Thread: Holiday trees Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024193
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
I just watched a discussion on Fox News about the insistence by some groups and even by the Governor of Rhode Island that Christmas trees should be redesignated as 'Holiday trees'.
What is it with you people in the US and the stupidity of things like this?
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
What is it with people and xmas trees? Remove Jesus from the festival and you can get away with it, but remove a tree - then you're causing mass religious offense.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
It goes with the removal of manger (or nativity) scenes from public spaces. Why do people want to get rid of these things?
Do they really believe the followers of non-Christian faiths are offended?
Or is this just the intolerance of easily-offended atheists?
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
Are you seriously telling me that a tree is so integral to the Christian festival that it cannot be taken by public officials to by a non-religious symbol of respect for other religious winter festivals?
Remind me of where the tree had any significant part to play in the nativity.
[ 29. November 2012, 07:34: Message edited by: the long ranger ]
Posted by Tubifex Maximus (# 4874) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
What is it with people and xmas trees? Remove Jesus from the festival and you can get away with it, but remove a tree - then you're causing mass religious offense.
I can see what Mudfrog's saying here; I like Christmas trees and I like them to be called Christmas trees but I don't think I'd be prepared to man the barricades over this one. We get stories about "Christmas has been banned to avoid offending muslims" each year and they always turn out to be bullshit pumped out by people who want us to be shocked and outraged.
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It goes with the removal of manger (or nativity) scenes from public spaces. Why do people want to get rid of these things?
Because we share public space with a multitude of other religions and views. Why should the state be seen to be paying for the public symbols of one?
I happen to know that large tree decorations in many British towns are largely funded by non-Christians (and often Hindu, Muslim and Sikh businessmen) involved in the Lions club. They use it as both a fundraiser and a way for the public to commemorate their relatives who have recently died.
I don't see the problem here - you want a tree, you've got a tree. Different people use it as a symbol for different things, get over it.
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubifex Maximus:
I can see what Mudfrog's saying here; I like Christmas trees and I like them to be called Christmas trees but I don't think I'd be prepared to man the barricades over this one. We get stories about "Christmas has been banned to avoid offending muslims" each year and they always turn out to be bullshit pumped out by people who want us to be shocked and outraged.
I fucking hate them. So what?
Walk around any British town, the tree decorations are no longer called Christmas trees. End of story.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It goes with the removal of manger (or nativity) scenes from public spaces. Why do people want to get rid of these things?
Because we share public space with a multitude of other religions and views. Why should the state be seen to be paying for the public symbols of one?
The one I saw being banned was actually funded by churches.
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The one I saw being banned was actually funded by churches.
Oh, that's ok then. And should a large church suddenly decide that Koran burning is an essential part of their worship of Christmas, you'd be ok with that in the public square too?
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Walk around any British town, the tree decorations are no longer called Christmas trees. End of story.
Not true.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The one I saw being banned was actually funded by churches.
Oh, that's ok then. And should a large church suddenly decide that Koran burning is an essential part of their worship of Christmas, you'd be ok with that in the public square too?
Er, don't be stupid. And don't insult the 99.9% of churches who would never countenance that kind of behaviour.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
There's a balance on this one, of course. I tend to take anything Fox News outputs with a large pinch of salt - or at least something to counter-balance its particular agenda. But then, all media has an agenda.
I can't speak for the US but a lot of the scare-mongering about political correctness gone mad and so forth does tend to be whipped up by the likes of the Torygraph and Daily Heil over here.
And a lot of these stories have been found to be fairly vapid when subject to closer scrutiny.
That said, there is a kernal of genuine concern in there. The problem is, it then gets over-egged by the likes of the Heil, Torygraph and Faux-News.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
quote:
I just watched a discussion on Fox News ...
Here's your problem. As I understand it, Fox News is the TV equivalent of the Daily Wail.
I would be very surprised indeed to find that the inhabitants of Rhode Island have stopped calling their trees Christmas trees, whatever the governor may think. Language doesn't work like that.
And actually, if they did would it be so terrible? Is it really so bad if the secular world stops calling their midwinter holiday Christmas? Doesn't it really leave us free to celebrate the True Meaning without having it confused with the secular feast?
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
Hang about. First Mudfrog says he is watching an item on Fix* News (but let's not judge him for that alone) about the naming - not banning - of seasonal decorations. On this basis he charitably concludes all - yes, all 300 million - Americans are stupid.
A little later he claims to have witnessed the actual banning of a church-sponsored tree. Is this still the stupid Americans? Or is this in Britain, which obviously puts us in no position to cavil with how they do things Over There.
Plus I am disappointed in the lack of respect to Allfather Odin in all of this.
*typo, but true.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The one I saw being banned was actually funded by churches.
Oh, that's ok then. And should a large church suddenly decide that Koran burning is an essential part of their worship of Christmas, you'd be ok with that in the public square too?
Er, don't be stupid. And don't insult the 99.9% of churches who would never countenance that kind of behaviour.
If only 0.1% of churches would countenance such behaviour why get so upset about it? Didn't you get a seat on the bus this morning?
Posted by Tubifex Maximus (# 4874) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubifex Maximus:
I can see what Mudfrog's saying here; I like Christmas trees and I like them to be called Christmas trees but I don't think I'd be prepared to man the barricades over this one. We get stories about "Christmas has been banned to avoid offending muslims" each year and they always turn out to be bullshit pumped out by people who want us to be shocked and outraged.
I fucking hate them. So what?
Walk around any British town, the tree decorations are no longer called Christmas trees. End of story.
Can you show any evidence that tree decorations are no longer called Christmas trees in any British town. The town centre where I live calls Christmas Christmas and it starts in mid October.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Same here: the good burghers of Fareham turned on the (extremely tacky and jaded) Christmas lights last weekend.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Firenze: quote:
Plus I am disappointed in the lack of respect to Allfather Odin in all of this.
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
Wouldn't it be disrespectful to worship Odin with fir trees? I thought his special tree was the ash...
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Then he's not doing too well this year...
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
for him, ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
for the ashes
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The one I saw being banned was actually funded by churches.
Oh, that's ok then. And should a large church suddenly decide that Koran burning is an essential part of their worship of Christmas, you'd be ok with that in the public square too?
Er, don't be stupid. And don't insult the 99.9% of churches who would never countenance that kind of behaviour.
If only 0.1% of churches would countenance such behaviour why get so upset about it? Didn't you get a seat on the bus this morning?
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
The % wasn't a scientific figure for goodness' sake - the point I was making was that this Koran burning isn't exactly what Christians do. I've heard of one (American) pastor who has done this. Hardly measurable i'd say on the percentage scale of what Christians do.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
On this basis he charitably concludes all - yes, all 300 million - Americans are stupid.
A little later he claims to have witnessed the actual banning of a church-sponsored tree. Is this still the stupid Americans?
I'm sorry; where have I called 300 million Americans stupid?
And secondly the 'church-sponsored' item was not a tree but a manger scene.
I think you need to read properly.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I'm sorry; where have I called 300 million Americans stupid?
I think -
'What is it with you people in the US and the stupidity of things like this?'
could reasonably be construed as such.
quote:
I think you need to read properly.
And I think you need to put together a coherent and evidenced argument as to why, if the Christian appropriation of Yule is losing its grip, this is anything to be concerned about.
