View Full Version : The C-Word (FLAGGED)
stefanus
11-13-2004, 07:18 AM
[QUOTE]THIS IS A SLAP IN THE TO CHRISTIANS ACROSS THE COUNTRY[/ PC! Past Christmas? No! Political Correctness. I cannot believe what I have been reading in the British press recently. Large well known stores in London are not putting on a children's (and adults) Christmas Theme this year in case it offends people of other religions. In to-days press an article on an inside page reads. C-Word Ban. (Thats Christmas as Eden Project goes PC mad) They do not want to mention the C-Word because they are worried it will offend followers of other faiths. This is PC gone to far. We will be reduced to whispering in private to our Children and Grand Children about the bad old days. BPC. ( Before Political Correctness) and the beautiful celebration associated with Christmas Time and to what it represented. A Christmas Gift Shop has been renamed to Great Gift Grotto. Various towns around the country are renaming Christmas Fest to Winter Fest. A spokesman for an Christian group is reported to have said.Perhaps the word Eden should also be changed, that is also Christian, as in The Garden Of. How far is this madness going , when and where will it end. It is and never will be my intention of criticizing other peoples beliefs
deddard
11-13-2004, 09:12 AM
Unfortunately here in the UK some people have far too much time on their hands.
Political Correctness only extends as far as the mainstream - anything beyond what has been around for a while is deemed to be worthy of 'special consideration' It doesn't matter whether it's nationality, religious belief, sexuality or anything else, as long as the idiots who dream up this sort of thing aren't offended. - Note that it's not anyone who is actually addressed by the so called political correctness that usually gets offended, but rather the morons who think that there is a chance that someone could be offended.
What has been around for a while has to suffer, whether that's Christmas (I can remember reading last year that some towns were now calling it a 'seasonal celebration period' rather than Christmas) or anything else.
What's really weird is that it is only a few grumbling fools (who would moan at anything including the price of air) that could possibly be offended.
I don't consider myself religious at all, but Christmas is Christmas. Anyone who doesn't like it doesn't have to celebrate it. The town where i live is very multi-cultural, and the festival of Diwali is about to start - no-one goes around saying it's offensive, on the contrary - it's bright, cheerful, and everyone seems to have a good time.
BTW does anyone know what's happened to the LA rules about Master and Slave drives on computers? The last I heard was that no government department was allowed to purchase equipment which referred to Master and Slave drives, and that references to them should not be made.......... :rolleyes:
pop pop
11-13-2004, 09:12 AM
Stefanus,
This sort of thing has been bothering me for a long time. It's not something that is unique to the U.K., it is also rampant in the U.S. There are so many examples. Here, in America, it's not just using or saying or displaying anything associated with Christianity that is being fought and revolted against, a sort of reverse illogic is also true. Here are a couple of relatively recent U.S. examples:
An atheist parent, who does not have custody of his daughter, sues the state to stop recitation (by anyone) of the "Pledge of Allegiance" in schools because of the words "one nation under God".
Law suit(s) have been filed, and won, seeking to remove from state houses, court houses and other government buildings plaques displaying The Ten Commandments.
Nativity scenes (e.g., Christ in the manger) are banned from schools, government grounds, and government buildings due to law suits.
And one of the most recent and most bizzare (not directly related to Christianity but it is related to religeon):
A school district in the western U.S. bans halloween celebrations (dressing up in costumes) for elementary school children because it may offend the religeous convictions of real witches.
There are those who are hell bent on making us a Godless society. The irony is, of course, this country was founded on religeous freedom. American money bears the words "In God We Trust", I'm sure that's the next law suit.
I was born to a Jewish father and a Christian mother. I grew up with Channukah and Christmas. I like 'em both. When I was 18 I moved to Hawaii (by myself), and met all kinds of Buddhists, Shinto, Taoists, Scientologists, Baha`is, Christian Scientists, Hawaiian Kahunas, alll kinds of religions. I practice the Baha`i Faith (http://www.bahai.org). We are politically neutral--we do not get involved in political parties--issues yes, partisanship, no.
It is plain to me that there is an anti-religion movement on the planet coming from the socialists, and that they are lining up with the fundamentalist militant Moslem movements. The pcness against Christians is particularly odious and rancorous. Pop pop has pointed out the examples I was thnking of, but, again, it is only one form of anti-religious expression that is operating. In Iran and other places the Moslems have killed more than 50,000 Baha`is since 1844 when my religion began, and they are still treating the Baha`is in Iran like Hitler treated the Jews (and others, for sure)--we have no civil rights, no right to teach our own Faith (edit)--they can and have been arrested imprisoned and executed for that-- Baha`is cannot attend public schools there without signing a card stating that they are Moslems...job discrimination, property confiscated, our Holy sites destroyed, you name it...The same way the Palestinians would like to treat the Jewish state--annihilation, when all they have to do is accept Israeli statehood and live in peace there--stop starting wars that they lose, one after another--you'd think they'd get the idea after a while, yeah ?
