"Governor Grinch"

F1nut

Nov 27 (Reuters) - Rhode Island will go ahead with plans to hold a "holiday tree" lighting ceremony in the state capital despite controversy last year over Governor Lincoln Chafee's decision to avoid using the word "Christmas" in reference the tree.

The announcement on Tuesday that the state would hold a tree-lighting ceremony in Providence came just 24 hours after the governor's spokeswoman said the annual event had been scrubbed. Last year, protesters interrupted the ceremony with demands the conifer be officially referred to as a "Christmas tree."

Spokeswoman Christine Hunsinger blamed the confusion on a staff communication error and said there would in fact be a "holiday tree" lighting at an unspecified date.

"The governor has stated his position very clearly: He believes 'holiday' is more inclusive," she said. "It's in a building paid for by all Rhode Islanders."

Chafee's decision not to use the word Christmas in reference to the tree drew criticism from conservatives last year, including one state lawmaker who dubbed him "Governor Grinch." Some Christians see the trend towards "holiday" parties, cookies and trees as part of a secular drive to scrub the lexicon of references to Christmas.

The governor has argued that the term is consistent with the state's history of religious tolerance, and Hunsinger noted that Chafee's predecessor also used "holiday tree" on official invitations to the ceremonial lighting.

Rhode Island was founded as a 17th century haven for religious dissidents from England and neighboring Massachusetts.

It's also has one of the largest deficits and highest unemployment rates in the country. Yeah, great place to live.

disneyjoe7

rromeo923 wrote: »

Rhode Island has the highest amount of donuts per capita. As a result has a lot of fat people too.

Rhode Island has a lot of Donkin Donuts places...

tonyb

Keiko wrote: »

Well, in any context, I still think there's a difference between a personal, spiritual relationship with God and religion.

In a sense, yeah, I'll go along with that notion. Religion means different things to different people. I tend to slide on the more agnostic approach myself, which isn't too far off from a personal one on one with the big guy.

The reason for the season, least we forget eh ?

tonyb

Keiko wrote: »

You lost me @ agnostic. Doesn't that mean someone who isn't sure of God's existence?

No, not really. Agnostics were believed to be of the first followers of Christ. They believed one could be "christ like" if they held their own personal one on one spiritualy with the big guy. Many of the lost books of the bible are believed to have been written/copied by agnostics. Well, not really lost, just omitted. They had no such need for places of worship, churches, priests, bishops, etc. They also did not exclude women from reaching such statis with God and Mary M. was thought to be part of the agnostic crowds that followed JC around. Unfortunately after his death, a few centuries later Constantine, the Roman emperor, decided to create one book to control all the people and brought together many high priest from all over, and of different religions to create such a book. We call that the bible today. It's really just a collection of writtings, stories if you will, that suited Constantine at that time. Anything that was brought forth for consideration was omitted if it didn't project what he wanted the people to believe. Hence in the years to follow, many agnostics were killed for clinging to old writtings from other apostles, even Mary herself. Thats why I said in my PM to you it was an incomplete book in my eyes. Which if one understands the times it was written and for what purpose, then it had to be an incomplete book. At some point, the agnostics caved in, buried all the old copys of the old writtings and assimilated into this new religion. I can get more in depth with this, but hey, who's gonna listen right ?

Kinda reminds me of the Lord of the Rings movies. One ring to control all......one book to control all. Man has not changed his ways in thousands of years. I chuckle alittle under my breath when I hear someone talk about utopian ideals. I think we may have a few thousand more years yet before we are ready for that.

headrott

Tony, I believe you are referring to Gnostics and not Agnostics. Two very different meanings (to my knowedge anyway). Mike is (basically) correct in his defintion of Agnostic (again, to my knowedge).

tonyb

Correct my friend, my bad,actually an agnostic doesn't necesarily not believe in a God or Gods, but rather concludes than the absence of knowlege of such is more important. One can have religion and still be agnostic, where as an atheist believes no God exists, period. Kinda splitting hairs definition wise, but agnostic carries different meanings for some, it's not as cut and dry as atheism is.

mrbigbluelight

CNH provided a nice solution back there (and one that is Constitutionally correct):
If you or your group wishes to put up a Christmas tree, than by all means do so. You pay for it, you can do it. The state doesn't pay for it, you do.

