NationStates Jolt Archive

For the most part, I get along with most of the Christians I talk to... in 'real life' and on Nation States... but this just sickens me:

The latest salvo in the "war on Christmas" has been fired — this time over the lyrics to the venerable Christmas carol "Silent Night."...

...Many who believe Christmas has been overly secularized are pouncing on a Wisconsin school that will present the tune with different words, under the title "Cold in the Night"...

...The controversy began when the father of a student at Ridgeway Elementary School in Dodgeville, Wis., was upset with the lyrics his child brought home to learn. He told the non-profit group Liberty Counsel they are: "Cold in the night, no one in sight, winter winds whirl and bite, how I wish I were happy and warm, safe with my family out of the storm"...

...Staver said the history of the play in Dodgeville does not matter. "The fact is, if they've performed it in the past, they've been wrong in the past and they need to correct it," he said. "To take 'Silent Night' and to intentionally change the words as they do here is wrong. No matter if they've done it in the past, no matter if somebody else wrote the song, it's the school's actions [that are the problem]."...

http://abcnews.go.com/US/Beliefs/story?id=1387602&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

Why does this sicken me?

According to the individuals in question, it is not even ALLOWABLE to have a secular celebration at this time of year. They are actually pressing suit, ("Staver said if the school does not respond to Legal Counsel's request for the program to be changed, "we will file suit" — possibly today") over secular lyrics being allowed instead of Christian lyrics.

Apparently - further complaints by this 'Staver' fellow, include the fact that the school allowed a denomination-free Winter display, in the classroom:

Liberty Counsel says this year's winter program included decorating classrooms with Santa Claus, Kwanzaa symbols, menorahs and Labafana, a mythical witch that's a part of traditional Christmas celebrations in Italy.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47784

It looks like hypocrisy, to me... look at Staver's own words:

""For those who deny that there is a war on Christmas, the Wisconsin school district is exhibit A," Mathew Staver, Liberty Counsel president and general counsel, said in a statement. "The law is clear – Christmas is constitutional. When a public school intentionally mocks Christian Christmas songs by secularizing their content, they cross the line from a neutral position, which the Constitution requires, to a hostile position, which the Constitution forbids. Changing 'Silent Night' to 'Cold in the Night' – come on, let's stop this madness! Does the school not realize that Christmas is a national holiday?"

So - it's okay for there to be a Christian celebration in the winter (indeed, Staver claims "Christmas is constitutional"), but it is NOT okay to secularise it?

http://www.triton.nu/albums/pics/aw_jeez_not_this_shit_again.thumb.jpg

Yeah, I've been wondering about the logic in this "War on Christmas" thing, myself. Why are the Christian conservatives trying to take away the ability to say "Happy Holidays"? Since when does Christianity have a copyright on evergreen trees that stops us from having "Holiday" trees? For that matter, where is their copyright on the tune of "Silent Night" that stops the school district from putting the tune to different words?

I don't see how this is mocking anyone. Many religions have holiday celebrations at this time of year, and it seems to me that this school is not trying to disenfranchise Chistmas, but rather including many holidays in its celebration.

Yeah, I've been wondering about the logic in this "War on Christmas" thing, myself. Why are the Christian conservatives trying to take away the ability to say "Happy Holidays"? Since when does Christianity have a copyright on evergreen trees that stops us from having "Holiday" trees? For that matter, where is their copyright on the tune of "Silent Night" that stops the school district from putting the tune to different words?

I don't see how this is mocking anyone. Many religions have holiday celebrations at this time of year, and it seems to me that this school is not trying to disenfranchise Chistmas, but rather including many holidays in its celebration.

Indeed - the 'World Net Daily' source shows that they have INCLUDED Christianity in their festivities, indeed... they have included MORE versions (one assumes) than most schools might, since most schools might NOT include such things as the Italian 'Christmas Witch' Labafana... they are also reaching out to OTHER communities... with their use of Kwanzaa symbols, menaorahs, and non-denominational Santa symbols.

He is bitching because the school made a fucking cover for Silent Night? Hey, some one needs to tell this jackass that if you sing a song to the tune of another song, the song you are singing is not the song with the same tune.

Which reminds me, some batty Christian wrote into the paper that "without Christ there is no Christmas and there is no holiday to to celebrate during 'Christmastime'." What bullshit.

Christmas should be like when I was a kid. Hours of misery rehearsing mildly retard nativty plays*, in freezing extra-bone constumes. Then on the final day of school, everyone has to spend five hours in an unheated church performing performing said play.

Nothing'll cure the buggers of religion than that kind of misery let me tell you. And they certainly won't grow up to bitch about shit like this, because all they'll remember is how christ ruined christmas.

*bear in mind, I was made to do this for school, everyone was. Even the jewish kid.

Oh bah, they should just sing a different damn song if they don't want to sing a religious one...

To even pretend to sing Silent Night as a different song and change it in the minds of all the elementary children forced to learn the new damn lyrics is nothing but an attack on their parents ability to teach them what the song really means. You want to mock it, go buy a Weird Al Yankovich CD or watch something like that on SNL, but they don't have the right to teach all the student to mimic and change a religious icon to a bullshit crap song in a public elementary school.

Silent Night was a poem that was written in 1816 by an Austrian priest called Joseph Mohr. On Christmas Eve in 1818 in the small alpine village called Oberndorf it is reputed that the organ at St. Nicholas Church had broken. Joseph Mohr gave the poem of Silent Night (Stille Nacht) to his friend Franz Xavier Gruber and the melody for Silent Night was composed with this in mind. The music to Silent Night was therefore intended for a guitar and the simple score was finished in time for Midnight Mass. Silent Night is one of the most famous Christmas carols of all time.

Oh bah, they should just sing a different damn song if they don't want to sing a religious one...

To even pretend to sing Silent Night as a different song and change it in the minds of all the elementary children forced to learn the new damn lyrics is nothing but an attack on their parents ability to teach them what the song really means. You want to mock it, go buy a Weird Al Yankovich CD or watch something ond SNL, but they don't have the right to teach all the student to mimic and change a religious icon to a bullshit crap song in a public elementary school.
One song to the tune of another song is not the second song.

One song to the tune of another song is not the second song.

It is in this case. The tune was written for that song...

Oh bah, they should just sing a different damn song if they don't want to sing a religious one...

To even pretend to sing Silent Night as a different song and change it in the minds of all the elementary children forced to learn the new damn lyrics is nothing but an attack on their parents ability to teach them what the song really means. You want to mock it, go buy a Weird Al Yankovich CD or watch something ond SNL, but they don't have the right to teach all the student to mimic and change a religious icon to a bullshit crap song in a public elementary school.

Silent Night was a poem that was written in 1816 by an Austrian priest called Joseph Mohr. On Christmas Eve in 1818 in the small alpine village called Oberndorf it is reputed that the organ at St. Nicholas Church had broken. Joseph Mohr gave the poem of Silent Night (Stille Nacht) to his friend Franz Xavier Gruber and the melody for Silent Night was composed with this in mind. The music to Silent Night was therefore intended for a guitar and the simple score was finished in time for Midnight Mass. Silent Night is one of the most famous Christmas carols of all time.
They're just setting the tune to different words. The song is too old to be under copyright. They can do whatever the hell they want to it, legally speaking. I don't think it's the brightest idea, either, but it sure as hell is legal, and it isn't impinging on anyone's rights.

It is in this case. The tune was written for that song...

Actually this song:


1. Stille Nacht! Heil'ge Nacht!
Alles schläft; einsam wacht
Nur das traute heilige Paar.
Holder Knab' im lockigten Haar,
|: Schlafe in himmlischer Ruh! :|

2. Stille Nacht! Heil'ge Nacht!
Gottes Sohn, o wie lacht
Lieb' aus deinem göttlichen Mund,
Da uns schlägt die rettende Stund'.
|: Jesus in deiner Geburt! :|

3. Stille Nacht! Heil'ge Nacht!
Die der Welt Heil gebracht,
Aus des Himmels goldenen Höhn,
Uns der Gnaden Fülle läßt sehn,
|: Jesum in Menschengestalt! :|

4. Stille Nacht! Heil'ge Nacht!
Wo sich heut alle Macht
Väterlicher Liebe ergoß,
Und als Bruder huldvoll umschloß
|: Jesus die Völker der Welt! :|

5. Stille Nacht! Heil'ge Nacht!
Lange schon uns bedacht,
Als der Herr vom Grimme befreit
In der Väter urgrauer Zeit
|: Aller Welt Schonung verhieß! :|

6. Stille Nacht! Heil'ge Nacht!
Hirten erst kundgemacht
Durch der Engel Alleluja,
Tönt es laut bei Ferne und Nah:
|: "Jesus der Retter ist da!" :|

So, if you really want it to be authentic, the little kiddies will have to learn to sing in german.

It is in this case. The tune was written for that song...
No.

They're just setting the tune to different words. The song is too old to be under copyright. They can do whatever the hell they want to it, legally speaking. I don't think it's the brightest idea, either, but it sure as hell is legal, and it isn't impinging on anyone's rights.

If they were a private company looking to make an entertainment skit or something, you'd be right. They're not.

If they were a private company looking to make an entertainment skit or something, you'd be right. They're not.
It is a different song to a two hundred year old tune.

If they were a private company looking to make an entertainment skit or something, you'd be right. They're not.
I don't see how being a school changing the lyrics of a song is less legal than being a corporation doing the same.

Larry The Cable Guy's version is better:

"Silent farts. Deadly farts. All was calm.... not for long!"

:D

Actually this song:
So, if you really want it to be authentic, the little kiddies will have to learn to sing in german.

Do you seriously think that translating it from one language to another means that they should have the to teach elementary student to mock it with some bullshit lyrics with entirely different meanings?

Oh bah, they should just sing a different damn song if they don't want to sing a religious one...

To even pretend to sing Silent Night as a different song and change it in the minds of all the elementary children forced to learn the new damn lyrics is nothing but an attack on their parents ability to teach them what the song really means. You want to mock it, go buy a Weird Al Yankovich CD or watch something like that on SNL, but they don't have the right to teach all the student to mimic and change a religious icon to a bullshit crap song in a public elementary school.

The whole point is, they were NOT 'mocking it'... they were using a tune, which has LONG SINCE entered the Public Domain, to express festive thoughts that were not LIMITED to those of us fortunate enough to belong to ONE denomination of religion...

Plus - they DID sing 'a different song'... they just used an established tune for it.


Silent Night was a poem that was written in 1816 by an Austrian priest called Joseph Mohr. On Christmas Eve in 1818 in the small alpine village called Oberndorf it is reputed that the organ at St. Nicholas Church had broken. Joseph Mohr gave the poem of Silent Night (Stille Nacht) to his friend Franz Xavier Gruber and the melody for Silent Night was composed with this in mind. The music to Silent Night was therefore intended for a guitar and the simple score was finished in time for Midnight Mass. Silent Night is one of the most famous Christmas carols of all time.

And, again - I point out that the music has LONG SINCE entered the public domian. If I WANT to sing a song about microwaving puppies for breakfast, to the tune of "Stille Nacht", I am free to do so. It carries NO connotation about my politics, or my religion.

Also - I can't be the only person who has ever been in a church, and heard Christians using OTHER 'secular', even, tunes for THEIR agenda.

Don't ask me to name it, because I don't know what it's called, but I have heard Baptists in Georgia singing some hymn to the tune of "Rule Britannia", on more than one occassion. Hell, I've even heard Christians chaning the lyrics to Nirvana songs. ("Young As You Are" by "ApologetiX", apparently).

If they were a private company looking to make an entertainment skit or something, you'd be right. They're not.

Relevence?

Schools are also under the same laws of public broadcast as everyone else, I believe...

So - if the song IS in the Public Domain, there is no reason why the school shouldn't use ALL, or PART of it, as they see fit.

Do you seriously think that translating it from one language to another means that they should have the to teach elementary student to mock it with some bullshit lyrics with entirely different meanings?

What, exactly, is "bullshit" about the lyrics this school used?

Who gives a rats ass if they have the right to use the tune... Like I said, use Weird Al or SNL and do it all you want. To 'force' a bunch of elementary kids to learn the lyrics and change forever their understanding of what the song means to them is bullshit.

Let's just teach kids crap about the songs and customs of every other group while we're at it shall we?

Who gives a rats ass if they have the right to use the tune... Like I said, use Weird Al or SNL and do it all you want.
This isn't a parody. Cut out the crap.

Who gives a rats ass if they have the right to use the tune... Like I said, use Weird Al or SNL and do it all you want. To 'force' a bunch of elementary kids to learn the lyrics and change forever their understanding of what the song means to them is bullshit.

Let's just teach kids crap about the songs and customs of every other group while we're at it shall we?

Dude. Having kids sing 'Cold in the Night' is not going to change their understanding of the song 'Silent Night'.

Who gives a rats ass if they have the right to use the tune... Like I said, use Weird Al or SNL and do it all you want. To 'force' a bunch of elementary kids to learn the lyrics and change forever their understanding of what the song means to them is bullshit.

Let's just teach kids crap about the songs and customs of every other group while we're at it shall we?

That last line better be sarcasm. Or I'll...watch Secular Central and Jon Stewarts personal war on Christmas.

I think every December 25th every family should gather and celebrate at Osama's Homobortion, Pot, Commie and Jizz emporioum.

Personally the German version is awesome once I sung it.

Who gives a rats ass if they have the right to use the tune...
I'm guessing the lawyers, seeing as this guy is threatening a lawsuit. That's the whole point: it is legal to use Silent Night's tune for another song. This guy doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.