Again, it is an anti-religious mentality out of which comes this political correctness. The pcness is only the polite form of it; the attempt to legalize it. It is affecting us all--one way or another.
(edits)
The national forefathers here in the US, when they wrote the Declaration of Independence from England, and the Constitution, wrote very specifically:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Where these psychologists and scociologists and lawyers and whoever (here in the US) got the idea that the gov't should be devoid of any reference to "their Creator" is at once sad and laughable. That we should have no specific church-of-the-state was what they meant and what they said.
"....endowed with certain unalienable rights by their Creator. . ." is plain enough for me.
:cool:
As stated in the bill of rights:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Therefor, there should be no mention of ANY religion in any local, state, or federally run building, including, but not linited to, schools and courts.. unless ALL religions are represented EQUALLY, and you, I assume, don't want that. This is called the anti-establishment clause.
As I see it this issue has nothing to do with being 'PC' but has to do with the United States Constitution being upheld regardless of several peoples petty moanings about their personal religion (especially Christians who try to shove their religion down your throat). BTW: I live in what is known as the "bible belt" and have to deal with this sort of thing every day and may have become slightly jaded 'twards the subject.
Paleo Pete
11-15-2004, 08:35 AM
Hmm...how did this drift from a discussion concerning politically driven removal of the term "Christmas" in the UK to general constitutional rights in the US? Good points have been made, but remember the original issue was the UK, where things in our country or yours might not be done or seen quite the same. Please try and remember you can't interpret the actions of the government of another country by using the standards of your own government or national values and morals, the foreign [to you] government and citizens may see things quite differently. Two totally different pronunciations of the word "potato"; British English and American English; don't change what the actual tuber is, but an American and an Englishman might disagree on how it is pronounced...even though both might be eating baked ones....
This is not to say that parallels such as the Halloween issue are out of place here, just remember that the political/religious issue in the UK, not the US is in question. And yes, taking political correctness too far has adversely affected both countries. Just trying to keep things on track...
Also, this is one of those topics that can be highly volatile, religion AND politics, so as usual I'll remind everyone to please keep it civil.
stefanus
11-15-2004, 03:40 PM
My intention was not to discredit any person/s or any political/religious groups but to point out the direction PC was heading. I am sorry if this thread has developed into ? which are not required here. Sorry I am not expressing myself clearly, and Pete! I would like to close this thread, with your assistance of course
Paleo Pete
11-16-2004, 12:59 AM
stefanus:
I have no problem with the thread itself being posted, or your comments within it. What I was referring to were the comments made later, especially about the American constitutional rights. While that is certainly an issue worth consideration and discussion, this thread was actually originally oriented around the removal of terms referring to Christmas, and in a fairly specific location. The same or similar is happening in many places worldwide, and that certainly is also worth discussion, but the main idea seems to have been bypassed and more attention being given to a broader interpretation of the main idea.
I don't think the thread needs to be closed, and so far nothing has been posted that I consider out of line, I just wanted to remind people of two things:
1. The original post concerned fairly specific actions taken by a european government, similar instances can and should of course be cited, but don't hijack the thread.
2. This type of discussion can result in flared tempers, so please try and be civil.
You'll see parallels in many other countries, and I don't see anything wrong with citing examples, but try not to divert the entire thread into a discussion about what's happening just here in the US...take 10 steps back and look at the broader view, so to speak, not just here in your front yard...
Personally, and this is one of the few times you'll see me post an opinion of this nature, I think what is happening in British towns is deplorable. There is no legitimate reason I can think of for disallowing mention of a tradition and celebration that has been observed by a number of religions in various forms for around two thousand years. Those religions may have different names for it, and different rituals associated with it, but Christmas and [insert name here] are basically observances of the same idea.
Some of the parallels that have been noted are excellent, and it's a shame that this kind of thing is happening, in most parts of the world with varying beliefs and customs as targets. Someone, somewhere is always looking for a way to gain a bit of power over other people. Using political correctness to achieve that power is no better than using greed for the same purpose. And it has a name...persecution.
And here's an unexpected parallel...the spammers who plague the forums and the rest of the Internet. The virus and trojan creators... The mentality is the same. Their lives are miserable and they want as many people as possible to be miserable along with them, rather than doing something to improve their own selves. That's the base motive for this type of thing, the "I'm unhappy so you're going to be unhappy too" mentality. And we all know negative attention is better than no attention at all...
