Chicago boots ads for Christmas movie from Christmas fair [Archive]

Crazed Rabbit

11-28-2006, 08:10

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061128/D8LLRK9O0.html

CHICAGO (AP) - A public Christmas festival is no place for the Christmas story, the city says. Officials have asked organizers of a downtown Christmas festival, the German Christkindlmarket, to reconsider using a movie studio as a sponsor because it is worried ads for its film "The Nativity Story" might offend non-Christians.

How stupid is Chicago? So are public Christian advertisements not allowed because they might offend people, even at a Christmas fair?

Crazed Rabbit

BigTex

11-28-2006, 08:50

I would have figured that non-christians would be more offended by the fact that their sponsoring a public christmas party. PC has gone crazy, I'm quite afraid of were else it will go. We've gone from Happy Christmas, Happy Xmas, Happy holidays, and to finally have a good 25th or nothing at all. Quite sad.

Oh wait I missed one in there,

Have a Happy and Healthy Mithra's Day yall.

Banquo's Ghost

11-28-2006, 09:32

Personally, I think it is a far-sighted decision.

I am deeply offended at this time of year when radicals insist on reminding me about poverty, gentleness and peace in the Christian message, when all I am interested in is my worship of Mammon through the ritual sacrifice of my credit rating.

Christ has no place in Christmas. I want sparkly things!

:beam:

Goofball

11-30-2006, 23:08

BDC

12-01-2006, 00:08

However, if the festival is spending public money, then there really should be no religious promotion whatsoever. Muslim, Jewish, and agnostic tax dollars should not be spent on Christmas parties.

Nope. What's wrong with a good old-fashioned midwinter booze up/feast?

ajaxfetish

12-01-2006, 02:08

Well done. And make sure not to mention George Washington on the 4th of July, or pilgrims on Thanksgiving, or Cupid on Valentine's Day. We wouldn't want to misrepresent the holidays.

Ajax

Blodrast

12-01-2006, 03:32

Actually, that's prolly not good enough - we should just do away with all holidays that even hint of any religious events - after all, they might offend people belonging to other religions, or agnostics. We don't want to offend anybody, in our enlightened multicultural and PC society, do we ?
I'm sure many nice decent folks are deeply aggrieved by such ridiculous events as Christmas and Easter...

Aenlic

12-01-2006, 03:54

I'm deeply offended by people who are deeply offended!

Er...

Ack...

(choke)

:skull:

Husar

12-01-2006, 03:59

Wait, in german, we call Christmas "Weihnachten" which comes from a pagan festival IIRC, should I now feel offended as a Christian?
Maybe I should sue all shops using that word because they offend my religious feelings.:dizzy2:
Might be a good way to finance my studying.:clown:

Then again, here in liberal Germany, we don't feel offended by such things(yet).:sweatdrop:

Samurai Waki

12-01-2006, 06:04

Personally, I said to Hell with Christmas, and decided to celebrate Hannukah instead. Shalom!:san_smiley:

Don Corleone

12-01-2006, 12:41

I don't think I quite understand this. Who are the "officials" asking the "organizers" to drop the nativity ad? Are they city "officials" asking private "organizers?" If so, the organizers should be within their rights to tell the officials to piss off, if the festival is not spending public money.

However, if the festival is spending public money, then there really should be no religious promotion whatsoever. Muslim, Jewish, and agnostic tax dollars should not be spent on Christmas parties.

A private organization holds a traditional cultural event (German) that happens around Christmas. One of their sponsors wanted to put up movie trailers for their movie, Nativity (a supposedly accurate drama of the big trip to the stable). The city (who was issuing the permits) suggested (didn't order, suggested) to the organization that they shouldn't allow them to advertise. So the organization didn't.

Freedom 'OF' religion does not mean freedom 'FROM' religion. In California, they make kids kneel to Mecca 7 times a day, read the Quaran, etcetera, in school. If you refuse, your kid fails social studies that year. But mention the birth of Jesus at a Christmas festival and you're offensive. :dizzy2:

But yeah Goof, I'm paranoid that people are trying to tell Christians how to practice their religion. Uh huh.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

12-01-2006, 13:10

All holy-days have religious roots. We should just do away with the lot.

"Freedom 'OF' religion does not mean freedom 'FROM' religion. In California, they make kids kneel to Mecca 7 times a day, read the Quaran, etcetera, in school. If you refuse, your kid fails social studies that year. But mention the birth of Jesus at a Christmas festival and you're offensive."

