[YoungBlade]

I've been thinking about the different forms of religion that come into being based on the various spiritual themes within their cultures, and I've come to the conclusion American spirituality is both unique and odd.

There is no canon, just a vague set of frequently repeated rumors (e.g. one supreme deity, active force of evil, spirits that can interact with the material realm). These lead to a set of assumptions on how to carry oneself through day-to-day life, as well as how to treat the "sacred."

This must be due to the fact that the wilder sects of Protestantism settled here and propagated and evolved alongside the native belief systems. This led to a sort of syncretism that was much more complex than, say, the form of Roman Catholicism in Latin America. In that case, it is obvious what is native and what is catholic, and how they mixed. In America, not so much.

Any thoughts? My personal background is southern baptist, though my spiritual views are more eccentric these days.

[LINUX]

You lost me when you started talking about canons and syncretism.

But to answer your question, "No, I don't find American spirituality odd."

I find Islam odd, and that new religion I read about the other day where the worship the flying spaghetti monster.

[YoungBlade]

(11-25-2015 09:35 PM)LINUX Wrote:  

You lost me when you started talking about canons and syncretism.

But to answer your question, "No, I don't find American spirituality odd."

I find Islam odd, and that new religion I read about the other day where the worship the flying spaghetti monster.

"Canon" is the body of dogma and spiritual truth at the foundation of a religion. "Syncretism" is when features of one religion meld with another (e.g. baby jesus wearing an Aztec imperial feather crown in a Mexican cathedral).

Yes, Islam is weird, considering its holy text was collected from writings on random objects such as bones, scraps of fur, etc. Yet the canon is somehow absolute. Though in regards to their doctrine, I must say they have it all together, aside from succession of authority, which is all politics (see Iran, IS, Saudi Arabia).

FSM I'm quite certain is a parody.

[The Beast1]

FSM is a parody religion to argue that their creation story should also be taught in schools.

However OP, as a relatively religious individual your grasp of American spirituality is off. Spirituality as a whole i've found is pretty standardized between religions. For the truly religious, the only differences are the traditions he or she follow. The message is still going to roughly the same place.

What in particular are you looking at to draw your conclusions?

[Mage]

Are you talking about Protestantism or VooDoo?

[YoungBlade]

There seems to be a bit of confusion, so I will detail some more differences between American (meaning U.S.A.) spirituality and the rest of the world.

Again, there is no "canon." The Bible is supposed to be used as the canon, but the actual texts are used to support presupposed assumptions. For example, the Antichrist is assumed to be a figure that is either Satan or a servant thereof. However, every theologian knows there is no single Antichrist, simply people who are anti-Christ.

"1 John 2:22 New International Version (NIV)

22 Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son."

That is what I mean by there being no real canon, just pre-supposed rumors.

In regards to syncretism, an example would be the assumption that Native American religions hold legitimacy because many have some form of "great spirit" that is identified with the Christian god (though whether this concept was introduced by Christians or not is disputed). In addition, spirits that can influence and be influenced are assumed to exist by both the native religions and the White American Protestants.

While many assume spirituality is standardized, Beast1, one can look at the canon and myths of most religions through world history and find wild differences. Europe did not even have a concept of spiritual good versus evil until Christianity came along. The gods, who were meant to be worshiped and venerated, did many things that good mortals would not even consider (adultery, theft, murder). Morality was social, not religious in this case. Given the rise of Abrahamic faiths, the idea of spiritual morality of course made its way to America.

[YoungBlade]

(11-29-2015 10:01 AM)Mage Wrote:  

Are you talking about Protestantism or VooDoo?

Protestantism mostly. Though when there is a supposed possession, a catholic priest is almost always called. Again, an oddity in America that would not occur elsewhere.

[Mage]

(11-29-2015 05:09 PM)YoungBlade Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 10:01 AM)Mage Wrote:  

Are you talking about Protestantism or VooDoo?

Protestantism mostly. Though when there is a supposed possession, a catholic priest is almost always called. Again, an oddity in America that would not occur elsewhere.

This actually makes sense.

When life is good you can choose an independant church who will preach close to what you want to hear.

When shit hits the fan you need time tested values.

[YoungBlade]

I reckon that theory applies to the cases of Indian burial ground hauntings too. Medicine men are called in those cases. Though how much either tradition is truly the same as it was thousands of years ago is anyone's guess.

[Dr. Howard]

(11-29-2015 05:09 PM)YoungBlade Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 10:01 AM)Mage Wrote:  

Are you talking about Protestantism or VooDoo?

