state battles for things that matter.

I completely understand why it might get some people riled up, and I respect that -- but IMO, at least, as long as it's just being used as a pleasantry I don't really care that much what people say.

(Similarly, to rouse another hornets' nest, I find the whole concept of the Pledge of Allegiance appalling -- but I don't picket when the school happens to say it during morning meeting. I just stand respectfully and remain silent. So far I don't know that anyone's even noticed -- if they do and ask, I'll explain, but it's more of a personal thing than anything else.)

TWL

That's Knuckledrag, Iowa. Leave Oklahoma out of this.

Given recent events, I hereby recommend that we all adopt "Knuckledrag, Kansas."

TWL

Peter,

As a Roman Catholic, and a fan (not that they are seperate), have a very happy holiday season to you and yours. It was nice to see what you wrote, you said what I was and have said to my friends.

Be well and keep up the good work,

Sean

When the lead teacher at Katherine's day care told her that "God Bless You -- that's what we say when somebody sneezes," I didn't bother to jump in and say "um, actually that's NOT what our family says" -- it wasn't worth it, and she was well-intentioned. I prefer to save my separation-of-church-and-state battles for things that matter.

Unless it's a state-run day care, then the argument is moot, anyway. Most day cares (around here at least) are private companies, not part of a state-run organization like schools. Therefore, there is no separation doctrine to apply.

As you say, though, she's well-meaning and sharing a blessing. Like "Merry Christmas" it just doesn't seem like a big deal.

Since Narnia is being debated so it's interesting no one has really said what they thought of it. As a childhood fan of the books, even though I had no clue of the religious overtones, I walked out of the theater think, Eh. The acting is top notch, special effects are good, it's fairly faithful to the book except for the opening...

But I walked out with no real emotion about it, I didn't love it, didn't hate it but don't really care to see it again. Been there done that sort of thing, time to move on. When comparing against the other big fantasy movie out there, just got back from enjoying Harry potter for the third time.

"Unless it's a state-run day care, then the argument is moot, anyway. Most day cares (around here at least) are private companies, not part of a state-run organization like schools. Therefore, there is no separation doctrine to apply."

Actually, you are stating a misunderstanding of the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

It is perfectly legal (and protected) for an employee of a state-run organization to say "God bless you." The first amendment only prohibits CONGRESS religion. There is no constitutional separation of church and state - only a separation of CONGRESSES law writing ability and the church. Neither the executive or judicial branches or and local government are held to any restrictions according to the US Constitution.

As far as the 3 book/movies go I'd say that Narnia is a better book than Potter but the Potter movies are better and getting better with each installment--for which I credit the fact that the author had almost unprecedented control over how badly the monkeys in Hollywood could muck with it. The studios should take note but they won't.

Rings beats them both, as book and film. But then again, Jackson is a genius, as those of us who have followed him from Bad Taste on know.

But hey, there's plenty of room for all 3. Narnia's better than 95% of what's out there, good enough for me. I rather wish they hadn't had Liam Neeson do Aslan's voice, not that Liam did a bad job but I kept thinking "Hey, it's Qui-Gon."

There also should have been a bit more gravitas in the battles. I realize this is a family movie so they couldn't show Minotaurs goring Centaurs but I really wanted to see...uh, Minotaurs goring Centaurs. I mean, how many times will I get the chance?

Unless it's a state-run day care, then the argument is moot, anyway. Most day cares (around here at least) are private companies, not part of a state-run organization like schools. Therefore, there is no separation doctrine to apply.

Oh, it never even occurred to me that it could or should be any sort of legal issue. They can say whatever they want. (Come to think of it, though, it's a day care run through a state school, which means it might technically qualify as state-run ... hmm.) In any event, I was talking about it more as a question of "is this worth getting into a snit about?" than anything else.

TWL

// Actually, Chanukah is a very minor holiday in the Jewish calendar. It has been blown out of proportion simply due to its proximity in the calendar to Christmas. //

And for most of the history of Christianty X-Mas was a realitivly minor holiday in the Christian calender, if it was even celebrated at all, (many Christian sects did not celebrate it at all till about 100-150 years ago, and there are still a few sects today that don't acknowledge it).

In fact, although most Roman Catholics are unaware of it, Christmas is not the major holiday in the Catholic calender, Easter is. Now if you stop and think about it this makes total sense, after all Easter celebrates the resurection of Christ, everyone was born, no big deal there, but to die and come back, now that's something worth celebrating.