I hope some of this makes a little sense... :rolleyes:
FrankSG
11-16-2004, 12:23 PM
stefanus:
I hope some of this makes a little sense... :rolleyes:
It makes a lot of sense to me, Pete. As they say, "You took the words right of my mouth." And you said it a lot better than I would have said.
classicsoftware
11-16-2004, 01:04 PM
Well I've been thinking about plunging in for a while now so here goes.
The problem (a poor choice of words, I just can't come up with a more elegant one at this time) with Cristianity in England and the USA is two fold. First, you have allowed the corporations to co-opt your holiday and turn it from a celebration of the birth of your savior to the be all and end all of commerce. If Christians are un-happy about the way they are treated they have the power of the purse. Stop patronzing those establishments that are offending you. Fire off an e-mail or snail mail letter to the CEO and let thme know of your unhappiness. If the majority of Christians in the UK did this, the situation would change rather rapidly.
The second thing is, it is very difficult as a member of a minority religion to see Christians (the Majority in the UK and the USA) act as if they are being somehow discriminated against. Until you are actually the member of a minority religion and experience what that is like you should not act like it.
That being said, I think the decision to de-christain Christmas is stupid. If the makority of the country is Christian let it rip. As long as the government has nothing to do with it people should be free to express themselves in a democratic society as they see fit. As long as the majority don't force their views on the majority, I say let every store have Christmas trees, lights or whataver...... As a member of a minority religion in the USA I would be truly saddened if we sunk to the level of PC displayed in the UK.
deleted by Donn, see next post
As stated in the bill of rights:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Therefor, there should be no mention of ANY religion in any local, state, or federally run building, including, but not linited to, schools and courts.. unless ALL religions are represented EQUALLY, and you, I assume, don't want that. This is called the anti-establishment clause.
As I see it this issue has nothing to do with being 'PC' but has to do with the United States Constitution being upheld regardless of several peoples petty moanings about their personal religion (especially Christians who try to shove their religion down your throat). BTW: I live in what is known as the "bible belt" and have to deal with this sort of thing every day and may have become slightly jaded 'twards the subject.
Sorry, but it appears you have defeated your own arguement. The Constitution prohibits, as you have pointed out, "the establishment of any religion" , and it prohibits "preventing the FREE excercise thereof." It says nothing about preventing honoring religions by mentioning them, or displaying their teachings for all to see. The Constitution goes to separating CHURCH and State, not separating religion teacings from being mentioned for their historical and/or moral signifigance. The mention of religious teachings is a function of the "free excercise" aspect of our rights.
And, as you have pointed out, the shoving down our throats of any one religion, sect or denomination of any religion, or persons and their viewpoints of any religious order, that, it would seem is prohibited in the Constitution.
Unfortunately, the law can do nothing about people that force their religious beliefs on people by subtle means. I lived in Texas fro two years. Some fundamentalist Christians can be pertty arrogant and even outright destructive about people they think aren't 'Bibled-up' enough for them.
However, the Constitution still only states that it is the establishment of any religion (as an institution, institutional reference--state church) not the mention of any religion that is prohibited.
Don't confuse the two.
:)
Paleo Pete
11-16-2004, 11:53 PM
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
Donn: I have to disagree with your interpretation. Take the sentence as a whole and to me it says that the congress will not attempt to govern the religious preferences of the citizenry by either condoning or condemning any set of beliefs. I don't think I'm wrong in saying Congress does not have the authority, according to that quote, to pass any legislation restricting the observance OR creation of any religion.
EDIT: Example- The Mormon faith was founded in the 1800's right here in the US. It's still around and has always been legal, although sometimes controversial.
The term "establishment of religion" may also refer to the religion itself overall too. Remember we're dealing with language used several hundred years ago, when common phrases in use today were either unheard of or considered shocking. (This also goes back to a discussion long ago concerning linguistics) So the term may have been meant to refer to the "institution" as it's called today, of religion in general, rather than the actual creation or establishing of a new and different religion..
As far as the original topic is concerned, I thought of a good example, or I think it's a good one, and maybe I'm just a bit more coherent tonight and can get a point across a bit better. I was pretty much beyond reasonably intelligent mental condition last night... :rolleyes:
I had the opportunity a few years ago to be in Monterrey, Mexico at the same time as the largest religious celebration of the year, also in December, about 2 weeks before Christmas. I rode through the city on a bus, (a story in itself) and watched as thousands of people flooded into the area from outlying towns a hundred miles away or more, many on foot making pilgrimages to the cathedral.
