### Apollo BBS Archive - December 21 - 28, 1988

    $tatus Club Bulletin Board command:$C

    Message: 4974
    Author: $ Jim Lippard
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: 4694/4695
    Date: 12/22/88  Time: 15:30:33

    As Beau said, I've lost my ability to call Apollo for free from Tucson,
    which means I'll only be logging in regularly between semesters.

    Message: 4975
    Author: $ James Taranto
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Westfall
    Date: 12/22/88  Time: 18:26:57

    You're married?  But you're just a kid.

    Message: 4976
    Author: $ Sandy SYSOP
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Merry Christmas
    Date: 12/22/88  Time: 19:04:04

            Should have wished you all a Merry Christmas before I went out today
    to finish my shopping. GRRRRRRRRRRRRR!

            It is not worth it. The true meaning of Christmas is so far buried
    in our commercialized society ....... I wonder.

    Message: 4977
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Yes, But...
    Date: 12/22/88  Time: 21:55:25

    We were ALL pizza delivery men once.

    Message: 4978
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Ann
    Date: 12/23/88  Time: 05:22:14

    But why should they celebrate the birth of the Prince of Peace in whom they
    do not believe? Or why should they take a holiday that honors a cause to
    which they are so antagonistic? Doesn't that make them the hypocrites they
    so often accuse Christians of being?
     I know many people of the Jewish faith who have the courtesy and respect to
    fill in and take over for those Christians who otherwise would have to work
    onChristmas day. THis happens often in the nursing profession, in many
    restaurants that stay open on the holiday, etc. I have never heard of an
    atheist being so considerate, or doing anything concerning a Christian but
    ridicule, insult and demean. The least they can do is be consistent and
    refuse to accept the holiday in any way, shape or form.

    Message: 4979
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Sandy
    Date: 12/23/88  Time: 05:25:50

    Even though what you say is true, that the real meaning of Christmas is
    buried in commercialism in our society, it doesn't have to be lost in your
    heart. May the love and peace that the Christ child brought into the
    darkness of a sin-sick world brighten your life, both at Christmas and
    through the coming year as well. God bless you, Cliff and your boys.

    Message: 4980
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Paul/Christmas
    Date: 12/23/88  Time: 07:18:44

    What would you suggest - they Not exchange gifts - not have family get
    togethers - totally ignore Dec. 25th? How about them going into hiding
    during the holidays and hiding their faces in shame? Remember - it can be
    celebrated just as a holiday that was patterned after St. Nicolas - a monk
    that gave away gifts to the people. And why wouldn't athiests want to
    celebrate Peace and good will towards men?
    I see no difference between Christians and Athiests where it comes to
    consideration. Looks like you need to get a little of the Christmas spirit
    yourself with all the digs and condemnation you have for your fellow man!
    Think about it Paul - here you are - a professed Christian - wishing
    everyone a Merry Christmas but the athiests! I think that's inconsistent.
    -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 4982
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Paul/Atheistmas
    Date: 12/23/88  Time: 09:07:51

    I know of one atheist's celebration of Christmas that may change her entire
    life as she knows it. Read the  SIG for details.

    Message: 4983
    Author: $ Jim Lippard
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: celebration
    Date: 12/23/88  Time: 10:42:56

    As many Christians have been known to note with dismay, most people's
    celebration of Christmas has absolutely nothing to do with the birth of
    Jesus.  Paul, you say "why should they take a holiday that honors a cause to
    which they are so antagonistic?"  Why not?  The Christians adopted the
    holiday in exactly the same way from pagan religions in the first place.

    Message: 4984
    Author: $ Sandy SYSOP
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Ann on Paul
    Date: 12/23/88  Time: 13:46:02

            The non-believers, many of them I am sure, want to wish Peace and
    Good Will. Their wishes stem from a humanistic point of view. God, the
    Bible, Christ's birth, death, and resurrection are not part of a
    non-believer. They would be wishing a 'Peace on Earth and Good Will Towards
    Men' from a non-Christian view. They trust in themselves for all this peace
    and good will.
            Christian wishes for a 'Peace on Earth and Good Will Towards Men'
    stems from God and the Bible. Their trust lies with God, not in themselves.
    So, I suppose a non-Christian can wish for peace and good will ........
    it just seems odd that they would wish such things when the Christians do as
    they celebrate the birth of Jesus our Saviour.
            I am sure the non-Christian wishes have no thought or intention to
    lean towards the 'True Meaning of Christmas' ..... my complaint would be
    the insinuations made by their wishes.

