The EU Wants to Cancel Christmas!!

[RetirementPlan]

Just on the off chance that anyone is interested in the actual facts of what happened here, have a look at this thread. It's defintely worth looking at the actual texts from the actual EU publication, and see if that constitutes 'cancelling Christmas' in anyone's book, except those looking for ammunition for a culture war.

https://twitter.com/NaomiOhReally/status/1469332636258738193

 

[Baby boomer]

Just on the off chance that anyone is interested in the actual facts of what happened here, have a look at this thread. It's defintely worth looking at the actual texts from the actual EU publication, and see if that constitutes 'cancelling Christmas' in anyone's book, except those looking for ammunition for a culture war.

https://twitter.com/NaomiOhReally/status/1469332636258738193

The "actual facts" as clearly set out in the tweet you quote include a clear recommendation to all EU staff not to use the word "Christmas" and replace it with an inanity like "holidays" or holiday time. No other religion gets this treatment. There is no suggestion that EU staff shouldn't use terms relating, for example, to Muslim festivals and celebrations.

Now, let's be clear. If any individual wants to avoid using terms like Christmas, then that's fair enough. It's a free world. The problem here is that the EU goes on at length about the need to respect everybody's culture, religion, background, orientation, nationality and so on - all worthy stuff - and in the next breath prohibits its staff from using the word Christmas in official communications. Frankly, that is two-faced nonsense. You don't respect people's religious background by studiously avoiding naming their celebratory feastdays. It is simply offensive to Christians to forbid EU staff from using the word Christmas. In that sense, it is perfectly fair to call it "cancelling" Christmas, on the basis of "cancel" now being used to refer to people, concepts or words that are regarded as being impolite or "problematic" to mention in public.

As I posted earlier, if you can't see this, just imagine how an EU instruction to avoid using the word "Ramadan" would go down!

The tweet you posted is actually funny because it turns cartwheels to avoid addressing this simple point. Instead it goes off on a rant about how "far-right" politicians misrepresented the document. As indeed they did, seizing the open goal the EU stupidly presented them with, to advance their own agenda. But the initial problem was with the EU itself, and their attempts to portray it merely as a work in progress needing minor adjustment compounded the problem. It wasn't a work in progress - it was an official document issued to all EU staff and they were meant to comply with it. Its withdrawal should have been accompanied by a fulsome apology, a recognition of the offence caused, and a commitment to avoid similar actions in the future.

That's not being far-right, or even centre-right. It's just being sensible.

 

[Purple]

Its withdrawal should have been accompanied by a fulsome apology

I think a sincere apology would have been better as fulsome is correctly used as a pejorative phrase.

Not using the word Christmas is not the same as cancelling Christmas. I do agree that such directives are stupid and feed into a predictable narrative.

 

[RetirementPlan]

The "actual facts" as clearly set out in the tweet you quote include a clear recommendation to all EU staff not to use the word "Christmas" and replace it with an inanity like "holidays" or holiday time. No other religion gets this treatment. There is no suggestion that EU staff shouldn't use terms relating, for example, to Muslim festivals and celebrations.

Did you actually read the Twitter thread. That's absolutely NOT what the document said, and indeed, it gives an example of using the word Christmas in the 'do this instead' column.


It talks about not using Christmas on its own as the default label for this time of year. It doesn't say 'don't use Christmas'.

 

[Leo]

Did you actually read the Twitter thread. That's absolutely NOT what the document said, and indeed, it gives an example of using the word Christmas in the 'do this instead' column.

How dare you! People want to get outraged over a snippet of a sentence they kinda overheard on Joe Duffy. Now you go ruin it by pointing out they're outraged over a creation of their own imagination.

 

[Baby boomer]

Did you actually read the Twitter thread. That's absolutely NOT what the document said, and indeed, it gives an example of using the word Christmas in the 'do this instead' column.
View attachment 5975

It talks about not using Christmas on its own as the default label for this time of year. It doesn't say 'don't use Christmas'.

We appear to be reading different documents! It says AVOID 'Christmas time can be stressful.' and DO THIS INSTEAD 'Holiday times can be stressful.'

It could hardly be clearer that the EU is instructing its staff to replace CHRISTMAS with HOLIDAY TIMES.

