Richard R. Hershberger
12-19-2007, 02:23 PM
On Dec 18, 4:37 pm, archm...@sfchat.org (Nate Edel) wrote:
> Keith F. Lynch <k...@keithlynch.net> wrote:
>
> > It would also mean no more Christmas carols. Since those are
> > religious, government can't sponsor them.
>
> Our government can't sponsor those of them that are inherently religious;
I suspect that if you check the program of your local publich high
school chorus's Winter Concert, you will find otherwise. I assume
that this question has long since been litigated, establishing that
they can do this.
> there is also a secular holiday by the same name, and I'm not sure what's
> religious about say, "Rudolf the Red Nosed Reindeer."
A vile song promoting conformity and authority as the highest goals.
Rudolf is excluded for non-conformity until he proves useful to the
central authority . The sychophants then let him in their reindeer
games. Every single party in the story is repugnant.
Rudolf shouldn't give a damn about joining into the games of such
petty reindeer. That joining in is his key to happiness reveals him
as a pathetic figure. The other reindeer are repulsive, excluding
Rudolf for an irrelevant physical trait over which he had no control.
They lack even the strength of their chauvanism, embracing Rudolf
eagerly as soon as this turns to their advantage. And Santa? Sure,
he spins it that he has helped Rudolf, but if he was so benevolent he
could have done something about the reindeer game situation years
earlier. But as it is, he manipulates everybody. He has Rudolf as
underpaid fog-light labor in effective peonage. We all know perfectly
well that if Rudolf ever got out of line, Santa would cut him lose and
the reindeer thugs would turn on him. Not that Rudolf has the
strength of character to ever do anything on his own. I say that none
of these are good for anything other than venison stew. Yes, I am
including Santa in this.
Richard R. Hershberger
> Keith F. Lynch <k...@keithlynch.net> wrote:
>
> > It would also mean no more Christmas carols. Since those are
> > religious, government can't sponsor them.
>
> Our government can't sponsor those of them that are inherently religious;
I suspect that if you check the program of your local publich high
school chorus's Winter Concert, you will find otherwise. I assume
that this question has long since been litigated, establishing that
they can do this.
> there is also a secular holiday by the same name, and I'm not sure what's
> religious about say, "Rudolf the Red Nosed Reindeer."
A vile song promoting conformity and authority as the highest goals.
Rudolf is excluded for non-conformity until he proves useful to the
central authority . The sychophants then let him in their reindeer
games. Every single party in the story is repugnant.
Rudolf shouldn't give a damn about joining into the games of such
petty reindeer. That joining in is his key to happiness reveals him
as a pathetic figure. The other reindeer are repulsive, excluding
Rudolf for an irrelevant physical trait over which he had no control.
They lack even the strength of their chauvanism, embracing Rudolf
eagerly as soon as this turns to their advantage. And Santa? Sure,
he spins it that he has helped Rudolf, but if he was so benevolent he
could have done something about the reindeer game situation years
earlier. But as it is, he manipulates everybody. He has Rudolf as
underpaid fog-light labor in effective peonage. We all know perfectly
well that if Rudolf ever got out of line, Santa would cut him lose and
the reindeer thugs would turn on him. Not that Rudolf has the
strength of character to ever do anything on his own. I say that none
of these are good for anything other than venison stew. Yes, I am
including Santa in this.
Richard R. Hershberger