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
OK, several things:
First, I was talking about Christmas Trees, y'know the subject of this thread. Go and look at one of the large Lions trees in town centres and shopping centres. They're not called Christmas trees.
Second, Mudfrog, I'm not asking you whether you like burning Korans. In the same way that I hate all Christmas decorations but have to tolerate the overspending by public bodies on ridiculous tat, I'm asking you whether you are comfortable with other religions having their spot in the public square (if, as I specified, there is significant local support for that view). Clearly you don't, largely because you want a free-ride for your faith that you're not prepared to extend to anyone else.
Third, the public space is moving away from calling the festival time Christmas, and so it should. The very idea that a public body should pay for some stupid crib scene, or come to that allow a local religious body to put it up in the public space, is ridiculous. Your religion is not the only one people care about, get over it.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I suppose this thread is somewhere between a serious discussion and a Pond rant.
Mudfrog, a personal thought. I think you were looking for a serious discussion but, as well as the unfortunate final sentence, the reference to Fox News won't have done your position much good on the other side of the Pond. TBH, it didn't do a lot for me, either. Fox News is Faux News in my book.
On what I think was your point.
I think multicultural respect indicates that if you want Christmas trees on public display, carols and Hallelujah flashmobs in shopping centres, nativity scenes in shop windows etc, then space should be given for any analagous public displays for Hanukkah, Diwali etc etc.
Provided they don't contain a message that all other religions are bullshit, or offend general purpose public display or peaceful assembly laws, I'm pretty comfortable with diverse public displays. I'd rather everyone had space to have a go, rather than no one. It doesn't make me antsy if it's not all Christian.
There may be US Constitutional issues at work here, I suppose. But when it comes to celebrations, I reckon in principle that people should lighten up, not be po-faced about diversity.
Make room! Make room!
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
I see no evidence that the "public space" is moving away from calling Christmas "Christmas". I am not sure why the long ranger is encouraging Fox News's paranoia.
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
I see no evidence that the "public space" is moving away from calling Christmas "Christmas". I am not sure why the long ranger is encouraging Fox News's paranoia.
Funnily enough I don't think it is paranoia. Not that I watch Fox News..
If the public square decides to spend money on religious festivals, they should spend the money on any religious festival that tax-payers feel like celebrating in proportion to the number of people who want to celebrate in that way.
In fact, I think that this is a total waste of money and that no taxpayer money should be spent in such ways and that those who regulate the public square have better things to be doing than trying to decide which religious holidays should have public support and in which way.
If religious bodies want to decorate inside (or, most of the time, outside) their own space, then bully for them. Don't inflict it on everyone else.
You might find burning Korans offensive, I find spending public money on ridiculous fairy lights to be farcical. One fortunate thing about the financial problems is that we probably won't have to put up with this for many more Decembers.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Mudfrog has a point. I don't really think those who disagree with him do.
Christmas is our festival. Hanukah is Jewish. Ramadan is Muslim. Divali is Hindu. Christmas trees have no theological connection with Christmas, but have accreted to it. I have no idea which bits of other peoples' festivals are theologically significant and which aren't. I accept though that getting drunk and wearing peculiar outfits is part of Purim, even if I don't know why and suspect it is not theologically essential to the festival.
It would be wrong for me to object to the public displays of other legitimate faiths. This may seem inconsistent to some Shipmates, but I also think that it is reasonable in C21 conditions to require the killing of animals to be done on private property.
Once you put up a Christmas tree, it is a Christmas tree. If a local authority objects to calling it a Christmas tree, then it should not put it up. Nor should it forbid anyone else from paying for one unless they call it something else. Likewise a Menorah is a Menorah, not a festival candlestick.
A few years ago, my employer's Equalities department circulated a memo, shortly before it started, explaining Ramadan to everybody. It must have been written by a Moslem colleague, as it contained 'blessed be he's'.
In response, we wrote a memo to be circulated explaining what Christmas is and asked for it also to be circulated. We were never directly refused, but it didn't happen. However, in subsequent years, the Ramadan one wasn't circulated either.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Christmas is our festival.
It's just that the little word "our" is not inclusive. It doesn't for example include Mo Farah. Remember "our Mo"? Lovely, charming, hardworking, humble family man who did such wondrous things for Team GB at the Olympics. Mo is a devout Muslim.
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Mudfrog has a point. I don't really think those who disagree with him do.
Go on..
quote:
Christmas is our festival. Hanukah is Jewish. Ramadan is Muslim. Divali is Hindu. Christmas trees have no theological connection with Christmas, but have accreted to it. I have no idea which bits of other peoples' festivals are theologically significant and which aren't. I accept though that getting drunk and wearing peculiar outfits is part of Purim, even if I don't know why and suspect it is not theologically essential to the festival.
It would be wrong for me to object to the public displays of other legitimate faiths. This may seem inconsistent to some Shipmates, but I also think that it is reasonable in C21 conditions to require the killing of animals to be done on private property.
Agree with you up to here... but then..
quote:
Once you put up a Christmas tree, it is a Christmas tree. If a local authority objects to calling it a Christmas tree, then it should not put it up. Nor should it forbid anyone else from paying for one unless they call it something else. Likewise a Menorah is a Menorah, not a festival candlestick.
Wait... a tree which has no theological significance and no long historical pedigree with Christianity cannot be attached to another religion because.. you say so? Do you know that the use of lights is, well, y'know a Hindu thing? Who the fuck are you to decide whether other religions can put up trees full of lights to celebrate their festival of.. light.. and not want to call it a sodding Christmas tree? Nobody, that's who. Your position is totally incomprehensible.
quote:
A few years ago, my employer's Equalities department circulated a memo, shortly before it started, explaining Ramadan to everybody. It must have been written by a Moslem colleague, as it contained 'blessed be he's'.
Or someone who wanted to refer to the Muslim sensibility without causing offense to Muslims.
quote:
In response, we wrote a memo to be circulated explaining what Christmas is and asked for it also to be circulated. We were never directly refused, but it didn't happen. However, in subsequent years, the Ramadan one wasn't circulated either.
Oh diddums, a religion which has had the top headline in the secular sphere suddenly finds that most people don't actually give a fuck any more and starts having a go at a minority religion. Really.
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on
:
Am I the only one who's feeling all ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
about this?
Here in our neck of the woods, we have a Christmas tree (although shrub might be more accurate...) whose lights were turned on last Friday.
The Greater London Authority has a whole page about the lighting of the Christmas tree they get from Norway.
Here's a page from Manchester City Council about the turning on of their Christmas lights including reference to a... wait for it... Christmas tree (see near the bottom of the page)!
Hull boasts of its Christmas tree.
(apologies for all the links!)
Whether you think it's a good thing or not, the idea that (this side of the pond) the word "Christmas" isn't being used to describe Christmas trees or the wider celebrations of the up-coming festivities is simply not true. Whether Christians like it or not, "Christmas" isn't simply the religious festival - it's the whole shebang including the shopping, the parties, the lights, the hangovers... the whole works.
And by all accounts, the word "Christmas" is not being stamped out by local authorities. So I don't quite get a) why the long ranger is insisting that it is; b) why he's getting so worked up that it should be or c) what all this has got to do with Mudfrog's OP, which was about the States.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Christmas is our festival.
It's just that the little word "our" is not inclusive. It doesn't for example include Mo Farah. Remember "our Mo"? Lovely, charming, hardworking, humble family man who did such wondrous things for Team GB at the Olympics. Mo is a devout Muslim.
