| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Gactimus" |
| Date: |
20 Dec 2004 07:52:40 PM |
| Object: |
Dems Silent on Anti-Christmas Campaign |
I was struck upon reading Charles Krauthammer's piece on Christmas in this
morning's Washington Post, which read in part:
"The attempts to de-Christianize Christmas are as absurd as they are
relentless. The United States today is the most tolerant and diverse
society in history. It celebrates all faiths with an open heart and open-
mindedness that, compared to even the most advanced countries in Europe,
are unique."
Yet more than 80 percent of Americans are Christian, and probably 95
percent of Americans celebrate Christmas. Christmas Day is an official
federal holiday, the only day of the entire year when, for example, the
Smithsonian museums are closed. Are we to pretend that Christmas is nothing
but an orgy of commerce in celebration of . . . what? The winter solstice?
The idea hit me that the recent spate of anti-Christmas absurdities
presents a fabulous "Sista Soulja moment" for the Democrats. After their
November 2nd drubbing, many – nay most – high level Dems promised to start
speaking to church-goers in middle America.
Just listen to three of the leading candidates for DNC Chair:
"'Our moral values are closer to the American people than the Republicans
are,' said Dean, a former Vermont governor who also passed out cans of his
state's maple syrup.
Simon Rosenberg, president of the centrist New Democrat Network, said, "We
cannot cede the debate about values and we need to embrace being a
Democrat."
Don Fowler of California told the crowd of more than 100 Democratic
leaders, 'I am a Democrat because I am a Christian, not in spite of it.'"
What better time, what better way to fulfill this commitment and show the
American people you mean business than to speak out now on behalf of
Christmas. Surely, that’s not too controversial a leap for the Dems, is it?
Alas, it is. Indeed, the silence from the left on these anti-Christmas
stories is chilling. Might they actually endorse such measures in towns
like Somerville, MA, which celebrated at a "Holiday Party" they
"mistakenly" called a "Christmas Party" (and later publicly apologized for
the mistake)? Or the canceling of a Christian rock band in a Toledo high
school for fear that it'd offend some kids?
Well, maybe. But more probably, Dems are just oblivious to these stories,
or rather don't know what the big deal is. That's because Democrats can
talk about talking to middle-Americans about values, but they can't
actually do it because they don't know who we are and they don't know what
the values we hold are all about. They don't know what we care about and
they don't know anything about the symbols that make those values stand out
in the public square. If they did, you'd hear Howard Dean condemning the
de-Christianization of Christmas while on the stump for DNC Chair.
Instead we get this from Frank Rich, the chief scribbler for the DNC’s
daily circular, the New York Times:
What is this about? How can those in this country's overwhelming religious
majority maintain that they are victims in a fiery battle with forces of
darkness? It is certainly not about actual victimization. Christmas is as
pervasive as it has ever been in America, where it wasn't even declared a
federal holiday until after the Civil War. What's really going on here is
yet another example of a post-Election-Day winner-takes-all power grab by
the "moral values" brigade. As Mr. Gibson shrewdly contrived his own
crucifixion all the way to the bank, trumping up nonexistent threats to his
movie to hype it, so the creation of imagined enemies and exaggerated
threats to Christianity by "moral values" mongers of the right has its own
secular purpose. The idea is to intimidate and marginalize anyone who
objects to their efforts to impose the most conservative of Christian dogma
on public policy. If you're against their views, you don't have a differing
opinion -- you're anti-Christian (even if you are a Christian).
And as long as the Frank Rich's of the world dictate what passes for high
thinking in the Democrat Party and the cultural left, you'll continue to
hear the crickets chirp when "moral values" comes up wherever two or more
Democrats assemble.
.
|
|
| User: "Mike Williams" |
|
| Title: Re: Dems Silent on Anti-Christmas Campaign |
20 Dec 2004 08:33:14 PM |
|
|
Gactimus wrote:
"The attempts to de-Christianize Christmas are as absurd as they are
relentless. The United States today is the most tolerant and diverse
society in history.
Except for others like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, ...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher Benson-Manica" |
|
| Title: Re: Dems Silent on Anti-Christmas Campaign |
20 Dec 2004 09:17:52 PM |
|
|
In talk.abortion Mike Williams <mike_nospam@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
Except for others like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, ...
Canada isn't tolerant; it's militantly politically correct.
--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.
.
|
|
|
| User: "SDesk" |
|
| Title: Re: Dems Silent on Anti-Christmas Campaign |
20 Dec 2004 09:49:46 PM |
|
|
Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:
| In talk.abortion Mike Williams <mike_nospam@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
|
|| Except for others like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, ...
|
| Canada isn't tolerant; it's militantly politically correct.
What a generalization of 32 million people! Canada has a dynamic play of
elements some very 'politically correct' others not so. Political
correctness, however, will sometimes gain the upper hand because of the way
the Charter of Rights and Freedoms gets interpreted by the Supreme Court.
Some political correctness is good, of course, much is very bad.
There is a tremendous need in Canada to fight what is considered intolerance
and bigotry. There are *so* many divers groups and cultures sharing this
country that there's probably some need for political correctness.