Those were usually groups of people in traditional costume carrying flags, crosses, etc who walked from their homes to Monterrey for this event. All wnet to and through the cathedral to "pay their respects", as the man I was with put it. I went through the cathedral with him, huge place and very old, while a seemingly endless procession of thousands of people filed through. We also walked around the area for a while, the festival was in full swing, concession stands sold food and drink, and probably 50,000 people or more were in the immediate vicinity of the cathedral.
As a non-catholic, (I think Catholic is the predominant religion), was I offended by this celebration? NOT A CHANCE! In fact I thought it was fascinating. How often do you get to witness, up close, thousands and thousands of people participating in a religious festival hundreds of years old, held by a completely foreign culture?
Now think of it from a slightly different point of view...
I had a camera in the inside pocket of my jacket. What if I had started taking pictures in the middle of their cathedral? Now that, I'm pretty sure, would have offended the followers of their religion. Seeing it didn't offend me a bit...even though I'm not a follower of that religion. In fact it was the exact opposite, I'd jump at the chance to see it or something similar again. The commercialization of Christmas, however, I do consider offensive.
FrankSG
11-17-2004, 06:50 AM
Reasonable, respectable, and intelligent people can all read the same thing and come up with different interpretations. It's always been that way and I'm sure always will be. That does not necessarily mean that one is right and therefore the other wrong. It may mean that there is an element of truth in what both are saying. The important thing is that we all respect one another for their beliefs even thought they be different than ours. Also, I think it means that we should all respect one another for the way they wish to celebrate their beliefs.
~Frank~
stefanus
11-17-2004, 04:34 PM
I am going on leave (vac) next week. I hope I am going away with the feeling all are happy here! And I wish eveyone every thing that he/she wishes for them selves and familys. And may your God be with you all. I will be back in Feb Next year.
Stefanus
FrankSG
11-17-2004, 05:40 PM
Have a nice vacation, Stef! I'm sure we'll all be as fit as a fiddle and happy as a lark when you get back. :)
~Frank~
Mark Miller
11-17-2004, 06:31 PM
Hey Stef,
Have a great vacation, really sounds very interesting. Can't wait to hear about it when you get back
Pete said:
Donn: I have to disagree with your interpretation. Take the sentence as a whole and to me it says that the congress will not attempt to govern the religious preferences of the citizenry by either condoning or condemning any set of beliefs. I don't think I'm wrong in saying Congress does not have the authority, according to that quote, to pass any legislation restricting the observance OR creation of any religion.
I dunno, Pete, I think we're saying the SAME thing. Congress cannot establish a religion (I meant to put something in about the context of language of their time but I forgot, thanks for reminding. . .) as an institution of referral, an official reference point for the gov't or the people--that's what they were affraid of. But the mention of religious principles, and that there is a Creator, or that Nature has a God (we are part of Nature) is already there. So taking the Ten Commandments out of a courthouse or a post office to me is against the first amendment's garruntee of the right of free expression. I don't see how that institutionalizes religion as a whole, or any religion in particular. It just says: 'this is what we believe in,' and the First Amendment gives us that Right.
My point was that mentioning principles of life that come from a religion does not in anyway establish that religion as gov't institution. I also do not see how mentioning these principles (on a a slab or a mural in a post office or a school) establishes a religion by the government. If that's true then we cannot have anyone's remarks on school walls if they are inspired by their religious convictions, right? Besides that, if we're going to call this a democracy, then why does the minority have the right to dictate conditions? That doesn't make sense, besides the fact that we are NOT a democracy, we are a constitutional republic practicing elected representative or appointed (Suptreme Court etc.,) authority, using democratic means sometimes in some situations.
Again, I understand how that mentioning can be misused. I lived in Austin and College Station, Texas, and you gotta be "Bibled-up" to some of those people or you are--in so many words or less--an infidel, and there is an attitude and activity that is discriminatory. I understand that, as I understand the movement that syas unless we can act maturely about the public display of religious teachings, maybe it IS best to keep ALL of it out of the public areas, so that nobody gets cocky about it. Let's either teach all the religions in school, or let's leave it to the home life, ehich is probably the better place for it--IMHO--until college level. . .as things go now.
I dunno, I think we are saying the same thing, but, if not, that's cool, whatever, in a flat voiceless media like this it's hard to say because the nuances just don't come through, and I forgot to take my psychic pills this morning wouldntyaknow. . .
As far as pulling out the camera in the middle of the festivities--so glad you didn't, some things you just have to feel and be in, and the camera couldn't have saved that. Also, if you get a chance to visit the Baha`i House of Worship in Wilmette, Illinois, < http://us.bahai.org/how/webcam.htm>
you will see s sign just inside the main entrance that says 'No Cameras, Please."
