| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Bear" |
| Date: |
16 Dec 2005 06:26:27 AM |
| Object: |
A Secular Christmas |
A Secular Christmas
Friday, December 24, 2004
By: Yaron Brook
Dear Editor:
The attempts around the country to eliminate the term "Christmas" are being
perpetrated largely in the name of "political correctness"--to avoid
offending anyone, particularly Muslims, whose beliefs would exclude them
from any Christmas celebrations.
These efforts represent, not secularism, but the standard liberal,
subjectivist philosophy of multiculturalism, which seeks to prohibit any
"offensive" actions and words--and it is a philosophy that should be
denounced.
Christmas can be celebrated as an entirely secular holiday, and public
schools should therefore be permitted to do so. The prohibition against the
endorsement of religion by governmental entities, however, is an entirely
different matter: it is a Constitutional issue of separation of church and
state. While public schools may celebrate Christmas, they have no right to
make it into a religious observance, by featuring explicitly religious
themes like the Nativity.
The essential point that needs to be emphasized in this issue is that the
separation of church and state is a principle that is not synonymous with
the politically correct notion of showing "sensitivity" to everyone's
beliefs. The government may--and should--engage in actions that offend
certain viewpoints, such as the viewpoints that are hostile to freedom and
individual rights; government must, however--in order to preserve freedom
and individual rights--refrain from supporting religion.
Dr. Yaron Brook, president of the Ayn Rand Institute
This letter was published in the Washington Times (December 29, 2004)
--
Bear
What I am is what I am. Are you what you are or what? -Edie Brickell
It is always better to have no ideas than false ones; to believe nothing,
than to believe what is wrong. -Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A Secular Christmas |
16 Dec 2005 08:40:44 AM |
|
|
Bear wrote:
A Secular Christmas
Friday, December 24, 2004
By: Yaron Brook
Dear Editor:
The attempts around the country to eliminate the term "Christmas" are being
perpetrated largely in the name of "political correctness"--to avoid
offending anyone, particularly Muslims, whose beliefs would exclude them
from any Christmas celebrations.
*****. It's the Jews who are "offended" by it. Use the Moslems as
the
fall guys, _that's_ being PC.
Christmas can be celebrated as an entirely secular holiday, and public
schools should therefore be permitted to do so.
I wonder if he realizes the hilarity of this statement.
The prohibition against the
endorsement of religion by governmental entities, however, is an entirely
different matter: it is a Constitutional issue of separation of church and
state.
Uh, now there's a news flash.
<more of the same snipped>
Dr. Yaron Brook, president of the Ayn Rand Institute
And both Jews, although she (Rand) was known for her "conservatism."
--
Cliff
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" |
|
| Title: Re: A Secular Christmas |
16 Dec 2005 06:37:10 AM |
|
|
Jesus Christ, now Ayn Rand is in the fray.
Let's decapitate this monstrosity immediately but saying there is no
such possibility of any ritual being 'secular'
cf. Mircea Eliade or anyone who understands religion
incidentally Ayn Rand was an exponent of the 19th century religious
swindle known as "Materialism"
notice i did not say 'atheism'
if one can get through one of her books without a nervous breakdown one
will see a blatantly religious perspective
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: A Secular Christmas |
16 Dec 2005 06:46:13 AM |
|
|
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: Jesus Christ, now Ayn Rand is in the fray.
Chill out a little bit; it isn't worth getting worked up over.
: Let's decapitate this monstrosity immediately but saying there is no
: such possibility of any ritual being 'secular'
:
: cf. Mircea Eliade or anyone who understands religion
:
: incidentally Ayn Rand was an exponent of the 19th century religious
: swindle known as "Materialism"
:
: notice i did not say 'atheism'
:
: if one can get through one of her books without a nervous breakdown one
: will see a blatantly religious perspective
I didn't say that I agree. Just put it out there for discussion. Don't
worry, be happy.
--
Bear
What I am is what I am. Are you what you are or what? -Edie Brickell
It is always better to have no ideas than false ones; to believe nothing,
than to believe what is wrong. -Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" |
|
| Title: Re: A Secular Christmas |
16 Dec 2005 08:08:31 AM |
|
|
Bear wrote:
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: Jesus Christ, now Ayn Rand is in the fray.
Chill out a little bit
incidentally, did you say things like 'chill out' thirty or forty years
ago ?