    Message: 4985
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Ann
    Date: 12/24/88  Time: 04:34:42

    What's inconsistent? It would be inconsistent to wish someone a Merry
    CHRISTmas who didn't believe in the reason for the season. The very word
    lifts up the entity they so abhor. Wishing an atheist a Merry CHRISTmas
    would be tantamount to wishing a Christian a happy Satan's Day, were there
    such a thing.

    Message: 4986
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Paul/last
    Date: 12/24/88  Time: 08:24:42

    I not only say that it's inconsistant - but it doesn't make a bit of sense.
    Athiests love their families - buy tons of gifts for them - buy and decorate
    a tree - wrap presants - send Christmas cards to friends and relatives - and
    wish others a Merry Christmas! Now here you are - a professed Christian and
    you can't find it within yourself to wish an athiest a Merry Christmas???  I
    find that inconsistant and un-Christian! I wish everybody a Merry Christmas
    because I wish it to be so! -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 4987
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Jim/Christmas
    Date: 12/24/88  Time: 10:08:15

    But still, why do atheists continue to call their celebration Christmas? You
    would think (I would think, at least) that it would offend them. Maybe call
    it "St. Nicolas Day" or something.

    Message: 4988
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Paul/4985
    Date: 12/24/88  Time: 10:17:08

    There's where I think you are wrong. Atheism is not (in as far as I've ever
    seen) equivalent to Satanism. Many atheists don't believe in God, but that
    doesn't mean that they seethe with hatred at the mere mention of Him (at
    least I would hope the majority would not.)

    I would say that the majority of us (both Christians and atheists) no longer
    believe in Santa Claus, but how many of us have some pictorial reference to
    Santa in our house this year? (Be it a door hanging, or even some wrapping
    paper we may have used to wrap gifts with. But knowing that Santa is not
    real, does not make us lash out in anger at the mentioning of the name.

    In other words, it is pointless for an atheist to get upset over a God
    he/she does not believe exists. It would be much like getting upset over
    nothing!

    (Ah, but WE know different, don't we Paul? *nudge* Merry CHRISTmas to you!)

    Message: 4989
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: Debate / dispute
    Subject: Daryl....
    Date: 12/24/88  Time: 10:56:16

            You are correct about it offending them.....  I believe that soon,
    after they get rid of "In God We Trust", there will be a Jim Lippard some
    where that will bring suit to have the word "CHIST" taken out of CHRISTmas.
    It's all part of their 'destruction' of the Christian religion, and atheists
    are nibbling away at our rights under some phony guise about their rights.
            As for wishing them a "Merry Christmas"...  If I know they are
    atheists, I just wish them "Happy Holidays".... as that encompasses
    Christmas and New Years.
            (However, that does not even work for Rod...as he does not believe
    in time so there can be no "NEW-YEAR".)
            But I agree with Paul... How can an atheist possably understand the
    JOY of CHRISTmas?
            But I wish EVERYONE well this Holiday Season!

    *=* SYSOP Cliff *=*

    Message: 4990
    Author: $ Jim Lippard
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Daryl
    Date: 12/24/88  Time: 11:29:47

    Many secularists simply use "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas",
    while others talk about the Winter Solstice.
       As for use of "Christmas", it is a convenient label for Dec. 25th.  The
    reason atheists continue to use the name is the same reason they continue to
    use "God" in swearing, or "A.D." in reference to the calendar year.  It's
    simply a social convention.  We use many words without regard to their
    original meanings, that's just part of how language works.

    Message: 4991
    Author: $ James Taranto
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Lippard
    Date: 12/24/88  Time: 15:27:43

    Then why not relax about things like Nativity scenes and "In God We Trust"
    and count them as social convention?

    Message: 4992
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: last!
    Date: 12/24/88  Time: 19:56:03

    Because, Lippard has no other meaning in life other than to spread lies
    and hate about a God he doesn't believe in. Now he wants a Phd in an
    area undefinable by its nature, so that people will give him credibility-
    the same gullible types who might start to believe his hate trash about
    Jesus Christ and wanting "In God We Trust" removed from the currency.
    Eventually they'll win..I hope they do soon because it will be a very
    short-lived "success".
    Notice how Jim likes to dance around the things he doesn't want to think
    about and attempts to call up "facts" that represent opposition in another
    direction.
    Sure, he'll spend hours digging up stuff he calls proof....but if it was
    FACTS, if it is PROOF, then he wouldn't spend so much effort in trying
    to convince you . No, Daryl says it right, why would anyone show so much
    hatred against something so little about something they claim they don't
    believe in , in the first place?
    Answer; because they haven't yet faced the real truth and don't want to.

