Approaching holidays...are we thinking the same thing?

[Warped9]

You want to decorate your store for Christmas. That's fine. What if someone wants to decorate your store for Hanukkah just as much as you want to do for Christmas?

To my knowledge no one has asked, but I wouldn't have a problem with it.

 

[Kestra]

In extant of that if we allow others their celebrations and how they choose to express them then why should we deny our own?

No one's actually denying you a celebration of Christmas. And the way you talk about Canadians and you use of "we" and "they" is disturbing. "They" are Canadians too.

 

[iguana_tonante]

In extant of that if we allow others their celebrations and how they choose to express them then why should we deny our own?

No one's actually denying you a celebration of Christmas. And the way you talk about Canadians and you use of "we" and "they" is disturbing. "They" are Canadians too.

Come on, do you really think that someone who does not align with Warped9's "Christian and Western" values count as a Canadian to him?

 

[Darth Duck]

Sadly, this year the CBC had to discontinue it's Punjabi edition of Hockey Night in Canada because of budgetary reasons. (The Punjabi term for "stick handling" is "stick handling" in case you were wondering).
Hockey, which is far more Canadian than Christmas is, is being embraced by immigrants to this country. I walk through Chinatown and I see electoral signs in English and Mandarin, because people want to participate in our electoral system. That is a Canadian value.
Christmas is Christian, not Canadian.

 

[Kestra]

In extant of that if we allow others their celebrations and how they choose to express them then why should we deny our own?

No one's actually denying you a celebration of Christmas. And the way you talk about Canadians and you use of "we" and "they" is disturbing. "They" are Canadians too.

Come on, do you really think that someone who does not align with Warped9's "Christian and Western" values count as a Canadian to him?

I would hope so, yes.

 

[Avon]

i emphathise with warped9, as every year my boss won't let my put up a Prism of Unbelief, Friendship fountain or any other Atheistmas decorations.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Individuals make the difference. There are good folks as well as jerks from all walks of life, all nationalities and all forms of belief. No one has a monopoly on kindness, compassion and generosity or conversely on narrow mindedness or meanness of spirit.

This is very true. I wish I had the exact statement, but C.S. Lewis said something very much like that in Mere Christianity.

In extant of that if we allow others their celebrations and how they choose to express them then why should we deny our own?

Indeed. And to those making the "us and them" comments, the only reason we have an "us and them" mentality is the fact that some people--on both sides--have this mentality that the only way for one group to express itself is at the cost of another, when this is absolutely not true.

 

[Warped9]

In extant of that if we allow others their celebrations and how they choose to express them then why should we deny our own?

No one's actually denying you a celebration of Christmas. And the way you talk about Canadians and you use of "we" and "they" is disturbing. "They" are Canadians too.

Come on, do you really think that someone who does not align with Warped9's "Christian and Western" values count as a Canadian to him?

You assume a lot about someone you don't even know. Of course that's not an unusual thing to see online.

 

[Kestra]

Individuals make the difference. There are good folks as well as jerks from all walks of life, all nationalities and all forms of belief. No one has a monopoly on kindness, compassion and generosity or conversely on narrow mindedness or meanness of spirit.

This is very true. I wish I had the exact statement, but C.S. Lewis said something very much like that in Mere Christianity.

In extant of that if we allow others their celebrations and how they choose to express them then why should we deny our own?

Indeed. And to those making the "us and them" comments, the only reason we have an "us and them" mentality is the fact that some people--on both sides--have this mentality that the only way for one group to express itself is at the cost of another, when this is absolutely not true.

That has no bearing on this. It's not as if someone from another religion came and made corporate change their policy. Where are you getting that from? You seriously don't see anything problematic in the way that he phrased his post?

I'm really trying to give Warpedthe benefit of the doubt here and point out why people are so antagonistic towards him but he's not even responding to me and you're drawing on hypotheticals not even relevant to my comments. This is incredibly frustrating.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

I think that you're making a rather pedantic point. Unless you'd like to invent some more neutral pronouns that could be substituted. We could try "Group 1" and "Group 2" or "X" and "Y," but of course we can't have that because sequence implies preference. I suppose we would have to opt for nonsense words like "bleep" and "blip" instead, if apparently the words "us" and "them" must be stricken from the language.

 

[Kestra]

I think that you're making a rather pedantic point. Unless you'd like to invent some more neutral pronouns that could be substituted. We could try "Group 1" and "Group 2" or "X" and "Y," but of course we can't have that because sequence implies preference. I suppose we would have to opt for nonsense words like "bleep" and "blip" instead, if apparently the words "us" and "them" must be stricken from the language.

You're missing the point entirely.

 

[Warped9]

No one's actually denying you a celebration of Christmas. And the way you talk about Canadians and you use of "we" and "they" is disturbing. "They" are Canadians too.

Come on, do you really think that someone who does not align with Warped9's "Christian and Western" values count as a Canadian to him?

I would hope so, yes.

I know a lot of Canadians of different origin and nationality and I don't have a problem with any of them. I'm simply saying that if those Canadians are allowed to express their celebrations in their own way then I and others likeminded should as well

 

[Kestra]

Come on, do you really think that someone who does not align with Warped9's "Christian and Western" values count as a Canadian to him?

I would hope so, yes.