: if one can get through one of her books without a nervous breakdown one
: will see a blatantly religious perspective
I didn't say that I agree. Just put it out there for discussion. Don't
worry, be happy.
i am not worried about Ayn Rand or her disciples
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: A Secular Christmas |
16 Dec 2005 08:14:17 AM |
|
|
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: incidentally, did you say things like 'chill out' thirty or forty years
: ago ?
Okay, it don't mean nuthin'. Better?
: > : if one can get through one of her books without a nervous breakdown
one
: > : will see a blatantly religious perspective
: >
: > I didn't say that I agree. Just put it out there for discussion. Don't
: > worry, be happy.
:
: i am not worried about Ayn Rand or her disciples
Good.
--
Bear
What I am is what I am. Are you what you are or what? -Edie Brickell
It is always better to have no ideas than false ones; to believe nothing,
than to believe what is wrong. -Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A Secular Christmas |
16 Dec 2005 06:50:30 AM |
|
|
Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
Jesus Christ, now Ayn Rand is in the fray.
Let's decapitate this monstrosity immediately but saying there is no
such possibility of any ritual being 'secular'
cf. Mircea Eliade or anyone who understands religion
incidentally Ayn Rand was an exponent of the 19th century religious
swindle known as "Materialism"
notice i did not say 'atheism'
if one can get through one of her books without a nervous breakdown one
will see a blatantly religious perspective
I can see a religious perspective but would still get "the shakes" at
hearing her name. Not that I don't believe there's a perfectly
rational reason for everything, mind.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" |
|
| Title: Re: A Secular Christmas |
16 Dec 2005 08:06:16 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
Jesus Christ, now Ayn Rand is in the fray.
Let's decapitate this monstrosity immediately but saying there is no
such possibility of any ritual being 'secular'
cf. Mircea Eliade or anyone who understands religion
incidentally Ayn Rand was an exponent of the 19th century religious
swindle known as "Materialism"
notice i did not say 'atheism'
if one can get through one of her books without a nervous breakdown one
will see a blatantly religious perspective
I can see a religious perspective but would still get "the shakes" at
hearing her name. Not that I don't believe there's a perfectly
rational reason for everything, mind.
She is part and parcel of a general cultural upheaval in the West
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Last Conformist" |
|
| Title: Re: A Secular Christmas |
16 Dec 2005 07:09:08 AM |
|
|
Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
Jesus Christ, now Ayn Rand is in the fray.
Let's decapitate this monstrosity immediately but saying there is no
such possibility of any ritual being 'secular'
cf. Mircea Eliade or anyone who understands religion
So the swearing of the presidential oath is a religious act? There
goes the separation of church and state, I suppose.
incidentally Ayn Rand was an exponent of the 19th century religious
swindle known as "Materialism"
Funny, then, that Randists are wont to condemn materialism.
notice i did not say 'atheism'
if one can get through one of her books without a nervous breakdown one
will see a blatantly religious perspective
If so, why should I care?
Back to something more interesting, if my Christmas celebration isn't
secular, then what is it? It's certainly not Christian ...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" |
|
| Title: Re: A Secular Christmas |
16 Dec 2005 08:05:34 AM |
|
|
The Last Conformist wrote:
Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
Jesus Christ, now Ayn Rand is in the fray.
Let's decapitate this monstrosity immediately but saying there is no
such possibility of any ritual being 'secular'
cf. Mircea Eliade or anyone who understands religion
So the swearing of the presidential oath is a religious act? There
goes the separation of church and state, I suppose.
yes there it goes
the separation is only in one's imagination
incidentally Ayn Rand was an exponent of the 19th century religious
swindle known as "Materialism"
Funny, then, that Randists are wont to condemn materialism.
irrelevant,
their objectivism is based on such and they know so to be true
a Trotsky arguing with a Stalin arguing with a Lenin arguing with a
Marx (not to imply that Marx invented Communism)
they have not departed from the same premises
notice i did not say 'atheism'
if one can get through one of her books without a nervous breakdown one
will see a blatantly religious perspective
If so, why should I care?
Back to something more interesting, if my Christmas celebration isn't
secular, then what is it? It's certainly not Christian ...
it would be whatever it was before it was Christian
except someone like yourself being ignorant to the depths of his
existence would not know what those semiotics represent
enjoy
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Last Conformist" |
|
| Title: Re: A Secular Christmas |
16 Dec 2005 08:39:45 AM |
|
|
Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
The Last Conformist wrote:
Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
Jesus Christ, now Ayn Rand is in the fray.
