NEWS: Boston City Officials Say It Is A 'Holiday' Not 'Christmas Tree'

its funny because i dont recall them forcing you to call it that. you can call it whatever you want, if the state has it up they will call it the holiday tree because thats whats politically correct. its not about you, its about those in power who represent EVERYONE. they have to call it a holiday tree because they are the representative of everyone, not just christians.

please dont bring bible talk into this. as i tell people all the time.
God never needs a religion to exist, but religion needs god.

just because you believe in god doesnt mean you have to follow any religion. personally anyone that takes the bible literly at all to me is somewhat foolish. you can say it was written people god had talked to me, but they are just that, people. to me they hold little credibility of gods message if there was one. personally you do whats right based on your conscience. if there were proven to be a god, i dont think i would be any more religious because i dont trust a persons word. god can empower you if you have faith to believe so, but that doesnt make the bible credible.

nothing is being forced upon you so why are you complaining about this. ima call it a holiday tree either way because you people make such a big deal over it.

There's deliberate obfuscation going on here and its being carried out like a child hoarding all the toys at a party. Some Christians want everything to go their own way or they throw a tantrum to get everything their own way once again. The same "Christians" are probably the very same ones who would mock theocracies such as Iran for their stringent adherence to THEIR religious beliefs

Local government is changing the way they operate to reflect their governance and responsibility to EVERYONE, not just Christians. This has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with your personal rights to refer to or conduct anything to do with Christmas and its traditions. No government in their right mind would enforce politically correct terms for Christmas onto private citizens. Those who try to connect these changes to jeapordizing personal rights are deliberately misleading so as to create a backlash.

Can any one prove to us that their individual rights are being abrogated or impinged upon here?

[edit on 2/12/05 by subz]

ive said it three times now, and i'll say it a fourth. it has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with the government ignoring the majority 94% to appease the minority 6%. every post i've made regarding my faith has come in response to anti-christian remarks from others.

youre absolutely correct, nobody's rights are being trampled. it's the spirit of the thing. if the overwhelming majority want it called a christmas tree, then why in the world are they talking about calling it a holiday tree? even the canadian who supplied the tree has said he will take it back if the government persists with this action.

if it doesnt really matter to you non-believers out there what it is called, then why do we have to change the name? who exactly are we appeasing? have there actually been any complaints?

snafu7700, good now we're getting into an area of discussion that is worthwhile.

Governments should not be run by mob rule, if they were we wouldn't have things like taxes. What percent of people would you expect likes paying taxes? Would it be safe to assume somewhere in the region of zero? Does that mean that we should automatically abolish taxes because the majority doesn't like it? Mob rule equates to anarchy and disarray. That's why the United States was created as a republic and not a democracy.

We (speaking as a Brit having lived in Australia most of his life) have equality laws and separations of church and state in our nations. This is not done because its the popular view, its done because its one of the values our nations are based on.

The only way to stop or reverse these decisions is to vote out the politicians who have made them. That's how it works for every other grievance with the government people have. But I think you'll find the silent majority of people understand that there is justification for removing religious overtones from government funded/and or sanctioned expressions. That's why we are in the position we are now and it will not change.

For the record, and to illustrate my point that this really is a non-event as far as our rights are concerned: I am not a religious person but I have grown up loving Christmas for the purely areligious joys it brings. I fully intend to continue observing Christmas and will continue the traditions with which I was raised with my own family.

Yet this doesn't mean that I expect my government to advocate and disseminate anything Christmas orientated because I happen to enjoy Christmas. Anyone who thinks like that is being selfish IMHO. Put in its simplest and most frank terms, it is solely up to the individual to carry on the traditions of Christmas. The government should not be involved either way, which is what the situation is now.

[edit on 3/12/05 by subz]

Originally posted by Always Trust_no1
Sorry if I offended anyone, just getting tired of losing what this country was.

Oh, the downright earnest outrage!

Gimme a break. I only have so much ram in my head to compute these things. I only have so much outrage left in me, what with all the real problems in the world, like soldiers dying in Iraq, and the bird flu, and the global warming, the entire American city that washed out to a flood, the very forces of terrorist evil are plotting our destruction, and God knows what else is coming next. I simply don't have the energy to be outraged any more.

Especially, over a tree.

And it seems the only people truly outraged by any of this, are people LOOKING to be outraged. People desperately needing some sort of reaffirmation that their victimization "Belief system" is correct, that they manufacture some silly "War on Ornaments", or whatever the pundits are pushing this week.

I got news for you. Jesus hated shoppers. Didn't like credit. Hated waiting in line, and more than anything, didn't charge a restocking fee. Our "Christmas" has as much to do with Jesus, as it does Joe the Caveman - sitting in the woods, eating dino meat.