Thankfully, there is no official separation of religion from State, so God
can be mentioned and prayed to officially. He tends to get very generic
treatment mind you, but He can be acknowledged all the same. Teachers can
mention Christmas in schools without the axe falling etc. as well as any
other holiday from any other religion. If a teacher were to rant against
Hinduism, though, I think that she would face censor as members of all
religions have the right to reasonably fair treatment.
However, don't take this as a rosy picture because there is incredible and
vicious injustice and crime in that the Canadian governments ( Fed. and
Prov. ) enable the abortion of a hundres thousand unborn every year.
In many ways our justice system *really* needs updating and to move very
much away from the American style which is so flawed and so wrong. I don't
know if Canada is socially ready for what is really needed they've been so
brainwashed by certain aspects of American culture. But there does seem to
be a leeway here that the States doesn't enjoy.
Also, the 'marriage' of homosexuals is legal here. This is not so bad as one
might think, at least not yet. We've decided not to make discriminations
based on sexual orientation .. this marriage business is a natural
conclusion of that. The married homosexual couples behave foolishly and get
'married' if they so wish, their behaviour is foolish already anyway. Yet
they remain free from arbitrary discrimination at work etc. .. which is
probably a good thing. Way back in the sixties the govenment decided to get
out of the nation's bedrooms so..
But there are plenty of people here, probably more than ever since a number
of years, who have turned back to Churches and have turned against abortion,
so I haven't given up hope on Canada yet. Prayer is a good thing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gactimus" |
|
| Title: Re: Dems Silent on Anti-Christmas Campaign |
21 Dec 2004 07:33:34 AM |
|
|
"SDesk" <sdeskpassport@coldmail.com> wrote in
news:rvGdnR61qP3FAFrcRVn-pA@rogers.com:
Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:
| In talk.abortion Mike Williams <mike_nospam@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
|
|| Except for others like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, ...
|
| Canada isn't tolerant; it's militantly politically correct.
What a generalization of 32 million people! Canada has a dynamic play of
elements some very 'politically correct' others not so. Political
correctness, however, will sometimes gain the upper hand because of the
way the Charter of Rights and Freedoms gets interpreted by the Supreme
Court. Some political correctness is good, of course, much is very bad.
There is a tremendous need in Canada to fight what is considered
intolerance and bigotry. There are *so* many divers groups and cultures
sharing this country that there's probably some need for political
correctness.
Political correctness is polite fascism.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Dems Silent on Anti-Christmas Campaign |
21 Dec 2004 08:27:03 PM |
|
|
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
Political correctness is polite fascism.
For example: The rabid political correctness of the neocons who accuse
anybody who dares to criticize the Bush regime of being traitors,
cowards, or unAmerican.
Except that you're not a polite fascist.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Heidi Graw" |
|
| Title: Re: Dems Silent on Anti-Christmas Campaign |
22 Dec 2004 05:09:22 AM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cqam1m$18c$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
Political correctness is polite fascism.
Ray wrote:
For example: The rabid political correctness of the neocons who accuse
anybody who dares to criticize the Bush regime of being traitors,
cowards, or unAmerican.
What I don't like about the term "unAmerican" is that it's meant to be a bad
thing...it's to be taken as an insult. As a Canadian, I am decidedly
unAmerican as are over 6 billion other people around the globe. So, to me
being unAmerican is actually a good thing and I would be among the
majority...a great vast huge majority!
Oh well...to any Americans who are accused of being unAmerican, feel free to
immigrate to Canada or other points around the globe. You'll be among
billions of other unAmericans. This should make you feel right at home and
welcome! And none of us unAmericans will feel insulted, will we? ;-)
Fröhliche Weihnachten! (translation: Happy Holy Nights....the German
greeting for this time of year.)
Heidi
.
|
|
|
| User: "SDesk" |
|
| Title: Re: Dems Silent on Anti-Christmas Campaign |
22 Dec 2004 09:56:00 AM |
|
|
Heidi Graw wrote:
|| "Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
|| news:cqam1m$18c$1@bolt.sonic.net...
|| Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
||| Political correctness is polite fascism.
|
|| Ray wrote:
|| For example: The rabid political correctness of the neocons who accuse
|| anybody who dares to criticize the Bush regime of being traitors,
|| cowards, or unAmerican.
|
| What I don't like about the term "unAmerican" is that it's meant to be a
| bad thing...it's to be taken as an insult. As a Canadian, I am decidedly
| unAmerican as are over 6 billion other people around the globe. So, to me
| being unAmerican is actually a good thing and I would be among the
| majority...a great vast huge majority!
|
| Oh well...to any Americans who are accused of being unAmerican, feel free
| to immigrate to Canada or other points around the globe. You'll be among
| billions of other unAmericans. This should make you feel right at home
| and welcome! And none of us unAmericans will feel insulted, will we? ;-)
|
| Fröhliche Weihnachten! (translation: Happy Holy Nights....the German
| greeting for this time of year.)
|
| Heidi
The term is an insult of course, a way to exercise social control within
America. The idea is that the other's opinion or world-view is wrong -
almost traitorous - because it doesn't adhere to some vague sense of
American values - whatever they are - usually connected to the *insulter's*
opinions of course - so they had better conform to your opinion on threat of
shame and censure.