Even it's suggested phrasing '...for those celebrating Christmas, Hannukah...' is subtly disrespectful, and conveys an implication that celebrating Christmas is something that's somehow a bit odd or exceptional. In the European Union, where the overwhelming majority of the population is from the Christian tradition!
It's not even very clear what that phrase is . You do know Hannukah is actually over this year and we're still almost two weeks out from Christmas?

It is nothing more than stupid, confused muddled thinking that panders to the worst excesses of the intolerant few who want to stop other people from doing their thing.

 

[RetirementPlan]

We appear to be reading different documents! It says AVOID 'Christmas time can be stressful.' and DO THIS INSTEAD 'Holiday times can be stressful.'

It could hardly be clearer that the EU is instructing its staff to replace CHRISTMAS with HOLIDAY TIMES.

Even it's suggested phrasing '...for those celebrating Christmas, Hannukah...' is subtly disrespectful, and conveys an implication that celebrating Christmas is something that's somehow a bit odd or exceptional. In the European Union, where the overwhelming majority of the population is from the Christian tradition!
It's not even very clear what that phrase is . You do know Hannukah is actually over this year and we're still almost two weeks out from Christmas?

It is nothing more than stupid, confused muddled thinking that panders to the worst excesses of the intolerant few who want to stop other people from doing their thing.

How on earth did you get 'subtely disrespectful' and 'implication that celebrating Christmas is something that's somehow a bit odd or exceptional' from 'for those celebrating Christmas, Hannukah'...

The only disrespect here is the inclusive positioning of Christmas as one of a number of options, instead of being the only option. That's the only change here that you're taking offence at. There is no recommendation not to use the word Christmas. The recommendation is not to position Christmas as the default option or the assumed option. There is no confusion or muddled thinking. It is absolutely clear what is proposed - the seperation of one religious celebration for one tradition from the civil, public holiday. And presumably, that is what is getting your goat. I'm not sure where you got the 'overwhelming majority is from the Christian tradition' but you seem to be decades out of date in terms of current practice for the overwhelming majority.

People are of course welcome to celebrate whatever religious events they like. They're not welcome to impose their own religious choices as default options on the rest of the population.

 

[Leo]

It could hardly be clearer that the EU is instructing its staff to replace CHRISTMAS with HOLIDAY TIMES.

Yes, and well done to them. They are finally waking up to the reality that not all of us are Christians and it's time to be a little more respectful to all traditions.

Even it's suggested phrasing '...for those celebrating Christmas, Hannukah...' is subtly disrespectful, and conveys an implication that celebrating Christmas is something that's somehow a bit odd or exceptional. In the European Union, where the overwhelming majority of the population is from the Christian tradition!

So you're in favour of marginalising and disrespecting minorities? If you were Jewish or Muslim, then celebrating Christmas would be very odd indeed.

I take it you'd be in favour of a new round of Crusades?

People are of course welcome to celebrate whatever religious events they like. They're not welcome to impose their own religious choices as default options on the rest of the population.

There is no attempt whatsoever to impose any beliefs in those proposals.

 

[Purple]

If you were Jewish or Muslim, then celebrating Christmas would be very odd indeed.

Especially since the Jews killed our Lord and, for some bizarre reason, said "Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children." when they were asked if they were willing to take responsibility for nailing him up.

It's almost as if they wanted to justify the proceeding Centuries of their own oppression by Christians.

So it's hardly a happy time for them... unless of course Christmas is really a Pagan feast about presents and Santa and not the culmination of the coercive impregnation of a 14 year old girl by an immortal angel on behalf of his boss. In that case keep on celebrating but keep the Christ out of Christmas; he's a real mood killer.

 

[Baby boomer]

Yes, and well done to them. They are finally waking up to the reality that not all of us are Christians and it's time to be a little more respectful to all traditions.

How is it being "respectful" to the Christian tradition to forbid your staff from using the word Christmas.

So you're in favour of marginalising and disrespecting minorities? If you were Jewish or Muslim, then celebrating Christmas would be very odd indeed.

I had a Jewish guest (an in-law) for Christmas dinner last year. He didn't think there was anything odd about it at all and absolutely loved the day. In fact, he now feels he missed out big time growing up as his family were strictly Orthodox and didn't celebrate Christmas at all.

I take it you'd be in favour of a new round of Crusades?

Quite the jump there, Leo! In fairness to the Crusaders, though, the Muslim world repeatedly invaded Western Europe during the few centuries before the Crusades started.

