Christmas

[SirRumpole]

I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with..

I suppose I'm disagreeing with the statement

However, Christians who wish to partake in religious ceremonies and festivities would be inconvenienced as they would need to take additional days off work to observe those rituals. By matching some public holidays with major Christian religious events, Christians are been afforded the opportunity to observe their rituals without needing to take additional days off work.

Implying that governments either State or Federal should pander to a particular religious group in the allocation of public holidays, which is why I suggest that either "religious" holidays should be deleted altogether meaning Christians would have to use part of their annual leave to observe their own personal beliefs, or everyone gets extra days leave which they can use at a time convenient to them without a disruption to the economy caused by everyone taking a day off at the same time.

 

[Tom32]

I reckon Christmas and Easter given they have been part of the western calendar of holidays for ages is rather like buying on a golf coarse. You bought in when you were born here / moved here so don't complain about the inconvenience.

Whether you observe them or not is up to the individual.

at the end of the day you get a day off so it isn't like it's totally inconvenient for Muslims / atheists to get the time off.

They have enough annual leave to observe any additional festivities they require.

 

[McLovin]

I suppose I'm disagreeing with the statement



Implying that governments either State or Federal should pander to a particular religious group in the allocation of public holidays, which is why I suggest that either "religious" holidays should be deleted altogether meaning Christians would have to use part of their annual leave to observe their own personal beliefs, or everyone gets extra days leave which they can use at a time convenient to them without a disruption to the economy caused by everyone taking a day off at the same time.

Get rid of Easter, move the four day weekend to October or something. It's always raining at Easter. And Easter is not celebrated the way Christmas is.

 

[ghotib]

No, Luutzu, I am not being unfair.

This country was built on our Christian Heritage.
As has been said, the Lord's Prayer is still said in Parliament.

Christmas is a part of our culture, our tradition and our history.
Leave it alone.

Of course people can celebrate as they choose, it is about family.

This all started with our pathetic Victorian Labor/Greens Government, and the state school system, when they tried to ban carols that have been a part of this country all along.
<SNIP>

Tink, Your case might be stronger if your history was better.

Wikipedia lists about 90 Christmas carols with English lyrics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christmas_carols. Of these, about 75 were published in the 19th century or later. The "carols that have been a part of this country all along" (i.e. since European settlement) do NOT include such favorites as Silent Night, Angels We Have Heard on High, The First Nowell, or the English translation of O Come All Ye Faithful.

It's true that the carols themselves might be older, sometimes much older, than their publication. But a major reason for the 19th century interest in collecting folk music was that it was disappearing. I think it's likely that carols brought to Australia before (say) 1810 were just as vulnerable to changing circumstances and fashion here as they were in the British Isles. It's worth noting that many older carols had already been adapted, reworked, and repurposed before being locked down in print. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_carol

As for bans, well I'd love to stick one on White Christmas. Is there anything stupider than crowds of sweating Australians groaning out a mournful dirge about being homesick for a Christmas blizzard?. But I can always stick my fingers in my ears.

 

[Tisme]

http://www.carols.org.uk/index-new-carols.htm

 

[luutzu]

No, Luutzu, I am not being unfair.

This country was built on our Christian Heritage.
As has been said, the Lord's Prayer is still said in Parliament.

Christmas is a part of our culture, our tradition and our history.
Leave it alone.

Of course people can celebrate as they choose, it is about family.

This all started with our pathetic Victorian Labor/Greens Government, and the state school system, when they tried to ban carols that have been a part of this country all along.

Christmas carol ban is out of tune with society.
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...t=25726&page=6&p=893399&viewfull=1#post893399

They received a backlash from the public in disgust, and then they tried to back peddle, that it was not true.
More lies.

Christmas is about love, hope, joy and family.

Another beautiful Carol from the Nativity story.

You were saying that it's people like him that's destroying Australia right?
I think you mean destroying Australia's heritage - that heritage being Christian and free and liberal and the good stuff.

To paraphrase US Vice-president Biden, we all want a better, richer, fairer... greater country - we just do it in different ways. While Biden might have been wrong since he was referring to politicians, but that's another argument for another day

With regards to the Atheists and politicians who separated the Church from affairs of state, or who agree with its principles... they don't do it to destroy the country, they do it to preserve and take it to a better future (there are special interests and places to be filled with the priests and bishops removed, but let's assume all politicians were noble with good intention for the plebs)...

So while a part of Australia's culture and heritage may be destroy or made less significant with that separation... just because something was prominently there before does not mean it ought to remain prominent there forever.

Australia and its colonies were founded on more than just Christianity and Christian values... was also founded on racism, genocide and total disregard for the legal definition of inhabited land.

We've discarded most of the foundation principles and beliefs... mainly because genocide is not that acceptable, racism and discrimination not so good; voters can only be the landed gentry - well that's essentially the same now as then...

To quote Han Fei Tzu, "to change or not to change is not important; what is important is whether the change is good and beneficial."

So how does removing the Church's influence over Australian politics harmful to Australia? How does it destroy the country or even its foundations?