To Americans, Americans can be either American or unAmerican. To them,
people in other countries - non-Americans - can be either pro-American or
anti-American. It's all about America - it's an Ameri-centric way of
expressing oneself.
For "non-Americans" like you and me, if we want to feel better about it we
need to move 'America' out of the center of our expression.
Oh, and feel thankful that the term "unAmerican" falls flat on you and
doesn't have the controlling effect that the speaker intended it to have on
you. Be glad you can be free of America.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn \Christian Mystic" |
|
| Title: Re: Dems Silent on Anti-Christmas Campaign |
13 Dec 2005 06:57:29 PM |
|
|
So, its ok to support the enemy ? If you don't support stopping the enemy,
you support what they(the enemy, presently terrorists) are doing, and the
deaths of our men and women in uniform.
Being from a military family, I know that most people wearing the uniforms,
and their families see "supporting the military" as supporting them to the
completion of their missions, and "bringing them home" before the missions
are successfully completed as bringing them home defeated, and making the
deaths of those who died trying to complete these missions a meanless waste,
in that they had died for *nothing*. If you support our young men and women
in uniform, you *back what they are doing* PERIOD
"SDesk" <sdeskpassport@coldmail.com> wrote in message
news:ZaydnUjissaWBFTcRVn-vg@rogers.com...
Heidi Graw wrote:
|| "Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
|| news:cqam1m$18c$1@bolt.sonic.net...
|| Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
||| Political correctness is polite fascism.
|
|| Ray wrote:
|| For example: The rabid political correctness of the neocons who accuse
|| anybody who dares to criticize the Bush regime of being traitors,
|| cowards, or unAmerican.
|
| What I don't like about the term "unAmerican" is that it's meant to be a
| bad thing...it's to be taken as an insult. As a Canadian, I am
decidedly
| unAmerican as are over 6 billion other people around the globe. So, to
me
| being unAmerican is actually a good thing and I would be among the
| majority...a great vast huge majority!
|
| Oh well...to any Americans who are accused of being unAmerican, feel
free
| to immigrate to Canada or other points around the globe. You'll be
among
| billions of other unAmericans. This should make you feel right at home
| and welcome! And none of us unAmericans will feel insulted, will we?
;-)
|
| Fröhliche Weihnachten! (translation: Happy Holy Nights....the German
| greeting for this time of year.)
|
| Heidi
The term is an insult of course, a way to exercise social control within
America. The idea is that the other's opinion or world-view is wrong -
almost traitorous - because it doesn't adhere to some vague sense of
American values - whatever they are - usually connected to the
*insulter's*
opinions of course - so they had better conform to your opinion on threat
of
shame and censure.
To Americans, Americans can be either American or unAmerican. To them,
people in other countries - non-Americans - can be either pro-American or
anti-American. It's all about America - it's an Ameri-centric way of
expressing oneself.
For "non-Americans" like you and me, if we want to feel better about it we
need to move 'America' out of the center of our expression.
Oh, and feel thankful that the term "unAmerican" falls flat on you and
doesn't have the controlling effect that the speaker intended it to have
on
you. Be glad you can be free of America.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Dems Silent on Anti-Christmas Campaign |
13 Dec 2005 08:42:22 PM |
|
|
Glenn \(Christian Mystic\) <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote:
So, its ok to support the enemy ? If you don't support stopping the enemy,
you support what they(the enemy, presently terrorists) are doing, and the
deaths of our men and women in uniform.
Excellent propaganda. Probably very similar to the propaganda used to
justify 9/11.
Being from a military family, I know that most people wearing the uniforms,
and their families see "supporting the military" as supporting them to the
completion of their missions, and "bringing them home" before the missions
are successfully completed as bringing them home defeated, and making the
deaths of those who died trying to complete these missions a meanless waste,
in that they had died for *nothing*. If you support our young men and women
in uniform, you *back what they are doing* PERIOD
So having more soldiers die is the way to make the deaths of soldiers
"meaningful"?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Howard Brazee" |
|
| Title: Re: Dems Silent on Anti-Christmas Campaign |
13 Dec 2005 09:51:03 PM |
|
|
On 13 Dec 2005 18:42:22 -0800, (Ray Fischer)
wrote:
So having more soldiers die is the way to make the deaths of soldiers
"meaningful"?
Remember the line in Patton?
"Now I want you to remember that no ***** ever won a war by dying
for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb ***** die
for his country. "
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Dems Silent on Anti-Christmas Campaign |
14 Dec 2005 12:01:33 PM |
|
|
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
Remember the line in Patton?
"Now I want you to remember that no ***** ever won a war by dying
for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb ***** die
for his country. "
"He who fights and runs away lives to fight another day."
