UPDATED — Holiday Gift Card “Selection” at Amazon

89 thoughts on “UPDATED — Holiday Gift Card “Selection” at Amazon”

1. I’m not offended to receive a “holiday” gift card. It’s kind of non-descript, but it still spends the same, even after the holidays. Maybe next year they’ll have a selection of Hindu, Jewish, Kwanzaa, Wiccan, Buddhist, Islamic, Voodoo, Christian, etc. designs. Maybe some nature scenes and a selection of dog and cat designs too.

2. Merry Christmas, Gnostic troll.

3. Dear SDG
   It looks like Wal Mart has “Merry Christmas” ones. At least the thing is called “Gift Card”. I’ve had the opportunity of searching for “Christmas Cards” and found out that most of them makes no reference to Christmas or Christ.

4. SDG, normally I enjoy your posts as they give me food for thought. This one, however, touched a nerve – and not the one you think.
   A whole lot of people have lost their jobs and won’t be having a Christmas this year.
   A whole lot of people have lost their homes and will spend Christmas in a shelter.
   A whole lot of people will spend Christmas in a hospital, either as a patient or looking after a loved one.
   A whole lot of people live surrounded by famine or war and won’t get to celebrate because they’re too busy trying to stay alive.
   On Christmas Eve, your major complaint was the design on Amazon’s gift cards. Step back for a minute and think about how blessed you and your family are.
   Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night.

5. I didn’t know that this was SDG’s “major” complaint. I thought it was “a” complaint.
   I didn’t know that SDG doesn’t “(s)tep back for a minut and think about how blessed (he) and (his) family are”. How is it that you know this?
   Did you really think that SDG doesn’t know that there suffering people in the world? If so, why did you think that?
   If SDG’s post “touched a nerve-and not the one (he) think(s)”, what sin of yours caused that nerve to be so touchy?

6. I’ve noticed that Borders has a “Merry Christmas” gift card; and that Barnes & Noble (like Amazon) does not.

7. Pax2009:
   I’m glad you usually appreciate my posts. I appreciate your substantive point, and I hope that, like me, you are fortunate enough to understand the temptation of a particular sort of survivor guilt, and that your cognizance of the issues you point out comes from your own self-awareness of how unreasonably blessed you are rather than any particular catastrophe having befallen you. I hope, too, that, like me, you have the self-awareness to be grateful every unreasonably blessed day of your life.
   Regarding my current topic, and the point that bill912 makes regarding the relationship or non-relationship between my current post and my “biggest complaint”: FWIW, this past week personal circumstances related to annual holiday festivities led me to put a great deal of energy into writing some thoughts that, as often happens with things I write elsewhere to begin with, I had hoped to post here in some form or other (and might still do so), regarding addictive and otherwise self-destructive behavior among loved ones, and attendant issues of estrangement and reconciliation among family and friends that often seem to come to a head at special times such as holidays.
   bill912 is thus entirely correct to note the fallacy of your assumption that the complaint I chose to blog about in the time I had to do so is necessarily my biggest complaint. My biggest complaints, on the contrary, are personal matters about which I do not openly address the world. My blog posts are more or less accidents of circumstance and opportunity.
   Of course this doesn’t in any way invalidate your observation regarding the unreasonable blessings enjoyed by my family and me, or the salutary character of exhortations to gratitude.
   Merry Christmas.

8. I’ve noticed that Borders has a “Merry Christmas” gift card; and that Barnes & Noble (like Amazon) does not.

   Argh, wish I’d noticed that. Thanks for pointing it out, I’ll keep that in mind for next year.

9. I initially received the following (ironic) reply from Amazon:
   Hello from Amazon.com.
   Please accept our sincere apologies if you were offended by the use of the word “Christmas” on our website. Our intention in referring to Christmas is to give specific ordering guidance for a specific holiday, not to exclude other faiths.
   However, this is something that we need to take serious consideration for change in how this process works.
   To ensure the utmost attention, I’ve also passed your message on to the appropriate people in our company. We value customer feedback such as yours as it helps us continue to improve the service and selection we provide.
   Again, please accept our apologies. We value your business and hope you will give us the opportunity to serve you again in the future.
   I replied to it, and received the following that has convinced me that whoever reads those e-mails is way down the line in importance…at least far enough that he doesn’t even understand English! Check it out (I’ve *emphasized* a few sections):
   Hello from Amazon.com.
   From your mail I understand that you want to purchase a Gift card *having for Christmas.*
   I have read our previous communication with you, and I’m sorry that all of your concerns were not resolved. I can assure you that we do strive to exceed our customers’ expectations, but we did not accomplish that in this case. Please allow me to try to provide a resolution for you.
   Please know that at this point of time *we only have gift card of* “happy holidays” and *”winter wish”.*
   Thanks for your comments about *collection of gift card on our website. We’ll consider your feedback as we plan further improvements.
   Customer feedback like yours really helps us continue to improve our store and provide better service to our customers. Thanks for taking time to offer us your thoughts.
   Again, please accept our apologies for any inconvenience.
   We hope to see you again soon.

10. Bill912, the nerve that got touched was that I spent most of 2008 coming to terms with the fact that I’ll never be a mother (please don’t ask), and here’s a guy who just welcomed a beautiful new addition to a big family like the one I’ve always wanted complaining on Christmas Eve. I have little patience for the whole Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays debate anyway, but that really upset me. I admit it, part of that was motivated by jealousy.
    SDG, I’m sorry I came down hard on you. You’re right, I shouldn’t have assumed that this is your biggest complaint, and I apologize. As I said, I get annoyed when someone gets upset about “Happy Holidays”. To me, they’re taking a person or organization’s (usually) good-faith efforts to spread cheer and turning them into something ugly, and that goes against the spirit of Christmas. Besides, “HolidayS” is correct – while Christmas is more important, there are other holidays this time of year. We are celebrating New Year’s a week from now; the British, Canadians, Australians, and a few folks in America are celebrating Boxing Day today, and of course today is the Feast of St. Stephen. There’s no harm in wishing someone has a good time on all of them, and listing each individually would be rather time-consuming. 🙂 (I will agree that labeling something “Winter Holiday” or just “Holiday” is both too vague and extremely silly.)
    I hope, too, that, like me, you have the self-awareness to be grateful every unreasonably blessed day of your life.
    I assure you, I am. The motherhood issue stings, and stings mightily, but on the plus I have a loving husband, a nice place to live, a wonderful family, two adorable cats, and decent prospects for a job after I finish grad school this May. (That’s where the 2009 part of my name comes from.) Oh yes, and Mr. Pax is gainfully employed – yet another thing to be grateful for!

11. Pax2009, I’m truly sorry about your bad news.
    FWIW, Suz and I have had a couple of miscarriages — one before our oldest, one after. Although both were devastating, we discovered that there is a world of difference between losing a child when we had none and losing a child when we had one. I remember Suz saying at the time that we were already so blessed with Sarah, it was impossible to feel as desolate as we did the first time around.
    I was once very close to a man whose marriage has produced (IIRC) six children — all stillborn or dead within days or weeks of birth. Their first child, the longest-lived of the lot, was due around the same time as our David John. Sometimes I look at David, and think of that baby and his siblings who never made it out of the hospital. (FWIW, they now have two beautiful adopted Chinese girls.)
    In the grand scheme of things, the Amazon thing is certainly trivial. Most things are. It’s good to keep that in perspective, though I think there’s also room in life for taking comparatively trivial things seriously.
    My complaint with Amazon was not with a well-intentioned “Happy Holidays” message on their website. It was with a carefully thought-out policy decision, rooted in a pernicious “diversity” agenda, to exclude the option of a gift card design allowing paying customers to choose to send their own loved ones a “Merry Christmas” message rather than a generic “Happy Holidays” message.
    Although as you note there are other holidays at this time of year, including New Year’s, Boxing Day and the feast of my patron saint, AFAIK gift-giving is not particularly associated with any of these holidays. It is for Christmas that we send one another gifts, including gift cards. A rational policy would be to have mostly Christmas messages with a few generic holiday alternatives. To exclude Christmas altogether is just crazy. Kudos to Borders execs for realizing that.

12. A couple points-
    First, Merry Christmas to all. I agree and disagree with Pax2009. Pax, even the jobless can certainly “have a Christmas.” We woke up and attended mass (it was free), and made a birthday cake (somewhere in the order of $1.50 in supplies at the grocery store–food stamps eligible).
    Second, suppose for an instance that you run an online store. Call it, SDGazon.com. Suppose you were to offer gift cards around the holidays. Of course, with the freedom of religion we enjoy in America you are free to exclusively offer Merry Christmas cards to your worldwide customers if you choose. Would you also offer Happy Hanukkah cards, happy Kwanzaa cards, etc.? Probably not (I wouldn’t, since I’d feel it was offering an empty wish). Maybe a Happy Holidays option though (to cover Christmas, the Feast of the Holy Family, Mary Mother of God, The Epiphany, etc.) Now, suppose you’re of another faith. You might not feel as comfortable with a Merry Christmas offering.
    But as for me (tcd), I’d be happier with an Amazon Happy Holidays gift card than a Borders Merry Christmas gift card, due the 10-galizion additional things I could order with it (such as nativity sets and Christmas trees). Of course, if you want to send me a Borders gift card, I’d be grateful for that too.
    And you CAN customize your own gift card. I ordered a printable one for someone, and was able to add my own message. The message I added was something along the lines of “Merry Christmas.” That said, I support SDG’s (and other’s) efforts of respectfully emailing and requesting an additional selection of designs, and even shopping elsewhere he chooses.

13. Second, suppose for an instance that you run an online store. Call it, SDGazon.com. Suppose you were to offer gift cards around the holidays. Of course, with the freedom of religion we enjoy in America you are free to exclusively offer Merry Christmas cards to your worldwide customers if you choose. Would you also offer Happy Hanukkah cards, happy Kwanzaa cards, etc.? Probably not (I wouldn’t, since I’d feel it was offering an empty wish). Maybe a Happy Holidays option though (to cover Christmas, the Feast of the Holy Family, Mary Mother of God, The Epiphany, etc.) Now, suppose you’re of another faith. You might not feel as comfortable with a Merry Christmas offering.

    I don’t understand this. The Gift Card designs don’t reflect the personal wishes of Amazon.com execs, any more than a Hallmark card message reflects the wishes of Hallmark execs. They represent the wishes of those who buy the cards for those who receive them. The putative faith positions of Amazon.com execs shouldn’t have anything to do with it.
    Regarding your SDGazon.com proposal, what would be the sense of not offering “Happy Hanukkah” cards while actually selling menorahs, yarmulkes and other artifacts of Jewish faith? If I wouldn’t offer the former, I certainly wouldn’t sell the latter; if I did sell the latter, I can’t see where I would have any basis for not offering the former. Since as you note Amazon offers nativity sets and Christmas trees, why shouldn’t they offer “Merry Christmas” gift cards?

