River Valley Blogs

Interested but confused observer wrote on Nov 28, 2007 4:47 PM:

" So, what techniques of thought-control were executed by Big-Spenders boss? What happened to Big-Spender when he did not succumb to these devious thought-control techniques? Was he waterboarded? Did he receive 40 lashes? I think I missed something. "

To:Big Spender wrote on Nov 28, 2007 4:09 PM:

" The claims are unprovable, as are yours. But, one can certainly examine the available evidence and come to a reasonable conclusion that the Biblical account of the birth, life, death, and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ is accurate. Faith and reason are not mutually exclusive. See "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" by Josh McDowell and "The Case For Christ" by Lee Strobel. Also, if you really want to get into the nitty gritty, see the discussions and debates that Gary Habermas(a Christian) and Anthony Flew(a long time Atheist)have engaged in. Flew, by the way, is now a Theist. In his words, he simply had to "go where the evidence leads.". "

Kenneth Krause wrote on Nov 28, 2007 1:25 PM:

" Re Big Spender: Let me be clear if I wasn't the first time: I do NOT believe any employer has the right to control anyones thoughts or beliefs. I also believe it would be impossible to do so. But, I recognize an employer COULD require an employee to attend work related events where the employee may be exposed(gasp! shudder!)to thoughts and views and beliefs that they disagree with. The employee can then choose whether to continue working there or not. It appears you go through life with a false sense of entitlement that most people just don't have. Most people recognize they have no inherent right to not be offended or to not be exposed to views contrary to their own. "

Big Spender wrote on Nov 28, 2007 12:15 PM:

" Reply to 9 a.m., re: "Most Christians I know do simply casually express their beliefs." It's casual to you only because you are a believer. You have to learn to see how your Christian proselytizing sounds to non-believers. I'm sure Coulter in the link below thought she was expressing herself casually. My relatives are all hard-core Christians...I've been told that I have the faith of a mustard seed, that my atheistic views are a narrow philosophy, and that I just don't see the light. All this is frenzied social pressure...I've been around too long to fall for it. When I pose direct tests to question the validity of religious claims, most bloggers dodge by going ad hominem on me. Once again, I challenge Christians to prove their claims. "

Big Spender wrote on Nov 28, 2007 12:03 PM:

" Reply to K. Krause, re: " I don't believe any employer has a right to control anyones thoughts or beliefs." Then you go on to advocate the opposite. You've got what Orwell called the capacity to hold two contrary thoughts in your head while believing both of them at the same time. The employer's rights are not infinite...he can make rules related to work, security and safety, but he is out of line when he misuses his economic leverage to drive non-believers out of the corporate world. An employer who can't play by the rules should lose his free access privileges to the American workforce--businesses ought to be subject to the same anti-discrimination laws as individuals. Are we now to divide the economic sector into mutually-hostile Christian and non-Christian camps? Remind me not to buy from Christian businesses! "

Michael Welch: Careless! I Apologize!... wrote on Nov 28, 2007 10:22 AM:

" Yes I wrote 'the first of Ab' by apparently associating it with the 1st of August, its corresponding Gregorian date. Oops! Thank you for correcting my carelessness. As for 'Ab' or 'Av' I took the former spelling from John Freely's study of Sabbatai Sevi titled 'The Lost Messiah' which is quite an interesting look at Sevi (or Zvi) and the messianic phenomenon in Judaism in the late late middle ages. As per Christianity Judaism has a past with number of 'gnostic' or 'heretical' sects related to an involved mystical tradition called 'kabbalah' with which Sevi and other 'messiahs' have strong associations... "

Planet Stasiak wrote on Nov 28, 2007 9:03 AM:

" It sounds to me like Big Spender was a somewhat difficult employee. Most people would have just went and had a good time, enjoyed the food, company, etc. "

To:Big Spender wrote on Nov 28, 2007 9:00 AM:

" As I stated before, no, I would not require employees to attend a Christmas party. And yours is the first case I have heard of where that is the case. Nor do I believe most Christian employers would. I know very few Christians, if any, who proselytize in a frenzied manner. Most Christians I know do simply casually express their beliefs. Ann Coulter and your boss are in the minority. If not, stories, like in the link you provided would be all over every paper every day. It is unusual-that is what makes it news. "