I don't mean to point some obvious hypocrisy here, but besides the whole false idolatry thing - isn't the entire notion of spending egregious sums of money against the teachings of Christ himself? I mean, once upon a time, religious leaders of faith rallied against the consumerism of Christmas.

Now, they're ready to sue, because they're losing market share on their brand name? It's probably one of the most shallow things I've ever seen.

I mean, honestly, get a life. Get some fresh air. Get some perspective. Get whatever it's going to take to realize that this ranks pretty damn low on a list of the world's problems. Because, it does.

10 soldiers died today. 10 were wounded. Thousands of Americans will be raped. Hundreds of American will be murdered. There will thousands of assaults, and tens of thousands of robberies. Children will be molested. Because of corruption, the very wheels are coming off the legislative horse in Washington DC.

And I'm supposed to give a damn about a Christmas Tree?

That's shallow, and vapid, and clueless, and more than anything else? Vain. It's vanity and hubris, and a dozen others words that I can't be bothered to type here. It's not heritage, or tradition. We're sell outs, and you can't complain about it now.

It's like the house burning down around us, and somebody complaining about the squeaky door.

Originally posted by snafu7700
ive said it three times now, and i'll say it a fourth. it has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with the government ignoring the majority 94% to appease the minority 6%. every post i've made regarding my faith has come in response to anti-christian remarks from others.

youre absolutely correct, nobody's rights are being trampled. it's the spirit of the thing. if the overwhelming majority want it called a christmas tree, then why in the world are they talking about calling it a holiday tree? even the canadian who supplied the tree has said he will take it back if the government persists with this action.

if it doesnt really matter to you non-believers out there what it is called, then why do we have to change the name? who exactly are we appeasing? have there actually been any complaints?

1. it has nothing to do with the majority, unless the majority is offended by the name 'holiday tree' which i doubt is even possible.

2. the spirit of the thing doesnt go over certian people having negitive feelings because it being called a christmas tree. that 6% is angry with the name. now unless your angry with a name like 'holiday tree'(not the actual changing of the name) then i see it as OK in my book since now the actual name that is referred to by the government doesnt offend anyone.(not like you can really be offended by 'holiday tree' as far as i know)

3. you are free to call it a christmas tree so be my guest, but the government shouldnt. WE dont have to change the name, the government does. that is the POLITICALLY correct term, not the law abiding term.

to some people it does matter.

Ok, here is the Truth of what is going on with all this "Holiday Tree" BS.

It ain't about Religion.

Nor is it about Political Correctness.

It isn't even about Christmas, Democracy, The State of the Country or even Trees for that matter.

What this whole thing is about is this:

To keep everyone busy discussing a made up problem about a philisophical concept that even if solved would result in nothing significant anyway. In other words, it's a distraction so people won't look around at the other important events that are happening all around us and could impact everyone in very REAL ways!!

I haven't read every reply, but the Mayor of Boston, Tom Menino, says that it is a Christmas Tree, not a Holiday Tree.

Holiday tree? Pshaw.

A week after the Christian right pooh-poohed Boston for its political correctness, Mayor Thomas M. Menino flipped a switch last night and lit Boston’s official Christmas tree.

“Are we here to light this beautiful Christmas tree?” Santa Claus asked the mayor as thousands of people gathered around the 48-foot-tall spruce on Boston Common.

“Yes we are, Santa,” Menino said. And with that, thousands of colored lights blinked on, followed by the pop of fireworks

Tree

So there.

Originally posted by jsobecky

Tree

So there.

He only did that fearing an international incident. Had he been sincere he would have ordered the website name changed immediately, hell it only takes two minutes if that for changing two words.

Menino, sensing an international incident in the making, quickly insisted it was indeed a Christmas tree, although the city would not change the “holiday tree” reference on its Web site until next year.
(Same Source as above)

Originally posted by shots
He only did that fearing an international incident. Had he been sincere he would have ordered the website name changed immediately, hell it only takes two minutes if that for changing two words.

Not in Boston, it doesn't. Hell, just rounding up all the politicians out of the bars for their photo op takes six months.

Boston city politicians i can count with my hands (and yes can be found at the local pubs)...so let THEM call it whatever they want. Around these parts they are known as "Christmas Trees"

Originally posted by mrjones
I hate this time of year
It really brings out the worst in people
Racist songs like "I'm dreaming of a white Christmas" fill the air
What kinda racist crap is that?
Freakin racists! They ruin everything!

White Christmas !

The song White Christmas is undoubtedly the most famous and popular of all the Christmas songs. The music and lyrics for White Christmas were written by Irving Berlin in 1942 and originally featured in the movie Holiday Inn starring Bing Crosby. The lyrics of White Christmas struck a chord with the soldiers fighting in the Second World War and their families who were waiting for them back home. The song and recording of White Christmas by Bing Crosby with John Scott Trotter's orchestra and the Ken Darby Singers was so popular that it was later reprised in the movie called after its name - White Christmas. The film White Christmas once again starred Bing Crosby together with Danny Kaye, Rosemary Clooney and Vera-Ellen.



