mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
kylemittskus wrote:I absolutely agree with this ^^^.

Edit: damnit, tyger! I agree with what Ed said.



And I disagree, but not absolutely.

Christmas is a Christian holiday which Christians celebrate, and the only messages are Christian.

Just because many/most of the "Christians" who celebrate Christmas totally miss the intended point and make it some consumption fest does not make it a secular damned holiday!

As a rule neither Jews, nor Atheists, nor Muslims, nor Hindus, nor Buddhists, nor Sihks, nor Pastafarians, nor Toaists, nor Daoists, celebrates Christmas.

PS Hasn't celebrating the *new year* (not the end of the year) been done by many (maybe even most) cultures and calendars, and way predates Christ?

rjquillin


quality posts: 174 Private Messages rjquillin

Circling back, while browsing some online news links from a consolidator site and reading another, unrelated article, I found this regarding a Rasmussen poll.
Poll: 75 Percent Say Celebrate Christmas in Public Schools
[edit] ... and to be clear, I'm not taking a position on this either way.

CT

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
rjquillin wrote:Circling back, while browsing some online news links from a consolidator site and reading another, unrelated article, I found this regarding a Rasmussen poll.
Poll: 75 Percent Say Celebrate Christmas in Public Schools



The more you post, the more convinced I am that you epitomize what is wrong with this world ;)

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother

But more seriously, and this is really not a shock, 76% of Americans identify as Christians. ;)

rjquillin


quality posts: 174 Private Messages rjquillin
mother wrote:But more seriously, and this is really not a shock, 76% of Americans identify as Christians. ;)

agree, and I added:
[edit] ... and to be clear, I'm not taking a position on this either way.

but did you read the link?
I think not, seeing the speed to post. There are some other related links on the page to ponder as well.

CT

kylemittskus


quality posts: 231 Private Messages kylemittskus

I think there are two Christmases. Whether some people celebrate an event or not does not have any effect on whether or not it's religious. All of the religions you listed also have accompanying cultures -- cultures that have their own versions of Christmas. I get the issue entirely, but I'm just arguing the fact that a non-religious Christmas absolutely exists.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
rjquillin wrote:Circling back, while browsing some online news links from a consolidator site and reading another, unrelated article, I found this regarding a Rasmussen poll.
Poll: 75 Percent Say Celebrate Christmas in Public Schools
[edit] ... and to be clear, I'm not taking a position on this either way.



Maybe I'm being a little obnoxious here, but the article didn't say what they meant by celebrating Christmas in schools. The article started off talking about banning the very word Christmas, which is a far cry from a hardcore Jesus-fest.

The Christmas tree, or holiday tree, for example. I would consider that a traditional winter symbol but nothing about it makes me think of Jesus.

If 75% of people really do want a religious Christmas celebration in schools, I guess they should send their kids to private school. I agree that the gov't should not oppress someone's religion, but the gov't also should not sponsor it. A refusal to sponsor your religion, or to affirm it at every turn, is not oppression. I see this attitude a lot - if the government does not affirm Christianity often enough and with enough passion, people call it an attack. I've wondered if maybe their faith is so weak they need a constant reminder or affirmation, or whether they're just desperate to feel persecuted.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 231 Private Messages kylemittskus
chemvictim wrote:If 75% of people really do want a religious Christmas celebration in schools, I guess they should send their kids to private school. I agree that the gov't should not oppress someone's religion, but the gov't also should not sponsor it. A refusal to sponsor your religion, or to affirm it at every turn, is not oppression. I see this attitude a lot - if the government does not affirm Christianity often enough and with enough passion, people call it an attack. I've wondered if maybe their faith is so weak they need a constant reminder or affirmation, or whether they're just desperate to feel persecuted.



Yeah!!

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
rjquillin wrote:agree, and I added:
[edit] ... and to be clear, I'm not taking a position on this either way.

but did you read the link?
I think not, seeing the speed to post. There are some other related links on the page to ponder as well.



I didn't, was racing a dead laptop battery, I'll take a look at the link later and give you real thoughts...

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
kylemittskus wrote:I think there are two Christmases. Whether some people celebrate an event or not does not have any effect on whether or not it's religious. All of the religions you listed also have accompanying cultures -- cultures that have their own versions of Christmas. I get the issue entirely, but I'm just arguing the fact that a non-religious Christmas absolutely exists.



What? I think I disagree strongly with everything you typed there. (Except for them all having their own cultures...)

Seriously- none of those cultures have their own version of "Christmas", nothing remotely close even.