I'm speaking as a Christian, not as a citizen of any polity. I am a Christian. Christmas is my festival. Ramadan is not. Mo Farah is a Muslim. Christmas is not his festival. Ramadan is.
There is no basis on which Christmas should rearrange itself to be inclusive of Muslims, however worthy they may be, nor for matter Richard Dawkins or Polly Toynbee. Nor do I expect Ramadan to be inclusive of me.
Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on
:
you know, I'm really starting to think that the Soviets got one thing right, if for the wrong reasons: moving all the non religious, marginally Christian aspects of the holiday to New Years.
For most of my life I had a problem with that, because it was done primarily to eliminate the religious observance. It was a reaction (on my part) to the whole Communist anti-religious position (and communism in general.. given my family history). But now that Russia has, at least officially, been free from that yoke for over two decades, the association with communism has faded, and I can look at things more from a "what makes sense now" rather than "what the reason was for THEM doing it, and association with all the other evil they caused".
So, if I had my way, I would encourage everyone to shift the non-religious aspects of the "Christmas" holiday to New Years, when everyone of every religion and none can participate equally, without any problems of religious association, enjoying "new years trees", snowmen, lights, gifts, food, alcohol.... and leave the religious holidays (all of them) to focus on whatever it is they are commemorating: birth of Christ, miracle of lights, whatever Kwanza is.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
It looks to me that Ebenezer Long Ranger just doesn't like Christmas PERIOD (US) or FULL STOP (UK)
His bad language, sarcasm and anger seem to betray a rather sad and angry little man who feels he has to shout and scream because, actually, no one really cares what he says and he is just trying in vain to get his little rant heard.
Merry Christmas The Long Ranger ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Christmas is our festival.
It's just that the little word "our" is not inclusive. It doesn't for example include Mo Farah. Remember "our Mo"? Lovely, charming, hardworking, humble family man who did such wondrous things for Team GB at the Olympics. Mo is a devout Muslim.
I'm speaking as a Christian, not as a citizen of any polity. I am a Christian. Christmas is my festival. Ramadan is not. Mo Farah is a Muslim. Christmas is not his festival. Ramadan is.
If Mo Farah wants to celebrate Christmas that's fine by me. Telling him Christmas isn't his is arrogant beyond my belief, even if it isn't beyond yours. Christmas is for everyone, as Christ is.
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It looks to me that Ebenezer Long Ranger just doesn't like Christmas PERIOD (US) or FULL STOP (UK)
His bad language, sarcasm and anger seem to betray a rather sad and angry little man who feels he has to shout and scream because, actually, no one really cares what he says and he is just trying in vain to get his little rant heard.
Merry Christmas The Long Ranger
I was addressing your post, the issues of which you have refused to discuss.
Instead you attack me. Shame on you.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It looks to me that Ebenezer Long Ranger just doesn't like Christmas PERIOD (US) or FULL STOP (UK)
His bad language, sarcasm and anger seem to betray a rather sad and angry little man who feels he has to shout and scream because, actually, no one really cares what he says and he is just trying in vain to get his little rant heard.
Merry Christmas The Long Ranger
I was addressing your post, the issues of which you have refused to discuss.
Instead you attack me. Shame on you.
Take it to Hell then - where your unwarranted, unwelcome and offensive bad language belongs. I find it hard to discuss something with anyone with your attitude - in fact I don't see why I should have to.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I'm sorry; where have I called 300 million Americans stupid?
I think -
'What is it with you people in the US and the stupidity of things like this?'
could reasonably be construed as such.
Sorry, a bit clumsy: I actually had in mind the atheist groups and the Governor who was promoting this stuff, and the city authorities who give in to them.
From what I've read, the ordinary US citizens are dead against the 'Holiday tree' stuff.
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Take it to Hell then - where your unwarranted, unwelcome and offensive bad language belongs. I find it hard to discuss something with anyone with your attitude - in fact I don't see why I should have to.
I don't want to take it to hell, I want to address your OP, which I feel that I have. I have not personally attacked you, I have attacked the idea you have expressed in your first post - namely that it is ridiculous when Christmas trees are redesignated holiday trees. It doesn't appear that you actually want to discuss that issue with me. Instead you seem to assume that there is nothing to discuss and that your position is self-evident.
I have heard it said several times that Anglo-saxon is not banned anywhere on these boards. That is the way I chose to express myself. If you don't like it, in what way did you think you were engaging in a discussion rather than a rant?
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
When I was young, people would never start this thread till the Advent season was over.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Walk around any British town, the tree decorations are no longer called Christmas trees.
Which is pretty darn silly so long as most people think the reason the tree is there is because of Christmas.
And if the tree gets put up at a certain time and gets taken down at a certain time, in line with previous traditions... look, if it walks like a duck, and swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's still a duck even if a bureaucrat thinks it better to label it as "unspecified avian".
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Third, the public space is moving away from calling the festival time Christmas, and so it should.
Festival? What festival?
Oh wait. Don't tell me. The name of it is right on the tip of my tongue...
EDIT: If you want to call it 'December', or 'the end of the year', then go right ahead. But if you start describing something as a 'festival' you're begging the question. And last time I looked, New Year's Eve parties - the other 'festive' thing round about then - weren't particularly associated with trees, were they? The whole reason we have 'Christmas' trees and 'New Year's Eve' fireworks is because we understand that each of these things is associated with one festive occasion and not the other.
[ 29. November 2012, 12:51: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Festival? What festival?
Oh wait. Don't tell me. The name of it is right on the tip of my tongue...
Festival is one of those strange words which can be singular or plural. Hence festival time refers to the time of festivals: Christmas, Yule, Hanukkah, Diwali and those other religious festivals of November-January.
quote:
EDIT: If you want to call it 'December', or 'the end of the year', then go right ahead. But if you start describing something as a 'festival' you're begging the question. And last time I looked, New Year's Eve parties - the other 'festive' thing round about then - weren't particularly associated with trees, were they? The whole reason we have 'Christmas' trees and 'New Year's Eve' fireworks is because we understand that each of these things is associated with one festive occasion and not the other.
See above. All the things you have mentioned are habits. Other religions and cultures use fireworks, lights and trees you know.
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And if the tree gets put up at a certain time and gets taken down at a certain time, in line with previous traditions... look, if it walks like a duck, and swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's still a duck even if a bureaucrat thinks it better to label it as "unspecified avian".
So you know for a fact that these decorations are specifically Christian rather than non-religious to appeal to all the other religious festivals that are about, do you.
No you don't.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
His bad language, sarcasm and anger seem to betray a rather sad and angry little man who feels he has to shout and scream because, actually, no one really cares what he says and he is just trying in vain to get his little rant heard.
Merry Christmas The Long Ranger
Mudfrog, and anyone else who feels the need to get personal, are hereby invited to swap their debating pipes for boxing gloves in Hell. Otherwise, you'll be pleased to keep it Civil.
Gwai,
Purg Host
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Other religions and cultures use fireworks, lights and trees you know.
Trees being the relevant one, who else uses them? For Yule, presumably.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
So you know for a fact that these decorations are specifically Christian rather than non-religious to appeal to all the other religious festivals that are about, do you.
Can we please unpack this TRULY startling statement?
How can something that is "non-religious" appeal to "all the other religious" festivals?