Let's decapitate this monstrosity immediately but saying there is no
such possibility of any ritual being 'secular'
cf. Mircea Eliade or anyone who understands religion
So the swearing of the presidential oath is a religious act? There
goes the separation of church and state, I suppose.
yes there it goes
the separation is only in one's imagination
Splendid. The Reconstructionists will be thrilled to hear.
incidentally Ayn Rand was an exponent of the 19th century religious
swindle known as "Materialism"
Funny, then, that Randists are wont to condemn materialism.
irrelevant,
their objectivism is based on such and they know so to be true
Y'know, I'll thake objectivists' word for what their beliefs are based
on, not yours.
a Trotsky arguing with a Stalin arguing with a Lenin arguing with a
Marx (not to imply that Marx invented Communism)
they have not departed from the same premises
notice i did not say 'atheism'
if one can get through one of her books without a nervous breakdown one
will see a blatantly religious perspective
If so, why should I care?
Back to something more interesting, if my Christmas celebration isn't
secular, then what is it? It's certainly not Christian ...
it would be whatever it was before it was Christian
except someone like yourself being ignorant to the depths of his
existence would not know what those semiotics represent
With some notable exceptions, like beer and pork, most Christmas
traditions date to the last couple centuries. I suppose they got
infected by pre-Christian semiotics laying in wait in the woods.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" |
|
| Title: Re: A Secular Christmas |
16 Dec 2005 08:45:51 AM |
|
|
The Last Conformist wrote:
Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
The Last Conformist wrote:
Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
Jesus Christ, now Ayn Rand is in the fray.
Let's decapitate this monstrosity immediately but saying there is no
such possibility of any ritual being 'secular'
cf. Mircea Eliade or anyone who understands religion
So the swearing of the presidential oath is a religious act? There
goes the separation of church and state, I suppose.
yes there it goes
the separation is only in one's imagination
Splendid. The Reconstructionists will be thrilled to hear.
there could be no oath taken without a religious premise
nothing to do with theism either
incidentally Ayn Rand was an exponent of the 19th century religious
swindle known as "Materialism"
Funny, then, that Randists are wont to condemn materialism.
irrelevant,
their objectivism is based on such and they know so to be true
Y'know, I'll thake objectivists' word for what their beliefs are based
on, not yours.
then continue in your ignorance
a Trotsky arguing with a Stalin arguing with a Lenin arguing with a
Marx (not to imply that Marx invented Communism)
they have not departed from the same premises
notice i did not say 'atheism'
if one can get through one of her books without a nervous breakdown one
will see a blatantly religious perspective
If so, why should I care?
Back to something more interesting, if my Christmas celebration isn't
secular, then what is it? It's certainly not Christian ...
it would be whatever it was before it was Christian
except someone like yourself being ignorant to the depths of his
existence would not know what those semiotics represent
With some notable exceptions, like beer and pork, most Christmas
traditions date to the last couple centuries. I suppose they got
infected by pre-Christian semiotics laying in wait in the woods.
No the Christian nomenclature was superimposed on the pre-Christian
festival
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Last Conformist" |
|
| Title: Re: A Secular Christmas |
16 Dec 2005 09:30:13 AM |
|
|
Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
The Last Conformist wrote:
Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
The Last Conformist wrote:
Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
Jesus Christ, now Ayn Rand is in the fray.
Let's decapitate this monstrosity immediately but saying there is no
such possibility of any ritual being 'secular'
cf. Mircea Eliade or anyone who understands religion
So the swearing of the presidential oath is a religious act? There
goes the separation of church and state, I suppose.
yes there it goes
the separation is only in one's imagination
Splendid. The Reconstructionists will be thrilled to hear.
there could be no oath taken without a religious premise
This could use some clarification. What do you mean by "religious
premise" here.
nothing to do with theism either
incidentally Ayn Rand was an exponent of the 19th century religious
swindle known as "Materialism"
Funny, then, that Randists are wont to condemn materialism.
irrelevant,
their objectivism is based on such and they know so to be true
Y'know, I'll thake objectivists' word for what their beliefs are based
on, not yours.
then continue in your ignorance
Sure seems preferable to taking your assertions as gospel.
a Trotsky arguing with a Stalin arguing with a Lenin arguing with a
Marx (not to imply that Marx invented Communism)
they have not departed from the same premises
notice i did not say 'atheism'
if one can get through one of her books without a nervous breakdown one
will see a blatantly religious perspective
If so, why should I care?