                                    -Mike

    Message: 4993
    Author: $ James Taranto
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Last
    Date: 12/24/88  Time: 20:54:07

    Oh, that explains it.

    Message: 4994
    Author: $ Jim Lippard
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: 4991/Taranto
    Date: 12/24/88  Time: 21:56:44

    It's fine as long as it isn't done with my tax dollars.

    Message: 4995
    Author: $ Jim Lippard
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Carter
    Date: 12/24/88  Time: 21:57:31

    You're probably the most hate-filled person I know.

    Message: 4996
    Author: $ David Burkhart
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: last
    Date: 12/25/88  Time: 00:51:20

    I have to agree with you there, even if you are a Godless sinner who will
    burn in hell.
    Oops, almost forgot -- Merry Christmas.

    Message: 4997
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Jim/4994
    Date: 12/25/88  Time: 02:14:40

            No Jim, It's my TAX dollars.   Your TAX dollars are used to
    process trifle type law suits.  I don't like my money spent on Nuclear power
    plants, so we all have problems, don't we?

    *=* SYSOP Cliff *=*

    Message: 4998
    Author: $ Alan Hamilton
    Category: Believe it or not!
    Subject: Today
    Date: 12/25/88  Time: 05:06:49

         Simply because I don't believe in God or Jesus Christ doesn't mean I
    want everone to be miserable today.  So, I *do* wish you all have a merry
    Christmas, for whatever reason.
         I celebrate Christmas as a folk holiday.  Christmas trees, wrapped
    gifts, colored light and Santa Claus are not Christian in origin, and I
    enjoy all of them.  I even like listening to Christmas carols, even the
    religious ones, simply because I like the way they sound.
         So Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Joyous Yule, Happy Holidays, and
    have a Happpy New Year.

         /
     /  *  /  Alan
    *     *

    Message: 4999
    Author: $ James Taranto
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Hamilton
    Date: 12/25/88  Time: 16:17:13

    What a stirring holiday tribute.

    Message: 5001
    Author: $ James Taranto
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Lippard
    Date: 12/25/88  Time: 16:18:19

    So, how much tax money do you suppose would be saved by the removal of "In
    God We Trust" from U.S. currency?

    Message: 5002
    Author: $ Jim Lippard
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: last
    Date: 12/25/88  Time: 17:34:58

    Probably none.  But some would certainly be saved by a government policy of
    not spending money to promote religion.

    Message: 5003
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: last
    Date: 12/25/88  Time: 18:20:48

    Wrong. There'd be a whole bunch spent because there would have to
    be an almost complete retrofit at the MINT and the plates used to print
    the bills and forms or molds and stamps and presses changed for the
    coins. Now a days there would have to be a LOT of tax dollars spent
    because you'd have the watchdog groups battling each other over hwo it was
    done and the bankroll for all the lawyers etc et al.

    Yep, as long as there's fools out there who beleive that they own
    the rights to everyone's TAX dollars, there'll be more of it wasted.

    Message: 5004
    Author: $ James Taranto
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Lippard
    Date: 12/25/88  Time: 18:54:23

    Carter is right, of course, despite his crude argumentation.  If the
    government adopted such a policy, someone would have to make the decisions
    as to what constituted "promotion of religion."  No doubt there would be
    disagreements about the interpretation of this policy, and if it were
    written into law, those disagreements would find their way into court.  The
    government would, of course, spend tax money paying lawyers to defend its
    position.  Now, suppose the following happened:  The government decided to
    fund some program after a determination by the bureaucrat in charge of
    administering this policy that it did not promote religion.  The ACLU then
    sued the government, claiming that the government's position was wrong and
    the program did indeed promote religion.  The ACLU prevailed at the District
    Court level.  Now, if the government is promoting religion by funding this
    program, it must also be promoting religion by defending its funding of the
    program, so, if the trial judge's opinion is correct, the government is
    violating its policy by defending its judgment in court.  Presumably,
    though, the government would still be allowed to appeal, but if the Supreme
    Court (or the Circuit Court if the case doesn't get that high) agrees with
    the ACLU, then the government has compounded the initial violation by
    spending all the money it takes to defend itself in this litigation.  So, a
    policy against spending government money to promote religion could result in
    the government spending even more money to promote religion.

