Christmas Music!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Macfistowannabe said:
It's pretty sad that the cross - which is supposed to symbolize the crucifixion - could offend so many people. I think it has reason to offend the "Jesus never existed" crowd. Other than that, who does it threaten?


it's not that it offends, but that it excludes.

story: when i was a junior in high school, some guy came to our school to play volleyball. he played against the high school team and won. he then played against the entire senior class, and still won. he was a great volleyball player. he then started to lecture about peer pressure and how we should say no to sex and drugs. the metaphor was that an individual can stand up to the group. ta-da. he then concluded his lecture by saying that he would never bring religon into the public schools, but that it was Jesus Christ who inspires him to play volleyball and to lecture teenagers about drugs and sex. this was a public school.

my Hindu friend (and i only call her that because we're talking about religion) wasn't offended, but she said, "it was just one more thing that made me feel different and isoalted from everyone else." the jewish kids felt the same way. had this happened after school, and the audience had been kids who wanted to hear a christian message and were there voluntarily, it would have been 100% appropriate. however, this was a school-wide assembly, participation was mandatory, and to have it conclude with a Christian message, and the school's endorsement of the message by virtue of paying for the speaker and making the assembly mandatory, was indeed inappropriate.

crosses aren't offensive, but they are exclusionary. to put a cross on something -- classroom, post office, or lecture -- is to turn it into something exclusively christian.
 
nbcrusader said:


The all or nothing argument. Doesn't matter what has developed here culturally over the last 200 years......


could you provide an example of what you're talking about?

and over the past 200 years, we've been all about religious tolerance, which has allowed religion to flourish in our society in a way that it hasn't in europe -- and for good reason, as Europeans are rightly suspicous of religion based upon the church's history in Europe.
 
Establishment is not based on the subjective feelings of an individual. Should we redefine our culture on the feelings of the most sensative citizen?
 
nbcrusader said:
Establishment is not based on the subjective feelings of an individual. Should we redefine our culture on the feelings of the most sensative citizen?


can you be more specific? you're also leaping to huge, huge conclusions -- redefine our culture? -- on very abstract notions. an example would tie us back to earth.
 
Please.

School children sing Christmas carols for decades. Now, we should stop (hence redefine) because some claim to feel excluded? We've been on earth discussing this. I'm confused as to where I lost you.
 
firstly, i don't think you can equate stopping something with "redefin[ing] our entire culture." i'm 27, and was singing christmas songs in school over 20 years ago. even then, we never sang "come all ye faithful" or "silent night" because of the overtly religious nature of those songs. the exclusion of specific songs, and the inclusion of others, has been going on for a while, and is hardly a new thing.

secondly, our culture is more diverse than ever, and since the late 1960s we've been accepting immigrants from all over the world in record numbers, many of whom are not Christian. even the 1990s brought vast numbers of immigrants from South Central Asia (and they did rather well in the tech-boom years). America looks differently now than it did 40 years ago. we're more colorful, more diverse, and more interesting. should our culture not change as well? should we not evolve? should we not look back at the mistakes we've made and correct them? why would you knowingly exclude anyone when you don't have to? do non-Christians not pay property taxes that fund public schools and are they not entitled to an inclusive classroom? asking hindu, buddhist, or atheist students to sing "christ the savior is born" is offensive, but what might be worse for an 8 year old would be to have to not sing along and further push her away from her peers.
 
Adding to culture is one thing. To deem the existing culture as "exclusionary" is something else.

The thread is based on a change this year. It appears that Christmas carols were acceptable last year.
 
Last edited:
according to the article: "A long-standing policy banning the singing of Christmas songs with religious references in the South Orange/Maplewood School District has come under scrutiny after the administration clarified the policy recently, saying that it also includes instrumental concerts."

so the real change is that this long-standing policy has been adapted to instrumental concerts as well. seems a logical extention of an existing policy.

crosses and declarations -- not historical references -- about Jesus as a "savior" are, definitionally, exclusive.

again, i'm baffled at this resistance to change. all anyone wants is to feel safe and comfortable at school, to feel as if they have an equal voice and an equally valued opinion, and that their background is neither any better nor any worse than someone else's.

geez, these are 8 year olds. its tough enough for a jew in december with all the grotesque advertising, why make it worse?
 
Irvine511 said:
crosses and declarations -- not historical references -- about Jesus as a "savior" are, definitionally, exclusive.

If you define it that way, then there is no room for discussion.