Protestantism mostly. Though when there is a supposed possession, a catholic priest is almost always called. Again, an oddity in America that would not occur elsewhere.

Where I live, in appalachia, southern baptists preachers and methodists have specialists for exorcism. These are over the top, rural fire and brimstone kind of pastors, not your 'regular' new age church types. Catholicism is considered a false religion, because of the pope as the head of the church, people would sooner have the walmart greeter exorcise a demon than a catholic priest.

As for the source of american spirituality. History points to its unique origins pretty clearly. Many of the original colonies were christian sects with extreme beliefs that were leaving europe for a place that they could practice their beliefs free of persecution from larger christian sects or governments. Puritans are a classic example, quakers as well. They manage to co-exist by agreeing that no one would try to crush the others religion...hence freedom of religion in the founding documents of america.

Last, I don't think 'spirit' beliefs came from the american indians. In the 1830s america experienced a movement in mysticism in christianity. This happened at around the same time as sanatoriums were springing up around america like Dr. Kellog's sanatorium in battle creek michigan. This is definitely something unique to america and may have just been desperation at trying anything and everything to combat ill health and tuberculosis.

[Paracelsus]

Let's talk a minute about Catholic exorcism.

The first thing is that it's not an automatic go-to for hauntings and what have you. The original circa. 1600 text containing the rite of exorcism explicitly provides that "Most people who claim to be possessed are more in need of a doctor than a priest."

In Catholic congregations in Western nations, the rite is sort of like having BDSM gear in the back of your cupboard: even if you are into that sort of thing, it's not the sort of stuff you publicise or put out on public show when grandma comes round for tea. But nonetheless, the rite is there, there are trained exorcists in the church, and there's a time and a place for it.

However -- typically because of really stupid films and consequently even stupider ideas about exorcism -- Catholic churches (at least in the West; less so Latin America and other 'third world' areas) are pretty reluctant to authorise it unless there's been a bevy of psychological or psychiatric assistance offered first and a doctor has said "Well, okay, give it a try, because there's nothing else medically we can do."

Even then:
(a) It has to be authorised by the church, i.e. an exorcist has to receive the specific authority of a bishop at least to perform it, i.e.e. you have to convince more than the local parish priest or the exorcist himself; and
(b) It has to be investigated in a similar manner as a miracle would be and the exorcist convinced there is no earthly cause for the behaviour involved.

While it's true some Christian sects will occasionally suggest a Catholic exorcist in cases of this kind, it's not an organised system or anything like that - it's more often than not a case of "Well, this might work" and it typically involves a Protestant minister or church with a somewhat more ecumenical outlook on life; as said, Southern Baptist Convention has a real hard-on against Catholicism in general, but other Protestant churches, not so much. It's not any sort of acknowledgment that when all else fails you go back to the One True Christian Church, it's more a case of "Well, these guys have a certain success rate with spiritual cases like this, you could try them." From memory a person doesn't have to be Catholic to receive the rite of exorcism -- the most famous case, that of "Robbie Manheim", upon which the film The Exorcist was based, was from memory not a Catholic.

There is one consistent stream I've noticed about advice from Catholic exorcists at large, though: don't fuck with Ouija boards, and don't fuck with tarot cards. They keep running into a prior history of this shit whenever they're called in to exorcise a person, and it seems these are some of the most direct methods for calling up, let's say, other places that you shouldn't be calling up.

[YoungBlade]

(11-29-2015 09:59 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 05:09 PM)YoungBlade Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 10:01 AM)Mage Wrote:  

Are you talking about Protestantism or VooDoo?

Protestantism mostly. Though when there is a supposed possession, a catholic priest is almost always called. Again, an oddity in America that would not occur elsewhere.

Where I live, in appalachia, southern baptists preachers and methodists have specialists for exorcism. These are over the top, rural fire and brimstone kind of pastors, not your 'regular' new age church types. Catholicism is considered a false religion, because of the pope as the head of the church, people would sooner have the walmart greeter exorcise a demon than a catholic priest.

As for the source of american spirituality. History points to its unique origins pretty clearly. Many of the original colonies were christian sects with extreme beliefs that were leaving europe for a place that they could practice their beliefs free of persecution from larger christian sects or governments. Puritans are a classic example, quakers as well. They manage to co-exist by agreeing that no one would try to crush the others religion...hence freedom of religion in the founding documents of america.