You cannot have it both ways. Either it is a religious object or it isn't. If it is a non-religious object, that doesn't mean it appeals to all religions. It means it has no connection to any of them.
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Trees being the relevant one, who else uses them? For Yule, presumably.
Well, let's see what googling tells us. Diwali lights in trees and this on the Hannukah bush and the Ramadan tree.
Bloody other religions, nicking our tree ideas (that we previous nicked from other religions), eh? Whatever next?
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You cannot have it both ways. Either it is a religious object or it isn't. If it is a non-religious object, that doesn't mean it appeals to all religions. It means it has no connection to any of them.
A tree with random stars and sparkles (and just about anything unrelated to the nativity) decorations and lights is not specific to Christianity. Sorry to break it to you - other religions see Christmas trees as trees with pretty lights in them.
[ 29. November 2012, 13:12: Message edited by: the long ranger ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Trees being the relevant one, who else uses them? For Yule, presumably.
Well, let's see what googling tells us. Diwali lights in trees and this on the Hannukah bush and the Ramadan tree.
Right, thank you.
Although the question was more about putting UP trees, not about using trees as convenient spots to put things (which of course they are, it's not rocket science).
And there's no way in hell anyone could mistake your Ramadan tree for a Christmas tree.
But it was your Hannukah link that was superb. It says "Specifically, you won't find a Hanukkah bush in halacha because as far as I know it is a relatively recent American invention."
And THEN it says:
quote:
But even if you feel the tree is not religious, the idea of a Hanukkah bush is purely a copy of a Christmas tree. Jewish law aside, I find the idea of a Hanukkah bush distasteful for that very reason. Hanukkah is not a celebration of the winter holiday season nor is it the Jewish Christmas. By the way, I like Christmas -- but I understand it is not my holiday.
quote:
Bloody other religions, nicking our tree ideas (that we previous nicked from other religions), eh? Whatever next?
You know, before you attempt to be ironic, you really ought to check that the links you provide don't completely undercut the irony by using the exact same ideas literally.
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Right, thank you.
Although the question was more about putting UP trees, not about using trees as convenient spots to put things (which of course they are, it's not rocket science).
And there's no way in hell anyone could mistake your Ramadan tree for a Christmas tree.
Really. And pray, how are you suddenly an expert on Ramadan trees?
quote:
But it was your Hannukah link that was superb. It says "Specifically, you won't find a Hanukkah bush in halacha because as far as I know it is a relatively recent American invention."
Christmas Trees were made popular by the Germans in the 19 century. What's your point - their tradition is slightly newer than ours..?
quote:
quote:
But even if you feel the tree is not religious, the idea of a Hanukkah bush is purely a copy of a Christmas tree. Jewish law aside, I find the idea of a Hanukkah bush distasteful for that very reason. Hanukkah is not a celebration of the winter holiday season nor is it the Jewish Christmas. By the way, I like Christmas -- but I understand it is not my holiday.
quote:
Bloody other religions, nicking our tree ideas (that we previous nicked from other religions), eh? Whatever next?
You know, before you attempt to be ironic, you really ought to check that the links you provide don't completely undercut the irony by using the exact same ideas literally. [/QB]
Jewish people put up trees and decorate than for Hanukah. Some Jewish commentators don't like it. So? I dare say that some Christians dislike the Christmas tree tradition.
And I wasn't being ironic as it happens. That is my view on your opinion: complaining about other religions using your tradition that your sect previously dug up in the 19 century from a third ancient religion.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Walk around any British town, the tree decorations are no longer called Christmas trees.
Which is pretty darn silly so long as most people think the reason the tree is there is because of Christmas.
And if the tree gets put up at a certain time and gets taken down at a certain time, in line with previous traditions... look, if it walks like a duck, and swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's still a duck even if a bureaucrat thinks it better to label it as "unspecified avian".
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on
:
Not this again. I am in Canada and get sick & tired of this whole " war on Christmas" that the religous right & their pals of FOXNEWS
get up every year. I had a message forwarded me calling us , in song to boycott stores where they don't say Merry Christmas. Its the silly season people.
Also can we show that we can all get along. Oh I forgot, in some views the USA is a Christian nation. A load of baloney IMHO .
So to all a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
It seems to me that this entire thread has taken on a particular flavour simply because the long ranger doesn't like christmas.
He's a lovely bloke but his opinions are stupid ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
Not this again. I am in Canada and get sick & tired of this whole " war on Christmas" that the religous right & their pals of FOXNEWS get up every year.
Part of the rhetorical trickery involved in such appeals is to talk of Christmas being banned from "public spaces" or "the public square". Most people will interpret this as anywhere people can congregrate freely, while the actual meaning in this context is property owned by the government. Mudfrog employed this bit of rhetorical ju-jitsu upthread.
quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
I had a message forwarded me calling us, in song to boycott stores where they don't say Merry Christmas. Its the silly season people.
See this:
quote:
"I Usually Say 'Happy Holidays,'" By Jesus Christ
Honestly? It's just a matter of politeness. Some people don't celebrate my birthday, and I try not to make anyone feel uncomfortable about it. I'm like that.
Plus, there are - and I am not exaggerating - a lot of Jewish people in my family. I spent my whole life with them, and yeah, they don't really approve of my career as the Messiah. But families are always like that. You think I want folks celebrating my birthday by taking an entire month to turn America into a sparkly, glowing Gentilepalooza, and making everyone I'm related to feel isolated and weird? Seriously, what kind of massive douche would that make me? If your idea of celebrating my season is making an elderly Wal-Mart greeter offend a few hundred cousins of mine, you just have no idea who I am or what I want.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
Two pages in a day - this really is a hot button issue!
Not for me 'tho, I don't care what the trees are called. I love 'em and always have a huge real one.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
In my little Bible Belt town the taxpayer money is used to put up December decorations -- secular decorations, stockings and snowflakes (not that it snows here). The decorations are in the shopping district.
The goal -- to celebrate a particular religion? Heck no, to get people to do the shopping many in our culture do in December, in our town instead of elsewhere. The tax-paid displays are in support of our local businesses, not in support of our Christian churches.
Other (secular) decorations go up other times of year that the city thinks decorations will help attract people to spend money here.
For the month of December, another lighted display goes up in the park. All of it is paid for by private money, each figure or display has a sign who paid for it. Some displays are religious (including Jewish), most are secular like reindeer, some have nothing to do with any particular season or celebration like a kangaroo or a helicopter made out of colored light bulbs.
No tax money goes into displaying the Christian religion. If that's true in a Bible Belt city, it's probably true in most places.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:
And there's no way in hell anyone could mistake your Ramadan tree for a Christmas tree.
Really. And pray, how are you suddenly an expert on Ramadan trees?
Did you actually look at the photo?
It's a tree. That isn't remotely the right shape for a Christmas tree. Not all trees look identical, you know. More on that in a minute...
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Ducks in The Nile
The scene: a conference room overlooking the Nile (a river in Egypt). The MANAGER is standing near an easel with a board on it. A cloth is covering the board. Several members of a work crew are entering the room.
MANAGER: Come in, come in. Take a seat.
The crew get themselves settled
MANAGER: Right, thanks for coming everyone. Now, as you know, it’s been our tradition in this town for many, many years to place a giant replica of a duck in the Nile at this time of year. It’s a longstanding Egyptian tradition.
Heads nod.