You can take the Christ out of your Christmas celebration, but it's still CHRISTmas ;)

kylemittskus


quality posts: 231 Private Messages kylemittskus
mother wrote:What? I think I disagree strongly with everything you typed there. (Except for them all having their own cultures...)

Seriously- none of those cultures have their own version of "Christmas", nothing remotely close even.

You can take the Christ out of your Christmas celebration, but it's still CHRISTmas ;)



I think we just disagree that Christmas can be completely non-religious. We agree on the issue of what happened in this particular case, though. I'm fine with thinking you're totally wrong. ;)

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

chipgreen


quality posts: 189 Private Messages chipgreen
mother wrote:What? I think I disagree strongly with everything you typed there. (Except for them all having their own cultures...)

Seriously- none of those cultures have their own version of "Christmas", nothing remotely close even.

You can take the Christ out of your Christmas celebration, but it's still CHRISTmas ;)


Feel free to call it Xmas, then.

Christmas is mostly based on Pagan rituals anyway. The tree, the decorations, Santa Claus, even the time of year that it is celebrated. All borrowed from the Pagans. Christ was not even born on December 25th.

Christians may have hijacked the traditional Mid-Winter Festival of the Pagans and renamed it "Christmas" for their own purposes but it didn't start out as a religious holiday and I don't see why it can't be celebrated as a non-religious holiday still.

As to the school choir performance, I believe in the separation of church and state so probably not a big surprise that I feel those kids should not have been singing in church as the official "school choir". It would have been fine if they had arranged on their own to perform there as a group of individuals but not as representatives of a public school.

jawlz


quality posts: 12 Private Messages jawlz
chipgreen wrote:Feel free to call it Xmas, then.

Christmas is mostly based on Pagan rituals anyway. The tree, the decorations, Santa Claus, even the time of year that it is celebrated. All borrowed from the Pagans. Christ was not even born on December 25th.

Christians may have hijacked the traditional Mid-Winter Festival of the Pagans and renamed it "Christmas" for their own purposes but it didn't start out as a religious holiday and I don't see why it can't be celebrated as a non-religious holiday still.

As to the school choir performance, I believe in the separation of church and state so probably not a big surprise that I feel those kids should not have been singing in church as the official "school choir". It would have been fine if they had arranged on their own to perform there as a group of individuals but not as representatives of a public school.



Etymologically, the 'X' in 'xmas' still stands for 'Christ.' So for those who know better and want to secularize Christmas (as if it can be secularized any more!), changing it doesn't actually 'solve' anything. And of course there are many who are against the secularization who *don't* know better, which presents its own issues.

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim

Affluenza, what a crock .

Seriously? Throw his sorry ass in jail.

coynedj


quality posts: 7 Private Messages coynedj
chemvictim wrote:Affluenza, what a crock .

Seriously? Throw his sorry ass in jail.



Agreed 100%. This sentence should be thrown out as should the judge. Being rich shouldn't excuse this bum from paying for what he did.

I started out on Burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff. Bob Dylan, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

How on earth did I get 7 QPs?

kylemittskus


quality posts: 231 Private Messages kylemittskus
coynedj wrote:Agreed 100%. This sentence should be thrown out as should the judge. Being rich shouldn't excuse this bum from paying for what he did.



Yep.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim

I was half hoping/half dreading that someone would disagree with me.

jawlz


quality posts: 12 Private Messages jawlz
chemvictim wrote:I was half hoping/half dreading that someone would disagree with me.



I don't necessarily disagree, but I would like to see the outcomes of similar cases (teenage DUIs causing harm/death) presided over by this judge before I come to any conclusion about this case being influenced tremendously by the wealth of the defendant's family.

ERMD


quality posts: 1 Private Messages ERMD

Wow! If I piss off some of you so be it but MERRY CHRISTMAS.
May the Lords peace be with you all during this Christmas season.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 231 Private Messages kylemittskus
ERMD wrote:Wow! If I piss off some of you so be it but MERRY CHRISTMAS.
May the Lords peace be with you all during this Christmas season.



You realize that your comment, while it is a bit puerile, is in no way connected to the issue we were actually discussing.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

ERMD


quality posts: 1 Private Messages ERMD
kylemittskus wrote:You realize that your comment, while it is a bit puerile, is in no way connected to the issue we were actually discussing.



If you read into the whole discussion and its implications, it is.
And sometimes you have to talk like a child for others to understand.

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
ERMD wrote:Wow! If I piss off some of you so be it but MERRY CHRISTMAS.
May the Lords peace be with you all during this Christmas season.



Thanks, Merry Christmas to you too! What am I supposed to be pissed off about? I'm a little tired but I'll give it my best shot.