Who gives a rats ass if they have the right to use the tune... Like I said, use Weird Al or SNL and do it all you want. To 'force' a bunch of elementary kids to learn the lyrics and change forever their understanding of what the song means to them is bullshit.

Let's just teach kids crap about the songs and customs of every other group while we're at it shall we?

Okay, I really have to ask it... are you for real?

Aree you SERIOUSLY saying that the problem here is, we are allowing children to have ACCESS to information OTHER than one religion?

That last line better be sarcasm. Or I'll...watch Secular Central and Jon Stewarts personal war on Christmas.

I think every December 25th every family should gather and celebrate at Osama's Homobortion, Pot, Commie and Jizz emporioum.

Personally the German version is awesome once I sung it.
It's Osama's Homobortion Pot and Commie Jizzporium, for your information :D

This isn't a parody. Cut out the crap.

When Adam Sandler made fun of the Hanukkah Song, many people were upset. What do you think they would have done if they forced all the elementary school kids to learn the lyrics?

When Adam Sandler made fun of the Hanukkah Song, many people were upset. What do you think they would have done if they forced all the elementary school kids to learn the lyrics?

The difference, perhaps, is that Adam Sandler parodied 'the Hanukkah Song'?

I've been reading through the 'secular' song that has been set to the Silent Night music... and I see no comments aimed to mock, parody, or otherwise give offence, to ANYONE...

I think this is much the same as Barney singing new songs to the tunes of old nursery rhymes. SOme people really don't care, some are actually offended by it.

Either way, Barney must die.

ANyhoo...

Personally, I really don't care. Christmas (to me) has very little to do with the birth of Christ and more to do with Christ's message(Peace on Earth, Good Will Toward Men). One doesn't have to be christian to appreciate that, does one?

Let the kids sing. Let them have fun. THat's Christmas, Dammit! :mad:

Okay, I really have to ask it... are you for real?

Aree you SERIOUSLY saying that the problem here is, we are allowing children to have ACCESS to information OTHER than one religion?


How many stinking secular Christmas songs are there already? That people know and will recognize? Oh, about a million.... so lets not use any of them but change the words to one of the holiest religious songs they have and torment that into something entirely different :rolleyes:

Bullshit. There is zero reason for them to twist a song ALL of the adults will automatically associate with Christ's birth and fuck it up just because they can...

I think this is much the same as Barney singing new songs to the tunes of old nursery rhymes. SOme people really don't care, some are actually offended by it.

Either way, Barney must die.

ANyhoo...

Personally, I really don't care. Christmas (to me) has very little to do with the birth of Christ and more to do with Christ's message(Peace on Earth, Good Will Toward Men). One doesn't have to be christian to appreciate that, does one?

Let the kids sing. Let them have fun. THat's Christmas, Dammit! :mad:

Wise words from Lunatic Goofballs.

Oh, and I agree... Barney IS evil.

The difference, perhaps, is that Adam Sandler parodied 'the Hanukkah Song'?

I've been reading through the 'secular' song that has been set to the Silent Night music... and I see no comments aimed to mock, parody, or otherwise give offence, to ANYONE...

The whole mockery is the fact that you take the Baby Christ out of the Baby Christ song. That, is mockery. period.

When Adam Sandler made fun of the Hanukkah Song, many people were upset. What do you think they would have done if they forced all the elementary school kids to learn the lyrics?
Hmm, let's compare these songs:

"So drink your Gin and tonica
And smoke your marijuanica
If you really, really wannaca
Have a happy happy, happy happy Hannukah"

versus

"Cold in the night, no one in sight, winter winds whirl and bite, how I wish I were happy and warm, safe with my family out of the storm"...

Hmm, what could possibly make the former not school-appropriate?

Read my smiley: :rolleyes:
When does it end? So apparently, it's okay to allow religion but not secularism...hmmm, sounds like the papacy's response to the renaissance...

Wise words from Lunatic Goofballs.

I've been doing that a lot lately. I suspect it's just a phase. :)

How many stinking secular Christmas songs are there already? That people know and will recognize? Oh, about a million.... so lets not use any of them but change the words to one of the holiest religious songs they have and torment that into something entirely different :rolleyes:

Bullshit. There is zero reason for them to twist a song ALL of the adults will automatically associate with Christ's birth and fuck it up just because they can...
They aren't fucking up the song, they are making a new one with the same tune. It's not a parody, it's a different song, and they have every right to do it. If you want to get your panties in a knot over it, fine, but don't expect the courts to support you.

Do you seriously think that translating it from one language to another means that they should have the to teach elementary student to mock it with some bullshit lyrics with entirely different meanings?

After what the US did to Pomp and Circumstance No.1. I hardly think they are in a position to complain.

Besides that, I am sure the children would rather be doing something else anyway. Has anyone bothered to ask them how they feel about this? No? Alrighty then.

How many stinking secular Christmas songs are there already? That people know and will recognize? Oh, about a million.... so lets not use any of them but change the words to one of the holiest religious songs they have and torment that into something entirely different :rolleyes:

Bullshit. There is zero reason for them to twist a song ALL of the adults will automatically associate with Christ's birth and fuck it up just because they can...

First: "ALL of the adults" will automatically... what? Are you assuming that ALL adults are Christian?

Second: Considering that Christmas is.. for MOST people... about gifts, candy, big plates of food, and some fat guy in a red running-suit, it seems unlikely that "ALL of the adults" will have ANY thoughts about Christ's birth.

Third: "...stinking secular Christmas songs..."? Stinking? Why does this rouse your passion, so? Why don't you think the secular population should be allowed to get festive in December?

Fourth: Especially since the modern 'Christmas' IS such a composite of 'pagan' elements... yule logs, Christmas Trees, mistletoe, open fires...

Fifth: You don't seem to be able to grasp - the song has not been 'tortured' into anything... the school put new lyrics, to an old (public domain) tune.

They aren't fucking up the song, they are making a new one with the same tune. It's not a parody, it's a different song, and they have every right to do it. If you want to get your panties in a knot over it, fine, but don't expect the courts to support you.


They ARE fucking up the song, for all the elementary kids that have to learn the bullshit lyrics... The NEXT time they hear the tune, they will be thinking the wrong damn song. It's called parody, mimicry, mockery.

All they have to do is use a different, already established secular song.

I've been doing that a lot lately. I suspect it's just a phase. :)

Well, you DO have a rep to protect... ;)

The whole mockery is the fact that you take the Baby Christ out of the Baby Christ song. That, is mockery. period.

I was under the impression that it was the SACRIFICE on the CROSS, that was the important part of the story? Not the crappy daipers and circumcision chapter?

And - again... they did NOTHING to the 'song'... the lyrics are untouched... because they didn't USE THEM. They just used the TUNE.

First: "ALL of the adults" will automatically... what? Are you assuming that ALL adults are Christian?

Second: Considering that Christmas is.. for MOST people... about gifts, candy, big plates of food, and some fat guy in a red running-suit, it seems unlikely that "ALL of the adults" will have ANY thoughts about Christ's birth.

Third: "...stinking secular Christmas songs..."? Stinking? Why does this rouse your passion, so? Why don't you think the secular population should be allowed to get festive in December?

Fourth: Especially since the modern 'Christmas' IS such a composite of 'pagan' elements... yule logs, Christmas Trees, mistletoe, open fires...

Fifth: You don't seem to be able to grasp - the song has not been 'tortured' into anything... the school put new lyrics, to an old (public domain) tune.

Oh blah again... change the topic all you want, it doesn't change the fact that they are attacking a religious song that is sacred to many people. Let them sing songs about all that other stuff you want to talk about. They already have a zillion different secular Christmas songs to chose from. Leave the Church Hymns alone and no one would bitch...

They ARE fucking up the song, for all the elementary kids that have to learn the bullshit lyrics... The NEXT time they hear the tune, they will be thinking the wrong damn song. It's called parody, mimicry, mockery.

All they have to do is use a different, already established secular song.

You do realize that Francis Scott Key's poem, "The Star Spangled Banner" was set to the tune of a rather bawdy bar song to turn it into the U.S. National ANthem, don't you?

Were we mocking the bar song?

You do realize that Francis Scott Key's poem, "The Star Spangled Banner" was set to the tune of a rather bawdy bar song to turn it into the U.S. National ANthem, don't you?

Were we mocking the bar song?

Are we talking about that song?

Jeez...you know this anti-Christian-Christmass thing is really gettin outta hand. Honestly who gives a crap that you have to sing a song about Christmass, in a religious or secular way. I sure as hell didn't when I was a little kid. Man, I barely even knew the lyrics to what "Silent Night" was, let alone understand their meaning.

In my oppinion though, the school had every right to change the lyrics of the song. Perhaps they don't want to offend any kids from other religions (fyi, the number of non-Christians in this country is on the rise), or maybe....which I hope isn't the case.....they are going along with todays secularization (don't even ask if that's a real word lol) of Christmass and, instead of incorporating other religious holidays/songs based on their respective population in this country-which is ok-they are instead simply trashing an age old holiday to conform to what is now becomming a large-scale trend in this nation of ours....

Ay-yayay.... :headbang:

Well, I for one, am happy that I do not live there. There are deffinitely more important things going on in the world then changing lyrics to a song or watever. (BTW, I think the new lyrics sound a little cute..the kids may enjoy them...or w/e)

And is anyone aware of MC-Hammer stealing/using the tune from "Super Freak" in his song, "Can't Touch This"? .... but I guess this isn't as important as the Silent/Cold Night song as it may have some religious undertones as a cause for its paraphrasing....

Any way... just my thoughts on the whole thing.

They ARE fucking up the song, for all the elementary kids that have to learn the bullshit lyrics... The NEXT time they hear the tune, they will be thinking the wrong damn song. It's called parody, mimicry, mockery.

All they have to do is use a different, already established secular song.

I suggest you actually look up the words 'parody', 'mimicry' and 'mockery'.

I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

I don't see you getting overexcited that the New Testament tale of Jesus' life is a direct rip-off of Mithraism, and early holy-land Buddhism...

Double standard, perhaps?

Who gives a rats ass if they have the right to use the tune... Like I said, use Weird Al or SNL and do it all you want. To 'force' a bunch of elementary kids to learn the lyrics and change forever their understanding of what the song means to them is bullshit.

Let's just teach kids crap about the songs and customs of every other group while we're at it shall we?
First the kids don't understand what the song means. They just sing it muttering "This is gay" or "For once I would prefer to be doing math" between lines.

Second, let's teach kids about the uncrap about customs of every other group. Why is our group so special?

Jeez...you know this anti-Christian-Christmass thing is really gettin outta hand. Honestly who gives a crap that you have to sing a song about Christmass, in a religious or secular way. I sure as hell didn't when I was a little kid. Man, I barely even knew the lyrics to what "Silent Night" was, let alone understand their meaning.

In my oppinion though, the school had every right to change the lyrics of the song. Perhaps they don't want to offend any kids from other religions (fyi, the number of non-Christians in this country is on the rise), or maybe....which I hope isn't the case.....they are going along with todays secularization (don't even ask if that's a real word lol) of Christmass and, instead of incorporating other religious holidays/songs based on their respective population in this country-which is ok-they are instead simply trashing an age old holiday to conform to what is now becomming a large-scale trend in this nation of ours....

Ay-yayay.... :headbang:

Well, I for one, am happy that I do not live there. There are deffinitely more important things going on in the world then changing lyrics to a song or watever. (BTW, I think the new lyrics sound a little cute..the kids may enjoy them...or w/e)

And is anyone aware of MC-Hammer stealing/using the tune from "Super Freak" in his song, "Can't Touch This"? .... but I guess this isn't as important as the Silent/Cold Night song as it may have some religious undertones as a cause for its paraphrasing....

Any way... just my thoughts on the whole thing.

Of course, Hammer DID use his music as a platform for evangelism... so the two arenas are NOT as far apart as they might, at first, seem.

Are we talking about that song?

My point is(and copyright law backs this up), different lyrics, different song!

So unless the lyrics are in some way actually making jest at 'Silent Night', then it's NOT a parody. It is a song in it's own right.

JUst ask Puff Daddy(or whatever his name is this week). He's made a comfortable living on other people's songs. :)

I was under the impression that it was the SACRIFICE on the CROSS, that was the important part of the story? Not the crappy daipers and circumcision chapter?

That's Easter, different holiday.

And - again... they did NOTHING to the 'song'... the lyrics are untouched... because they didn't USE THEM. They just used the TUNE.

And if they were adults selling entertainment, it's be fine. It's an elementary school forcing young children to learn different words to the songs they use in church AND the school ONLY wants to use that tune because it IS a CHURCH SONG or else they wouldn't be using the tune at all now would they.

My point is(and copyright law backs this up), different lyrics, different song!

So unless the lyrics are in some way actually making jest at 'Silent Night', then it's NOT a parody. It is a song in it's own right.

JUst ask Puff Daddy(or whatever his name is this week). He's made a comfortable living on other people's songs. :)

I never said it was copyrighted. Who gives a rats butt if the teacher in their off time make lyrical bullshit songs all they want. But to go into the local church, take the tunes from the hymns and write new non related lyrics and then force the kids to learn the new bullshit words is offensive bullshit.

Were we mocking the bar song?

Yes. Those bastard colonials took a perfectly serviceable drinking song, and stuffed it full of pro-americanism. How can the ordinary british soldier possibly enjoy it now?

Oh blah again... change the topic all you want, it doesn't change the fact that they are attacking a religious song that is sacred to many people. Let them sing songs about all that other stuff you want to talk about. They already have a zillion different secular Christmas songs to chose from. Leave the Church Hymns alone and no one would bitch...

