So the Bush White House endeavors to send out a nice, simple, inclusive holiday card. No different than millions of Americans of all religions send out.
And what happens? The extreme religious right is offended. Hëll, let’s not even call them the extreme religious right, because that makes it sound like extremist Jews, Muslims, Shintoists, etc., are all on the same page. Let’s call it what it is: Extremist Christians.
Here’s the fascinating thing about Extremists: They’re all the same. The philosophy of Extremist Christians is fundamentally no different than, say, that of Extremist Muslims. They believe in the same things: Exclusionary thinking. Intolerance. Ignoring fundamental lessons of their own faith when it runs afoul of extremist thinking. Where is the philosophy of Christian charity and understanding? Where is the writings in the Koran specifically forbidding the killing of innocents? They don’t serve the Extremist viewpoint of exclusion and intolerance and thus are cast aside.
They only differ in degrees of their actions. Some chop off the heads of helpless victims. Others blow up abortion clinics.
And the most consistent link is that trying to accommodate them never, ever works. That’s what Bush is discovering now, having staked his political star to the whims of the Extremists. It’s insufficient for Extremists that eighty percent of this country celebrates Christmas. Instead the ONLY acceptable greeting at this time of year is “Merry Christmas” rather than something inclusive such as “Happy holidays.” It’s insufficient for Extremists that there is already an implicit lack of separation of church and state around the holidays (the government shuts down for Christmas. You see the government shutting down for Yom Kippur? For Ramadan?) They want an EXplicit lack of separation by having the official greeting card from the White House be in celebration of Christmas only.
It’s never enough for Extremists. Never enough. Because the only thing that will really satisfy them–whether they’re walking bombs or just bombasts–is if everyone thinks just like them, believes just like them, and wants the same things as them. Which is never, ever going to happen, which is why they will never, ever be satisfied. Bush has been trying to appease them and hopefully even he is now realizing that it’s hopeless.
One is left shaking one’s head at a people who are claiming their holiday, their very beliefs, are being threatened. No. When Romans were throwing them to the lions, THEN their beliefs were being threatened. Here, in this country, their core philosophies have complete dominance over just about every aspect of life in this country.
And it’s not enough.
When dealing with Extremists and terrorists…it never is.
PAD
• 
The benefit of “Happy Holidays” is that it’s all-encompassing, letting the recipient fill in their holiday. If you’re Christian, it refers to Christmas. If you’re Jewish, it can be for Chanukah. If you’re Wiccan, it can be for Solstice. (Incidentally, I highly recommend the Dar Williams song “The Christians and the Pagans,” a charming holiday tune showing how the differences can be bridged.) If you’re an athiest, it can be for a day off (well, not this year) or a time to exchange gifts with friends and family. If you’re an agnostic, it may or may not mean anything. So what’s wrong with that?
Plenty, if you think your way is the only way. Just as the people who are after prayer in school only want their prayers (not many Catholics looking for Jewish bessings or Muslim prayers), they want the holiday time to be for Christian messages only. Kinda ironic, considering the date for celebrating Christmas was chosen because it was close to the date of the pagan Solstice.
Everyone can celebrate the holiday season, and everyone can enjoy a wish of Happy Holidays. Unless you’re an extremist who can’t tolerate the idea that people can celebrate anything other than Christmas. And they are Christians in name only.
Can I just say, that being a Christian and raised in “The Church” I can’t help but take a lot of what you guys say personally. Even though I know your not commenting on me (I’ve never blown up an abortion clinic, or feel the need to) it’s hard not to get defensive.
I just wanna remind everyone that Extremists of any political or religious party is very small minority of the true beleivers. We have a Christian political party over here in Australia, and one of the back benchers said, and I quote “All lesbians are witches and deserve to be burned at the stake.” That became the soundbite for the entire party (media wise). Not a single thing they said to support families, homeless, whatever, was taken into consideration in the lection.
I guess what I’m saying is that in my experience the freak minority is the one with the loudest voice. I’ve seen interview after interview with Muslem clerics (I think that’s the word) who have condemned the violence and what-not, saying (as someone else on this very thread has said) that it contradicts the Koran (spelling?). Most of us Christians have our head screwed on right, and we really don’t care what you say… Happy Holidays OR Merry Christmas (Remember when X-Mas was disrespectful to Christ?) because the holiday is an important rememberance time to me no matter what you wanna call it.
I hope I’ve made sense.
Do I think those who accept evolution are knowingly perpetuating a fraud? No.
Then you might want to avoid statements like “I believe evolution is a fraud,” as it rather blatantly and obviously suggests the exact opposite.
I’m not getting back into the evolution/creation debate with you right now; I’ve got too many other things going on, and I frankly haven’t seen much evidence that you’ll listen anyway. Maybe some other time. For now, I just wanted to point out that your words do not exactly present you as a kind, pleasant, mellow, tolerant person. Your back-pedal here does not change that assessment.
TWL
Pad let me go ahead and wish you and yours a happy holiday. Now lets break that down and wish you a happy hanakuh. And now that we have covered your faith just to go all out merry christmas, and krazy kwanzaa too. (I hearby admit to not having a clue what an appropriate Kwanzaa greeting would be.)
JAC
“Can I just say, that being a Christian and raised in “The Church” I can’t help but take a lot of what you guys say personally. Even though I know your not commenting on me (I’ve never blown up an abortion clinic, or feel the need to) it’s hard not to get defensive.”
