War On Christmas

• BCSbunk

  CenterBHSFan wrote: bunk,
  
  Actually, you can call my argument strawman all you want, because I'm thinking that you are no more an "authority" on the matter than I am.

  It is not a matter of authority on the matter of the war on christmas, it is a matter of logical fallacy.
  
  Your argument is a strawman. I never stated that anyone is forced to follow the religion. I said "You are not free to make others follow its dogma".that is not the same thing, so you are indeed guilty of using a strawman argument.
  
  I use this definition of dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without empirical proof.
  
  That is in reference to the nativity which makes a statement that a virgin gave birth to child being impregnated by a supernatural being without empirical proof.
  
  That was my statement NOT that you will be forced to follow a religion so again your version is a strawman.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  Ok... so I still do not understand how seeing a nativity scene would be forcing, making, or subjecting others to "follow dogma"?
  What, do they walk by it and suddenly get entranced? Is that how they would be made to follow dogma?
  
  What is the difference between:
  - somebody was forced to follow
  - somebody was made to follow
  ?
  
  If I walk by my local courthouse and see a NS, does that mean that the government is going to pass a law making me/forcing me go to its appointed church?
• majorspark

  

  BCSbunk wrote:The church does not run this country the government does. The establishment clause is very clear on the matter.
  
  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
  
  You are free to practice your religion. You are not free to make others follow its dogma.

  Lets evaluate in light of the aforementioned 1st amendment (in bold).
  
  Example:
  Local city government allowing erection of a religious scene of any kind on the city square.
  
  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
  
  Did congress make a law establishing a certain religion be displayed on said city square? No. Did congress make a law prohibiting the free exercise of any religion on said city square? No.
  
  Conclusion: No violation of the 1st amendment.
  
  Now because congress is clearly stated as having no power in the matter under the constituion, the judicial branch of the federal government many times exercises extra constitutional power and prohibits the free exercise of religion by ruling such displays unconstitutional. By ruling all religious displays unconstitutional the judicial branch by fiat establishes the religion of the federal government to be atheistic.
  
  The judicial branch of the federal government can no sooner demand that a religious display be taken down on said city square than they can demand that the people can not peaceably assemble on the square to redress their grievances.
• Strapping Young Lad

  

  slide22 wrote: Being a christian is almost considered being a nut job in today's society. Sad..
  
  I was thinking the other day... why do some atheist celebrate Christmas?

  Being any kind of religious extreme is seen as nutjob today....it's the idea of forcing your ideas on another individual, which the religious refer to as evangelism, I think (if that's not the most accurate term, you still get what i'm saying)...or in more violent ways such as terrorism.
  
  Not sure it's sad to me, but it's different from the recent past.
• Strapping Young Lad

  

  CenterBHSFan wrote: Ok... so I still do not understand how seeing a nativity scene would be forcing, making, or subjecting others to "follow dogma"?
  What, do they walk by it and suddenly get entranced? Is that how they would be made to follow dogma?
  
  What is the difference between:
  - somebody was forced to follow
  - somebody was made to follow
  ?
  
  If I walk by my local courthouse and see a NS, does that mean that the government is going to pass a law making me/forcing me go to its appointed church?

  I have a problem w/ a nativity scene on a courthouse lawn, but b/c it assumes that everyone served by the courthouse is a christian...If you think the melting pot idea is a positive one that you want to represent your country, then you've got to take everyone's religious affiliation into consideration, or not at all....
• majorspark

  

  Strapping Young Lad wrote:I have a problem w/ a nativity scene on a courthouse lawn, but b/c it assumes that everyone served by the courthouse is a christian...If you think the melting pot idea is a positive one that you want to represent your country, then you've got to take everyone's religious affiliation into consideration, or not at all....

  That is fine if you have that problem. Just don't force it on the rest of us. Do you have the same problem with statues of military figures? Cannon displays? Do you assume everyone inside is a war monger?
• believer

  

  Strapping Young Lad wrote:I have a problem w/ a nativity scene on a courthouse lawn, but b/c it assumes that everyone served by the courthouse is a christian...If you think the melting pot idea is a positive one that you want to represent your country, then you've got to take everyone's religious affiliation into consideration, or not at all....

  It's interesting how "melting pot" is invoked when it comes to - say - the "offensive" display of a Nativity scene on a courthouse lawn. But if it's "multicultural day" or Black History Month being celebrated in our public schools, for example, WELL, that's a whole different matter isn't it?
  