There is no attempt whatsoever to impose any beliefs in those proposals.

Nobody is saying there is. What I'm saying is that in its attempts to be "inclusive" the EU is actually disrespecting the Christian tradition. Refusing to correctly name something or someone is quite disrespectful. To actually forbid your staff from doing so takes disrespect to a new level entirely.

 

[Purple]

Quite the jump there, Leo! In fairness to the Crusaders, though, the Muslim world repeatedly invaded Western Europe during the few centuries before the Crusades started.

What!?

 

[Baby boomer]

What!?

First crusade: 1095.
Islamic Conquest of Iberian peninsula: 8th Century. (Al-Andalus)
Islamic Conquest of Sicily / Southern Italy: 9th, 10th centuries.
This period also saw Islamic attacks on and partial occupation of parts of France, Switzerland and Austria.

 

[Purple]

First crusade: 1095.
Islamic Conquest of Iberian peninsula: 8th Century. (Al-Andalus)
Islamic Conquest of Sicily / Southern Italy: 9th, 10th centuries.
This period also saw Islamic attacks on and partial occupation of parts of France, Switzerland and Austria.

The first Crusade was an attempt by Pope Urban the Second, formerly a Grand Prior of the Clundy Order of Monks, the most powerful order in Europe and the only Church body that was pan-European at the time to reassert and project his power. He preached Crusade in Clermont in support of Alexios I Komnenos, the Eyzantine Emperor but his main aim was to reassert Vatican control over the Christian Church in Europe. It worked brilliantly.

At that time Jerusalem had been under Muslim control for Centuries and despite contemporaneous propaganda to the contrary there was no evidence that the Seljuk takeover of the area was restricting Christian access to their holy sites.
There was certainly a strong apatite by the Christians to re-capture Iberia and snuff out the flowering of tolerance, moderation and learning that bloomed there under Islamic rule. Interestingly once the Christians had driven out the Muslims hundreds of thousands of Muslims, members of Christian sects and Jews fled to the more moderate and welcoming Islamic lands of North Africa.

While the motivations of those who went on the Crusades were many and often complex and conflicting the notion that the main reason was to drive the infidels from the Holy Lands and Christendom is, to say the least, inaccurate.

 

[Baby boomer]

... apatite by the Christians to re-capture Iberia and snuff out the flowering of tolerance, moderation and learning that bloomed there under Islamic rule.

You're having a laugh, right? Tolerance, moderation and learning are hardly hallmarks of Islamic rule, either then or now. Can you name a single Muslim state today to which that description applies?

You've obviously fallen for the myth of Al-Andalus! This tolerance of which you speak essentially meant that Christians and Jews were "tolerated" as legal 2nd class citizens, subservient to Muslims in every way, subjected to an additional tax called "jizya" and legally discriminated against and restricted in ways that go far beyond anything seen in apartheid South Africa. In Al-Andalus, infidels had the familiar threefold choice given by Islam: Convert, Submit or be killed. A bit like ISIS in more recent times. Jews also had to wear a distinctive yellow patch on their clothing, an idea enthusiastically taken up by Hitler many centuries later. If that's your idea of tolerance and moderation, I would hate to see your idea of oppression!

Interestingly once the Christians had driven out the Muslims hundreds of thousands of Muslims, members of Christian sects and Jews fled to the more moderate and welcoming Islamic lands of North Africa.

Hmmm. At best you could possibly say: "marginally less repressive" but it was far from an oasis of tolerance and moderation!
How would you fancy living under that type of "moderate and welcoming Islamic" regime yourself? You being an atheist and all, I'd say your head and shoulders would have swiftly parted company! Some welcome, that would be! Sure, you wouldn't have done any better under the Spanish Inquisition, but it's facile to paint Islamic rule, anywhere, anytime, as a beacon of tolerance and moderation. Those concepts are antithetical to Islamism. Look around the world for the evidence.

While the motivations of those who went on the Crusades were many and often complex and conflicting the notion that the main reason was to drive the infidels from the Holy Lands and Christendom is, to say the least, inaccurate.

As always with wars, the main reasons tended to be the acquisition of resources and personal glory. Often dressed up in religious or ideological overtones.

 

[Purple]

You're having a laugh, right? Tolerance, moderation and learning are hardly hallmarks of Islamic rule, either then or now.