14. Dear Pax2009,
    Congratulations on your impending graduation. Many blessings on you during this season.
    SDG’s comments were not unreasonable and neither were yours, but they fall into two different categories. It might be nice to give multi-purpose cards for people who celebrate a variety of holidays during this period of time and so, this seems reasonable. These holidays, however, are not holy days (even Hanukkah is a minor holy day in Judaism). The only true holy day celebrated during this period is Christmas. All of the other holidays are forms of civic envy and an attempt to give other people something to celebrate. I guarantee that if the Church moved the celebration of Christmas to July 25, these other holidays would quickly fade into insignificance and be seen for the excuses they are (Hanuukah, excepted, as it is a genuine holy day, although a minor one – but no one outside of Judaism would take note of it).
    Christmas is special. It is the second most important day in all of creation. Besides that, something as inane as Kwanzaa pales into being silly (I know I’ll get comments on that, but consider the relative importances).
    Amazon has taken a wimpy sell-out stand on its cards. It is not trying to be inclusive, it is trying to be vanilla, palliative, ego-stroking. I am pretty sure that SDG received a form e-mail in response to his e-mail. Amazon doesn’t really care about Christmas. It cares about making a profit. Ironically, it was exactly this sort of thinking that Christ came to earth to change. Amazon is being honest, at least, in that if they don’t really understand the season, they should leave it off of their cards so as to not he hypocritical. The U. S. postal service made a decision, early on and probably for historical reasons (they go back to a period when Christmas meant something other than “National Gift-giving Day”) that they would provide Madonna and Child stamps. You have to give them credit for that.
    Make no mistake, if the largest on-line distributor in the world has decided that Christmas is a holiday equal to all of the others, the subtle message is that Christ is someone merely equal to all others. This is in line with the growing coldness in the world. Yes, this is a big deal and one that we will have to contend with, as Christians, more and more as secularism crowds out all other concerns in the market place.
    As for you not being able to be a mother, you have my deepest sympathies. I am rarely one to make person comments, but I have also had to look into that chasm, although from the other side (I am male) and for what I suspect are different reasons. There is a good possibility that my entire family line will die out after this generation. Our situation was preventable (not going to go into the sociology, here), while yours might not have been. Still, I do grieve for you.
    However, something to think about, as I often do when I start to think about these issues is a passage from scripture to the effect that a woman of virtue will be remembered for the spiritual children she will raise up longer than a woman who raises natural children (I’ll try to find the quote, if you like). Be a woman of virtue and you will live to see the fruits of your off-springs.
    Also, can you adopt? I know you will consider all of these things and I don’t want to get too personal. Just know that your plight has touched me. I know it must be difficult this time of year, but I trust that God will give you grace sufficient for the road ahead. Trust in him. Seek good council.
    As for Amazon…bah, humbug…they are like Bing Crosby singing that immortal song:
    I’m Dreaming (salivating) of a White (but not too white or cold and with only a little snow) Christmas (but with not too much Christ and no Mass and with plenty of toys for rich little boys and girls).
    I find it ironic that you can buy a copy of, “A Christmas Carol,” with your Amazon winter card.
    The Chicken

15. I don’t understand this. The Gift Card designs don’t reflect the personal wishes of Amazon.com execs, any more than a Hallmark card message reflects the wishes of Hallmark execs. They represent the wishes of those who buy the cards for those who receive them. The putative faith positions of Amazon.com execs shouldn’t have anything to do with it.
    Regarding your SDGazon.com proposal, what would be the sense of not offering “Happy Hanukkah” cards while actually selling menorahs, yarmulkes and other artifacts of Jewish faith? If I wouldn’t offer the former, I certainly wouldn’t sell the latter; if I did sell the latter, I can’t see where I would have any basis for not offering the former. Since as you note Amazon offers nativity sets and Christmas trees, why shouldn’t they offer “Merry Christmas” gift cards?
    Good point, though I see a difference (albeit subtle). The gift cards actually say “SDGazon.com,” whereas the resold menorahs would not (though I probably wouldn’t sell them either). But I see a subtle distinction between designing a gift card with my name on it posted on my home page and succumbing to a distributor peddling tons of products. No need to agree; like I said, it was a good point.

16. (Chicken) It cares about making a profit.
    I don’t disagree. But from a pure profit-based standpoint (ignore my earlier probably non-relevant arguments about whether or not I would do it), would it be better or worse to offer the Merry Christmas option?
    I don’t know the answer, I’m just interested in others’ guesses. If SDG would boycott, that makes me think it would be better to offer them. This probably isn’t the right website to ask, but would there be some who’d actually boycott if the option was offered? Given SDG’s figure of 95% who celebrate Christmas (seems high, source?) and that likely most of the other 5% woudln’t care either way, there wouldn’t be many. So it doesn’t sound like profit is the reason for not offering them. What do others think?

17. I live where “respectful” and “tolerant” are often code words for “anything but Christian.” I get used to it. I try not to get used to it though — I try to stand firm in a place where I can expect some respect in return. Thank you for taking a stand. Merry Christmas.

18. Given SDG’s figure of 95% who celebrate Christmas (seems high, source?) and that likely most of the other 5% woudln’t care either way, there wouldn’t be many. So it doesn’t sound like profit is the reason for not offering them. What do others think?

    I gave a source in my original post: the website saychristmas.com, which credits a 2005 Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll. I’ve seen the figure widely used; it seems well accepted.
    I also mentioned above the reason for not offering them, a pernicious “diversity” machine that militantly opposes Christian cultural hegemony. Corporate cultures are aggressively targeted by the diversity activists and persuaded that knuckling under will result in approval and positive publicity whereas doing otherwise will have the opposite effect.

19. You ROCK, Jimmy! Excellent response to Amazon.

20. You ROCK, Jimmy! Excellent response to Amazon.

21. I read this post a day or two after I noticed the same thing — several designs for gift cards, all of them saying “Happy Holidays”. I was disgusted with the Amazon milquetoasts so much that I ended up going to a different website to order something, and started a topic in their online forum.
    How pathetic! They have no problem taking the money for the 95% who are there buying gifts to celebrate that holiday (shhh, Christmas), just don’t mention it or someone might be offended or they might be sued by the ACLU. Have a politically correct happy freezing winter, Amazon.

22. Dear SDG,
    Thanks for closing down the P. Z. Meyer thread. Maybe the person who was asking the questions will find another, more appropriate, thread in which to ask his questions. Answering his questions might not convince him/her, but it might help other readers. Who knows.
    Getting back to the Amazon gift card (they posted their best season, ever, by the way), it is interesting, historically, that when a society becomes desperate, they typically turn to God. The fact that Amazon is running contrary to this trend indicates that history has taken a new turn. Globalization is, for the moment, impeding the return of Christianity to public appreciation and seems to be acting as a buffer to the wide-spread realization of poverty that existed during the depression in this country (in times of poverty, mainstream religions thrive). Unfortunately, globalization is not sustainable (something the academics pushing for globalization surely recognize) without a centralized government. Watch for there to be a push for uniform internalitionalization of laws within the next twenty years.
    Ironically, the only thing that might upset this trend toward globalization is the fact that certain religions cannot co-exist peacefully. Thus, one way around this is to systematically downplay the role of religion.
    Amazon is being used very nicely in this scheme.
    The Ever-Prophetic (or was that Paranoid) Chicken

23. I think what really irks me about this whole thing is that a wealthy company like Amazon, who has raked in even more dough these past few months from people buying and giving Christmas gifts, and who excels in specializing and tailoring their shoppers’ experience, would choose to not offer a gift card that says “Merry Christmas”, especially since that’s exactly what the majority of gift-card shoppers are shopping for in November/December. If they only had the resources to offer one gift card, then “Happy Holidays” is slightly more understandable. But to offer seven “Holiday/Winter” gift cards and none that say “Merry Christmas” is just plain inexplicable. I’m not sure how offering 6 holiday/winter gift cards and at least one Christmas gift card would not be inclusive, but offering only “holiday” gift cards is inclusive. Do they really think their customers are so anti-Christian that they would not buy a gift card from them if one of the seven cards said “Christmas” on it?
    It’s hard not to conclude that there’s some calculated anti-Christian bigotry on the part of whoever was in charge of the selection of gift cards.

24. The reply from amazon seems to be a form letter.
    It is absurd to suggest that there are pernicious motives or character to amazon or amazon’s policy or agenda. It is (depending on what “pernicious” entails) even more absurd to suggest that the selection was motivated by “anti-Christian bigotry.” I think it suffices to point out the absurdity as absurd on its face. It is most absurd to suggest that gift card selection be based on a scheme of proportionality suggested above. Apply that to ice cream preferences. Suppose only 1% of customers purchased low fat ice cream. Suppose a parlor had 30 flavors. Then by SDG’s logic, 29 of the flavors should be regular and just 1 (let’s exclude other preferences for simplicity) low fat (I’m not even sure why SDG would insist on rounding up as he did with the gift card selection). It would make better business sense however to have at least some variety of low fat flavors — granted not as much variety as accorded the regular icecream, but at minimum two flavors. I don’t think I need to spell out why this would be economically advantageous. The same would be true of gift cards. If amazon had a selection of say 20 gift cards, then by SDG’s logic, exactly 1 of those should say “Happy Holidays” (discounting for the moment the background faulty data and faulty reasoning that has a prevalence approaching 100%… btw you generally don’t see the original poll question on television or in a news article even if the media outlet sponsored or did the polling; you have to dig it up). I don’t think it takes much business acumen to realize that that would be an absurd business decision. Unless SDG is arguing that this is somehow a moral obligation. That’s not capitalism. And moreover, that’s not how American law works. A public corporation (or rather those that govern it) are bound by fiduciary duty to maximize profits in the financial interests of shareholders. Not customers, not employees, but ultimately primarily the shareholders (of course in many cases employees are shareholders and for good reason). A breach of that fiduciary duty is cause for legal action.
    BTW on feast days people do traditionally celebrate them with actual celebrations and meals and sometimes with small gifts. So every feast day may be an occasion of gift giving for some people. But this traditional practice is not common in the white American church (celebrations and meals were common once though from what I understand)
    http://www.italiansrus.com/articles/ourpaesani/feastdays.htm
    amazon is motivated by one thing: profits. It’s the same with Hollywood. Some paranoid folk suppose Hollywood also has an “anti-Christian bigotry” or some “pernicious” “agenda” of one sort or another. Bill Donohue has some choice words on that that cause some to think him an anti-semite. Take Sony Entertainment. That their agenda isn’t “anti-Christian” but profit, can be seen in their business arrangement with the Christian company Cloud Ten
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_Behind_(series)
    where Sony’s name is actually put on films based on the fervently Christian series of books.
    Let’s suppose amazon not only erred but sinned. That should have no effect on whether you patronize amazon. One may certainly prefer other companies products and that preference can include gift card designs, but to do something to spite amazon, punish amazon or to attempt quixotically to exert a pull on amazon’s policies is not in conformity with moral virtue. The evil of a sin btw is not in that the sin offended your sensibilities; it’s in the nature of the act itself. Anyway, you wouldn’t treat a friend and you shouldn’t treat a neighbor that way simply because of an error or sin. How did God treat us sinful men? He in divine condescension and expressed in modes accomodated to human understanding, entered into human history and expressed his desire for and effected a symbol of the loving union between God and man that is the supernatural end of man, an end that is not proper to the nature of man, but to depart into poetry, proper to the nature of God, the passionate lover of man, angel, and all creation.
    Some people may come here around this time as seekers in search of any message of light that may make its apparition this season here. Prescinding from the merits of any other issue raised or unraised above, it is tragic that even if somehow have been interiorly a shining act of prudence, that a focus on something that may perhaps obscure the Light which takes itself lightly has transpired.