It all points to erasing why Christmas is celebrated.


And it is quite a stretch to consider the month of December as oppressive to Jews.
 
nbcrusader said:


If you define it that way, then there is no room for discussion.

It all points to erasing why Christmas is celebrated.


And it is quite a stretch to consider the month of December as oppressive to Jews.


most of my friends are jewish or asian, and many of them do dread december.

how else should i define a cross? what else could it represent other than christianity? i think a good analogy here is the American flag. to Americans, we think the flag represents the Englightenment ideals upon which our government is based. we tend to think it is a universal symbol of liberty and freedom, when the rest of the world doesn't respond in the same way. they think it represents the United States, a physical place, not an abstract idea. to non-Christians, the cross means Christianity, plain and simple.

as i've said before, and you may not agree (and i do understand why you don't agree), but Christmas is a multi-dimensional thing that has long ceased to be solely about religion. everyone is aware of why Christmas is celebrated and what it means to Christians, but i don't see why it can't be celebrated in a secular manner as i've detailed in earlier posts.
 
Irvine511 said:



most of my friends are jewish or asian, and many of them do dread december.

how else should i define a cross? what else could it represent other than christianity? i think a good analogy here is the American flag. to Americans, we think the flag represents the Englightenment ideals upon which our government is based. we tend to think it is a universal symbol of liberty and freedom, when the rest of the world doesn't respond in the same way. they think it represents the United States, a physical place, not an abstract idea. to non-Christians, the cross means Christianity, plain and simple.

as i've said before, and you may not agree (and i do understand why you don't agree), but Christmas is a multi-dimensional thing that has long ceased to be solely about religion. everyone is aware of why Christmas is celebrated and what it means to Christians, but i don't see why it can't be celebrated in a secular manner as i've detailed in earlier posts.

So, you want a religious holiday celebrated in a secular manner ?

It's called CHRISTmas for a reason.

If you want another holiday on Dec 25th called "let's all give everyone we care about a present" day, that's fine too, just don't call that particular holiday CHRISTmas
 
Irvine511 said:



go back and read my posts. no, they don't celebrate the birth of christ. but living in American, they celebrate Christmas in a secular fashion -- trees, stockings, reindeer, and santa. jesus has nothing to do with their celebrations. it's a winter carnival to them, and i'm very happy they have a means of celebrating something that literally consumes the entire month of December.

imagine not being Christian for a moment. how would December feel to you?

Well, I guess that if I were willingly living in a primarily Judeo-Christian country, I'd learn to live with it.
 
Is making the world "safe and comfortable" for all sensitivities, opinions, religions, beliefs, etc, etc, really the best thing for humanity?

Or more importantly, what will this ideal cost?
 
cardosino said:


So, you want a religious holiday celebrated in a secular manner ?

It's called CHRISTmas for a reason.

If you want another holiday on Dec 25th called "let's all give everyone we care about a present" day, that's fine too, just don't call that particular holiday CHRISTmas


there's also a reason why we have Xmas. that's where that term comes from, and that's why in the business world, people will refer to the "Xmas holidays" or simply "the holidays."

and, yes, people do celebrate religious holidays in secular manners because these things are social and cultural as well as religious. i was born, baptized and confirmed Catholic, but i've since grown apart from the Church. or, rather, the Church has pushed itself away from me. i celebrate, happily, Christmas and Easter, and i don't give much thought to Christ. trust me, i know where these holidays come from, but the religous aspect is far less important than spending time with my family and taking a small break at the end of the year.
 
stammer476 said:
Is making the world "safe and comfortable" for all sensitivities, opinions, religions, beliefs, etc, etc, really the best thing for humanity?

Or more importantly, what will this ideal cost?


we're not talking about the world, we're talking about the USA. and, yes, for a country that was founded upon religous freedom, the right to worship or not worship as one pleases, it is important that we make room for those who are different from us, just as room was once made for our ancesters (or parents, or whoever) who immigrated to this country once upon a time.

this is what makes our country special. we change and adapt. this land is your land, this land is my land. there will come a day when it is not a predominantly judeo-christian country. there will come a time when english is not the most widely spoken language. and that gets at precisely what makes American culture so dynamic. (indeed, in the 19th century there was a movement to make German the official language due to the huge amount of German immigrants especially in the midwest ... we speak English as custom, but not because it's an official language).
 