See, whereas I believe that if I’m certain I’m not the type of person being discussed, I have no trouble not getting defensive. Notice that I was VERY careful to emphasize that I was talking only about the most extremist of beliefs. I never claimed (or believe) that Extremists represent the majority of thinking. I didn’t take aim at Christianity, the Catholic church, priests, or even the relative silliness of getting passionate about celebrating Jesus’s birthday on December 25 when we’ve no historical reason to conclude that that was his birthday (at least to my knowledge; I’m more than happy to hear from anyone who can present empirical evidence). Plus my wife and youngest daughter are both Catholic, so obviously I’ve no personal problem with the Church.)
So if you know in your heart that you’re not within the type of group I was mentioning, then please, don’t feel offended.
PAD
One of the few lines of poetry my mind can call up consistently:
“The best lack all conviction; the worst are filled with a passionate intensity.”
I remember it because I believe it.
“Have many Christians over reacted to all of this? Perhaps. But only by pointing out the obvious. We are celebrating Christmas, not some other holiday.”
No, YOU are celebrating Christmas. I am celebrating Christmas. Others may be celebrating any one of the other holidays that fall in the late December time period that includes Christmas. Some of those hilidays, by the by, have been around hundreds and thousands of years longer then Christmas.
See, I just don’t get why the “War on Christmas” crusaders won’t get that. It’s somehow a slam on Christians and an insult if you say, “Happy Holidays.” It’s Christmas and you’re being insulting!!!! Ok, then, under that logic, isn’t it an insult to keep saying to people of a non christian faiths, “Merry Christmas to you.” You’re snubbing their faith.
Happy Holidays seems a perfect fit for the season. It covers everybody that you may see and, as I noted above, it also covers the holidays (see the s at the end of holiday to point out that there’s more then one) that Christians observe and enjoy this time of year. How is that an insult to Jesus?
It’s also dumb to go after stores over this. They are in the real world (rather then the conservatives make believe Earth C) and deal with a base of consumers from all walks of life. The people that walk into these stores celebrate many different holidays. “Merry Christmas” only covers one holiday. Why snub 15% to 20% of your patrons? More then that in some areas.
Why force a store to shell out extra ad money each year to put out ads for just you and then one for the rest of the people? you want Christmas plastered on everything so bad then how about paying for it. Why not ask the Christmas Crusaders to pony up the funds out of their own pockets to cover the costs of getting what they want. They won’t do it mind you. They don’t care about the idea enough to actually give up anything themselves. They just want everybody else to give up something.
For the record, when I dismiss my classes the last day before we all go on break, I usually try to cover all the bases — “Merry Christmas, Happy Chanukah, Happy Kwanaaa, Happy Solstice, or just have a great two weeks off.” When I’m in a hurry, I’ll just go with “whatever your holiday of choice, have a terrific one.” Nobody’s ever taken offense.
TWL
I want to wish everyone Happy Holidays, no matter what that holiday may be, if there is even a holiday. That especially goes out to the extremists on all fronts, who I hope can find some time to just be happy and chill out for a while, and not at the expense of others.
Just to be fair to Iowa Jim …. We’re on opposite sides politically, and a belief in some sort of a higher power is probably the only common ground we would have in regards to religious thought. But I have not found him to be a close-minded, intolerant extremist such as those we have been discussing, and as he suddenly seems to be being lumped in with. He believes what he believes and sticks to it – but there are very few of us here who don’t. He doesn’t attack people for their “faithlessness”; he argues his points but doesn’t try to convert (religiously); he has always seemed to me to be respectful of the right of others to their own opinions. He may take a different position than some of us on many issues; but I have certainly seen many more rude, intolerant, close-minded, and offensive – perhaps extremist – posters on here than Iowa Jim (not even including the banned and semi-banned). Now, maybe there’s some communication which I’ve missed or am not privy to; but from what I have seen, Iowa Jim, agree with him or not, has practiced the kind of respectful discourse which should be encouraged in our debates around here.
I think that the next male stranger who wishes me a “Merry Christmas”, I will respond with a “thank you, ma’am”.
After all, if he’s willing to presume that I’m in the majority in terms of religious affiliation and celebration, I should feel free to assume he’s in the majority in terms of sex.
Luke, I’ll agree that Jim is certainly not the sort of closed-minded extremist PAD is discussing in his original post, and I’ll also agree that there are many more posters who are clearly and explicitly rude, intolerant, etc. There are times when I think Jim and I have had some excellent discussions.
However, Jim is (at least to me) in the far more frustrating category of someone who *thinks* he’s far more polite and tolerant than he frequently is. He makes very broad generalizations that he doesn’t realize are hurtful or offensive, and when challenged says things like, “well, we’ll have to agree to disagree.” That’s not apologizing for causing offense. Jim claims to be tolerant, but is awfully quick to blame “liberal extremists” for anything that goes wrong, and to insist that he’s merely being misinterpreted when in fact he’s explicitly saying the things other people are taking offense to.
Am I more likely to take offense than some, given that I teach science and Jim’s a young-earth creationist? Probably, I’ll have to admit. But Jim *sounds* respectful a great deal more often than he actually *is* respectful, and there are times, like now, when I have to step in and point that out.