One might be of the reasonable opinion that "Hey, I'm already paying for it with taxes".
If so, then you should be reasonably open to the thought of paying for other religious activities that celebrate other occasions.

Want your taxes to pay for, say, .... "National Planet Kolob Pioneer Day" ?
How about "National Appreciation to Supreme Galactic Ruler Xenu Day" ?
Can't say as I do, nor do I think that taxpayers should have to pay for the fact that I like Christmas trees.

The state has the duty to ensure that those who worship in whatever manner they choose to have equal access to doing so on their own dime. Not to ensure that it's paid for.

Not that I see it here, but if one's faith is shaken by the lack of a Christmas tree, then perhaps one's real religion should be Druid.
:loneranger:

.....I think those are the guys who worship Christmas trees. I may be getting them confused with Canadians, though.

steveinaz

Pick any other religion in this country, other than Christianity, and it's encouraged to use all the "proper" terminology, and observance---but the minute it's a Christian thing, you're offending someone, and a "religious nutjob." If believing in something bigger than me makes me a nutjob, that's a badge I wear proudly--God is responsible for every single good thing that has happened in my life, and for that I'm grateful.

Mike, you are right on. Religion is man-made, spiritualism is a reflection of your personal commitment.

tonyb

steveinaz wrote: »

Religion is man-made, spiritualism is a reflection of your personal commitment.

Well said Steve, thumbs up man.

You should have posted earlier and saved me some typing you dog.:cheesygrin:

tonyb

:cheesygrin:

mrbigbluelight wrote: »

Not that I see it here, but if one's faith is shaken by the lack of a Christmas tree, then perhaps one's real religion should be Druid.
:loneranger:.

Eh.....it's really not so much the tree itself thats the issue, it's the attack on christianity in general. It's as bad as saying your a Republican in some circles. A double whammy if your Republican and a catholic. The flip side is I think generaly speaking, that most are tired of having to abide by the wishes of the few over the many. That carries beyond religion too. Another subject for another thread. Real faith doesn't get shaken so easily as to reference of a tree. Druids ? I like it, lets start up a chapter.....no Canadians though, they just ain't right in the head.:eek:

maximillian

Agreed Steve, well said. And it's why I don't care about Santa being paraded on the back of a firetruck, something my town does every Christmas. Although I don't like Santa diminishing the Christian meaning of Christmas, it's a tradition that many people in my town want expressed. Santa Claus could just as well be forbidden on public property due to the character's pagan and Christian roots. But complaining to my public official about it would make me a Grinch too. So I simply smile and wave knowing that the participants are ordinary good people celebrating in their own way, and at the same time explain to my kids about Santa.

As I said before, the logical conclusion of trying to be all inclusive is to almost completely eliminate traditional celebrations on public grounds since something might offend someone. How stupid it is to eliminate the traditions of most people because a handful is offended.

steveinaz

Traditions are key to culture, whether or not you care for them personally. That's the "key" to America, that is erroding quickly---tolerance---it's a necessary ingredient for a free society.

tonyb

I'll be expecting some of that "tolerance" when I show up at the ranch with a suitcase and a six pack.

cnh

tonyb wrote: »

Correct my friend, my bad,actually an agnostic doesn't necesarily not believe in a God or Gods, but rather concludes than the absence of knowlege of such is more important. One can have religion and still be agnostic, where as an atheist believes no God exists, period. Kinda splitting hairs definition wise, but agnostic carries different meanings for some, it's not as cut and dry as atheism is.