I know a lot of Canadians of different origin and nationality and I don't have a problem with any of them. I'm simply saying that if those Canadians are allowed to express their celebrations in their own way then I and others likeminded should as well

Oh, is corporate allowing decorations for other celebrations and not Christmas?

 

[chardman]

^I'm gonna bet the answer to that is a great big "no".

 

[Locutus of Bored]

No one's actually denying you a celebration of Christmas. And the way you talk about Canadians and you use of "we" and "they" is disturbing. "They" are Canadians too.

Come on, do you really think that someone who does not align with Warped9's "Christian and Western" values count as a Canadian to him?

You assume a lot about someone you don't even know. Of course that's not an unusual thing to see online.

All people have to form a picture of your personality online is what you say, which is why it's all the more important to communicate effectively.

Your posts in this thread and the past have seemed to convey an "us vs. them" mentality regarding the beliefs and practices of Canadian immigrants and non-Christians to numerous people. Are they all wrong for reading it that way? Are they all to blame for not being able to get to know the "real you," on account of you being hundreds or thousands of miles away?

Perhaps you should work on conveying your thoughts more clearly, so you don't put down in print things that make you look like you have an exclusionary and superior attitude.

I think that you're making a rather pedantic point. Unless you'd like to invent some more neutral pronouns that could be substituted. We could try "Group 1" and "Group 2" or "X" and "Y," but of course we can't have that because sequence implies preference. I suppose we would have to opt for nonsense words like "bleep" and "blip" instead, if apparently the words "us" and "them" must be stricken from the language.

Yeah, that's clearly what Kestra was saying. Do you always have to make it a habit of completely misrepresenting what people say to make your point?

Let's review what Warped9 said:

To the topic at hand people in Canada are allowed and even encouraged to express their beliefs and their celebrations. In some measure this is a result of Canadian multiculturalism over the past forty years. And, yes, its pros and cons are often enough debated, sometimes heatedly.

In extant of that if we allow others their celebrations and how they choose to express them then why should we deny our own?

He starts out talking about Canadians and the pros and cons of multiculturalism, so he's already implied there are negatives to it.

Then, he immediately follows it up with "if we allow others." Who is "we"? The "others" have every bit as much of a claim on the "we" part as he does. They're all Canadian. He's assumed the "Christian and Western values" he talked about in his article as the default for all Canadians, and anyone else who doesn't fit in that mold are others. But it's okay, because we "allow" them their celebrations. We tolerate their other weird beliefs, even though they're not like our default Canadian Christian beliefs. If you don't see that there's more than just a pronoun problem there, I don't know what to tell you.

Besides which, he seems to not get the difference between the benevolent Canadian Christians of the country ever so politely "allowing" others their pagan beliefs even though we got here first (as long as you don't count the native Canadian population), and his company making a decision as a private entity not to allow Christmas decorations. What does one have to do with the other?

 

[Count Zero]

Besides which, he seems to not get the difference between the benevolent Canadian Christians of the country ever so politely "allowing" others their pagan beliefs even though we got here first (as long as you don't count the native Canadian population), and his company making a decision as a private entity not to allow Christmas decorations. What does one have to do with the other?

That's what I was trying to get at early in the thread but you put it much more clearly than me, Locutus.

 

[iguana_tonante]

You assume a lot about someone you don't even know. Of course that's not an unusual thing to see online.

As is whining.

I think that you're making a rather pedantic point. Unless you'd like to invent some more neutral pronouns that could be substituted. We could try "Group 1" and "Group 2" or "X" and "Y," but of course we can't have that because sequence implies preference. I suppose we would have to opt for nonsense words like "bleep" and "blip" instead, if apparently the words "us" and "them" must be stricken from the language.

You're missing the point entirely.

Unsurprisingly.

(...)

Yeah, that's clearly what Kestra was saying. Do you always have to make it a habit of completely misrepresenting what people say to make your point?

As a habit, yes, she does.

 

[IndyJones]

^^ The point is, Christians don’t do that here. There’s no systematic, sanctioned, state-supported-and-directed persecution of non-Christians in America. Because we have a little thing called the First Amendment.

There aren't minority groups that many in the Christian and Christian-political orthodoxy in our country have tried - and, in some cases, are still trying - to erase from existence through ostracization, arrest, forced medical "treatment", denial of public sector jobs and rights?

 

[Robert Maxwell]

^^ The point is, Christians don’t do that here. There’s no systematic, sanctioned, state-supported-and-directed persecution of non-Christians in America. Because we have a little thing called the First Amendment.

There aren't minority groups that many in the Christian and Christian-political orthodoxy in our country have tried - and, in some cases, are still trying - to erase from existence through ostracization, arrest, forced medical "treatment", denial of public sector jobs and rights?

Yeah, for real. Let's not pretend the Defense of Marriage Act--which is still in force, and still denies many benefits to gay public employees and their spouses--has to do with anything but enforcing Christian norms on people.

 

[scotpens]

Yeah, for real. Let's not pretend the Defense of Marriage Act--which is still in force, and still denies many benefits to gay public employees and their spouses--has to do with anything but enforcing Christian norms on people.

Uh, what part of “persecution of non-Christians” do you not understand? There are plenty of gay Christians. And why specifically “Christian norms”? Every religion has traditionally regarded marriage as a man-woman thing.

I was speaking of persecuting people because they practice a religion other than that professed by the majority. I haven’t seen any calls for an American Inquisition lately — at least, not by anyone with actual political power.