MANAGER: However, the nature of our town is changing. We are now a multicultural society. And the management committee has felt that we need to reflect that, and recognize that there are other sorts of birds that have meaning for other cultures around us.
The MANAGER consults his notes.
MANAGER: The Nubians are very fond of parrots. The Sumerians have a special association with hawks. The Libyans who’ve come here liked the duck thing, and have adopted some of the ideas but they use a chicken instead. And some of our immigrants from further afield have a festival at this time of year that involves a bird called a… penguin. Yes, a penguin.
The MANAGER looks very satisfied with himself for understanding what a penguin is.
MANAGER: So, the management committee has decided that we are going to be more inclusive, and from now on we will put a non-specific bird in the river, so as not to alienate those members of our community for whom an emphasis on ducks might be offensive. I’ve asked you here to show you the design for this year’s bird.
The MANAGER removes the cloth from the board. There is a second of silence, and then a CREWMAN speaks up.
CREWMAN: It’s a duck.
MANAGER: It’s a bird.
CREWMAN: It’s a duck.
MANAGER: It’s a bird.
CREWMAN: I can see it’s a bird. I can even tell you what kind of bird it is. A duck.
MANAGER: It is not a duck. The management committee were quite clear in their decision that it would be inappropriate to continue to put a duck on the Nile, so we are having a bird instead.
CREWMAN: Then why does it look exactly like a duck?
MANAGER: What? No it doesn’t! It’s clearly a bird. Look, there’s the wings, the legs… everything you’d expect to find on a bird.
CREWMAN: It looks exactly the same as last year’s duck design.
MANAGER: Yes, okay, to a layman I suppose there’s a certain resemblance…
CREWMAN: It’s identical.
MANAGER: …but let me be clear about this. This is a non-specific bird. It represents all the different kinds of birds. Parrots and hawks and chickens and penguins.
CREWMAN: It doesn’t look anything like a parrot.
MANAGER: It’s got wings, hasn’t it?
CREWMAN: That doesn’t make it a parrot.
MANAGER: It’s not supposed to BE a parrot. It’s supposed to be a bird. One that all bird lovers can appreciate and enjoy. We’re trying to update our traditions.
CREWMAN: Then why did you stick with a duck?
MANAGER: You cannot call it a duck! It’s very important we don’t call it a duck! You might offend people who aren’t into ducks!
CREWMAN: Won’t they be more offended that you think they’re stupid enough to not realize it’s a duck?
MANAGER: IT’S NOT A DUCK!
CREWMAN: It certainly looks like one.
MANAGER: NO IT DOESN’T! IT LOOKS LIKE A BIRD!! ANY RESEMBLANCE TO A DUCK IS JUST A COINCIDENCE!! WE ARE NOT PUTTING A DUCK IN THE NILE!!
Lights.
Posted by poileplume (# 16438) on
:
The government of Québec ruled that by law in this province by law a Christmas tree is a Christmas tree and nothing else. (Well actually it is a sapin de noel but that amounts to the same thing.)
Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I just watched a discussion on Fox News about the insistence by some groups and even by the Governor of Rhode Island that Christmas trees should be redesignated as 'Holiday trees'.
... What is it with you people in the US and the stupidity of things like this?
What is it with you for watching that tacky, right wing, neo-con Fox News?
Why is it "stupid" for Americans, and here we have the governor of Rhode Island among them, wanting to share the Christmas tree with other, Non-Christian faiths? For decades we Americans have rejoiced with Jewish citizens and their Hannukkah bushes. It's only natural for the whole population, especially at the urging of kids, to want tree for the holiday too.
Are we supposed to act like the Soup Nazi and say, "No trees for YOU!"? There are holiday (or Christmas) trees everywhere in the USA, including ones at the White House, on the Capitol Mall in Washington and among the government buildings of every state I know of. What are we supposed to say about that? "Those trees are for us Christians alone and not for you others?"
Now THAT would be truly stupid.
*
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
How is it that people confuse 'inclusive' so badly with 'homogenised'.
Here's a tip. If you actually WANT to be inclusive, put up a Christmas tree. Next to it, put up a symbol of Hanukkah. Next to that, put up a symbol of Kwanzaa.
Don't put up a tree that is the right kind of tree for Christmas, and the right shape, and is associated with Christmas, and has a nice sparkling star on top, and pretend that it's now somehow become a symbol of lots of other things. It's a delusion that satisfies no-one other than a few politically correct people who think that everyone won't notice what the tree actually represents so long as you call it by another name.
There is absolutely nothing 'inclusive' about saying to other religions "hey, we'll call it a general celebration so long as we can continue to use OUR symbol. With another name so it's not too obvious."
Trust me, it's obvious. It's a classic case of those in charge being seen to have done something while having done precisely nothing.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
referring to the OP
Funny thing is, as touched on by Barnabas, this is simply the religious right whinging about the non-existent attacks upon Christianity. It is becoming a Christmas/Easter tradition in itself.
[ 30. November 2012, 02:28: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
Well by God, my religious beliefs are under attack from those godless libtards.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
This is a pond thing in large part.
Ignoring the fact that ignoring Christmas in New England is just getting back to the colonial traditions there's the history of not tolerating non christianity in the public space in America.
If atheists and those who practice other religions don't want the state to fund religious displays, that's in keeping with the law of the land.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
[tangent]
Can Americans please stop referring to the pond as shorthand for "we do something different to the rest of the world"? Some of us are nowhere near the pond.
It would be nice if you could restrict the word to things that genuinely do only involve North America and Europe. Such as the American Revolution and the one and only voyage of the Titanic.
[/tangent]
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
[tangent]
Can Americans please stop referring to the pond as shorthand for "we do something different to the rest of the world"? Some of us are nowhere near the pond.
It would be nice if you could restrict the word to things that genuinely do only involve North America and Europe. Such as the American Revolution and the one and only voyage of the Titanic.
[/tangent]
The OP is from Newcastle (UK) about a story from the US, and the first two references to the "pond" are from Norfolk (UK) and Manchester (UK). Why does it suddenly become objectionable when an American uses the term?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
The second one WAS country-specific, and the first one was from a Purg host. You want me to pick fights with Purg hosts?
(Plus it was about the possible nature of the thread. It did indeed have the potential to be a Pond rant. But then I stepped in and made it suitably global. )
EDIT: Oh look, let's just face it. Americans are horrible baby-eating 2-headed monsters and I find them morally reprehensible, that's why.
[ 30. November 2012, 05:03: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I think an acerbic note, from the blessed Stan Freeberg, on the "real" meaning of Christmas, might be in order at this point in time.
As sure as there's an "X" in Christmas, Tiny Tim
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I just watched a discussion on Fox News about the insistence by some groups and even by the Governor of Rhode Island that Christmas trees should be redesignated as 'Holiday trees'.
I cannot be the only person who noticed the similarity between that story and the reported false claims on snopes.com that the Obama White House called their Christmas trees 'Holiday trees' in 2009 and 2011. I could be wrong, but from here this sounds like another 'Winterval' myth.
[ 30. November 2012, 06:12: Message edited by: Alwyn ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Anyway, Christmas wouldn't be Christmas without a few really scratchy threads in Purg.
Peace on earth? Good will? There often tends to be a bit more "bah, humbug" about. Something to do with unrest and general economic downtime blues and general paranoia. Bloody Fox News. I need to get back to Youtube and watch Karl Rove exploding on US election night. Now that's a present I can open several times ...
