Putting the X back in Xmas

Not that I'm for offending people, but I think it is ironic that you
can't give Jesus for Chrstmas:

http://www.richmondtimesdispatch.com...!news!vaapwire

...... that creaking sound you hear, is western civilazation
toppling.... as it bends over backwards...

PS, I see the point, but the irony is palpable..

wrote in message
oups.com...
Not that I'm for offending people, but I think it is ironic that you
can't give Jesus for Chrstmas:

http://www.richmondtimesdispatch.com...!news!vaapwire

..... that creaking sound you hear, is western civilazation
toppling.... as it bends over backwards...

PS, I see the point, but the irony is palpable..


What the Marines do with Toys for Tots is nondenominational. The Religious
Right implying that its foul play to not accept talking Jesus toys is like
the Romans claiming it was foul play for the Trojans to refuse the horse.
And for anyone else to claim its foul play is just religious hypocricy.

Christ's association with Christmas is historically a very recent event;
only since the 10th or 11th century. Consumerist Santa is considerably more
relevant today, and historically, midwinter festivals such as Yule,
Saturnalia or Yalda, predate Christ by millenia. The evidence doesn't even
support that Christ was born in December.

And the X in Xmas is not an effort to leave out the word Christ either; its
the greek letter 'Chi' which is an abbreviation for Christ.

--riverman

On 14 Nov 2006 21:50:21 -0800, wrote:

Not that I'm for offending people, but I think it is ironic that you
can't give Jesus for Chrstmas:

http://www.richmondtimesdispatch.com...!news!vaapwire

..... that creaking sound you hear, is western civilazation
toppling.... as it bends over backwards...

PS, I see the point, but the irony is palpable..

"We can't take a chance on sending a talking Jesus doll to a Jewish
family or a Muslim family,"...

------------

MISSION: The mission of the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve Toys for Tots
Program is to collect new, unwrapped toys during October, November and
December each year, and distribute those toys as Christmas gifts to
needy children in the community in which the campaign is conducted.

http://www.toysfortots2006.com/magno...gle/about.html

------------

Well if you really want to put the X back in Xmas, these guys need to
take the word Christmas out of their mission statement if they aren't
sorting the children by religion somehow. Wouldn't it be just as
offensive to give a *Christmas* gift to a Jewish or Muslim child? Or
does the fact that the " bearded Jesus doll recites Scripture"... make
it REALLY offensive?

I think they, the Toys for Tot's group, should just come out and say
it, most kids don't want a talking Jesus doll for Christmas! Unless
it's the Fighting Christ® with Kung Fu grip, everyone wants that

But seriously, I don't know how they reconcile the giving of
*Christmas* gifts to those of other faiths. Maybe the Jesus doll was
their tipping point? And remember who the recipients are, children.
As adults we can intelligently choose whether to accept a gift, young
children cannot. It's a present, they want it. Parents have a right,
and some would say an obligation to censor what their very young
children are exposed to.

But back to your original point, sure you can give Jesus for
Christmas. Toys for Tot's chose not to, doesn't mean you can't As a
matter of fact, I heard that someone was trying to give away 4,000 of
them

Don

"Donut" wrote in message
...
On 14 Nov 2006 21:50:21 -0800, wrote:

Not that I'm for offending people, but I think it is ironic that you
can't give Jesus for Chrstmas:

http://www.richmondtimesdispatch.com...!news!vaapwire

..... that creaking sound you hear, is western civilazation
toppling.... as it bends over backwards...

PS, I see the point, but the irony is palpable..

"We can't take a chance on sending a talking Jesus doll to a Jewish
family or a Muslim family,"...

------------

MISSION: The mission of the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve Toys for Tots
Program is to collect new, unwrapped toys during October, November and
December each year, and distribute those toys as Christmas gifts to
needy children in the community in which the campaign is conducted.

http://www.toysfortots2006.com/magno...gle/about.html

------------

Well if you really want to put the X back in Xmas, these guys need to
take the word Christmas out of their mission statement if they aren't
sorting the children by religion somehow. Wouldn't it be just as
offensive to give a *Christmas* gift to a Jewish or Muslim child? Or
does the fact that the " bearded Jesus doll recites Scripture"... make
it REALLY offensive?

