As a private enterprise, they have the right to restrict what they want.
That isn't entirely true. There are laws that restrict what they can restrict. Of course, this doesn't have anything to do with the subject. Likewise, neither does the First Amendment or Government in general.
However, this private enterprise does serve the public. And the public has just as valid a right to complain about their service. That's also a part of capitalism and, more importantly, a free society at work.
As for why this is news - it involves censorship. Again - not Government censorship which invokes the First Amendment. But censorship none the less. It further shows some of the difficulties involved in censorship policies (and maybe to a lesser extent, "zero tolerance" policies).
Thats bizarre. What does the US have against Iranian rug makers?
The same thing the US has against Iranian computer enthusiasts / businesses. That is, its an embargo. No US products exported there. No Iranian imported from there.
I was out on a shopping trip in Kuwait City with some friends and coworkers. We were in uniform - plainly US military. A rug merchant invited us to inspect his store.
"These are the very best rugs you can get. Iranian quality. Very best. Best prices," he assured us. One of my friends caught this and asked "are these Iranian rugs?" Iranian products are illegal to import in to the US. The store keeper paused his sales pitch for a brief second. "These are Persian rugs. Very best quality. You can buy these." He then produced a roll of small stickers that read "Made in Pakistan."
I'm not versed in rugs. I couldn't tell you where these were made. I could believe they were knock-offs from Pakistan. I wouldn't be surprised to find out they really came from Iran as the merchant originally implied. I do know a few small rugs went home to the US after our deployment.
I have a number problems with the reasoning of your post, but I'd just like to address one.
Odd as I thought there was only one point I'm making - which you cover.:)
It seems to me your primary point is that this is good an legitimate because the purpose is to reduce the market and thus financial motivation for additional actual criminal acts against actual children.
Please correct me if I'm wrong here, but wouldn't the most effective way to completely obliterate the financial motive/market be to (1) deny any copyright on such materials (2) decriminalize possession and free download of such materials?
I'm curious as to what court or legal venue you think child pornographers are going to go to in order to enforce their copyright. Perhaps that same court would also help work out a contract dispute when an ordered hit didn't go off as planned. Child pornography already works outside the law and, in effect, without copyright.
As for making these images freely available, you haven't payed much attention to the pornography business (again - I know there's folks actually in the industry who read/. that might share some insight). One of the common laments of pornographers is that their material is widely copied in violation of their copyright. However, they find that few courts are willing to entertain their attempts to enforce their copyright. So even legal pornography deals with a market without effective copyright. There is also a large amount of pornographic material available free of charge without violating copyright. And in most cases, one doesn't have to worry about charges of possession or having downloaded that imagery.
Yet here we are with an industry worth somewhere around $50 billion. This despite all the free content, widely distributed "pirated" content, and lack of legal restrictions. Do you really think any of this affects the child pornography market any differently than any other aspect of the pornography market?
And then there's shock, horror, step (3) redirect all of those police and prosecutorial resources against actual criminals preforming actual acts of abuse against actual children? I know, that one is really radical and insane. What nutter would want to divert money and resources towards rescuing victimized children?
You know what? I wish ALL criminals were so accomodating as to distribute photographic documentation of all their crimes. It would be so much easier to catch and convict bank robbers and muggers and rapists if they were all to photograph their crimes and to be so astoundingly dumb as to distribute that handy-dandy evidence against them on the internet for everyone - including the police - to freely obtain them. Like the idiots who videotape themselves beating the crap out of someone and then upload that video to Youtube. Or those idiots who commit serial arson and videotape it, etc etc etc.
Excellent. Let's get the anti-child-victim unit and bust down doors. The trouble is - which doors?
Child pornographers are getting smart. The stupid ones show their faces. The sloppy ones allow identifying marks or hints of locations to be included in the work. Those guys get caught in the manner you suggest. The others aren't so easy to track down. They're the ones still in business.
Some people are more concerned with censoring and criminalizing anything that offends them - such as images of Mohammad - than with actually protecting children and rescuing actual victims.