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
ERMD wrote:And sometimes you have to talk like a child for others to understand.



Okay, that wasn't nice.

jawlz


quality posts: 12 Private Messages jawlz
chemvictim wrote:Maybe I'm being a little obnoxious here, but the article didn't say what they meant by celebrating Christmas in schools. The article started off talking about banning the very word Christmas, which is a far cry from a hardcore Jesus-fest.

The Christmas tree, or holiday tree, for example. I would consider that a traditional winter symbol but nothing about it makes me think of Jesus.

If 75% of people really do want a religious Christmas celebration in schools, I guess they should send their kids to private school. I agree that the gov't should not oppress someone's religion, but the gov't also should not sponsor it. A refusal to sponsor your religion, or to affirm it at every turn, is not oppression. I see this attitude a lot - if the government does not affirm Christianity often enough and with enough passion, people call it an attack. I've wondered if maybe their faith is so weak they need a constant reminder or affirmation, or whether they're just desperate to feel persecuted.



This could quite easily be read as offensive - especially the last sentence, which really isn't useful in a fair discussion and is essentially making a caricature of those who hold different beliefs than you do.

Ignoring that, I likely take some issue with your definition of the word 'sponsor' - I don't consider a school whose students are 75% Christian putting on a Christmas play the school 'sponsoring Christianity' any more than I do a school whose students 75% Jewish putting on a Hanukkah play a sponsorship of religion, or a school whose students are 75% black putting on a retrospective on Langston Hughes' works a sponsorship of 'black culture,' and see *all* of those events as choosing events that will resonate with the student population.

Honestly, I'm not aware of *any* holiday celebration that involves exclusion, and all of the holiday seasons of the religions that I am aware of stress community, peace, and good will towards one's fellow humans. Christmas, Hannuka, Diwalli, Kwanzaa, etc. At some point, what does it matter which it is, so long as the message itself is good?

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
jawlz wrote:This could quite easily be read as offensive - especially the last sentence, which really isn't useful in a fair discussion and is essentially making a caricature of those who hold different beliefs than you do.

Ignoring that, I likely take some issue with your definition of the word 'sponsor' - I don't consider a school whose students are 75% Christian putting on a Christmas play the school 'sponsoring Christianity' any more than I do a school whose students 75% Jewish putting on a Hanukkah play a sponsorship of religion, or a school whose students are 75% black putting on a retrospective on Langston Hughes' works a sponsorship of 'black culture,' and see *all* of those events as choosing events that will resonate with the student population.

Honestly, I'm not aware of *any* holiday celebration that involves exclusion, and all of the holiday seasons of the religions that I am aware of stress community, peace, and good will towards one's fellow humans. Christmas, Hannuka, Diwalli, Kwanzaa, etc. At some point, what does it matter which it is, so long as the message itself is good?



I apologize for offending. I had specific people in mind with that sentence, and specific behaviors by those specific people. That being said, if that's not you...it's not about you.

I don't know why the rest was offensive. As for what constitutes "sponsoring" or not, I think that's been the crux of the discussion here. Personally, I think there are many shades of gray in there, but when someone is bothered enough to complain, it needs to be looked at. Don't just tell them to decorate off because they're in the minority. You or I might not see exclusion, but that doesn't mean it's not there.

jawlz


quality posts: 12 Private Messages jawlz
chemvictim wrote:I apologize for offending. I had specific people in mind with that sentence, and specific behaviors by those specific people. That being said, if that's not you...it's not about you.

I don't know why the rest was offensive. As for what constitutes "sponsoring" or not, I think that's been the crux of the discussion here. Personally, I think there are many shades of gray in there, but when someone is bothered enough to complain, it needs to be looked at. Don't just tell them to decorate off because they're in the minority. You or I might not see exclusion, but that doesn't mean it's not there.



Don't get me wrong, I'm not offended (I only get offended very rarely), but I can easily see how a Christian could be offended by that part.

As far as triggering a look into what constitutes sponsorship upon receiving a complaint, sure, that makes sense. Though I would also caution against suggesting that every complaint means there is a problem (especially given your own perspective of witnessing people who are 'desperate to feel persecuted' - those people are not exclusively Christian).

klezman


quality posts: 123 Private Messages klezman

Anybody have thoughts on this?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/12/opinion/blow-the-appalling-stance-of-rand-paul.html?nl=todaysheadlines

2014: 32 bottles. Last wine.woot: Scott Harvey Jana Cathedral 3 L
2013: 66 bottles, 2012: 91 bottles, 2011: 92 bottles, 2010: 74 bottles, 2009: 30 bottles, 2008: 3 bottles My CT

kylemittskus


quality posts: 231 Private Messages kylemittskus

I honestly think this conversation has become absurd. We're circling the circles we've already made. People are getting offended, or suggesting offense, or reacting (IMO) poorly to people expressing feelings surrounding the issue that we we're discussing. Not that my opinion means anything, but personally, I'm done reading and responding to posts about the Christmas thing.