Lyrics:

I'm dreaming of a white Christmas
Just like the ones I used to know
Where the treetops glisten,
and children listen
To hear sleigh bells in the snow

I'm dreaming of a white Christmas
With every Christmas card I write
May your days be merry and bright
And may all your Christmases be white

I'm dreaming of a white Christmas
With every Christmas card I write
May your days be merry and bright
And may all your Christmases be white

mrjones,

I do believe that trying to make this out to be a racists song is stretching
a bit to say the least. I seem to recall a very popular version of this very song that we like to play down at my favorite watering hole by an all black
group called the 'Drifters';

www.history-of-rock.com...

www.stlyrics.com...

Now if snow was grey or blue or green and someone sang about a White Christmas then I would see your point.
But calling 'White Christmas' racist is like saying 'Chestnuts Roasting on an open Fire' is anti-male, lesbian propaganda!






[edit on 5-12-2005 by WHOFLUNGGUM]

Originally posted by subz
Can any one prove to us that their individual rights are being abrogated or impinged upon here?

[edit on 2/12/05 by subz]

Not in this case but in others they are infringing on the free expression of religious beliefs.

The multicolored nativity scene on the Samona family's front yard is under attack.

The Samonas' neighborhood association has ordered the Novi family to remove its seven-piece plastic display or face possible fines of $25 to $100 per week.

The family isn't budging and neither are its three wise men. The Samonas have vowed not only to keep the display, but also are threatening to enhance it."If you take this out, it's not Christmas anymore," said Joe Samona, 16, as he reached down and scooped baby Jesus from the creche on his parents' front lawn.

A letter sent by the association to the Samonas has brought to their front yard the nation's latest skirmish over just how and where the Christianity of Christmas should be on display.

Novi subdivision tells family to get baby Jesus off lawn

As you can see in this case they clearly tried to violate their first amendment rights.

Once the lawsuits started, the association immediately turned tail, gave an apology then ran into hiding.

Neighborhood association backs off after blizzard of support for family

Originally posted by shots
Not in this case but in others they are infringing on the free expression of religious beliefs.

Novi subdivision tells family to get baby Jesus off lawn

As you can see in this case they clearly tried to violate their first amendment rights.

"TRIED" being the operative word. Sure some people are going to challenge the freedom of expression, they always have, else why would there be a need to state it in the first amendment? Fortunately, the first amendment protected these people. That's its job.

But an attempt to quash a right does not equal a successful infringement of that right.

Originally posted by WHOFLUNGGUM

mrjones,

I do believe that trying to make this out to be a racists song is stretching
a bit to say the least.

ok, that's the second post commenting on mrjones post. am i the only one who can see that he's joking?

some people just aint got no sense of humor.

Originally posted by snafu7700

Originally posted by WHOFLUNGGUM

mrjones,

I do believe that trying to make this out to be a racists song is stretching
a bit to say the least.

ok, that's the second post commenting on mrjones post. am i the only one who can see that he's joking?

some people just aint got no sense of humor.

If that is the case then my most humble apologies to mrjones! Sorry I didn't
see that one coming..............swooosh right over my head it went! Sometimes the humor is not what you say but how you say it. Been reading to many ATS threads I suppose.

Originally posted by snafu7700

Originally posted by WHOFLUNGGUM

mrjones,

I do believe that trying to make this out to be a racists song is stretching
a bit to say the least.

ok, that's the second post commenting on mrjones post. am i the only one who can see that he's joking?

some people just aint got no sense of humor.

WHOFLUNGGUM is agreeing that the song is not racist. And I do also.

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by snafu7700

Originally posted by WHOFLUNGGUM

mrjones,

I do believe that trying to make this out to be a racists song is stretching
a bit to say the least.

ok, that's the second post commenting on mrjones post. am i the only one who can see that he's joking?

some people just aint got no sense of humor.

WHOFLUNGGUM is agreeing that the song is not racist. And I do also.

yeah, but the guy is just making a joke for crying out loud! nevermind....if you cant see it, then there's no point in trying to explain it to you.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
But an attempt to quash a right does not equal a successful infringement of that right.

That is not the point here though. The fact is the association did make an attempt and only backed off after public outcrys of foul and threats of a lawsuit.

Originally posted by shots
The fact is the association did make an attempt and only backed off after public outcrys of foul and threats of a lawsuit.

So... you don't ever think people will challenge our rights? What is it that you're trying to point out? That people challenge others' rights? If so, then I agree. That happens all the time. Thankfully, we have the Constitution that details our rights.

Are your rights being stomped on? If so, which ones and how? I don't really see the problem here.

[edit on 5-12-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]