The Princess Bride
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Dems Silent on Anti-Christmas Campaign |
14 Dec 2005 12:45:47 AM |
|
|
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer)
So having more soldiers die is the way to make the deaths of soldiers
"meaningful"?
Remember the line in Patton?
"Now I want you to remember that no ***** ever won a war by dying
for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb ***** die
for his country. "
And the "poor dumb bastards" in Iraq aren't even dying for their own
country. They're dying for somebody else's country.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Eney" |
|
| Title: Re: Dems Silent on Anti-Christmas Campaign |
14 Dec 2005 08:46:43 AM |
|
|
In article <dnof2r$2l7$1@bolt.sonic.net>,
Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer)
So having more soldiers die is the way to make the deaths of soldiers
"meaningful"?
Remember the line in Patton?
"Now I want you to remember that no ***** ever won a war by dying
for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb ***** die
for his country. "
And the "poor dumb bastards" in Iraq aren't even dying for their own
country. They're dying for somebody else's country.
Sure. Just like our guys in World War Twice were dying for England,
France and Russia.
And for poor dumb bastards who think that where a person dies is wy he
dies.
-- ***** Eney
OPERATION CRIFANAC PUBLICATIONS
http://www.crifanac.net/Index.htm
prozines and fanzines 'n' stuff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Dems Silent on Anti-Christmas Campaign |
14 Dec 2005 12:01:58 PM |
|
|
Richard Eney <dicconf@radix.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer)
So having more soldiers die is the way to make the deaths of soldiers
"meaningful"?
Remember the line in Patton?
"Now I want you to remember that no ***** ever won a war by dying
for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb ***** die
for his country. "
And the "poor dumb bastards" in Iraq aren't even dying for their own
country. They're dying for somebody else's country.
Sure. Just like our guys in World War Twice were dying for England,
France and Russia.
Since Nazi Germany had declared war against the United States and was
actually a threat to the US, your analogy is the typically stupid
idiocy we've come to expect from right-wing cultists who believe every
bit of ***** propaganda fed to them.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: Dems Silent on Anti-Christmas Campaign |
14 Dec 2005 04:21:16 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:dnpmmm$pnq$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Richard Eney <dicconf@radix.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer)
So having more soldiers die is the way to make the deaths of
soldiers "meaningful"?
Remember the line in Patton?
"Now I want you to remember that no ***** ever won a war by dying
for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb ***** die
for his country. "
And the "poor dumb bastards" in Iraq aren't even dying for their own
country. They're dying for somebody else's country.
Sure. Just like our guys in World War Twice were dying for England,
France and Russia.
Since Nazi Germany had declared war against the United States and was
actually a threat to the US, your analogy is the typically stupid
idiocy we've come to expect from right-wing cultists who believe every
bit of ***** propaganda fed to them.
FDR was waging a naval war against Germany long before Germany ever declared
war on us.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Dems Silent on Anti-Christmas Campaign |
14 Dec 2005 04:59:48 PM |
|
|
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Richard Eney <dicconf@radix.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer)
So having more soldiers die is the way to make the deaths of
soldiers "meaningful"?
Remember the line in Patton?
"Now I want you to remember that no ***** ever won a war by dying
for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb ***** die
for his country. "
And the "poor dumb bastards" in Iraq aren't even dying for their own
country. They're dying for somebody else's country.
Sure. Just like our guys in World War Twice were dying for England,
France and Russia.
Since Nazi Germany had declared war against the United States and was
actually a threat to the US, your analogy is the typically stupid
idiocy we've come to expect from right-wing cultists who believe every
bit of ***** propaganda fed to them.
FDR was waging a naval war against Germany long before Germany ever declared
war on us.
Revisionist history. Like most stupid neocons you depend upon such
lies in order to justify your fascist ideology.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: Dems Silent on Anti-Christmas Campaign |
15 Dec 2005 07:22:10 AM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:dnq854$lbc$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
Richard Eney <dicconf@radix.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer)
So having more soldiers die is the way to make the deaths of
soldiers "meaningful"?
Remember the line in Patton?
"Now I want you to remember that no ***** ever won a war by dying
for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb *****
die for his country. "
And the "poor dumb bastards" in Iraq aren't even dying for their own
country. They're dying for somebody else's country.
Sure. Just like our guys in World War Twice were dying for England,
France and Russia.
Since Nazi Germany had declared war against the United States and was
actually a threat to the US, your analogy is the typically stupid
idiocy we've come to expect from right-wing cultists who believe every
bit of ***** propaganda fed to them.
FDR was waging a naval war against Germany long before Germany ever
declared war on us.
Revisionist history. Like most stupid neocons you depend upon such
lies in order to justify your fascist ideology.
I bet you think the holocaust never happened either.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Eney" |
|
| Title: Re: Dems Silent on Anti-Christmas Campaign |
16 Dec 2005 08:30:48 PM |
|
|
In article <dnq854$lbc$1@bolt.sonic.net>,
Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
FDR was waging a naval war against Germany long before Germany ever declared
war on us.
Revisionist history. Like most stupid neocons you depend upon such
lies in order to justify your fascist ideology.
