|
Post by gillianren on Dec 11, 2007 22:14:36 GMT -4
Gee, I've never heard of The Bishops Wife. I feel like I've missed something... You have! It's one of Cary Grant's most intriguing roles.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Dec 13, 2007 12:20:27 GMT -4
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 13, 2007 12:32:24 GMT -4
Actually the real story here is that 18 Democrat congressmen who voted "yay" on a resolution to recognize the beginning of Ramadan back in October voted either "nay" or "present" on the Christmas resolution.
Double standard, anyone?
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Dec 13, 2007 12:42:44 GMT -4
Well, again -- is anyone claiming that Christmas isn't important? Are there large blocks of US citizens up in arms about Christmas and Christians in general? No.
Is the same true for those of the Muslim faith? There's your double standard.
Christmas and Christianity don't need their right to exist affirmed. 80% of the US population is Christian. Minorities need affirmation and protection from bullying by the majority.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Dec 13, 2007 12:48:26 GMT -4
Christmas and Christianity don't need their right to exist affirmed. 80% of the US population is Christian. Minorities need affirmation and protection from bullying by the majority.
What we need is for the government not to take a pro or con stance on any religion.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Dec 13, 2007 13:09:55 GMT -4
I agree completely.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 13, 2007 13:10:03 GMT -4
I disagree. I think a government can recognize the social value of a religion and a religious holiday without "establishing it" as a state religion - which would be in violation of the First Ammendment. So I would prefer that everyone recognize both Ramadan and Christmas as legitimate causes for celebration rather than not recognizing either.
And in answer to your question, wdmundt, 9 Congressmen did in fact vote against recognizing Christmas as important.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Dec 13, 2007 13:11:22 GMT -4
Does the government need to recognize it at all?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 13, 2007 13:13:40 GMT -4
Yes. Government should recognize that religion is a positive social force. Religions should receive tax breaks on their property and services in recognition of the positive effects they have on society (which they do, at least in the U.S.). Religious expression in public places should not be censored in order to not offend indignant atheists.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 13, 2007 13:23:34 GMT -4
Well, again -- is anyone claiming that Christmas isn't important? Are there large blocks of US citizens up in arms about Christmas and Christians in general? No. Is the same true for those of the Muslim faith? There's your double standard. The answer is no, there are not large blocks of US citizens up in arms about the Muslim faith in general. So no double standard is in place there. Minorities do need protection from bullying by the majority in some cases. But a double standard is created when minorities gain more rights than the majority simply for being a minority - say when their religion is recognized by more than those who are willing to recognize a majority religion. Admittedly, this is a minor vote that isn't going to hurt Christmas in the least (any more than the October vote boosted Ramadan).
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Dec 13, 2007 15:59:50 GMT -4
Religions should receive tax breaks on their property and services in recognition of the positive effects they have on society If they're that concerned about benefitting society, they could pay extra taxes, so the poorer people didn't have to ...
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 13, 2007 16:51:52 GMT -4
Religions should receive tax breaks on their property and services in recognition of the positive effects they have on society If they're that concerned about benefitting society, they could pay extra taxes, so the poorer people didn't have to ... Some churches do pay taxes on behalf of poorer people. My own church helps many poorer people meet their basic needs, which includes such things as paying their rent and taxes.
|
|
|
Post by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on Dec 13, 2007 19:10:41 GMT -4
That sounds pretty much like a 19th century set-up, FWIS.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 13, 2007 19:28:32 GMT -4
That sounds pretty much like a 19th century set-up, FWIS. I'm not sure what you mean.
|
|
|
Post by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on Dec 13, 2007 20:07:11 GMT -4
That sounds pretty much like a 19th century set-up, FWIS. I'm not sure what you mean. Call it 'socialism' if you want, but we think that having to accept charity is undignifying, and that poverty is an undesirable social phenomenon. We've done away with poorhouses and such in 1912. There is now a collective insurance system that guarantees a decent level of income for all people who for some reason can't provide for themselves. It's even in the constitution. We can afford it because we're succesfull capitalists. ;D The only people that get into real problems are those that need budget management counselling, not more money. Charitable institutions are mostly active in third world countries.
|
|