TWL
I think that the next male stranger who wishes me a “Merry Christmas”, I will respond with a “thank you, ma’am”.
After all, if he’s willing to presume that I’m in the majority in terms of religious affiliation and celebration, I should feel free to assume he’s in the majority in terms of sex.
No offence to you personally, Nat, but this is the sort of thing I was talking about. This person is just exchanging a pleasentry. It has no greater meaning.Turning it into something more than that is an attempt to elevate yourself into something far more important to this person than is really called for. In a world where there are plenty of truly awful, mean spirited people, doesn’t this seem a bit petty?
I’d wish you a happy day but I’m afraid you’ll turn out to be a masochist and take offense. 🙂
PAD, I know you’re jewish, but I’ll just use my standard generic so it can apply to everyone else here:
“Happy Whatever-the-hëll-you-freaks-Celebrate!”
😉
PAD,
First, please let me say that I have enjoyed your work as an author and have read both comics (Hulk, Spidey 2099, Captain Marvel, and others) and books (Arthur and Apropos, not big into the ST novels). I’ve been lurking on the site for some time, and was unhappy but resigned when I found out that we are on two different ends of the political spectrum. What the hey, it takes all kinds, right? I did want to comment on this particular post, however, and please excuse me if it rambles a bit.
I certainly relate to the earlier poster who felt defensive regarding the topic. I share those feelings. You later responded by pointing out that you were only speaking about “the most extremist of beliefs.” What I didn’t really get was a solid understanding of what YOU define as extremist? If it is those who believe that blowing up abortion clinics is a godly act, then no, your post didn’t apply to me. However, you also seemed to lump those of us who feel that there is a continued attempt to remove religious symbolism from Christmas into that same category. Am I correct in this? Because I have seen such changes, and believe they need to be resisted, does that make me an “Extreme Christian?” (does anyone else get a mental image of a guy on a snowboard, carrying a bible and wearing a cassock while going down the side of a snow-covered mountain when they hear the phrase Extreme Christian, or is it just me?)
One thing I have found online is a large number of people willing to mock and condemn anyone who states that they are Christian, along with another group who seem to view Christians with a kind of amused contempt. Please excuse me for perhaps being overly sensitive on the subject, but quite frankly I’m sick of it, just as anyone would be irritated at generalizations that unfairly included them. Yes, there are extremists in Christianity, just as there are in any grouping in this world. The true sadness of it all, in my opinion, is that people want an easily followed set of rules to follow and are unable or unwilling to think for themselves, and this leads to them falling victim to their fears and prejudices.
One side note related to Narnia, it is the Christian allegory, neither Lord of the Rings nor the Matrix quite qualify. Think of it this way, while all three contain a similar theme of resurrection, only in Narnia is it the death of an innocent, who gave up his life to wipe away the “sin” of another.
Oddly enough, I have yet to hear any of the fundamentalist Christian churches in these parts offer up the Wachowski brothers as examples of Christian thought..
Oh, it has been done. Many times. While there is a lot of eastern thought in the first matrix movie, there is also a lot of themes that resonate with Christian philosophy.
Jim, I take offense at the idea that because I believe some parts of the Universe are explicable through natural processes (such as the process of evolution), that I must then deny that God could possibly have any had in said process.
You are confusing two different issues. Perhaps I should have used the term “naturalistic” evolution. The issue is not could God have used “natural” means to create the universe. The issue is whether I must not allow God to ever be a part of the equation in the first place. It is a central creed of naturalistic evolution that things MUST have a natural origin and explanation. Even the origin of the universe itself had to have a natural beginning. You and I may choose to believe God did it through natural means or in a literal 6 days. Either way it is bad science to even consider God in the equation.
Which solution would seem the more elegant, nay, Divine, to you – patching everything together as one goes, like an old-school computer hack, or constructing a universe whose basic rules lead, with hypnotic inevitability, to the conditions one sought in the Beginning?
There is a third option: God, like a master painter, lovingly crafting the universe over a 6 day period. Crafting it with basic rules that allow for life in all of its diversity. Making a being who is in God’s image, meaning we are relational like God (in Christian trinitarian theology) is relational by his very nature. And therefore, as in any free relationship, open to us choosing to love or reject God.
But that view is obviously built on what I believe to be divine revelation. That is my presupposition. I fully admit that, though I think my presupposition is more congruent with the real world than the idea that God, if he exists, has no active role in the universe around us.
My assertion is that naturalistic evolution does not measure up. I have studied the evidence that life itself came from inanimate matter, and it is not convincing. You don’t have to agree with me, but my hope is that you study not just the evidence but the presuppositions that underly the interpretation of the evidence.
Iowa Jim
But Jim *sounds* respectful a great deal more often than he actually *is* respectful, and there are times, like now, when I have to step in and point that out.
Tim,
Have I been guilty of broad generalizations? Yes, at times. Have I been less than polite. Perhaps. But I have always have maintained a respect of others on this site. I would not claim I am “tolerant” since that seems to be defined as allowing others to do as they please unless it directly harms another individual.
Regarding evolution, I feel our presuppositions are so different that we would have to start there first. Perhaps another time (by email) would be appropriate.
Iowa Jim
Does anyone else get a mental image of a guy on a snowboard, carrying a bible and wearing a cassock while going down the side of a snow-covered mountain when they hear the phrase Extreme Christian, or is it just me?