Back to something more interesting, if my Christmas celebration isn't
secular, then what is it? It's certainly not Christian ...
it would be whatever it was before it was Christian
except someone like yourself being ignorant to the depths of his
existence would not know what those semiotics represent
With some notable exceptions, like beer and pork, most Christmas
traditions date to the last couple centuries. I suppose they got
infected by pre-Christian semiotics laying in wait in the woods.
No the Christian nomenclature was superimposed on the pre-Christian
festival
Christmas as celebrated today is very different from the way it was
celebrated by Christians a thousand years ago. This shouldn't be news
to anyone who pretends to discuss the meaning of Christmas celebrations.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" |
|
| Title: Re: A Secular Christmas |
16 Dec 2005 08:21:32 PM |
|
|
The Last Conformist wrote:
Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
The Last Conformist wrote:
Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
The Last Conformist wrote:
Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
Jesus Christ, now Ayn Rand is in the fray.
Let's decapitate this monstrosity immediately but saying there is no
such possibility of any ritual being 'secular'
cf. Mircea Eliade or anyone who understands religion
So the swearing of the presidential oath is a religious act? There
goes the separation of church and state, I suppose.
yes there it goes
the separation is only in one's imagination
Splendid. The Reconstructionists will be thrilled to hear.
there could be no oath taken without a religious premise
This could use some clarification. What do you mean by "religious
premise" here.
What is an 'oath' ?
nothing to do with theism either
incidentally Ayn Rand was an exponent of the 19th century religious
swindle known as "Materialism"
Funny, then, that Randists are wont to condemn materialism.
irrelevant,
their objectivism is based on such and they know so to be true
Y'know, I'll thake objectivists' word for what their beliefs are based
on, not yours.
then continue in your ignorance
Sure seems preferable to taking your assertions as gospel.
Objectivism not only is based on materialism, it also steals concepts
from Nietzsche.
what can i do about that?
i care not what an 'Objectivist' from Ayn Rand Institute claims is the
genealogy of their religion /philosophy so-called.
a Trotsky arguing with a Stalin arguing with a Lenin arguing with a
Marx (not to imply that Marx invented Communism)
they have not departed from the same premises
notice i did not say 'atheism'
if one can get through one of her books without a nervous breakdown one
will see a blatantly religious perspective
If so, why should I care?
Back to something more interesting, if my Christmas celebration isn't
secular, then what is it? It's certainly not Christian ...
it would be whatever it was before it was Christian
except someone like yourself being ignorant to the depths of his
existence would not know what those semiotics represent
With some notable exceptions, like beer and pork, most Christmas
traditions date to the last couple centuries. I suppose they got
infected by pre-Christian semiotics laying in wait in the woods.
No the Christian nomenclature was superimposed on the pre-Christian
festival
Christmas as celebrated today is very different from the way it was
celebrated by Christians a thousand years ago. This shouldn't be news
to anyone who pretends to discuss the meaning of Christmas celebrations.
the reason why it is different today is because cultural nomenclature
and semitoics from the Middle East were superimposed on the festival.
if you strip those down you will reveal the corpse of the original
festival.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Last Conformist" |
|
| Title: Re: A Secular Christmas |
17 Dec 2005 03:57:33 PM |
|
|
Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
The Last Conformist wrote:
Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
The Last Conformist wrote:
Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
The Last Conformist wrote:
Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
Jesus Christ, now Ayn Rand is in the fray.
Let's decapitate this monstrosity immediately but saying there is no
such possibility of any ritual being 'secular'
cf. Mircea Eliade or anyone who understands religion
So the swearing of the presidential oath is a religious act? There
goes the separation of church and state, I suppose.
yes there it goes
the separation is only in one's imagination
Splendid. The Reconstructionists will be thrilled to hear.
there could be no oath taken without a religious premise
This could use some clarification. What do you mean by "religious
premise" here.
What is an 'oath' ?
In this case, a ceremony invested with certain constitutional
significance.
nothing to do with theism either
incidentally Ayn Rand was an exponent of the 19th century religious
swindle known as "Materialism"
Funny, then, that Randists are wont to condemn materialism.
irrelevant,
their objectivism is based on such and they know so to be true
Y'know, I'll thake objectivists' word for what their beliefs are based
on, not yours.
then continue in your ignorance
Sure seems preferable to taking your assertions as gospel.
Objectivism not only is based on materialism, it also steals concepts
from Nietzsche.
If you're not even going to try to argue for your assertions, the less
reason for me to ascribe any significance to them.
what can i do about that?
i care not what an 'Objectivist' from Ayn Rand Institute claims is the
genealogy of their religion /philosophy so-called.