25. “but to do something to spite amazon, punish amazon or to attempt quixotically to exert a pull on amazon’s policies is not in conformity with moral virtue.”
    So attempting to influence policy is in the same category as doing something to spite or punish someone?
    Nice try, but no dice. Besides, SDG never even suggested spite or punishment as a motivator behind his proposed actions. That is you projecting your anti-Christian bias again.
    Anyone may attempt to influence policy, just as anyone might in Christian charity attempt to influence the behavior of a friend who is headed down the wrong path.

26. Plausibly a Ruse:
    Sigh. Another rambling, hectoring, point-obscuring, apparently disingenuous trial of a post from someone who seemingly embodies, more perfectly than anyone I’ve ever encountered on this blog, the social role of sore tooth. (Running through mental list of various sore teeth … gnostic troll, various rad trads, atheist religion bashers, anti-Catholic fundies, anti-Catholic Muslims, etc., etc. … yep, I think you take the cake.)
    Your ability to generate fallacious, irrelevant and wire-drawn points vastly exceeds my interest, time and patience in responding to and contextualizing them. You don’t break the rules, at least flagrantly or promiscuously, yet your posts are a constant trial to the charity and patience of others. You don’t seem to be doing anyone any good, and no one else seems to do you any good, yet you don’t seem capable of leaving.
    I’ve never disinvited someone from blog participation for being a general nuisance. It’s not a step I would gladly take. I’m not sure what to do about you.
    Merry Christmas.

27. I am going to ignore the post immediately above as I don’t see anything that can be reasonably interpreted as any substantive engagement with any point nor any constructive comment. It seems to be addressed not to me in charity but either to me in some other way or to others despite how it is prefaced and concluded (Saying in effect: “You are a nuisance; btw, Merry Christmas” is not exactly something that causes one to be confident in the sincerity of the blessing)
    Tim:
    “So attempting to influence policy is in the same category as doing something to spite or punish someone?”
    Tim, you may not have noticed, but assuming no one has used more than one nickname in this particular combox, I quoted not only SDG in my post but also another individual. I alluded to yet others. You may also have not noticed the use of the disjunctive. If you agree that to punish amazon is wrong — I am surprised that you would agree actually — then it seems I didn’t successfully communicate to you my opinion that any boycott regardless of motivation or intention in this circumstance is morally wrong.
    “That is you projecting your anti-Christian bias again.”
    I don’t see how I could have an anti-Christian bias as I am a Christian unless I am biased against myself. To share a personal note, I have come to realize one bias I do have, namely to be perceived as cool by the elite in our culture who tend to be dismissive of certain views of mine. That led me in the past for example to warm up to NT Wright’s unorthodox Christology (as an aside and to fill a lacuna of context I neglected in an earlier thread on the Nativity movie, Ott IIRC classifies Mary’s being free of inordinate desire as the common teaching of theologians “sent. communis” whereas Christ’s possession of the beatific vision from the moment of the Incarnation is of a higher degree of authenticity or certainty, i.e., “sent. certa”). It’s also led me to be silent when I could have spoken up when it came to matters related to evolution, physics, or cosmology. I was facilitated in this realization by a piece* incisive to the mind and spirit here. Perhaps this bias then is at work.
    http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=3023
    *I feel almost obligated to point out what may be characterized as either a mispelling or an error in usage “which would affect [sic] a pro-abortion revolution” should have been written “which would effect a pro-abortion revolution.” The error I’ve seen common in many schools to teach that “affect” is a verb and “effect” is a noun is almost as annoying to me as the error that schools teach in distinguishing between “fact” vs. “opinion” (not only as above can “effect” be a verb but “affect” can also be a noun).
    Have a joyous Christmas and may the spirit inspire in us all to shed any attachment to created things even created words that may have referents that are uncreated or referents that are of the divine economy. May we wish joy on each other not for the sake of preserving a custom or clinging to created things even words with referents of eternal meaning and significance, but so that we may express the joy we wish for our brother. May also our sole or ultimate attachment be one that proceeds from our spirit to the divine spirit, to but one referent shared by many definite descriptions and many names, to that referent to which our minds aspire to conceive and our hearts yearn to love which corresponds with the definite description: “the divine person whose mother is a human person with her motherhood of said divine person realized not in the order of his divinity but only in the order of his created humanity and constituted in said order, whom according to Franciscan Incarnational theology would have, with the spirit and father, effected “ad extra” the hypostatic union even if neither Adam nor Eve had sinned nor any of their mythic descendants, making it apparent per that Franciscan Incarnational thesis that a more fundamental significance and purpose than the ransoming of men from Satan, is present in the mystery we celebrate this Christmas, a mystery which in Franciscan teaching, teaches us about God’s love for the poor, but moreover is a mystery that unveils that fundamentally, God joined man to himself not to avert a calamity (hellish punishment) nor even properly speaking to occasion gift-giving (the gift of the joys of heaven) but simply because he loved man and desires to be one with him, effected in this sublime mystery ineffable not only to word but conception and conceived and expressed in dogma accomodated to human understanding as the hypostatic union.”
    IMO, the prudence and justice of any response to amazon or any action of amazon would be enlightened by a contemplation of this mystery. Theologically, the hypostatic union is but a relation of divine economy between a divine person, effected by all three, and a creature. Going more from theology to economy, we see that Christ was not born in an intrusive way, a loud way, an assertive way, or aggresive way. Christ was born poor, even homeless, even more deeply his human nature was never at home with its destiny til the resurrection. Humble shepherds and some outside the fold gathered for the unveiling of the God to whom man was joined. IMO, this should enlighten our judgment and response to amazon and more deeply to the issue of “happy holidays” versus “merry christmas.” Taking care to not offend someone’s sensibilities (by using “happy holidays” versus “merry christmas” on amazon’s own products, inclusive of website and gift cards) is an act of charity. Political correctness as regards opinion is misguided; political correctness as regards prudent action, including even expression of opinion is a shining light of charity. FWIW, I think amazon was merely extending the policy of “happy holidays” to the gift cards; I don’t think they considered a more nuanced policy of doing one thing with some of their products (their website greetings) and another with other of their products. Probably, someone decided without reference to gift cards in particular to institute the policy of “happy holidays” and then that got implemented without much further thought to do a nuance, let alone absurd proportional scheme, with respect to gift cards.
    It is quite easy to show that amazon is not participatory of “anti-Christian bigotry” or some “pernicious diversity agenda.” Take a look at the promotion they ran which alludes to Christmas
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html?docId=1000314901
    While some of the free MP3 songs are profane, others are decidedly sacred. Amazon isn’t one of those companies that shuns playing sacred music in favor of Jingle Bells. There’s Silent Night, Ave Maria, Angels we Have Heard on High, a contemporary Marian song, Joy to the World, etc. along with the profane music. BTW, we as Christians cannout announce “Joy to the World” without having joy in our own hearts. It is a tragedy that Christians often succumb to acrimony. Your heart should sing of peace and joy always. For that IMO is the reason for the coming of Christ, because God was desirous of our happiness and happy union with us, not that she might be complete, but that because that Light which takes herself lightly is also that Freedom which loves freely in grace.
    P.S. IIRC, Amazon did refer to Christmas on their website and used the word “Christmas.” But then I am one to focus on the referents of words not the words themselves especially since scripture enjoins us from debating needlessly over terminology.

28. FWIW, Amazon’s gift card selection reflects the poll which revealed that while many Americans celebrate Christmas, they do not celebrate with Merry Christmas Amazon gift cards. If you wish, you can enclose your Amazon gift card within another card bearing the design of your choice.
    Also FWIW, Liberty Council gave Amazon thumbs up on its Naughty & Nice shopping list.

29. Also FWIW, I think the term “Merry Christmas” has a character similar to that of cliche, among other things.
    Thanks Mary Lou, I was going to make a similar point but I had to excise that from my initial post as a courtesy to others in terms of promoting readability and brevity. I instead chose to allude to that and other points in my reference to faulty data or faulty reasoning.

30. Also FWIW, the term “Happy Holidays” happens to appear a bunch of times on the Vatican website (including by popes) I won’t comb over them to see if any are peculiar to a Christmas holiday, but it appears the term has had its use recorded on the official site in relation to both profane and sacred holidays.
    I’ve heard over the years quite a few people — Christians — tell me that they prefer the greeting “Season’s Greetings” over any other on cards. I think the point that there should be more diversity in gift card designs is a good one; that they should include popular ones (though not in absurd proportional schemes) is also a good point. The decision could have been a default kind one like I suggested without any particular thought. If particular thought went into it, one reasonably explanation would be that they may want to recycle some cards for other holidays including some during winter which in some of the markets amazon serves is celebrated with gift giving and/or be able to simplify inventory so that they don’t end up having to juggle variant surplus cards in variant categories. Since “happy holidays” and the like is amenable if not a favorite, to all, and “Merry Christmas” is not amenable to a significant number, juggling those two inventories introduces complication (and cost) in inventory management and potential waste (which aside from cost may be bad for the environment). As I said however, the more likely explanation is much more mundane and involves no conspiratorial agenda nor even economic calculus. I predict that next year some cards will feature more overtly sacred themes but I don’t think SDG would have anything to do with it. There’s already customer input about these kinds of things and the production of a form letter response to SDG suggests that the volume was a level sufficient to occasion the form letter crafting.
    Just so you know, SDG’s an amazon affiliate.

31. the term “Happy Holidays” happens to appear a bunch of times on the Vatican website (including by popes) I won’t comb over them to see if any are peculiar to a Christmas holiday
    That’s true. The very first one returned in my search is by Pope John Paul II, dated Sunday, December 26, 1999. He speaks of “these days when the Christmas atmosphere invites people to improve themselves and become more fraternal,” and he closes with “Happy holidays and happy Jubilee Year.” In another, dated Sunday, 30 December 2007, Pope Benedict XVI says, “Today, in the heart of the Christmas Season” and “Many thanks and happy holidays!”