Well, I didn’t before, but I do now… 😉
But evolution is based on assumptions that cannot be proved.
And so is religion. Religion is far more based on assumptions than evolution ever will be.
But I’m not going around calling Christianity fradulent like you are with people who “believe” in facts of the real world like evolution.
AdamYJ, re your December 10, 2005 03:58 PM:
My sig on SlashDot reads:
“People who need the govt to enforce their religion must not have much faith in the power of its message.”
To Nemo at December 10, 2005 10:14 PM:
Actually, Chanukah is a very minor holiday in the Jewish calendar. It has been blown out of proportion simply due to its proximity in the calendar to Christmas.
This person is just exchanging a pleasentry. It has no greater meaning.
Then I would be at least as happy if he would forego it. Really, if he’s seeing Christmas as the celebration of Christ, then he’s making an inaccurate assumption that I join in; if he’s seeing Christmas as other than that, at some level he is disrespecting Christians and their beliefs, seeing their holiday as just something to coopt. In either case, giving him a bit of food for thought would likely not be the worst thing to happen to him.
If you think that saying “Merry Christmas” to everyone is a “common courtesy” and a way of being “friendly”, but have trouble with people objecting to it… perhaps the thing is to question whether it is really as courteous and friendly as you believe or intend. If you’re addressing a large group of people, that might be an appropriate thing to say as little addressed to a large group can expect to match with all. Say it to an individual, however, and it seems quite appropriate to be corrected by the individual.
(I spent yesterday at a memorial service that was filled with songs praising G-d and Jesus. However, it was a service for someone who was specifically not a believer. The folks selecting the music may have felt it the appropriate thing to do, kindly and courteous, but it was actually offensive to the memory of the man.)
Nat,
“Say it to an individual, however, and it seems quite appropriate to be corrected by the individual.”
I suppose it depends on what kind of thing is said back. It almost seems the equivalent of saying “Hello” to someone as you walk by and having them respond by saying “Go to hëll!” Of course you are going to be taken aback by such a reaction. If I were to say “Merry Christmas” to someone and have them respond “I’m Jewish” then I would reply “and Happy Hanukkah as well!” Two potential ways of replying to someone who is most likely only offering you a warm greeting and good wishes. One way tells them a little more about the person’s beliefs, the other response about that person’s lack of manners.
It almost seems the equivalent of saying “Hello” to someone as you walk by and having them respond by saying “Go to hëll!”
I’m not clear what response you think is equivalent to being told “Go to hëll!” — a cheery “Thank you, ma’am”?
Of course, some people may believe that hëll is an inviting place and thus “go to hëll!” a cordial greeting…
There comes a point, though, where thought policing oneself before saying anything becomes ludicrous. I understand the Merry Christmas argument, really, I do, but I agree that it is really basically just a pleasantry–the same as saying “god bless you” after someone sneezes.
Shall I refrain from saying “Happy holidays” to someone because he or she may not celebrate any of the holidays of the season?
I have no problem with anyone saying anything they wish to celebrate the season provided that it doesn’t go anything further than saying.
>>It isn’t that C.S. Lewis told a Christian parable as a children’s adventure story. That’s no problem. I have no problem with the Bible or Christian metaphors, which appear in all kinds of fiction. The problem is that the right-wing Christians have latched onto this book/movie and claimed it as their own, and are using it as a propaganda tool for their peculiarly un-Christ-like Christianity.
Just watch. The attendance figures at this film will be used by Pat Robertson and his homies on Monday evening’s torchlight prayer rally to claim that America supports their cause. That being the case, I’d rather not stand next to the jackboots, thank you very much.
And as you all know, Disney paid a right-wing organizing group to propagandize “Narnia” as an exclusively Christian experience to the nation’s churches. These groups will claim that because I attended the film in its premiere week, I support blowing up abortion clinics and exiling all Jews to Knuckledrag, Oklahoma.
Lewis’s book is still out there. I can read it for free at the library. I can buy a used copy from amazon.com that won’t be counted as a new purchase in their rankings. I can wait until this whole mess is over and be part of the “after-market” audience that no one will care about. But doing anything with this stuff for the next few weeks would make me another nail in the coffin of religious tolerance.
Wow, I’ve been saying the same exact thing on various news boards about why I dont have any intrest to see Narnia. I even get the “I dont unnderstand why you let Pat Robertson have control over you” BS talkback as well!
Actually, Chanukah is a very minor holiday in the Jewish calendar
That’s the reason for the phrasing I used. I didn’t say “major holy day”, I said “some kind of observance”. My first draft was written differently, but I realized that it didn’t fit with Hanukkah very well.
Thanks for pointing it out, though. 🙂
I’ve got it. The perfect solution for retailers. Now it does leave out Wicca, other pagans, and non-celebrators (you know some hard core Christian faiths here in the deep south don’t acknowledge Christmas) Anyway the solution….
HAPPY CHRISTMAKWANZANANUKAH!
(And when you say this to someone they can use the traditional response, happy googledgook to you too.)
It is a central creed of naturalistic evolution that things MUST have a natural origin and explanation. Even the origin of the universe itself had to have a natural beginning. You and I may choose to believe God did it through natural means or in a literal 6 days. Either way it is bad science to even consider God in the equation.