As VC and others have also pointed out... by removing Christianity/Church from Australian politics, the country has actually live up to and moved a bit closer to the teachings of Christ - to care for the poor; to help the beaten and robbed; to be good to thy neighbour.

Does it really matter if these teachings of Christ are met without having some guy in a pointy hat advising or giving approval?

----

So Christmas and Christian values; Western civilisation and all its benefits can be attain without Bishops.. .how does that destroy the country?

All the countries and gov't that is religious are all stuffed. There's those Islamic theoracies, then there's Israel with its drive for purity Judeo stuff, redrawing the map according to the Bible...

 

[Tom32]

With regards to the Atheists and politicians who separated the Church from affairs of state, or who agree with its principles... they don't do it to destroy the country, they do it to preserve and take it to a better future.

...

at the risk of sounding like tony abbot it wasn't actually atheists and politicians who were mostly responsible for this idea of separation of powers but Christians themselves esp Martin Luther.

Even before this the church mostly wanted this seperation so that kings did not decide who the next bishop was etc. ie to keep state out of the church.

in my view a secular society can still have a place for carols in the classroom. Indeed I don't think the majority of Muslims living in Australia would even take issue with it, understanding that this is part of our culture.

I actually think we can be less apologetic for our culture as they are more understanding than we are being led to believe (from what I can tell?).

It is way too politically correct to think singing songs about JC is going to offend people.

 

[Tink]

Good to see your posts, Tom, and I agree.

Freedom from the Government imposing on the Church, and then tyranny.

 

[Tisme]

You were saying that it's people like him that's destroying Australia right?
...

Probably a true statement. Like any society there are builders and there are vandals and in between the majority acquiesce. VC is a vandal and probably does so because it feels right to him at this period in his life...later on when he looks at the ashes he might lament his bravado, or might applaud because things are better for him.

There is no doubt that people tend to start off gungho but gradually deteriorate into conservatism as the wick on their life force dies down. Knocking religion is an easy way of shouting out frustration at nothing better to shout down, which is why I do it so often.

There can be no denying our nation is rooted on the Church of England brand of religion as spiritual and ethical guidance to the rule of law. That's just common sense given the head of state was and still is the governor of the Church and rules by the grace of God....even our Royal Anthem tells God to save her for us. Even the UK govt has reserved seats for the clergy.

I view people coming to this land as invited guests and it is an impudence on their part to criticise and tear down the fabric of our society that extended a feeding hand to them. I reckon it's that indignation and the lay down misere govts we have that drives us to look to the various churches as flag bearers of preservation of our culture over the knuckle dragging primates that have infested our shores. Peace brothers

 

[Tink]

Thanks, ghotib, I enjoyed reading that history.

I was glad to hear you were against banning, and this doesn't just mean Christmas Carols in education, this means Classical Music and the others too, which if I remember, you like just as much.
Have they banned that too?

In my last post, I mentioned, Freedom from the Government that was set up by the founding fathers.

Our Western Laws, which are based on religious morality (Judeo-Christian), was set up so the Government could not impose on the Church and the people, and then create tyranny.
Just thought I would clear that up.

 

[McLovin]

Our Western Laws, which are based on religious morality (Judeo-Christian), was set up so the Government could not impose on the Church and the people, and then create tyranny.
Just thought I would clear that up.

And vice-versa.

 

[nickg198]

Hi Everyone

Hope! All are good.

Let me know how's going Christmas

 

[Tink]

And vice-versa.

So with this freedom from Government, and this separation of Church and State that they set up, where the State couldn't impose on the laws --

Do you want more government control in your life?
or are you advocating to be able to repel murder, theft etc, because they have a religious basis?

 

[McLovin]

So with this freedom from Government, and this separation of Church and State that they set up, where the State couldn't impose on the laws --

Do you want more government control in your life?
or are you advocating to be able to repel murder, theft etc, because they have a religious basis?

What on Earth are you talking about?

 

[luutzu]

at the risk of sounding like tony abbot it wasn't actually atheists and politicians who were mostly responsible for this idea of separation of powers but Christians themselves esp Martin Luther.

Even before this the church mostly wanted this seperation so that kings did not decide who the next bishop was etc. ie to keep state out of the church.

in my view a secular society can still have a place for carols in the classroom. Indeed I don't think the majority of Muslims living in Australia would even take issue with it, understanding that this is part of our culture.

I actually think we can be less apologetic for our culture as they are more understanding than we are being led to believe (from what I can tell?).

It is way too politically correct to think singing songs about JC is going to offend people.

Risk of sounding like Captain Abbott is a very big risk Tom. Not many things are worth that risk brother

Your points regarding separation of Church/State being proposed by The Church itself or by Christians... That might be true in some instances, like those you mentioned. But while correct in some aspect and specific examples, it's a very narrow and incomplete when we talk about separation to make a state secular instead of being theocratic.

So, from wikipedia, we can point to Martin Luther and his reformation against corrupt religious leaders all the way to the Pope in Rome as a separation; or Henry with many wives separating from the Pope.