Sadly since everyone gets presents on XMas they seem to think that's the big deal, not Easter, which compared to XMas seems kinda lame, (especialy if you're a kid).

As you point out Chanukah has already been blown out of propotion, (I have a Jewish friend who complains about that all the time), but give it another 100 years and it may become the major holiday in the perception of the faithful just as Christmas has become for most Christian followers.

Jim, your comments on evolution highlight why the debate between evolution and so-called intelligent design even exist: a fundamental misunderstanding of what the science of evolution is, what it attempts to study, what it says about those studies, and what it is trying to explain. You (and others that decry evolution) feel that it attacks the fundamental building blocks of your belief. And for literal creationists, it does. But not because it wants to prove you wrong...but because that's what an impartial observer looking at the facts would conclude. The only people going around saying that the Earth is only 14,000 years old (max) are those are predisposed to hold that belief to being with. Anyone not looking to support the chronology of the Bible holds to the evidence that our planet is in fact billions of years old, and that obsverable life has been around for hundreds of millions of years.

But more than that, the very basis on which you attack evolution...

"But evolution is based on assumptions that cannot be proved...."

can be applied to nearly every passage of the Bible. Parts of itcan be supported with fact. But strictly looking at the story of creation, and adhering to it as a true story is simply making assumptions that cannot be proved. The only thing that supports a literal story of Biblical creation is faith. Which is actuall LESS than the evidence supporting evolution. Which, despite gaps in the fossil record (which can easily be explained by the fact that a very, very minor portion of 1% of all animals every become fossils), what we DO have of the fossil record indicates that life forms do change over time in ways that we can only perceive by examing the fossil record.

No, Jim, it is a central tenet of scientific thought that things must have a natural origin and explanation.

You have just made my point. By definition, if you insist the universe has a *natural* origin and explanation, you have made a philosophical statement. You have said it is at least possible (if not probable) for the universe to exist without there being a "god" of any kind.

There is a big difference between observing laws in effect today and making extrapolations about the past. It is necessary to do so. But when you get into the issue of origin, particuarly the origin of everything, you go beyond what science can prove. Why do the laws themself exist? Whatever your answer, it is based on presuppostions. I would say they exist because a rational, orderly God exists who put them into place. I have read a lot of alternatives, everthing from the speculation that there are multiple universes and that out of the infinite variations, one of them had to have our set of laws, to a simple statement that they just simply exist because they always exist. At least right now there is no way to test these theories, and I doubt we ever can. Until we do, you are dealing with a presupposition, not a "fact."

Science requires that things happen in an orderly fashion with a cause and effect. Electricity will always operate the same way. Chemical reactions, under the same conditions, will produce the same results. That is different than saying the origin of the universe HAD to happen naturally. That is a statement derived more from philosophy than fact.

To put it differently, your statement assumes the universe is a closed system. That cannot be proven. To say I believe it is open does not mean the laws of science are arbitrary. It simply means I believe there are dimensions beyond our own, dimensions that can, at times overide the natural order of things. I would refer to these events as miracles which occur due to the volitional actions of an intelligent being. As such, they are not random or arbitrary, so it does not make scientific thought impossible. It just acknowledges that there is, at times, more than meets the eye.

Feel free to respond and I will read and consider it. For my part, I will drop the issue since this is getting way off the original topic.

Iowa Jim

Tim Lynch wrote" For the record, when I dismiss my classes the last day before we all go on break, I usually try to cover all the bases -- "Merry Christmas, Happy Chanukah, Happy Kwanaaa, Happy Solstice, or just have a great two weeks off." When I'm in a hurry, I'll just go with "whatever your holiday of choice, have a terrific one." Nobody's ever taken offense."

I do much the same, and again, have had no problem. Last year, I even had a student give me gift of gold chocolate coins and she said "This is my holiday, and I wanted to share it with you." Did I take offense because I'm not Jewish? Heck no! I was touched and appreciative. Likewise, I have a friend who is Jewish and married a Christian. The first December they were together, they had a Chanukah party and invited all of their mutual friends over. We played with the dreidel, ate traditional food, and learned all about her holiday. We muddled along with her as she lit the first candle. Again, I was pleased to be invited, not offended! Nor did I feel that I was being forced to convert. She was simply sharing her holiday with us. That dreidel now hangs on my Christmas tree as a treasured symbol of that evening we shared.