Is it just me, or do the rest of you detect a hostile tone in Fischer's
responses?
-- ***** Eney
.
|
|
|
| User: "BOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Dems Silent on Anti-Christmas Campaign |
17 Dec 2005 01:22:14 PM |
|
|
(Richard Eney) wrote in
news:11q6u2o5934ufe8@corp.supernews.com:
In article <dnq854$lbc$1@bolt.sonic.net>,
Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
FDR was waging a naval war against Germany long before Germany ever
declared war on us.
Revisionist history. Like most stupid neocons you depend upon such
lies in order to justify your fascist ideology.
Is it just me, or do the rest of you detect a hostile tone in
Fischer's responses?
-- ***** Eney
Yes, it's just you *****.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Dems Silent on Anti-Christmas Campaign |
17 Dec 2005 12:58:00 PM |
|
|
Richard Eney <dicconf@radix.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
FDR was waging a naval war against Germany long before Germany ever declared
war on us.
Revisionist history. Like most stupid neocons you depend upon such
lies in order to justify your fascist ideology.
Is it just me, or do the rest of you detect a hostile tone in Fischer's
responses?
I don't like it when people use lies to justify atrocities.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "D. Patterson" |
|
| Title: Re: Dems Silent on Anti-Christmas Campaign |
14 Dec 2005 04:46:02 PM |
|
|
Deuteros wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:dnpmmm$pnq$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Richard Eney <dicconf@radix.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer)
So having more soldiers die is the way to make the deaths of
soldiers "meaningful"?
Remember the line in Patton?
"Now I want you to remember that no ***** ever won a war by dying
for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb ***** die
for his country. "
And the "poor dumb bastards" in Iraq aren't even dying for their own
country. They're dying for somebody else's country.
Sure. Just like our guys in World War Twice were dying for England,
France and Russia.
Since Nazi Germany had declared war against the United States and was
actually a threat to the US, your analogy is the typically stupid
idiocy we've come to expect from right-wing cultists who believe every
bit of ***** propaganda fed to them.
FDR was waging a naval war against Germany long before Germany ever declared
war on us.
False. The German Kreigsmarine U-boats began the clandestine war upon
upon the neutral merchant ships of the United States and other nations
in Septmeber 1939, which was prior to Roosevelt's response with the
Neutrality Patrol.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: Dems Silent on Anti-Christmas Campaign |
15 Dec 2005 07:24:45 AM |
|
|
"D. Patterson" <nye@fidalgo.net> wrote in
news:43A0A0AA.7030506@fidalgo.net:
Deuteros wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:dnpmmm$pnq$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Richard Eney <dicconf@radix.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer)
So having more soldiers die is the way to make the deaths of
soldiers "meaningful"?
Remember the line in Patton?
"Now I want you to remember that no ***** ever won a war by dying
for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb ***** die
for his country. "
And the "poor dumb bastards" in Iraq aren't even dying for their own
country. They're dying for somebody else's country.
Sure. Just like our guys in World War Twice were dying for England,
France and Russia.
Since Nazi Germany had declared war against the United States and was
actually a threat to the US, your analogy is the typically stupid
idiocy we've come to expect from right-wing cultists who believe every
bit of ***** propaganda fed to them.
FDR was waging a naval war against Germany long before Germany ever
declared war on us.
False. The German Kreigsmarine U-boats began the clandestine war upon
upon the neutral merchant ships of the United States and other nations
in Septmeber 1939, which was prior to Roosevelt's response with the
Neutrality Patrol.
You mean the "neutral" merchant ships that were delivering supplies to
Germany's enemies?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Eney" |
|
| Title: Re: Dems Silent on Anti-Christmas Campaign |
16 Dec 2005 08:28:36 PM |
|
|
In article <43A0A0AA.7030506@fidalgo.net>,
D. Patterson <nye@fidalgo.net> wrote:
Deuteros wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:dnpmmm$pnq$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Richard Eney <dicconf@radix.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer)
Now, pay attention, people. There will be a pop quiz later to find out
which of you can figure out who said what.
FDR was waging a naval war against Germany long before Germany ever declared
war on us.
False. The German Kreigsmarine U-boats began the clandestine war upon
upon the neutral merchant ships of the United States and other nations
in Septmeber 1939, which was prior to Roosevelt's response with the
Neutrality Patrol.
Actually, I believe unrestricted warfare against ships entering the
"maritime exclusilon zone" around Britain began some months after the
outbreak of hostilities. However, your general proposition remains true:
the Nazis started shooting at us well before the Neutrality Patrol or the
destroyers-for-bases deal.
-- ***** Eney
OPERATION CRIFANAC PUBLICATIONS
http://www.crifanac.net/Index.htm
prozines and fanzines 'n' stuff
.
|
|
|
| User: "D. Patterson" |
|
| Title: Re: Dems Silent on Anti-Christmas Campaign |
16 Dec 2005 09:14:38 PM |
|
|
Richard Eney wrote:
In article <43A0A0AA.7030506@fidalgo.net>,
D. Patterson <nye@fidalgo.net> wrote:
Deuteros wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:dnpmmm$pnq$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Richard Eney <dicconf@radix.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer)
Now, pay attention, people. There will be a pop quiz later to find out
which of you can figure out who said what.