32. TMC, are you thinking of Psalm 113:9? I recognized the verse you mentioned but couldn’t locate it off the top of my head and this was the closest I came.
    Pax2009, yes, that’s a painful realization to deal with. God’s ways don’t always make sense at first view (or second or third).
    Even so, I think SDG has an important point. The omission of any mention of the real reason for Christmas is disrespectful and contributes to further disrespect.

33. Ruse and Mary Lou, you’re both missing SDG’s point. He’s not objecting to “Happy Holidays” per se, but to the lack of even an option of mentioning Christmas, which dismays more people than just SDG.

34. Mary Kay thank you for your kind post.
    “The omission of any mention of the real reason for Christmas is disrespectful and contributes to further disrespect.”
    Amazon should serve its customers preferences (I’m not sure that traditional moralists would agree but I do agree with you on that). But there is ample evidence that amazon does desire to and does effect a courteous service of its customers with respect to Christmas, Christians and the religious theme of the season. You probably missed this link and the account I gave of it above. Just visit the link and you’ll see.
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html?docId=1000314901

35. Mary Kay,
    WRT to your other post, the way I took SDG was that he wishes to purchase only gift cards that are overtly religious or only ones that say “Merry Christmas” or only ones that do not say “Happy Holidays”, with this third disjunctive possibility being the weakest of the three (i.e. being entailed in SDG’s mind despite the etymology of “holiday” by the other two). I took SDG not to be engaging in some form of boycott or protest but exercising his personal preference; indeed he seemed to hope he could buy an amazon gift card next year if that strong buying preference were met (“preference” is agnostic WRT to the triviliaity or seriousness of the basis for the preference). What puzzles me personally is that if it is as Mary Lou has unearthed, amenable to the present pontiff and his predecessor to greet people “Happy Holidays” in relation to Christmas, why it would not be so amenable to SDG to greet his gift recipients so. I can fully understand a personal preference, but SDG seemed to have a preference of a nature or strength such that it would cause him to purchase gift cards from companies he would otherwise not prefer to purchase from (relative to amazon). If I felt a gift recipient would be pleased and rewarded by an amazon gift card and I hoped to find a particular gift card greeting or design for that purpose, the presence of that gift card greeting or design at some other company and the absence of it at amazon, would to me be overrided by the substantive value I would see in the amazon gift card over say a gift card with a company that may not sell as many goods my recipient desires or which may tend to have higher prices or worse customer service.
    So I took SDG’s purchasing choice to have been made based on his preferences as it relates to his gift recipients and not as some consequence of some agenda to effect a change in amazon policy such that the good of his gift recipients is subordinated to and the gift-giving in that respect instrumentalized to that agenda. Apparently, Tim had a different interpretation.
    As I said, I would agree it is economically unwise to not include a gift card that includes a popular greeting (just as it wouldn’t be for Hallmark to do something like that). But to give this lack of wisdom a moral character is where I choose to disagree. To ascribe it to a “pernicious” agenda on the part of amazon may even be libelous; to ascribe it to “anti-Christian bigotry” I am quite sure would be. The issues are slightly complex, but corporations, like natural persons, have a right to their good name, morally speaking and their good name is not totally disconnected from the corporation’s human constituents just as the good name of the state is not from its citizens. Just for clarity’s sake, the former criticism of “pernicious” agenda was applied to the corporation; the latter of “anti-Christian bigotry” appeared to be directed toward individual agents of it.

36. Oh, my God…

37. Matheus, with respect, I hope your comment was an ejaculation and not a relegation of a name which retains its most holy referent to profane idiom.

38. …I hope your comment was an ejaculation and not a relegation of a name which retains its most holy referent to profane idiom.

    Dear PaR/AaR/Mary Lou/PC(sic)/CT/CW
    Thanks for your concern regarding due reverence for God’s name. I don’t think I used it as an ejaculation, but I don’t think it could be taken as a “relegation” on a phrase with only two more words. Perhaps the reason is that in the culture from which I come the simple mention of God’s name isn’t necessarily regarded as “profanity”, and I had that confirmed by Fr. Vincent Serpa on one of his Catholic Answers LIVE shows.
    Anyway, your admonition certainly prompts me to bahave even more dilligently when it comes to mentioning God’s holy name.

39. Thank you, Mary Kay.
    Good grief. CT and B’Art together at last. It’s an apocalyptic convergence, or something.

    Ruse: WRT to your other post, the way I took SDG was that he wishes to purchase only gift cards that are overtly religious or only ones that say “Merry Christmas” or only ones that do not say “Happy Holidays”, with this third disjunctive possibility being the weakest of the three (i.e. being entailed in SDG’s mind despite the etymology of “holiday” by the other two).

    That would be an incorrect reading, as usual.

40. “You don’t break the rules…”
    Perhaps the Hobby Horse rule?

41. Just so you know, SDG’s an amazon affiliate.

    Is there a point to this observation? If I were shilling for Amazon in my current post, this would naturally be a full disclosure sort of thing. Since, on the contrary, I’m slagging Amazon, my financial interest would ostensibly enhance the integrity of my critique. (Incidentally, I’ve made my affiliate status clear as recently as this recent post.)

    Perhaps the Hobby Horse rule?

    Well, yeah, sometimes. We’ll see how it goes.

42. SDG,
    I was pointing out that you were an affiliate not to cast some aspersion against your character but rather to help you out and make clear for example that you were not calling for absurd things like a boycott of amazon gift cards (contrary to what I understood to be Tim’s interpretation). I was also incidentally trying to help you out (as opposed to embarass or slight you) by pointing out the fact that it seemed to me that amazon had replied to you with a form letter. I may have also had an intention in pointing out that you were an affiliate in making more apparent how certain interpretations of what I had written are unreasonable given that I know (and have known since time immemorial) that you were an amazon affiliate. I’m not sure how I could have phrased my comment to avoid your misinterpretation. Perhaps you could offer a suggestion. Perhaps you thought the prefatory “Just so you know” was someone sinister. I feel like I am walking on egg shells here. I constantly have to try to not express certain opinions or couch them in certain verbiage so as to not offend your sensibilities or cause a misinterpretation. If you are intent, however, on seeing malice under every leaf of language, then there is not much that I can do to counteract that.
    “Dear PaR/AaR/Mary Lou/PC(sic)/CT/CW”
    I am not sure why you have addressed me in this fashion. For example, I am not the individual known as “Mary Lou.” I’m not sure how I would prove that to you especially given certain circumstances surrounding this forum. SDG seems to have expressed his opinion that “Mary Lou” is not I but rather a distinct individual, apparently known as “B’Art.”
    I find it rather odd that SDG would for example, invite a certain poster who apparently went by “frankie” in another thread to start “clean” and invited him in relation to that to assume a “new handle” if so desired. The impression I got from reading that was that SDG was inviting him to assume a new handle without having to suffer unkind badgering from anyone intent on dwelling on the past. Yet SDG seems to not have that same spirit with respect to me. Just in case there is some other obsessive, paranoid, or otherwise irrational assumption made. I am not the individual who went by “frankie” in that thread.
    Also, just to correct the record, I don’t think anything “surrepitious” is operative by my choosing to post under Plausibly a Ruse instead of Allegedly a Ruse. I think it would be obvious for a number of different reasons why that would not be “surrepitious”. And in terms of multiplicity of names, it is no more multiciplous than TMC use of variations of “… Chicken” not just as he signs his posts but in the “Name” field. Also for the record which I thought I had corrected previously, the individual known as “CT” did not surrepitiously change his name to “CW.” “CT” when making the name change, wrote IIRC something along the lines of “CW, formerly known as CT” in the name field and also explained the reason for the change in name in the body of the post. Despite that certain individuals chose not to respect that reason. Then, “CW” made manifest in a way apparently too opaque for some the reason for abandoning the name “CW.”
    “That would be an incorrect reading, as usual.”
    Assuming this is not a quibble you are making, then was Tim’s reading (or my reading of Tim’s reading) correct? If Tim’s reading wasn’t correct then it appears not one but at least two were confused by what you wrote and that its meaning was not fully apparent.
    BTW, I have no idea if SDG’s anonymous aspersions were directed towards me, but if I have posted under more than one IP address that is not an extraordinary thing. Incidentally, generally websites are able to capture information other than just IP address when properly configured (for ex. they may capture the website from which one navigates to this one and I know this website has captured and publically shared this data as there have been blog posts on what kinds of google searches led people to visit this website) Assuming that this one is so configured, SDG, if he so chose, would be able to verify that I am not the individual known as “Mary Lou.” Should he not so verify it and remain silent then that would not surprise me as he has remained in silent in other cases when for example TMC suggested I was the same as another individual (based on a common usage of the phrase “false flag” … which IIRC Mary Kay also used previously). Of course a VPN can circumvent such things, but really, the notion that I, as verbose and convuluted in speech, would be “surreptitious” and yet remain in one incarnation or another as strikingly verbose and convoluted in speech, is frankly, to use a characterization SDG used of my person, suggestive of some “unhealthiness”, whether of “mind” or “heart” I know not (again to use SDG’s own speech … I try to use SDG’s own speech since using some other verbiage even if objectively more kind and gentle runs a risk of not being accepted by some precedent; I always feel I am walking on egg shells here … I am guessing amazon is feeling the same way about this whole “happy holidays” controversy)

43. I neglected to explain…
    “anonymous aspersions”
    was in allusion to another thread closed from any possibility of my defending myself from such aspersions. Their anonymous character doesn’t make the issue of reputation morally irrelevant. This is pointed out for ex. in Heribert Jone’s little handbook, Moral Theology. To use a different example but still enlightening, if one were to say that “An unusually large number of this year’s class has cheated on their tests” then even if no names are named and no one has any reason to suspect any particular individuals over others, Heribert Jone would maintain that it is still morally problematic as there is a proportional harm on each member of that class as regards their reputation.

44. Ruse: My invitation to “Frankie” was medicinal in intent, predicated on a clear pattern of deceptive posting even extending to falsely claiming to be multiple people using a single IP address. For the good of his/her soul, the best thing would be to start over clean, and so I suggested that remedy.
    Whatever other problems I’ve had with you, I’ve never seen you outright deny one identity in assuming others, for which I credit you. (“Mary Lou” has generally similarly avoided the Lie Direct regarding his/her various identities, with what seems to me a single exception I can recall. Yes, I have no doubt that you, “Frankie” and “Mary Lou” are all entirely distinct persons with quite disparate issues.)
    In your case, I see no reason to recommend adopting a new identity, and certainly I don’t see it as helpful either to your soul or to discussion here for you to engage in a perpetual round robin of rotating handles, as you have been doing. Nor do I see it as hugely problematic — it’s not like you make much of an effort to hide your identity.
    Be that as it may, in your case as in Mary Lou’s case I think many readers will find the context of your posting history helpful in reading your posts, so occasional, in-passing identity clarifications may be helpful. I don’t mean or plan to harass you about it, though.