And as far as evolution...I start the first day of my freshman biology class with a discussion of the scientific method and how the THEORY of evolution is not using "theory" in the everyday context, but as a reflection of the scientific method. Then I address the key difference between religion and science- how to test it. You can test the workings of a cell. You can't put God in a test tube. This is followed with my spiel on respecting different religions, but keeping them out of a science class out of respect for both the science and the religion. I end with an assurance that they are welcome (and encouraged) to reconcile their faith, if they have one, and the theory of evolution any way they choose, including a talk with their own religious leaders. Faith is to be respected, but has no right to horn in on my biology class! And so we begin. I've laid out the boundaries of what is appropriate for discussion in my class while maintaining respect for other subjects.

I have yet to have a student complain that I was being hostile to their religion, intolerant of their beliefs or otherwise attacking them, much less making them uncomfortable. I have, however, had numerous students tell me in private that they liked how I was handling the issue.

I think it is respectful, in that context, to wish my students a "Happy Holiday" instead of Merry Christmas, at the end of the term. I KNOW they are not all Christian, but they are all looking forward to some time off!

Jackie

Sadly since everyone gets presents on XMas they seem to think that's the big deal, not Easter, which compared to XMas seems kinda lame, (especialy if you're a kid).

Yeah but maybe it's all for the best. Easter hasn't been co opted the way Christmas has been. If one of the holidays had to be the gift giving one it should be the one celebrating birth. I mean, when my sister has another kid I send a present. If one of my relatives rises from the dead, I don't. In fact, I run like hell.

By definition, if you insist the universe has a *natural* origin and explanation, you have made a philosophical statement. You have said it is at least possible (if not probable) for the universe to exist without there being a "god" of any kind.

And I think that you have just demonstrated why we should not be teaching creationism in science classes.

Science, by definition, looks for natural laws. It does not deny that the supernatural exists, only that it can not be measured by science.

And anyway, why would God, who has used science to do every other thing we have found on this world, stubbornly insist on using supernatural means to make man? Oh, and go to so much trouble to make it seem as though he had used science? At least those who claim that fossils and other evidences of evolution were put here by the devil admit that such overwhelming evidence exists.

I think that some of what has been directed against you on this talkback has been overly harsh but I agree with Tim that id you use words like "Fraud" to describe evolution you are going to have to expect a fight on your hands. One that you will probably lose. I would urge you to explore not only the arguments against evolution but some of the many replies to those arguments (keeping in mind that if at the end of the day you decide that evolution is a fact it need not have one single iota of an effect on your relationship with God).

All that said, Merry Christmas to you.

I think it is respectful, in that context, to wish my students a "Happy Holiday" instead of Merry Christmas, at the end of the term. I KNOW they are not all Christian, but they are all looking forward to some time off!

I just send them off with a hearty "Get out of here! And don't steal any of my rocks on the way out!"

Yeah, it's not exactly jolly but every year I have to find more Fools Gold to replace the samples that have been stolen, presumably by some fool.

Boy, nothing like some religious fervor to really stir up a debate with the nearest fence post! To everyone out there, best wishes for the coming holidays, no matter which one(s) you might celebrate. Now move along. I have some non-believers to burn at the stake.

Heavens to Merkatroid...there's like 60 posts since Friday night, so I'm just going to say Happy Winter-een-mas to everyone and go watch the Simpsons.

>I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I think evolution is a fraud. So what? You do not find me -- or 99.9% of those you would lump into the "extremist Christian" category -- forcing anyone to convert?

I'd be strongly tempted to say that someone's unorthodox manner of thinking should not necessarily see them branded as 'extremist' as much as those who go to extreme lengths in either promoting, or forcing those views on others.

>I would be surprised to find out that 100% of the people who are upset at the perceived "war on Christmas" are all right-wingers. Hmm...anyone know of any polls?

I don't. But, though I've been a left/centrist most of my life (I see good, and not necessarily mutually exclusive ideas on both sides of the political spectrum, albeit tending more to those on the left than on the right), I'm finding myself more and more in agreement with those who are getting annoyed at what is perceived as political correctness throttling the life out of what was once a simple, pleasant time of year. When politicians want to officially change a city's annual centerpiece's name from "Christmas tree" to "holiday tree" (mercifully, that one was shot down), and when shop staff are instructed not to wish people "Merry Christmas" for fear of offending someone, something's gone off the rails.

