School district bans Halloween to accommodate ‘cultural beliefs’

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Are you saying Christians are offended by being called Christians?

I've been doing this a long time. When someone says something about Christians - - they mean the Christians who are guilty of the specific discussion.

They don't mean ALL Christians - - unless they state that.

Usually the only posters who make a big deal about it are Christians - - trying to make a bigger deal out of it.

The default position - - - only the Christians who are the perpetrators.

And it really annoys me when someone feels necessary to point out that its not ALL Christians.

We know that.

originally posted by: DelMarvel

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
can see how some Christians cannot even begin to identify with the Halloween-hating fringe Christian folks and don't want to share a common label with them.

First of all, it's not really just a "fringe" as any cursory google search would show you.

However, this is a perfect example: you have some Christians saying it's OK to celebrate Halloween; you have some saying it's a demonic holiday. Not much common ground there. And that's hardly the only major disagreement among people calling themselves "Christian." You can't claim a monolithic cultural Christian heritage just by refusing to share a common label with Christians you don't agree with. These differences are why we need to keep government and religion separate.

Christianity hardly claims to be monolithic. There are numerous denominations: Link

Everyone is different.

I know religion is very imperfect, but there are some really great and *gasp* wise people who claim to be Christian. My sister is one of them.

a reply to: Annee

But sometimes I don't know that all Atheists aren't meant to be included when someone makes claims about Atheists.

In fact, I often don't know so I usually either assert that I am not included in their generalization or tell the person they are spewing BS.


EDIT: And, with that, I am going to bow out of this conversation. I've stated my experience. I understand many people don't agree. And there's not much more to it. I'm cool with that!

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Ah ... so good to know that you've "progressed" so far so quickly. At least in your own estimation. LOL.

I'm not interested, again, in exchanging ideas, as much as I'm interested in finding the truth and making it clear.

Why don't we agree that you can interact your way and I'll interact mine. Deal?

a reply to: Annee

I hear you Annee. I've been "doing this a while" myself. Actually, MME and I seem to be going in different directions developmentally.

I spent a lot of my life trying to see others' positions, and to value them as unique individuals even if I didn't agree and even when I knew logically and rationally they were wrong.

I avoided conflict and tried to bring both sides together in consensus.

All that results in is that ignorance perpetuates itself without check.

... and then I grew up. The best we can do in communication is to reason as carefully and as factually as possible, to cut through belief-based nonsense (and not be afraid to call it nonsense), and be excruciatingly honest both with others and with ourselves.

I hear so many Christians here (some but not all) who ridicule and defame others who are trying to find some sort of integration, of finding the best way of treating everyone as fairly as possible (like the School Board in the OP). Christians (many of whom are right-wingers these days, some but not all) are as quick as any one to decry "PC" even while they're whining themselves about what other people are saying about them, that they don't like. Of course, for them, they're not whining about PC-ness ... they're being attacked.

Give me a fricking break.

(I.e. I hear you and I agree with you, Annee! )

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Annee

But sometimes I don't know that all Atheists aren't meant to be included when someone makes claims about Atheists.

Any poster with an ounce of intelligence is not going to blanket a whole group - - unless they make it specific. The rest I don't care.

"Its not ALL Christians" or "It's not ALL atheists" - - - drives me loony, its unnecessary and it destroys the flow of the thread.

People are individuals. No matter the ideology, there are going to be radicals, extremists, whiners, apologists, plain old nut jobs, and those with blinders.

If the shoe fits Wear It! If it doesn't, kick it to the side and let someone else wear it.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Imagine if a competing religion had influence (say Catholics) -- and now they started passing laws that infringed upon the protestants?

Exactly! So many don't seem to understand this is enacted for the secular just as much as it is for religious people.

It seems so straightforward to me, yet this misunderstanding is so prevalent.

#conffuzled

a reply to: Gryphon66

I am 100% Separation of Church and State.

The laws against organized prayer in school and a Nativity Scene was fought and won in court.

If someone thinks Halloween is in violation of that - - let them file a lawsuit. Maybe they'd win and then I would support it.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

What better way to see "Sharia Law" actually imposed in some locales in this country than to undermine the protections afforded to all of us in the Constitution by arguing that "individual religious freedom is more important than law."

The men who Founded this country knew first hand what they were doing.

Too bad those who glorify the Constitution so rarely agree with what it actually says.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Too bad those who glorify the Constitution so rarely agree with what it actually says.

Yet another component of this that perplexes me greatly O_O

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: Azureblue

A country with a singular cultural, religious and racial identity has a lot of pride in that identity.

“Nationality is a good thing to a certain extent, but universality is better. All that is best in the great poets of all countries is not what is national in them, but what is universal. Their roots are in their native soil; but their branches wave in the unpatriotic air, that speaks the same language unto all men, and their leaves shine with the illimitable light that pervades all lands. Let us throw all the windows open; let us admit the light and air on all sides; that we may look towards the four corners of the heavens, and not always in the same direction.”
― Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

Your post honestly read like something i'd see in Mein Kampf.

I undertand your view but sadly not all of our fellow people are of good intent. The worst of men are those who pervade evil disguised as virtue. At best it can only be described as good intentions.

That very small but very powerful country in the mid east that advocates muticulturism for everyone else but themselves, do they also strike you as somehting out of Mein Kampf?

cheers

a reply to: Azureblue

The entirety of your post earlier was the embodiment of Mein Kampf. I know, I read it. I've written about it.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: DelMarvel

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
can see how some Christians cannot even begin to identify with the Halloween-hating fringe Christian folks and don't want to share a common label with them.