45. Ruse and Mary Lou, you’re both missing SDG’s point. He’s not objecting to “Happy Holidays” per se, but to the lack of even an option of mentioning Christmas, which dismays more people than just SDG.
    No, it might appear that way to you, but I don’t miss his point any more than I miss his dismay. As to options, I always have the option of mentioning Christmas, and I don’t have to rely on Amazon for that option. As I said already, you have the option of enclosing your Amazon gift card within another card bearing the design of your choice. If that’s too much trouble, you can “mention Christmas” when you give the card away. You never lack that option. You even have the option of going on a Christmas rant about how Amazon doesn’t give you Christmas options. As another option, you can also say, “Merry Christmas, Gnostic troll,” even if the person isn’t a Gnostic troll. You have that option as well. Just look at all the options you have. Why does Amazon have to give you options that you yourself always have?

46. Assuming this is not a quibble you are making, then was Tim’s reading (or my reading of Tim’s reading) correct?

    I’m not keeping score. My point was a simple complaint that I want the option of sending a “Merry Christmas” card to a recipient who celebrates Christmas. This is not a refusal to send non-religious cards, cards that do not say “Merry Christmas” or cards that say “Happy Holidays” (in fact I have given “Happy Holidays” cards to recipients who do not celebrate Christmas).

47. Brazilian Rotten Orange wrote:
    Thanks for your concern regarding due reverence for God’s name. I don’t think I used it as an ejaculation, but I don’t think it could be taken as a “relegation” on a phrase with only two more words. Perhaps the reason is that in the culture from which I come the simple mention of God’s name isn’t necessarily regarded as “profanity”
    BRO, I don’t think you understood my usage of “profane” there. I’ve made use of this usage a few times now in this thread and I thought that the meaning in some of those cases would have been apparenty (ex. “sacred” versus “profane” as regards amazon’s MP3 free promotion, a substantive point no one has addressed) If someone as educated as yourself is oblivious to this usage then I think it wise to point it out. It is in my experience if not the exclusive at least the far most prevalent usage in ecclesial language and in traditional language of Catholic theologians.
    2. not devoted to holy or religious purposes; unconsecrated; secular (opposed to sacred ).
    (dictionary.com)
    Indeed, AFAIK, as the ecclesial usage I am referring to is actually the usage in English translations, it is this ordinary English definition upon which the ecclesial usage is if not identical with, piggybacks on.
    So for example some of Mozart’s music is profane; others are sacred. Some question whether profane music is apt to be performed in a sacred place like a church (with “profane” including some great classical or baroque masterpieces, not hip hop littered with “swear words”) In terms of “profane idiom”, the issue is not that it is a “bad word” or “swearing” — the colloquial definition — improper IMO — of “profanity” — but that the name whose referent is still retained is appropriated for a profane purpose. It would be like if a card game were constructed to mirror the game “War” except that the victor would in each round have to remember to say “God be praised” and a penalty would be incurred for not so saying. Well in such a card game it is unlikely that the name “God” is being used in a sacred way as befits its referent — i.e. it is unlikely that ejaculations are obtaining after each round. It is more likely that, especially over time, that the name God with its most holy referent is being relegated to a verbalized game-theoretic move. Playing “hot potato” with a pillow is fine; playing it with say a sacred icon is not. The name “God” due to its retention of its referent, namely, God, is in that relation, sacred and not a fit candidate for relegation to a verbalized move in a game or as in your case, to a profane (i.e. non-sacred) idiom.

48. Mary Kay: I appreciate your clarification. It is true that “Mary Lou” doesn’t miss points. Points are just not the sort of thing he’s interested in.

49. “I’m not keeping score. My point was a simple complaint that I want the option of sending a “Merry Christmas” card to a recipient who celebrates Christmas. This is not a refusal to send non-religious cards, cards that do not say “Merry Christmas” or cards that say “Happy Holidays” (in fact I have given “Happy Holidays” cards to recipients who do not celebrate Christmas).”
    I understood what your complaint was. My statement which apparently I didn’t communicate well was multi-fold and in what I took you to be disagreeing with was not a characterization of the nature of your complaint to amazon, but a characterization of what occasioned your personal purchasing decisions (i.e. in not considering the amazon gift cards). That characterization however thanks to your clarification here was not correct, but I’m still not sure exactly what led to your personal purchasing choice, not that it is really that important. It seems from the way I read it that you were dissatisfied in the way that I originally intuited and you’ve reiterated and that dissatisfaction with amazon was in itself enough to occasion — be it out of frustration or to influence amazon or something else — your purchasing decision. It seems clear that you were not engaging in some personal boycott or inviting others to consider to make like purchasing choices with the aim of influencing and protesting.
    In terms of the bottom line I agree with you that some of the cards should feature “Merry Christmas” as I’ve said several times now. I’m not sure my reason for that agreement is the same; I see it not as some moral issue but as an issue of maximizing profits in fidelity to the shareholders. I also don’t agree with some other features of your opinion. I’m virtually certain btw that many of the criticisms I leveled would be quite commonnly agreed to outside an insulated virtual environment inhabited with the fervently religious. Just as a FWIW, I would invite you to reconsider usage of the term “fundie” in an context (just as the term “Jap” in any context is dubious even when say limited in putative scope to war crime guilty Japanese). Perhaps some fundamentalists would embrace such a term and perhaps some wouldn’t mind its use restricted to certain proper subsets of fundamentalists, but IMO, the fact that some significant number of fundamentalists, both within and without the proper subset the phrase containing the term referred to, may be scandalized (i.e. led away from truth or love) is sufficient to warrant a temperance here, prescinding from any objective linguistic merit or demerit.
    I am quite surprised that you wrote that you don’t mean or plan to harass me in the future in certain ways. I think I have sufficiently made known certain issues of the past which disappointed me and so I will just cheerfully note that to use your own speech, “to your credit” that is the only word which if possessing a character of charity*, said charity’s plausibility was apparent to me.
    *I suspect that some, perhaps yourself, may not understand the usage of “charity” here. I mean it in the moralist sense, not in the sense per se of interpreting some charitably or the like. Charity as in an act of charity versus an act of justice.

50. Ruse,
    phrase “false flag” … which IIRC Mary Kay also used previously)
    I have no idea what you’re talking about. Please do not put words in my mouth.
    Mary Lou, you do remind me of a previous poster: someone who refused to acknowledge the point that someone made, however clearly it was made. If, as SDG says, you don’t “miss points,” it does seem that you ignore them. That’s no basis for discussion.

51. “I am not the individual who went by “frankie” in that thread.”
    Oh, well!… in that case I acknowledge my mistake. You see what kind of trouble one can get into when posting in a hurry without bothering to read all the preceding comments carefully?
    I do apologize to frankie for confusing him for our friendly neighborhood sophist, CT (AKA “Plausibly a Ruse” and various other handles).
    My comments on certain posts demonstrating an unhealthy and even desperate obsession with other’s religious beliefs were intended solely for CT.
    Lest any be confused (or actually misled) by CT’s commentary, or be in doubt as to where he/she may be coming from, keep in mind this revealing bit of Satanic apologetics posted in an earlier thread (link provided at the end);
    “Let me leave you with a final thought. To the extent that one supposes the bible corresponds with a mythical order that has some truth, is the extent to which one might wonder whether the mythical power(s) that authored the bible were being biased in their presentation of this mythical order. So for instance, one might wonder whether the “god of gods” was not being fair to say Satan’s side of the story. So ISTM, that any argument for the reliability of the bible as to being in correspondence to a real mythical order due to its being authored by someone a member of that order, supposed supreme in that order, would be self-defeating. As for me, the Catholic extra-biblical account that Satan told God “non serviam” seems to be an exercise of heroic virtue, a rejection of the indignity of slavery, an indignity that the present head of the CDF has acknowledged the Church in the past accepted as part of the human condition and culture but has now evolved to reject as an immoral indignity. History is written by the “victors” and if the mythical order is real as opposed to fiction, then the serious believer would give serious consideration to the possibility that the mythical history in the bible is itself written by those in a position of power to so write or inspire it. Power by the bible’s own admission is not an indicator of veracity, with respect to the mythical order that the bible posits (cf. Luke and Paul). This consideration would only be silly if the mythical order itself evoked feelings of silliness.”
    http://www.jimmyakin.org/2008/10/sacrilege-and-s/comments/page/2/#comments
    So pardon me if I don’t take it at face value when CT insists that, why, he/she *IS* a Christian… just like all of us. He/she is just one of the guys/gals, a fellow pilgrim.
    For instance, take the virgin birth… CT is right on board with that core doctrine… just so long as it is understood that he/she holds a *special* definition of “virgin” that means, well… the precise opposite of how people (including all the documents of the Church) ordinarily use the word.
    Apparently, one can reject all the classic formulations of the doctrines of the Church… and yet still be a good Christian! It’s a Christmas Miracle!
    IMHO, it’s time to pull the plug.

52. Mary Kay, I apologize though I don’t see any reason for you to be hostile. It was a “MaryC” who said “false flag”; I just didn’t recall that with perfection.
    http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/07/what_is_happeni/comments/page/6/
    Nothing derogatory to you was intended in my comment and neither is anything such intended towards “MaryC.” There is nothing wrong with using the term “false flag”, a phrase that in that precise conjugation has 670,000 hits on google and that any person with even meager education would be acquainted with. Even just being a New York Times reader would acquaint one with the term as in terms of the limited things indexed by google, there are some 325 instances of that usage there. I’m not intending to disparage you by this (just in case you further misinterpret my intention here); I am only trying to make apparent to you that my honest mistake of attribution to “Mary Kay” versus “MaryC” was by no means something that I expected would give readers an unfavorable view of you. I myself used the term “false flag”, so it wouldn’t make any sense to disparage for the use of some term that I myself used! 😉

53. Tim, at the time that was posted, I was not a Christian nor did I ever claim to be one concurrent with that time. I have shared that I reverted to theism and then to Christianity and I shared that at a time subsequent to that post which for whatever reason you are dredging up (this is not meant to imply that there is no merit in that post or the portion you included).
    I don’t think this is the appropriate thread to (A) discuss the content of that post or (B) discuss the virginity of Mary. I will point out however that there is disagreement even amongst Catholic theologians acclaimed by conservatives as orthodox as to the meaning of certain words as it relates to certain dogmatic formulations of the virginity of Mary (for ex. some argue that “virginal integrity” has a meaning that precludes certain bodily consequences that would ordinarily occur from birth and John Paul II espoused the view that Mary’s virginity extended in this fashion with Christ passing through her womb in a miraculous manner; others argue that “virginal integrity” has a spiritual meaning that does not preclude such things).
    I would also point out that even if my view of the virginity of Mary were heretical, that would only make me a heretic, not a non-Christian. In common parlance, “Christian” refers not only to the fully authentic Christianity exclusively proper to Catholicism, but to various materially heretical individuals. I personally believe that my beliefs are consistent with all the infallible teachings of the Church as far as infallibility extends to them, especially when infallibility is evaluated under a rubric similar to the self-described “moderate infallibilism” of Avery Dulles. But that is neither here nor there, as heretics are Christians. Whether I can be aptly described as accepting the virginity of Mary, I do accept the Trinity and the Incarnation which according to Heribert Jone’s handbook Moral Theology is plenty sufficient for salvation (he also notes that some theologians believe that even these beliefs are not necessary for salvation and that only more rudimentary beliefs such as belief in God’s existence and in the promise of (hope in) God to those who seek him is necessary for salvation)

54. Mary Kay,
    you do remind me of a previous poster: someone who refused to acknowledge the point that someone made
    Like “We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not cry.” I “acknowledge” each person’s point of view as his/her point of view.
    If, as SDG says, you don’t “miss points,” it does seem that you ignore them. That’s no basis for discussion.
    Then don’t make how it “seems” the basis for discussion.