    It is one thing to set forth a goal (i.e., saving money by not spending
    money to promote religion) and another thing to achieve the goal.  I am
    not convinced that your proposed policy would attain the goal.  Moreover, I
    question your motives in setting forth the goal; if your desire is to
    decrease federal spending, I can think of scores of better ways of doing
    that than barring the government from spending money promoting religion.
    Obviously your real aim is to undermine religion, or at least to distance
    the government from it.  In that case, we must ask:  Why?  What purpose is
    served by a crusade against any mingling between religious values and the
    state?  Whose rights are violated if the government, for example, sponsors a
    Nativity scene in a public park, or places the motto "In God We Trust" on
    currency?  As far as I can tell, no one's.  It seems that your objection to
    government promotion of religion is simply that you don't like religion.
    The government does not exist to suit your whims -- yet your whim seems to
    be the only justification you have for your position.  You have yet even to
    attempt to explain what public interest is served by a radical attempt to
    purge public life of any vestige of religion.

    Message: 5006
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Atheists/Cliff
    Date: 12/25/88  Time: 22:33:29

    For an atheist to try to remove the CHRIST (in name, at least) from
    Christmas would probably do more to harm their movement than to help it.
    Plus the Christmas holiday is not a Government-ordained function, so there
    is nothing they can do about it.

    Message: 5007
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Jim/Words
    Date: 12/25/88  Time: 22:35:16

    Well, you mention that we use many words without regard to their original
    meanings. Well, how many people do you know that, upon picking up any
    currency, immediately start praising the Lord because of the phrase "In God
    We Trust?" To many, the phrase has just become part of the decoration on our
    currency. Not a threat.

    Message: 5008
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: James/5001
    Date: 12/25/88  Time: 22:38:01

    Well, figure the amount of green ink used to print those four words, times
    the billions of notes printed each year.........heh heh heh!

    Message: 5009
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Music
    Subject: Music?
    Date: 12/25/88  Time: 22:40:50

    This is in re: to Mike's comment on the expenses involved with new currency.

    Well, they've been discussing a new currency for quite some time now.
    Perhaps a bill printed on watermarked paper with different colors for each
    denomination. Everyone who owned currency in the old (green) denominations
    would have to exchange it in for the new. (And just how much money do YOU
    have stored away that they Government will never know about...until then?)

    Message: 5010
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Christmas
    Date: 12/25/88  Time: 23:28:15

    What do you mean, it is not a government-ordained function? It is a federal
    holiday.

    Message: 5011
    Author: $ Jim Lippard
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Daryl
    Date: 12/26/88  Time: 00:20:32

    The point was is that there is nothing unusual about atheists using the term
    "Christmas" without being offended, any more than there is anything unusual
    about Christians using the name of a Norse goddess for their most
    significant holiday (Easter).

    Message: 5012
    Author: $ Jim Lippard
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Taranto
    Date: 12/26/88  Time: 00:26:10

    Actually, you have things slightly backwards.  I think *any* function of
    government requires justification.  You are taking the view that what we
    have is more or less justified and we need arguments to trim parts of it
    away, while my view is that we should start assuming that nothing is
    justified and add to that only what can be justified.
       Thus my argument treats promotion of religion no different than promotion
    of sports or anything else.  In a properly minimal government, it is
    doubtful that such situations as you describe would arise, since it is
    doubtful that there would be public parks or government currency,
    let alone government Christmas creches or government religious mottos.
       There is, of course, the pragmatic question of whether or not such things
    as ACLU lawsuits against the currency slogan are steps towards
    minimalization of government, and it may well be the case that they are not,
    for reasons such as you have given.
       I tend to argue politics regarding the way things should be ideally,
    rather than how to get there from here.  It's a common libertarian failing.

    Message: 5013
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Wait...
    Date: 12/26/88  Time: 09:10:44

    By letting government employees have a day off for a holiday that has become
    ALMOST as important in secular circles as well as Christian circles.
    My father works for the City. He didn't get off for Christmas. All the day
    off does is offer a day off on a holiday celebrated by Christians and
    atheists alike (though for different reasons). By giving you that day off
    from work, they are not FORCING you in any way to celebrate or partake in
    any way, shape, or form in the Christmas holiday. You could go to a bar, get
    pissed and shout Bah Humbug until your throat went hoarse. It would make no
    difference to the government. Tell me, why do we continue to give our
    federal employees Veterans Day off? Or State? Or Bank? It's much the same as
    Christmas in a few aspects; most of the original intent has been lost, and
    it has become more of a picnic and department store-saleabration day than a
    day to honor our war veterans, living and passed on. As for Christmas, by
    forcing Christians to work on Christmas, it would be denying them their
    religious freedom to celebrate Christ's birth in a manner that they see fit.
    If the atheists want to work on religious holidays, I say they take it to
    the courts. If they wanna work on Christmas and Easter, LET EM! But I don't
    think you will see any of them giving up a day from work to do as they
    please (many of them WITH PAY).

