Constructive gadfly
Published on January 12, 2006 By stevendedalus In Politics

If “Happy Chanukah” is a politically correct greeting, then why not “Merry Christmas”?

In 1962 President Kennedy sent out two separate greetings one predominantly with “Blessed Christmas,” the other with “Best Wishes for a Happy New Year.” Bush ’41, not to be intimidated sent all his cards out with “Joyous Christmas” as his greeting. Currently the White House cards have swelled to a million and a half; I suspect there is fear that out of so many there would be bound to be mismailing if President Bush were to attempt to send out cards with separate greetings. Still, why would one privileged to be on the president’s mailing list be offended at all?

As for some retail stores that fear the use of “Christmas,” such as Wal-Mart and Target, what’s the fuss? Even within these stores during the “holiday” there are innumerable Christmas symbols everywhere. Will people never get over their sensitivity toward well-meaning “indiscretion” ? Religion is in the heart not on shelves or in cards.


Comments
on Jan 13, 2006

It goes back to the (erroneous) concept that the majority cannot be discriminated against, only minorities.

But as any rational person clearly sees, affirmative action is discrimination against a member of the majority based upon nothing more than the color of their skin, or their creed.

on Jan 13, 2006
I fail to see the connection to affirmative action. True, Christians are the majority and in this topic being trampled on, but it is a "separation" issue rather than affirmation.
on Jan 14, 2006

I fail to see the connection to affirmative action.

The connection is that the majority (here christians, AA whites) cannot be descriminated against.  As we have seen, they are regularly and the rule of law is the weapon of choice.

on Jan 14, 2006
Aside from a few blowhards'[a la Nadow] imposition on the majority, customs and mores are pretty much settled laws; affirmative action, however, is to compensate for violation of the rule of law.
on Jan 14, 2006

affirmative action, however, is to compensate for violation of the rule of law.

No, it is to penalize innocent people for the sins of others.  That is the reality, not the spin.

on Jan 15, 2006
penalize innocent people
A bit too far; preferential treatment is a fact of all walks of life and not considered a penalty.
on Jan 15, 2006
what's really outrageous isn't removing the 'st.' from 'st. valentine's day' but the total lack of outrage over said removal.
on Jan 15, 2006

A bit too far; preferential treatment is a fact of all walks of life and not considered a penalty.

But if I throw you in jail because your father stole an apple, is that not penalizing the innocent for the sins of the long dead?  I think so.

on Jan 16, 2006
But if I throw you in jail because your father stole an apple, is that not penalizing the innocent for the sins of the long dead? I think so.


Again you go too far. A white student who is inconvenienced by being displaced by a black student is not a jail sentence. As for the employment field, a white kid will find it a hell of a lot easier to find and aternative job than a black kid. How is it the right is not outraged by the influx and preferential treatment of immigrant labor because they work for peanuts? I suspect you would say the immigrant laborer is more competitive.
on Jan 16, 2006
Again you go too far. A white student who is inconvenienced by being displaced by a black student is not a jail sentence. As for the employment field, a white kid will find it a hell of a lot easier to find and alternative job than a black kid. How is it the right is not outraged by the influx and preferential treatment of immigrant labor because they work for peanuts? I suspect you would say the immigrant laborer is more competitive.


And you my friend do not go far enough! The right has been hammering away on that very thing for a looong time. It's called illegal immigration.