Originally Posted by LadynRed

ON the subject of "Merry Chirstmas" -- 80% of Americans are CHRISTIANS, that makes us the MAJORITY -- why should WE bury OUR beliefs and holiday celebrations for that last 20% ? We don't stop THEM from saying "Happy Hannukah" or "Happy Kwanzaa" or whatever your holidays are.. so why does this MINORITY get to stop the rest of us ? GET OVER IT ALREADY - IT'S CHRISTMAS ! The rest can celebrate whatever they want - or not. This nation was founded on religious freedom and tolerance, if you're a member of that other 20% and you don't like it here.. you're perfectly welcome to go somewhere else or go back to where you came from if you weren't born here.

This proves my point about Conservatism and Political Correctness.

I'm a Christian. I've never felt any pressure to bury my beliefs. Nobody has EVER asked me to stop celebrating Christ's birth or wishing well onto others. It's never happened in my experience. On the other hand, the quote above suggests that my religion trumps 60 million American's who aren't Christians. (20 % of 300 million) I firmly believe I'm these people's equal, but not their better. I don't want to stop them from celebrating whatever it is they hold sacred any more than anybody I've ever met has wanted to stop me from celbrating Christmas. I can't believe I just read "founded on religious tolerance" and people can leave if they don't like Christianity in the same paragraph.

This was on xmas is a crock. First we're talking about clerks at Macy's saying "Happy Holidays" so it has nothing to do with politics, there's no law either party (or bipartisans) passed. It's the free market at work - apparently a lot of corporations found out Jewish and Hindu people have money, too, and want some of it. That's another thing Republicans are in love with - big business having the right to do anything it wants no matter what anyone things.

ACLU filing suits for the flying of the Confederate flag over the South Carolina Capitol, even though the majority of the populous supports its presence? Suing State of Utah for placing crosses at the side of the road where fatal accidents have occurred to raise awareness of driving safety?

Not a surprise, but you have a very mistaken view of the American Civil Liberties Union. Most Republicans hate them for supporting free speech, and cite the Skokie case as proof. Occasionally there are issues they feel are even more important - seperation of church and state is also enshrined in the 1st Amendment with speech - but most of what they do is defend free (but unpopular) speech, by necessity. The ACLU is an arrow lodged near the heart of Political Correctness.

To drive home Cat's point, lets swap out the words "white christian males" from your post and see how it settles.

Only if we swap out more than just the words. Let's also swap out incomes, life expectancy rates, access to medical care, and everything else that goes with it. A white man makes 20 % more for exactly the same labor as a black man. So yes, it's hypocritical and inappropriate for White Christian Males as a group to cry the victim. (Before anyone twists my words, I'm a white Christian male and will never be president - there are black people with more wealth than I have. As individuals and as groups are apples and oranges.)

This is nothing new, it's just a bunch of left-wing white folk trying to downplay their feelings of guilt for being white.

This is one of the most confusing things I hear Conservatives say regularly. I'm not guilty for being white! I don't know anyone who feels that way. I'm proud of my heritage - my family came from north of Kiev.

I don't think they're trying to "convert" non-believers with PC, I think they're just too wussed up by the far left into thinking that if they don't be PC, no one will purchase there products for being too "insensitive" or whatever to minorities, thus damaging the corporation's image and reputation.

This is the heart of the matter. The whole Christmas scare tactic (that's what Bill O'Reilly uses it as) is a choice made by accountants in suits after going over all the numbers in Excel. It has nothing to do with the far left, any political party, being a wuss or able to beat people up, or the size of a person's Johnson. It's all about the Benjamins.

That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. The cashier says "Merry Christmas" and she is part of some conspiracy to convert you to christianity? How bout the voice prompts that say Oprima numero uno para espanol". Are they trying to convert you into a Latino?

I don't know any Spanish, but I don't think there's any part of the language encouraging you to find converts. That's an explicit part of most types of Christianity. Heck, that's part of most types of religion, period. I don't think "conspiracy" is a great word to describe a billion Christians around the world, but it's an ok one. Most of those Christians do want to help save a person who hasn't accepted Jesus as their savior. Most phone systems that have multi language support really only want to provide some way to get your money out of you.