I think they, the Toys for Tot's group, should just come out and say
it, most kids don't want a talking Jesus doll for Christmas! Unless
it's the Fighting Christ® with Kung Fu grip, everyone wants that

But seriously, I don't know how they reconcile the giving of
*Christmas* gifts to those of other faiths. Maybe the Jesus doll was
their tipping point? And remember who the recipients are, children.
As adults we can intelligently choose whether to accept a gift, young
children cannot. It's a present, they want it. Parents have a right,
and some would say an obligation to censor what their very young
children are exposed to.

But back to your original point, sure you can give Jesus for
Christmas. Toys for Tot's chose not to, doesn't mean you can't As a
matter of fact, I heard that someone was trying to give away 4,000 of
them

Don




Really, it's an old pagan holiday and the word 'christ' shouldn't be in it
at all... Besides, heysoos was born in the spring....

Other than that, if you want to celebrate, I feel it's okay. I always go
downtown and pick up a couple of chicks to play Sodom and Gomorrah...

john

On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 01:30:49 -0800, Donut wrote:

On 14 Nov 2006 21:50:21 -0800, wrote:

Not that I'm for offending people, but I think it is ironic that you
can't give Jesus for Chrstmas:

http://www.richmondtimesdispatch.com...!news!vaapwire

..... that creaking sound you hear, is western civilazation
toppling.... as it bends over backwards...

PS, I see the point, but the irony is palpable..

"We can't take a chance on sending a talking Jesus doll to a Jewish
family or a Muslim family,"...

------------

MISSION: The mission of the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve Toys for Tots
Program is to collect new, unwrapped toys during October, November and
December each year, and distribute those toys as Christmas gifts to
needy children in the community in which the campaign is conducted.

http://www.toysfortots2006.com/magno...gle/about.html

------------

Well if you really want to put the X back in Xmas, these guys need to
take the word Christmas out of their mission statement if they aren't
sorting the children by religion somehow. Wouldn't it be just as
offensive to give a *Christmas* gift to a Jewish or Muslim child?

As to general, "fun" toys, no, it wouldn't, and why should it be? _HOW_
could it be? What perversion of any of the above faiths do you envision
would take offense to the (pure) attempt to brighten the life of a
child?

Or
does the fact that the " bearded Jesus doll recites Scripture"... make
it REALLY offensive?

The toy itself "offensive?" No. Inappropriate? Yes. Just as giving a
"pop-up Qur'an" to "Christian" children would be. If you passed a
mosque at prayer time while walking from the Bar Mitzvah to the Catholic
wedding to which you were invited, would you be "offended" by the
statements of faith at one or more of the places? OTOH, the motive of
the folks who wanted to use Toys for Tots as some marketing/pimping tool
is what would seem to be the offensive thing.

I think they, the Toys for Tot's group, should just come out and say
it, most kids don't want a talking Jesus doll for Christmas!

ER, maybe that explains this quote: "Kids want a gift for the holiday
season that is fun."

Unless
it's the Fighting Christ® with Kung Fu grip, everyone wants that

But seriously, I don't know how they reconcile the giving of
*Christmas* gifts to those of other faiths. Maybe the Jesus doll was
their tipping point? And remember who the recipients are, children.

Exactly the point. Kids shouldn't be deprived of mere "fun" because the
adults around them might be morons. If I weren't in a position to be
able to provide a "fun" toy or two to my children, and someone with a
decent motive was willing to help out, I'd not get too concerned about
the fact that the giver was doing so in the giving spirit of their
beliefs rather than my own. IOW, a whole lot less questioning of and
looking for ways to take offense to such things might lead to whole lot
less other things, too - you might say one ought not to look in the
mouth of a gift horse...

As adults we can intelligently choose whether to accept a gift, young
children cannot. It's a present, they want it. Parents have a right,
and some would say an obligation to censor what their very young
children are exposed to.

Absolutely. And any parent who teaches their children that a simple
gift offered in good spirit and pure motive from someone who happens to
be of differing faith is a bad thing isn't fit to be a parent.

TC,
R

On 14 Nov 2006 21:50:21 -0800, wrote:

Not that I'm for offending people, but I think it is ironic that you
can't give Jesus for Chrstmas:

http://www.richmondtimesdispatch.com...!news!vaapwire

..... that creaking sound you hear, is western civilazation
toppling.... as it bends over backwards...