How am I changing the topic? This IS the topic... the Christian right is trying to outlaw a secular view of Christmas, while at the same time pissing-their-collective-pants about their so-called 'war on Christmas'.

If you can't answer my points, admit it... don't pretend that the subject is somehow being 'changed'.

They are NOT attacking anything. They have opened up the Christmas holidays to include a lot more people, and they have taken an old tune, and (perfectly legally) added new lyrics to that tune.

Are you saying the TUNE is 'sacred' to you? I would have thought the WORDS were the important part, no?

And - again - I have to point out, the church can't seem to keep their hands of SECULAR music... so why shouldn't the secular public have access to 'christian' music?

What's that song? "There is a Green Hill"... or something? A christian hymn... which I have SEVERAL times heard to the music of The Animals "House of the Rising Sun".

For the most part, I get along with most of the Christians I talk to... in 'real life' and on Nation States... but this just sickens me:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/Beliefs/story?id=1387602&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

Why does this sicken me?

According to the individuals in question, it is not even ALLOWABLE to have a secular celebration at this time of year. They are actually pressing suit, ("Staver said if the school does not respond to Legal Counsel's request for the program to be changed, "we will file suit" — possibly today") over secular lyrics being allowed instead of Christian lyrics.

Apparently - further complaints by this 'Staver' fellow, include the fact that the school allowed a denomination-free Winter display, in the classroom:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47784

So - it's okay for there to be a Christian celebration in the winter (indeed, Staver claims "Christmas is constitutional"), but it is NOT okay to secularise it?
Um ... I'm probably not the first to point this out, but if there's a menora and symbols of kwanza in the exhibit, it's definately not "secular." I suspect that what the suit will be about is that what was originally a Christian holiday has been pre-empted by other religions while any reference to Christianity has been kicked out. Ya think? :p

wow all this anti christain crap who cares what anybody does who cares that they sing a song any certain way theres no reason to be so overly sensitive on both sides of the argument



WHY CANT WE BE FREINDS!:(

I never said it was copyrighted. Who gives a rats butt if the teacher in their off time make lyrical bullshit songs all they want. But to go into the local church, take the tunes from the hymns and write new non related lyrics and then force the kids to learn the new bullshit words is offensive bullshit.

I'm finding it hard to believe you are genuine, my friend.

I have never met anyone who toed-the-evangelical-line the way you seem to be CLAIMING to... who ALSO peppered their speech with such a constant barrage of crass language.

I am forced to appraise that you might be a troll, in 'lamb's clothing'.

I never said it was copyrighted. Who gives a rats butt if the teacher in their off time make lyrical bullshit songs all they want. But to go into the local church, take the tunes from the hymns and write new non related lyrics and then force the kids to learn the new bullshit words is offensive bullshit.

That's a lot of bullshit.

Did it ever occur to you that the teacher that wrote those lyrics was probably a devout enough christian and has sung enough carols to probably rewrite those lyrics from rote? Hell, It's only one of the most recognizeable carols in the WORLD.

I'm sure she would've used the music to 'Grandma Got Run Over By a Reindeer' if it popped into her head first. :)

I'm finding it hard to believe you are genuine, my friend.

I have never met anyone who toed-the-evangelical-line the way you seem to be CLAIMING to... who ALSO peppered their speech with such a constant barrage of crass language.

I am forced to appraise that you might be a troll, in 'lamb's clothing'.

You smell 'bullshit'? ;)

Double standard, perhaps?

Double standard my ASS. When they did this EXACT same thing to other people, the Indian kids for example, lets take the stuff their recognize and teach them DIFFERENT words to their holy songs, to their holy icons, lets teach them things that we want to think about instead of what their culture would have them think about, what was that?

Let's take the holy songs out of the church and teach all the kids different meanings to them is EXACTLY the same fucking thing, You're full of shit to try and change the topic to Christianity and your opinion of it. It's about the fact that they took the song tune ONLY because it is a religious song in the first place and then changed it, act like it, to mock it and change it's essence in the minds of the children. That's offensive to the people that think of that song as sacred, despite YOUR bad opinion of those people and their beliefs, that's irrelevant.

All they have to do is use a already secular Christmas song for crying out loud.

Um ... I'm probably not the first to point this out, but if there's a menora and symbols of kwanza in the exhibit, it's definately not "secular." I suspect that what the suit will be about is that what was originally a Christian holiday has been pre-empted by other religions while any reference to Christianity has been kicked out. Ya think? :p

It looks kind of like you failed to read the linked articles OR my post.

The suit is about 'mocking a Christian song', apparently... claiming that this attempt to 'secularise' Christmas is some form of direct attack.

And, if you'd read either my post OR the sources, you'd have seen that other Christian material IS being included... including other approaches to Christianity (like that little Italian Christmas Witch).

And - since we celebrate on the OLD pagan 'new year', and, indeed, have maintained sevaral elements of THAT ritual in OUR Christmas celebration... how has Christmas EVER been 'originally a Christian holiday'?

My point is(and copyright law backs this up), different lyrics, different song!

So unless the lyrics are in some way actually making jest at 'Silent Night', then it's NOT a parody. It is a song in it's own right.

JUst ask Puff Daddy(or whatever his name is this week). He's made a comfortable living on other people's songs. :)


"Happy Birthday" was copyrighted(sp?) under different lyrics, but the composer's sister still got to sue the ass of of many a group.

It's the MUSIC that makes the song
besides, if i had to sing that crap, i'd probably kill the teacher. I mean, God, make up your own damn song.

I'm sure she would've used the music to 'Grandma Got Run Over By a Reindeer' if it popped into her head first. :)

And THAT would have been fine.

The fact that people ARE offended simply proves I'm right. There is ZERO motivation in writing a new holiday song that is OFFENSIVE to replace a song that might be OFFENSIVE... duh.

And THAT would have been fine.

The fact that people ARE offended simply proves I'm right. There is ZERO motivation in writing a new holiday song that is OFFENSIVE to replace a song that might be OFFENSIVE... duh.

SOmeone is always offended.

It looks kind of like you failed to read the linked articles OR my post.

The suit is about 'mocking a Christian song', apparently... claiming that this attempt to 'secularise' Christmas is some form of direct attack.

And, if you'd read either my post OR the sources, you'd have seen that other Christian material IS being included... including other approaches to Christianity (like that little Italian Christmas Witch).

And - since we celebrate on the OLD pagan 'new year', and, indeed, have maintained sevaral elements of THAT ritual in OUR Christmas celebration... how has Christmas EVER been 'originally a Christian holiday'?
CHRIST-
MAS.

not EX-MAS

Christmas IS christian, in name and execution.
It is the timing that screws it up (winter solstice)

Even Santa was based on a priest.

CHRIST-
MAS.

not EX-MAS

Christmas IS christian, in name and execution.
It is the timing that screws it up (winter solstice)

Even Santa was based on a priest.

Santa is a conglomeration of several people. Yes, ONE of them was a priest. A saint, to be exact. ANother was a Norse God. :)

It looks kind of like you failed to read the linked articles OR my post.

The suit is about 'mocking a Christian song', apparently... claiming that this attempt to 'secularise' Christmas is some form of direct attack.

And, if you'd read either my post OR the sources, you'd have seen that other Christian material IS being included... including other approaches to Christianity (like that little Italian Christmas Witch).

And - since we celebrate on the OLD pagan 'new year', and, indeed, have maintained sevaral elements of THAT ritual in OUR Christmas celebration... how has Christmas EVER been 'originally a Christian holiday'?
( shrug ) Nevermind then. :p

Santa is a conglomeration of several people. Yes, ONE of them was a priest. A saint, to be exact. ANother was a Norse God. :)
>_>
<_<
(touché)
norse god in concept, or in figure, tho?

"Happy Birthday" was copyrighted(sp?) under different lyrics, but the composer's sister still got to sue the ass of of many a group.
Silent Night is public domain. It's about 200 years old.

( shrug ) Nevermind then. :p

You were right, he just doesn't get your point.

You were right, he just doesn't get your point.
How often do you find it necessary to be insulting?

Silent Night is public domain. It's about 200 years old.
I'm not arguing ownership, i was using it as supporting detail for the whole "songs are defined by the music, not the lyrics" theory.

(please read all of this post...please)

Silent Night is public domain. It's about 200 years old.

Who cares if it's public domain? How does that change the fact that changing the words is offensive to people that think the song is sacred?

A public school should just leave the song alone and do a different song if they can't do it right. Its an elementary school, Frosty the Snowman is still NEW to them. Jingle Bells, Rudolph the reindeer, whatever, leave the sacred hymns alone whether you believe in them or not.

Though I would probably not attend or allow my child to attend any play that perverted a perfectly good holiday song just so that the atheists and agnostics can hold court over the wishes of the majority, I doubt I'd go so far as to sue. That's just silly. They can have their little non-secular holiday play. More power to 'em. The empty seats will speak louder than any noise that any attorney could ever hope to make.

I'm not arguing ownership, i was using it as supporting detail for the whole "songs are defined by the music, not the lyrics" theory.

(please read all of the post)
I did read all of the post. It is irrelevant. Both the music and the lyrics are public domain. It is perfectly legal to mix and match them with other lyrics and tunes.

How often do you find it necessary to be insulting?

Every forth time I've got to repeat myself, or so.... give or take.

I'm not arguing ownership, i was using it as supporting detail for the whole "songs are defined by the music, not the lyrics" theory.

(please read all of this post...please)

I don't think he was really attacking you. He does have a point.

You have to remember that a theme of a song can be altered enough to count as a new song by changing about five notes. the sound of a song can't be copyrighted...only specific song.

I don't think he was really attacking you. He does have a point.

You have to remember that a theme of a song can be altered enough to count as a new song by changing about five notes. the sound of a song can't be copyrighted...only specific song.
I'm sorry that i did not make myself clear.
When you change the NOTES, you change the music.
A change in lyrics does not change the song.

Every forth time I've got to repeat myself, or so.... give or take.
That must be quite often, given the number of times you seem to resort to insults. Perhaps you should consider working on writing things that are actually, like ... you know ... comprehensible? Hmmm? :D

Though I would probably not attend or allow my child to attend any play that perverted a perfectly good holiday song just so that the atheists and agnostics can hold court over the wishes of the majority, I doubt I'd go so far as to sue. That's just silly. They can have their little non-secular holiday play. More power to 'em. The empty seats will speak louder than any noise that any attorney could ever hope to make.
Hey, I'm an athiest, and I still think this is a stupid idea. I'd much rather hear Silent Night at the school play, personally (hell, I'm listening to a Christmas carol CD right now). Please don't generalize all of us as Christmas haters. And the school isn't having a secular Christmas, it is showing holiday symbols from many different religions. All I'm arguing is that it is perfectly legal to mess with the lyrics of Silent Night if they want to; it's a dumb idea, but they can do it, and you can't rightfully sue 'em for it, which you agree with, so we should all just get along :)

>_>
<_<
(touché)
norse god in concept, or in figure, tho?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/cc/Oden_som_vandringsman.jpg/250px-Oden_som_vandringsman.jpg

Odin. There's a definite resemblance. :)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/cc/Oden_som_vandringsman.jpg/250px-Oden_som_vandringsman.jpg

Odin. There's a definite resemblance. :)
Figure it is, then
^_^

That must be quite often, given the number of times you seem to resort to insults.

*thinking back*

Yep, that's about right.

(you are talking about me in general right? Because in this case I'm agreeing with your first post, I thought it was right on the money and I think GnI was just surprised that someone like you didn't agree with him so He thought you misunderstood it, when in fact, you got it better than he did... If your point was about me in general-overall, even tho I'm agreeing with you this time, then yes ~ they push I push back).

I'm sorry that i did not make myself clear.
When you change the NOTES, you change the music.
A change in lyrics does not change the song.

You didn't even remotely hint at that conclusion in your previous post.

And while that is true, the lyrics are part of the song. If you change "silent Night" to "A Cold Night", or whatever you feel like really, it changes the rythm of the song and therefor the song. You can't alster a song in any capacity without turning it into a new thing alltogether.

Figure it is, then
^_^

Concept too, I suppose. Every winter he would go on a wild hunt. Children would leave food for his horses in therir boots(boots?!? EWWW... :p ) and as a reward, Odin would leave candy and other gifts in the boots in exchange.

There was also a russian mythological figure....something to do with frost.

Sinterklaas, which was a norwegian legnd based on Saint Nicholas who supposedly gave gifts to poor children in Turkey.

There was at least one other, but I can't remember.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/cc/Oden_som_vandringsman.jpg/250px-Oden_som_vandringsman.jpg

Odin. There's a definite resemblance. :)

O blah again, that painting was done in 1886. Silent Night is older than that.

To be honest, the secularization of silent night has nothing to do with christian hypocrisy. Christian hypocrisy is so nuch more than that. Christianity nowadays is cultural. Im a christian, a follower of Jesus Christ, the One and Only Son of God. What I see nowadays in so called "christians" is absolutely disgusting. The reason people think christians are hypocrites is because almost no one completely understands what it means to be a full christian. Christianty is not hypocrisy, but the people who give christianity a bad name are. People thank God for everything they've done, when they no more believe in God than some of you. Kanye West and many celebrities are always seen with necklaces with Crosses on them, none of them even begin to understand what it represents. Today, to the modern world, christianity isnt a religion, its our culture.

O blah again, that painting was done in 1886. Silent Night is older than that.

So is this debate. :p

At least it seems that way.

Concept too, I suppose. Every winter he would go on a wild hunt. Children would leave food for his horses in therir boots(boots?!? EWWW... :p ) and as a reward, Odin would leave candy and other gifts in the boots in exchange.