And I don't care one iota what *you* claim is same. You've, after all,
given me no reason whatsoever to think you have a clue what you are
speaking of.
a Trotsky arguing with a Stalin arguing with a Lenin arguing with a
Marx (not to imply that Marx invented Communism)
they have not departed from the same premises
notice i did not say 'atheism'
if one can get through one of her books without a nervous breakdown one
will see a blatantly religious perspective
If so, why should I care?
Back to something more interesting, if my Christmas celebration isn't
secular, then what is it? It's certainly not Christian ...
it would be whatever it was before it was Christian
except someone like yourself being ignorant to the depths of his
existence would not know what those semiotics represent
With some notable exceptions, like beer and pork, most Christmas
traditions date to the last couple centuries. I suppose they got
infected by pre-Christian semiotics laying in wait in the woods.
No the Christian nomenclature was superimposed on the pre-Christian
festival
Christmas as celebrated today is very different from the way it was
celebrated by Christians a thousand years ago. This shouldn't be news
to anyone who pretends to discuss the meaning of Christmas celebrations.
the reason why it is different today is because cultural nomenclature
and semitoics from the Middle East were superimposed on the festival.
if you strip those down you will reveal the corpse of the original
festival.
This is pure kookery.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" |
|
| Title: Re: A Secular Christmas |
18 Dec 2005 01:10:54 AM |
|
|
The Last Conformist wrote:
Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
The Last Conformist wrote:
Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
The Last Conformist wrote:
Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
The Last Conformist wrote:
Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
Jesus Christ, now Ayn Rand is in the fray.
Let's decapitate this monstrosity immediately but saying there is no
such possibility of any ritual being 'secular'
cf. Mircea Eliade or anyone who understands religion
So the swearing of the presidential oath is a religious act? There
goes the separation of church and state, I suppose.
yes there it goes
the separation is only in one's imagination
Splendid. The Reconstructionists will be thrilled to hear.
there could be no oath taken without a religious premise
This could use some clarification. What do you mean by "religious
premise" here.
What is an 'oath' ?
In this case, a ceremony invested with certain constitutional
significance.
That is not the definition of an 'oath' friend.
Back to something more interesting, if my Christmas celebration isn't
secular, then what is it? It's certainly not Christian ...
it would be whatever it was before it was Christian
except someone like yourself being ignorant to the depths of his
existence would not know what those semiotics represent
With some notable exceptions, like beer and pork, most Christmas
traditions date to the last couple centuries. I suppose they got
infected by pre-Christian semiotics laying in wait in the woods.
No the Christian nomenclature was superimposed on the pre-Christian
festival
Christmas as celebrated today is very different from the way it was
celebrated by Christians a thousand years ago. This shouldn't be news
to anyone who pretends to discuss the meaning of Christmas celebrations.
the reason why it is different today is because cultural nomenclature
and semitoics from the Middle East were superimposed on the festival.
if you strip those down you will reveal the corpse of the original
festival.
This is pure kookery.
i must have hit the nail on the head.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Last Conformist" |
|
| Title: Re: A Secular Christmas |
18 Dec 2005 05:33:23 AM |
|
|
Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
The Last Conformist wrote:
Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
The Last Conformist wrote:
Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
The Last Conformist wrote:
Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
The Last Conformist wrote:
Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
Jesus Christ, now Ayn Rand is in the fray.
Let's decapitate this monstrosity immediately but saying there is no
such possibility of any ritual being 'secular'
cf. Mircea Eliade or anyone who understands religion
So the swearing of the presidential oath is a religious act? There
goes the separation of church and state, I suppose.
yes there it goes
the separation is only in one's imagination
Splendid. The Reconstructionists will be thrilled to hear.
there could be no oath taken without a religious premise
This could use some clarification. What do you mean by "religious
premise" here.
What is an 'oath' ?
In this case, a ceremony invested with certain constitutional
significance.
That is not the definition of an 'oath' friend.
Back to something more interesting, if my Christmas celebration isn't
secular, then what is it? It's certainly not Christian ...
it would be whatever it was before it was Christian
except someone like yourself being ignorant to the depths of his
existence would not know what those semiotics represent
With some notable exceptions, like beer and pork, most Christmas
traditions date to the last couple centuries. I suppose they got
infected by pre-Christian semiotics laying in wait in the woods.
