Something tells me that's not as factual as it could be...Have a look at this.

Banning Jesus? At Christmas?
#31
Posted 23 December 2004 - 06:26 PM
#32
Posted 23 December 2004 - 07:50 PM
The fact that its by the BNP being the main giveaway.Something tells me that's not as factual as it could be...
#33
Posted 24 December 2004 - 12:51 PM
Something tells me that's not as factual as it could be...
It is. Im guessing you dont live in England.
#34
Posted 24 December 2004 - 05:06 PM
#35
Posted 24 December 2004 - 10:34 PM
Whoever wins gets the holiday season (with Jesus fighting for Christmas, Moses for Hanukkah, Santa for his present Christmas, Mr. Costanza for Festivus).
#36
Posted 25 December 2004 - 07:58 AM
Tag team match. Jesus and Moses vs. Santa and Mr. Costanza
Whoever wins gets the holiday season (with Jesus fighting for Christmas, Moses for Hanukkah, Santa for his present Christmas, Mr. Costanza for Festivus).
I think this calls for A CELEBRITY DEATH MATCH TO THE END! XDD
#37
Posted 25 December 2004 - 06:47 PM
Back it up?It is. Im guessing you dont live in England.
#38
Posted 26 December 2004 - 11:00 AM
#39
Guest_tsolfan_*
Posted 26 December 2004 - 07:46 PM
#40
Posted 27 December 2004 - 12:19 AM
Also, I'm not sure how you've equated the fact that Jesus wasn't born on the 25th with secularism. Yes, Jesus wasn't born on 25 December, but it's still a religious holiday.
Oh by the way, Christianity isn't dualistic. Satan is viewed as evil, but as an unwitting servant of God. God can destroy Satan anytime he likes.
#41
Posted 27 December 2004 - 02:54 AM
In my case, everything?Well what do you think isnt truthful in it?

The PDF in question levels some really harsh accusations with no factual backing whatsoever. If the claims are true, it's easy enough to cite sources. Otherwise, it attributes malicious intent to actions with no evidence, and contrary to what the parties involved claim. The Red Cross, for example, is a secular institution, and the policy being enforced is their own.
Since they don't enforce their claims with anything substantial, I could just as easily claim that the BNP is a religious bigot group (note: They like the word "bigot," so why not?) that's less interested in equality or noble Christian virtue than the condemnation and persecution of Muslims (not far from the truth; they characterize muslims as violently anti-Christian on a regular basis), along with the consumption of live babies.

