| Author | Message | ||
     Tramp |
Oh, I've always been fully aware that the "X" in Christmas denotes Christ. That's what's always pi*sed me off. Seems disrespectful to be too lazy to type out the 6 letters, and, further, using the cross as a symbol of his birth is out of line, in my book. At Christmastime, we celebrate the nativity, and maybe and asterisk, significant of the star of the magii and the saviour's birth, would be more appropriate. Mfell said: "The ACLU continues to harangue on the "separation of church and state" as justification for eliminating religious issues from public view. They do this at the tax payers expense." .... couldn't be farther from the truth. (no disrespect, Mike) Actually, many administrations and groups are trying to get MORE taxpayer $$$ to cover church activities, which costs the taxpayer much more and absolutely denies church and state separation. Further, all Churches in our land, (ALL, NOT just your beloved Christian Churches) enjoy TAX-FREE status, which, of course puts the greater burden on the taxpayer. The Catholic Church is one of the wealthiest institutions in the known universe, and yet they operate tax-free in the US of A. as do all mosques, religious organizations and territories, and incorporate dreligious cities, etc. Imagine: the amish and the enormous hasidic & christian Bruderhof & jehova's witness, comprised of communities in my area pay NO taxes. That includes their housing structure, their public roads, public works everything. NONE of their tax-exempt members have to serve in our country's armed forces, nor can they be drafted into service, as can teh actual taxper. yet, they all vote, and they vote in strong blocs, on issues of war, defense, etc. * * * and you say the ACLU has itw rong with religion and being a tax-burden? c'mon..... (Message edited by tramp on December 21, 2005) | ||
| Tramp |
...s'long as we're having a festivus airing of our grievances, here's another Christmas grievance I have: Rudolph. " all of the other reindeer used to shout an dcall him names, they never let poor rudolph, join in any reindeer games" fair enough, but then after the boss, santa claus, finds a use for our iconoclastic hero, well,... "then all the reindeer loved him" ??? What's up with that?!?!?!? they LOVED him, after treating him like sh*t, the boss gives him the OK, and suddenly they love him? what kind of lesson is THAT for our kids?  That's some | ||
| Mfell2112 |
So Tramp the ACLU is NOT partially responsible for eliminating religious issues from public view? How do churches create a burden on taxpayers? Also, I find churches do a lot of good for communites. Actually they do good around the world with missionaries.That all said a Church would get NO Government funding either. Last time I checked *nobody* is required to serve in our armed forces. These people vote on issues of war, defense, etc. Explain to me how churches are a tax burden?How do you think the ACLU stays in existance? Regards Mike | ||
| Bomber |
furether weight to Tramp's screed (no that he needs the backup, of course) -- The worst hovel I've ever lived in (in CONUS) was a building in St Louis that was owned by the Roman Catholic Church -- they paid no taxes at all on the several blocks of rental property they owned ... my Christmas beef is that Hardrock, Coco and Joe doesn't air anymore round here . . . . . . . | ||
| Johnnylunchbox |
Associating the X in X-mas with Christ, probably came for the use of the Chi Rho symbol used to represent Christ. Most Christians have probably seen it. It looks like a P with and X through it. It represents the first two letters in Christ's name. The CH and the R. I also am speculating here so don't yell at me if I am off base. The use of the X may also stem form a Judeo-Christian aversion to actually using the name of God in written form. Sort of an anti-idolatrous reaction. This is just a theory. | ||
| Blake |
"the day we feel the need to keep out thoughts we don't agree with is a scary day, indeed, to me -- " Agreed, with some clarification. Some "thoughts" are indeed evil, counterproductive for our society and and thus prohibited by law. It is not that we don't censor the free expression of ideas; it is where we draw the line in that censorship that is central to the debate. Consider please cases of slanderous and libelous "speech", disingenuously yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, depictions of pedophilia, depictions of statutory rape, sexually explicit presentations utilizing underage models, anything which is generally viewed as vulgar and vile by the vast majority of the populace at large; the free expression of these and other such "thoughts" and "ideas" is absolutely prohibited in our society and for very good reason. Pretty sure you are talking about "thoughts" other than those fitting into categories of prohibited