Evolution does NOT have a central “creed”. The idea that things have a natural explanation is central to ALL science. Why is it only evolutionists that get crap? If I say that a pencil falls when I drop it due to the theory of gravity why don’t a bunch of people write angry letters to my school saying that I’m contradicting their belief that Satan is actually trying, always trying, to suck our souls to the fiery pit (located somewhere between the Moho and the Outer Core) and that THIS is why things are inexorably drawn toward the center of the Earth?
Also, and I will keep saying this until you hear it, evolution has little to nothing to say about either the origin of the universe or the origin of life. Those are entirely different things. The origin of the universe isn’t even biology and, speaking as someone who is a biologist by training, makes my head hurt to think about it. It’s Physics. Talk to Tim.
I have studied the evidence that life itself came from inanimate matter, and it is not convincing.
Then you haven’t really studied evolution. Read Darwin. For a guy who wrote when our knowledge of genetics was, well, nonexistent, it’s amazing how well Origin of the Species holds up. (I suspect the book is more often bought than read. Too bad. It’s quite good and you even get a sense of the man behind the words. Poetic, in its way.)
Well, Nat, I guess we just don’t see it the same way. I suppose there may be a small group of people who intend a “Merry Christmas” or “happy Holidays” as some kind of snide attack but personally I see that as such a small minority of people that it hardly seems rational to assume it as such. Your reply, far from “giving him food for thought” will probably just make him or her wonder what it was that made you so embittered.
It’s not limited to the holidays. I’ve seen people go off on people who simply said “Have a nice day.” They took the opportunity to tell them that they knew that they did not really care whether or not they had a nice day and the world would be a better place if people did away with phony blah blah blah. They achieved their purpose, I guess, making everyone turn and pay attention to them, something that must not happen often enough to their liking. To what greater goal I can’t imagine.
(I spent yesterday at a memorial service that was filled with songs praising G-d and Jesus. However, it was a service for someone who was specifically not a believer. The folks selecting the music may have felt it the appropriate thing to do, kindly and courteous, but it was actually offensive to the memory of the man.)
Well, that’s why you should put these things down in writing. Memorials are mostly for the living, since the deceased is, presumably, not able to hear it. (If he DID hear it I guess he has reassessed his opinion of the afterlife). I’ve told people I want Morricone music at mine (the finale for Once Upon A Time In America would be a particularly nice send off) but if they stick in some hymns it isn’t like I’ll rise up out of the coffin and object (though wouldn’t that be GREAT?). Whatever makes my family happy.
That said, sorry about the loss of your friend.
Of course, what got the majority of the non-extremist Christians agitated was not any sort of “happy holidays”, but rather businesses forbidding the use of the word “Christmas” in relation to Christmas symbols. A Christmas tree is a Christmas tree, not a holiday tree, until the tree starts being used at the 4th of July. A hanukkah menorah is a hanukkah menorah, not a holiday candelabra (and my advanced apoligies if I mispelled or misused a religious reference here).
I have no problem with people saying “Happy Holidays”. Glenn Beck, one of the top rated conservative talk show hosts spent Friday DEFENDING Bush’s Holiday card. Most Christians fall into that group.
However, when businesses or cities ban employees from even mentioning a specific holiday, that gives amunition and support to the extremists, even from those of us that don’t support extremists…
I even get the “I dont unnderstand why you let Pat Robertson have control over you” BS talkback as well!
Well, great minds think alike.
Don’t know why you think it’s BS though. If I read this correctly the fellow was implying that he WOULD have gone to see the movie but declined because he was afraid that Pat Robertson would gain some degree of pleasure from it.
Sounds to me like Mr Robertson’s opinions carry a hëll of a lot of weight to him. More than they ever possibly could to me. Boy, if Robertson is ever clever enough to learn about reverse psychology he will have some of you dancing on strings.
Anyway, you missed a really fun movie, in my opinion. With a 67 million dollar opening weekend (the second biggest December opening ever) you can probably feel assured that your contribution will not change Robertson’s feelings one way or another.
(I hear Ðìçk Cheney really wants you to see KING KONG).
It is a central creed of naturalistic evolution that things MUST have a natural origin and explanation.
No, Jim, it is a central tenet of scientific thought that things must have a natural origin and explanation. Looking to the supernatural is a matter for philosophers and theologians, not scientists. Your objection is rather similar to saying that if one believes in the proton-proton interaction of nuclear fusion, one is denying God His place in lighting the stars.
For myself, I agree with Dr. David Brin – if God has gone to this much effort to make the universe look as if it’s fourteen billion years old, and as if life has evolved on this planet over the past three billion years, who am I to call Him a liar?
>>If I read this correctly the fellow was implying that he WOULD have gone to see the movie but declined because he was afraid that Pat Robertson would gain some degree of pleasure from it.
As do I, why is that strange? I have an intrest to see it, but as I quoted, CBN will take any huge box office and PROMOTE IT as a sign the public wants to see Christian Themed films, which is a severe misconception. I see their endorsement as a drawback, and personally do not want my box office dollar endorsing Robertson and his agenda.
>>Sounds to me like Mr Robertson’s opinions carry a hëll of a lot of weight to him. More than they ever possibly could to me. Boy, if Robertson is ever clever enough to learn about reverse psychology he will have some of you dancing on strings.