ERMD: do you really think that is helpful or adds anything to the conversation?

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

kylemittskus


quality posts: 231 Private Messages kylemittskus
klezman wrote:Anybody have thoughts on this?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/12/opinion/blow-the-appalling-stance-of-rand-paul.html?nl=todaysheadlines



A few. He makes a tu quo que argument almost immediately ("big businesses take advantage . . .") which really undermines the rest of what he has to say. Then he goes into a bunch of anecdotal defenses about the poor people he knows. I have a different perspective because I have my own anecdotal stories of people taking advantage of our welfare system to a disgusting level. I'm not saying his experiences are invalid; they aren't universal, though. I think increasing the minimum wage is a good step in the right direction. I also think that taking an extreme stance, like some of the "conservatives" do, is detrimental. However, so is this guy's stance.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
jawlz wrote:Don't get me wrong, I'm not offended (I only get offended very rarely), but I can easily see how a Christian could be offended by that part.

As far as triggering a look into what constitutes sponsorship upon receiving a complaint, sure, that makes sense. Though I would also caution against suggesting that every complaint means there is a problem (especially given your own perspective of witnessing people who are 'desperate to feel persecuted' - those people are not exclusively Christian).



And not all Christians are "those people." Not even most, I'd guess. FWIW "those people" are my people so I feel A-OK with poking a little fun at them. If you knew them, you might even agree with me. And they would definitely tell the little atheist kid to decorate off if he didn't like the Christian stuff. At best, they might suggest he leave the state or even the U.S., and at worst they'd say that he was going to hell and then he'd regret his non-belief. That is not an exaggeration, I've seen these things said to atheists and gays more than once.

Perhaps I view these things through a very twisted lens, but that's just been my experience.

rjquillin


quality posts: 174 Private Messages rjquillin

I heard an interview with Rand Paul earlier this week, and he makes a valid point; as an employer, given the choice to hire someone out of work for 26 weeks or 99 weeks, which choice would you make? Skills are lost with disuse. I've seen colleagues I worked with get hired over those with what appears to be a superior resume, and the decision was based on period since most recent employment.

The article touches on other points as well, but I'm addressing this single issue.

CT

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
rjquillin wrote:I heard an interview with Rand Paul earlier this week, and he makes a valid point; as an employer, given the choice to hire someone out of work for 26 weeks or 99 weeks, which choice would you make? Skills are lost with disuse. I've seen colleagues I worked with get hired over those with what appears to be a superior resume, and the decision was based on period since most recent employment.

The article touches on other points as well, but I'm addressing this single issue.



This is such a horrible topic, ooy.

In the past 12-13 years the economy has done some pretty nasty things to people who were 'doing all of the right things'.

There is this totally false "quality signal" in being employed- I see real wastes of oxygen employed and even job hopping while I know much better people who have been unemployed for 9+ months. Everyone just goes "If he's so good, why isn't he working?" When the reason he isn't working is because there was for a period of a year or two a huge glut in his industry...

At least in tech that and the complete and total abuse of the H1B system have really screwed thousands over.

As to the disuse arguement- that sounds reasonable, but I think it's kinda bull.

Pro sportsman have the off season and don't forget how to pitch/pass/tackle/penalty kick, and the most cerebral among us take 6-12month sabbaticals and don't forget how to profess...

Heck I go the entire winter without driving a stick shift and I'm not grinding gears and torching my clutch each spring- you get my point.

I can tell you from experience that when good people have been unemployed for a long time, they work their damn asses off when given the chance.

rjquillin


quality posts: 174 Private Messages rjquillin
mother wrote:At least in tech that and the complete and total abuse of the H1B system have really screwed thousands over.

As to the disuse arguement- that sounds reasonable, but I think it's kinda bull.

Pretty much agree. I do work in tech, and some IT on the side. Things do move fast, and at times it seems a challenge just to keep up, even when using skills daily.

CT

klezman


quality posts: 123 Private Messages klezman
tytiger58 wrote:IIRC when I went to public school we had to sing Christian songs, Jewish songs, and a few others. I don't recall my parents giving a rip which religions songs we were singing, as I did not when my kids went to school. I don't really care what they are singing as long as they are singing



See, to me this is totally fine. It's more of an education thing and understanding multiple cultures than promoting Christianity. I'm good with that.