free speech like those listed above, and so I heartily agree. But I am afraid that "scary day" has already come. Our judicially activist courts have taken the prohibitions against certain classes of free speech a huge step further. A judge in PA just declared it unconstitutional for a public school to offer for consideration of its students the theory that an intelligence may have played a role in the creation of life on Earth. The judge has apparently declared himself a scientific expert on the subject of origins and declared that the theory that intelligence and intent was involved in the creation of life on Earth equates to religion and thus must be banned from any public school's science curiculum. That same judge and others like him also apparently glean from the constitution that there is some mandate to divorce government from God and God from government. The ACLU vigorously supports that judge's decision, and his rationale for it, and the ACLU opposes most vigorously the right of a public school to offer as scientific theory even a few paragraphs about the intelligent design theory of origins. So much for free speech. Cause apparently nothing that is "created" could ever be science. I guess my laptop computer just flew together all by itself, through pure happenstance. I must be spouting religion to claim that it was a product of an intentional act and intelligent design.  It makes so much more sense that something infinitely more complex, robust, and everlasting, namely life on Earth, must have simply happened accidentally. Yeah, it must be silly religious doctrine to conclude that something so incredibly complex could have been created intentionally by a higher intelligence. I wonder, if we as humans were to seed another planet with the most basic forms of life and let evolution have its way, then billions of years later when conscious and intelligent life emerges, would they be correct or incorrect to conclude that life on their planet arose through the intentional actions of a higher intelligence, or that they came to be through mere happenstance? I'm sure both views would find supporters. Only one would be valid. On one hand, folks will believe adamantly that intelligent life much exist elsewhere in our universe, but then the very same folks refuse to comprehend how life on Earth may have began through intentional actions of a higher intelligence. Methinks their faith is very strong indeed, to the point of absurdity. Free speech? ACLU? Only if it conforms to their own secularist socialist agenda. They are far more concerned with eliminating the tiny little cross from the Los Angeles county seal than defending free speech in America. Los Angeles by the way was founded as a Christian mission and its very name means "The Angels." Want to annoy a activist atheist? Explain to them the origins of the word "holiday." Its root is in the description "holy day." Then explain to them the origins of the word "goodbye", the term "goodbye" evolved from the phrase "God be with you."
Merry Christmas, goodbye, and happy holidays to all! | ||
| Oldog |
Blake Bravo! while many organizations claim to be interested in protecting "our rights" close scrutiny reveals other wise. One thing that our creator gave us for sure is the ability to think, although at times I have been left to contemplate how often that process takes place in some circles. Again to all of my Buellish Bretheren, Merry Christmas, Happy Holy Days, and what ever your faith or back ground, May GOD bless you | ||
| CJXB |
but I ain't lookin for stuff to get cranky about no mo' {smile } It's what happens when we get old and mellow bomber !!  | ||
| Tramp |
I've often considered that using the "X: symbol may have a root in not using his name in vain. The Chi Ro is typically seen on the ope's robes, and was central to most roman shields and fields. as far as religious organizations placing a burden on taxpayers, here's an example: In my county, we have an enormous hasidic community. it's an iuncorporated, separate village on hundreds of acres (removed, of course, from the tax rolls). it's residents, being they dwell in that religious village, pay no income taxes, either. now, every family in that village (EVERY family) collects welfare and social services stipend for housing, food, and medical treatment, because they file no income taxes and summarily earn n o income on the books. The tax burden created on our welfare system and our county's social service fund is staggering. Now, then, not only are they pacifist (and are exempt from service AND THE DRAFT, which has occurred in the past, which I had to register for, and which will occur again), but they vote in droves on any issue that will negatively impact islam, and not with their own blood. They vote for higher property/school taxes, a sthey enjoy putting their kids through the publilc school