I really dont understand how my non-action shows he’s pulling any strings. It doesn’t mean im saying things like “Ðámņ Pat Robertson, I wanted to see this, but now I cant because he’s endorsing it”. It’s more like “It looks cool, but it can wait”. Personally, I dont go to that many movies anymore for other reasons, so I usually see specific films in a year in the Theatre. Narnia doesn’t intrest me as much as Kong, but thats a personal choice. If Robertson endorsed Kong (which he never would since it shows animals have ‘souls”) I dont think that would deter me ay all. Same with Ðìçk.
Hey, you go or not go for any reason you want…I’m still not clear on what you’re saying since your last post has parts that seem to be at odds with each other but it’s probably not as big a deal as I’ve made it out to be.
Me, I’m such a movie buff that even the suggestion that some outside force, especially one I hold in such little regard as Robertson, could have an influence on what I go to see is just mind boggling. Hey, I watch movies I don’t even think I’ll like! I mean, normally I pass on movies about gay cowboys eating pudding but I have faith in Ang Lee so….
NIVEK:
That’s Knuckledrag, Iowa. Leave Oklahoma out of this.
CRAIG RIES: fyi, Randi Rhodes is a woman. And is on Air America. She may be Jewish, too, but that is just the impression I get. So that’s 3 reason’s why ArizonaTeach wouldn’t listen to anything she says.
JERRY WALL: Of course Glenn Beck defended the Bush card. Bush can do no wrong, according to the Extreme Reich. Beck worships Pope Bush the Lesser.
A Christmas tree is a Christmas tree, not a holiday tree, until the tree starts being used at the 4th of July.
Except that not only is the tree used to celebrate other holidays, specifically Saturnalia. It was borrowed (usurped) for Christmas… in curious countervention to what the bible calls for:
Jeremiah 10:2-4: “Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.” (KJV, as quoted at http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_tree.htm )
Jim,
Have I been guilty of broad generalizations? Yes, at times. Have I been less than polite. Perhaps. But I have always have maintained a respect of others on this site.
No, Jim, you haven’t. You have, at least so far as I remember, taken pains to avoid being rude towards any specific person — but when you feel equally free to condemn or otherwise disparage groups of which said person is clearly a part, that’s not maintaining a level of respect. It’s simply not, and I’m sorry that you don’t appear to realize that.
Bill:
The idea that things have a natural explanation is central to ALL science. Why is it only evolutionists that get crap?
Because many people over in creationist-land don’t realize that Big Bang cosmology *isn’t* part of evolutionary theory. There is little doubt in my mind that cosmology will be a major target once somebody figures that out, however.
The origin of the universe isn’t even biology and, speaking as someone who is a biologist by training, makes my head hurt to think about it. It’s Physics. Talk to Tim.
If it doesn’t make your head hurt, you’re not grasping it sufficiently. 🙂
More seriously, there is absolutely no conflict between Big Bang cosmology and the possibility of a creator. None. It’s the creationist side, appropriately enough, that’s creating a conflict where none exists.
And most of cosmology doesn’t discuss the origin of the universe, either. The origin of galaxies, yes; early-universe nucleosynthesis, yes; events from the first billionth of a second or so onwards, yes. The origin, no. There are starting to be some hypotheses about the Big Bang itself, but that’s much more speculative. Everything from about the first 0.000001 seconds up is pretty well established theory at this point. (And yes, that’s a mind-blowing thing to be able to say.)
Jonathan:
Your objection is rather similar to saying that if one believes in the proton-proton interaction of nuclear fusion, one is denying God His place in lighting the stars.
Aaigh! For the sake of all that is good, don’t give him more targets! 🙂
And I hadn’t heard the Brin quote — absolutely lovely, and I may have to appropriate it from time to time (with proper citation, of course).
And in general: while I certainly understand Nat’s point of view here (and others who share his opinion), I find the “happy holidays”/”Merry Christmas” tiff to be mostly tempest-in-a-teapot stuff as regards me personally. When the lead teacher at Katherine’s day care told her that “God Bless You — that’s what we say when somebody sneezes,” I didn’t bother to jump in and say “um, actually that’s NOT what our family says” — it wasn’t worth it, and she was well-intentioned. I prefer to save my separation-of-church-and-state battles for things that matter.
I completely understand why it might get some people riled up, and I respect that — but IMO, at least, as long as it’s just being used as a pleasantry I don’t really care that much what people say.
(Similarly, to rouse another hornets’ nest, I find the whole concept of the Pledge of Allegiance appalling — but I don’t picket when the school happens to say it during morning meeting. I just stand respectfully and remain silent. So far I don’t know that anyone’s even noticed — if they do and ask, I’ll explain, but it’s more of a personal thing than anything else.)
TWL
That’s Knuckledrag, Iowa. Leave Oklahoma out of this.
Given recent events, I hereby recommend that we all adopt “Knuckledrag, Kansas.”
TWL
Peter,
As a Roman Catholic, and a fan (not that they are seperate), have a very happy holiday season to you and yours. It was nice to see what you wrote, you said what I was and have said to my friends.
Be well and keep up the good work,
Sean
When the lead teacher at Katherine’s day care told her that “God Bless You — that’s what we say when somebody sneezes,” I didn’t bother to jump in and say “um, actually that’s NOT what our family says” — it wasn’t worth it, and she was well-intentioned. I prefer to save my separation-of-church-and-state battles for things that matter.