PS, I see the point, but the irony is palpable..


I was raised as a Christian and if someone had given me a Bible
spouting Jesus doll, I'd have tried to be polite and then let it rot
in the toy box. This is not a fun toy. It's an educational tool
masquerading as a toy. It's a specialty gift and should only be given
by the church the child attends or by the child's family. Of course
it might, unlike Ken dolls, be anatomically correct, which would be
interesting.

How would you feel about one of your family's kids getting a gift of a
Koran spouting Mohamed doll?

If that's going to make western civilization topple, then it's already
dead and ready to fall anyway, isn't it?
--

r.bc: vixen
Speaker to squirrels, willow watcher, etc..
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless. Really.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli

wrote:
Not that I'm for offending people, but I think it is ironic that you
can't give Jesus for Chrstmas:

http://www.richmondtimesdispatch.com...!news!vaapwire

..... that creaking sound you hear, is western civilazation
toppling.... as it bends over backwards...

PS, I see the point, but the irony is palpable..

Christmas is a pagan holiday which the christians
relatively recently tried to co-opt and is now a primarily
secular holiday. Giving a toy that preaches one
religion to children of a different religion (or worse
those with no religion) is offensive.

I'd be ****ed if someone gave one of these to
my kids.....of course I've lobotomized several
annoying gifts over the years. A 1/32" drill bit
works wonders and leaves very little evidence.
:-),
- Ken

"riverman" wrote in message ...

wrote in message
oups.com...
Not that I'm for offending people, but I think it is ironic that you
can't give Jesus for Chrstmas:

http://www.richmondtimesdispatch.com...!news!vaapwire

..... that creaking sound you hear, is western civilazation
toppling.... as it bends over backwards...

PS, I see the point, but the irony is palpable..


What the Marines do with Toys for Tots is nondenominational. The Religious
Right implying that its foul play to not accept talking Jesus toys is like
the Romans claiming it was foul play for the Trojans to refuse the horse.

Romans? Paris and Helen of Sparta would be very upset to be indentified to
the bask water rustis village (as it was during the Trojan War)...



And for anyone else to claim its foul play is just religious hypocricy.

Christ's association with Christmas is historically a very recent event;
only since the 10th or 11th century. Consumerist Santa is considerably
more relevant today, and historically, midwinter festivals such as Yule,
Saturnalia or Yalda, predate Christ by millenia. The evidence doesn't even
support that Christ was born in December.


And not even until the late 19th century in civilized regions, such as,
Scotland, but that's beside the point... in the US, Christmas has always,
until recently, been identified with only one thing, the Christ story.

"Cyli" wrote in message
...
On 14 Nov 2006 21:50:21 -0800, wrote:

Not that I'm for offending people, but I think it is ironic that you
can't give Jesus for Chrstmas:

http://www.richmondtimesdispatch.com...!news!vaapwire

..... that creaking sound you hear, is western civilazation
toppling.... as it bends over backwards...

PS, I see the point, but the irony is palpable..


I was raised as a Christian and if someone had given me a Bible
spouting Jesus doll, I'd have tried to be polite and then let it rot
in the toy box. This is not a fun toy. It's an educational tool
masquerading as a toy. It's a specialty gift and should only be given
by the church the child attends or by the child's family. Of course
it might, unlike Ken dolls, be anatomically correct, which would be
interesting.

How would you feel about one of your family's kids getting a gift of a
Koran spouting Mohamed doll?

If that's going to make western civilization topple, then it's already
dead and ready to fall anyway, isn't it?
--


As I said, I agree with the Marines, but think of the *Irony*....

Besides, how could a talking Jesus doll be anything less than fundimentally
tacky.... and bordering on iDOLLatry, to boot.




http://www.visi.com/~cyli

" wrote in message
oups.com...


Christmas is a pagan holiday

Wrong. It is a Christian holiday. One would like to think that even an
engineer could find the tell-tale "Christ" in "Christmas."

which the christians relatively recently tried to co-opt

Wrong. They invented it......quite a while ago.

and is now a primarily secular holiday.

Hm.......

There are a billion or so Christians worldwide. I'll hazard a guess that
many of them take Christmas very seriously as something other than a secular
holiday.

Wolfgang
who can only guess what a misery life must be for someone who can never say
what he supposes he might mean.