This goes far beyond Christmas, too. I'm starting to see stores selling Passover products, Chinese New Year products, kosher products, halal meat, kosher halal meat, trying to cater to every religious zealot out there because they're so damned scared of offending anyone that they have to put in all this crap just to please them. I'm even seeing kosher laundry detergent now! If that isn't PC, I don't know what is.

Why is it that the one person on this forum who thinks true Communism or Socialism is a better economic system than Capitalism, has to keep saying "that's how Capitalism works!!"

Seriously, what risk is there to a local grocery chain that doesn't carry kosher laundry soap? No harm to their reputation is going to come of that. The worst case is they won't get in on the kosher detergent market. It's about opportunity, not fear - there just isn't enough damage to one's brand to fear in a situation like that!

Thats the humorous part. I've never heard of ANYONE, EVER being offended at the words Happy Solistice. Hell, say happy Satan Day, and you probably wont find anywhere near the quantity of religious conservatives trying to ban your speech. Been there, done that, set some women on fire in Salem to prove it.

I have. And wouldn't you know, it was Bill O. He said "Merry Christmas" isn't offensive, that a person would have to be flipping crazy to be offended by two words. In the same segment, he said he's personally offended when he hears somebody say "Happy Holidays" and that all his Christian Soldiers are likewise offended. (He likes speaking for other people, but it doesn't make what he says accurate.)

Ann Coulter has also expressed her offense at hearing people tell each other "Happy Holidays". She said when she hears that she hears people telling her (even if they're talking to someone else) that they reject her Messiah as a crazy person.

This is nothing new, it's just a bunch of left-wing white folk trying to downplay their feelings of guilt for being white.

This is one of the most confusing things I hear Conservatives say regularly. I'm not guilty for being white! I don't know anyone who feels that way. I'm proud of my heritage - my family came from north of Kiev.

You might feel that way, but I've known enough of these PC folks that I feel safe in making that assessment. You've apparently not been around enough Unitarian Universalists or visited UNC-Chapel Hill.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

Again, political correctness is a form of moral (or normative if you prefer) policing. This goes to the heart of the Conservative ideology and is very alien to Liberalism.

And yet it's the ultra-left that's pushing it. It's radicalism you should be wary of; most mainline conservatives (or liberals either, for that matter) are not out to be the Thought Police.

Interesting post John. You are on the topics, though as you might expect, I disagree. First off, since a couple people have tagged into LadynRed about her quote, let me re-quote it:

This nation was founded on religious freedom and tolerance, if you're a member of that other 20% and you don't like it here.. you're perfectly welcome to go somewhere else or go back to where you came from if you weren't born here.

You responded with

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

I can't believe I just read "founded on religious tolerance" and people can leave if they don't like Christianity in the same paragraph.

I think Joder misquoted her too. To be clear...
"if you're a member of that other 20% and you don't like it here" != "if they don't like Christianity". I suppose one could interpret it that way, but when I read it, the words that came through in my head read as follows:

"If me celebrating Christmas in public offends you beyond what you can bear, you are welcome to go somewhere else".

Now is that me oppressing someone with my Christian religion, or is that someone oppressing me with their desire to prevent me from celebrating my faith in public. I suppose it could be read both ways, but I think a truly neutral perspective would indicate those desiring this type of limited expression of religion are those truly trespassing on the rights of others, even if you leave out the fact that Christians make up the majority.


I agree with you and Tim regarding the content of the advertisements being market driven. Most companies are going to put out whatever message puts the most dollars in their account at the end of the day, and I think thats great. Perhaps the slippery slope here is the fact that the cost of defending yourself in a lawsuit, no matter how frivolous, could exceed any gains made by marketing a religious message to a mostly religious audience. I'm not saying this is rampant, or even that it is happening, but it is very conceivable that a few liberal judges could pave the way to making it rampant by one or two judgments in favor of some PC whiner claiming the bibleheads are offending them with their religious advertisements. I know we have all heard of stranger things, like the guy who broke his leg while robbing someone's house, and then sued the home owner and WON for an unsafe skylite.