2014: 32 bottles. Last wine.woot: Scott Harvey Jana Cathedral 3 L
2013: 66 bottles, 2012: 91 bottles, 2011: 92 bottles, 2010: 74 bottles, 2009: 30 bottles, 2008: 3 bottles My CT

klezman


quality posts: 123 Private Messages klezman
bhodilee wrote:horribly offended, but only because it's their, not there



One of these days we'll get those, um, finer points of grammar across...
there vs their
your vs you're

2014: 32 bottles. Last wine.woot: Scott Harvey Jana Cathedral 3 L
2013: 66 bottles, 2012: 91 bottles, 2011: 92 bottles, 2010: 74 bottles, 2009: 30 bottles, 2008: 3 bottles My CT

klezman


quality posts: 123 Private Messages klezman
chemvictim wrote:Affluenza, what a crock .

Seriously? Throw his sorry ass in jail.



Saw this at the gym this morning. Facepalm. I mean, seriously, affluenza?!

2014: 32 bottles. Last wine.woot: Scott Harvey Jana Cathedral 3 L
2013: 66 bottles, 2012: 91 bottles, 2011: 92 bottles, 2010: 74 bottles, 2009: 30 bottles, 2008: 3 bottles My CT

klezman


quality posts: 123 Private Messages klezman
ERMD wrote:Wow! If I piss off some of you so be it but MERRY CHRISTMAS.
May the Lords peace be with you all during this Christmas season.



And a merry Christmas to you too!

2014: 32 bottles. Last wine.woot: Scott Harvey Jana Cathedral 3 L
2013: 66 bottles, 2012: 91 bottles, 2011: 92 bottles, 2010: 74 bottles, 2009: 30 bottles, 2008: 3 bottles My CT

klezman


quality posts: 123 Private Messages klezman
kylemittskus wrote:A few. He makes a tu quo que argument almost immediately ("big businesses take advantage . . .") which really undermines the rest of what he has to say. Then he goes into a bunch of anecdotal defenses about the poor people he knows. I have a different perspective because I have my own anecdotal stories of people taking advantage of our welfare system to a disgusting level. I'm not saying his experiences are invalid; they aren't universal, though. I think increasing the minimum wage is a good step in the right direction. I also think that taking an extreme stance, like some of the "conservatives" do, is detrimental. However, so is this guy's stance.



I don't think he meant "take advantage" as anything other than simply there are benefits that one uses in a perfectly legal way. That's what businesses are supposed to do anyway. Yes, the rest is largely anecdotal, but I'd be interested on what the statistics bear out there. People are rational actors, and they will maximize the benefit to themselves whenever they can. That includes the tax and welfare systems. Is it worth it to spend $100 to prevent $10 of fraud/theft/whatever you want to call it? (Obviously I'm making up numbers, don't hold me to them.)

But hey, we definitely agree on the minimum wage thing.

2014: 32 bottles. Last wine.woot: Scott Harvey Jana Cathedral 3 L
2013: 66 bottles, 2012: 91 bottles, 2011: 92 bottles, 2010: 74 bottles, 2009: 30 bottles, 2008: 3 bottles My CT

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
klezman wrote:Anybody have thoughts on this?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/12/opinion/blow-the-appalling-stance-of-rand-paul.html?nl=todaysheadlines



It seems to be true that the longer you're out of work, but harder it is to find someone who will hire you. It's pretty crappy. In my experience (more anecdotal evidence, just what we need!) people do not try as hard to find work when they're on unemployment OR they work and get paid under the table and still collect unemployment. My husband recently interviewed for a job and the employer was hoping this was the case with him. (It's not)

It needs to be temporary, and I say that as a person whose family has benefited in the past (it was a tremendous help to us in 2006, but we drew every last cent of it and would have done so for longer if we could have). I really do believe that most people prefer to work, but they don't prefer to work a terrible job. They'll hold out for something better, and that something might not exist any more.

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
chemvictim wrote:It seems to be true that the longer you're out of work, but harder it is to find someone who will hire you. It's pretty crappy. In my experience (more anecdotal evidence, just what we need!) people do not try as hard to find work when they're on unemployment OR they work and get paid under the table and still collect unemployment. My husband recently interviewed for a job and the employer was hoping this was the case with him. (It's not)



I think we need to separate professional/skilled careers from unskilled labor, because only unskilled labor could possibly make ends meet with unemployment.

$405/wk just doesn't go very far- I have a lot of trouble believing people used to earning skilled wages will sit around happily for what amounts to minimum wage...