system, and they don't have to pay any of themselves. answer your question OK, Mike? Or do I need to go into the local Bruderhof community whom pull much the same stunt. bruderhof's doubly smart- they own huge manufacturing firms with which they make donations to their own church, so as to gain grant funding form their self-same companies whom are enjoying the tax-exemption of making those donations. they pay no property/school taxes, thgeir kids all attend public high school, they give their own corporations enormous tax exemptions by funnelling money to their own religious community. tax burden? immense. oh, yeah- they get to vote on how MY taxes are spent. Obviously, they vote in favour of excessive funding for inane extracurricular programs in the local school system, where their kids attend, and they pay no taxes into, yet people like my grandparents, whom own huge expanses of land, whom haven't had kids in school in 50 years, pay enormous property taxes to pay for these school programs. that clear it up any? wnat to win an argument or find the truth? sometimes it's a choice. and do not EVEN accuse me of being, in any way, anti-religious. To me, religion is NOT about finding loopholes with which to spend other people's money, and it cause sone to wonder what Christ would/will have to say about such activity. Do I need to go into the gigantic jehova's witness compound a half-hour away? I have NO problem with their belief structure, I count many Jehova's witnesses amongst my friends, and I enjoy discussing theology respectfully with them. I do have an issue with their compound's tax-exempt lifestyle which still uses our social services system, INCLUDING welfare. Big load on the taxpayer. The constitution, and it's amendments, are a starnge thing to discuss these days, as it was framed and amended at a time before enormous tax-loopholes, commercial jetliners, internet-bosltered terrorism, and, as I'd said previously, skyscrapers. Our very currency reads "In God We Trust", which to me says that this land IS grounded on theological premise, so separation of church and state is absurd. In fact, in much of western history, church and state are synonymous. this I have NO problem with. the verbiage in the constitution regarding the government snooping on private citizen's matters didn't take into account the possibility of the internet, telephones, and the zealots whom would one day see the proud, once-little republic as a hated empire. Had Al Quaeda been around during the framing of the Constitution, I believe it would read considerably differently. What we are faced with,regarding the US constitution in the 21st century, is how to go about updating a very concrete, albeit archaic document. | ||
| Tramp |
CJxb said: "It's what happens when we get old and mellow bomber !! " * * geeez. I'm moving in on the 'get old' part Okay, but....... | ||
| Tramp |
oldog said: "Blake Bravo! while many organizations claim to be interested in protecting "our rights" close scrutiny reveals other wise. One thing that our creator gave us for sure is the ability to think, although at times I have been left to contemplate how often that process takes place in some circles. Again to all of my Buellish Bretheren, Merry Christmas, Happy Holy Days, and what ever your faith or back ground, May GOD bless you" well put. back atcha | ||
| Tramp |
incidentally, i have a problem, as well, with pennsylvania's decision. seems weird to teach one way and not the other, and it takes away from any middle ground the two opposite schools might find. (such as, intelligent design and changes over time based on usefulness of traits) | ||
| Blake |
"Oh, I've always been fully aware..."  Dude...  | ||
| Tramp |
i mean about the meaning of that "X". My (baptist) Bible studies teacher used to warn us against using it, and told us it was disresepctful. | ||
| Tramp |
that laptop, while designed by an intelligent force, started out as an abacus, then a TI calculator, etc., with these changes over time being implemented by the intelligent force of the technology's "creator" | ||
| Johnnylunchbox |
Ok did some googling so this must be true ***tongue firmly planted in cheek*** Xmas This abbreviation for Christmas is of Greek origin. The word for Christ in Greek is Xristos. During the 16th century, Europeans began using the first initial of Christ's name, "X" in place of the word Christ in Christmas as a shorthand form of the word. Although the early Christians understood that X stood for Christ's name, later Christians who did not understand the Greek language mistook "Xmas" as a sign of disrespect. | ||
| Tramp |