There was also a russian mythological figure....something to do with frost.

Sinterklaas, which was a norwegian legnd based on Saint Nicholas who supposedly gave gifts to poor children in Turkey.

There was at least one other, but I can't remember.
Why do you know this?

Why do you know this?

Knowing is half the battle. :)

http://www.brandsoftheworld.com/brands/0011/9772/brand.gif

Lyrics get changed all the time...

"God Save the King" = "My Country 'Tis of Thee"

"Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star" = "ABCDEFG..." You know the song.

It's not necessarily only for parody.

And this "War on Christmas" is SUCH a friggin' joke!

Never have I seen such a vast majority group (Christians in the US) scream so much about being persecuted. Christmas, in whatever form, is SO incredibly pervasive in this society, that for these people to act like they're persecuted is simply absurd on its very face. This is bordering on the Orwellian.

Take it from a person who was raised a Christian that did NOT celebrate Christmas - aside from the name, there's NEVER been very much Christian about Christmas. The celebration of Christmas was even ILLEGAL in parts of the US until the mid 19th century or so. The Puritan "Fathers" aka "Pilgrims" were extremely Christian, after their fashion, but they wouldn't have dreamed of putting up a tree and giving gifts on December 25th.

Leaving aside the fact that December 25th couldn't possibly be Jesus' birthday to begin with, just what, exactly, have any of the now traditional symbols of Christmas (or most other so-called Christian holidays, for that matter) to do with Christianity? Decorated Trees? The only place you'll find THAT in the Bible is Jeremiah 11, where you are commanded NOT to do it, because it's a heathen practice! Go look it up!

Christianity to-day bears very little resemblance to anything in the Bible.

The holidays we celebrate in the US to-day have been devoid of almost all real religious meaning for centuries. The people screaming about being 'attacked' now, are just ignorant of history and of how societies change and adapt over time. They're just trying to hold on to some imagined ideal, because the real world is too scary for them.

/rant

7

Knowing is half the battle. :)

http://www.brandsoftheworld.com/brands/0011/9772/brand.gif
What is the other half? I bet it is winning. Is the other half winning?

And THAT would have been fine.

The fact that people ARE offended simply proves I'm right. There is ZERO motivation in writing a new holiday song that is OFFENSIVE to replace a song that might be OFFENSIVE... duh.

Didn't you state that it was offensive TO YOU, because of your beliefs about that song...

Not 'offensive', per se?

The new song is not 'offensive'... it contains no offensive language (which is more than can be said for THIS thread), makes no specific statements about ANY group or event, religious, secular or otherwise...

If YOU find it offensive... does that make it an 'offensive song'?

What is the other half? I bet it is winning. Is the other half winning?

The other half is broken down into several other items.

Not the least of which is pie. :)

*thinking back*

Yep, that's about right.

(you are talking about me in general right? Because in this case I'm agreeing with your first post, I thought it was right on the money and I think GnI was just surprised that someone like you didn't agree with him so He thought you misunderstood it, when in fact, you got it better than he did... If your point was about me in general-overall, even tho I'm agreeing with you this time, then yes ~ they push I push back).

When you say to Eutrusca "Someone like you".... what exactly would that mean?

It sounds like you are insulting him again...

Eutrusca and I rarely agree on anything. Our politics are, in most cases, almost diametrically opposed, and many of our views are complete anathema to each other.

However, that doesn't mean I don't RESPECT Eutrusca... and even respect his right to disagree with me.

I get the feeling that you 'someone like you' is a jab at either myself, or Eutrusca... and I'm not sure why I think that. To be honest, it's unlikely to cost me sleep.

Let it be known, however, that I have been on the NS forums, in one name or another, for several years now... and you are now the closest I've got to putting someone on 'ignore'.

The other half is broken down into several other items.

Not the least of which is pie. :)

Uggggggh - pi-i-i-eeeee.... (homer-type sounds...)

Didn't you state that it was offensive TO YOU, because of your beliefs about that song...

Not 'offensive', per se?

The new song is not 'offensive'... it contains no offensive language (which is more than can be said for THIS thread), makes no specific statements about ANY group or event, religious, secular or otherwise...

If YOU find it offensive... does that make it an 'offensive song'?


No, YOUR LINK proved people are offended by it... YOUR LINK GnI, not mine.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/Beliefs/story?id=1387602&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

You didn't even remotely hint at that conclusion in your previous post.

And while that is true, the lyrics are part of the song. If you change "silent Night" to "A Cold Night", or whatever you feel like really, it changes the rythm of the song and therefor the song. You can't alster a song in any capacity without turning it into a new thing alltogether.

but i thought i made it abundantly clear

"'Happy Birthday' was copyrighted(sp?) under different lyrics, but the composer's sister still got to sue the ass of of many a group."

if it was a different song, why was there any suit?

...

I get the feeling that you 'someone like you' is a jab at either myself, or Eutrusca... and I'm not sure why I think that. To be honest, it's unlikely to cost me sleep.
...

That was entirely directed at you, not Eutrusca.

Anyone here think that "Happy Holidays" is fine because of Ramadan, New Years, Christmas and Hunukkah(sp?) but making Christmas Secular is load of crap because without the religon you wouldn't have the holiday, no xmas, it's Christmas, keep the separation of church and state but just don't make it a secular holiday

The other half is broken down into several other items.

Not the least of which is pie. :)
What percent of the battle does knowing about pie count for?

No, YOUR LINK proved people are offended by it... YOUR LINK GnI, not mine.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/Beliefs/story?id=1387602&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

Again, however, it isn't the SONG they are offended at, is it...?

Isn't the point there, that they dislike what they consider 'their' tune, being used for another purpose than that for which they would have it use?

And, isn't that the same thing you are arguing?

Your use of my source, merely proves that others are exercising the same arguments that you are... that doesn't make the 'secular song' itself, offensive.

What percent of the battle does knowing about pie count for?

The part where you stop worrying about the battle and sit down to eat the pie, :D

The secularity that's noted in that news report barely scratches the surface of the Christians and their hypocracy.

Every single christian who has ever had a Christmas Tree, exchanged gifts during the Christmas season, hunted Easter Eggs, or even dressed up at Halloween is displaying outright hypocracy of his or her Christianity. All of these things derive directly from Pagan and Pagan-type rituals and celebrations.

Even the celebration of the "birth of Christ" was placed where it is in December as part of an effort by the Church to overtake and overthrow any beliefs that did not honor their god.

The simple truth is that they haven't got any accurate idea of when, or if, Christ was actually born.

Also, all this BS about "Christ being taken out of Christmas by using the term 'X-Mas'" needs to be stopped. While I'll have to double check which language it was, in either the Greek language or the in Latin "Christ" is spelled Xrist. It was later abbreviated, appropriately, to X-mas (referring to a mass celebrating Christ).

:cool:

Again, however, it isn't the SONG they are offended at, is it...?

Isn't the point there, that they dislike what they consider 'their' tune, being used for another purpose than that for which they would have it use?

And, isn't that the same thing you are arguing?

Your use of my source, merely proves that others are exercising the same arguments that you are... that doesn't make the 'secular song' itself, offensive.

You are flat out wrong. How can YOU determine what THEY think is sacred?

Also, all this BS about "Christ being taken out of Christmas by using the term 'X-Mas'" needs to be stopped. While I'll have to double check which language it was, in either the Greek language or the in Latin "Christ" is spelled Xrist. It was later abbreviated, appropriately, to X-mas (referring to a mass celebrating Christ).

:cool:

I think everyone knows xmas isn't an abreviation, it's a secular version of Christmas.

That was entirely directed at you, not Eutrusca.

Strangely, the fact that, if you MUST be offensive in a thread I started, you aim it at me.... makes me feel somewhat better.

I think it sad that you feel the need to attack a poster, however, rather than the content of the debate.

You are flat out wrong. How can YOU determine what THEY think is sacred?

I am wrong? Pray, prove it?

I am just basing it one their actual words.... perhaps you have some other, 'better' form of evidence?

The part where you stop worrying about the battle and sit down to eat the pie, :D
Brilliant.
Strangely, the fact that, if you MUST be offensive in a thread I started, you aim it at me.... makes me feel somewhat better.

I think it sad that you feel the need to attack a poster, however, rather than the content of the debate.
Someone is trying to get on their high horse. The first person to tell me who wins a pie!

I am wrong? Pray, prove it?

I am just basing it one their actual words.... perhaps you have some other, 'better' form of evidence?

Your link again:

Offended by the new words, he was unable to convince the school not to perform the song and contacted Liberty Counsel, which provides free legal assistance in religious freedom cases.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/Beliefs/story?id=1387602&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312 (emphasis mine)

Your link again:

Offended by the new words, he was unable to convince the school not to perform the song and contacted Liberty Counsel, which provides free legal assistance in religious freedom cases.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/Beliefs/story?id=1387602&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312 (emphasis mine)

Okay... so, they were 'offended by the new words'.... that could support either argument, could it not?

I mean... it could mean that they were offended by the words, themselves...

However, the way I read it, they were 'offended' by what they perceive as an attack on the 'old song' (much like you have claimed to be).... and which THEY perceived as a 'mockery'.

So - does the source support my argument?

""This kind of a situation is not so much confusion as it is an insensitivity and an attempt to secularize Christmas, because here they're actually taking a song and mocking it, in my opinion."

So, it is EXACTLY as I said... AND the commentator is kind enough to attribute that view to themselves, by referring to it as "in my opinion".

So, the writer is yet one more person on the list that finds it offensive.


So, tell us again, oh wise one, why should they use the song at all? In either version?

So, tell us again, oh wise one, why should they use the song at all? In either version?
So the children can complain about having to learn to sing them.

So the children can complain about having to learn them.

Find them a different song... A secular Christmas song, Jingle Bells is good.

So, the writer is yet one more person on the list that finds it offensive.


So, tell us again, oh wise one, why should they use the song at all? In either version?

Which 'writer'?

I almost get the feeling you are not even reading the posts, any more.

Why should they use the song?

Well, why shouldn't they?

It is a festive event, marking this end-of-year-period. They are using elements of Kwanzaa, and Judaism, and other interpretations of Christianity, in their classrooms... they are using Christian songs in their presentation.

They are ALSO using a non-strictly-Christian (although, it nowehere claims to be ANTI-Christian) set of lyrics, over a 'Christmas-y' piece of music.

I see no problem

Indeed, the ONLY problem I see, is those who seem set to STOP people from being allowed to celebrate at this time of year, UNLESS they happen to worship one, particular, 'god'.

I think everyone knows xmas isn't an abreviation, it's a secular version of Christmas.
Nope. Just another abreviation.

:cool:

Find them a different song... A secular Christmas song, Jingle Bells is good.

And, WHY should YOU be able to arbitrate what OTHER people read, write, speak or sing?

*snip*

People are offended, you don't care, you have an agenda...

Nice argument. Not.

They don't like their sacred songs being used improperly in public schools, there's not a shortage of songs, DON'T USE IT.

Your opinion of them and their beliefs is irrelevant.

People are offended,

This part is true... this part HAS been something that has been in my posts. However, I think they should 'suck it up', and stop making out they (being the majority, and all) are the VICTIMS of some worldwide conspiracy.

I ALSO think it is hypocrisy, to be talking about a 'war on Christmas', EVEN AS they attack a secular celebration.

And, THAT is the heart of the matter.

you don't care,

I didn't say I didn't care.

I certainly don't have much sympathy... but that is different.

you have an agenda...

Really? And, what is my 'agenda', exactly?

Every year, I do my shopping at Wal-Mart, Target, etc... it matters not a jot to me which 'secular' group is avoiding which stores because of their Christian celebrations, or which evangelicals are avoiding which store because they DON'T have Christian celebrations.

You are giving me an 'agenda' I haven't had.

Nice argument. Not.

Not really... but then, since the argument you portray is a 'strawman', and not mine... I'm not too upset.

They don't like their sacred songs being used improperly in public schools, there's not a shortage of songs,

To be honest, I found the use of a Nirvana song by Christian 'rock-group' "ApologetiX" quite insulting.

Fortunately, whether it agrees with you, or it agrees with me, we have a 'right' to Free Speech. Thus, ApologetiX can trash the memory of Kurt Cobain, and a school in Wisconsin can put their own lyrics to an old tune.

And neither of us has the constitutional right to do anything about it.

DON'T USE IT.

Like I say, the constitution deliberately sets out to rid you of THAT kind of oppressive power. You might as well get used to it... at least until the US finishes it's progress towards Fundamentalism.

Your opinion of them and their beliefs is irrelevant.

Indeed. And, has nothing to do with the topic.

The 'topic' was about the hypocrisy of declaring themselves VICTIMS of a 'war on Christmas', whilst simultaneously trying to shut-down avenues to celebrations that don't match THEIR agenda.

Twinkle Twinkle Little Star, My ABC's, and Bah Bah Black Sheep were all written to the same tune.

Since this guy has such a beef with changing the wording to the same tune, I wonder which two songs he would lobby to change?

Just because the song was written to convey the message of the incarnation does not mean it has some sort of heavenly copyright. It was written by men. It can be changed by men.

Now shut the hell up! Anyone who chooses not to believe in the Christmas story can celebrate any way that want.

Grave, good to see you are still raising hell since I left before (Aluminumia). ;)

Who gives a rats ass if they have the right to use the tune... Like I said, use Weird Al or SNL and do it all you want. To 'force' a bunch of elementary kids to learn the lyrics and change forever their understanding of what the song means to them is bullshit.