Anyway, you don't know you're born. Why I remember a time when I thought it was a really good Christmas if I got an apple and an orange in my Christmas stocking (that was a home-made, hand knit woolly job). And beforehand, hearing my poor old mum, contemplating an empty purse and a shopping list full of impossible obligations, grumbling "I hate Christmas. I hate it .." Knew just what she meant.
Enough of my blethering. Do feel free to carry on. I'll just contemplate poverty and stables for a little while ..
[ 30. November 2012, 06:12: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by poileplume:
The government of Québec ruled that by law in this province by law a Christmas tree is a Christmas tree and nothing else. (Well actually it is a sapin de noel but that amounts to the same thing.)
I bet my guinea to your gooseberry that is a consequence of Francophone language law and nothing whatsoever to do with the Reason for the Season.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The second one WAS country-specific, and the first one was from a Purg host. You want me to pick fights with Purg hosts?
Thanks for the explanation! It's now perfectly clear to me how writing
quote:
Can people please stop referring to the pond as shorthand for "we do something different to the rest of the world"? Some of us are nowhere near the pond.
would have totally have been picking a fight with Barnabas62(!). Yes, yes, criticizing only Americans for a usage of the word "pond" that made you feel left out was definitely the only way to make your point while avoiding that bloodbath. Planking averted - well done!
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
EDIT: Oh look, let's just face it. Americans are horrible baby-eating 2-headed monsters and I find them morally reprehensible, that's why.
I'm glad to see you finally admitting this, Orfeo. It's the first step to recovery...
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Then he's not doing too well this year...
for him, for the ashes
Does this mean the sun won't rise on New Year's Day, and we'll have to find a couple of virgins to sacrifice in a whicker basket?
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
[tangent]
Can Americans please stop referring to the pond as shorthand for "we do something different to the rest of the world"? Some of us are nowhere near the pond.
It would be nice if you could restrict the word to things that genuinely do only involve North America and Europe. Such as the American Revolution and the one and only voyage of the Titanic.
[/tangent]
And on a thread that sets out to bash Americans, we're supposed to care about being nice?!
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Does this mean the sun won't rise on New Year's Day, and we'll have to find a couple of virgins to sacrifice in a whicker basket?
For gods' sake, Anselmina, when you sacrifice to Odin you hang the victim from a tree and stab him with a spear. Wicker baskets? No wonder the climate is all to Hel!
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on
:
Taranis, wasn't it?
Posted by barrea (# 3211) on
:
I'm now 85 but even when I was an infant I knew what a Chrstmas Tree was.
To all who celebrate Christmas it will always be a Christmas Tree,whatever other religions or the non religions call their trees.
Don't worry about it a Christmas tree will always be a Christmas tree.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
Quite right too barrea, as usual.
If you don't post again before the day, Merry Christmas to you and yours.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Does this mean the sun won't rise on New Year's Day, and we'll have to find a couple of virgins to sacrifice in a whicker basket?
You'd better find them before the Christmas parties start. Otherwise they may no longer be eligible.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
My guess is that the good governor of Rhode Island meant that the official term of the tree would be a "Holiday Tree." I seriously don't think that the governor intends to prosecute anyone who calls it a "Christmas Tree."
It's really much ado about nothing. Christians are of course, free to call it a "Christmas Tree" in the same way, that of course they can still say "Merry Christmas." The issue is whether or not it is appropriate in a pluralist, multi-faith society, whether or not the official and legal term for these things should have religious connotation.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
The official and legal term for a thing should have a religious connotation if the thing it is referring to has a religious connotation.
That's my point. Changing the name doesn't change the nature of the thing AT ALL. It's still a thing with a religious connotation even if you pretend that it doesn't. So why bother? Who is fooled by this? Do they think any particularly militant atheists who are keen to enforce the separation of church and state will be fooled? Do they think the local Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists etc etc etc suddenly won't recognise the shape/colour/species of the particular tree selected?
It's a remarkably empty gesture.
EDIT: And why stop at asking whether trees are allowed to be officially referred to with religious connotations? I can think of a few other things with religious connotations that get officially referred to. Church. That's a BAD one. Ramadan. Easter. SYNAGOGUE.
[ 30. November 2012, 23:51: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Faux Snooze is owned by a guy named Murdoch. Does this ring any bells on the other side of the pond?
Every year for at least the last 20 years Faux Snooze raises this red herring. They created the War on Christmas to generate advertisement revenue.
The real war on Christmas is the over commercialization of the season. Let's focus on doing neighborly things like the New York policeman giving a pair of new boots to a shoeless homeless man.
BTW, as a taxi driver who works with a lot of Muslim students here in America, whenever I ask them what they are going to do for winter break they ask me what I am going to do for Christmas. They don't seem offended by Christmas. In fact, they are genuinely interested in learning how we celebrate Christmas. And, often times, they ask about the Christian faith.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Faux Snooze is owned by a guy named Murdoch. Does this ring any bells on the other side of the pond?
Murdoch is not particularly cared for by decent people on any side of any pond, lake, river or wet tarmac.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
My guess is that the good governor of Rhode Island meant that the official term of the tree would be a "Holiday Tree." I seriously don't think that the governor intends to prosecute anyone who calls it a "Christmas Tree."
It's really much ado about nothing. Christians are of course, free to call it a "Christmas Tree" in the same way, that of course they can still say "Merry Christmas." The issue is whether or not it is appropriate in a pluralist, multi-faith society, whether or not the official and legal term for these things should have religious connotation.
The perennial Fox "Keep the winter public holiday Christian" is amusing because they cite traditional values and then point to Rhode Island, a place with a long history of religious nonconformity.
Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on
:
You could always get rid of the tree altogether and have a light installation instead!
And then people will complain about that, or at least the media will whip people up to complain about it...
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Let's focus on doing neighborly things like the New York policeman giving a pair of new boots to a shoeless homeless man.
Alternatively, we could move away from sentimentalising and give local government a year round duty to make sure everyone who needs to be housed, is housed.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Well, HERE is a tree I wouldn't even call a Christmas tree! LOL
It's the 'holiday' tree in a small village not too many miles from Newcastle.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Is the fence to protect it from Charlie Brown?
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I just watched a discussion on Fox News about the insistence by some groups and even by the Governor of Rhode Island that Christmas trees should be redesignated as 'Holiday trees'.
What is it with you people in the US and the stupidity of things like this?
Yep, mmm-hmmm, all three hundred and fourteen million of us, from sea to shining sea, think and behave exactly the same. THAT'S A FACT, JACK.
/sarcasm off
As a descendant of one of the first white settlers in Rhode Island, and as someone who managed to get _some_ of the history of that colony dinged into my tiny brain even at three thousand miles' remove near the shores of the Pacific, I would like to give BIG UPS to the Governor for continuing the PROUD Rhode Island and American tradition of religious pluralism and tolerance - however silly I might think this particular brouhaha is.
Not sure what the Blessed Roger's [PBUH] opinions about The Matter of Christmas Celebrations were. It is, of course, well-established (if often forgotten) what the leaders in the Mass. Bay colony thought of Christmas celebrations at the time. Perhaps someone more enlightened on this subject can share information about it.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
/tangent
Speaking of Blessed Roger...