The ACLU is an arrow lodged near the heart of Political Correctness.

Regarding the ACLU, while I can appreciate the fight for free speech, I think it is telling that they beat the "Separation of Church and State" drum to a pulp, suing to remove the 10 commandments from courthouse lobbys, while allowing the anti-gun lobby to run amock. It wouldn't surprise me if one day they come far enough out of the closet to try and get "In God We trust" off of our currency. It seems nothing could be farther from the desires of the framers of our constitution, the document they supposedly defend.

Only if we swap out more than just the words. Let's also swap out incomes, life expectancy rates, access to medical care, and everything else that goes with it. A white man makes 20 % more for exactly the same labor as a black man. So yes, it's hypocritical and inappropriate for White Christian Males as a group to cry the victim. (Before anyone twists my words, I'm a white Christian male and will never be president - there are black people with more wealth than I have. As individuals and as groups are apples and oranges.)

First off, the only one who plaid the white man victim card was Joder. Cat and I simply made the point that Straight Christian White Males are seemingly the only group it is still PC to malign. Free speech works both ways. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. I'm sure you aren't arguing it is OK bash a particular race because a larger percentage of their population has better education or pay. It cant be true because bashing orientals is not acceptable.

Also, the racial generalization that if you are a white christian male, your life is perfect is complete nonsense. There is a very large low income, welfare, and criminal white population in the U.S..

That's an explicit part of most types of Christianity. Heck, that's part of most types of religion, period. I don't think "conspiracy" is a great word to describe a billion Christians around the world, but it's an ok one. Most of those Christians do want to help save a person who hasn't accepted Jesus as their savior.

While it is human nature to "Convert" people to your way of thinking, religious or otherwise, I find it hard to believe the billion Christians out there are actively evangelizing and recruiting. I imagine most are non-practicing, especially in the U.S.. Religion always seems to have larger significance amongst those living in poverty.

I have. And wouldn't you know, it was Bill O. He said "Merry Christmas" isn't offensive, that a person would have to be flipping crazy to be offended by two words. In the same segment, he said he's personally offended when he hears somebody say "Happy Holidays" and that all his Christian Soldiers are likewise offended. (He likes speaking for other people, but it doesn't make what he says accurate.)

Well, lets not forget Bill's two Pulitzers for journalistic integrity. Maybe not the best example. Based on the response to the PC movement on this board, I'd say there is a lot of angst about it amongst many, and the words "Happy Holidays" do tend to represent the PC crowd, so I imagine it is hitting a sore spot.

Originally Posted by cbwm

First off, the only one who plaid the white man victim card was Joder.

I'm personally sick and tired of you misquoting EVERYTHING I say. You follow me around, post after me and twist.

A very interesting thread.
It appears most of the contributions come from North America. We are having a very similar debate here in the UK, with members of the PC brigade trying to outdo each other with their ludicrous ideas.

Originally Posted by cbwm

"If me celebrating Christmas in public offends you beyond what you can bear, you are welcome to go somewhere else".

This is one I can't fully seperate my bias from. Fact is, I am a Christian. So is my wife. Sometimes I wonder how anyone could not be.

When I was a younger man, and single, there were times when I was so lonely, it almost hurt to see a loving couple kiss in public. That's not because its wrong for people to embrace, that's jealousy. Hasn't happened since I met my dear. (Whose name I won't publish on the internet, now or ever, FYI.) I basically feel the same way about the war on xmas. I don't put up Christmas lights on the house because it's too much trouble, but if anyone ever told me I can't, you can guess what I'd be doing that day.

Any individual is free to express themself. Even if that means thanking God for blessing them with life when other people can see it. That doesn't harm anyone - it's not immoral.

Originally Posted by cbwm

I think a truly neutral perspective would indicate those desiring this type of limited expression of religion are those truly trespassing on the rights of others, even if you leave out the fact that Christians make up the majority.