Unless it’s a state-run day care, then the argument is moot, anyway. Most day cares (around here at least) are private companies, not part of a state-run organization like schools. Therefore, there is no separation doctrine to apply.
As you say, though, she’s well-meaning and sharing a blessing. Like “Merry Christmas” it just doesn’t seem like a big deal.
Since Narnia is being debated so it’s interesting no one has really said what they thought of it. As a childhood fan of the books, even though I had no clue of the religious overtones, I walked out of the theater think, Eh. The acting is top notch, special effects are good, it’s fairly faithful to the book except for the opening…
But I walked out with no real emotion about it, I didn’t love it, didn’t hate it but don’t really care to see it again. Been there done that sort of thing, time to move on. When comparing against the other big fantasy movie out there, just got back from enjoying Harry potter for the third time.
“Unless it’s a state-run day care, then the argument is moot, anyway. Most day cares (around here at least) are private companies, not part of a state-run organization like schools. Therefore, there is no separation doctrine to apply.”
Actually, you are stating a misunderstanding of the first amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
It is perfectly legal (and protected) for an employee of a state-run organization to say “God bless you.” The first amendment only prohibits CONGRESS religion. There is no constitutional separation of church and state – only a separation of CONGRESSES law writing ability and the church. Neither the executive or judicial branches or and local government are held to any restrictions according to the US Constitution.
As far as the 3 book/movies go I’d say that Narnia is a better book than Potter but the Potter movies are better and getting better with each installment–for which I credit the fact that the author had almost unprecedented control over how badly the monkeys in Hollywood could muck with it. The studios should take note but they won’t.
Rings beats them both, as book and film. But then again, Jackson is a genius, as those of us who have followed him from Bad Taste on know.
But hey, there’s plenty of room for all 3. Narnia’s better than 95% of what’s out there, good enough for me. I rather wish they hadn’t had Liam Neeson do Aslan’s voice, not that Liam did a bad job but I kept thinking “Hey, it’s Qui-Gon.”
There also should have been a bit more gravitas in the battles. I realize this is a family movie so they couldn’t show Minotaurs goring Centaurs but I really wanted to see…uh, Minotaurs goring Centaurs. I mean, how many times will I get the chance?
Unless it’s a state-run day care, then the argument is moot, anyway. Most day cares (around here at least) are private companies, not part of a state-run organization like schools. Therefore, there is no separation doctrine to apply.
Oh, it never even occurred to me that it could or should be any sort of legal issue. They can say whatever they want. (Come to think of it, though, it’s a day care run through a state school, which means it might technically qualify as state-run … hmm.) In any event, I was talking about it more as a question of “is this worth getting into a snit about?” than anything else.
TWL
// Actually, Chanukah is a very minor holiday in the Jewish calendar. It has been blown out of proportion simply due to its proximity in the calendar to Christmas. //
And for most of the history of Christianty X-Mas was a realitivly minor holiday in the Christian calender, if it was even celebrated at all, (many Christian sects did not celebrate it at all till about 100-150 years ago, and there are still a few sects today that don’t acknowledge it).
In fact, although most Roman Catholics are unaware of it, Christmas is not the major holiday in the Catholic calender, Easter is. Now if you stop and think about it this makes total sense, after all Easter celebrates the resurection of Christ, everyone was born, no big deal there, but to die and come back, now that’s something worth celebrating.
Sadly since everyone gets presents on XMas they seem to think that’s the big deal, not Easter, which compared to XMas seems kinda lame, (especialy if you’re a kid).
As you point out Chanukah has already been blown out of propotion, (I have a Jewish friend who complains about that all the time), but give it another 100 years and it may become the major holiday in the perception of the faithful just as Christmas has become for most Christian followers.
Jim, your comments on evolution highlight why the debate between evolution and so-called intelligent design even exist: a fundamental misunderstanding of what the science of evolution is, what it attempts to study, what it says about those studies, and what it is trying to explain. You (and others that decry evolution) feel that it attacks the fundamental building blocks of your belief. And for literal creationists, it does. But not because it wants to prove you wrong…but because that’s what an impartial observer looking at the facts would conclude. The only people going around saying that the Earth is only 14,000 years old (max) are those are predisposed to hold that belief to being with. Anyone not looking to support the chronology of the Bible holds to the evidence that our planet is in fact billions of years old, and that obsverable life has been around for hundreds of millions of years.
But more than that, the very basis on which you attack evolution…
“But evolution is based on assumptions that cannot be proved….”
can be applied to nearly every passage of the Bible. Parts of itcan be supported with fact. But strictly looking at the story of creation, and adhering to it as a true story is simply making assumptions that cannot be proved. The only thing that supports a literal story of Biblical creation is faith. Which is actuall LESS than the evidence supporting evolution. Which, despite gaps in the fossil record (which can easily be explained by the fact that a very, very minor portion of 1% of all animals every become fossils), what we DO have of the fossil record indicates that life forms do change over time in ways that we can only perceive by examing the fossil record.
No, Jim, it is a central tenet of scientific thought that things must have a natural origin and explanation.
You have just made my point. By definition, if you insist the universe has a *natural* origin and explanation, you have made a philosophical statement. You have said it is at least possible (if not probable) for the universe to exist without there being a “god” of any kind.
