So it isnt the issue, its the marketing?

Posted by swamphawk22 on 11/30/2012 12:14:00 AM (view original):
1 43%of Americans attend church and 85% consider themselves Christian.

2 It isnt that the kids of today are going to get old and keep all their same values. When people get old they move to the right.

3 When people are asked about social issues it appears that it isnt a winning issue. In reality though almost no on votes on pro-choice and pro gay marraige as a main issue. There are scores of poeple who vote Abortion above all else.

A)  43% is a minority, as I stated

B)  43% is still inflated by the Christmas and Easter Christians, who I for one don't count

C)  Yes, people move to the right as they age, but not as dramatically as the Republican strategists would like to believe.  Do you honestly believe there isn't more support for gay marriage now than 10, 20, 40, or 80 years ago?  States have now approved it by referendum.  I'm not sure any state would have given it a 20% yes vote 80 years ago, maybe not 40 years ago.  Even 10 years ago the general public found it distasteful.  You don't think there's a gradual social shift towards the left going on in this country that the Republican Party hasn't adapted to?

It's time for the GOP to take the pragmatic approach to social policy.  So maybe I hate abortions.  Then I'll discourage my wife, my daughters, granddaughters, nieces, etc from getting one.  But if someone who wants to get an abortion who I don't know or personally care about has one, how is that my problem?  Am I going to Hell just because somebody somewhere in my country did something I think is morally wrong?  'Cause if so I'm done for anyway.  And realistically, how does it delegitimize my marriage if two dudes somewhere get married?  Do I now love and respect and care for my wife, and vice versa, less than if those two men weren't married?  Is our bond weaker?  Are we less committed to one another?  No, it just makes me angry because I arbitrarily hate the gays because THEY are going to Hell.  Tough luck for me.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 11/30/2012 3:48:00 PM (view original):
So it isnt the issue, its the marketing?

No, the issue is the complete overreaction to people saying happy holidays instead of merry christmas. Nobody is waging war on christmas or persecuting christians.

As opposed to the calm and measured response the left has to anyone who supports traditional marriage?

And what would you do if you saw a troubling pattern in society? Would you stay silent?

Posted by swamphawk22 on 11/30/2012 7:27:00 PM (view original):
As opposed to the calm and measured response the left has to anyone who supports traditional marriage?

And what would you do if you saw a troubling pattern in society? Would you stay silent?

How is someone saying happy holidays troubling?

How is it a troubling pattern?  How are you troubled by people saying "happy holidays" instead of "merry Christmas?"  In what way does that hurt you?  In what way does it hurt society?  Is it going to make people who ARE practicing Christians STOP practicing Christianity and lose their moral center?  Who does it hurt for retailers to attempt to appeal to a broader base?  Aren't the uber-conservatives like you supposed to support free enterprise to the utmost extent possible?  And if so, if Old Navy thinks they can do the best job advertising by NOT specifically mentioning Christmas by name (even though their commercials constantly feature images of Christmas lights, use lots of red, green, and gold colors, have featured holiday greenery, and other items symbolically associated specifically with the Christian winter holiday, if only in a secular sense), shouldn't you support their freedom to do that?  Rather than attacking them for secularizing?  Aren't you the same people that just got upset with liberals for protesting Chik-Fil-A because Chik-Fil-A as a private corporation had a right to express their political beliefs?  That right only exists when the beliefs being expressed agree with you?  Chik-Fil-A supporting anti-gay-marriage organizations is much more overtly sociopolitical in nature than simply using the word "holidays" instead of "Christmas."  I'm sure you can come up with some bullshit reason why this is different, but I can assure you that it is only different because of your particular perspective.  Objectively it is very similar, except that, as I already mentioned, Chik-Fil-A was far more directly commenting on a social and political issue than Old Navy or any other retailer.

By the way, liberal people who are making fun of the conservatives for talking about a War on Christmas, you guys could keep Chik-Fil-A in mind as well.  Seriously.  You want to say the conservatives for complaining a little, you guys stood outside of Chik-Fil-A stores with signs and in a few cases threatened people trying to eat lunch.  Buying some crappy clothes from Old Navy doesn't mean you hate Christmas, but buying a delicious sandwich at Chik-Fil-A doesn't mean you hate gay people either.  They make a delicious chicken sandwich and some darn good waffle fries.  Old Navy's clothes fall apart in a year.  So you guys are using a double standard as well.