But they simply separate from one Church to establish another, "better" one - with them at the head.

So there's no real separation.

"Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." - Frederick Douglass

We can go into the details but I agree with Douglass... To think that Bishops and the Church just give up its power and influence... that's too much of a fairytale.

 

[Tom32]

Risk of sounding like Captain Abbott is a very big risk Tom. Not many things are worth that risk brother

Your points regarding separation of Church/State being proposed by The Church itself or by Christians... That might be true in some instances, like those you mentioned. But while correct in some aspect and specific examples, it's a very narrow and incomplete when we talk about separation to make a state secular instead of being theocratic.

So, from wikipedia, we can point to Martin Luther and his reformation against corrupt religious leaders all the way to the Pope in Rome as a separation; or Henry with many wives separating from the Pope.

But they simply separate from one Church to establish another, "better" one - with them at the head.

So there's no real separation.

"Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." - Frederick Douglass

We can go into the details but I agree with Douglass... To think that Bishops and the Church just give up its power and influence... that's too much of a fairytale.

The powerful within the church as you point out would likely be for maintaining the status quo.

The outcome toward the end of the reformation is that while kings could still choose the state religion the people could worship any (Christian) religion they chose within these kingdoms.

Prior to this kings and the chosen religion would persecute people of other religions (as tink calls it tyranny).

While I don't think allowing the state powers over church like gay marriage within a church (this is not being proposed only use it to illustrate my point) that Australia would revert to a fascist or tyrannical state however the church is as resistant to mixing political and religious power as the state should be.

Guess I only made that initial post to point out in 16th - 17th century Europe when these issues of church and state were being fleshed out they were not being fleshed out by politicians and atheists by enlarge by Christians.

Indeed the first yanks who developed their famous constitution allowing freedom of religion were only putting into words these same points developed in Europe and further all of them would almost certainly of all been Christians.

your point is true though that it was not generally the powerful (at times chosen by kings) in the existing church who were pushing for reform it was however the Christian people and reformers within the church.

Final point, I would agree that in general those with power don't like to give it up. I prefer Douglas Adams quote though as it distinguishes those who pursue power at first instance. From hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy (wont let me cut and paste so I am linking to it)

http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/29690.html

Para: those most suited to rule are those least likely to pursue power.

 

[pixel]

From hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy (wont let me cut and paste so I am linking to it)

here it is (to copy/paste, use view-source:http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/29690.html )

One of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them: It is a well known fact, that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. Anyone who is capable of getting themselves into a position of power should on no account be allowed to do the job.
Another problem with governing people is people.

I like especially the last sentence :

 

[Tom32]

here it is (to copy/paste, use view-source:http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/29690.html )I like especially the last sentence :

Thanks for that pixel.

I recently drove across the Nullarbor and listened to the whole hitchhikers guide again. drove the entire family nuts though my oldest daughter liked the idea of dolphins being the smart ones.

Been using Douglas Adams quotes daily since arriving in Sydney.

 

[luutzu]

The powerful within the church as you point out would likely be for maintaining the status quo.

The outcome toward the end of the reformation is that while kings could still choose the state religion the people could worship any (Christian) religion they chose within these kingdoms.

Prior to this kings and the chosen religion would persecute people of other religions (as tink calls it tyranny).

While I don't think allowing the state powers over church like gay marriage within a church (this is not being proposed only use it to illustrate my point) that Australia would revert to a fascist or tyrannical state however the church is as resistant to mixing political and religious power as the state should be.

I think the Church, like all organised interest groups and religion, would want political power. They are not at all resistant to having direct or indirect hold and influence at all. How else could they not get taxed from their income and donations?

Guess I only made that initial post to point out in 16th - 17th century Europe when these issues of church and state were being fleshed out they were not being fleshed out by politicians and atheists by enlarge by Christians.

Indeed the first yanks who developed their famous constitution allowing freedom of religion were only putting into words these same points developed in Europe and further all of them would almost certainly of all been Christians.

WHile they might have been Christians or raised as Christians... their decision to separate God from State/politics were not done out of Faith but done for political power of their own.

Napoleon did crown himself emperor and not let some Bishop did put it on him. Jefferson and Paine learn from Europe and avoided titles, monarchies, nobilities... and from Rome the freedom of religion as long as the subject pay their taxes.

They don't write their Constitution because that's how the Bible would have wanted it.

your point is true though that it was not generally the powerful (at times chosen by kings) in the existing church who were pushing for reform it was however the Christian people and reformers within the church.

Final point, I would agree that in general those with power don't like to give it up. I prefer Douglas Adams quote though as it distinguishes those who pursue power at first instance. From hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy (wont let me cut and paste so I am linking to it)

http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/29690.html

Para: those most suited to rule are those least likely to pursue power.

That's true. That's why I'm not in power... I would make a great tyrant

 

[luutzu]

here it is (to copy/paste, use view-source:http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/29690.html )I like especially the last sentence :

That's right on I think.

Problem is who's going to tell them they shouldn't have that much power and aren't suited to the job