As far as the original subject goes--the commercialization of Christmas--it isn't my Holiday, but in that I accept all the religions in their true form as being from the One God that made us all (Dec.of Ind. = "Nature's God"), I sum up the whole thing in what I feel is that obscene little word "Xmas" :
they take the Name of The Christ out of the name of the holiday that celebrates His birth. . .and their point about being religious is?
:cool:
Paleo Pete
11-18-2004, 12:21 AM
I lived in Austin and College Station, Texas
HUH?? I lived in Austin for 3 or 4 years, and Caldwell, not far from College Station, for about 8 years. Spent a lot of time in Bryan/College Station and had some good friends there.
Maybe I did misunderstand your meaning, your comment sounded like you had only considered half of the original sentence.
I kept the camera in my pocket instead of using it out of respect for the location and situation, I was actually wishing I had a really good camera like the Pentax I have now, and could be there at a time more appropriate to get some pictures, and have permission to do so...If you've ever been inside a large cathedral several hundred years old, they can be quite impressive. I've seen that one in Mexico and probably a dozen in Germany, Holland, Switzerland and Austria. Those were organized tours, cameras were ok in some instances and in some we were asked to refrain. Strangely enough, the place I would have most liked to get a few shots was the old opera house where the International band festival was held in Vienna.
We have crossed paths a lot it seems---lived in CS, Tx in '77, Austin in '76, the only Cathedral I've been in was Notre Dame in Paris. Spent 3 days in Vienna, and two days in Fribourg, Switzerland (the new city, but I toured the old city while I was there). Vienna was most interesting the way they built parks throughout the City, such that I must have walked all arouind the entire city just by walking through one park, and crossing a street and entering the next one. I don't recall the old opera house, but then I wasn't looking for it. Still have my slides somewhere, really aught to put them on a CD-ROM before they fade.
I would like to go back to Paris again, and spend some time in northern Germany, actuially like to visit the residence/museum of Emile Nolde.
Edit: http://www.nolde-stiftung.de/engindex.htm
And Japan, love to go and teach English there, had a chance once (Shikoku Island --the agricultuiral district), and still kicking myself for not doing it.
I get what you mean about using a good 35mm for that festival, that's a lot different than whipping out a Kodak Instamatic type camera in the middle of festivities.
:)
Paleo Pete
11-19-2004, 09:02 AM
Hehe...now were the ones hijacking the thread... :eek: Sorry, didn't mean that to happen...
Well, it's interesting anyway...but the time frames are off.
Instamatic was all I owned at that time.
Back on topic -
I've wondered about other parts of the world, here in the US Christmas has been commercialized to the point it only resembles the original celebration in name. Kids see the advertisements on TV more than they do the story behind the event and it pretty much means "what do I get out of it?" these days, even though the majority of parents try to educate their kids about the real reason for Christmas. Repetition of commercials takes its toll regardless...they see the commercials 50 times for each time they hear or read the related story. And the majority of Christmas related commercials are targeting children, a fact I find deplorable.
Has this become the case in other parts of the world, or is the "Land of Opportunity" miles ahead of everyone else in this respect? Does Christmas still have some meaning in other less commercialized (or is the right term capitalism oriented?) areas?
I'll make a final comment on this before I respectfully bow out--in that it isn't technically my Holyday.
Christmas as we know it is the combination of the birth of The Christ removed to the twelve darkest days of the year. Christ's birth was probably in April, and I believe there is something about His birth coming during the time the lambs give fold--that's not December, that's April. But the gist was to have a spiritual celebration at the darkest hour before dawn, and who knows, perhaps their effort at this was spiritually inspired, if technically not respectful of the actual Day. Therefore is the 'gift giving spirit' an attempt to remind ourselves of the bounty of the summer that follows the spring of the birth of Christ when people have harvest to give and receive--to buy and sell. . . . .? Why not?
This kind of alteration happened in the Jewish history also. Many people do not know that unleavened bread used during the Passover Holydays comes from the farming tradition of not using leavened (yeast) bread during the spring time for fear of contaminating the seed spread with yeast from having had yeast in the homes during that time of year. Pertty smart if y'ask me.
Is Christmas commercialized, over comercialized? Again I'll refer to that obscene little word "X-Mas" , and its elimination of "Christ" from the name Christmas (Christ Mass). After that, it would seem to be a very slippery slope on a very sharp grade downhill to crass commericalism, consumerism, and materialism in general. . .not what Christmas is all about.