FDR was waging a naval war against Germany long before Germany ever declared
war on us.
False. The German Kreigsmarine U-boats began the clandestine war upon
upon the neutral merchant ships of the United States and other nations
in Septmeber 1939, which was prior to Roosevelt's response with the
Neutrality Patrol.
Actually, I believe unrestricted warfare against ships entering the
"maritime exclusilon zone" around Britain began some months after the
outbreak of hostilities. However, your general proposition remains true:
the Nazis started shooting at us well before the Neutrality Patrol or the
destroyers-for-bases deal.
-- ***** Eney
OPERATION CRIFANAC PUBLICATIONS
http://www.crifanac.net/Index.htm
prozines and fanzines 'n' stuff
Germany's publicly announced policy to sink neutral shipping in the war
zones was issued on 30 January 1941. Germany's clandestine sinking of
neutral shipping began in September 1939, although U.S. flagged merchant
ships were mostly exempted to avoid incidents which would bring the U.S.
into the war against Germany. Merchant shipping flagged under other
neutral nations, carrying U.S. cargoes, and lacking the seapower of the
U.S. were targeted for the clandestine sinkings under the false guise of
mistakes. U.S. flagged merchantman Robin Moor was sunk with torpedo and
gunfire by U-69 off the coast of West Africa on 21 May 1941.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Howard Brazee" |
|
| Title: Re: Dems Silent on Anti-Christmas Campaign |
14 Dec 2005 05:34:42 PM |
|
|
On 14 Dec 2005 10:01:58 -0800, (Ray Fischer)
wrote:
Since Nazi Germany had declared war against the United States and was
actually a threat to the US, your analogy is the typically stupid
idiocy we've come to expect from right-wing cultists who believe every
bit of ***** propaganda fed to them.
But bin Laden is at war with the U.S., which is why we attacked Iraq
for him.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Dems Silent on Anti-Christmas Campaign |
14 Dec 2005 11:23:33 AM |
|
|
Richard Eney <dicconf@radix.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer)
So having more soldiers die is the way to make the deaths of soldiers
"meaningful"?
Remember the line in Patton?
"Now I want you to remember that no ***** ever won a war by dying
for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb ***** die
for his country. "
And the "poor dumb bastards" in Iraq aren't even dying for their own
country. They're dying for somebody else's country.
Sure. Just like our guys in World War Twice were dying for England,
France and Russia.
Since Nazi Germany had declared war against the United States as was
actually a threat to the US, your analogy is the typically stupid
idiocy we've come to expect from right-wing cultists who believe every
bit of ***** propaganda fed to them.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Eney" |
|
| Title: Re: Dems Silent on Anti-Christmas Campaign |
16 Dec 2005 08:22:17 PM |
|
|
In article <dnpkel$n9a$1@bolt.sonic.net>,
Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
Richard Eney <dicconf@radix.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer)
So having more soldiers die is the way to make the deaths of soldiers
"meaningful"?
Remember the line in Patton?
"Now I want you to remember that no ***** ever won a war by dying
for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb ***** die
for his country. "
And the "poor dumb bastards" in Iraq aren't even dying for their own
country. They're dying for somebody else's country.
Sure. Just like our guys in World War Twice were dying for England,
France and Russia.
Since Nazi Germany had declared war against the United States as was
actually a threat to the US, your analogy is the typically stupid
idiocy we've come to expect from right-wing cultists who believe every
bit of ***** propaganda fed to them.
*Sigh* The usual leftist kneejerk.
Nazi Germany's ability to mount a (transAtlantic) invasion of the United
States has not come to my attention in the course of a fairly extensive
reading of military history.
And if "right-wing cultists" include union organizers and land-reform
activists, send us more such cultists. And fewer leftists who see any
opposition to their Politically Correct line as "stupid idiocy".
-- ***** Eney
OPERATION CRIFANAC PUBLICATIONS
http://www.crifanac.net/Index.htm
prozines and fanzines 'n' stuff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Lurndal" |
|
| Title: Re: Dems Silent on Anti-Christmas Campaign |
03 Jan 2006 07:37:50 PM |
|
|
(Richard Eney) writes:
In article <dnpkel$n9a$1@bolt.sonic.net>,
Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
Richard Eney < > wrote:
Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer)
So having more soldiers die is the way to make the deaths of soldiers
"meaningful"?
Remember the line in Patton?
"Now I want you to remember that no ***** ever won a war by dying
for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb ***** die
for his country. "
And the "poor dumb bastards" in Iraq aren't even dying for their own
country. They're dying for somebody else's country.
Sure. Just like our guys in World War Twice were dying for England,
France and Russia.
Since Nazi Germany had declared war against the United States as was
actually a threat to the US, your analogy is the typically stupid
idiocy we've come to expect from right-wing cultists who believe every
bit of ***** propaganda fed to them.
*Sigh* The usual leftist kneejerk.