Also note that they characterize the actions as those of secularly motivated politically correct bigots, ignoring the fact that British history is littered with protestant activists resistent to the celebration of Christmas altogether (e.g. Oliver Cromwell).
As for the original topic of the topic, Charlie Brown's Christmas certainly hasn't been banned from TV: I've seen it showing on at least half a dozen US stations over the course of the holidays. If a given channel has chosen not to show it, that's their choice.
Probably worth noting that some notable margin of Christians must have no problem with such "desecration" if such legislation toward removal of imagery is successful on such a wide scale as claimed. The vast majority of Americans remain Christian, as do most lawmakers.Likewise, we Christians don't like it when secularists desecrate Christmas.
Heck, some of my Christian teachers from elementary school had petitioned against the showing of Charlie Brown's Christmas, ironically. They felt that correlating superficial consideration of Christ with Charlie Brown risked further diluting Christ's own role in Christmas.
#42
Posted 27 December 2004 - 09:20 AM
Since they don't enforce their claims with anything substantial, I could just as easily claim that the BNP is a religious bigot group (note: They like the word "bigot," so why not?) that's less interested in equality or noble Christian virtue than the condemnation and persecution of Muslims (not far from the truth; they characterize muslims as violently anti-Christian on a regular basis), along with the consumption of live babies.
You're very right. Why, just a month ago, the Leader of the BNP was arrested for inciting racial hatred and quite a number of members were arrested over... I can't remember whether it was racial attacks or inciting racial hatred, but they were arrested nevertheless.
Still, go to France. There at least they're being even-handed with their banning of religious symbols. Not only are hajibs forbidden, but a school that supplied chocolates imprinted with the cross on it were had to get rid of them because the law prohibited their distribution in a public school.
#43
Posted 27 December 2004 - 11:10 AM
A Charlie Brown Christmas has to do with Jesus? woah and all this time I thought it was about that damned wimpy tree and Snoopy. Wow. I'm just in shock right now.
Don't you remember when Linus tells Charlie what Christmas is about. That DOES mention Jesus (in fact is all about him).
While I may be a severe liberal this whole thing of banning Christmas is just rediculious. Maybe the fucking ACLU should go fight for some real civil liberties (like against the patriot act) instead of trying to impos4e Athiesm as the state religion. There is such a thing as separtion of church and state, but I consider Athiesm a religion so they should stop whinning and let us celibrate our Holiday the observed birthday of (in our minds) our savior. If you bakas really can't stand to watch the Charlie Brown Christmas Special one more time, then change the channel since you have banned every else Christmas related off the networks. And Merry Fucking Christmas to you too! [/rant]
#44
Posted 27 December 2004 - 11:52 AM
I was watching TV about Christmas traditions, and they're going to ban A Charlie Brown Christmas because it talks about Jesus. for one, I watch that movie every year, and I loved it.
also, certain Christmas carols are going to be forbidden because they talk about being blessed, baby Jesus, etc.
one county in Florida is even banning Christmas decorations in public places (irrelevant, but on the topic of banning things).
this is ridiculous! you can't ban Jesus from the Christmas season... that's what it's all about and originated from. I mean, his name is even in the holiday-- Christmas. to me, that's like saying "okay, here in Waffle House, it's illegal to say 'waffle.'"
it's nice to say "happy holidays" to include those people who celebrate other things, but when we remove the core and most important aspect of Christmas, what is left? arunma's nightmare-- a season all about Santa.
The same reason that Christian holiday cards are banned in some regions of England, and why The Three Little Pigs can't be read in nurseries or Primary Schools in the UK. It apparently, offends minority groups ... but if we bring a Bible to Saudi Arabia we'll be killed. Strange world.
#45
Posted 27 December 2004 - 12:13 PM
Probably worth noting that some notable margin of Christians must have no problem with such "desecration" if such legislation toward removal of imagery is successful on such a wide scale as claimed. The vast majority of Americans remain Christian, as do most lawmakers.
I seriously doubt the statistic that 80% of Americans are Christians. How many do you think really practice Christianity? A person who attends church on Christmas and Passover week, but who doesn't open his Bible for the rest of the year (ie. most Americans) isn't Christian.
And Merry Fucking Christmas to you too!
Uh, dude. That's not very Christian either. Is it?
#46
Posted 27 December 2004 - 01:54 PM
No one is trying to ban Christmas.While I may be a severe liberal this whole thing of banning Christmas is just rediculious. Maybe the fucking ACLU should go fight for some real civil liberties (like against the patriot act) instead of trying to impos4e Athiesm as the state religion. There is such a thing as separtion of church and state, but I consider Athiesm a religion so they should stop whinning and let us celibrate our Holiday the observed birthday of (in our minds) our savior. If you bakas really can't stand to watch the Charlie Brown Christmas Special one more time, then change the channel since you have banned every else Christmas related off the networks. And Merry Fucking Christmas to you too! [/rant]
No one (I hope) is trying to impose Atheism as the state religion. For one thing, Atheism is NOT a religion. Another thing, to impose Atheism they would have to tell you that you are no longer allowed to beleive in any higher power what so ever. I'm not hearing them that from the ACLU.
I can't speek for any bakas, but like Christmas, no one is trying to ban Carlie Brown from the networks. And as far as I know, nothing Christmas related has ever been banned. They can't really be banned anyway. If a particular network CHOOSES not to air certain program it is their CHOICE.
#47
Posted 27 December 2004 - 02:16 PM
Don't you remember when Linus tells Charlie what Christmas is about. That DOES mention Jesus (in fact is all about him).
Does the word sarcasm mean anything to you? *eyeroll*
#48
Posted 27 December 2004 - 03:13 PM
#49
Posted 27 December 2004 - 04:34 PM
In my case, everything?
The PDF in question levels some really harsh accusations with no factual backing whatsoever.
If you want evidence just look around Northampton Town Centre. Im finding this hard to explain to most of you as you dont live in England and dont know what its like. And the real reason Nick Griffin (Leader of the BNP.) was arrested was because he was gaining to much support and the government wanted to damage his image the government in this case made some really harsh accusations with no factual backing whatsoever. Its happened before with others. George Galloway for example (Who I dont suport and/or particularly like.) spoke out heavily against the war in Iraq so the goverment decides to make a load of charges against him to make him look like a crook who cant be trusted and hes since be found not guilty of all of these. So what Im basically saying is that if you speak out against the government theres a chance you could be arrested purley for that.
#50
Posted 27 December 2004 - 05:58 PM
Again, I find this a little unlikely. Are you suggesting this guy is some sort of Huey Newton figure? Nah.If you want evidence just look around Northampton Town Centre. Im finding this hard to explain to most of you as you dont live in England and dont know what its like. And the real reason Nick Griffin (Leader of the BNP.) was arrested was because he was gaining to much support and the government wanted to damage his image the government in this case made some really harsh accusations with no factual backing whatsoever.
I think solstice is a little more universal.12/25 is the traditional birthday of Helios the sun god and was adopted by the church because they knew people would not give up certian grecco-roman traditions.
#51
Posted 27 December 2004 - 06:09 PM
I can tell they don't live in England, because they dont accept my interperetation of events as godsend, and everyone in England always agrees with me.If you want evidence just look around Northampton Town Centre. Im finding this hard to explain to most of you as you dont live in England and dont know what its like.
#52
Posted 27 December 2004 - 11:15 PM
Though...How sad. No Charlie
Brown CHRISTMAS??!?!?!?
#53
Posted 27 December 2004 - 11:18 PM
Did you not read the rest of the thread?Well, this is a lot of huzzah. I'm a Christian, and I don't like the way the world is going, but REGARDLESS, no one should make a big deal of this...
Though...How sad. No Charlie
Brown CHRISTMAS??!?!?!?
#54
Guest_tsolfan_*
Posted 27 December 2004 - 11:35 PM
#55
Posted 27 December 2004 - 11:41 PM
#56
Posted 27 December 2004 - 11:42 PM
I have the tape of the movie, so screw the networks.
the whole point was not about the opinion of the network, or if atheism is religion or not... it's that people are trying to remove the sole aspect of a holiday, which leaves nothing but a hollow day in history. what are they trying to accomplish here? there are certainly going to be more people angry than pleased.
#57
Posted 27 December 2004 - 11:47 PM
#58
Posted 28 December 2004 - 12:03 AM
I still don't think that's the case.it's that people are trying to remove the sole aspect of a holiday, which leaves nothing but a hollow day in history.
#59
Posted 28 December 2004 - 10:13 AM
Again, I find this a little unlikely. Are you suggesting this guy is some sort of Huey Newton figure? Nah.
What do you mean a little unlikely its a solid opinion backed up by solid facts. Its more than likely the truth. BTW who is Huey Newton?
#60
Posted 28 December 2004 - 12:58 PM
It's not a question of opinion, and I haven't seen a solid fact yet.What do you mean a little unlikely its a solid opinion backed up by solid facts.
Co-Founder of the Black Panther Party.BTW who is Huey Newton?