Let's just teach kids crap about the songs and customs of every other group while we're at it shall we?
Oh you must be right, all those fragile minds couldn't take it ... they'd be irreparably scarred and left with no option other than enrollment in some religious institution to finish the job. Or fix the job, whateva.

:rolleyes:

That last line better be sarcasm. Or I'll...watch Secular Central and Jon Stewarts personal war on Christmas.

I think every December 25th every family should gather and celebrate at Osama's Homobortion, Pot, Commie and Jizz emporioum.
Ya gotta admit, one of the
BEST EPISODES EVER
!!!!!!!!

The difference, perhaps, is that Adam Sandler parodied 'the Hanukkah Song'?

I've been reading through the 'secular' song that has been set to the Silent Night music... and I see no comments aimed to mock, parody, or otherwise give offence, to ANYONE...
Greenlander is obviously the exception to the rule, thus proving the rule. ;)

BTW, you still aimin' to misbehave?
Also ... Carnivale does indeed rock.
*bows*

The whole mockery is the fact that you take the Baby Christ out of the Baby Christ song. That, is mockery. period.
OED
mockery:
(1)derision; ridicule. (2)absurdly inadequate or futile action, etc.

Sure, "Baby Christ" is ubiquitous there, easy to see your "point". :rolleyes:

I am aware that this is kinda myopic, so i'll attempt to rectify ....
Webster's
(1)a mocking. (2)one receiving or deserving ridicule. (3)a false or derisive imitation.

well, not much follow-up to your claim. Maybe you should brush up more on your understanding of definitions of things and less on your vitriol, whatsay?

EDIT: Okay, my bias caused me to enbolden the term "deserving" in the above definition - the source didn't have any emphasis on that word. I hope that partiality doesn't throw out my argument, i'd hate to have that happen.

I've been doing that a lot lately. I suspect it's just a phase. :)
Your location sig indicates that you ARE on the edge ... maybe you're losing your fair and balanced position on things?
:eek:

Oh blah again... change the topic all you want,

What The Living F*ck??
This is Grave_n_Idle's THREAD!! HE STARTED IT!!!
Maybe you don't understand how to engage in an argumentative venue without pulling the "Kirk Maneuver (Kobyashi Maru)" but it sure exemplifies your intellectual flexibility ....
Leave the Church Hymns alone and no one would bitch...
Yeah, leave the natives to their own spirituality, they'll find christianity on their own.
If not ... here's a blanket.

For the most part, I get along with most of the Christians I talk to... in 'real life' and on Nation States... but this just sickens me:



http://abcnews.go.com/US/Beliefs/story?id=1387602&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

Why does this sicken me?

According to the individuals in question, it is not even ALLOWABLE to have a secular celebration at this time of year. They are actually pressing suit, ("Staver said if the school does not respond to Legal Counsel's request for the program to be changed, "we will file suit" — possibly today") over secular lyrics being allowed instead of Christian lyrics.

Apparently - further complaints by this 'Staver' fellow, include the fact that the school allowed a denomination-free Winter display, in the classroom:



http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47784

It looks like hypocrisy, to me... look at Staver's own words:



So - it's okay for there to be a Christian celebration in the winter (indeed, Staver claims "Christmas is constitutional"), but it is NOT okay to secularise it?


I don't see any 'hypocrisy' in the argument. I do not actually understand how someone resenting secularisation of Christian festivals is acting against Christian teachings. I would like to see this point expanded upon.

SOmeone is always offended.
Hey, your impartial specificity is offending me!

CHRIST-
MAS.

not EX-MAS

Christmas IS christian, in name and execution.
It is the timing that screws it up (winter solstice)

Even Santa was based on a priest.
Santa = Saint
as in St. Mary the famous boat
San = Saint
as in St. Francis the famous host city of that crass bellicose putreform, Michael "Savage" Weiner.

The other half is broken down into several other items.

Not the least of which is pie. :)
Alas, Xeno graces us with his confounding presence!!!

I am wrong? Pray, prove it?

I am just basing it one their actual words.... perhaps you have some other, 'better' form of evidence?
Well, of course, the "No-Spin Zone".
:rolleyes:

Straughn, what is this, a post racking project??? :p

Religiocrats. :rolleyes:

Well then, if those who are not Christians claimed a completely separate holiday, would it be okay then, or do "Christians" :( have a monopoly on the date of the holiday?

Honestly, I don't understand why we are trying to force others to celebrate as we celebrate. It makes no sense. Why try to keep children singing "Silent Night" if they don't believe the words of "Silent Night?"

Originally posted by Dyelli Beybi
I don't see any 'hypocrisy' in the argument. I do not actually understand how someone resenting secularisation of Christian festivals is acting against Christian teachings. I would like to see this point expanded upon.

Let me see if I can flesh out what is meant here. This does not secularize the Christian festival. If you ask most Christians, this song would be a good way to spend Christmas, particularly if the weather was as bad as it is said to be in the song. All this is is a song about a cold Christmas night with the family that happens to be to the tune of "Silent Night."

Now tell me. Is that tune sacred? I would contest that it is not. The tune is musical, with nothing religious tied to it apart from the words for which it was created. The words, I will give, would be more easily defended than this. In reality, this is just one more reason that we as Christians are going to look like bullies that demand to be left to our ways, regardless of others. Did Christ ever do this?

Goddistan']Straughn, what is this, a post racking project??? :p

Religiocrats. :rolleyes:


To be fair, i JUST turned over to
[B]semi-advanced spammer[B]
although that is just about *never* my incentive. I usually just jump around thread and research, and when i read back something might occur to me to post, and then i read them all at the end and go "ugh".
Well, that and i've been a ghost for about four months and i hardly ever get any read time, so when i do, it's prolific.
Good thing VH1 has their "Dirtiest Videos" series on ... just got to watch "Let's Get Physical" from Olivia Newton-John. Ever seen it? Yikes!

Goddistan']Straughn, what is this, a post racking project??? :p

Religiocrats. :rolleyes:

Well then, if those who are not Christians claimed a completely separate holiday, would it be okay then, or do "Christians" :( have a monopoly on the date of the holiday?

Honestly, I don't understand why we are trying to force others to celebrate as we celebrate. It makes no sense. Why try to keep children singing "Silent Night" if they don't believe the words of "Silent Night?"



Let me see if I can flesh out what is meant here. This does not secularize the Christian festival. If you ask most Christians, this song would be a good way to spend Christmas, particularly if the weather was as bad as it is said to be in the song. All this is is a song about a cold Christmas night with the family that happens to be to the tune of "Silent Night."

Now tell me. Is that tune sacred? I would contest that it is not. The tune is musical, with nothing religious tied to it apart from the words for which it was created. The words, I will give, would be more easily defended than this. In reality, this is just one more reason that we as Christians are going to look like bullies that demand to be left to our ways, regardless of others. Did Christ ever do this?


I think I see that point, and yes it does seem... excessive. Not being an American I am not familiar with exactly what the Religo-Political landscape is over there.

I think I see that point, and yes it does seem... excessive. Not being an American I am not familiar with exactly what the Religo-Political landscape is over there.

It is scorched, and strewn with maimed ideas, and burning barricades, and popping lights of enemy bombs and friendly fire. Not as bad as a real war, to be sure, though...

For the most part, I get along with most of the Christians I talk to... in 'real life' and on Nation States... but this just sickens me:



http://abcnews.go.com/US/Beliefs/story?id=1387602&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

Why does this sicken me?

According to the individuals in question, it is not even ALLOWABLE to have a secular celebration at this time of year. They are actually pressing suit, ("Staver said if the school does not respond to Legal Counsel's request for the program to be changed, "we will file suit" — possibly today") over secular lyrics being allowed instead of Christian lyrics.

Apparently - further complaints by this 'Staver' fellow, include the fact that the school allowed a denomination-free Winter display, in the classroom:



http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47784

It looks like hypocrisy, to me... look at Staver's own words:



So - it's okay for there to be a Christian celebration in the winter (indeed, Staver claims "Christmas is constitutional"), but it is NOT okay to secularise it? For once, I'm in agreement with Graven Idle. I thought the "war on Christmas" was about taking away the meaning of Christmas, not adding to it!

Fooooolz. :rolleyes:

Yeah, I have to admit that I can't dialogue across the proverbial table with Grave, as we are on the same side of the table this time.

Dyelli Beybi, to read up on it, and the ways that both sides would be pissed at true Christianity, read the book entitled God's Politics : Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It by Jim Wallis. Basically, both sides abuse Christianity to further their own causes while conveniently forgetting it when that suits them.

I don't mind the neglect. I just would appreciate no association to religion on the part of either party.

I think people are losing sight of the real issue.

People celebrate christmas, yet they believe it should be secular, because as a religious festival, they find it offensive. Surely if they find it offensive, they shouldn't partake in it....they shouldn't take the holiday...they shouldn't give the presents....because it is a Christian festival. They are just using Christmas as an excuse for a holiday, and then complaining about the religion that made it a holiday. It's ridiculous. Don't do it if it offends you.

Originally posted by The New Eastern Block

I think people are losing sight of the real issue.

People celebrate christmas, yet they believe it should be secular, because as a religious festival, they find it offensive. Surely if they find it offensive, they shouldn't partake in it....they shouldn't take the holiday...they shouldn't give the presents....because it is a Christian festival. They are just using Christmas as an excuse for a holiday, and then complaining about the religion that made it a holiday. It's ridiculous. Don't do it if it offends you.

Giving gifts, however, was not part of the original celebration.

Put it this way: If they changed the name of the holiday, would you still think it to be wrong? If so, I think you are desiring a monopoly on December, basically saying that unless someone celebrates as you wish them to, they should not celebrate anything. If not, then aren't you playing a game of semantics?

If a Buddhist bears a child and has no intentions of raising the child as a Christian, should she be allowed to name the child after someone in the Bible? Why not?

This is what amuses me. There are people who are trying to take the name "Christmas" out of the holiday, because they do not believe it. There is a cry foul from the Religious right. Then when they keep the name but wish to celebrate it differently, that same group cries foul again. Let them change the name, since they really aren't celebrating the same holiday.

Let's bear in mind that it was the Christians who changed the name of the holiday first. Maybe Roman Pagans should start a campaign decrying the "War on Saturnalia" since it was their holiday first.

And from the dictionary.com encyclopedic entry on "Xmas":

"Xmas is an abbreviation for Christmas. It is derived from the word ???????, transliterated as Christos, which is Greek for Christ. Greek is the language in which the whole New Testament was written."

It goes on from there.

Have a look: http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Xmas

Some Modern (so-called) Christians with a persecution complex may find offense at "Xmas" now, but its origins are hardly secularist.

7

Yeah, I've been wondering about the logic in this "War on Christmas" thing, myself. Why are the Christian conservatives trying to take away the ability to say "Happy Holidays"? Since when does Christianity have a copyright on evergreen trees that stops us from having "Holiday" trees? For that matter, where is their copyright on the tune of "Silent Night" that stops the school district from putting the tune to different words?

I don't see how this is mocking anyone. Many religions have holiday celebrations at this time of year, and it seems to me that this school is not trying to disenfranchise Chistmas, but rather including many holidays in its celebration.

Me, I'd rather people say "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Hannukah" or "Happy Kwanza" or "Hey it's Festivus!" than "Happy Holidays".

When you see the use of "Happy Holidays!" in the US, it's primarily done because saying "Merry Christmas" is considered offensive enough to attract the threat of lawsuits.

Me, I'd rather people say "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Hannukah" or "Happy Kwanza" or "Hey it's Festivus!" than "Happy Holidays".

Now that you mention it I would rather have some guy come up to me and yell "Happy Kwanza!" rather than the watered down pc alternative. I guess diversity and religious freedom just make me all warm and fuzzy inside. This time of year (when it's so frickin cold and boring in most of the world that /any/ holiday will do) the more personal the celebration is, the better.

It's a different matter though when you're talking about a public business displaying signs. Unless you're a Kosher goods store you're going to have people of all denominations coming in some time in December, so you shouldn't be picking one religion over another if you know whats good for your bottom line. People will certainly be offended over a "Christ is LORD!" banner in Sam's Club, but if they're /apparently/ going to be offended by a "Happy Holidays!" one too then I think the problem is their's not the etablishments.

When you see the use of "Happy Holidays!" in the US, it's primarily done because saying "Merry Christmas" is considered offensive enough to attract the threat of lawsuits.
Actually, no. People usually say, "Happy Holidays" because the majority of American celebrate both Christmas and New Years Day. Thus, the use of the plural form of "holiday," and the generic wish that multiple holidays be "happy."

Also, people begin wishing "Happy Holidays" the day after Thanksgiving, because there is a "holiday season" that stretches for over a month. Going around wishing people "Merry Christmas" on December 1st is like leaving your tree up until Easter.

Me, I'd rather people say "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Hannukah" or "Happy Kwanza" or "Hey it's Festivus!" than "Happy Holidays".

When you see the use of "Happy Holidays!" in the US, it's primarily done because saying "Merry Christmas" is considered offensive enough to attract the threat of lawsuits.


Now that just seems silly to me. People have been saying "Happy Holidays" for as long as I can remember (which is about 1972). And, I suspect, for much longer than that. It's not done because anyone considers "Merry Christmas" offensive. (Though it may be, by some.) It's done because so many holidays are being celebrated at the same time of year - Christmas and New Years' day being at the top of the list. And let's not forget that Saturnal... err... Christmas was originally a multiple-day celebration, and still is in some countries. In many parts of Central Europe (Germany, at. al.) the celebrations start on December 6th.

"Holidays" is meant to be all-encompassing. And it's easier that saying, "Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, Have a Nice Hannukah... " and on it might go.