Last, I don't think 'spirit' beliefs came from the american indians. In the 1830s america experienced a movement in mysticism in christianity. This happened at around the same time as sanatoriums were springing up around america like Dr. Kellog's sanatorium in battle creek michigan. This is definitely something unique to america and may have just been desperation at trying anything and everything to combat ill health and tuberculosis.

Your points are quite poignant, though I must say in regards to your first point: I too live in Appalachia, and am unaware of any exorcism specialist preachers. I always heard growing up (pentecostal/southern baptist family) that all one needed to do was pray over the subject.

[YoungBlade]

(11-29-2015 11:32 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

Let's talk a minute about Catholic exorcism.

The first thing is that it's not an automatic go-to for hauntings and what have you. The original circa. 1600 text containing the rite of exorcism explicitly provides that "Most people who claim to be possessed are more in need of a doctor than a priest."

In Catholic congregations in Western nations, the rite is sort of like having BDSM gear in the back of your cupboard: even if you are into that sort of thing, it's not the sort of stuff you publicise or put out on public show when grandma comes round for tea. But nonetheless, the rite is there, there are trained exorcists in the church, and there's a time and a place for it.

However -- typically because of really stupid films and consequently even stupider ideas about exorcism -- Catholic churches (at least in the West; less so Latin America and other 'third world' areas) are pretty reluctant to authorise it unless there's been a bevy of psychological or psychiatric assistance offered first and a doctor has said "Well, okay, give it a try, because there's nothing else medically we can do."

Even then:
(a) It has to be authorised by the church, i.e. an exorcist has to receive the specific authority of a bishop at least to perform it, i.e.e. you have to convince more than the local parish priest or the exorcist himself; and
(b) It has to be investigated in a similar manner as a miracle would be and the exorcist convinced there is no earthly cause for the behaviour involved.

While it's true some Christian sects will occasionally suggest a Catholic exorcist in cases of this kind, it's not an organised system or anything like that - it's more often than not a case of "Well, this might work" and it typically involves a Protestant minister or church with a somewhat more ecumenical outlook on life; as said, Southern Baptist Convention has a real hard-on against Catholicism in general, but other Protestant churches, not so much. It's not any sort of acknowledgment that when all else fails you go back to the One True Christian Church, it's more a case of "Well, these guys have a certain success rate with spiritual cases like this, you could try them." From memory a person doesn't have to be Catholic to receive the rite of exorcism -- the most famous case, that of "Robbie Manheim", upon which the film The Exorcist was based, was from memory not a Catholic.

There is one consistent stream I've noticed about advice from Catholic exorcists at large, though: don't fuck with Ouija boards, and don't fuck with tarot cards. They keep running into a prior history of this shit whenever they're called in to exorcise a person, and it seems these are some of the most direct methods for calling up, let's say, other places that you shouldn't be calling up.

Of course. I did not mean to imply that exorcisms were taken lightly by the church. Though I do think their fear of silly past-times such as ouija and tarot is unfounded. Tarot was simply an unpopular alternative to the original four suits (hearts, diamonds, etc.) and so they had to come up with a use for it. Ouija is a middle-school girls' sleepover game, nothing more.

[debeguiled]

(11-30-2015 02:15 PM)YoungBlade Wrote:  

Though I do think their fear of silly past-times such as ouija and tarot is unfounded. Tarot was simply an unpopular alternative to the original four suits (hearts, diamonds, etc.) and so they had to come up with a use for it. Ouija is a middle-school girls' sleepover game, nothing more.

Some people think all spirituality is silly, and dismiss it out of hand. For those who are more open to an unseen reality that can be intuited or sensed in some other way, there is a well known warning to stay away from tarot cards and Ouija boards, not just from Catholics and Christians. A fair number of ghost hunters and psychics will also say that in particular these two occult practices tend to have bad outcomes.

In fact it may well be that because people see these things as harmless, their guards are down, and it allow negative spiritual influences into a person's mind and heart. (And, for atheists or empiricists, these influences may only have to be the direction of the individual mind, and not necessarily an external spiritual force to be negative.)

The difference between saying a prayer and casting a spell is that a person who prays asks humbly, though ultimately accepting the judgement of God in the matter.

Casting a spell is a pure power move, and involves commanding the world to bend itself to your will. It is an attempt to be a god, in a way, and removes all love and humility from the equation.

So even if you don't believe in such things, you are still accessing different parts of the human mind and heart when you engage in these sorts of behavior.

There are various warnings against calling up spirits or divining in the bible, and tarot and the Ouija fall under these warnings.