  If we're a "melting pot" then so be it. Eliminate ALL celebration of our differences and beliefs in ALL of our public institutions and then I'm on board.
  
  If not, then if I want to display a Nativity scene, Menorah, Kwanzaa paraphernalia, or Muslim artifacts on the courthouse lawn why not simply look at it as a celebration of our diversity rather than seeing it as offensive?
  
  The hypocrisy of the left never ceases to amaze me.
• BCSbunk

  CenterBHSFan wrote: Ok... so I still do not understand how seeing a nativity scene would be forcing, making, or subjecting others to "follow dogma"?
  What, do they walk by it and suddenly get entranced? Is that how they would be made to follow dogma?
  
  What is the difference between:
  - somebody was forced to follow
  - somebody was made to follow
  ?
  
  If I walk by my local courthouse and see a NS, does that mean that the government is going to pass a law making me/forcing me go to its appointed church?

  You are not understanding the definition of dogma.
• BCSbunk

  believer wrote:

  Strapping Young Lad wrote:I have a problem w/ a nativity scene on a courthouse lawn, but b/c it assumes that everyone served by the courthouse is a christian...If you think the melting pot idea is a positive one that you want to represent your country, then you've got to take everyone's religious affiliation into consideration, or not at all....

  It's interesting how "melting pot" is invoked when it comes to - say - the "offensive" display of a Nativity scene on a courthouse lawn. But if it's "multicultural day" or Black History Month being celebrated in our public schools, for example, WELL, that's a whole different matter isn't it?
  
  If we're a "melting pot" then so be it. Eliminate ALL celebration of our differences and beliefs in ALL of our public institutions and then I'm on board.
  
  If not, then if I want to display a Nativity scene, Menorah, Kwanzaa paraphernalia, or Muslim artifacts on the courthouse lawn why not simply look at it as a celebration of our diversity rather than seeing it as offensive?
  
  The hypocrisy of the left never ceases to amaze me.

  We do not have to take religion at all. Religion is a choice being black or some other race is not, your analogy is inaccurate.
  
  I am glad though that you want to express freedom of ALL religions and will have no problem at all for Satanists to display an upside down cross and a large pentagram with a manger with a dead mutilated baby Jesus.
  
  Satanists are entitled too right?
• CenterBHSFan

  

  Why don't I? We can talk all day about the variously worded definitions and ideologues behind the word dogma.
  
  But it doesn't mean that anybody will be made to follow dogma simply by seeing a NS.
  How do you reach that conclusion?
• eersandbeers

  slide22 wrote: Being a christian is almost considered being a nut job in today's society. Sad..

  [Img]http://media.photobucket.com/image/help we%252527re being oppressed/pspauld/BlogPix/21j7neh.gif[\img]
  
  
  The thing I find funny is that Christians continually claim Christmas is being hijacked by secularists when Christians are the ones who hijacked December 25th in the first place.
  
  Christmas has absolutely nothing to do with the birth of Jesus. It was a pagan holiday that Christians hijacked so they could promote their religion and try to get rid of paganism.
• Altor

  BCSbunk wrote:You are not understanding the definition of dogma.

  And I don't think you understand the definition of "follow."
• BCSbunk

  CenterBHSFan wrote: Why don't I? We can talk all day about the variously worded definitions and ideologues behind the word dogma.
  
  But it doesn't mean that anybody will be made to follow dogma simply by seeing a NS.
  How do you reach that conclusion?

  Dogma a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without empirical proof.
  
  Follow To take as a model or precedent. is the context of follow in my assertion.
  
  So in other words. The display is proclaimed as true without empirical proof as a model.
  
  So it is okay for Satanists to display what they want? They are a recognized religion here in the US. You have no problem if the Government starting putting up Satanic displays? Upside down crosses, Reverse NS' where they are all dead etc.?
• LJ

  

  So how about both of you explain what you mean, rather than aimlessly bickering
• BCSbunk

  Altor wrote:

  BCSbunk wrote:You are not understanding the definition of dogma.

  And I don't think you understand the definition of "follow."

  To take as a model or precedent;
• CenterBHSFan

  

  eersandbeers wrote: Christmas has absolutely nothing to do with the birth of Jesus. It was a pagan holiday that Christians hijacked so they could promote their religion and try to get rid of paganism.

  
  I actually agree with part of this. Dec.25 was originally a pagan holiday devoted to Mithrais(sp).
  