:cool:
FrankSG
11-19-2004, 09:59 AM
I do volunteer work at one of our local elementary schools. I work with the Guided Reading Program. I have a small 1st. grade and a 3rd grade group where I help with the reading. We were reading a book about holidays a couple of weeks ago. I asked the kids what their favorite holiday was. They all said "Christmas!" I asked why Christmas. They all responded with words something like, "Presents!" So, I guess that answers some of the questions that were raised here. With so many people, this is not really a religious holiday. It's just a holiday. I wish it would get back to the real meaning.
classicsoftware
11-19-2004, 05:34 PM
This kind of alteration happened in the Jewish history also. Many people do not know that unleavened bread used during the Passover Holydays comes from the farming tradition of not using leavened (yeast) bread during the spring time for fear of contaminating the seed spread with yeast from having had yeast in the homes during that time of year. Pertty smart if y'ask me.
Ok. I'm pretty conversant in my religion and that is the most bizarre statement I have ever heard. I'd like to know your source.
Read it in a book on the history of Passover, can't recall the name, decades ago, also have some friends in Israel who, when asked about it, said it had some familliarity to it. If I ever find it I'll make sure to forward it to you. :)
classicsoftware
11-19-2004, 08:59 PM
I'd love to take a look at it. I DO NOT beleive it is true. A good story though....
Classic:
I had a chance to sit down last night and go 'ok, where the *&%$ would I have noted that' . . . I have an idea where I might have noted it, but it'll take this week to go into my files and look for it. I recall that I was living in Evanston, Ill., in the 80s. I recall that I was searching for something related to The Passover and the springtime when I came upon this piece of information (footnote, aside comment, whatever it was), and I can even see the page I was reading, it was an older book.
As best I can recall now this may have been in a footnote about unleavened bread, and the paragraph indicated that unleavened bread was used in some (many, whatever) communities at planting time because they were aware that yeast might contaminate the seed while it was being handled at springtime, and I think it was specifically in terms of handling seed that was in and just coming out of storage...which makes a lot of sense. Getting moisture and yeast in a dark closed storage area is not a good idea, particularly if the moisture sinks into the restraining material--un glazed clay pots, cracks in the glaze of clay pots, cloth sacks, etc.-- where it will not dry out immediately.
Now, my college work is B.Sci. in Agronomy and Plant Genetics and I had some background work and classes in phytopathology, and I am aware of seed and seedling diseases. It makes a lot of sense not to be handling seed if you are handling yeast, not so much that that yeast would attack a seed or a seedling, but that there is a definite pre-disposition factor--that the presence of yeast contamination, growing colonies from a susbstantial deposit, could predispose the soil, particularly on a warm foggy or drissley day, could predispose the soil conditions to support an economically significant outbreak to other molds that would be seedling pathogenic--these days Rhizoctonia solani, 'sore shin' on seedlings or transplants or grafts at ground level, would be the most likely culprit. The predisposition factors might include a change in the soil pH, a change in the availability of soil nutrients (consequently) causing the spores to open; a change in the friability of the soil--making it more wet, more aerated more easy for hyphal growth to move through, and actually more watery--that watery factor would facilitiate the movement of the R. solani spores or hyphae, and the easier spread of spores and/or hyphal material through the seedling field by footwear, hand contact, insects, blowing debris, and birds.
So, I know I saw the reference, and that the writer of that article mentioned unleaved bread as being used to during seed-handling times. Like I said, if I made a note of the book or article, when I find it--it's yours.
:)
Edit: wouldn't you know I forgot the most importatnt part--the writer made the remarks (words to the effect 20 some years later) that this practice had been used by peoples whose line preceeded The Passover ( it was an established cultural practice among at least some of them), and that it was his view that the co-incidence of using unleavened bread for The Passover was, therefore, already akin to the time of year. Sorta kinda-- something like that---it's been twenty years or so :eek: so gimme a break on this, actually I'm over 50: I'll take two breaks :D
:cool:
classicsoftware
11-20-2004, 10:17 PM
Donn:
Take as many breaks as you need. As a fairly observant jew, I have never heard of that before. I think it is unrelated to passover. The whole reason for the unleavened bread is:
So the people took their dough before it was leavened, their kneading bowls wrapped in their cloaks upon their shoulders Exodus 12:34
And they baked the unleavened cakes of the dough that they had taken out of Egypt, for it was not leavened, since they had been driven out of Egypt and could not delay; nor had they prepared any provisions for themselves. Exodus 12:39
It is clear from reading Josephus, that there was a holiday celebrated called the Feast of Matzah that eventually merged into the Passover tradition. additionally, there were parallel observances in Rome, Mesopotamia and Greece. This may be where your information comes from.
It is clear that many religious observances today in both Christianity and Judaism started out one way and were chnaged by later events.
I think is way too much information for this board on this subject....
Well, like I said, if I can find that reference I'll pass it on to you, and we'll see exactly what the man had to say.