These reactionary Christian groups (which, I believe, are just a very vocal minority), seem to just want a reason to feel persecuted. And any acknowledgement that something OTHER than Christmas is being celebrated in "their" month just gets under their skin, for some reason.

It's all very Orwellian. These people are yelling about being persecuted, when the fact is THEY are the ones doing the persecuting, and pretty much have been since the early 4th century or so. For just how long does a "small, persecuted minority" group like Christians have to be the dominant force in the entire Western World before they can stop acting like bloody martyrs?

7

First off, I think it's bullshit that they changed the words to "Silent Night." Sing a holiday song that doesn't include Jesus if you don't want it to be about Jesus, but don't change a song that's already about Him. That grates me just a little.

Also, the seclerization of Christmas bothers me to no end. The fact that the retail inustry has hijacked one of the most holy days in my religion and turned it into a currupt mockery of what it's suppose to stand for sickens me.

You can celebrate whatever you want. I'm not trying to force my religion on you. Make up a holiday, whatever. Celebrate Festivus if you don't what religion as part of your holidays but still wanna celebrate. But when you celebrate Christmas, it's about Christ. And having Christmas without Christ is just wrong, in my eyes.

true I mean in seasonal sing songs all over US no one is going to be singing any alternative lyrics

Dashing through the snow
On a broken pair of skies
Headed for the trees
I think I broke my knees
The snow is turning red
I think I'm almost dead
I think I spent my Christmas Eve
In a hospital bed

Jingle Bells
Shotgun Shells
Rabbits run away
Oh what fun it is to ride
In a 4 door Chevrolet

Spank my arse with sprigs of holly.

Although these are only seasonal tunes and not any specific reference to childbirth I cannot think of a single school festival that half of us were not singing ("while shephards wash their socks at night")

following taken from carols.org.uk

The carol While Shepherds Watched dates back to 1703. The words for While shepherds watched were written by Nahum Tate, who was the Poet Laureate in the reign of Queen Anne, and Nicholas Brady. Only the Psalms of David were sung in the Anglican Church prior to that time. Tate and Brady were the first to paraphrase the psalms for singing in rhyme which then became distinctive of their work. The familiar melody used for While Shepherds Watched was taken from "Siroe," an opera by George Frederick Handel. On a lighter note children love to parody the words “While shepherds watched their flocks by night” and replacing them with “While Shepherds wash their socks by night!”

surely the enjoyment the Jollity and festivity is more important tan any religious thoughts, tose that are religious are going to be tinking of baby whatsisname, whereas others will be thinking of a new PS Game.

or we could have some Cub songs
http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Gorge/1066/517xmas.html

-snip-

"We three kings of Orient are
One in a taxi, one in a car
One on a scooter, beeping his hooter
Following yonder star."

*sings happily*

So what if they changed the lyrics? They probably ran out of songs. After all, it is an elementary school concert with many different groups singing many different songs. If they couldn't find a song, then they just changed the lyrics of one that already existed and was already a well known song. The father just so happened to be pissed off by this even though his kid probably didn't care. Kids don't care. It's the parents that ruin everything. Just ask a biology teacher.

Even so, Christ probably wasn't born in the middle of winter. He was born when the shepards were in their fields. Shepards are in their fields when the ewes are having their lambs. Ewes have their lambs in April.

Early Christians needed a date for when Christ was born. They also needed to win converts. They found a Pagan celebration of the Winter Solstice that was celebrated on December 25. So, they placed the holiday there to overshadow the other holiday.

Most of the Christmas celebrations are Pagan. For instance, lighting the Yule Log was a Celtic practice to celebrate the Winter Solstice. This became associated with Christmas because when religions exist near each other and have holidays that occur at the same time of year, the practices tend to mix. We're all mutts in one way or another but nobody wants to believe it.

"We three kings of Orient are
One in a taxi, one in a car
One on a scooter, beeping his hooter
Following yonder star."

*sings happily* "While shepherds watched their flocks by night
All seated on the bank
The angel of the lord came down
And taught them how to..."

Myself, I find "Happy Holidays" much more offenzzzive than Christ is Lord or that "rassullah" thing in Arabic which means "is his prophet" or something like that.

Yeah, yeah, Christmas is being attacked, blah, blah blah, secularists are evil...

Blah blah, Christmas is bad, it shouldn't be celebrated in schools...la dee frickin' da...

Both sides suck. Just shut up and let people do what they want.

I think people are losing sight of the real issue.

People celebrate christmas, yet they believe it should be secular, because as a religious festival, they find it offensive. Surely if they find it offensive, they shouldn't partake in it....they shouldn't take the holiday...they shouldn't give the presents....because it is a Christian festival. They are just using Christmas as an excuse for a holiday, and then complaining about the religion that made it a holiday. It's ridiculous. Don't do it if it offends you.
So if you find pagan celebrations offensive, I guess you shouldn't celebrate Christmas, either.

First off, I think it's bullshit that they changed the words to "Silent Night." Sing a holiday song that doesn't include Jesus if you don't want it to be about Jesus, but don't change a song that's already about Him. That grates me just a little.

Also, the seclerization of Christmas bothers me to no end. The fact that the retail inustry has hijacked one of the most holy days in my religion and turned it into a currupt mockery of what it's suppose to stand for sickens me.

You can celebrate whatever you want. I'm not trying to force my religion on you. Make up a holiday, whatever. Celebrate Festivus if you don't what religion as part of your holidays but still wanna celebrate. But when you celebrate Christmas, it's about Christ. And having Christmas without Christ is just wrong, in my eyes.
Okay, so let's say I'm celebrating Santa Claus Day. I don't really give a shit what you call it, I just enjoy giving and receiving presents and decorating the Santa Claus Day tree and spending a wonderful day with my family. I don't care about the birth of some half naked guy rumored to have been nailed to a cross two thousand years ago (as I'm assuming you realize Christ was not actually born on the 25th of December).

And the retail industry "hijacking" Christmas bothers you? So I guess you aren't buying or presents this year and you're going to sit around the tree reading the Bible all day instead? Sounds like fun. I'll leave you to it, then.

And again you miss the point. It doesn't matter if you're offended; it's perfectly legal and the school had every right to do it. I think it's stupid, too; I sing carols every Christmas (oops, excuse me, Santa Claus Day) despite being an athiest because I enjoy it and I don't care about the religious context. Nevertheless, the school cannot be sued for it because the lyrics are non-offensive and the music is in public domain. It's like they made up an entirely new and different song for the kids to sing, legally.

Okay, so let's say I'm celebrating Santa Claus Day. I don't really give a shit what you call it, I just enjoy giving and receiving presents and decorating the Santa Claus Day tree and spending a wonderful day with my family. I don't care about the birth of some half naked guy rumored to have been nailed to a cross two thousand years ago (as I'm assuming you realize Christ was not actually born on the 25th of December).

And the retail industry "hijacking" Christmas bothers you? So I guess you aren't buying or presents this year and you're going to sit around the tree reading the Bible all day instead? Sounds like fun. I'll leave you to it, then.

And again you miss the point. It doesn't matter if you're offended; it's perfectly legal and the school had every right to do it. I think it's stupid, too; I sing carols every Christmas (oops, excuse me, Santa Claus Day) despite being an athiest because I enjoy it and I don't care about the religious context. Nevertheless, the school cannot be sued for it because the lyrics are non-offensive and the music is in public domain. It's like they made up an entirely new and different song for the kids to sing, legally.

Yes, I know that Jesus was born in the spring, and I am fully aware of the reasons that Christmas is celebrated Dec. 25.

I am still getting my friends presents, but I am not recieveing any. And no, I am not ganna sit around reading my Bible all day, I am going to church, then spending the morning in prayer and meditation. Then I'm going to my grandmother's house with family for a celebration. That night I am most likely ganna party with my friends, and get stoned/drunk out of my gourd. God and fun are not mutually exclusive.

I'm not saying that the school did anything illegal, or should be sued. I'm just saying that it bothers me, and I don't think they ought to have done it.

Yes, I know that Jesus was born in the spring, and I am fully aware of the reasons that Christmas is celebrated Dec. 25.

I am still getting my friends presents, but I am not recieveing any. And no, I am not ganna sit around reading my Bible all day, I am going to church, then spending the morning in prayer and meditation. Then I'm going to my grandmother's house with family for a celebration. That night I am most likely ganna party with my friends, and get stoned/drunk out of my gourd. God and fun are not mutually exclusive.

I'm not saying that the school did anything illegal, or should be sued. I'm just saying that it bothers me, and I don't think they ought to have done it.
Then we have nothing to disagree on. The song sounds obnoxious to me, too.

Well, I do disagree about God approving of you getting stoned/drunk on the day celebrating his son's birth and I can't imagine why you think this is somehow better in God's eyes than supporting your capitalist society, but whatever floats your boat.

Goddistan']Twinkle Twinkle Little Star, My ABC's, and Bah Bah Black Sheep were all written to the same tune.

Since this guy has such a beef with changing the wording to the same tune, I wonder which two songs he would lobby to change?

Just because the song was written to convey the message of the incarnation does not mean it has some sort of heavenly copyright. It was written by men. It can be changed by men.

Now shut the hell up! Anyone who chooses not to believe in the Christmas story can celebrate any way that want.

Grave, good to see you are still raising hell since I left before (Aluminumia). ;)

I'm totally with you.... if the music is man-made, it has no implicit 'special' value... indeed, if ANYTHING has any 'sacred' significance, must it not be the lyrics?

I also agree that those who are NOT 'believers' (in this one, specific, faith) should be able to celebrate (or not), as they choose.

And, it is good to see you back (Artist Formerly Known As) Aluminumia. :)

Greenlander is obviously the exception to the rule, thus proving the rule. ;)

BTW, you still aimin' to misbehave?
Also ... Carnivale does indeed rock.
*bows*

Wow... I'm enjoying this thread!

We've already had the 'resurrection' of Aluminumia, and now one of my favourite posters (Straughn - who just doesn't seem to be around nearly enough) has checked in. :)

Life is good.

Off-topic: Yes, I still 'aim to misbehave'. I'll be in Wal-Mart just after midnight on the 20th, hopefully, to catch "Serenity" as soon as it hits the shelves... unless they make me wait... :( I still need to track down the Carnivale boxset, too...

Good to 'see' you, friend. :)

What The Living F*ck??
This is Grave_n_Idle's THREAD!! HE STARTED IT!!!
Maybe you don't understand how to engage in an argumentative venue without pulling the "Kirk Maneuver (Kobyashi Maru)" but it sure exemplifies your intellectual flexibility ....

Yeah, leave the natives to their own spirituality, they'll find christianity on their own.
If not ... here's a blanket.

Extra points awarded for invocation of the "Kobyashi Maru" Principle. ;)

Me, I'd rather people say "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Hannukah" or "Happy Kwanza" or "Hey it's Festivus!" than "Happy Holidays".

When you see the use of "Happy Holidays!" in the US, it's primarily done because saying "Merry Christmas" is considered offensive enough to attract the threat of lawsuits.
that or people just find writing all that shit on a banner or poster or advertisment to be a stupid thing to do
So they use one term that covers them all and reduces reading time and printing cost

"happy hollidays"

Goddistan']Straughn, what is this, a post racking project??? :p

Religiocrats. :rolleyes:

Well then, if those who are not Christians claimed a completely separate holiday, would it be okay then, or do "Christians" :( have a monopoly on the date of the holiday?

Honestly, I don't understand why we are trying to force others to celebrate as we celebrate. It makes no sense. Why try to keep children singing "Silent Night" if they don't believe the words of "Silent Night?"



Let me see if I can flesh out what is meant here. This does not secularize the Christian festival. If you ask most Christians, this song would be a good way to spend Christmas, particularly if the weather was as bad as it is said to be in the song. All this is is a song about a cold Christmas night with the family that happens to be to the tune of "Silent Night."

Now tell me. Is that tune sacred? I would contest that it is not. The tune is musical, with nothing religious tied to it apart from the words for which it was created. The words, I will give, would be more easily defended than this. In reality, this is just one more reason that we as Christians are going to look like bullies that demand to be left to our ways, regardless of others. Did Christ ever do this?

Exactly.

Add in the fact that, in the article, WHILE attacking this 'secular' celebration (although, as Eutrusca pointed out, 'non-denominational' would have been a better descriptor for the whole event, in toto), the complainant defended his 'attack', through reference to a 'war on Christmas'.

That's the real hypocrisy of the thing... it's a storm-trooper bayonetting a Jewish infant, while complaining about being a victim of some evil Zionist agenda.

To be fair, i JUST turned over to
[B]semi-advanced spammer[B]
although that is just about *never* my incentive. I usually just jump around thread and research, and when i read back something might occur to me to post, and then i read them all at the end and go "ugh".
Well, that and i've been a ghost for about four months and i hardly ever get any read time, so when i do, it's prolific.
Good thing VH1 has their "Dirtiest Videos" series on ... just got to watch "Let's Get Physical" from Olivia Newton-John. Ever seen it? Yikes!

Four months of 'ghosting'... you have been missed, my friend. :)

I'm not sure you can legally say that Olivia Newton John is a 'good thing'... not even in the 'Get Physical' video. And, yes... I've seen it. I say 'eep!'.

It is scorched, and strewn with maimed ideas, and burning barricades, and popping lights of enemy bombs and friendly fire. Not as bad as a real war, to be sure, though...

Oooh, I like Saint Curie... :D

Very poetic, my friend... and also, surprisingly accurate. :(

Goddistan']Yeah, I have to admit that I can't dialogue across the proverbial table with Grave, as we are on the same side of the table this time.