There are people that believe that there is a concious effort to reduce the influence Christianity has in America. They feel this is a national negative and want to let people see the threat.

Again since it is a traditional value it is something you cannot stand up for.

Bullying is of course a national crisis!

Posted by swamphawk22 on 11/30/2012 7:37:00 PM (view original):
There are people that believe that there is a concious effort to reduce the influence Christianity has in America. They feel this is a national negative and want to let people see the threat.

Again since it is a traditional value it is something you cannot stand up for.

Bullying is of course a national crisis!

Who is being bullied?

The people who are free to tell anyone they want merry christmas or the people who face boycotts for saying happy holidays?

There is a national pop culture campaign against bullying. You see it everywhere. This is a national crisis.

On the flip side an issue of traditional values and national heritage cannot be discussed without people flipping out?

Why the odd double standard?

Are you seriously this stupid?

I'll come back to one of my big points from my post above that you chose not to acknowledge:

If the War on Christmas is being conducted by private companies, what exactly do you want done about it?  It's not in any way illegal, nor should it be, to use secular language in advertising.  In fact, one could argue that these companies are not making "a conscious effort to reduce the influence Christianity has in America" but simply acknowledging the fact that it already has a reduced significance in the general population and catering to the secular majority.  If you acknowledge even that 43% of Americans are church-going (which I still claim is artificially inflated) you basically have to admit that there is no "moral majority" in the way that the GOP refers to it.  That's not to say that Americans are immoral or bad, but their lives are not necessarily guided by Christian values or ideals the way they were decades or centuries ago.  At best there is a large moral minority.  Now, you can argue that this is a bad thing.  But trying to blame it on companies for not explicitly mentioning a holiday that, frankly, is fairly insignificant in the Christian calendar is just ridiculous.  Frankly, the secularization of the country is already obvious from the fact that Christmas is a major holiday and Easter, which is FAR more important in terms of actual impact in the Christian faith, is an afterthought.  Why don't you go after corporations that don't make a big deal out of Easter advertising?  Christ's death on the cross is the central event that gives meaning to the Christian faith.  His birth is far less important.  If you disagree just check again how much space each event actually gets in the Gospels.

And just as a matter of interest, who, exactly, in your view, is it that is orchestrating this conscious effort to reduce the influence of Christianity in America?  If you only point out its vestiges in the advertising of private, unaffiliated corporations, you have a serious burden of proof to indicate that this is any kind of organized, concerted effort.

And even if there is such an effort, why is that bad?  Our country has always adhered to principles of religious freedom; they are explicitly protected in the Bill of Rights.  If we're honestly going to say that an Arab or a Seikh are equal to a Christian in this country, is it really fair to want one of those 3 people's religion to have an influence in the government and not the others'?  What if I practice voodoo or wicka and want MY religion to have an influence?  Why can't we just look to have our country, in both the public and private sectors, embrace a strong moral center rather than a strong Christian center?  Which would you rather have, crusader kings using Christianity to justify and gain support for campaigns slaughtering thousands of women and children in the Holy Land or Gandhi using secular peaceful protests to improve the lives of the lower classes in India?  Honestly?  Simply following the doctrines that one group of people attribute to a certain religion is far less meaningful to a secular government than general principles of morality that permeate nearly all major and minor religions.

Posted by dahsdebater on 11/30/2012 8:08:00 PM (view original):
Are you seriously this stupid?

If not, he's stayed in character for several years.

1 No one on the Christian Right wants the government to do anything about this.

2 43% weekly church going is a good number, but it ignored the 85% of Americans claims to be Christians.

3 Why was the proposed boycott against Chik-Fil-A such a noble effort in the eyes of the media, but something like this where simple people are organizing in a grass roots way to let private enterprises know what problem they may have with their policies.

4 If this is a majority opposing traditional Christian values then efforts like this should be no threat. The Chik-Fil-A backlash shows that the numbers may be a little different than you are implying.

3 Why was the proposed boycott against Chik-Fil-A such a noble effort in the eyes of the media, but something like this where simple people are organizing in a grass roots way to let private enterprises know what problem they may have with their policies.


Well, here's a thought: the Chik-Fil-A thing has to do with comments made by senior management. The "War on Christmas" has to do with...what exactly? Anything real?