When I go to Japan, no one worries about offending me by telling me to remove my shoes before I go into their home. And they shouldn't. I know what to expect and I make sure my socks don't have holes in them. End of problem. Ditto, if I were to move to a fundamentalist Middle Eastern country, I wouldn't raise a fuss because they won't let me open a liquor shop. It's the way things are there and I accept it. So why, exactly, should I be expected to change the way I've (and just about ecerybody I know) done things for decades, just because people who didn't like the way things were in their country have decided to take offense at the way things are here as well?

> To the Christians: Christmas, to the Jews: Hanukkah, to the Pagans: Yule. There's also the African Kwanzaa festival.

I've got a few Jewish friends and I invariably wish them Happy Hannukkah. But I also wish them Merry Christmas, send them Christmas card, and even exchange Christmas presents with a couple of them. No one gets their noses out of joint about it. What's the problem with the others (of whichever faith) out there that they get upset because someone wishes them well in the best way they know how?

>The benefit of "Happy Holidays" is that it's all-encompassing,

Since I tend to take my holidays (month's worth) usually either in the Spring or Fall, not really.

>when we've no historical reason to conclude that that was his birthday

In fact, I believe historians have proven that the year we've used as his birth is off by at least four years. And we're going to say the day is exact?

Lis Riba has pointed out on her blog that this whole attack on "Happy Holidays" bears a strong resemblence to the (extremely funny, even for this non-jew who probably only got a fraction of the references/jokes) plot of the movie The Hebrew Hammer (possibly the first and only jewsplotation movie in the spirit of 70s blaxsplotation movies). Dialogue she quoted included this from Santa Claus:

SANTA CLAUS (CONT'D)
I was responsible for pushing the Happy
Holidays Ordinance, in which all Merry
Christmas signage was replaced by the
Trans-relgious and inoffensive phrase
'Happy Holidays.'

Which is why upon examination of my
annual naughty and nice list it shocked
me to discover that my own son, Damian...
...the heir to the Red Suit, could be so
filled with hate.

Damian, when I learned of your ludicrous
scheme to wipe out Hanukkah, my first
reaction was one of disgust. Now, I'm
only filled with sadness and
disappointment. Disappointed that I
failed to teach you the true meaning of
Christmas. What do you have to say for
yourself?

kudos to Jerry C for pointing out that the real force behind the whole inclusive Happy Holidays thing is capitalism.

it's not a bunch of left-wing loonies saying we have to be super careful that we never in any way chance offending anyone. it's a bunch of businesses trying to maximize their profits.

Happy Holidays sells more than Merry Christmas sells. that's the bottom line. so much of the political correctness stuff people complain about is driven purely by profit motive.

also, kudos to Bill for having impeccable taste

I've told people I want Morricone music at mine (the finale for Once Upon A Time In America would be a particularly nice send off)

-will

To sum up: Happy Festivus, for the rest of us.

"That dreidel now hangs on my Christmas tree as a treasured symbol of that evening we shared."

That's one of the more interesting images I've encountered this season.

Unfortunately, I then imagine kids taking off the dreidel, playing with it and saying:

"Oh dear, I got a shin, now we have to give back the tree"

Just for that, Will, you're invited.

I'll be the quiet guy in the coffin.

Okay, this ground has been pretty well covered, so I'll just drop a couple of points and reiterations.

What is commonly known as the Christmas Tree has deeply pagan origins, along with mistletoe, wreaths, the "holiday colors" red and green, the yule log (duh) and other symbols of the season.

Nobody is trying to tell anybody that they cannot say "Merry Christmas" on their own time. The rare person who takes offense to a heartfelt expression of holiday wellwishing needs emotional help, and you can feel free to ignore them. HOWEVER, when you're on the clock at Target, Wally World, or pretty much anyplace else you're dealing with the public, you are acting as an official representative of that company, and if the company wishes to use an inclusive holiday greeting, either deal with it or get a different job.

I don't think any of my fellow Christians here have actually claimed to be persecuted yet, and that's good. There's very little that makes me more sick. Walk down practically any public street in the Bible Belt, openly displaying a pentacle and see how people treat you. THEN get back to me on how "persecuted" you are...

RE: Narnia. I'll probably go see the movie, if for no other reason than the visuals look incredible. I'm reading the series for the first time currently, and only in book 3 it's starting to get a little bit preachy. I'll see how far I get before it gets unreadably so.

Happy Holidays to all!

-Rex Hondo-

Whoops, forgot one in the heat of the moment.

If, like the guy who felt the need to call my home after reading my letter to the editor the other day