I shall NEVER send my child to school in California

Dave1984

12-01-2006, 13:37

I remember the local news stories here in the UK about how they were going to stop calling Christmas lights Christmas lights anymore and going to call them Winter lights instead. Again, to avoid offending non-Christians. And the time that during the world cup, several local councils banned their workers from flying the cross of St. George on vehicles and buildings to avoid offending non-Christians.
And of course the woman at BA who got into hot water for wearing a crucifix because it might offend, you've guessed it, non-Christians.

The issue is that I don't believe anyone is offended by them except for scaremongering pblic officials with too much time on their hands and too much of a sense of self righteousness.

Husar

12-01-2006, 13:53

Personally, I said to Hell with Christmas, and decided to celebrate Hannukah instead. Shalom!:san_smiley:
I thought jews don't believe in hell?:inquisitive:

If anyone is offended by Christmas, that person did not really understand the message. Some people talked about Ramadan while standing close to me on Wednesday, should I have been offended and sued them?:sweatdrop:

Banquo's Ghost

12-01-2006, 13:59

Aenlic

12-01-2006, 17:03

Adrian II

12-01-2006, 17:10

So are public Christian advertisements not allowed because they might offend people, even at a Christmas fair?My, this is a welcome change from the nonsense stories about Europe turning into 'Eurabia'. Look who's afraid of Christianity now.

Sorry, couldn't resist. :embarassed:

drone

12-01-2006, 17:39

Every day people carelessly consume spicy meat-a-balls at a restaurant nearby and not one of them wears an eye-patch or wields a cutlass in grateful homage.

I can't begin to describe my distress at the insult to the FSM.
I wonder if this is getting government funding:
http://www.venganza.org/2006/11/30/holiday-pageant.htm
:2thumbsup:

Goofball

12-01-2006, 18:10

A private organization holds a traditional cultural event (German) that happens around Christmas. One of their sponsors wanted to put up movie trailers for their movie, Nativity (a supposedly accurate drama of the big trip to the stable). The city (who was issuing the permits) suggested (didn't order, suggested) to the organization that they shouldn't allow them to advertise. So the organization didn't.

Freedom 'OF' religion does not mean freedom 'FROM' religion. In California, they make kids kneel to Mecca 7 times a day, read the Quaran, etcetera, in school. If you refuse, your kid fails social studies that year. But mention the birth of Jesus at a Christmas festival and you're offensive. :dizzy2:

But yeah Goof, I'm paranoid that people are trying to tell Christians how to practice their religion. Uh huh.

Don, I'm fully on your side on this one.

I love Christmas (even though it means I have to go to church for the second time in a year and sit through an interminable mass under orders from my wife).

I also love diversity and multiculturalism, in the true senses of the words.

I think private organizations should be free to put on Christmas, Hannukah, Ramadan, Kwanzaa, and whatever the hell other displays they want. I'll happily go and enjoy every one of them, and be the better person for it.

While I will still dig my heels in and throw a tantrum in true liberal form if the government spends my taxes on any of these things, I have no problem with people displaying their diversity on their own.

Chicago City Hall has overstepped itself on this one. And the organizers of the event should have had the balls to tell City Hall where they could shove it...

Scurvy

12-01-2006, 18:28

Redleg

12-01-2006, 18:59

May the FSM strike them where they stand with his noodley appendages. May he send salty phantasms at night to whisper gently in their ears the ancient "Arrhh!" and may they awake to find their computer keyboards mysteriously transformed into:

http://static.flickr.com/29/44753311_a9270c41ac_o.jpg

I find myself strangley wanting such a keboard, Just image the conservations the backroom would have then.

Rrrrrrr RRR Rrrrr Rrr

Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

:smash: :smash: :smash: :smash:

AntiochusIII

12-01-2006, 19:41

Freedom 'OF' religion does not mean freedom 'FROM' religion. In California, they make kids kneel to Mecca 7 times a day, read the Quaran, etcetera, in school. If you refuse, your kid fails social studies that year. But mention the birth of Jesus at a Christmas festival and you're offensive. :dizzy2: Where did you learn that one?

Don Corleone

12-01-2006, 22:12

Where did you learn that one?

Here it is in California (http://www.christianaction.org/PDF%20Files/Judge%20Hamilton%20Islam%20Ruling%2012-05-03.pdf)
and in Oregon (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1716721/posts)

Note, the first document I linked to was Judge Phyllis Hamilton's decision to grant the defendants (the school board) a summary dismissal. She finds that while yes, children role play at being muslims: taking muslim names, reading the quran, chanting "Allahu akbar" in response to teacher incitements, this did not technically violate any separation of church and state, as the students were supposed to know that it was fantasy and they were only role playing.