I'm with you there. I have no concern for imaginary victims like religious imagery and cartoon characters - there's no real victims in these cases. And I'm less concerned with "offensive" labels (I don't mind the idea of pornography in general being legal). We do need to watch those who would force their ideals on others. However, we also need to be wary of being so idealistic that we fail to stop actions that do real damage to society.
I also am fully capable of enjoying such things. However, if those things are causing you sexual arousal, then I wouldn't want to be in the same vicinity as you. Sexuality is a different ball of wax.
The drive for conflict, and ultimately some representation of violence, and sexuality are indeed different things. But they both seem to be fairly fundamental aspects of the human condition. There are always individuals in society who seem unable to act on those drives without victims while the majority find more appropriate outlets.
I'm also a parent. I understand the desire to protect your loved ones. But I'm also inclined to maintain some degree of sanity checking.
What of legal pornography? Should you worry about a neighbor attacking your wife because they watch "MILF" porn?
The situation we have here is akin to keeping your kids away from priests because we all know what happens with them and little boys. Those types just can't be trusted. We've all seen the news.
That is an absurd notion; there are plenty of decent men in the priesthood who would never prey on children. But hysteria can make it look reasonable. So can ignorance of the actual situation.
Once again - caution is understandable. A good parent is cautious. But we have to be careful that our desire to be good parents do not irrationally impact another's rights.
One side point - I should note that this isn't an argument to justify child pornography. I've already made my views on that plain elsewhere in this thread. Rather I am cautioning against a situation where we've created thought crime.
I thought the charges were for downloading and emailing. Possibly possession. None of these actions implies that a financial transaction occurred.
I don't disagree with your point, but I don't see how it pertains to this case.
A lot of pornography is created with profit motive in mind. You can get a lot of it for free. But usually right after that first sample comes the sales pitch (hey Ninenine, perhaps you can comment with insider industry knowledge).
If this guy is actively seeking out this kind of product, he is part of the group providing a market for that product. He himself might not have paid for it. But he is contributing to the impression that the market is a particular size and thus worth targeting (actual sales only reinforces this - apparently the market is attractive). And if this market exists, producers will seek to create additional content / product. And that means more acts of abuse and victims.
I should note that, like murder, people are going to commit various sexual acts even without a professional interest. The law doesn't eradicate the behavior. But that doesn't mean we need to allow a financial motive to generate motivation for additional criminal acts.
He is not a child predator. The adults acting in the photographs he received are. He just has a sexual fetish that is not shared by most of the rest of us, one that provokes fear in a lot of parents.
I see how this works. Let me try this out. Mafia leaders aren't murderers, the hitmen are. Mafia leaders just have a thing that needs to be done that is not required by the rest of us, one that provokes fear in a lot of lawful citizens.
There is a support structure for these kinds of crimes. Granted - the act itself is committed for various reasons and simply making the act illegal will not stop it. However, allowing a financial motive to support the act will certainly increase the occurrences of that act. Those that provide financial incentive are just as responsible for the act as those who committed it in person.
No, but the idea of sex with children turns him on. That makes him a dangerous, very potential child predator and someone I don't want near my kids, or anyone else's kids for that matter.
I get a kick out of watching gunfights on TV and in the movies. I also play paintball. Should I be arrested for murder? Aren't I showing the signs of being one step away from the latest mass shooting?
Viewing adult porn is different. Adults can consent or refuse to. However, a child can not legally consent, making any sexual act with a child rape.
I completely agree on this point. Kids just don't have the tools to deal with sexuality. Doing so is a part of childhood and growing up. But that should not involve sexual interaction with an adult.
Sorry, but if the idea of raping children turns you on, then I want you off the streets and securely locked away from my kids. If you are OK with these people being near YOUR kids, then you need to have your kids taken away from you and given to parents with some common sense.
In the aftermath of Ike, the most reliable mode of communication I had (I have no land lines) were text messages. I wasn't surprised. I experienced the same thing during Katrina. And I had seen discussion of this elsewhere - to include Slashdot.
I would have preferred how much money it's worth in regards to Libraries of Congress but I suppose beggars can't be choosers.