/tangent
Posted by Miss Madrigal (# 15528) on
:
But should we put a Christmas tree in the chancel? We've got one up and glinting and my jokes about ecumenism now allowing us to embrace and worship wood spirits seems to be seen as grumpiness.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
There are legends around St Boniface and the Christmas tree if you want to find a Christian rationale.
Posted by Miss Madrigal (# 15528) on
:
Thank you Curiosity Killed ...
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The official and legal term for a thing should have a religious connotation if the thing it is referring to has a religious connotation.
That's my point. Changing the name doesn't change the nature of the thing AT ALL. It's still a thing with a religious connotation even if you pretend that it doesn't. So why bother? Who is fooled by this? Do they think any particularly militant atheists who are keen to enforce the separation of church and state will be fooled? Do they think the local Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists etc etc etc suddenly won't recognise the shape/colour/species of the particular tree selected?
It's a remarkably empty gesture.
EDIT: And why stop at asking whether trees are allowed to be officially referred to with religious connotations? I can think of a few other things with religious connotations that get officially referred to. Church. That's a BAD one. Ramadan. Easter. SYNAGOGUE.
So you're not allowed to have a secular tree? It has to be a Christmas tree and everyone should just pretend to be a Christian. Otherwise Fox News and Orfeo are going to smack you for watering down their appropriation of German pagan traditions.
If you're going to insist in holding your religious celebrations in the public square at goverment expense, don't be surprised if non Christians use the celebration for their own purposes.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
Mr. Rob: you may enjoy checking out "Church Sign Epic Fails, Advent Onslaught edition" , particularly #6
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The official and legal term for a thing should have a religious connotation if the thing it is referring to has a religious connotation.
That's my point. Changing the name doesn't change the nature of the thing AT ALL. It's still a thing with a religious connotation even if you pretend that it doesn't. So why bother? Who is fooled by this? Do they think any particularly militant atheists who are keen to enforce the separation of church and state will be fooled? Do they think the local Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists etc etc etc suddenly won't recognise the shape/colour/species of the particular tree selected?
It's a remarkably empty gesture.
EDIT: And why stop at asking whether trees are allowed to be officially referred to with religious connotations? I can think of a few other things with religious connotations that get officially referred to. Church. That's a BAD one. Ramadan. Easter. SYNAGOGUE.
So you're not allowed to have a secular tree? It has to be a Christmas tree and everyone should just pretend to be a Christian. Otherwise Fox News and Orfeo are going to smack you for watering down their appropriation of German pagan traditions.
If you're going to insist in holding your religious celebrations in the public square at goverment expense, don't be surprised if non Christians use the celebration for their own purposes.
I never said anything about 'not being allowed' to have a secular tree, but why on earth does your secular tree look exactly like a Christian tree if the purpose is to be not-a-Christian tree?
That's my point. I would have thought the sketch made that blindingly obvious, but apparently not.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I never said anything about 'not being allowed' to have a secular tree, but why on earth does your secular tree look exactly like a Christian tree if the purpose is to be not-a-Christian tree?
That's my point. I would have thought the sketch made that blindingly obvious, but apparently not. [/QB]
Because it's easier to relabel things for your own purposes than build new ones. Why is a Christmas tree exactly like a Yule tree? Do you think the Finnish Christmas Goat is an original idea?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Because it's easier to relabel things for your own purposes than build new ones.
In which case, you can fully expect to receive continued flak from people who recognise the thing and remember its old label.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Because it's easier to relabel things for your own purposes than build new ones.
In which case, you can fully expect to receive continued flak from people who recognise the thing and remember its old label.
Do you hear much from pagans about your appropriation of the winter solstice tree?
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Because it's easier to relabel things for your own purposes than build new ones.
In which case, you can fully expect to receive continued flak from people who recognise the thing and remember its old label.
Do you hear much from pagans about your appropriation of the winter solstice tree?
The Christmas tree isn't an appropriation from the pagans. It's a Christian invention. It comes from the medieval mystery plays and originally portrayed the Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden.
We talked about this last year.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
[The Christmas tree isn't an appropriation from the pagans. It's a Christian invention. It comes from the medieval mystery plays and originally portrayed the Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden.
We talked about this last year. [/QB]
I didn't know that the Garden of Eden had evergreen trees.
"The Holiday tree isn't an appropriation from the Christmas tree. It comes from the Department Store Window Displays for Holiday Shopping Season."
You see how it's done? Once you appropriate it, you file off the serial numbers. Then you can be indignant about someone else appropriating it from you.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
The garden of Eden had every kind of tree. How else did Noah bring two of each on the arc?
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I didn't know that the Garden of Eden had evergreen trees.
It had plastic evergreen tress, don'cha know? The grass was made from astro-turf.
quote:
"The Holiday tree isn't an appropriation from the Christmas tree. It comes from the Department Store Window Displays for Holiday Shopping Season."
You see how it's done? Once you appropriate it, you file off the serial numbers. Then you can be indignant about someone else appropriating it from you.
Except, if I recall last year's thread correctly, there's no indication pagans in Europe had anything like a Christmas tree as we know it. It doesn't appear in written accounts as far as I can remember. But Trees of Life in mystery plays do appear.
But your attitude is the same reason people can take the burrito and start calling it a wrap, so they can pretend the Mexicans had nothing to do with it when they sell it at their restaurants.
Likewise, call it a holiday tree and pretend Christianity had nothing to do with it. Of course, they wouldn't dream of doing the same thing with the menorah and calling it a "winter candelabra" or something. They know they couldn't get away with that.
[ 03. December 2012, 05:34: Message edited by: Pancho ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Problems. Tree of life plays are medieval in origin so your version does not wash. Their is no direct evidence of either proposition.
As far as wraps v. burritos, while I am not arguing that some may do what you suggest; Mexico is not the only place which uses flat, cooked, non-leavened mixtures of grain and water.
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Problems. Tree of life plays are medieval in origin so your version does not wash. Their is no direct evidence of either proposition.
As far as wraps v. burritos, while I am not arguing that some may do what you suggest; Mexico is not the only place which uses flat, cooked, non-leavened mixtures of grain and water.
I'll have to hunt down my links from last year but essentially the trees migrated from the mystery plays to the home after the middle ages, the association with Christmas comes because plays depicting the Fall Of Man were celebrated around Christmas time. Fun fact: Adam and Eve are saints in the Catholic Church and are remembered on December 24, Christmas Eve. You can read about it here: Today is the feast day of Adam and Eve
The analogy with burritos isn't perfect (I know Mexico isn't the only place that uses flat non-leavened bread, I've brought this up in Eccles when some have argued hosts aren't "real" bread, and other people eat food with fillings) but eh, it's close enough.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Wasn't the northern European pagan tree the oak and the mistletoe growing upon it? That would certainly make a good solid Yule log that would be more likely to burn for the 12 days of Yule, unlike a pine tree which has quicker burning sap and isn't a wood you use for fires, given any choice.
The legend of St Boniface I linked to earlier had him cutting down the pagan oak and finding a fir tree.
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on
:
Pancho: Your post caught my eye (re Adam and Eve), and I must tell you that it comes as a surprise to this Catholic.
It certainly isn't celebrated in the Canadian Church to my knowledge.
Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on
:
More to the point, I cannot find any Catholic liturgical calendar, of any vintage (even pre-Tridentine), which has such a feast on Dec 24. I've never heard of this before now, and to be honest I'm rather skeptical. Are there any hard sources on the subject (i.e., that such an observance exists and/or was ever celebrated liturgically)?