So, if I force kids to read Revelations, make them write an essay on how they plan to prepare for the rapture, make them list 5 sins they have committed for which Jesus had to die to save them, but said it was all role-playing... how long do you think that argument would hold up?

Adrian II

12-01-2006, 22:45

Here it is in California (http://www.christianaction.org/PDF%20Files/Judge%20Hamilton%20Islam%20Ruling%2012-05-03.pdf)
and in Oregon (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1716721/posts)

Note, the first document I linked to was Judge Phyllis Hamilton's decision to grant the defendants (the school board) a summary dismissal. She finds that while yes, children role play at being muslims: taking muslim names, reading the quran, chanting "Allahu akbar" in response to teacher incitements, this did not technically violate any separation of church and state, as the students were supposed to know that it was fantasy and they were only role playing.

So, if I force kids to read Revelations, make them write an essay on how they plan to prepare for the rapture, make them list 5 sins they have committed for which Jesus had to die to save them, but said it was all role-playing... how long do you think that argument would hold up?I read the whole bloody court document and I don't understand for the life of me what the big hullabaloo is about, Don. It was a role-play, and both claimants confirm that it was presented as such by the teacher. It's a great teaching aid. I did role-plays at school. I remember we played Security Council, Russian military Headquarters and hospital-staff-in-an-emergency. I don't believe I suffer from Post-Role-Play Stress Syndrome.

Del Arroyo

12-01-2006, 23:02

Freedom 'OF' religion does not mean freedom 'FROM' religion. In California, they make kids kneel to Mecca 7 times a day, read the Quaran, etcetera, in school. If you refuse, your kid fails social studies that year.

Note, the first document I linked to was Judge Phyllis Hamilton's decision to grant the defendants (the school board) a summary dismissal. She finds that while yes, children role play at being muslims: taking muslim names, reading the quran, chanting "Allahu akbar" in response to teacher incitements, this did not technically violate any separation of church and state, as the students were supposed to know that it was fantasy and they were only role playing.

After reading the summary of the California case, I cannot say that I see anything dangerous in the instructional methods the teacher used. She encouraged, but did not require them to choose muslim names. She did not refer to the students using these names.

She read passages of the Qur'aan aloud in class, which does not infringe upon the rights of the students and without which any introduction to Islam would be incomplete. According to the summary, the teacher required students to recite "lines of prayer from the Qur'aan"-- but I find it interesting that the only one specifically mentioned is "bismillah-arrahman-irrahiim", which, while originating from the Qur'aan, is a ubiquitous formality with little real religious meaning.

She also required students to give something up (like TV or candy) for one day and required them to perform some sort of community service.

Interestingly, I could find no mention of her requiring students to pray towards Mecca, perhaps you could find and highlight it for me, Don? Also, I always heard that the call to prayer came five times a day, and I am interested as to where you come up with the figure of seven.

I must also admit, Don, that I could find no mention of Brooke Carlin requiring her students to chant "allahu akbar", though again, I could have misread.

At any rate, it is clear to me, based on what I read in the Judge's summary, that the teacher was using innovative instructional methods to impart to her students valuable information about a much mis-understood religion.

I will agree with you that a similar format presenting Christian material might indeed draw objections-- from retarded people. The Islam class is not the problem-- the problem is our hypocritical, double standard, suicidal PC-culture.

..

Re the original topic: GAAAHH!!!

Reenk Roink

12-02-2006, 03:20

Just some stuff to put it all in perspective

At University of Michigan, Honors College Students are required to take the Great Books class to fulfill their first year writing requirement. In the class, we must read certain passages of the Bible and completely grasp the themes for tests and essays.

To my knowledge, no student has complained about this being offensive. Also, no students of other religions have complained about their religious texts getting snubbed.

**********************

As December progresses, I expect to see many stores with "Merry Christmas" greetings, many Christmas trees in public areas all around Oakland County, Michigan, many "Christmas" Sales, etc. Again, I expect there to be no complaints...

Lemur

12-02-2006, 03:47

I yearn for a simpler time, when the image of Santa and the concept of Christmas could be used to market anything, anywhere ... oh, and thanks for starting the first official War On Christmas thread of the season. A bit late this year, eh?

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/FarkEvilSatan.jpg

ICantSpellDawg

12-02-2006, 05:23

Christian groups should definitely use those court decisions as an opportunity to teach religion in public school classrooms. I would have loved those classes when i was a kid.