I think what you are referring to is Gnosticism, a kind of early Christian, maybe even pre-christian to christian belief system that derives its root from the Greek word, Gnosis, Knowledge, to "know" or to pursue knowledge. The Depth Psychologist, Carl Jung has written extensively on aspects of this. It was also a more "mystical" pursuit, if I am not mistaken.

Agnosticism is a newer coinage of a somewhat different approach. Gnostics did NOT believe that esoteric knowledge was NOT possible. Agnostics would not agree with that but take up the middle term between theism and Atheism. So Mike is right above.

However, from the "outside" Christianity is one of the Great World Religions and therefore falls into the category of "religion". BUt, what I think Mike is saying is that a true "believer" does not see what he believes as a RELIGION in the above sense. As a social scientist, I can attest to that. The word religion is of Latin derivation and only becomes a relevant term when the West discovers that there are "other" ways of expressing a relationship to something more than this everyday life we live. In some societies even that "line" is blurred because the ancestors, gods, spirits, etc., carry on an ongoing relationship and dialogue with the living so that no distinct line between here and there can be drawn and the religion is one of continuing "reciprocity" and "communication" in the here and now.

But all of this is only tangentially related to X-mas trees! So I apologize for the aside!

cnh

steveinaz

tonyb wrote: »

I'll be expecting some of that "tolerance" when I show up at the ranch with a suitcase and a six pack.

hey the DRR is like Outback steakhouse, no rules--just fun. LOL

Polkersince85

Russia still has St. George defeating the Dragon with the symbol of the cross on its' flag. Yea, that Russia. Go figure.

steveinaz

Actions rather than talk----exactly.

tophatjohnny

Keiko wrote: »

Having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ has nothing to do with religion.

Merry Christmas!

That's right!! Merry Christmas to all!

NJPOLKER

Hey guys. Its been awhile and when I saw this thread I just had to say something.

I live in R.I. and it is a beautiful place to live and visit. Beautiful beaches with very little over crowding. Excellent fishing and availability of the finest seafood makes me happy thats for sure.

Unempolyment is probably around 20% and what little industry/manufacturing was here at one time is long gone.

The school system here is a joke. Thankfully my children go to school in NJ where the schools are generally great.
Here if a student fails a test he or she gets to retake it and if that student has a IEP (individual education program) the teacher can assist the student. Yeah they pro-rate the grade but the system/school insures the student passes and the school/teachers look good vs. other schools. What a joke. I have been at the high school and middle school many times. I'll ask a bunch of the most basic questions and am shocked at the answers. Most can not tell time unless its a digital clock. Few can make change, tell me what 8x7 equals, how many stripes on the flag and so on and on. I even asked if they know the capital of R.I. and about half get it right and the ones that say Providence are somewhat guessing. If a student can't read the math question/problem because they can't read the teacher reads it to them. I am taking about students that range from 10 to 17 yrs old. It's even worse than I can say.

I saw Chaffee in Dick's sporting goods one day, how appropiate seeing him in a place named DICKS. I was purchasing a rifle and didnt take time to tell him what I think of him which would do no good but would have been funny to see him squirm.

Oh well thats all I have to say for now.

If any of you Polkies get to R.I. feel free to contact me for maybe we could get together. My girlfriend and I have a roomy home real close to the Charlestown beaches and we know all the great spots to visit.

Be well!!!!!!!!!!

sponger

Surely the US of A is Christian to the core, and that is something that has been and hopefully always will be the case. But I think some folks tend to forget that a theocratic government is not what the founding fathers had in mind. A separation between church and state is one of the many radical changes in governance which set our nation apart from every other that has ever existed in the history of mankind.

Of course, people often say that freedom of religion does not equate to freedom from religion. This is true. However, when religion encroaches into the political landscape, the word "theocracy" comes to mind. And, has history has shown, theocratic governments fail miserably.