55. JFYI, here is some enlightenment on some traditional understanding of virginity. Even in the most traditional understanding (not espoused by the author below), the formal character of virginity, i.e. its spiritual meaning is emphasized. St. Thomas taught that virginity is a virtue. For it to be authentically a Christian virtue, it would be subsumed in some fashion under the theological virtue of charity. Whether one subscribes to an ultra-traditional, traditional, modern, or liberal understanding of Marian virginity, it is important to retain an accent IMO for the good of one’s personal piety on virginity’s spiritual and formal* character. There are canonized authors who expound upon the spiritual meaning of virginity including the virginity of Mary.
    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15458a.htm
    If you read only just the first paragraph of the article, you’ll discover that virginity isn’t as mundane or simple as supposed and theological dispute as to its nature has been present through church history.
    *formal here does not mean formal versus casual
    P.S., Tim, I am saddened for both my and your own sake that you did find within yourself the motivation to apologize to me for your error as you did to “frankie.” I hope that God blesses you abundantly this Christmas.

56. It would be nice if Amazon could figure out a way to have something like e-cards that one can buy on-line and then redeem (or display), except for gift cards. Then, they could have 100 different card designs and make everyone happy. Just buy the card, have a central computer registry and then either redeem them on-line or have one processed and mailed.
    See, that wasn’t so hard. Plastic cards are relatively cheap (although not green, in the PC sense), by the way. If this idea is implemented, then I would get a 10% cut, naturally (hmmm, 10% of a billion dollars…)
    The Chicken

57. That bible quote I mentioned earlier is bothering me. I hope it wasn’t translation specific (as in NAB vs RSV).
    For those who want to know how to get to the last page in a multi-page thread, here is an example:
    Go to the second page, as here:
    http://www.jimmyakin.org/2008/12/scrooge-at-amazoncom/comments/page/2/#comments
    Then, substitute a large number after /page/
    http://www.jimmyakin.org/2008/12/scrooge-at-amazoncom/comments/page/50/#comments
    It will take you to the last page if n (here, 50) > number of pages of comments.
    There maybe other, more efficient methods, but this is what I use.
    The Chicken

58. “Tim, at the time that was posted, I was not a Christian nor did I ever claim to be one concurrent with that time. I have shared that I reverted to theism and then to Christianity and I shared that at a time subsequent to that post which for whatever reason you are dredging up (this is not meant to imply that there is no merit in that post or the portion you included).”
    Your posts since that time – including the odd parenthetical statement above – leave me, shall we say, somewhat doubtful as to the veracity of your claims of conversion.
    I am reminded of the words of John the Baptist. If you have truly repented of your past “Bring forth fruit in keeping with repentance”, and abandon this idea of a “Christianity” that parses and qualifies every word of the Creed.
    I had the great privilege of being present at a baptism last night, where all in attendance (as is the custom) made a renewal of their baptismal vows.
    Those vows begin;
    “Do you reject Satan?…
    And all his works?…
    And all his empty promises?…”
    I can see why some would very much like to convince Christians that claiming, protecting and asserting their rights in a civil society constitutes a sin against charity. I can’t see an actual Christian promoting such bosh, however.
    Such a position misses entirely the broader picture. Jesus, and the Christian martyrs after him, went like lambs to the slaughter precisely because they refused to shut up.

59. Bravo, SDG, and no qualifiers: you’re right! Merry Christmas, all…

60. Mary Lou,
    Thank you for demonstrating yet again the lack of basis for discussion.

61. Tim, I am not motivated that much to “prove” my Christianity to you. It suffices that I am Christian. That others recognize me as so is not of much consequence to me as much as it would be to them. A Christian’s primary relationship is with her God, and others in God, and she seeks not to find recognition in others. This is why I have always been puzzled by the umbrage that some Catholics feel when certain Christians don’t recognize them as Christians; Mormons seems to be more in line with the call of charity on this point as I have witnessed only hints of annoyance from Mormons when others don’t recognize them as Christian. I suppose to be fair, I should mention that at one time I myself used to be annoyed when I as a Catholic was not considered Christian but I came to realize at some point that that was a form of pride on my part not consistent with true charity and humility, humility in Francis of Assisi’s formulation consists of man realization that: “what a man is before God, that he is, no more and no less.”
    I think you are referring to something I recently wrote in a thread on PZM; if so, then as has happened before in this very thread for which error you seemed to make an exasperated acknowledgment, you did not understand me correctly.
    In fact in one revision in that post that I edited for brevity’s sake I did speak about a sin against charity but it was actually speaking about a sin of charity by PZM against his neighbor (and it was speaking of it hypothetically … the point had been that PZM could not make moral recompense for any sin against God, i.e. sacrilege per se, since he doesn’t believe in God; so in terms of sins to make moral recompense for as Mary Kay suggested he must do, that leaves only sins against charity against his sister for which it is even possible for PZM in his current epistemic state to make moral recompense)
    I never stated that “claiming, protecting and asserting their rights in a civil society constitutes a sin against charity.” If my views are defective, it suffices to criticize them just as they are defective; there’s no need to, for example, exaggerate their defectiveness to make the criticism of them more facile or pungent (I am not saying you exaggerated here; in fact you didn’t … it’s not an exagerrated truth but a wholesale falsehood and by pointing that out I don’t mean to make any suggestion that you formally violated the virtue of veracity … I don’t even have an opinion privately held on that as that kind of thing is generally none of my business in this context and I am trying not to dwell on fruitless things).
    What I did suggest was I thought quite clear in what I initially wrote:
    “the primary concern if any, should be the good of PZM, not the good of ourselves, not the civil rights of ourselves, not the fair treatment of our religious sensibilities, but the good, temporal and spiritual of the person, PZM”
    A “primary” concern for the good of PZM in our response to PZM does not mean ((A) there cannot be secondary concerns or (B) that presicinding from whether this forms a secondary concern, that working for the “good of ourselves” “the civil rights of ourselves” and “the fair treatment of our religious sensibilities” are not morally good efforts)
    In fact following that statement I make note of the fact that it is good to will “the good of ourselves” though for that will to be authentic Christian virtue, it must be of course love of one’s self in God or for God’s sake (as taught in the Catechism for example). I expounded on it further by expressing my view (which is not some far out view but believed by authors whom you probably would respect) that therefore any form of “orientation” to self is not “authentic” self-love and that “authentic” self-love can exist “only in relation to another.” I then expound further by writing: “So authentic self-love is ordered in that treasuring of one’s very being and self as gift.” Such authentic self-love is wholly consistent with desiring “the good of ourselves” and all those things which would constitute or be instrumentally associated with the good of ourselves in various ways such as “the civil rights of ourselves” and the “fair treatment” of our selves. The thing that I DID say was not authentic self-love was in the following:
    “So authentic self-love is ordered in that treasuring of one’s very being and self as gift. I do not see how such then can be squared with say thousands of posts piling criticism upon criticism of PZM or moreover with a demand that one ought to be properly loved by PZM.”
    I believe there certainly is an authentic way to love ourselves; that was a big part of my post: describing that way and it was of universal significance, not something specific to the PZM issue. I frankly thought, in humility, that it was a beautiful reflection. To be fair it drew from ideas in other authors including canonized authors (also to be fair the other pre-Christian – incidentally concurrent with that time I had indicated I was not a Christian so I personally felt your citing of that post in context above was very misleading – post you malign perhaps in part due to linguistic difficulties in not apprehending the meaning of certain words like “mythic” was also something that drew from the ideas of others, one person who expressed a similar idea to me in person and asked that as an active seeker and another person who expressed a similar idea on the infidels.org forum)
    I also believe there is an authentic way to in self-love as well as in other kinds of authentic love, work to the good of one’s “civil rights” and “fair treatment” as my post suggested. Perhaps you did not see how my vision of authentic self love could be squared with those things. Or, perhaps you did not see how it would be possible to work to those good ends by a means other than “thousands of posts piling criticism upon criticism of PZM.” In any event, that would be interpreting my post not on its own terms but after it has been grated through your own ideology and regardless it would not be true to give the reader the impression that I stated that self-love, working to the good of one’s civil rights, or being desirous of fair treatment are oppposed to charity; I state the exact opposite in my post, to spin it to say the opposite of what it said is neither fair nor truthful. Since you seem to be prone to not correctly (be it through your own fault as you seem to acknowledge in a case in this very thread or my own due to poor writing skills or habits) understand my posts and also sometimes those of others, it is not something that could be reasonably attributed to malice.
    I believe as I have argued here in this thread that a similar truth is true of amazon in terms of their being “pernicious”, “anti-Christian” or “bigoted.”
    P.S. Just so we’re clear and to share further, I think it would be fine in personal correspondence to PZM to express concern over injury to one’s own good such as civil rights (“right” meant in the moral sense of that which ought to be due one in civil society). However I do not believe that good end should be served at the expense of the good, temporarlly and spiritually, of PZM. As I have expressed before, I believe that in any communication with another person, that the primary (concrete) good that one has in mind when that person is being addressed must always be the good of that person. IMO, just as — though some such as SDG may not affirm this — it is intrinsically evil and violates the nature of communication (or language if you prefer) to lie (i.e. to express something untruthful in the Anselmian sense of truth), it is even just as an integral consequence of that intrinsically evil and indeed in the Anselmian sense untruthful to employ communication in a way such that the good of one’s interlocuter is not the primary (concrete*) good held in mind in that communication.
    *Of course in terms of final cause, all we do is in some sense for the sake of God. But the atheists had it right when they said that we should be good for “goodness’ sake.” Disappointingly, I have found very few were aware that God is goodness itself and that Christian virtue for it to be Christian (and not merely natural), requires that any virtuous act be done for goodness’ sake. One can understand that an atheist oblivious to what he sees as foolish religion might be ignorant of such philosophical truths, but for Christians and especially for Catholics, I was profoundly saddened that the state of catechesis is so desolate with confusion on such basic things as that or the hypostatic union … that God is goodness itself would in the hiearchy of truth be one of the most fundamental truths, more fundamental than even the Incarnation; as the former is a truth that pertains to theology proper whereas the latter is one that is strictly speaking a truth that pertains to economy.