Dyelli Beybi, to read up on it, and the ways that both sides would be pissed at true Christianity, read the book entitled God's Politics : Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It by Jim Wallis. Basically, both sides abuse Christianity to further their own causes while conveniently forgetting it when that suits them.

I don't mind the neglect. I just would appreciate no association to religion on the part of either party.

I'm an Atheist... there can hardly be ANYONE who debates with me regularly, that doesn't know that...

However, it really rubs me the wrong way, that the same people crying foul over the secularisation of Christmas, have ALREADY 'sold out' that festival.

Everyone has probably seen those streamers/banners/cups, whatever, bearing a legend like "Jesus: the Reason for the Season"... but, in MY opinion, that shouldn't be something you HAVE TO SAY. Corporate America has long held the 'rights' to Christmas... and Christians have been largely complicit in the merchanidising of Messiah.

Personally, I LOVE people saying "Merry Christmas". (Or "Happy Hannukah", or whatever... I am very pro-Diversity). I celebrate Christmas because my wife and daughter are Baptists... and I fully appreciate that it is a deeply spiritual occassion... for THEM, if not for ME.

However, it SEEMS that Christmas for MOST, is a simple matter of commercialisation... who get's the 'best' gift, who spends more on the season.

I mean... evanglelicals threatening to boycott stores over secularisation? Is it just me that sees this as irony?

To me - it is sad, but the loudest Christian voices are telling us about a mote in our secular eyes....

First off, I think it's bullshit that they changed the words to "Silent Night." Sing a holiday song that doesn't include Jesus if you don't want it to be about Jesus, but don't change a song that's already about Him. That grates me just a little.

Also, the seclerization of Christmas bothers me to no end. The fact that the retail inustry has hijacked one of the most holy days in my religion and turned it into a currupt mockery of what it's suppose to stand for sickens me.

You can celebrate whatever you want. I'm not trying to force my religion on you. Make up a holiday, whatever. Celebrate Festivus if you don't what religion as part of your holidays but still wanna celebrate. But when you celebrate Christmas, it's about Christ. And having Christmas without Christ is just wrong, in my eyes.

The LYRICS to "Stille Nacht" are about a Christian event... the music is just music.

What grates on ME, is the fact that the ENTIRE Christian celebration of Christmas, as it is currently observed... is based on EARLIER, pagan festivities.

And the vocal Christian minority seems strangely quiet, when that is pointed out to them. It is celebrated, not on the date of the LITERAL (alleged) birth of Christ, but on the date of the old Celtic new year. The 'open fire', 'the yule log', the 'christmas trees' are all holdovers from those same pagan festivities. As is the 'mistletoe'.

Why are those decrying the use of a 'Christian' tune (as much as tht is even a possibility... like one faith can 'claim' an arrangement of notes)... NOT decrying the Christian theft of pagan festivals?

Also - why does the anti-secular Christian never see any problem in the Christian hymnwriter setting Christian songs to 'secular' music?

I have already quoted three examples of THAT approach in this thread.... the setting of a hymn to "Rule Britannia", the use of "House of the Rising Sun" as the music for that one about "A Green Hill", and the use of Nirvana music by the Christian band ApologetiX.

that or people just find writing all that shit on a banner or poster or advertisment to be a stupid thing to do
So they use one term that covers them all and reduces reading time and printing cost

"happy hollidays"

Agreed. Between Bottle, and yourself, you've pretty much got the "Happy Holidays" issue covered.

Nice to see you, my friend. :)

Americans have really sunken to a new low in dragging up a non-issue to national importance.

Agreed. Between Bottle, and yourself, you've pretty much got the "Happy Holidays" issue covered.

Nice to see you, my friend. :)
You too :)

Okay, so let's say I'm celebrating Santa Claus Day.

Saint Nicholas eve was december 5th - you just missed it :P

yes this is hypocritical...but can people stop saying that its someone's faith that makes them hypocritical...not every christian is hypocritical, in fact very few true christians are at all hypocritical, the problem arises when people cant tell the difference between what claims to be christian and what truly is christian...furthermore its not a christian hypocrisy thats being shown here, its one guy that has issues maintaining consistent arguments.

i'm not a big fan of secularization but as long as it doesnt stop people celebrating their faiths then i dont mind it, the biggest problem for me is when it becomes politically incorrect to talk about Christmas, isnt that an infringement on freedom of religion?

people should be able to celebrate what they wish how they wish so long as they arent harming anyone else, please dont let one guy who obviously has no clue what he's talking about distort your view of christianity as a whole

i'm not a big fan of secularization but as long as it doesnt stop people celebrating their faiths then i dont mind it, the biggest problem for me is when it becomes politically incorrect to talk about Christmas, isnt that an infringement on freedom of religion?

Secularisation is not the subject of this topics first post. It is about how Christians claim others are trying to take their special feast away from them, while at the same time forbidding others to celebrate something else. Those others can indeed be atheist - but also Jews, Muslems, Pagans and so on.

Christmas songs? I think "killing in the name of" should be a compulsory christmas song. to illustrate the poor state of ou world when people whine about whether Christmas should be religious or secular, let everyone have it their own way and not bother others with it, damnit

Secularist holidays? Christian worship? Pagan ceremony? Nah, we all know what this holiday really is - A ritualistic tribute to the Gods of Capitalism.

No attempt at putting some sort of a name to it can change what this season has become. Calling it Christmas is a joke, if not actually offensive; have you seen what goes on in stores in the run up in the name of those who revere the traditions? Similarly, I wouldn't misattribute the unbelievable media pressure placed on less well off families to our pagan ancestors. At least they had their fellow man in mind.

The popularised holiday season and the religious ceremony have always been separate. To claim otherwise could, I venture, be considered blasphemous if looked at in a particular way. Perhaps it's about time people stopped going forth and embezzeling in Christ's name anyway.

So - it's okay for there to be a Christian celebration in the winter (indeed, Staver claims "Christmas is constitutional"), but it is NOT okay to secularise it?

Well people are always complaining about people religosising politics when its supposed to be secular. I think people have a right to complain that they are secularising Christmas when it is ment to be religious

Secularisation is not the subject of this topics first post. It is about how Christians claim others are trying to take their special feast away from them, while at the same time forbidding others to celebrate something else. Those others can indeed be atheist - but also Jews, Muslems, Pagans and so on.

I dont see how you can claim that Christians are taking away the rights of others to celebrate something else. I dont see Christians attacking the celebration of Eid il Fitra, or Divalia, or Hannaka etc

Well people are always complaining about people religosising politics when its supposed to be secular. I think people have a right to complain that they are secularising Christmas when it is ment to be religious
Lol the question is what the fuck religion would you put this conglomorate beast of a holliday under?

I dont see how you can claim that Christians are taking away the rights of others to celebrate something else. I dont see Christians attacking the celebration of Eid il Fitra, or Divalia, or Hannaka etc
You may want to re read the origional article

They were trying to also remove the symbols of other (even other christian variant) religions

It was in the origional article put forth by the OP

Lol the question is what the fuck religion would you put this conglomorate beast of a holliday under?

Well it is definitely not secular. Hence talking away religousity from it is wrong. I could understand maybe if they were making the lyrics pagan, but not secular since thats not what Christmas ever was.

Well it is definitely not secular. Hence talking away religousity from it is wrong. I could understand maybe if they were making the lyrics pagan, but not secular since thats not what Christmas ever was.
No what christmass IS is a consumer holiday

It has very little to do with religion in the end

You may want to re read the origional article

They were trying to also remove the symbols of other (even other christian variant) religions

It was in the origional article put forth by the OP

No they weren't. And no it doesn't say that in the article. Perhaps you should re-read it yourself.

Well it is definitely not secular. Hence talking away religousity from it is wrong. I could understand maybe if they were making the lyrics pagan, but not secular since thats not what Christmas ever was.
I beg to differ. Santa Claus, the ultimate tribute to a conglomerate holiday and hence a secular one (unless of course you want to argue that it is specifically the property of any one given faith), is the one everyone associates Christmas with.

With the Religion of Economics running this season, it's secular. Unless you would attribute that to any particular belief; personally, I wouldn't wish that burden on anyone.

No what christmass IS is a consumer holiday

It has very little to do with religion in the end

I beg to differ...


To you two anyway. But you don't speak for everyone else, nor can you.

No they weren't. And no it doesn't say that in the article. Perhaps you should re-read it yourself.
Ok let me point out the relevent portion of the complaint by the liberty counsel

Liberty Counsel says this year's winter program included decorating classrooms with Santa Claus, Kwanzaa symbols, menorahs and Labafana, a mythical witch that's a part of traditional Christmas celebrations in Italy.

Ok let me point out the relevent portion of the complaint by the liberty counsel

And they didn't ask that it be stopped. They are pointing out that only their ideology was being sensored, EVEN when the other views were being allowed.

They didn't say those things shouldn't be done.

(Might as well say, this is all coming from a Christian)

Meh. PC run amok. Nothing more, nothing less. Stupid, but hardly something anybody should be making lawsuits about.

Frankly, to me, yes, Christmas is the celebration of the birth of Jesus. And no, I don’t necessarily think it’s the exact day. We have no clue. Way I see it, we have a 1/365 chance, and December 25 is as good as any other day. However, I also think of Christmas as including the secular elements like Santa and tress and stuff. They're a part of the celebration as far as I’m concerned.

My problem is, people on both sides of the fense what to make Christmas nothing more than want THEY think it should be. Some what to remove every religious aspect, others seek to remove all the secular ones. In the end, though, there’s no reason we can’t have both. Santa and Jesus are not mutuality exclusive.

Wow... I'm enjoying this thread!

We've already had the 'resurrection' of Aluminumia, and now one of my favourite posters (Straughn - who just doesn't seem to be around nearly enough) has checked in. :)

Life is good.

Off-topic: Yes, I still 'aim to misbehave'. I'll be in Wal-Mart just after midnight on the 20th, hopefully, to catch "Serenity" as soon as it hits the shelves... unless they make me wait... :( I still need to track down the Carnivale boxset, too...

Good to 'see' you, friend. :)
Thanks for props!! *bows*

Carnivale Season One already on boxset ... of course, my biggest sympathies so far are for the priest, and that guy who plays "T-bag" on Prison Break has garnered my attention as well.
They shouldn't be far from putting the second season out here soon.
And of course, Serenity ....

As for my frequency, well, i'd been a ghost for a few months due to the server swap, and it wouldn't let me msg ya one way or another.
But now i can ... and now, also, unfortunately, i can't pull some of your best posts for ref from Heikoku's thread (or many other greats for that matter) since the archives don't appear to have them anymore - or i just haven't figured out yet how to get them.
It saves reading back through saved files on a different computer, et cetera.

Good to see you still fighting the good fight, friend. *bows*

Extra points awarded for invocation of the "Kobyashi Maru" Principle. ;)
Danke schoen. *bows*

Aw fuck... Not this nonsense.

Christians: You do not have the right to stop people from celebrating other things in december. That means that we celebrate "holidays" not "christmas" and we try not to ignore other people's beleifs, even seculars. You don't have the right to force everyone to follow your interpretation of the world anymore than they do. Keeping the schools secular means that NOBODY is being singled out and that everyone is being treated fairly. Basically it's gotta be everything or nothing. Nothing may be much better than everything, because it means that there's no chance for abuse. There are indeed radical secularists who challenge the right to free expression in religion. Those cases rarely occur in the schools, often the opposite is true.

Atheists: Yes, this is bullshit, that doesn't mean that you need to let yourselves be pushed into a fight that is mostly of the jihadist-christian camp's invention. "Christians" are not hypocrites, Radical Fundamentalists are. The problem with the entire fight is that the response of Atheist groups has been to go to war. Do not fight an offensive war, fight defensively, defend your rights, do not create a true war.

I think everyone just needs to wish one another a happy holidays and shut the fuck up.

To you two anyway. But you don't speak for everyone else, nor can you.
You may celebrate Christmas on the 25th of December. If you do, then that is a religious celebration. But celebrating Christmas does not involve a frantic materialistic shop-fest, which is what the media and high streets worship. Celebrating Christmas is not about prostituting religious icons for some petty human economy. Assuming it is is belittling the thing you are trying to celebrate.

Is Capitalism secular?

Is the December holiday season secular?

The answers to those two questions are one and the same whether you like it or not.

Americans have really sunken to a new low in dragging up a non-issue to national importance.
I have to take issue with this. The republicans have been VERY consistant in doing so ... i don't think we climb much higher than this for long, as far as the kind of press this kind of issue gets. For example, feel free to research press issues when Bush passes even more populace-shanking legislation or when an election comes up.
It's not that we don't have real issues, it's that the people in power usually do their best not to deal with those issues, and the result is through the media.

Atheists: Yes, this is bullshit, that doesn't mean that you need to let yourselves be pushed into a fight that is mostly of the jihadist-christian camp's invention. "Christians" are not hypocrites, Radical Fundamentalists are. The problem with the entire fight is that the response of Atheist groups has been to go to war. Do not fight an offensive war, fight defensively, defend your rights, do not create a true war.

I think everyone just needs to wish one another a happy holidays and shut the fuck up.

In the original post, I said it. As far as I am concerned, there is nothing wrong with being Christian... and I KNOW that Christians are not automatically hypocritical.

Which is why the title of the thread IS 'Christian Hypocrisy'.... it's not that ALL Christians must be hypocritical... it was about how THIS situation is hypocritical Christians.

As an Atheist, I feel frustrated by the pressure that Christians bring to bear on my life (like not being able to buy a bottle of wine on a Sunday, for example), and I feel frustrated by the attacks on the non-religious, BY the religious... like this particular story.