By the standards of Christian Europe at the time Islam was Ireland in the 1930's and Christianity was Syria under ISIS. Neither was desirable but Islam was far freer, they were worlds apart.

Can you name a single Muslim state today to which that description applies?

Nope, they are now regressive and oppressive and would be calls so if they didn't have so much oil. We have freed ourselves from the oppression and darkness that is religion. They have not.

You've obviously fallen for the myth of Al-Andalus! This tolerance of which you speak essentially meant that Christians and Jews were "tolerated" as legal 2nd class citizens, subservient to Muslims in every way, subjected to an additional tax called "jizya" and legally discriminated against and restricted in ways that go far beyond anything seen in apartheid South Africa. In Al-Andalus, infidels had the familiar threefold choice given by Islam: Convert, Submit or be killed.

Before the first Crusade all faiths had access to Jerusalem. Within a few years of the Latin Christians conquering it they had murdered the Apostate leaders of other Christian Churched and banned Jews, Muslims and other Christians from the Holy places.

A bit like ISIS in more recent times. Jews also had to wear a distinctive yellow patch on their clothing, an idea enthusiastically taken up by Hitler many centuries later. If that's your idea of tolerance and moderation, I would hate to see your idea of oppression!

It's not tolerance but it's relatively massively more tolerant. Jews in Islam could own property. They could not in Christendom, and there were no Muslims there.

Hmmm. At best you could possibly say: "marginally less repressive" but it was far from an oasis of tolerance and moderation!
How would you fancy living under that type of "moderate and welcoming Islamic" regime yourself? You being an atheist and all, I'd say your head and shoulders would have swiftly parted company! Some welcome, that would be! Sure, you wouldn't have done any better under the Spanish Inquisition, but it's facile to paint Islamic rule, anywhere, anytime, as a beacon of tolerance and moderation. Those concepts are antithetical to Islamism. Look around the world for the evidence.

Islam now in repressive and oppressive, as is every society run under a religious doctrine. We are free because we are free from religion.

As always with wars, the main reasons tended to be the acquisition of resources and personal glory. Often dressed up in religious or ideological overtones.

True, wars are where rich old men send poor young men off to die.

 

[Baby boomer]

By the standards of Christian Europe at the time Islam was Ireland in the 1930's and Christianity was Syria under ISIS. Neither was desirable but Islam was far freer, they were worlds apart.

C'mon now, get real. You are comparing four different points in space-time:

1. Modern day ISIS
2. Mediaeval Christian Europe
3. Mediaeval Islamic Al-Andalus and North Africa
4. Ireland in the 1930s.

In terms of most to least barbaric and repressive you could indeed put them in that order. But not their relative spacings on the axis. Point 1, ISIS, is in a category all of its own and vastly different from the others. Points 2 and 3 are quite close together, with pretty marginal differences. It is simply ludicrous to equate 1930s with any of the other three. It lacked the wholesale bloodthirsty slaughter and repression that characterizes those systems.

Nope, they are now regressive and oppressive and would be calls so if they didn't have so much oil. We have freed ourselves from the oppression and darkness that is religion. They have not.

Agreed. But there never was a Golden Age when Islam was tolerant and progressive. The myth of Al-Andalus is exactly that - a myth.

Before the first Crusade all faiths had access to Jerusalem.

Sort of. At times.

Within a few years of the Latin Christians conquering it they had murdered the Apostate leaders of other Christian Churched and banned Jews, Muslims and other Christians from the Holy places.

True.

It's not tolerance but it's relatively massively more tolerant. Jews in Islam could own property. They could not in Christendom, and there were no Muslims there.

But you originally described it as "a flowering of tolerance, moderation and learning" - now you're saying it's not tolerance!

Islam now in repressive and oppressive.....

It is and always was. There was no Golden Islamic Age in Al-Andalus or elsewhere.

, as is every society run under a religious doctrine.

Kinda tautological. If it's run as per a religious doctrine, it's not democratic by definition.

We are free because we are free from religion.

Partly true. But it takes more than that. They're free from religion in North Korea too!

True, wars are where rich old men send poor young men off to die.

A point of sensible agreement!

 

[Purple]

C'mon now, get real. You are comparing four different points in space-time:

1. Modern day ISIS
2. Mediaeval Christian Europe
3. Mediaeval Islamic Al-Andalus and North Africa
4. Ireland in the 1930s.