62. It would be nice if Amazon could figure out a way to have something like e-cards that one can buy on-line and then redeem (or display), except for gift cards. Then, they could have 100 different card designs and make everyone happy.
    They offer e-cards (with their Happy Holidays design, etc). You can purchase them and have them e-mailed to yourself. Each e-card has a 14-character string of letters and numbers called a “claim code” which you can copy/paste it onto anything of your choice. No one but you would have to see the original Amazon e-card with its Happy Holidays design. Everyone else would only see what you send them.

63. Could we go back to discussing Amazon, please…When P. Z. Meyers starts giving out gift cards, then maybe we can sneak a discussion about him in here.
    The Chicken

64. Mary Lou,
    I didn’t mean e-cards. There are many outlets for them that people can find on the Internet. I suggested that the GIFT cards from Amazon might be worked something like e-cards, in that there are 100 different styles of gift card fronts to chose from that can either be e-mailed to a friend or mailed. This would seem to satisfy everyone.
    The Chicken

65. Though I cannot say I agree wholly with this (indeed I find some of it bigoted against atheism though perhaps that may be only apparent and due to a difference in usage as regards “militant” … if militant Christianity is acceptable versus vanilla Christianity, militant atheism should not somehow be more unacceptable than vanilla atheism; I take “militant” merely to mean working to achieve the ends suggested as good by the world view in question, so “militant Christianity” might work to change society to conform more to Christianty’s vision for society and to garner adherents and “militant atheism” might do likewise … but as is unfortunately common “militant” is sometimes used in a different way and though the context does not seem to suggest it, I cannot discount that possibility), perhaps this would be better than nothing (or rather the status quo) for those to whom my own opinion previously expressed was be it due to prejudice or opacity, of no assistance.
    http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2008/07/pz-myers-desecrates-the-euchar.html
    “(…) I was thinking last night what the proper Christian response is. If you think about it, P.Z. Myers has done [great] damage himself (…) he has put himself in serious danger of hell (…) I came across this passage from the biography of St. Silouan the Athonite:
    I remember a conversation between [the monk Silouan] and a certain hermit, who declared with evident satisfaction, “God will punish all atheists. They will burn in everlasting fire.” Obviously upset, the Staretz [the Elder — Silouan] said, “Tell me, supposing you went to paradise, and then looked down and saw somebody burning in hellfire — would you feel happy?” “It can’t be helped. It would be their own fault,” said the hermit. The Startez answer him with a sorrowful countenance. “Love could not bear that,” he said. “We must pray for all.” And he did, indeed, pray for all.
    “In the matter of P.Z. Myers, go thou and do likewise (…) from a Christian point of view, there can also be no doubt that he is a creature of the Most High, Who loves him, and that God’s heart would be grieved to lose this self-tortured man to eternity. St. Silouan teaches that we must take care not to do anything that interferes with a man’s salvation. (…)But what would he do if the response to his hideous blasphemy is … love? What would he do if Catholics and other Christians, and even sympathetic members of other faiths, turned up en masse on his campus simply to pray quietly for him? (…) How might that make straight the path to salvation for P.Z. Myers(…) God may work a miracle in that man’s life yet (consider the example of Saul). Let’s not get in the way of the work of redemption in this lost man’s life. As much as we can, let’s answer hate with love.”

66. Like I said, you can go to any website that offers the card of your choice and add the Amazon claim code yourself. If that’s too complicated for you, you can use a website like http://www.hdgreetings.com which offers to do both for you (i.e. you select the card of your choice from among their choices and give them your money and then they fetch the Amazon claim code for you from Amazon and paste it in the e-card). But as with Amazon, though they have dozens of “Christmas” cards, their selection still won’t satisfy everyone with a hungering for “sacred” cards. Likewise, even if Amazon were to offer dozens of “Christmas” cards, it still wouldn’t satisfy everyone.

67. It’s occurred to me that another explanation of amazon’s choice is possible. It is possible that deliberation specific to gift card designs as it relates to Happy Holidays vs. Merry Christmas was done, though I still find that doubtful. What amazon may have possibly thought is that including even one “Merry Christmas” amazon produced gift card alongside the others would have “colored” the other more inclusive gift cards with a sacred theme. “Happy Holidays” itself can as I am sure SDG would be aware have a sacred accent or have its sacred meaning obscured or denied depending on context. In a context of being displayed alongside cards with sacred themes, the term “Happy Holidays” may assume a decidedly sacred character or have that impression on the shopper. This would be a legitimate concern and it would have been noble of amazon to consider it in fidelity to its shareholders, other stakeholders and customers.
    To use technical terminology, “Happy Holidays” may not be invariant in its profane versus sacred accent, with the sacredness of its (A) referent(s) and (B) assertability criteria, variant to context. This contextualist view would make the matter not as simple or obvious (prescinding again from the absurd proportional scheme) as originally supposed by the OP and also by myself in agreement in part with the OP.

68. Incidentally and perhaps fortuitously, if Brazilian Rotten Orange or others were still in doubt as to my ever having engaged in sock puppetry (which I have never done on this blog and to the best of my recollection never done in any forum) and in particular as regards purported sock puppetry by me as “Mary Lou” then I would invite him/her to notice that the time stamp of my last post and the post immediately above it by “Mary Lou” are but 7 seconds apart. Given the length of my post (though you could in paranoia suppose I had it precrafted just for this purpose) added to the captcha step needed to post, it would seem clear to any rational man that I am not “Mary Lou.” I mean no disrespect to “Mary Lou” but (A) I do not want to be viewed as a sockpuppet as that would just increase any existing prejudice against my posts, inhibiting my ability to communicate what may at least occasionally be good ideas and (B) With all due respect to “Mary Lou”, especially since I do not know “Mary Lou” and what “Mary Lou” may write in the future, I care not to be identified (in relation to the relevant part of A) with “Mary Lou”‘s writing.

69. Mary Lou,
    You missed the point. I visited http://www.hdgreeting.com. They let you choose from their own line of e-cards with a vanilla Amazon card attached. I was suggesting that Amazon let the buyer chose not from seven, but from one-hundred different possible fronts, such as is done with e-cards. That should satisfy everyone. E-cards, themselves, are not at issue.
    Personally, I resent Amazon making money off of a Christian holy day by relegating it to a mere one-among-many “holidays” during this time of year, most of which being very trivial excuses for taking time off. Without the birth of Christ being celebrated, most of these other holidays would look just plain dumb as an excuse to give gifts and spend time with family.
    The Chicken

70. In some Christian traditions, not (only) is the Nativity the occasion of gift giving but also Advent and also certain days after the Solemnity celebrating the Nativity on the 25th. There are also profane traditions associated with gift giving on New Year’s Eve or New Year’s Day. I could understand the economic logic of wanting to milk as much as possible out of the holiday season. Many online retailers still refer to the “holidays” and I don’t that’s because they are following the Catholic liturgical calendar.
    Amazon is in the business of making money. If it didn’t use every opportunity consistent with law and (short/long) profitability to make money it would be violating its fiduciary duty to its shareholders. I think personally that is a flaw in the present capitalist system but amazon is not at fault for being bound by it. A company that declared that it wouldn’t use every opportunity to enhance profits and profitability (including investment) would see its share price plummet or be subject to lawsuit by shareholders. There are corporations as of this very day which have lawsuits pending against them from shareholders for these kinds of issues.

71. I was suggesting that Amazon let the buyer chose not from seven, but from one-hundred different possible fronts, such as is done with e-cards. That should satisfy everyone. E-cards, themselves, are not at issue.
    Dear Chicken, I did not miss your point. As I said, “though [hdgreetings] have dozens of ‘Christmas’ cards, their selection still won’t satisfy everyone with a hungering for ‘sacred’ cards. Likewise, even if Amazon were to offer dozens of ‘Christmas’ cards, it still wouldn’t satisfy everyone.” In fact, even if they were to offer a thousand different cards, it won’t satisfy everyone. Adding more options adds more things for people to complain about.
    Personally, I resent Amazon making money off of a Christian holy day by relegating it to a mere one-among-many “holidays” during this time of year
    We know they’re not making money off of “Christmas” gift cards.
    Without the birth of Christ being celebrated, most of these other holidays would look just plain dumb as an excuse to give gifts and spend time with family.
    We also know the birth of Christ apparently doesn’t stop people from complaining (Warning: Profane “Christmas” card). For some, perhaps that’s how they “celebrate”.

72. Here is a test for Amazon: issue their “Happy Holiday” cards during Valentine Day or July Fourth. Both are holidays in the U. S. (although of different types) and we certainly wish people to be happy on those days. See the difference? These cards really do not mean, “Happy Holidays,” at all. They mean, “Happy-the-day-that-must-not-be named”. I doubt that Amazon would sell very many Happy Holiday cards on July 4th, even in the United States and yet, that is the type of cards they are purporting to be.
    Yes, Amazon has a right to make money (although I, personally, don’t care a fig for their investors, bring sour on the idea of stocks, in general), but I can’t see how they would make more money by offering fewer selections of card fronts.
    In any case, I do not hold to a globalized non-religious approach to December 25. In my opinion, if a person is not a Christian, they should not be celebrating the day, anyway. The fact that most people get the day off in the West (I can’t speak for China or India) is a cultural hold-over from years past. Once the U. S. becomes more secularized, look for Christmas to go the way of Blue Laws or be rationalized as in McGowen vs. Maryland.
    The Chicken

73. Amazon is in the business of making money. If it didn’t use every opportunity consistent with law and (short/long) profitability to make money it would be violating its fiduciary duty to its shareholders. I think personally that is a flaw in the present capitalist system
    Plausibly, I won’t speak for Amazon, but our company is part of the “capitalist system” and its duty to its shareholders includes actions which do not maximize the bottom line, such as charitable giving and making moral choices. In our case, the shareholders demand it and the law doesn’t forbid it. And if it should come to a decision between acting immorally and losing money, our company and its shareholders choose to lose money. But as it is, our company is doing very well.