Xiahou

12-02-2006, 05:43

I read the whole bloody court document and I don't understand for the life of me what the big hullabaloo is about, Don. It was a role-play, and both claimants confirm that it was presented as such by the teacher. It's a great teaching aid. I did role-plays at school. I remember we played Security Council, Russian military Headquarters and hospital-staff-in-an-emergency. I don't believe I suffer from Post-Role-Play Stress Syndrome.Im assuming Don's point wasn't that the muslim studies were offensive so much as to point out the apparent double standard. Whereas it's acceptable to teach children to pray to Mecca and read the quran, it would been seen as illegal and offensive for a teacher to read from the Bible and teach children Christian prayers.

BigTex

12-02-2006, 09:09

I read the whole bloody court document and I don't understand for the life of me what the big hullabaloo is about, Don. It was a role-play, and both claimants confirm that it was presented as such by the teacher. It's a great teaching aid. I did role-plays at school. I remember we played Security Council, Russian military Headquarters and hospital-staff-in-an-emergency. I don't believe I suffer from Post-Role-Play Stress Syndrome.

Going to have to say that Don was merely mentioning the double standard that exists. Indeed there's very little wrong with the roleplaying the children did, and thats the point. There have been lawsuits over much less when it involves christian themes. People have tryed to sue over schools having a moment of silence for anything, because when it was first instituted it was generally a moment for prayer.

Have a bright sun filled Mithra's day.

Banquo's Ghost

12-02-2006, 11:09

Going to have to say that Don was merely mentioning the double standard that exists. Indeed there's very little wrong with the roleplaying the children did, and thats the point. There have been lawsuits over much less when it involves christian themes. People have tryed to sue over schools having a moment of silence for anything, because when it was first instituted it was generally a moment for prayer.

Have a bright sun filled Mithra's day.

I can see your point, and think it a good one.

Nonetheless, if Christian role-play was allowed (as it should be in the terms of the Muslim version disucssed) could we trust that it would go no further?

If I was a parent, I'd trust someone with a faith like Don's to be fair and clear, but there are clearly forces in US education that would not be satisfied with just a taster role-play. Once the fundie foot was in the door, would they push harder and faster?

I'm an outsider from across the pond, so I may be overstating the case - but when the US system seems to be under pressure to include creationism and intelligent design as serious science, can parents really relax over any Christian religious agenda?

What controls would moderate Christians like to see to support teachers who wanted to educate children about Christianity/other religions in schools (good idea) without them being indoctrinated by the loonies (bad idea)?

ajaxfetish

12-02-2006, 19:18

the problem is our hypocritical, double standard, suicidal PC-culture.
That about sums it up for me, on this and so many other issues. :sad:

And Banquo, while your argument fires off slippery slope warnings in my head, I can understand your concern, and the fiasco in Kansas City was certainly embarrassing. I'm not sure what controls should be instituted, but I agree with you completely on the objective of fair and non-manipulative introduction to a great diversity of religious and philosophical outlooks.

Ajax

Redleg

12-02-2006, 19:58

That about sums it up for me, on this and so many other issues. :sad:

And Banquo, while your argument fires off slippery slope warnings in my head, I can understand your concern, and the fiasco in Kansas City was certainly embarrassing. I'm not sure what controls should be instituted, but I agree with you completely on the objective of fair and non-manipulative introduction to a great diversity of religious and philosophical outlooks.

Ajax

Yep the issue in Kansas was certainily embrassing for the members who voted for it - everyone that voted for it was removed from office during the next election.

Aenlic

12-02-2006, 19:59

Very good point, Banguo's Ghost.

I think that the muslim roleplaying has a harmless intent, to promote greater understanding and lessen prejudice. In many cases, such actions from evangelical Christians should be considered as having a much different intent. The very word evangelical is the clue. It can be defined as zealotry. These people see it as their holy duty to spread their religion, often by any means necessary. They really believe that it is their God-given duty to spread the Word of God. They aren't merely content with promoting greater understanding of the religion, they're actually interested in actively promoting the religion itself. This is a fine distinction.

In this aspect, proselytizing evangelical Christians are not much different from Islamic fundamentalists who seek to force Islam on the rest of the world. The tactics are different; but the end goals are strikingly similar. The believe that they hold the only "truth" and the others must be brought to that truth, whether they're willing or not. Neither group will be content until all societies, governments and laws, and individuals conform to their own particular religious view.