C'est what?
Nazi Germany's ability to mount a (transAtlantic) invasion of the United
States has not come to my attention in the course of a fairly extensive
reading of military history.
if, however, germany had defeated britian and the USSR, a quite likely
possibility sans american involvment , they _would_ have been a
translatlantic threat, nicht wahr?
scott
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "*Peace of Christ*" |
|
| Title: Re: Dems Silent on Anti-Christmas Campaign |
17 Dec 2005 09:27:24 AM |
|
|
Is the 'war on Christmas' worth fighting against?
By Robert Marus
Published: December 15, 2005
WASHINGTON (ABP) -- Is the "war on Christmas" one worth fighting? Despite
the dutiful culture warriors lining up to defend the religious trappings
of the holiday, some Christian ethicists aren't so sure it's a wise battle
to pick.
Since November, some conservative Christian personalities and
organizations have stepped up their annual efforts to pressure retailers
and government officials to dump generic or secularized references to the
"holidays" or the "season" rather than "Christmas." Retailers are
responding.
"This year, more than ever in my memory, people have really begun to think
about the reason for the season -- and I think it's because of what
happened in the retail market," said Mat Staver, president of the
Orlando-based Liberty Counsel. Staver's national association of
conservative Christian lawyers has led for years in activism bent on
keeping religious references in public holiday displays.
Retailers -- and government officials -- are taking notice:
-- In November, Staver's group succeeded in getting the mayor of Boston to
re-christen the official city "holiday tree" as a "Christmas tree."
-- The American Family Association threatened a boycott of Target until
the department-store chain promised it would use the word "Christmas" in
some of its advertising for the season.
-- Before Thanksgiving, conservative Southern Baptist televangelist Jerry
Falwell encouraged pastors on his e-mail list to "draw a line in the sand
and resist bullying tactics of the ACLU and others who intimidate school
and government officials by spreading misinformation about Christmas."
-- Fox News host Bill O'Reilly flogs the "War on Christmas" almost nightly
on his "O'Reilly Factor" show, where he lists retailers who aren't using
the "merry Christmas" greeting.
-- The Family Research Council is promoting a new book authored by
O'Reilly's Fox colleague, anchor John Gibson. It's called The War on
Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is
Worse Than You Thought.
-- Even President Bush hasn't escaped criticism. Some conservative groups
chastised the Methodist in the White House recently for not mentioning
Christ or Christmas in the million-plus holiday cards the Bushes sent to
friends, supporters and diplomats this year. The practice is no different
than in Bush's previous four holiday seasons in office.
What's going on?
According to religious-freedom expert Charles Haynes, the conflict is
superficial, but it gets at the heart of what it means to be an American
in a society of ever-expanding religious diversity.
"I think that they are -- many of these examples -- are distractions from
the real issues; I think they are red herrings. Or red and green
herrings," he said, with a laugh. Haynes is a First Amendment scholar at
the Washington-based Freedom Forum.
But the underlying issues aren't laughing matters, he noted.
"The examples about Wal-Mart not using 'Merry Christmas' in its ads,
Lowe's putting up signs that say 'holiday trees' they're reacting to a
kind of political correctness on the left, if you will, that has made us
all more sensitive to our religious diversity," Haynes said. "But this
religious correctness from the other side is equally ridiculous, you know
-- somehow telling people by saying 'happy holidays' they're
anti-Christian."
David Gushee, a Christian ethicist at Union University in Jackson, Tenn.,
said one's view of the conflict may very well depend on one's context.
"The shift to more generic holiday greetings can be read either as a
symbol of growing secularization in America or as an enhanced sensitivity
to the real religious diversity of our nation. Both are probably true," he
said, in an e-mail interview.
"As with many other church-state issues, here in the small-town South the
culture is so overwhelmingly 'Christian' that it strikes us as odd indeed
when 'Christ' is taken out of 'Christmas,'" Gushee continued. "It is easy
to forget that the rest of the country is much more diverse."
Haynes said much of the uproar owes to conservative Christians' reaction
-- perhaps an overreaction -- to a handful of ham-handed efforts by
government officials attempting to avoid holiday-season violations of the
First Amendment.
"For example, sometimes public schools do go too far in trying to be
inclusive or sensitive to diversity, end up improperly excluding
Christianity, and that's not right," Haynes said. "Now, that comes out of
a long history of controversy over the Christian domination of schools.
So it's understandable, but it's just not right."
Haynes should know. He is cited as a hero in Gibson's book for mediating a
2004 dispute in Mustang, Okla., over a public-school holiday play. A
cautious superintendent yanked a nativity scene at the last minute,
causing an uproar in the overwhelmingly conservative, overwhelmingly
Christian Oklahoma City suburb.
Haynes helped work out a compromise, and now the district has a clear set
of rules for holiday pageants. "This year, under the policy, they ruled
that December programs can include a scene from the Christian tradition --
a nativity scene -- but it will clearly be in the context that we are
learning about what Christians believe, just as would be the Hanukkah
scene," he said.