Libraries of Congress is something the Slashdot crowd is familiar with as we tend to deal with data storage. However, this measurement isn't appropriate when dealing with volumes of gold. Those who deal with financial issues on a more frequent basis know that the correct U.S. Government equivalency metric for gold is Fort Knoxes.
Yes, it is, actually, at least to me. I don't see how "benevolent" and "seeks to suppress truth and freedom" can be reconciled. (Not to mention "dictator", but that was obvious.)
Don't get me wrong - I don't believe it is ever a good idea. But I can imagine the mindset that justifies it and truly believe it to be right.
To that mind, they have the right answers to their population's problems. Criticism from the population simply serves to distract people from the right, chosen course. It also might threaten that population's standing with its neighbors - a matter of airing dirty laundry in public. For the good of that population, it is best if malcontents simply keep it to themselves.
Again - this is false. They've fooled themselves in to a bad situation. No individual is always correct and there is value in criticism for that reason alone. Criticism also tends to uncover corruption and other crimes. And it is a normal part of human behavior - suppressing it can lead to more morale issues than allowing malcontents to air their grievances.
Which doesn't mean that they don't really believe it. Its not hard to understand that a benevolent dictator would rather have distractions and sensitive subjects removed from public discourse.
The fable of "The Emporor's Clothes" is popular for a reason. Not only does it represent an issue that exists throughout the ages, but it is also a criticism of that kind of mentality.
Christmas is a religious time. As far as religion can be envisionned without any deity. Santa Claus is not a god in any fashion. It's more an impersonnation of some fundamental principe. It's all about the winter solstice. It's the time to celebrate hope. The hope of the return of the light. This is taking place in the longest night of the year. When men are about to forfeit hope against darkness. This celebration uses a evergreen tree illuminated by lights. All girl are called "lucy" and running with lights in their hairs. and so on...
Yes - these are all traditions that have religious origins. But does following these traditions (or echoes of the original tradition) make it a religious practice? And if it does, what does that say about traditions such as Halloween (and yeah - I'm aware that some religious folks get upset about that too but they are a minority).
That some would attribute religious aspects to a celebration does not make it religious. Here in the United States, the Forth of July is a national holiday with quite a bit of fanfare. There are certainly some religious trappings involved and some people attribute some very religious feelings towards it. But it is still decidedly secular in origin. And few follow it as a religious celebration.
Christianity just put the birth of JC at the same time because is also celebration for hope from they point of view.
This is simply an example of cultural war. The Church has managed to assimilate many traditions owing to other religious practices.
PS: I'm not native english speaker, so forgive any language mistakes.
Your English is far superior to any attempts I've made at other languages.
For all intents and purposes, Santa is a god. Miracles are ascribed to him (free toys for all children) and the religious fanatics (parents) go to great lengths to propagate the truth of this miracle. Neerdowells like myself that know it is a crock of shit and believe blatent, pointless lying to children is wrong, must hold their tongues. Like I told my nephew, "I believe whatever your mother tells me to believe".
Keep in mind that in most religions, the religious fanatics also believe. Parents tend not to believe in Santa and just see it as some quaint tradition. Granted - you've done a good job at showing parallels to religious behavior. But that doesn't make it a religion.
The cynical side of me would note the whole Santa right-of-passage is actually a valuable life lesson. Just because something would be nice, people tell you something, and you really want that something to be true doesn't mean something is true.
If you pay your respects to Jesus/Santa/Novi God then you are taking part in a religious celebration whether you believe in it or not.
Please feel free to point out what in my description depicted religious ceremony. And please - are you really implying that Santa Claus is a god?
Again - there are underpinnings of Christianity in many Western Christmas traditions. Sure. But then, there's also lots of underpinnings of other religions as well. Just because one follows such a tradition, does not make one a participant of that religion. If it was otherwise, Christmas as most Westerners observe it would present some serious problems for devout Christians (who are pretty uncomfortable with the idea of practicing multiple religions).