Irvine511 said:



there's also a reason why we have Xmas. that's where that term comes from, and that's why in the business world, people will refer to the "Xmas holidays" or simply "the holidays."

and, yes, people do celebrate religious holidays in secular manners because these things are social and cultural as well as religious. i was born, baptized and confirmed Catholic, but i've since grown apart from the Church. or, rather, the Church has pushed itself away from me. i celebrate, happily, Christmas and Easter, and i don't give much thought to Christ. trust me, i know where these holidays come from, but the religous aspect is far less important than spending time with my family and taking a small break at the end of the year.

Personally I think we should adopt the system used by many such multi-cultural nations like Malaysia. Celebrate ALL the holidays. They get all the Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist holy days off. There's no sanitization of any of them, but everyone can respect the other's because everyone gets "their" holiday.

I never understood a Jewish guy I used to work with who'd make a point of working Christmas Day, I'd gladly have taken off Hanukkah if we'd gotten it.
 
I understand the idea behind using the X, but honestly that offends me

I'm not trying to push my personal beliefs on anyone, but it's tough to see PC going overboard and not be offended in some way by that either.
 
Irvine511 said:



we're not talking about the world, we're talking about the USA. and, yes, for a country that was founded upon religous freedom, the right to worship or not worship as one pleases, it is important that we make room for those who are different from us, just as room was once made for our ancesters (or parents, or whoever) who immigrated to this country once upon a time.

this is what makes our country special. we change and adapt. this land is your land, this land is my land. there will come a day when it is not a predominantly judeo-christian country. there will come a time when english is not the most widely spoken language. and that gets at precisely what makes American culture so dynamic. (indeed, in the 19th century there was a movement to make German the official language due to the huge amount of German immigrants especially in the midwest ... we speak English as custom, but not because it's an official language).

So let me see if I understand you. The climax of the American ideal is the inclusion of all. Thus, anything produced by the majority/state that might possibly exclude, offend, or otherwise marginalize an individual must be condemned. Agree?
 
First off, X-mas is a legitimate way to abbreviate Christmas. The X is derived from the Greek alphabet which is 'Chi" which is the first letter of Christ name in the Greek alphabet. In the English language many considet the 'X' to be a logogram that stands for a cross.

Now that we got that out of the way...

"Christmas" the word and the holiday have nothing to do with the Bible. There is not a specific date given in the Bible, the word Christmas, doesn't exist, and everyway we celebrate it has no Biblical roots. Puritans even banned it for several years because it was a "pagean" holiday.

But I think both sides are confusing the point. No one should sanitize their holiday. No one. You celebrate it the way you want to celebrate and no one should stop you. Just not in public buildings or schools, why is this so hard for some of you. These places are not Christian places of worship. If you want your cards, nativity sets, or your presents fine do it your own home or church. None of these mean a thing anyways. Even nativity sets or extremely historically non-representative. They're all commerce.

But if you want them they're yours, just don't force them into the schools or public buildings. Why is everyone so hellbent on forcing your holiday onto people of other beleifs?
 
stammer476 said:


So let me see if I understand you. The climax of the American ideal is the inclusion of all. Thus, anything produced by the majority/state that might possibly exclude, offend, or otherwise marginalize an individual must be condemned. Agree?


oh dear. your rehetorical Jedi mind tricks won't work on me.

the climax of the American ideal is the inclusion of all so long as one's rights don't deny the rights of others. a good example is gay marriage. homosexuals should have the right to marry because they pay taxes, are denied benefits on the basis of something that they cannot change and this thing -- homosexuality -- harms no one and is not a crime. this is the libertarian position, and is neither liberal nor conservative.

back to Christmas carols. there is a reason why we can have a Christmas tree at the white house but not a nativity scene. there's a world of difference between the two, even if they both come from the same source. our culture is sophistocated enough to embrace one aspect of Christmas in the public sphere -- the winter carnival i've mentioned -- while allowing the religious aspect of the holiday to remain outside the public (i.e., publicly funded, federal, schools and post offices) realm. individuals can do whatever they want, but the state necessarily stays out of the endorsement of Christ (or Vishnu, or Shiva, or Buddah, or Zeus). yes, you should be free to worship zeus. but i don't want pictures exalting zeus hung up in my local post office.

i'm still baffled as to what the argument is here.
 