:cool:
FrankSG
11-21-2004, 09:09 AM
Donn & Classic--If you don't mind, I'd like to stick my two cents worth in on what the two of you are talking about. Here's what I think: I think that you both could be right. Now--I'm not saying that simply to appease anyone. So hear me out. First of all, Classic is definitely correct in what he says about why the Jewish people use the unleavened bread. It is a fact--period. Secondly, it certainly is possible that Donn read somewhere as to what he said. If he said he read it, then I'm sure he probable did. Two points to make about that. Simply because someone wrote it down somewhere does not necessarily mean that it is correct. Maybe it is correct and maybe not. It is totally possible that yeast could indeed contaminate seeds. There could be many more reasons for someone to use unleavened bread. But, the point is,it's totally irrelevant as far as this discussion is concerned. Fact No.1: The Jewish religion uses unleavened bread for their religious observances for the reasons stated by Classic. Fact No.2: If there are others who use it for totally different reasons, it is totally irrelevant as to fact no. 1. Maybe this will put this discussion to rest.
~Respectfully, Frank~
Hi Frank, thanks for your comments, but I'm not seeing this as a him vs me, it's just a discussion of some information, and (as much as it ticks me off) my time machine is in the shop (AH-GAIN!) so I cannot get us back there to witness the actual goings-on. DRAT! I hate when this happens!
In life in general, in any 'he said/he said' situation, I always figure there are always going to be three points of view, the third one being that of The One All Knowing Who created us all.
So, as I recall it 20 yrs later, that's what the guy said in that book, it made sense to me then, still does, and we may even find out just how much of it I recalled accurately, and how much of it is really true and relevant, or not. Until then I intend to keep my eyes and ears open to the information of all viewpoints.
:)
edit: anyone else want to chime in it's ok with me. . . .
Frank I just re-read your post about your #1 point. I don't see how you got that I contend that, I don't: my exact words from the original post:
"Many people do not know that unleavened bread used during the Passover Holydays comes from the farming tradition of not using leavened (yeast) bread during the spring time for fear of contaminating the seed spread with yeast from having had yeast in the homes during that time of year. Pertty smart if y'ask me."
If you took this as to demean any aspect of The Passover, then it is taken incorrectly. I mean to say that the use of unleavened bread was ocuuriing before The Passover--according to what I read. My only point was that people incorporate regional/cultural practices into religious practices. That has probably happened all over the world. I don't see how anyone could take that as being a negative statement, and if you or Classic or anyone did, that's still not my intention. 'nuff said?
:cool:
FrankSG
11-22-2004, 11:26 AM
Donn--It's possible that I misunderstood what you meant. If so, I stand corrected.
~Frank~
That's cool, Frank, it's a flat voiceless media...we can't hear the nuance, it's all good, we all win. . . :)
BlueForce
11-22-2004, 06:14 PM
My two cents on the Christmas thing. This is something I don't quite understand. Some people insist on getting away with all religious symbols espcially around Christmas, but also the 10 Commandments thing, one nation under god etc. How come I've never heard them say that kids in public school needs to go to school on the 25th (if it's not on a weekend) or that public employees should not get the 25th off? Isn't that the government favoring Christianity over other religions?
Fruss Tray Ted
11-22-2004, 07:20 PM
Donn,
Seems that Christmas was placed in December to 'supercede' and older pagan HolyDay. Some ramblings on it here (http://de.essortment.com/christmaspagan_rece.htm). That article mentions his birth possibly in September but not reading the Bible near enough, I have no real theories of my own on the actual time of year other than it is most unlikey to have been in December.
To add to your leavened bread statement. Is it true that Jews don't eat pork because where they were originally nomadic tribes, and that pigs won't 'herd', therefore of no use to a nomad, so they just incorporated it into the religion?
__________
The more politically correct 'rules' created, the more unpolitically correct I become. One day I will be labeled a criminal just to my choice of freedom of speech and religion. Sheesh! When will they ever see the light? :rolleyes:
Mark Miller
11-22-2004, 08:48 PM
Actually the reason as I understand it was for health reasons.
Same as today if not cooked long enough will get sick
Going back to the leaven bread, I had not heard Donn's readings. In a way though it could make sense as most things of this nature in the old or new testament come from some health or "reality' things going on at the time of writing.
I am not saying anything negative about either version of the bible in any way shape or means. As of late I have taken to reading the old testament.
classicsoftware
11-22-2004, 08:56 PM
Donn,
To add to your leavened bread statement. Is it true that Jews don't eat pork because where they were originally nomadic tribes, and that pigs won't 'herd', therefore of no use to a nomad, so they just incorporated it into the religion?