I should also note that I do not claim to be an athiest. My religious beliefs are, frankly, nobody's business but my own. The point isn't that Christmas is some Atheist field-day but rather you do not have to be religious to participate in the holiday.
I know that upsets the "reason for the season" folks. They'll have to get over it (they won't).
What's religion got to do with it? OK, sure. There are still those who maintain religious traditions around this time of year. And that's fine. But much of what we celebrate as Christmas is secular.
Looking around my household, I only find one religious trapping; a figurine of an angel reaching for a star. It is far outnumbered by the reindier, wreaths, nutcrackers, canycanes, snowmen, santas, christmas trees, and other assorted decorations. I haven't attented church in years. We didn't even say grace during Christmas dinner with the family.
I've seen the bumper stickers that read "Put Christ back in Christmas." And that's telling. For much of the wider population has left the religious pinnings aside. Or, at best, the religion is only a part of the holiday. Instead Christmas is a time of celebration, friends, family, and community.
Yes there are still echoes of Christian tradition in even a secular Christmas. But there are also echos of traditions that are decidedly non-Christian as well (never mind the history of all those traditions). So if Christmas is decidedly religious to you, then that's great for you. Enjoy the season as you would have it. But don't kid yourself in to thinking it is solely religious in nature much less religious to everyone else.
I now believe orcs and elves are realities in our world. I thought for years that they had died out until I saw the movie (possibly now on YouTube) directed by Peter Jackson based on the notes of J.R.R. Tolkien. Tolkien went in to excellent detail outlining the lives of these people and their history. There is much more on the subject than Jackson was able to film, which everyone should read for themselves.
Sometimes people tell really good stories. And sometimes people really want to believe those stories.
Slashdot Mirror
As a private enterprise, they have the right to restrict what they want.
That isn't entirely true. There are laws that restrict what they can restrict. Of course, this doesn't have anything to do with the subject. Likewise, neither does the First Amendment or Government in general.
However, this private enterprise does serve the public. And the public has just as valid a right to complain about their service. That's also a part of capitalism and, more importantly, a free society at work.
As for why this is news - it involves censorship. Again - not Government censorship which invokes the First Amendment. But censorship none the less. It further shows some of the difficulties involved in censorship policies (and maybe to a lesser extent, "zero tolerance" policies).
Thats bizarre. What does the US have against Iranian rug makers?
The same thing the US has against Iranian computer enthusiasts / businesses. That is, its an embargo. No US products exported there. No Iranian imported from there.
I was out on a shopping trip in Kuwait City with some friends and coworkers. We were in uniform - plainly US military. A rug merchant invited us to inspect his store.
"These are the very best rugs you can get. Iranian quality. Very best. Best prices," he assured us. One of my friends caught this and asked "are these Iranian rugs?" Iranian products are illegal to import in to the US. The store keeper paused his sales pitch for a brief second. "These are Persian rugs. Very best quality. You can buy these." He then produced a roll of small stickers that read "Made in Pakistan."
I'm not versed in rugs. I couldn't tell you where these were made. I could believe they were knock-offs from Pakistan. I wouldn't be surprised to find out they really came from Iran as the merchant originally implied. I do know a few small rugs went home to the US after our deployment.
I have a number problems with the reasoning of your post, but I'd just like to address one.
Odd as I thought there was only one point I'm making - which you cover. :)
It seems to me your primary point is that this is good an legitimate because the purpose is to reduce the market and thus financial motivation for additional actual criminal acts against actual children.
Please correct me if I'm wrong here, but wouldn't the most effective way to completely obliterate the financial motive/market be to (1) deny any copyright on such materials (2) decriminalize possession and free download of such materials?
I'm curious as to what court or legal venue you think child pornographers are going to go to in order to enforce their copyright. Perhaps that same court would also help work out a contract dispute when an ordered hit didn't go off as planned. Child pornography already works outside the law and, in effect, without copyright.
As for making these images freely available, you haven't payed much attention to the pornography business (again - I know there's folks actually in the industry who read /. that might share some insight). One of the common laments of pornographers is that their material is widely copied in violation of their copyright. However, they find that few courts are willing to entertain their attempts to enforce their copyright. So even legal pornography deals with a market without effective copyright. There is also a large amount of pornographic material available free of charge without violating copyright. And in most cases, one doesn't have to worry about charges of possession or having downloaded that imagery.