I think the fact that folks are abbreviating it still makes it sorta disresepctful. I imagine that if you dig further, the greeks used that name because the X designated the cross. I've never looked into it, but is there any etymological parallele for christ, xristo and cross to be similar? incidentally, "Kris Kringle" has a really interesting christian origin. orinally a teutonic adjective and noun. the Krauts also brought over the Christmas Tree idea during the revolution. Their hessians practiced the ceremony while here in the states, as well. many hessians preferred to stay here, even though they'd been fighting, professionally, for king george, and they form one of the three baselines for our area's "Jackson Whites". | ||
| Blake |
These days I'm unsure if I've ever truly been fully aware of anything.  Didn't used to be that way though. When I was a teenager, I was always fully aware that I knew everything. It seems that the older I get the more ignorant I become,  and unfortunately I'm not always fully aware of that fact.  | ||
| Blake |
"that laptop, while designed by an intelligent force, started out as an abacus, then a TI calculator, etc., with these changes over time being implemented by the intelligent force of the technology's "creator" " A'men to that! Didn't the root origins of computation begin with the ten fingers though? D'OH! | ||
| Bomber |
Ceej -- yeah, well, I find there are enough things to get me cranky that I don't need to go lookin fer em -- they walk up, introduce themselves, and start swinging all on their own. Blake -- I was indeed (uncharacteristically) very careful to write what I did -- thoughts are in no way censorable, actionable (by the hand of man, in any event) or anyone else's business unless I decide to share them, which takes some effort on my part -- thoughts, not speech, not actions, but thoughts -- agreed, yelling fire in a crowed theatre (the site of the Iriqouis theatre is my home town, after all) is not acceptable -- there are other actions and speeches, and you named many, that the majority of our society has also deemed unacceptable, and declared illegal -- fair enough -- one of the benefits of living in a society with rules I do not find your intelligent design example to be remotely scarey, or on point, for that matter. no censorship going on, no judge decalring himself a scientific expert, and certainly no lessening of rights of anyone of faith -- those of faith that wish to discuss this issue, preach it, declare their heartfelt support for it are entirely free to do so -- just not on the public dime, is all -- I find that approrpriate (as do many Christian Scholars -- one says that the adoption of religious tennants by an arm of the government should frighten the religious more than anyone else, as a government that is free to adopt a religious ideal this term is equally free to quash it the next) I know of many individuals of faith that have no problem embracing both the idea of evolutionary development of living things AND the faith in a creator at the same time -- I see no dicotomy to those two ideas, but I know that many do not embrace both ideas, but find them mutually exclusive -- some of those that DO find them mutually exclusive are attempting to have their point of view represented in the public schools -- and, as Tramp suggests, a reasoned debate may certainly have value From what I've read about Intel Design, the data offered is faith-based, rather than based on what is commonly referred to as science -- while faith is huge in many people's lives, as it should be, and while faith should not be denegrated in any way shape or form by the governement (i.e., schools), faith has little place in the schools (public), I beleive -- now, when a scientific basis for Intel Design is found, zippo-bang, into the publically-funded classroom it should go whether Intel Desgin is right or wrong, I'll leave to others to debate (in the spirit of the season) {smile} | ||
| Tramp |
being the ten fingers came with the 'creator' of the abacus, i start with the abacus. of course, folks were likely keeping records with cut marks on sticks prior to that, but the abacus is the most well-known example I came up with at that moment. I've just come from having z-girl administer my *thrice weekly 1,200,000 units of penicillin via 20 ga. needle to my buttcheek*  , so I'm far more aware, now, then I was a half-hour ago. | ||
| CJXB |
the Krauts My mom was German, born and raised in Germany, she always took offense to Germans being called Krauts !! | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
Uh oh, here we go, with the national nicknames, & before anybody else dives in, I'm half limey, half jock & married to a frog, So here's my non-political, non-religious, non-racial, seasonal greeting; HAVE A COOL, BUELL, YULE, Y'ALL.  | ||
| CJXB |
Hey Spidey started a political thread over a TV show so I can start a national nicknames topic !!  | ||
| Tramp |