Kenneth Krause wrote on Nov 28, 2007 8:52 AM:

" Re: Big Spender. I don't believe any employer has a right to control anyones thoughts or beliefs. They also have no inherent right to require them to attend work functions, or even show up to work for that matter. The employee agrees to terms and conditions of employment in exchange for a salary. If you don't like the terms and conditions and/or feel an employer is overstepping his authority, you have every right to walk away. I am sure many people are put in situations at their jobs that they find morally compromising(maybe being expected to wine and dine clients at a local strip club,etc.whatever). They have every right to stand up for their beliefs and walk. You happen to get all bent out of shape about Christmas parties. You have every right to keep accepting your bosses money or not. You are under no obligation. Neither is your employer. "

Big Spender wrote on Nov 28, 2007 1:53 AM:

" Reply to K. Krause, re: "If you ARE secure in your beliefs, you would freely express those beliefs and share with others the "good news", so to speak." Does the free expression of your religious beliefs include mandating that your employees to attend a Christmas Party? If all Christians limited themselves to the casual expression of their beliefs, then I'd agree with you--instead Christians proselytize to non-believers in the most frenzied manner--include accusations and social pressure into that mix. Need an example? "Ann Coulter - "Jews need to be Perfected."" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENDbqF56Qh0&feature=related "

Big Spender wrote on Nov 28, 2007 1:44 AM:

" Reply to 9:44 a.m., re: "So, there really is no comparison. Regarding private employers:it is, after all, his business. He doesn't have to hire you and you don't have to work there. " Have employers become synonymous with gods in your mind? No, employers don't have the right to control their employees religious attitudes. Suppose an employer was a Satan worshipper, you'd say that this employer has the right to require his employees to attend a 'Black Mass' or whatever it is they call it. "

Miri wrote on Nov 27, 2007 5:25 PM:

" To Michael: Though I'm not really sure of the connection, the date on which the destruction of the Jewish 1st and 2nd temples is a holiday called Tisha B'Av (the 9th of Av), on which it is traditionally a day of fasting and mourning. I don't know if that would be a better date. Also, I won't deny that I like the cosy images of lights and crackling fireplaces while it is snowing outside. As to Jimmy's article, I agree with what he is saying. Yes, it may be just a date on the calendar, but when this is something that one sees all over, from tv to the local gas station, it is clearly also part of U.S. culture. "

Michael Welch: "Sleigh Bells Ring --" In Bethlehem?!... wrote on Nov 27, 2007 10:24 AM:

" It's December and that means -- 'Channukah'! Actually it means Capitalist Commercialism (with caps!) in excelsis day-oh and day-out! ALL the 'Christian' (as well as 'pagan' -- especially 'Halloween') holidays have been Americanized and Americanized means money. It's rather an 'anti-Christ' holiday in spirit but that's the name of the game. By the way the first of Ab is the traditional date of both the destruction of the First Temple during the Babylonian conquest in 586 BCE and of the Roman destruction of the Second in 70 CE; the birth of the messiah is sometimes said to be on this day also -- e. g. it was the birthday of the 17th century 'lost messiah' Sabbatai Sevi (Zvi)... "

To:To Fox wrote on Nov 27, 2007 9:56 AM:

" Why would they allow it? This nation is predominantly Christian. Why would you want something in a public park that would offend the majority of its citizens? You are comparing apples to oranges. There is no official religion, but why would a government by the citizens and for the citizens do something to facilitate offending most of it's citizens? No one has a right to NOT be offended, but no one has an OBLIGATION to facilitate that which may be offensive either. "

Kenneth Krause wrote on Nov 27, 2007 9:51 AM:

" Re 9:32 pm. I disagree. Logic would dictate that if you were NOT secure in your beliefs, you would keep quiet for fear of looking foolish. If you ARE secure in your beliefs, you would freely express those beliefs and share with others the "good news", so to speak. It's human nature: not secure-keep quiet, hide. Secure-widely proclaim. Your argument doesn't add up. Sorry. "

Bugs Raplin wrote on Nov 27, 2007 9:47 AM:

" Is happymom really happy? "

To:Big Spender wrote on Nov 27, 2007 9:44 AM:

" You lose all credibility when you compare Muslims in Saudi Arabia to Christians here. All you have to do is imagine what would happen to you in Saudi Arabia if you were on message boards over there spouting the same opinions about the Muslim religion as you do here about the Christian religion. Here, because this nation is predominantly Christian, you are exposed to Christian beliefs and celebrations. But, you are entitled to your beliefs and to freely express them. Over there, that is not the case. So, there really is no comparison. Regarding private employers:it is, after all, his business. He doesn't have to hire you and you don't have to work there. Personally, I wouldn't make anyone attend any party as a condition of employment. But, it is his business. If enough people object to how he runs his business, he won't stay in business. Free enterprise. "

Anna wrote on Nov 27, 2007 6:36 AM:

" re: happymom....yes, it's December and yes that means Christmas. There are other holidays this month, not just yours my dear. I think Jimmy did a fine job expressing how to deal with this--if it's a private party where you know the guests are Christian, by all means call it a Christmas party. If it's for work or public, calling it a holiday party can include everyone. I don't see how this is offensive. Sounds like happymom is the one with the problem, refusing to acknowledge another holiday that actually predates Christmas. "

To: FOx - wrote on Nov 26, 2007 11:06 PM:

" I'd like to see Buddhists or Muslims get a permit for religious items displayed at Riverside. I doubt the city would allow it. "

Binques wrote on Nov 26, 2007 11:04 PM:

" IF this country were indeed a Christian country - that is, if the official religion were Christian, then, yes, I might have to agree to "It's December, it's Christmas, get over it." HOWEVER, this is not a country with an official religion, and I, as a non-Christian, will not "get over it." My tax money should not go to promote any religion. I am quite sure your would not want your money go to promote MY religion. And, yes, I DO disagree with Christmas Day as a govt holiday. When I worked for the city of La Crosse, I had to practically beg to get main my religious holiday off. That's BS. "

Big Spender wrote on Nov 26, 2007 9:32 PM:

" To K. Krause, re: "Consider yourself lucky that you live here, where you are tolerated."...I was born here--this is my country as much as it is yours. I don't have to apply to far-right Christian zealots or to anyone else for their "toleration." This country is not that far from Saudi Arabia as your remarks prove...the Christian Taleban is alive and well. No one is stopping you people from having your celebrations, but it is improper to require an employee to participate in a private religious gathering as a condition of their employment...that's Taleban-like behavior. If the Two Talebans (Christian and Muslim) really believed in their own superstitious preachings, they wouldn't be trying to constantly stuff their religions down everyone's throat--they'd be quietly secure in their beliefs instead. "

Mary B. wrote on Nov 26, 2007 9:26 PM:

" I totally agree with you, Jimmy. During this time of goodwill to all we should do our best to make as many happy as possible. I have grown up with "Christmas" - but sincerely prefer "Holiday Party" as it is not offensive at all. We need to be generous of spirit at this time also. "

Big Spender wrote on Nov 26, 2007 9:15 PM:

" Reply to 2:55 p.m. re: "Was it due to your lack of religious convictions?" Yes, we atheists are as uncomfortable at a Christmas Party as you'd be if you had to attend a Ramadan Party (if there was such a thing) and had to watch as everyone bowed to Mecca. Non-believers find Christian icons and songs commonly present at such parties nauseating and phony. No one is stopping Christians from having their parties, but it is improper to require non-believers to attend these things as a condition of their employment. Christians don't like to think that they stuff their religion down everyone's throat, but they then turn around to do it all the same. "

Kenneth Krause wrote on Nov 26, 2007 3:21 PM:

" Re Big Spender. I think happymom said it best. "It's December, it's Christmas. Get over it." Fox has a good point also. Try going to Saudi Arabia and calling their religion "superstitious" and whine about it being shoved down your throat. Consider yourself lucky that you live here, where you are tolerated. Saudi Arabia is not quite so tolerant. Sorry, there is simply no right that exists to not be offended. "

To:Big Spender wrote on Nov 26, 2007 2:55 PM:

" Your post intrigued me. Can I ask why you didn't attend the Christmas party? Was it due to your lack of religious convictions or some other reason? Also, your post implies that most people in this country are "good Christians"(hence your conclusion that anyone looked upon as not is ostracized). With that in mind, don't you think your use of the term "superstitions" is somewhat ironic and/or misplaced? Also, looking back on your post, would you agree that your use of the phrase "...stuffing....down my throat." is a little hokey and melodramatic when referencing a Christmas party? "

fox wrote on Nov 26, 2007 1:00 PM:

" It's funny when liberals use 'church and state' as some kind of superior argument. The superior argument is written down in the first Amendment to the Constitution..."Congress shall make no law respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion or PROHIBITING the free exercise thereof;" The city of La Crosse is not Congress. A manger scene in Riverside park is not establishing a religion or preventing the exercise of a religion. Anyone with a High School education should understand what an established religion is. If you don't know, go to Saudi Arabia and try to worship anything other then Islam. Mangers, Christmas trees and Santa's are hardly a threat to other religions. "

happymom wrote on Nov 26, 2007 12:56 PM:

" It's sad we have to revisit this issue year after year. It's sad that the more everyone preaches tolerance the less I want to cooperate. I long for a day when I can tell the whiny "Don't offend me" types to shove it up their proverbial hindquarters. It's December, it's Christmas, get over it. "

casual observer wrote on Nov 26, 2007 12:48 PM:

" Well Jimmy, I think it's all a bit much. But if one looks at history, one finds that all of this has happend before in one form or another. christmas was banned at one time in our history along with chistmas trees. Then attitudes changed and we progressed to celebrating the Holiday nationwide. If people would pay more attention to their own life and how they live it, they would be less inclined to run every other persons life. In the Christian religion does it not say "Judge not lest ye be Judged"? But I belive, as the saying goes, "this too shall pass". Also the constiturion prohibits the govornment from forming a religion. We have taken that to the twilight zone in enforcement. If a business promotes Christmas instead of Holiday and enough people object the business will change to stay in business. "

Big Spender wrote on Nov 26, 2007 11:58 AM:

" Regarding the comment: "If you have non-Christian employees and still want to call it a Christmas Party, why not simply ask those employees if they�d be offended. My guess is most won�t mind at all." Depends...at most workplaces, attendance is compulsory. I was formally reprimanded by a boss for not attending a 'Christmas Party' some years back. Anyone not posing as a 'Good Christian' gets ostracised and discriminated against out in the business world. As an atheist, yes, I object to the de facto stuffing of other people's Christian superstitions down my throat. "

Bugs the drudge wrote on Nov 26, 2007 11:03 AM:

" Nearly everything about Christmas annoys me, including the "crucial" debate over what adjective is used to describe a party. "

Question for Jimmy wrote on Nov 26, 2007 10:54 AM:

" Can I assume that you are also against Government employees having Christmas Day off? You know, taxpayers funding a vacation day, church-state, that type of thing. "

Planet Stasiak wrote on Nov 26, 2007 10:51 AM:

" People tend to overthink this. In a predominantly Christian population, it is unrealistic to think you won't be exposed to Christmas parties, etc. What if someone, as a business owner and a Christian, is throwing the office party because they want to celebrate what they feel is a very significant religious holiday for them? Do you honestly think they should compromise their beliefs by minimizing what to them is the most important aspect of the holiday season? On the other hand, it may not make a difference to some business owners. Along the same lines,I think it is silly when people are offended by holiday parties. I mean, it is the holiday(Thanksgiving, New Years, Christmas)season. Bottom line: Name it whatever you want, and some people(on both sides) simply need to toughen up and get a thicker skin, and not let your feelings be hurt so easily. "

Michael Welch: "-- Time For Toys And Time For Cheer"... wrote on Nov 26, 2007 10:19 AM:

" The conservative columnist George Will once weighed in against prayer in schools because he noted that any such 'prayer' would have to necessarily be so 'bland' and generalized that it would only significantly bore the students. Christmas displays also tend to such 'Clausian' blandness but even some Christians (Jehovah's Witnesses for one sect) object to Santa as a Christianized paganism and really irrelevant. Christmas itself derives from 'Christ's mass' which implies a church of Rome aspect and anyway the date (Dec. 25) was actually 'stolen' from the celebration of the other Asiatic death and resurrection god Mithras. Jesus may well have been born in the month of Ab (July-August) which by the way would have a messianic sense. Anybody know why?... "

Comments »

Post a comment (150 word limit) »