Yet here we are with an industry worth somewhere around $50 billion. This despite all the free content, widely distributed "pirated" content, and lack of legal restrictions. Do you really think any of this affects the child pornography market any differently than any other aspect of the pornography market?
And then there's shock, horror, step (3) redirect all of those police and prosecutorial resources against actual criminals preforming actual acts of abuse against actual children? I know, that one is really radical and insane. What nutter would want to divert money and resources towards rescuing victimized children?
You know what? I wish ALL criminals were so accomodating as to distribute photographic documentation of all their crimes. It would be so much easier to catch and convict bank robbers and muggers and rapists if they were all to photograph their crimes and to be so astoundingly dumb as to distribute that handy-dandy evidence against them on the internet for everyone - including the police - to freely obtain them. Like the idiots who videotape themselves beating the crap out of someone and then upload that video to Youtube. Or those idiots who commit serial arson and videotape it, etc etc etc.
Excellent. Let's get the anti-child-victim unit and bust down doors. The trouble is - which doors?
Child pornographers are getting smart. The stupid ones show their faces. The sloppy ones allow identifying marks or hints of locations to be included in the work. Those guys get caught in the manner you suggest. The others aren't so easy to track down. They're the ones still in business.
Some people are more concerned with censoring and criminalizing anything that offends them - such as images of Mohammad - than with actually protecting children and rescuing actual victims.
I'm with you there. I have no concern for imaginary victims like religious imagery and cartoon characters - there's no real victims in these cases. And I'm less concerned with "offensive" labels (I don't mind the idea of pornography in general being legal). We do need to watch those who would force their ideals on others. However, we also need to be wary of being so idealistic that we fail to stop actions that do real damage to society.
Or it could be a new direction spurred on by new bosses (read: AMD).
I also am fully capable of enjoying such things. However, if those things are causing you sexual arousal, then I wouldn't want to be in the same vicinity as you. Sexuality is a different ball of wax.
The drive for conflict, and ultimately some representation of violence, and sexuality are indeed different things. But they both seem to be fairly fundamental aspects of the human condition. There are always individuals in society who seem unable to act on those drives without victims while the majority find more appropriate outlets.
I'm also a parent. I understand the desire to protect your loved ones. But I'm also inclined to maintain some degree of sanity checking.
What of legal pornography? Should you worry about a neighbor attacking your wife because they watch "MILF" porn?
The situation we have here is akin to keeping your kids away from priests because we all know what happens with them and little boys. Those types just can't be trusted. We've all seen the news.
That is an absurd notion; there are plenty of decent men in the priesthood who would never prey on children. But hysteria can make it look reasonable. So can ignorance of the actual situation.
Once again - caution is understandable. A good parent is cautious. But we have to be careful that our desire to be good parents do not irrationally impact another's rights.
One side point - I should note that this isn't an argument to justify child pornography. I've already made my views on that plain elsewhere in this thread. Rather I am cautioning against a situation where we've created thought crime.
I thought the charges were for downloading and emailing. Possibly possession. None of these actions implies that a financial transaction occurred.
I don't disagree with your point, but I don't see how it pertains to this case.
A lot of pornography is created with profit motive in mind. You can get a lot of it for free. But usually right after that first sample comes the sales pitch (hey Ninenine, perhaps you can comment with insider industry knowledge).
If this guy is actively seeking out this kind of product, he is part of the group providing a market for that product. He himself might not have paid for it. But he is contributing to the impression that the market is a particular size and thus worth targeting (actual sales only reinforces this - apparently the market is attractive). And if this market exists, producers will seek to create additional content / product. And that means more acts of abuse and victims.
I should note that, like murder, people are going to commit various sexual acts even without a professional interest. The law doesn't eradicate the behavior. But that doesn't mean we need to allow a financial motive to generate motivation for additional criminal acts.