Sorry, Cj. us mutts think we can get away with that sometimes. sincere apologies. mrgrumpy- the yule log is prechristian pagan. actually, so is the "Holly King", (often as teutonic "wotan", which would have made the elves the "Wo-tan clan") who rode a sleigh pulled by 8 deer, each one representing one of the 8 sabbats of the pagan year. today, the winter solstice, is one of those 8 sabbats. The Holly King drew a later name after the kr....er....the teutonic fok spoke of the baby jesus as the 'Angelic Christ child', or "Krist Kindl", which became anglicised as "Kris Kringle". St. Nick, an Eastern Bishop, became known as the bringer of gifts, so the two melded. I was married in Svaty Miklus (St. Nicholas) Cathedral in Praha, Bohemia. WWII found few bombs lobbed into Praha's old town square, so much of the ethereal gothic & baroque architecture still stands. Svaty Miklus is one example of such architecture. Santa's red suit was created by Coca-Cola. | ||
| Tramp |
here's a swell source} of many of our Christmas Customs: http://www.serve.com/shea/germusa/pagan.htm | ||
| Tramp |
Interestingly, this account of druidic Holly Kinglore takes into account the 8 sabbats represented by the reindeer, yet ascribes the king's red garb to druidic belief/nythology, as well: "http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Canopy/1956/santa.html This one's a good read.} | ||
| Blake |
The most convenient and intellectually disingenuous argument against the scientific validity of intelligent design theory is to glibly declare it "unscientific." Those who fail to acknowledge the perfectly valid science behind that theory, simply haven't given it a fair or comprehensive review. It would be no less silly to declare that a flag pole came to be through some naturalistic act rather than recognizing that it was designed and created with intent by some intelligent being(s). Ditto the pyramids. Ditto the Hoover Damn. Ditto anything that has been designed and created by intelligent beings. But somehow it is unscientific to conclude based upon overwhelming evidence that some intent and intelligence must have been involved in the creation of life on Earth. That makes ZERO sense to me. Not sure how that relates to any religion either. No one is seeking to teach the bible or koran or whatever religious text to explain our origins. The theory of intelligent design is simply refuting the idea that we came to be by accident. We could have been seeded by aliens for all the theory knows. No "God" or specific diety is implied. Not sure why some insist on declaring that one is. The only absolute of ID theory is that based upon its optimal efficiency, complexity, robustness and near perfection, life on Earth could not have happened by accident. The rest is all up for debate. So, while some offer that the theory of evolution does not in the least threaten their faith, a view to which I hold strongly, how then is it justified when others are so incredibly threatened by the mere offering of a valid scientific theory explaining the origins of life on Earth? Why should the theory that life was initially intentionally seeded on Earth so threaten the disciples of evolutionary theory? Please explain that! | ||
| Bomber |
Blake -- I cannot address the fears or misgivings of others (I know you're not expecting me to {grin}) I've seen no evidence that ID is anything other than a series of "if-then" statements made without referencing any specific religion -- you write "The only absolute of ID theory is that based upon its optimal efficiency, complexity, robustness and near perfection, life on Earth could not have happened by accident." likely a correct assesment -- however, it is an if-then statement without supporting evidence, other than, in this case, your opinion -- this does not render invalid, of course, as your opinion is at least as good as anyone's, and likely better than most -- however, supporting evidence would be a great boon btw, the assumption that there is a designer behind the design implies, to many, a god-head (insert the name of your favored diety here) -- that is where religion enters the picture, and where some folks start crying foul. I think ;-} | ||
| Tramp |
the paradox there is that the "open-mined "scientific " camp absolutley shuts the door on "intelligent design" further, teaching evolution (a theory to which I subscribe, but I see plenty of probabaility in intelligent design and others) dictates, by fault, error onto "intelligent design" and creationism, so it reinvents itself as equally dogmatic. If one is to sya "intelligent Design" is nonsense, then one also'd better not look for life on other planets, because acknowledging the possibility of extraterrestrial life, and yet disavowing the possibility of intelligent design is hypocritical and absolutely anti-scientific. teaching ONLY one "absolute" theory in schools is wrong. open mindedness fosters growth, and keeping an open mind to both probabilities will olny promote more growth and understanding. |