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
Pancho: Your post caught my eye (re Adam and Eve), and I must tell you that it comes as a surprise to this Catholic.
A lot of Latin Catholics themselves don't realize we hold many of the Old Testament figures to be saints. On the other hand Eastern Christians (Catholic and Orthodox) are aware of it. The reason I happened to know is because I happend to have a book of Saints when I was little that had a page dedicated to Adam and Eve. I remember it also had a page for Abraham (and I think Sarah). Fr. Z explains a little on his blog about ST. Samuel the Prophet:
quote:
Many of the great figures of the Old Testament are considered by Holy Church to be saints. They are not on the Latin Church’s universal calendar – except for a few of those mighty ones who stand astride the two covenants, whom you could name if you tried – but they are in the Roman Martyrology.
One reason they aren't celebrated in Canada is because they aren't on the General Roman Calendar, but most saints aren't either and even the Roman Martyrology doesn't contain all the saints recognized by the Catholic Church. Some saints are not on the General Calendar but nonetheless appear on the local calendars of countries, dioceses, and orders. For example, St. Elijah the Prophet is commemorated on the calendar of the Carmelite Order for July 20. There was also a variation in calendars between different places back in medieval times when the mystery plays were celebrated and before the institution of the Tridentine Calendar and the Roman Martyrology during the 16th century.
Plus, at different times different saints and feasts have been removed and restored to different calendars. For example, there is the feast of the Holy Name of Jesus that was removed from the general calendar with the reforms of 1969 but was restored to that calendar with the 2002 edition of the Roman Missal.
quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
More to the point, I cannot find any Catholic liturgical calendar, of any vintage (even pre-Tridentine), which has such a feast on Dec 24.
I've never heard of this before now, and to be honest I'm rather skeptical. Are there any hard sources on the subject (i.e., that such an observance exists and/or was ever celebrated liturgically)?
A saint doesn't have to be commemorated with a special Mass and his or her day doesn't have to hold the rank of an important feast or it be celebrated commonly at all times for a saint to be recognized officialy as a saint, or for that saint to have been celebrated at some time in some places among some people, This has been true for many if not most recognized saints. Think of all the local saints in Italy or France or Britain for that matter that most of us haven't heard of. If Wikipedia is correct, even the Roman Martyrology itself recognizes it doesn't contain the names of all the recognized saints.
I don't have time (or energy!) to do extensive searches but the various references I've found online about the Christmas Tree, it's probable origin in the medieval Mystery Plays/Paradise Plays and their Paradise Trees all refer to December 24 as the name day of Adam and Eve as did my childhood book of saints. It is why these plays about the Garden of Paradise were held specifically at Christmas time and not another time of year when the story of the Fall might also have been appropriate. I suppose books on those Paradise Plays and medieval drama would contain specific references. Also keep in mind what I wrote above of the differing calendars in different places in medieval times and the different reforms they went through.
For the present day the generally reliable Patron Saints Index gives entries for Adam and Eve for December 24 here and here. Currently there is no official translation in English of the Roman Martyrology online or in print but Fr. Z translated a bit of it for December 24 right here:
quote:
The commemoration of all the holy forefathers of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham, the son of Adam, namely of the fathers, who pleased God and were found to be just also according to the faith of the dead, having received none of the promises fulfilled, but regarding them and greeting them from afar, from which the Christ was born according to the flesh, who is blessed God above all things forever.
This applies to Adam and Eve. The "forefathers" of Christ mentioned in the geneologies of Christ in the Gospels include both men and women. The one from St. Matthew is proclaimed at the Vigil Mass for Christmas Eve although that one only goes back to Abraham, if I recall correctly. The one from St. Luke goes back to Adam.
A similar commemoration of Adam exists on the Byzantine Calendar. From Orthodoxwiki:
quote:
"The Sunday of the Holy Forefathers is the Sunday that falls between December 11-17, the second Sunday before the Nativity. The ancestors of Christ according to the flesh are remembered on this Sunday of the Nativity Fast.
All the great Fathers and Mothers and Prophets of the Old Testament, starting with Adam..."
The article quotes a hymn for that Sunday:
quote:
Through faith You justified the Forefathers, betrothing through them the Church of the gentiles. These saints exult in glory,..."
For the Roman Rite we should also take into account the Office of Readings of Holy Saturday. It assigns a homily from the 4th century which describes the ancient Christian belief in the Harrowing of Hell and it explicitly mentions Adam being led into Heaven:
quote:
He has gone to search for our first parent, as for a lost sheep. Greatly desiring to visit those who live in darkness and in the shadow of death,
he has gone to free from sorrow the captives Adam and Eve, he who is both God and the son of Eve. The Lord approached them bearing the cross, the
weapon that had won him the victory. At the sight of him Adam, the first man he had created, struck his breast in terror and cried out to everyone:
“My Lord be with you all”. Christ answered him: “And with your spirit”. He took him by the hand and raised him up, saying: “Awake, O sleeper, and
rise from the dead, and Christ will give you light”.
quote:
Rise, let us leave this place. The enemy led you out of the earthly paradise. I will not restore you to that paradise, but I will enthrone you in heaven. I forbade you the tree that was only a symbol of life, but see, I who am life itself am now one with you. I appointed cherubim to guard you as slaves are guarded, but now I make them worship you as God. The throne formed by cherubim awaits you, its bearers swift and eager.
The bridal chamber is adorned, the banquet is ready, the eternal dwelling places are prepared, the treasure houses of all good things lie open. The kingdom of heaven has been prepared for you from all eternity.
(source)
Here we have the Liturgy of the Hours, the official prayer of the Church, describing Adam and Eve's entry into heaven.
All of this is just a very long-winded explanation of why there's a connection between Adam and Eve and Christmas and of the Christian origins and symbolism of the Christmas Tree. Apologies to the hosts for so many links.
Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on
:
I keep coming back to one thought on this.. that taking a Christmas tree, re labeling it a Holiday
Tree really appeases no one. Christians may be unhappy with the "secularization" of a symbol they consider theirs. non-Christians are not appeased, because they recognize a re-named christian symbol when they see one. I think the only ones appeased are certain Christians who WANT to appease both sides, but don't quite know how to go about it.
yes, the practice of bringing greenery into the home in midwinter probably is non-Christian in origin, but that shouldn't matter... the Christmas holiday has much in it (including the timing) that was borrowed from outside Christianity.. so what? it's been morphed, modified, and adopted by Christians for quite some time now, and more importantly it's generally recognized as being associated with a Christian holiday by Christians and non Christians alike in most of the world.
It's a Christmas tree. My non-Christian friends are not fooled by the name change. If the goal is to be inclusive and not offend other faiths, don't use a cone shaped, decorated green thing by whatever name. use something with NO religious association at all, or else multiple items associated with each of the different holidays.
Unless you are in the former USSR. Then the tree is a "New Years Tree", all religious association having been stripped from it nearly a century ago. It is now generally recognized as being specific to the secular holiday of New Years, and generally accepted as such even by Christians there, the tree being a relatively new addition to the Christmas celebration in most of those countries anyway.
Posted by Squibs (# 14408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
I think -
'What is it with you people in the US and the stupidity of things like this?'
could reasonably be construed as such.
I don't think that it would have been reasonable to conclude from that quote that Mudfrog was railing against 300 million people.
The classy response would have been "Oh, right. I now understand".
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0