74. There is a reason it is not named versus those days where it is. Every American celebrates Valentine’s day, though not in a sacred way, and likewise for Independence Day. Not every American, in fact, only a minority of Americans, celebrate the present holiday season in a sacred way. Only a minority celebrate sacredly Advent, the Nativity, and the feast of the Mother of God. A majority celebrate during this same time in a profane way (for ex. instead of a celebration of the divine maternity on January 1st, most celebrate the profane New Years Day; and for most Americans that do celebrate Christmas it is not about going to Midnight Mass but about being with friends and family and catching up and so forth)
    Additionally, “holiday” in American usage still carries with it a lingering meaning of “holy day” which due to profanation or inapplicability would not be so true for Valentine’s day and Independence Day. This is not so true in certain other countries.
    Even if one is not American and is a foreigner living in America, there is no Weltanschauung (which is just German for, more or less, “world view” but it sounds so much more impressive – to borrow SDG’s phrase, “let the reader understand” – to say it in German) that would be incompatible with celebrating Valentine’s day and Independence day. However many people hold to a — queue the impressive German 😉 — Weltanschauung — that is incompatible — as you yourself noted above — with celebrating the sacred feasts associated with Christmas.
    I give you credit for rightly seeming to realize that its status as a federal “holiday” is not dispositive way; statutes, even constitutional positive law, comes and goes; what remains are eternal moral principles applicable prescinding from statute and so forth.
    Stock holders are not merely investors in the company but actual owners.
    Mary Lou, I don’t think you are correct, assuming this is a publically traded company. That it would donate to philanthropic causes would be unsurprising. Most large corporations do that and it is seen as something that enhances the value of the company which btw is not dependent solely on the “bottom line” as in quarterly profits. The valuation of a public company is captured by its market capitalization. Some of these public companies have had no profits indeed losses over the past few quarters and yet the still have a positive market capitalization. Generally, donations to philanthropic causes are thought to contribute to profitability for a variety of reasons. But supposing that the classic analysis of the equity markets being driven by fear and greed is substantially false, my point would remain the same; it’s just then that the source of the utility preference function for traders/investors would not be fear and greed but fear and greed tempered by whatever you are proposing — and the company, legally and ethically would have a fiduciary duty to maximize the financial interests of its shareholders taking into account the unorthodox utility preference functions.

75. P.S. IIRC I have seen the term “holiday” used with respect to July 4th … in fact I believe I’ve seen it on the Vatican website among other places … including in real life. Here’s one example on the Internet:
    http://www.neighborhoodlink.com/phoenix/bulldogs/genpage/966532848.html
    “Happy Holidays ~ United States Independence Day”
    Perhaps The Masked Chicken is not American though he seemed to indicate that he was as I remember him saying something with respect to voting and the election that gave the impression that he was able to vote in American elections. Or perhaps, my experience is just anomalous and the Internet (including the Vatican website) and my real life experience just happens to be strangely and unrerepresentatively littered with such juxtapositions of Independence Day as a referent of “Happy Holidays”

76. I had meant to write “IIRC I have seen the term “holiday” used with respect to July 4th by some online retailers” but in my desire to mention the Vatican website and real life and so forth it got morphed and excised and transmuted.

77. Mary Lou, I don’t think you are correct, assuming this is a publically traded company
    Plausibly, no, our company is privately held, but even with respect to publicly traded companies, they’re still run by people who, at times at least, do choose morality ahead of (or try to marry it with) shareholder interests.

78. for most Americans that do celebrate Christmas it is not about going to Midnight Mass but about being with friends and family and catching up and so forth
    In a series of recent 2008 Rasmussen Reports national telephone surveys, it was found that “64% of Americans say they will celebrate Christmas this Thursday as a religious holiday honoring the birth of Jesus Christ. Another 27% celebrate the holiday in a more secular manner. Six percent (6%) don’t celebrate Christmas at all and 3% are not sure how to answer.” Also, “Sixty-nine percent (69%) of Americans generally say ‘Merry Christmas’ to greet people at this time of year, but 71% are not offended by others who say ‘Happy Holidays.'” And, “19% typically use the ‘Happy Holidays’ greeting and 23% are offended by it.” And, “Overall, 92% of adults say they will celebrate Christmas this year, and six percent (6%) will not. Two percent (2%) aren’t sure. Two-thirds (66%) of American adults say Christmas is one of the nation’s most important holidays.”
    A 2007 Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that “57% of respondents say they will attend a Christian service on Christmas Eve or Christmas Day this year. A little less than one-third (30%) won’t go to a special service.” Also, “As the holiday season begins, 67% of American adults like stores to use the phrase ‘Merry Christmas’ in their seasonal advertising rather than ‘Happy Holidays.'” and “just 26% prefer the Happy Holidays line.”
    Additionally, “holiday” in American usage still carries with it a lingering meaning of “holy day”
    I suspect “holy day” is not the meaning most Americans would render to “holiday”, if casually asked without first putting the “holy day” suggestion forward as a possible answer.

79. Mary Lou, 57% may have said in a survey that they would attend a Christian service but that doesn’t mean that 57% actually do. I think I already addressed some of the other things in your post.

80. 57% may have said in a survey that they would attend a Christian service but that doesn’t mean that 57% actually do.
    Of course. It could be less. It could be more. As Jesus said, “Everything is possible to one who has faith.”
    Rejoice always.

81. Perhaps Mark 9:29 applies to trolls as well as demons…
    Merry Christmas!
    Take care and God bless,
    Inocencio
    J+M+J

82. Hey, nice to see you again, Inocencio. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

83. The Christmas Troll: “An adventurous tale of a Christmas Troll who is at first frightening and bewildering to the little boy and his kid sister. But his gentle (and strange!) presence teaches them an important lesson – not just about Christmas but about a life lived in the presence of the Holy Spirit. God can seem strange! Bewildering! Even ugly!? (Just like the Christmas Troll). God doesn’t fit neatly into a box, especially a gift-wrapped one.”
    Or, “just another take on be thankful for what you have.”
    Rejoice always.

84. Greetings Matheus,
    A very Merry Christmas and a Blessed New Year to you and your family!
    Take care and God bless,
    Inocencio
    J+M+J

85. “Perhaps Mark 9:29 applies to trolls as well as demons…”
    True, but Glamdring works faster.
    Happy New Year, Inocencio.

86. It just occurred to me that the analysis of the chicken above wrt “happy holidays” as being used only so as to avoid naming the holiday which must not be made would seem to be in effect criticism of Pope Benedict XVI and Pope John Paul II who have according to “Mary Lou” both used that phraseology. Surely though they are not afraid of naming said holiday and did and do as they feel called so name it. Therefore, it would seem that rather than extending such criticism, the initial analysis by the chicken is in error. “Happy holidays” can sometimes be employed to avoid naming the holiday, but other times it is not so employed, as SDG’s own practice would seem to indicate. Though personally, out of the three, Benedict XVI’s practice interests me most.
    May he who comes to us in divine condescension bless us not so much as regards the profane aspects of the new year but as regards the feast* we celebrate as a Solemnity on January 1st in contemplation of the divine maternity, who even if she be our mother, is first and foremost more than she would be our own, the one within whom the Logos as a culmination of salvation history was made flesh, through whose body, the Logos in the spiritual sense miraculously was born, and to whom the care of the Logos’ humanity, which humanity a creature, the divine persons entrusted. Within, through and in whose mediation, this fountain of womanhood the story of salvation was written to a perfection that awaits further perfection in the fullness of time and so it is fitting that the celebration of this mystery of the divine maternity where a created person is the mother of a Creator in the order of the Creator’s created nature coincide with the authentic human feast of the new year, that the beginning that came with the Annointed’s first coming might order this year to our glory in God as the Annointed comes again this January 1st, liturgically and sacramentally in this Solemnity as obtains in each and every liturgical and sacramental celebration.
    In this new year let us resolve, inspired by the Virgin’s example of the virtue of virginity, to belong more wholly to or to be more wholly in, God, in whom we have our being and without whom this new year would not come and no sun rise.

87. bill912,
    MERRY CHRISTMAS!
    Yes, may the sweet song of glamdring ring out.
    I hope you have a very holy and safe New Year!
    Take care and God bless,
    Inocencio
    J+M+J

88. I sent the following to Amazon.com:
    Hello,
    I recently learned that on Christmas Eve this year (December 24), Amazon.com’s front page was advertising Amazon gift cards as a last-minute gift idea. I also understand that of the seven different gift cards available, six of them said “Happy Holidays” while the seventh said “Winter Wish,” and that none of the gift cards made any reference to Christmas.
    As a Christian, and as one of the 95% of Americans who celebrate Christmas, frankly I am a bit perplexed that with seven different gift card designs advertised on December 24, you could not include even one “Merry Christmas” gift card.
    Please understand that I am *not* bothered by the fact that you offered several “Happy Holidays” gift cards. I am sure that some people would prefer a gift card that says “Happy Holidays,” and of course it makes sense to offer that message for those who prefer it. Likewise, I would not be bothered if you offered a “Happy Hannukah” gift card. I have an aunt who is Jewish, and we recently joined in her celebration of the seventh day of that holiday.
    But I *am* confused as to why you would offer multiple “Happy Holidays” designs while not offering a single “Merry Christmas” design, when surely a vast majority of the people buying these cards at this time of year are giving them as *Christmas* gifts.
    It may not have been your intent, but this type of behavior gives the impression that you are happy to profit from the purchasing of Christmas gifts, but that you are unwilling to acknowledge the very holiday that these gifts are purchased for.
    I apologize if it seems that I am making too big a deal of this, and I acknowledge that perhaps this was simply a mistake that does not reflect the attitude of Amazon.com as an entire company. Nevertheless, I respectfully ask that you review your policies concerning “winter holiday” messaging so that next year the vast majority of Americans who celebrate a holiday called CHRISTMAS are not excluded from that messaging.
    Thank you, and a happy New Year to you,
    I got the exact same canned response that SDG received. I wrote them back, and respectfully asked them not to waste my time by sending me a canned response that implies that they didn’t even read my message (since it implies that I was offended by the use of the term “holiday”, which I clearly said I was not). I told them please either respond to the substance of my inquiry, or just don’t reply.
    By the way, this is not my first such problem with Amazon. I have found that Amazon is great as long as you don’t have a problem that needs attention from customer service. But as soon as that happens, you will start receiving form letter after form letter, and only if you’re lucky will the form letter actually address your concern. I have already greatly decreased the amount of business I do with Amazon, as a result of this past experience. I may stop doing business with them altogether now.

89. Paul, you seem to confirm what I had written earlier, namely that it was a form letter. Form letters are a necessity for large organizations like amazon who may receive too many inquiries to respond to individually, especially wrt to inquiries which are not to the point (FWIW, I would advise limiting such inquiries to not more than 1-3 sentences); otherwise amazon would have to raise prices as hiring staff to go through and respond to that would be expensive … and they would need to make sure their response was in line with corporate policy … hence a certain added utility of using form letters for topics such as these.
    FWIW, I’ve communicated with amazon before on a non-controversial matter and no form letter was given and the correspondence went back and forth a couple times. I have found their customer service to be more than satisfactory.
    From what I understand members of Congress also are in the habit of using form letters. They (be it wrt to Congress or amazon) are few and the inquiries are many. With humility we should recognize that for ordinary folks in ordinary circumstances that form letters are a perfectly understandable thing to do.
    Besides, you could always call them up. If you thought it that important you could even dig up a corporate phone number on the internet. All the major companies will have them out there. You could start by checking the consumerist website.

Comments are closed.