That doesn't mean I hate Christians, or think they are all hypocrits. Indeed, if one took a poll of NS posters that are among my favourites, MANY of them are Christians... they just seem to be those who avoid the 'darker side'.

You may celebrate Christmas on the 25th of December. If you do, then that is a religious celebration. But celebrating Christmas does not involve a frantic materialistic shop-fest, which is what the media and high streets worship. Celebrating Christmas is not about prostituting religious icons for some petty human economy. Assuming it is is belittling the thing you are trying to celebrate.

Is Capitalism secular?

Is the December holiday season secular?

The answers to those two questions are one and the same whether you like it or not.
Whis was my point but I think it went over his head

Glad Grave doesn't hate me because I am an American (used to be British) Republican Evangelical. :D Moreover, it is nice to see that I am remembered.

Wow... I'm enjoying this thread!

We've already had the 'resurrection' of Aluminumia

*bows graciously*

Alright, bones to pick. Hehe . . . ;)

Originally posted by Straughn

The republicans have been VERY consistant in doing so ...

Friend, this isn't a Republican thing. This is a crazy, ignorant nutjob thing. He has no understanding of the message of Christianity. This is one of those who want a "theocracy." Not all of us Republican evangelicals are this discriminant. Or this foolish, for that matter.

On the Bush comment, I even voted for the guy . . . twice. I feel safer with him in office (that and I like the Republican ideologies on economical matters, but I hate many of his social views). The world certainly knows that he won't hesitate to bomb the hell outta someone.

At the same time, I fear that there will be fallout after he leaves office, so I still have mixed feelings about voting for him. Anyway . . . tangent.

Originally posted by Greenlander

And they didn't ask that it be stopped. They are pointing out that only their ideology was being sensored, EVEN when the other views were being allowed.

They didn't say those things shouldn't be done.

Where was their ideology sensored? There was no sensoring. The school refused to sanction it, but that doesn't mean they sensored it. As long as they allow for the open profession of it, they do not sensor it. It doesn't mean they have to allow it in something they do. They just cannot infringe on you.

Originally posted by Cspalla

Santa and Jesus are not mutuality exclusive.

Good. C. S. Lewis, one of the most prolific Christian writers and theologians of the past century would agree with you, going on his Narnia series.

Originally posted by Neo Danube

Well it is definitely not secular.

I challenge you to prove that. Since very early in the the New Testament church's infancy, there has been syncretism between Christian practice and cultural, "pagan" practice. Meeting in a building (known as a church) itself is syncretistic, as it was borrowed from the cult of Ishtar (where Christianity gets a lot of its Easter traditions as well, but don't get me started) meeting in a temple. If you'll note, the earliest church, which was recorded in the letters of Paul, met in houses, not churches.

I don't think syncretism is always bad. The modern practice of having "praise music" in place of hymns is syncretistic. Dressing up for church is syncretistic. Much of Christmas is syncretistic. Don't hold to the holiday's traditions as if they all are scripturally based. In fact, nowhere in Scripture does it say how we are to remember the birth of Christ, nor does it say we should prevent others from celebrating how they may.

Originally posted by Katzistanza

I am still getting my friends presents, but I am not recieveing any. And no, I am not ganna sit around reading my Bible all day, I am going to church, then spending the morning in prayer and meditation. Then I'm going to my grandmother's house with family for a celebration. That night I am most likely ganna party with my friends, and get stoned/drunk out of my gourd. God and fun are not mutually exclusive.

Okay, I will draw my line here. God and fun are not mutually exclusive, but that fact alone does not allow a free-for-all. I believe there are plenty of biblical references that speak against drunkenness. Also, "fun" is not synonymous with "drunk" so I fail to see how someone not permitting drunkenness is somehow not permitting fun. In any case, I'm not gonna crucify you over it, either.

Whew, that felt good.

Goddistan']
I challenge you to prove that. Since very early in the the New Testament church's infancy, there has been syncretism between Christian practice and cultural, "pagan" practice. Meeting in a building (known as a church) itself is syncretistic, as it was borrowed from the cult of Ishtar (where Christianity gets a lot of its Easter traditions as well, but don't get me started) meeting in a temple. If you'll note, the earliest church, which was recorded in the letters of Paul, met in houses, not churches.


You've just proved its pagan. Fine. I said however it was never secular. Pagan is not secular.

Originally posted by Neo Danube

Pagan is not secular.

Most theologians would disagree with you. It was cultural for any religious group to meet in a building in the years shortly after the conclusions of the cannonized Scripture, thus "secularity" had everything to do with it.

Again, I don't think secularizing is innately bad. Some very convenient and practical things have come from it. But syncretism, in a biblical sense, is meshing sacred and secular practices as a definition.

It's about the fact that they took the song tune ONLY because it is a religious song in the first place and then changed it, act like it, to mock it and change it's essence in the minds of the children.
Your whole argument is based on this, and it is an assumption. Maybe they used it because the tune is already well-known. Maybe because a lot of people see it as a typical end-of-the-year celebration song. Maybe the teachers involved just find its a nice tune.
Whatever it may be, i sure dont claim i have mind-reading skills, if you do, please read up on Exodus 22:18, "Suffer not a witch to live". If not, please notice you are getting enraged at what you think other peoples motives are. Innocent until proven guilty is obviously a foreign concept to you.

He is bitching because the school made a fucking cover for Silent Night? Hey, some one needs to tell this jackass that if you sing a song to the tune of another song, the song you are singing is not the song with the same tune.

Which reminds me, some batty Christian wrote into the paper that "without Christ there is no Christmas and there is no holiday to to celebrate during 'Christmastime'." What bullshit.

hmmm

i'm trying to decipher whether you mean that it would still be Christmas without Christ.

Christmas - Christ = Mas

so... we could call it More Holiday

hehe

Your whole argument is based on this, and it is an assumption. Maybe they used it because the tune is already well-known. Maybe because a lot of people see it as a typical end-of-the-year celebration song. Maybe the teachers involved just find its a nice tune.
Whatever it may be, i sure dont claim i have mind-reading skills, if you do, please read up on Exodus 22:18, "Suffer not a witch to live". If not, please notice you are getting enraged at what you think other peoples motives are. Innocent until proven guilty is obviously a foreign concept to you.

Does anyone own the copyright to Silent Night?

Do schools need to pay copyright owners to perform their songs in public?

Probably.

Usually they do it by buying the sheet music to such songs... but what if they bought the music to Silent Night and whited out the words and wrote over them?

They're no longer singing the song they paid for. And changing words but keeping the tune the same... didn't Vanilla Ice run into problems with Ice Ice Baby and David Bowie? Although in Chocolate Water Woman's case, he changed the beat just enough to avoid (if memory serves) a punitive judgment.

So if they're

a)not singing the song they bought, but

b)still singing a song with the same tune

is that actionable for the copyright owners of the song?

Aw fuck... Not this nonsense.

Christians: You do not have the right to stop people from celebrating other things in december. That means that we celebrate "holidays" not "christmas" and we try not to ignore other people's beleifs, even seculars. You don't have the right to force everyone to follow your interpretation of the world anymore than they do. Keeping the schools secular means that NOBODY is being singled out and that everyone is being treated fairly. Basically it's gotta be everything or nothing. Nothing may be much better than everything, because it means that there's no chance for abuse. There are indeed radical secularists who challenge the right to free expression in religion. Those cases rarely occur in the schools, often the opposite is true.

Atheists: Yes, this is bullshit, that doesn't mean that you need to let yourselves be pushed into a fight that is mostly of the jihadist-christian camp's invention. "Christians" are not hypocrites, Radical Fundamentalists are. The problem with the entire fight is that the response of Atheist groups has been to go to war. Do not fight an offensive war, fight defensively, defend your rights, do not create a true war.

I think everyone just needs to wish one another a happy holidays and shut the fuck up.

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Does anyone own the copyright to Silent Night?

Do schools need to pay copyright owners to perform their songs in public?

Probably.

Usually they do it by buying the sheet music to such songs... but what if they bought the music to Silent Night and whited out the words and wrote over them?

They're no longer singing the song they paid for. And changing words but keeping the tune the same... didn't Vanilla Ice run into problems with Ice Ice Baby and David Bowie? Although in Chocolate Water Woman's case, he changed the beat just enough to avoid (if memory serves) a punitive judgment.

So if they're

a)not singing the song they bought, but

b)still singing a song with the same tune

is that actionable for the copyright owners of the song?

Silent night is public domain so copyrights aren't involved. I think that song is older then the concept of copyrights really.

Goddistan']Glad Grave doesn't hate me because I am an American (used to be British) Republican Evangelical. :D Moreover, it is nice to see that I am remembered.

*bows graciously*


I don't 'hate' anyone, my friend... and least of all, for their country of origin, political leanings, or religious observance.

I'm something of an American (used to be British) myself... well, mainly still British, but living in a Red State.

I have to say, I don't REMEMBER every debator I encounter on NS, but I seem to recall you actually made me think, and that is NEVER a commodity to take too lightly.

Anyway, it's good that you are back. I don't much mind which side of any given divide my fellow posters stand on, so long as they give good debate, and stir my cynical brains.

Does anyone own the copyright to Silent Night?

Do schools need to pay copyright owners to perform their songs in public?

Probably.

Usually they do it by buying the sheet music to such songs... but what if they bought the music to Silent Night and whited out the words and wrote over them?

They're no longer singing the song they paid for. And changing words but keeping the tune the same... didn't Vanilla Ice run into problems with Ice Ice Baby and David Bowie? Although in Chocolate Water Woman's case, he changed the beat just enough to avoid (if memory serves) a punitive judgment.

So if they're

a)not singing the song they bought, but

b)still singing a song with the same tune

is that actionable for the copyright owners of the song?
What part about "Public Domain" don't you understand?

What part about "Public Domain" don't you understand?

Myself... I'd be willing to contest the original copyright... I am willing to believe that the original creators: a) probably wouldn't have opposed a group of school-children singing alternative verses to their tunes, and b) are too DEAD to oppose, in any case... ;)

Goddistan']

Friend, this isn't a Republican thing. This is a crazy, ignorant nutjob thing. He has no understanding of the message of Christianity. This is one of those who want a "theocracy." Not all of us Republican evangelicals are this discriminant. Or this foolish, for that matter.

On the Bush comment, I even voted for the guy . . . twice. I feel safer with him in office (that and I like the Republican ideologies on economical matters, but I hate many of his social views). The world certainly knows that he won't hesitate to bomb the hell outta someone.

At the same time, I fear that there will be fallout after he leaves office, so I still have mixed feelings about voting for him. Anyway . . . tangent.

I should have clarified. I'm 32 years old. And the Republicans, SINCE I'VE BEEN ALIVE, have established themselves in power as prone to crazy, ignorant nutjob supporters. As you have graciously indicated your affiliations, i shan't attempt to humiliate you or make you any less comfortable with that topic than you probably already are. I will say that i can defend and qualify in great deal my statement, though.
I will also add that they weren't always this bad.
As for Bush, you should qualify that the world certainly knows now that he won't hesitate to bomb someone who has approximately NOTHING to do with the impetus used to betray the trust of the American pubilc and subvert their civil rights through "law", and continue to do so even while other countries have to pony up and say,
oh yes, the United States, where they invade other countries on pretenses of democracy and civil rights (oil) while at the same time the populace from those countries they have no problem with torturing and committing to extraordinary rendition ... and now that people aren't buying it, a lot of us are denying their good graces. Some of us even get our bases closed in Uzbekistan.
Good example.

I shall say however that i appreciate the civility of your discourse, even if i
*loathe*
some of the principles you've listed, in the manner that they should be respected or appreciated.

Myself... I'd be willing to contest the original copyright... I am willing to believe that the original creators: a) probably wouldn't have opposed a group of school-children singing alternative verses to their tunes, and b) are too DEAD to oppose, in any case... ;)
I suppose someone will scream about the lawyers' involvement in that case, too! ;)
So if there were an estate involved in said copyright, does that mean that basically these people would have to pay the same as the RIAA and Harry Fox Agency expect whenever anyone *for $$$* performs the copyrighted material publicly? Oh well, we're out about $15.00.

So, when i was in school, i always changed the pledge and anything else they expected us to sing into something that suited me and i never really felt that bad about it .... of course, i didn't do any of it solo, so there wasn't so much risk.

I suppose someone will scream about the lawyers' involvement in that case, too! ;)
So if there were an estate involved in said copyright, does that mean that basically these people would have to pay the same as the RIAA and Harry Fox Agency expect whenever anyone *for $$$* performs the copyrighted material publicly? Oh well, we're out about $15.00.

So, when i was in school, i always changed the pledge and anything else they expected us to sing into something that suited me and i never really felt that bad about it .... of course, i didn't do any of it solo, so there wasn't so much risk.

Even if there were an estate... I believe that copyright law limits the term for which royalties are due.

Those two old dead European guys (hmmm, even LESS strict copyright law, probably, being Europe...) have probably been cold and dissolute long enough to limit the risks of having to pay, me thinks.

MERRY CHRISTMAS!
And a merry Capitalist Consumer's day to you too, good sir :D

Side note: you americans crack me up. This is such a non-issue here in Canada.

Someone says "Merry Christmas", we understand they're just trying to be nice and they don't necessarily imply we're Christian by saying that.

Someone says "Happy Holidays" we understand they're just trying to be nice and they're not necessarily implying it's not okay for Christians to celebrate Christmas as a religious holiday.

Cmon guys, where is that fabled "Xmas Spirit" Hollywood shows us?

Its still busy with a car chase, several explosions and busting some heathen towelhead ass.