In terms of most to least barbaric and repressive you could indeed put them in that order. But not their relative spacings on the axis. Point 1, ISIS, is in a category all of its own and vastly different from the others. Points 2 and 3 are quite close together, with pretty marginal differences. It is simply ludicrous to equate 1930s with any of the other three. It lacked the wholesale bloodthirsty slaughter and repression that characterizes those systems.

Islam was far less oppressive than Christianity for most of the period up to the Christian enlightenment. The Islamic Golden Age was the result of the Islamic conquest of Central Asia, then the centre of the world, and a spring of cultural fusion, learning and science. Islam was certainly more open to science, medicine and mathematics and was heavily influences by many of the classical Greek philosophers (Sufism came from that influence). "The Lost Enlightenment" is a great book on the topic. Mathematics as we know it came from India but it came via Central Asia and things like Algebra (The word “algebra” originates from the Arabic al-jabr, which means "the reunion of broken parts), modern medicine as we know it, epidemiology and much early astronomy comes from that region. Without Arabic numerals the Copernican revolution simply couldn't have happened.

Agreed. But there never was a Golden Age when Islam was tolerant and progressive. The myth of Al-Andalus is exactly that - a myth.

There was, but it didn't start in Islam. See above.

But you originally described it as "a flowering of tolerance, moderation and learning" - now you're saying it's not tolerance!

Yes, relative to the oppressive absolutism and darkness of Christianity. The parallels between early Christianity and ISIS is striking. 'https://www.amazon.co.uk/Darkening-Age-Christian-Destruction-Classical/dp/1509812326 (The Darkening Age)' is a good source for more on that.

It is and always was. There was no Golden Islamic Age in Al-Andalus or elsewhere.

See above.

Kinda tautological. If it's run as per a religious doctrine, it's not democratic by definition.



Partly true. But it takes more than that. They're free from religion in North Korea too!

Religion is just another doctrine that subverts the rights of the individual to a collective revealed 'truth'.

A point of sensible agreement!

We'll have to stop that!

 

[Leo]

How is it being "respectful" to the Christian tradition to forbid your staff from using the word Christmas.

Saying happy holidays is not in any way offensive to Christians, or those of any religion. Addressing people of mixed faiths or none referencing the traditions of only one is disrespectful to all others and is the language of exclusion.

Nobody is saying there is. What I'm saying is that in its attempts to be "inclusive" the EU is actually disrespecting the Christian tradition. Refusing to correctly name something or someone is quite disrespectful. To actually forbid your staff from doing so takes disrespect to a new level entirely.

But isn't that the issue here, to you and a majority it is Christmas, but to those who are not Christian, it is not the correct name.

There are some in the church who rue the broad adoption of Christmas to mean the year end festival of commercialisation and over-consumption, the faith element that used to be the core continues to be eroded to a bit part.

Quite the jump there, Leo!

It is, but your wording suggests that minorities should be happy to be here and just suck it up when their traditions and beliefs are ignored by those who are supposed to us all equally.

 

[RetirementPlan]

How is it being "respectful" to the Christian tradition to forbid your staff from using the word Christmas.

Again, for the nth time, there is no suggestion that anyone is being forbidden from using the word Christmas. Again, the suggested text to be used included the word 'Christmas'.

What is respectful is not to use Christmas in the context that assumes that Christmas is relevant for everyone. It's that simple.

 

[Baby boomer]

Again, for the nth time, there is no suggestion that anyone is being forbidden from using the word Christmas. Again, the suggested text to be used included the word 'Christmas'.

What is respectful is not to use Christmas in the context that assumes that Christmas is relevant for everyone. It's that simple.

Again, for the umpteenth time, EU staff were forbidden from using phrases like "Christmas time can be stressful." And were told to replace it with an inanity like "Holiday times can be stressful"

"The Holidays" is an American usage that is meaningless in European English. Me, I take my holidays in the summer. Americans go on vacation, thus freeing up the word "holiday" for a different usage.

It's also an issue that Christmas is the only religious festival treated in this way. We all know well that the EU wouldn't dare to tell staff not to use the word Ramadan or Eid when referring to Muslim festivals! Either ban all references to religious nomenclature or none. The double standard stinks.