He is not a child predator. The adults acting in the photographs he received are. He just has a sexual fetish that is not shared by most of the rest of us, one that provokes fear in a lot of parents.
I see how this works. Let me try this out. Mafia leaders aren't murderers, the hitmen are. Mafia leaders just have a thing that needs to be done that is not required by the rest of us, one that provokes fear in a lot of lawful citizens.
There is a support structure for these kinds of crimes. Granted - the act itself is committed for various reasons and simply making the act illegal will not stop it. However, allowing a financial motive to support the act will certainly increase the occurrences of that act. Those that provide financial incentive are just as responsible for the act as those who committed it in person.
No, but the idea of sex with children turns him on. That makes him a dangerous, very potential child predator and someone I don't want near my kids, or anyone else's kids for that matter.
I get a kick out of watching gunfights on TV and in the movies. I also play paintball. Should I be arrested for murder? Aren't I showing the signs of being one step away from the latest mass shooting?
Viewing adult porn is different. Adults can consent or refuse to. However, a child can not legally consent, making any sexual act with a child rape.
I completely agree on this point. Kids just don't have the tools to deal with sexuality. Doing so is a part of childhood and growing up. But that should not involve sexual interaction with an adult.
Sorry, but if the idea of raping children turns you on, then I want you off the streets and securely locked away from my kids. If you are OK with these people being near YOUR kids, then you need to have your kids taken away from you and given to parents with some common sense.
Here we are convicting without a crime again.
In the aftermath of Ike, the most reliable mode of communication I had (I have no land lines) were text messages. I wasn't surprised. I experienced the same thing during Katrina. And I had seen discussion of this elsewhere - to include Slashdot.
I would have preferred how much money it's worth in regards to Libraries of Congress but I suppose beggars can't be choosers.
Libraries of Congress is something the Slashdot crowd is familiar with as we tend to deal with data storage. However, this measurement isn't appropriate when dealing with volumes of gold. Those who deal with financial issues on a more frequent basis know that the correct U.S. Government equivalency metric for gold is Fort Knoxes.
The United States of America was, for much of its life as a nation, a weak state. Yet it managed to flourish without state censorship.
The government of Vietnam got these requests via NSA courier squirrel.
Yes, it is, actually, at least to me. I don't see how "benevolent" and "seeks to suppress truth and freedom" can be reconciled. (Not to mention "dictator", but that was obvious.)
Don't get me wrong - I don't believe it is ever a good idea. But I can imagine the mindset that justifies it and truly believe it to be right.
To that mind, they have the right answers to their population's problems. Criticism from the population simply serves to distract people from the right, chosen course. It also might threaten that population's standing with its neighbors - a matter of airing dirty laundry in public. For the good of that population, it is best if malcontents simply keep it to themselves.
Again - this is false. They've fooled themselves in to a bad situation. No individual is always correct and there is value in criticism for that reason alone. Criticism also tends to uncover corruption and other crimes. And it is a normal part of human behavior - suppressing it can lead to more morale issues than allowing malcontents to air their grievances.
Considering jury duty is composed of people who couldn't think of a good excuse to get out of jury duty, it's quite different indeed.
Actually, there are people who WANT to be on jury duty. I think its the lawyer's job to find them and strike them from the list.
What might be really disturbing are the ones who both want to be there and are inventive enough to avoid being stricken by the lawyers.
Wait - was that a troll created by a Perl script? I think the dig on Python is what gives it away.
Which doesn't mean that they don't really believe it. Its not hard to understand that a benevolent dictator would rather have distractions and sensitive subjects removed from public discourse.
The fable of "The Emporor's Clothes" is popular for a reason. Not only does it represent an issue that exists throughout the ages, but it is also a criticism of that kind of mentality.
Pssst... you've been trolled.
Trolling about trolling. Recursion. Profit.
Christmas is a religious time. As far as religion can be envisionned without any deity. Santa Claus is not a god in any fashion. It's more an impersonnation of some fundamental principe. It's all about the winter solstice. It's the time to celebrate hope. The hope of the return of the light. This is taking place in the longest night of the year. When men are about to forfeit hope against darkness. This celebration uses a evergreen tree illuminated by lights. All girl are called "lucy" and running with lights in their hairs. and so on...