Currently, politicans cannot expect to be elected without squaring things away with influential clergy and passing a faith-oriented litmus test. Those circumstances literally make our country no different from, say, a muslim theocracy in the middle east. Despite my own personal faith, I have to admit that the age of human enlightment which began centuries ago was a movement that moved mainstream views away from the influence of organized religion.

With voters in Utah and Nevada voting for Romney strictly because he's a Mormon and for no other reason, and with Rick Santorum being caught on tape calling for a Christian theocracy, the Republican party got a bit too scary for me last election season. So, against my better judgement, I was left with no choice but to switch tickets.

goofyGAguy

Do voters in Nevada also vote for Dirty Harry Reid strictly because he's a Mormon?

tonyb

sponger wrote: »

With voters in Utah and Nevada voting for Romney strictly because he's a Mormon and for no other reason, and with Rick Santorum being caught on tape calling for a Christian theocracy, the Republican party got a bit too scary for me last election season. So, against my better judgement, I was left with no choice but to switch tickets.

So then it also didn't bother you people voted for the otherside strictly because of race ? Or the freebies they can get ? That didn't scare you ? Because to me, that's scary. Whats worse, too much religion or too little ? Don't know too many, regardless of what religion, that more of it ruined their lives. Can the same be said the other way around ? Do most without religion tend to be lacking in the morals department ? Certainly I don't mean to paint with a broad brush on either side, but you get the general drift.

F1nut

sponger, the first 3 paragraphs of your post indicate a reasoned thinker, the last one completely erased that notion.

sponger

tonyb wrote: »

So then it also didn't bother you people voted for the otherside strictly because of race ? Or the freebies they can get ? That didn't scare you ? Because to me, that's scary. Whats worse, too much religion or too little ? Don't know too many, regardless of what religion, that more of it ruined their lives. Can the same be said the other way around ? Do most without religion tend to be lacking in the morals department ? Certainly I don't mean to paint with a broad brush on either side, but you get the general drift.

I belive in the theory of evolution, and yet I don't think it has shaken my faith at all. I can still be a good Christian without thinking our planet was created a few thousand years ago in its present form.

Unfortunately, the majority of conservatives believe otherwise. That is, the idea that people descended from monkeys is one that is offensive and sacrilegious. The United States is the only 1st world country in the world with such a large percentage of creationists. No other western, first world country comes close.

If we want our children to be competitive in a global economy, then we have to stop teaching them to reject science for being the devil's language. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs both condone ardent liberalism, God forbid, and coincidentally they have influenced the landscape of modern technology like few others.

So, yes, too much religion can have its downsides. That being said, a little bit of secularism doesn't hurt at all. In fact, it was pivotal in making the US the greatest nation in the world and unlike any other which preceded it.

sponger

F1nut wrote: »

sponger, the first 3 paragraphs of your post indicate a reasoned thinker, the last one completely erased that notion.

GoofyGAguy wrote:

Do voters in Nevada also vote for Dirty Harry Reid strictly because he's a Mormon?

I have nothing personal against Mormonism. I believe they share the same Christian values that the US has embraced since its inception. However, I don't agree with identity-voting, and the fact remains that in states with the highest Mormon populations, the votes for Romney were disproportionate to other states among right-leaning voters. This can only mean the existence of identity-voting.

So, if Harry Reid were a front-runner for the Republican party as Romney was, then there would be no reason to believe that the right-leaning Mormon voters in those states would not vote for Reid.

Face

tonyb wrote: »

Whats worse, too much religion or too little ? Don't know too many, regardless of what religion, that more of it ruined their lives. Can the same be said the other way around ? Do most without religion tend to be lacking in the morals department ? Certainly I don't mean to paint with a broad brush on either side, but you get the general drift.