  I think it was during Constantines reign that this holiday was combined with the Christian beliefs to develope a united people, rather than get rid of paganism.
  In other words, what Constantine did is cannot be disproven, but the idea behind the action is looser than just one thing.
• Altor

  That's one definition, and it will work.
  
  If I "follow the dogma" handed down by a nativity scene, I'm taking that as a model of how I believe Christ was born. But nobody is forcing anybody to follow that dogma. As he was saying, the fact that it is there does not force anybody to believe that the scene being depicted is what actually went down.
• cbus4life

  I wish i was born in a manger.
  
  It actually looks very comfy, and in all the nativity scenes i see, Mary looks rather hot, in a homely sort of way.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  Ok, I've explained my point of views and what I think (which is basically, that the government should keep its nose out of it) time and time again in the simplest way possible.
  
  If somebody doesn't like it or has a differing viewpoint, so be it.
  
  You're right, LJ, this is getting stupid.
• majorspark

  

  BCSbunk wrote:Dogma a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without empirical proof.
  
  Follow To take as a model or precedent. is the context of follow in my assertion.
  
  So in other words. The display is proclaimed as true without empirical proof as a model.

  Bunk has succesfully put up a strawman arguement that has diverted the discussion to the definition of dogma. He fails to prove how the 1st amendment gives the federal government power to regulate displays on local city squares.
  

  So it is okay for Satanists to display what they want? They are a recognized religion here in the US. You have no problem if the Government starting putting up Satanic displays? Upside down crosses, Reverse NS' where they are all dead etc.?

  Yes it would be if you can find a local community that would allow it to be displayed.
• BCSbunk

  majorspark wrote:

  BCSbunk wrote:Dogma a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without empirical proof.
  
  Follow To take as a model or precedent. is the context of follow in my assertion.
  
  So in other words. The display is proclaimed as true without empirical proof as a model.

  Bunk has succesfully put up a strawman arguement that has diverted the discussion to the definition of dogma. He fails to prove how the 1st amendment gives the federal government power to regulate displays on local city squares.
  

  So it is okay for Satanists to display what they want? They are a recognized religion here in the US. You have no problem if the Government starting putting up Satanic displays? Upside down crosses, Reverse NS' where they are all dead etc.?

  Yes it would be if you can find a local community that would allow it to be displayed.

  Please show where I have used a strawman. If you want to call it a red herring that is fine, but I needed to clarify because another poster stated that they did not understand so I tried to accomodate.
  
  It is not only the 1st amendment. The 14th amendment works with the 1st amendment with regard to religious displays.
  
  Seperation of church and state is comprised of both the 1st amendment and the 14th.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
• BCSbunk

  majorspark wrote:

  BCSbunk wrote:Dogma a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without empirical proof.
  
  Follow To take as a model or precedent. is the context of follow in my assertion.
  
  So in other words. The display is proclaimed as true without empirical proof as a model.

  Bunk has succesfully put up a strawman arguement that has diverted the discussion to the definition of dogma. He fails to prove how the 1st amendment gives the federal government power to regulate displays on local city squares.
  

  So it is okay for Satanists to display what they want? They are a recognized religion here in the US. You have no problem if the Government starting putting up Satanic displays? Upside down crosses, Reverse NS' where they are all dead etc.?

  Yes it would be if you can find a local community that would allow it to be displayed.

  Also to be fair the original OP asked this Why are some conservative types so up in arms about some ppl choosing ''happy holidays'' over "merry x-mas"????
  
  I thought the idea that the US was a melting pot and had ppl from all different cultures and backgrounds living together, was a point of pride for us...
  
  Why are some pointing to this as part of a ''War on X-mas"????
  
  Not seperation of church and state or NS etc. I am guilty of following the red herring and contributing to it.
• ernest_t_bass

  

  The politically correct ship is sailing us all away from what America should be.
• BCSbunk

  Altor wrote: That's one definition, and it will work.
  
  If I "follow the dogma" handed down by a nativity scene, I'm taking that as a model of how I believe Christ was born. But nobody is forcing anybody to follow that dogma. As he was saying, the fact that it is there does not force anybody to believe that the scene being depicted is what actually went down.

  After reflection, force was a poor choice of a word. You and Center are correct I retract that statement as it is not reasonable.
• cbus4life

  ernest_t_bass wrote: The politically correct ship is sailing us all away from what America should be.

  What should America be?