Yes - these are all traditions that have religious origins. But does following these traditions (or echoes of the original tradition) make it a religious practice? And if it does, what does that say about traditions such as Halloween (and yeah - I'm aware that some religious folks get upset about that too but they are a minority).
That some would attribute religious aspects to a celebration does not make it religious. Here in the United States, the Forth of July is a national holiday with quite a bit of fanfare. There are certainly some religious trappings involved and some people attribute some very religious feelings towards it. But it is still decidedly secular in origin. And few follow it as a religious celebration.
Christianity just put the birth of JC at the same time because is also celebration for hope from they point of view.
This is simply an example of cultural war. The Church has managed to assimilate many traditions owing to other religious practices.
PS: I'm not native english speaker, so forgive any language mistakes.
Your English is far superior to any attempts I've made at other languages.
For all intents and purposes, Santa is a god. Miracles are ascribed to him (free toys for all children) and the religious fanatics (parents) go to great lengths to propagate the truth of this miracle. Neerdowells like myself that know it is a crock of shit and believe blatent, pointless lying to children is wrong, must hold their tongues. Like I told my nephew, "I believe whatever your mother tells me to believe".
Keep in mind that in most religions, the religious fanatics also believe. Parents tend not to believe in Santa and just see it as some quaint tradition. Granted - you've done a good job at showing parallels to religious behavior. But that doesn't make it a religion.
The cynical side of me would note the whole Santa right-of-passage is actually a valuable life lesson. Just because something would be nice, people tell you something, and you really want that something to be true doesn't mean something is true.
If you pay your respects to Jesus/Santa/Novi God then you are taking part in a religious celebration whether you believe in it or not.
Please feel free to point out what in my description depicted religious ceremony. And please - are you really implying that Santa Claus is a god?
Again - there are underpinnings of Christianity in many Western Christmas traditions. Sure. But then, there's also lots of underpinnings of other religions as well. Just because one follows such a tradition, does not make one a participant of that religion. If it was otherwise, Christmas as most Westerners observe it would present some serious problems for devout Christians (who are pretty uncomfortable with the idea of practicing multiple religions).
I should also note that I do not claim to be an athiest. My religious beliefs are, frankly, nobody's business but my own. The point isn't that Christmas is some Atheist field-day but rather you do not have to be religious to participate in the holiday.
I know that upsets the "reason for the season" folks. They'll have to get over it (they won't).
What's religion got to do with it? OK, sure. There are still those who maintain religious traditions around this time of year. And that's fine. But much of what we celebrate as Christmas is secular.
Looking around my household, I only find one religious trapping; a figurine of an angel reaching for a star. It is far outnumbered by the reindier, wreaths, nutcrackers, canycanes, snowmen, santas, christmas trees, and other assorted decorations. I haven't attented church in years. We didn't even say grace during Christmas dinner with the family.
I've seen the bumper stickers that read "Put Christ back in Christmas." And that's telling. For much of the wider population has left the religious pinnings aside. Or, at best, the religion is only a part of the holiday. Instead Christmas is a time of celebration, friends, family, and community.
Yes there are still echoes of Christian tradition in even a secular Christmas. But there are also echos of traditions that are decidedly non-Christian as well (never mind the history of all those traditions). So if Christmas is decidedly religious to you, then that's great for you. Enjoy the season as you would have it. But don't kid yourself in to thinking it is solely religious in nature much less religious to everyone else.
It's because every year is the year of Linux. Its just funny that some people haven't realized it yet.
I now believe orcs and elves are realities in our world. I thought for years that they had died out until I saw the movie (possibly now on YouTube) directed by Peter Jackson based on the notes of J.R.R. Tolkien. Tolkien went in to excellent detail outlining the lives of these people and their history. There is much more on the subject than Jackson was able to film, which everyone should read for themselves.
Sometimes people tell really good stories. And sometimes people really want to believe those stories.