NO
All of the dietary laws in the First five books of the Bible that the Jews call the Torah (Jews do not use the term old testament as it presupposes a new testament, but that is a whole different discussion) are in the section called the Holiness Code. The whole purpose of these laws is an attempt for humanity to achieve certain level of holiness. The reason for following these rules is stated clearly and succinctly:
God spoke to moses saying: Speak to the whole community of Israel and say to them:
You shall be holy for I, the Eternal God, am Holy. Leviticus 19:1-3
As I was compiling my response, Mark Miller posted with common misconception that the dietary laws are for health reasons. Alas, they are not. The section of the Torah is called Kedoshim wich translates as Holiness.
These laws are followed as a method to obtain holiness
pop pop
11-24-2004, 09:44 PM
I've only glanced at this thread since I last posted in it. It appears to have diverged from the original topic somewhat.
Anyway, here's a link to a news story related to where this started:
Declaration of Independence Banned in CA School (http://www.reuters.com/printerFriendlyPopup.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6911883)
classicsoftware
11-25-2004, 02:17 PM
I've only glanced at this thread since I last posted in it. It appears to have diverged from the original topic somewhat.
Anyway, here's a link to a news story related to where this started:
Declaration of Independence Banned in CA School (http://www.reuters.com/printerFriendlyPopup.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6911883)
Well Pop-Pop:
This is what drives me out of my mind. Those poor poor persecuted christians, who have no idea what persecution is. I will bet you a contribution to the charity of your choice, this teacher is using the founding documents to teach Christianity in his class room. Teachers teach the cirriculum assigned to them by the School Board. The School Board is usually elected by the local population.
The founders were men of of extraordinary faith and widsom. They fully understood the need for society to allow people of faith to bring their religious points of view to the country. What they were trying to prevent was the country/government bringing a religious point of view to the people. That is why they left England. It is also why we have Sunday School. We also have private religious schools for those who want more religious instruction.
Let's see how this plays out.....
pop pop
11-26-2004, 11:35 AM
I understand you point ... to a point. If the teacher is indeed using a US history class to teach Christianity in a public school, that's not allowed, end of discussion. If it is otherwise, meaning an activist principle/school board deciding that only "certain" parts of history will be taught, that is also wrong. Of course, some could argue that teaching only "certain" parts is the way it should be in a publicly funded school AND if you don't like it, send your kids to private school. Which then opens up the whole tax use issue. Very complicated.
(snipped)
The founders were men of of extraordinary faith and widsom. They fully understood the need for society to allow people of faith to bring their religious points of view to the country.
We really need to be watchful of how we use words like religion and faith here. The founding fathers were men of extraordinary Christian faith and wisdom, and in some discussion circles at the time there were those that were contemplating whether blacks and Jews 'had souls.' Religion in those days with those people meant something different--it was synonymous with Christianity, this is why Jews and blacks were so badly discriminated against--to put it mildly--for almost two centuries here. There were those who spoke in universal terms, andthose who did not. There were those who worked for universal freedoms, and there were those that only talked about it. But religion in those days meant Christianity--it was taken for granted as such.
What they were trying to prevent was the country/government bringing a religious point of view to the people. That is why they left England. It is also why we have Sunday School. We also have private religious schools for those who want more religious instruction. Let's see how this plays out.....
True, but their idea of religious freedom meant, for the greater part, freedom from being impressed into the Church of England, and from being discriminated against for successfuly resisting that participation by being a member of another denomination of Christianity, not just another religion. Another religion and its community, such as Judaism, was not considered on par with the Christian Community as such. Although individually the people saw the benefit of good relations on certain levels, thank God.
I'm not so much concerned about that as I am concerned about an erosion of a 'neutrality' of the public institutions: schools, public property, civil service buildings, the media-- electronic media particularly-- and also and primarily in the minds of the people. There is, IMHO, a great lean towards invalidating Christianity and anyne who is Christian in the major media, especially the electronic media. It's not so much the discriminatory and invalidative attitude--as it it the loss of the neutrality. It is the same loss of neutrality that prevented Abe Fortas from being appointed Cheif Justice of the Supreme Court.
I think we had something like that going for a while and it seems to be eroding with a new edge to it--discrimination against Christians, associating the 'Christian right' with anything Christian, church-going, and bizarre alterations of Christianity like the kkk, militant (supposed) Christianity, and nazism.
To move to a true condition of non-discrimination we have to have two things going for us: #1. we have to move from a condition of wanting to know what is true regardless of how outlandish it may sound to us (so all-knowing are we), and regardless of who or where it comes from, and #2. we have to invoke, in writing if necessary, our most fundamental human right--the right to be left alone, and it's concomittal obligation to cleanse ourselves of and remain free of any and all forms of prejudiced discrimination. Which brings us back to wanting to know what is true. . . .
:cool:
edit = errors
vBulletin v3.6.1, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.