And this is where I'd buy you a drink if this was a bar conversation. Infringing on other people's rights is the line in the sand you don't cross. That's why I brought up when I was lonely for a wife - that was my interpretation of the situation and not enough to trespass on other people's right to have what I was after (and ultimately found).

Originally Posted by cbwm

Regarding the ACLU, while I can appreciate the fight for free speech, I think it is telling that they beat the "Separation of Church and State" drum to a pulp, suing to remove the 10 commandments from courthouse lobbys

You might call this frivilous, but how many tax dollars that could have gone to better schools, to public health, or just to having lower taxes, went into a statue ("art" ain't cheap!)? This is where religion starts trampling the public's rights.

And come on. I know the commandments - I live by them every day. Bet you do, too. If a person needs to be reminded not to steal or kill, we have a bigger problem to deal with. And like in that Colbert interview "Can you think of a better building to display the 10 Commandments in?" The guy actually said no, he can't think of any better place.

Originally Posted by cbwm

while allowing the anti-gun lobby to run amock.

This should perhaps be the topic of another thread, but the historical context and the actual text of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States aren't 100 % clear, but really suggest that Tupac and Biggie Smalls don't automatically have the right to bear arms just because they were citizens here.

Originally Posted by cbwm

It wouldn't surprise me if one day they come far enough out of the closet to try and get "In God We trust" off of our currency. It seems nothing could be farther from the desires of the framers of our constitution, the document they supposedly defend.

It's already happened. Madiline Murry O'Hare, Steve Murry's aunt, went on trial all the way to the supreme court for erasing "In God We Trust" from her money (defacement?) with permenant markers. Her conviction was overturned.

I don't understand why you think the people who gave birth to our Republic would have wanted a reference to monotheism on our money, though? I guess since it doesn't say which God we trust, it's not violating the establishment clause (although atheists probably disagree) but every now and then I think how it could mean Allah. Who I dno't follow or believe in.

Originally Posted by cbwm

I'm sure you aren't arguing it is OK bash a particular race because a larger percentage of their population has better education or pay. It cant be true because bashing orientals is not acceptable.

Of course that's not what I'm saying, only that we need to look at the full picture. But you have a good piont. If you think about it, is it more offensive to slur South Koreans than it is to slur Mexicans? Does "kick 'em while they're down" make things worse?

While we're playing the race card, I'd like to point out that most of the racism against black people is articulated by black people. I love hip hop music and hate rap. I'm sure you know where I'm going with this - stereotypes white people abandoned in the 1960s are perpetuated today in 2008. But again this has more to do with making money (there's a market for thugged out gangasta crud) than institutional racism, I think.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Also, the racial generalization that if you are a white christian male, your life is perfect is complete nonsense. There is a very large low income, welfare, and criminal white population in the U.S..

There's a hip hop artist from Peru who has a line in one of his songs about how he has more in common with the poor white people living on his block than the rich Latinos on TV. Next line "as much as it feels like racism is bleeding America, classism is the real struggle."

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

While we're playing the race card, I'd like to point out that most of the racism against black people is articulated by black people. I love hip hop music and hate rap. I'm sure you know where I'm going with this - stereotypes white people abandoned in the 1960s are perpetuated today in 2008. But again this has more to do with making money (there's a market for thugged out gangasta crud) than institutional racism, I think.

One of the reasons I, and many white people IMO, are so impressed with Obama. Articulate, successful, likable, educated, and color-blind. Oh, and he just so happens to be black. He is in essence the Anti-Jessee Jackson, refusing to run as the 'black' candidate. The Jessee Jackson comment by Bill Clinton was so out of line, he might as well have called him an uncle tom. That comment may cost Hilary the nomination. Sorry for the hijack.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

There's a hip hop artist from Peru who has a line in one of his songs about how he has more in common with the poor white people living on his block than the rich Latinos on TV. Next line "as much as it feels like racism is bleeding America, classism is the real struggle."

Very true. I forget who posted, but I think it was you or whym, stating social mobility should be a primary goal of a good candidate. After thinking about it, those words ring very true. America has always been the land of opportunity and, IMO, opportunity is synonymous with social mobility when you are poor.