Edit: and I should add that the actions of the membership doesn't necessarily reflect the actual religion, but instead the interpretations made by the authorities within the religion. That distinction is to forestall any red herring arguments that one or another religion doesn't espouse forced conversions. :wink:

GoreBag

12-06-2006, 02:37

Don Corleone

12-06-2006, 03:13

This isn't about PC douchebaguerie, this is about a film production company withdrawing a trailer for a new film, the Nativity Story, and not at the behest of the city. Waah waah friggin' waah. As if people who take their religion seriously want to see an advertisement for its commercialization looped all damn day anyway.

Three points:

1) As Xiahou and BigTex pointed out, I wasn't taking issue with the Muslim role-playing. I was pointing to hypocricy in our legal system.

2) Gorebag, the city saying "we're not telling you to make them take the trailers out, but if you don't there could be serious consequences. Very serious." IS in fact the city telling the organizers to drop it, regardless of how subtle their threats are (or aren't). It's the equivalent of a mob racqueeter making vague comments about "it'd be a shame for your shop to have a completely accidental fire at exactly 3AM tomorrow morning.".

3) actually, it's the scriptural basis to the movie that caused the stink. if it had been commercialization, it would have been fine.

Merry $&#@-mas! ~:santa:
Censored, to protect the offendable, from offense.

Crazed Rabbit

12-06-2006, 03:32

Nonetheless, if Christian role-play was allowed (as it should be in the terms of the Muslim version disucssed) could we trust that it would go no further?

Are you assuming we can blindly trust Muslim role-play to go no further?

Censored, to protect the offendable, from offense.

Bah to that! Merry Christmas all!

Crazed Rabbit

GoreBag

12-06-2006, 04:22

Three points:

1) As Xiahou and BigTex pointed out, I wasn't taking issue with the Muslim role-playing. I was pointing to hypocricy in our legal system.

2) Gorebag, the city saying "we're not telling you to make them take the trailers out, but if you don't there could be serious consequences. Very serious." IS in fact the city telling the organizers to drop it, regardless of how subtle their threats are (or aren't). It's the equivalent of a mob racqueeter making vague comments about "it'd be a shame for your shop to have a completely accidental fire at exactly 3AM tomorrow morning.".

3) actually, it's the scriptural basis to the movie that caused the stink. if it had been commercialization, it would have been fine.

Merry $&#@-mas! ~:santa:
Censored, to protect the offendable, from offense.

Nowhere in the article does it say that city officials threatened or otherwise coerced the organizers to remove the film. They 'asked' them to do it so as not to appear to support one religion over another. Why they care, I don't know. I don't care. In any case, there is still a 'nativity scene' and displays for every other little cult popular enough to 'warrant' one.

HAY GUYS CHRISTIANS ARE OPPRESSED TOO

Crazed Rabbit

12-06-2006, 07:01

and the fiasco in Kansas City was certainly embarrassing

If you're talking about the board of education and evolution, it seems like you haven't read the teaching guidelines, unless you're embarrased by evolution being taught and a tiny fragment of the guidelines being devoted to teaching possible, small holes in the current theory of evolution with nothing mentioning teaching creationism.

Nowhere in the article does it say that city officials threatened or otherwise coerced the organizers to remove the film.

I thought you were our resident humbug cynic. But it seems you believe "Golly gee, if the city didn't explicitly threaten the event, then the event managers have nothing to worry about at all."

Crazed Rabbit

Banquo's Ghost

12-06-2006, 10:11

Are you assuming we can blindly trust Muslim role-play to go no further?

No. If the situation was occuring in the UK or France, for example, I would be very concerned that the same sort of controls against fundamentalists were in place.

From my limited knowledge, I don't think Muslim fundamentalist influence is as pernicious in US schools as the Christian flavour.

Very pretty straw man though. :smile: I liked the bow tie especially.

doc_bean

12-06-2006, 10:35

Here it is in California (http://www.christianaction.org/PDF%20Files/Judge%20Hamilton%20Islam%20Ruling%2012-05-03.pdf)
and in Oregon (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1716721/posts)

Note, the first document I linked to was Judge Phyllis Hamilton's decision to grant the defendants (the school board) a summary dismissal. She finds that while yes, children role play at being muslims: taking muslim names, reading the quran, chanting "Allahu akbar" in response to teacher incitements, this did not technically violate any separation of church and state, as the students were supposed to know that it was fantasy and they were only role playing.

So, if I force kids to read Revelations, make them write an essay on how they plan to prepare for the rapture, make them list 5 sins they have committed for which Jesus had to die to save them, but said it was all role-playing... how long do you think that argument would hold up?

My limited understanding of the American legal system (or interpretation of the US law by its judges, if that makes sense) says that the Bill of Rights does not apply to minors. There have been similar cases posted in the backroom and that would be the only logical conclusion.