    Message: 5014
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Idea for thought
    Subject: Jim/Easter
    Date: 12/26/88  Time: 09:12:19

    Hm, I never knew that. Perhaps there should be a Christian movement to
    rename the holiday "Ascension Day."

    Message: 5015
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Jim/Relig./Sports
    Date: 12/26/88  Time: 09:14:50

    Hm, though some people might consider a last-second touchdown to be a
    religious experience, I can with all sincerity say that I have not. Heh. I
    detest sporting events. Actually, the closest common denominator I can see
    linking sports and religion is Television Evangelists and Pro Wrestling.

    Message: 5016
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Daryl/colored money
    Date: 12/26/88  Time: 10:05:37

    There's a good answer for that Re: the goverment finding out how much you
    have stored away - buy silver instead. -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 5017
    Author: $ James Taranto
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Lippard
    Date: 12/26/88  Time: 20:02:59

    Naturally I agree with you that the burden of justification is on the one
    promoting government action rather than the one disagreeing with it.  If,
    for example, this were an argument about whether the government should print
    money at all, I would say that someone claiming it should would have to
    explain why.  (Incidentally, I have no desire to start such an argument,
    although the Cato Institute has a bunch of very boring-looking publications
    on the subject.  They also had a luncheon on the subject a couple of weeks
    ago, which I was going to attend, but couldn't get a date.)

    There is no way you can argue, however, that removing "In God We Trust" from
    currency would make the government any less powerful.  Prohibiting the
    government from sponsoring a Nativity scene in a public park places one very
    specific limitation on what the government can do, but does not notably
    decrease the power or scope of government.

    I believe that the Establishment Clause is properly interpreted as a
    corrolary to the Free Exercise Clause; that is, government actions which
    "promote" religion are not unconstitutional per se, but are unconstitutional
    if they pass some threshold such that somebody can plausibly claim his
    rights are being violated.  Organized school prayer, for example, is
    unconstitutional, while public displays of Nativity scenes are not.

    The ACLU's interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause is, in my opinion,
    flawed, but it seems harmless enough on its face.  However, in combination
    with the expansive, activist government which we seem more or less stuck
    with, the ACLU's position leads necessarily to a government which is
    actively opposed to religion.  The provision of the Dodd-Kildee Childcare
    Bill that I mentioned earlier is an example of this pernicious effect.

    Message: 5019
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Nativity Scenes
    Date: 12/27/88  Time: 10:10:22

    So, a group of fellow Subgenii and I should be able to raise money to buy a
    huge Dobbshead, complete with pipe, and have it placed on the lawn of City
    Hall on the anniversary of his assassination?  This, of course, would only
    apply to those city halls which allowed nativity scenes?

    Message: 5020
    Author: $ David Burkhart
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: last
    Date: 12/27/88  Time: 15:06:11

    It's OK with me.

    Message: 5021
    Author: $ James Taranto
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Harvey
    Date: 12/27/88  Time: 17:28:50

    If the lawn of City Hall is a public forum, then sure you should.

    Message: 5022
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Last Few...
    Date: 12/27/88  Time: 18:29:30

            I have no problem with that.... go for it!

    *=* SYSOP Cliff *=*

    Message: 5023
    Author: $ Sandy SYSOP
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: IGWT
    Date: 12/28/88  Time: 11:47:31

            I heard rumors amoungst the opponents of religion that when the
    motto 'In God We Trust' on our currency is taken off, because it was
    considered -- fostering a religion -- ...........
            These same opponents will be changing the course of American History
    when, upon their insistance, the Supreme Court removes D, G, and O from our
    alphabet because when arranged in a certan way they will foster religion.

            -h, hum ...... what next, Lippar-?

                            San-y  SyS-p

    Message: 5024
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Currency
    Date: 12/28/88  Time: 17:19:46

      It wouldn't cost anything to exclude religious mottos from future designs.
       See You Later
          Dean H.

    Message: 5025
    Author: $ James Taranto
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Hathaway
    Date: 12/28/88  Time: 17:26:22

    How much would it save?