There is a big difference between observing laws in effect today and making extrapolations about the past. It is necessary to do so. But when you get into the issue of origin, particuarly the origin of everything, you go beyond what science can prove. Why do the laws themself exist? Whatever your answer, it is based on presuppostions. I would say they exist because a rational, orderly God exists who put them into place. I have read a lot of alternatives, everthing from the speculation that there are multiple universes and that out of the infinite variations, one of them had to have our set of laws, to a simple statement that they just simply exist because they always exist. At least right now there is no way to test these theories, and I doubt we ever can. Until we do, you are dealing with a presupposition, not a “fact.”
Science requires that things happen in an orderly fashion with a cause and effect. Electricity will always operate the same way. Chemical reactions, under the same conditions, will produce the same results. That is different than saying the origin of the universe HAD to happen naturally. That is a statement derived more from philosophy than fact.
To put it differently, your statement assumes the universe is a closed system. That cannot be proven. To say I believe it is open does not mean the laws of science are arbitrary. It simply means I believe there are dimensions beyond our own, dimensions that can, at times overide the natural order of things. I would refer to these events as miracles which occur due to the volitional actions of an intelligent being. As such, they are not random or arbitrary, so it does not make scientific thought impossible. It just acknowledges that there is, at times, more than meets the eye.
Feel free to respond and I will read and consider it. For my part, I will drop the issue since this is getting way off the original topic.
Iowa Jim
Tim Lynch wrote” For the record, when I dismiss my classes the last day before we all go on break, I usually try to cover all the bases — “Merry Christmas, Happy Chanukah, Happy Kwanaaa, Happy Solstice, or just have a great two weeks off.” When I’m in a hurry, I’ll just go with “whatever your holiday of choice, have a terrific one.” Nobody’s ever taken offense.”
I do much the same, and again, have had no problem. Last year, I even had a student give me gift of gold chocolate coins and she said “This is my holiday, and I wanted to share it with you.” Did I take offense because I’m not Jewish? Heck no! I was touched and appreciative. Likewise, I have a friend who is Jewish and married a Christian. The first December they were together, they had a Chanukah party and invited all of their mutual friends over. We played with the dreidel, ate traditional food, and learned all about her holiday. We muddled along with her as she lit the first candle. Again, I was pleased to be invited, not offended! Nor did I feel that I was being forced to convert. She was simply sharing her holiday with us. That dreidel now hangs on my Christmas tree as a treasured symbol of that evening we shared.
And as far as evolution…I start the first day of my freshman biology class with a discussion of the scientific method and how the THEORY of evolution is not using “theory” in the everyday context, but as a reflection of the scientific method. Then I address the key difference between religion and science- how to test it. You can test the workings of a cell. You can’t put God in a test tube. This is followed with my spiel on respecting different religions, but keeping them out of a science class out of respect for both the science and the religion. I end with an assurance that they are welcome (and encouraged) to reconcile their faith, if they have one, and the theory of evolution any way they choose, including a talk with their own religious leaders. Faith is to be respected, but has no right to horn in on my biology class! And so we begin. I’ve laid out the boundaries of what is appropriate for discussion in my class while maintaining respect for other subjects.
I have yet to have a student complain that I was being hostile to their religion, intolerant of their beliefs or otherwise attacking them, much less making them uncomfortable. I have, however, had numerous students tell me in private that they liked how I was handling the issue.
I think it is respectful, in that context, to wish my students a “Happy Holiday” instead of Merry Christmas, at the end of the term. I KNOW they are not all Christian, but they are all looking forward to some time off!
Jackie
Sadly since everyone gets presents on XMas they seem to think that’s the big deal, not Easter, which compared to XMas seems kinda lame, (especialy if you’re a kid).
Yeah but maybe it’s all for the best. Easter hasn’t been co opted the way Christmas has been. If one of the holidays had to be the gift giving one it should be the one celebrating birth. I mean, when my sister has another kid I send a present. If one of my relatives rises from the dead, I don’t. In fact, I run like hëll.
By definition, if you insist the universe has a *natural* origin and explanation, you have made a philosophical statement. You have said it is at least possible (if not probable) for the universe to exist without there being a “god” of any kind.
And I think that you have just demonstrated why we should not be teaching creationism in science classes.
Science, by definition, looks for natural laws. It does not deny that the supernatural exists, only that it can not be measured by science.
And anyway, why would God, who has used science to do every other thing we have found on this world, stubbornly insist on using supernatural means to make man? Oh, and go to so much trouble to make it seem as though he had used science? At least those who claim that fossils and other evidences of evolution were put here by the devil admit that such overwhelming evidence exists.
I think that some of what has been directed against you on this talkback has been overly harsh but I agree with Tim that id you use words like “Fraud” to describe evolution you are going to have to expect a fight on your hands. One that you will probably lose. I would urge you to explore not only the arguments against evolution but some of the many replies to those arguments (keeping in mind that if at the end of the day you decide that evolution is a fact it need not have one single iota of an effect on your relationship with God).
All that said, Merry Christmas to you.
I think it is respectful, in that context, to wish my students a “Happy Holiday” instead of Merry Christmas, at the end of the term. I KNOW they are not all Christian, but they are all looking forward to some time off!
I just send them off with a hearty “Get out of here! And don’t steal any of my rocks on the way out!”
Yeah, it’s not exactly jolly but every year I have to find more Fools Gold to replace the samples that have been stolen, presumably by some fool.