First of all, it's not really just a "fringe" as any cursory google search would show you.

However, this is a perfect example: you have some Christians saying it's OK to celebrate Halloween; you have some saying it's a demonic holiday. Not much common ground there. And that's hardly the only major disagreement among people calling themselves "Christian." You can't claim a monolithic cultural Christian heritage just by refusing to share a common label with Christians you don't agree with. These differences are why we need to keep government and religion separate.

Christianity hardly claims to be monolithic. There are numerous denominations: Link

Of course. I've mentioned that numerous times in these discussions. That was the exact point I was making .

And there ARE people calling themselves Christians making sweeping statements about the nation's "Christian heritage," Christian majority and about the nation being founded on "Christianity" as if it was a monolithic belief system.

When the country was founded they didn't even celebrate Christmas in New England. It wasn't an official holiday anywhere.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Are you saying Christians are offended by being called Christians?

I've been doing this a long time. When someone says something about Christians - - they mean the Christians who are guilty of the specific discussion.

They don't mean ALL Christians - - unless they state that.

Usually the only posters who make a big deal about it are Christians - - trying to make a bigger deal out of it.

The default position - - - only the Christians who are the perpetrators.

And it really annoys me when someone feels necessary to point out that its not ALL Christians.

We know that.

Responses to posts are not always about you.

I know that most of the time when I respond to someone who
says "Christians (whatever awful thing)" and don't add ALL
that other people reading the post do not know the intention
of the writer. Readers are not mind readers.

If I said atheists want to destroy all holidays.

Would you assume I meant ALL, probably because
it pushes a button with you. Maybe not because
I didn't add ALL. But for many it pushes them to
the brink of trolling insanity.

Most of my replies are NOT intended for the
(reply to) person who wrote the post,
they are intended for the entire audience
of readers.
Most of whom think, reason, and read
at an 8th-10th grade level. (Google it
I don't have time to prove it)

I am responding to the ideas in a post,
I may actually be familiar with the writings
of an author, but normally I am responding
to the authors actual words (not intentions)
and how the words come across to the wider
audience. And frequently I am not really
responding to the writer at all in a personal
way, but responding to the ideas as written
on the page.

When I say atheists want to destroy all religion.
I know that is not true of all atheists, but the
8th-10th grade level reader does not.

One must be aware that what ones writes
on ATS is information on the internet, that
some see as absolute truth.

So be precise with your words, or
expect, not an attack on you,
but an attack on your words as
perceived by the general public.

When you mean some weirdo Christians,
say it. Put the qualifier on.
Without the qualifier the word Christians
standing alone by default means
ALL Christians.
If you mean the few radical
and very hateful Christians, say it
put the qualifier on the word.
Otherwise the word standing alone
does mean ALL, as far as the reader
is concerned, they can not read your
intention or your mind.

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Are you saying Christians are offended by being called Christians?

I've been doing this a long time. When someone says something about Christians - - they mean the Christians who are guilty of the specific discussion.

They don't mean ALL Christians - - unless they state that.

Usually the only posters who make a big deal about it are Christians - - trying to make a bigger deal out of it.

The default position - - - only the Christians who are the perpetrators.

And it really annoys me when someone feels necessary to point out that its not ALL Christians.

We know that.

Responses to posts are not always about you.

A mini rant on something I personally find annoying.

Not worth more attention.

Moved on.

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: Gryphon66

I am 100% Separation of Church and State.

The laws against organized prayer in school and a Nativity Scene was fought and won in court.

If someone thinks Halloween is in violation of that - - let them file a lawsuit. Maybe they'd win and then I would support it.

Really 100%

Where do we draw the line?
Do we go after things that resemble religion? If it walks like a duck...
Do we go after thought? After all laws are first thought.
How about gov. housing? I bet them folks like religion.

a reply to: deadeyedick

Seperation of Church and State is crucial for the freedom to practice religion. Any religion.

Where do we draw the line?

Did my quotes from Founding Fathers not satisfy this question?

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: deadeyedick

Seperation of Church and State is crucial for the freedom to practice religion. Any religion.

Where do we draw the line?

Did my quotes from Founding Fathers not satisfy this question?

Did my 100% not satisfy this question?

Could banning an event or holiday in order to include those that do not participate for whatever reason, cause resentment by those who would have participated?

So an attempt to not hurt the feelings of Group A, you cancel an event

By cancelling said event, you hurt the feelings of group B

Group B then blames Group A for the event being cancelled, hurting the feelings of Group A, the original group who's feelings you were trying to save?


Seems like a lose-lose situation to me

IMHO, it's not a war on religion, but a war in individuality.

originally posted by: RainyState
Could banning an event or holiday in order to include those that do not participate for whatever reason, cause resentment by those who would have participated?

So an attempt to not hurt the feelings of Group A, you cancel an event

By cancelling said event, you hurt the feelings of group B

Group B then blames Group A for the event being cancelled, hurting the feelings of Group A, the original group who's feelings you were trying to save?


Seems like a lose-lose situation to me

IMHO, it's not a war on religion, but a war in individuality.

You are so right.

Thank you for your extremely accurate and insightful comment.

It is lose-lose when a "traditional" event is cancelled
the people who liked the tradition,
now not only have their feelings hurt,
but are angry at the people who complained.
It increased the division and the problem.

Yep, good insight. A war on individuality.