Many of the government actions that Falwell and other purveyors of the
"war on Christmas" have cited as part of their perceived anti-Christmas
plot would likely be interpreted as unconstitutional even by liberal
judges. Indeed, some of the very villains of Gibson's book have themselves
ended up on the side of aggrieved Christians in such cases.
The ACLU, for instance, joined Staver's group in a Massachusetts holiday
case two years ago. They were fighting to secure Christian students' right
to give their classmates candy canes with an attached religious message.
They won.
But Staver said that was an anomaly. "For years, the ACLU has been pushing
an anti-Christmas agenda," he said.
Staver agreed most judges would rule against many of the government
decisions to which he objects. But, he added, efforts by supporters of a
strict ban on government establishment of religion have led to the kind of
confusion that people like Haynes end up trying to rectify.
"The law is pretty well set forth," Staver said. "I think, however, what
has happened over the years is that, because of the agenda by the ACLU, I
think there's been a lot of confusion regarding nativity scenes or
regarding Christmas carols. And, I think, as a result of that, some
well-meaning government officials assume that the safe route is to
censor."
But those public officials are misguided, said Brent Walker, executive
director of the Washington-based Baptist Joint Committee for Religious
Liberty.
Walker noted that religious Christmas music, symbols and biblical texts
all can be used in schools and other government settings, as long as they
are non-devotional in nature and balanced with other aspects of the
holiday season. For instance, he said, public-school holiday concerts "can
and should include religious music along with the secular, as long as the
sacred does not dominate."
But Walker said that, in the private realms of retail policies and
everyday greetings, constitutional strictures are irrelevant.
"There's nothing wrong with calling it what it is: a Christmas tree. And
it is perfectly appropriate to extend a specific holiday greeting such as
my Jewish friends do when they wish me a 'Merry Christmas,' and I return a
'Happy Hanukkah,'" he said in a recent commentary on the subject.
"But often it's quite appropriate to wish another 'happy holidays' or
'season's greetings.' It's just a matter of good manners and common
courtesy. If I am talking to a person whose religious affiliation I do not
know, I will employ the more general greeting. And the same goes for
merchants who have advertised goods to Americans of many religious
traditions who may or may not celebrate Christmas."
Critics of the "war on Christmas" furor, including Walker, have suggested
that Falwell, Liberty Counsel and others may be fanning the flames of
controversy to aid year-end fundraising drives -- a charge they deny.
But Haynes and Gushee both offered deeper criticisms of the attempts to
re-Christianize the trappings of the holiday season.
"Christians really need to exhibit a deeper concern for the way 'Christ'
is used by 'Christmas' in order to stimulate a massive orgy of consumerism
and thus stimulate the American economy," Gushee said. "But that is a more
counter-cultural message than anyone seems willing to hear."
Haynes went further. "We're not talking about the religious Christmas
here. That's one of the strangest things about this; we have people saying
they are religious people defending the secularization of Christmas," he
said.
"And they're not saying they want stores to really focus on Jesus this
year, [they're] saying, 'No, we just want stores to continue to exploit
the Christian faith and use the birth of Jesus to sell things . One of the
oddities of this whole debate is that here you have these folks defending
the commercialization of Christmas.
"It's like defending the Easter Bunny -- that it's anti-Christian if you
don't have the Easter Bunny," Haynes continued. "You'd think they'd be
jumping up and down and saying, 'Great! You can have your Easter Bunny and
your darn tree and let us keep Jesus!' But no!"
Staver doesn't see it that way.
"I think anyone who says that this is not a battle worth fighting has no
clue of the attempts in America to secularize and censor Christmas," he
said. "Because of the secularization that occurs, whether it's in the
retail area or the public sector, they have a bleed-over effect."
He noted that other holidays -- Labor Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day
-- are not "genericized" by retailers or news media.
"Why do we want to genericize Christmas?" Staver asked. "I think that
illustrates that there is really a clash over the central message of
Christmas, and that is really Jesus Christ. And I think that is definitely
worth fighting for."
Copyright 2005 Associated Baptist Press.
=================================================================
FAIR USE NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which
has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am
making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of
environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific,
and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of
any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US
Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
=================================================================
--
*Peace of Christ*
http://grace.break.at
To send e-mail, remove "youhat" from address
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Dems Silent on Anti-Christmas Campaign |
17 Dec 2005 01:02:08 PM |
|
|
*Peace of Christ* <His_child2005yourhat@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
Is the 'war on Christmas' worth fighting against?
By Robert Marus
Published: December 15, 2005
WASHINGTON (ABP) -- Is the "war on Christmas" one worth fighting? Despite
the dutiful culture warriors lining up to defend the religious trappings
of the holiday, some Christian ethicists aren't so sure it's a wise battle
to pick.
Since November, some conservative Christian personalities and
organizations have stepped up their annual efforts to pressure retailers
and government officials to dump generic or secularized references to the
"holidays" or the "season" rather than "Christmas." Retailers are
responding.
And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are:
for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the
corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say
unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest,
enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to
thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in
secret shall reward thee openly.
Matt 6:5-6
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