But I think both sides are confusing the point. No one should sanitize their holiday. No one. You celebrate it the way you want to celebrate and no one should stop you. Just not in public buildings or schools, why is this so hard for some of you. These places are not Christian places of worship. If you want your cards, nativity sets, or your presents fine do it your own home or church. None of these mean a thing anyways. Even nativity sets or extremely historically non-representative. They're all commerce.
[/B]



:up:

i've been saying this over and over and over all day. i'm flummoxed as to what's so difficult about this.
 
I disagree that Christmas should be secularized. Sorry, that's ridiculous. If you want to have a secular holiday, celebrate the New Year, as we did in Communist states where religion was expressly forbidden. If you want to call that Winter Carnival, that's fine, but to impose it on Christmas is stepping way over the line, IMO. We are not trying to secularize Hanukkah or Ramadan, so why Christmas? While it has become commercialized over the years, it is still a religious holiday within Christianity and most certainly within the Church, and it should stay as such. To call it Winter Carnival is akin to referring to Diwali as "Lights R Us".

In a public school, I would not make children sing about the Messiah coming, because I think it's inappropriate and furthermore, unnecessary in schools. Children have been schooled all over the world in a non (and even anti) religious setting and frankly, many of them got a better quality education than we did. I hardly think they're hurting for not having sung Away in a Manger.

Bottom line - religion out of public institutions in a secular state, but secularists should also not try to pervert the meanings and celebrations of important religious dates.
 
American culture, not the public schools, have expanded the meaning of Christmas. i understand why some Christians are bothered by this, i really do. i'm not calling it "Winter Carnival" i'm likening it to something of a winter carnival. that is how it is enjoyed and celebrated by many people, and this is why we can sing songs about Frosty in school, but not about saviors and mangers.

if Christians wish to 100% reclaim Christmas and focus it entirely on the birth of Christ, they're perfectly welcome to try. good luck. Madison Avenue will have lots to say about that. and we can then look forward to *no* christmas music or decorations in schools. we can chop down our christmas trees, throw away our wreaths, stop eating candy canes, and stop giving our children presents. we'll go to midnight mass and have the day off.

fine. but then i'm really moving to canada.
 
Irvine511 said:
American culture, not the public schools, have expanded the meaning of Christmas.

Okay, but just because people do it/have done it doesn't mean it's right. American culture has "expanded" the meaning of a lot of things....for the worse.

There's a difference between being open minded/inclusive and changing one's religious beliefs. Like anitram said, there are tons of other religious holidays/events that we'd find laughable if someone even suggested secularizing. Should I change everything I believe in based on what the majority THINKS is right? My religious beliefs discourage me from smoking and drinking. Should I screw it b/c "American culture" finds it acceptable to smoke and drink?

The public schools should just forget about it if they can't find a way to include a variety of Christmas-time celebrations without imposing secular values on them.
 
My wife's choir sings the Hallelujah Chorus by Handel. A very difficult piece of music for high schoolers, and extremely rewarding when they all bring it together.

Do you guys agree that we should ban the singing of classical music as it relates to Christmas as well?
 
Hello! Christmas Music not Theology and Bible-thumping!

:scream: OMG! This file is supposed to be about "Christmas (a.k.a. "Xmas") M-U-S-I-C" such as Bono's re-make of my friend DARLENE LOVE's "Christmas, Baby Please Come Home"! :wave: So... Deck the halls with balls of holly! Tra-la-la-la-la! La-la! La-la! :applaud:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Favorite Christmas album: "Phil Spector's Various Artists: A Christmas Gift To U" featuring RONNIE SPECTOR & THE RONETTES, DARLENE LOVE, THE CRYSTALS and BOB B. SOXX & THE BLUE JEANS. It remains the #1 selling rock 'n' roll 'n' soul Xmas album of all time! No wonder BONO lifted a song from it -- with Miss LOVE's blessings as she sang on it as per request of BONO! :lol:


CHRISTMAS MUSIC NEWZFLASH: Ironically, someone else at Interference actually started a file just on the song I mentioned. :| "Christmas, Baby Please Come Home"! Check it out at "Feedback - Music on the Intenet".
 
Last edited:
Well, I am trying to get back to the original question.

Classical music in general. Take it out of the schools?

VHI save the music my ass.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
But I think both sides are confusing the point. No one should sanitize their holiday. No one. You celebrate it the way you want to celebrate and no one should stop you. Just not in public buildings or schools, why is this so hard for some of you.

Because singing a traditional Christmas carol is NOT an act of worship. Why is this so hard to understand?
 
Back
Top Bottom