No the Christian nomenclature was superimposed on the pre-Christian
festival
Christmas as celebrated today is very different from the way it was
celebrated by Christians a thousand years ago. This shouldn't be news
to anyone who pretends to discuss the meaning of Christmas celebrations.
the reason why it is different today is because cultural nomenclature
and semitoics from the Middle East were superimposed on the festival.
if you strip those down you will reveal the corpse of the original
festival.
This is pure kookery.
i must have hit the nail on the head.
Do I need point out that taking ridicule or dismissal as proof they're
right is a typical trait of kooks?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" |
|
| Title: Re: A Secular Christmas |
18 Dec 2005 05:43:05 AM |
|
|
The Last Conformist wrote:
Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
The Last Conformist wrote:
Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
The Last Conformist wrote:
Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
The Last Conformist wrote:
Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
The Last Conformist wrote:
Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
Jesus Christ, now Ayn Rand is in the fray.
Let's decapitate this monstrosity immediately but saying there is no
such possibility of any ritual being 'secular'
cf. Mircea Eliade or anyone who understands religion
So the swearing of the presidential oath is a religious act? There
goes the separation of church and state, I suppose.
yes there it goes
the separation is only in one's imagination
Splendid. The Reconstructionists will be thrilled to hear.
there could be no oath taken without a religious premise
This could use some clarification. What do you mean by "religious
premise" here.
What is an 'oath' ?
In this case, a ceremony invested with certain constitutional
significance.
That is not the definition of an 'oath' friend.
Back to something more interesting, if my Christmas celebration isn't
secular, then what is it? It's certainly not Christian ...
it would be whatever it was before it was Christian
except someone like yourself being ignorant to the depths of his
existence would not know what those semiotics represent
With some notable exceptions, like beer and pork, most Christmas
traditions date to the last couple centuries. I suppose they got
infected by pre-Christian semiotics laying in wait in the woods.
No the Christian nomenclature was superimposed on the pre-Christian
festival
Christmas as celebrated today is very different from the way it was
celebrated by Christians a thousand years ago. This shouldn't be news
to anyone who pretends to discuss the meaning of Christmas celebrations.
the reason why it is different today is because cultural nomenclature
and semitoics from the Middle East were superimposed on the festival.
if you strip those down you will reveal the corpse of the original
festival.
This is pure kookery.
i must have hit the nail on the head.
Do I need point out that taking ridicule or dismissal as proof they're
right is a typical trait of kooks?
did you define 'oath' ? No.
did you explain why my assertion of a pre-Christian festival
superimposed with Christian nomenclature is allegedly incorrect ? No.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Last Conformist" |
|
| Title: Re: A Secular Christmas |
18 Dec 2005 05:53:51 AM |
|
|
Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
The Last Conformist wrote:
Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
The Last Conformist wrote:
Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
The Last Conformist wrote:
Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
The Last Conformist wrote:
Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
The Last Conformist wrote:
Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
Jesus Christ, now Ayn Rand is in the fray.
Let's decapitate this monstrosity immediately but saying there is no
such possibility of any ritual being 'secular'
cf. Mircea Eliade or anyone who understands religion
So the swearing of the presidential oath is a religious act? There
goes the separation of church and state, I suppose.
yes there it goes
the separation is only in one's imagination
Splendid. The Reconstructionists will be thrilled to hear.
there could be no oath taken without a religious premise
This could use some clarification. What do you mean by "religious
premise" here.
What is an 'oath' ?
In this case, a ceremony invested with certain constitutional
significance.
That is not the definition of an 'oath' friend.
Back to something more interesting, if my Christmas celebration isn't
secular, then what is it? It's certainly not Christian ...
it would be whatever it was before it was Christian
except someone like yourself being ignorant to the depths of his
existence would not know what those semiotics represent
With some notable exceptions, like beer and pork, most Christmas
traditions date to the last couple centuries. I suppose they got
infected by pre-Christian semiotics laying in wait in the woods.
No the Christian nomenclature was superimposed on the pre-Christian
festival
Christmas as celebrated today is very different from the way it was
celebrated by Christians a thousand years ago. This shouldn't be news
to anyone who pretends to discuss the meaning of Christmas celebrations.
the reason why it is different today is because cultural nomenclature
and semitoics from the Middle East were superimposed on the festival.
if you strip those down you will reveal the corpse of the original
festival.
This is pure kookery.
i must have hit the nail on the head.
Do I need point out that taking ridicule or dismissal as proof they're
right is a typical trait of kooks?
did you define 'oath' ? No.
I have no need to.
did you explain why my assertion of a pre-Christian festival
superimposed with Christian nomenclature is allegedly incorrect ? No.
That's a lie.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