Pick up a few history books and read up on how many deaths were attributed to religion. In fact, it's still going on today. :rolleyes:

F1nut

However, I don't agree with identity-voting

That's a pretty funny, in a sad way, comment. I quess you must have missed the identity voting where the votes for Obama in the big cities were disproportionate to other parts of the states.

tonyb

sponger wrote: »

I belive in the theory of evolution, and yet I don't think it has shaken my faith at all. I can still be a good Christian without thinking our planet was created a few thousand years ago in its present form.

Unfortunately, the majority of conservatives believe otherwise. That is, the idea that people descended from monkeys is one that is offensive and sacrilegious. The United States is the only 1st world country in the world with such a large percentage of creationists. No other western, first world country comes close.

If we want our children to be competitive in a global economy, then we have to stop teaching them to reject science for being the devil's language. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs both condone ardent liberalism, God forbid, and coincidentally they have influenced the landscape of modern technology like few others.

So, yes, too much religion can have its downsides. That being said, a little bit of secularism doesn't hurt at all. In fact, it was pivotal in making the US the greatest nation in the world and unlike any other which preceded it.

Wow, don't know where to start. I guess listening to talking points on conservatism is your downfall. Most do not think as you say. While I agree science can and does play it's own role, it has little to do with faith in general, nor should they be stepping on each others toes. By taking religion as a means to sway a vote, you yourself crossed that seperation line. It's just as bad to not vote for someone because of religion as it is to do it. Aside from that, the highest office in the land has little to do with religious beliefs. To base a vote on that is simply wrong and even worse for our country.

What Steve Jobs and Gates have to do with any of this is beyond me. I guess you assume if liberalism is good for them, your on the waggon ? Or do you think for yourself without CEO's telling you what to think ? I dunno, just asking, because I thought most liberals hated CEO's, hated the outsourcing of jobs, slave labor, etc. Or is that phony anger only reserved for those not in their good graces ? You tell me because the hypocracy level is off the charts right about now.

This notion that conservatives think of science as the devils language is utterly stupid talk to put it as nice as I can. Where on earth did you hear that one from ? College ? Jobs....Gates ? lol !!!

goofyGAguy

F1nut wrote: »

I quess you must have missed the identity voting where the votes for Obama in the big cities were disproportionate to other parts of the states.

Sometimes to the tune of ~20,000 to 0.

tonyb

Face wrote: »

Pick up a few history books and read up on how many deaths were attributed to religion. In fact, it's still going on today. :rolleyes:

Your talking extremes, something we tend to do alot in this country lately.

Haven't noticed any crusades, jihads, lately in america, unless you have where you live, I dunno.

sponger

tonyb wrote: »

Wow, don't know where to start. I guess listening to talking points on conservatism is your downfall. Most do not think as you say. While I agree science can and does play it's own role, it has little to do with faith in general, nor should they be stepping on each others toes. By taking religion as a means to sway a vote, you yourself crossed that seperation line. It's just as bad to not vote for someone because of religion as it is to do it. Aside from that, the highest office in the land has little to do with religious beliefs. To base a vote on that is simply wrong and even worse for our country.

What Steve Jobs and Gates have to do with any of this is beyond me. I guess you assume if liberalism is good for them, your on the waggon ? Or do you think for yourself without CEO's telling you what to think ? I dunno, just asking, because I thought most liberals hated CEO's, hated the outsourcing of jobs, slave labor, etc. Or is that phony anger only reserved for those not in their good graces ? You tell me because the hypocracy level is off the charts right about now.

This notion that conservatives think of science as the devils language is utterly stupid talk to put it as nice as I can. Where on earth did you hear that one from ? College ? Jobs....Gates ? lol !!!

45% of the population rejects the theory of evolution, and the majority of that 45% are conservatives. This is widely known fact. Go ahead and look it up. IMO, the fact that you refuse to believe it to be the case despite its being common knowledge tells me that you would find it to be shocking too once you figure out that it's true.

So, once you are finished with your fact-finding mission, we can discuss the remaining 10% of your comment.