There are many people who have scary tales to tell about experiences with these, especially the Ouija, but they are too embarrassed to do so. Might be better just to leave them alone.

Like, you probably won't die taking a selfie on the very edge of a cliff either, but why tap on that glass?

[Dr. Howard]

(11-30-2015 02:15 PM)YoungBlade Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 11:32 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

Let's talk a minute about Catholic exorcism.

The first thing is that it's not an automatic go-to for hauntings and what have you. The original circa. 1600 text containing the rite of exorcism explicitly provides that "Most people who claim to be possessed are more in need of a doctor than a priest."

In Catholic congregations in Western nations, the rite is sort of like having BDSM gear in the back of your cupboard: even if you are into that sort of thing, it's not the sort of stuff you publicise or put out on public show when grandma comes round for tea. But nonetheless, the rite is there, there are trained exorcists in the church, and there's a time and a place for it.

However -- typically because of really stupid films and consequently even stupider ideas about exorcism -- Catholic churches (at least in the West; less so Latin America and other 'third world' areas) are pretty reluctant to authorise it unless there's been a bevy of psychological or psychiatric assistance offered first and a doctor has said "Well, okay, give it a try, because there's nothing else medically we can do."

Even then:
(a) It has to be authorised by the church, i.e. an exorcist has to receive the specific authority of a bishop at least to perform it, i.e.e. you have to convince more than the local parish priest or the exorcist himself; and
(b) It has to be investigated in a similar manner as a miracle would be and the exorcist convinced there is no earthly cause for the behaviour involved.

While it's true some Christian sects will occasionally suggest a Catholic exorcist in cases of this kind, it's not an organised system or anything like that - it's more often than not a case of "Well, this might work" and it typically involves a Protestant minister or church with a somewhat more ecumenical outlook on life; as said, Southern Baptist Convention has a real hard-on against Catholicism in general, but other Protestant churches, not so much. It's not any sort of acknowledgment that when all else fails you go back to the One True Christian Church, it's more a case of "Well, these guys have a certain success rate with spiritual cases like this, you could try them." From memory a person doesn't have to be Catholic to receive the rite of exorcism -- the most famous case, that of "Robbie Manheim", upon which the film The Exorcist was based, was from memory not a Catholic.

There is one consistent stream I've noticed about advice from Catholic exorcists at large, though: don't fuck with Ouija boards, and don't fuck with tarot cards. They keep running into a prior history of this shit whenever they're called in to exorcise a person, and it seems these are some of the most direct methods for calling up, let's say, other places that you shouldn't be calling up.

Of course. I did not mean to imply that exorcisms were taken lightly by the church. Though I do think their fear of silly past-times such as ouija and tarot is unfounded. Tarot was simply an unpopular alternative to the original four suits (hearts, diamonds, etc.) and so they had to come up with a use for it. Ouija is a middle-school girls' sleepover game, nothing more.

Tarot cards, had designs directed by A.E Waite, who was a member of the golden dawn...which was/is a strange occult group that fits into the sort of freemason/illuminati mystery. He also had dealings with another occult weirdo, Aleister Crowley. I think for 'bad things' to happen with them someone has to invest faith in them, the same way that miracles only happen to the religiously faithful.

As for exorcists in the south/appalachia. I like to visit churches, and the exorcist talk I've only heard a few times at small country churches. The same kinds where you can still see snake handling preachers.

[YoungBlade]

(11-30-2015 02:57 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  

(11-30-2015 02:15 PM)YoungBlade Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 11:32 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

Let's talk a minute about Catholic exorcism.

The first thing is that it's not an automatic go-to for hauntings and what have you. The original circa. 1600 text containing the rite of exorcism explicitly provides that "Most people who claim to be possessed are more in need of a doctor than a priest."

In Catholic congregations in Western nations, the rite is sort of like having BDSM gear in the back of your cupboard: even if you are into that sort of thing, it's not the sort of stuff you publicise or put out on public show when grandma comes round for tea. But nonetheless, the rite is there, there are trained exorcists in the church, and there's a time and a place for it.

However -- typically because of really stupid films and consequently even stupider ideas about exorcism -- Catholic churches (at least in the West; less so Latin America and other 'third world' areas) are pretty reluctant to authorise it unless there's been a bevy of psychological or psychiatric assistance offered first and a doctor has said "Well, okay, give it a try, because there's nothing else medically we can do."

Even then:
(a) It has to be authorised by the church, i.e. an exorcist has to receive the specific authority of a bishop at least to perform it, i.e.e. you have to convince more than the local parish priest or the exorcist himself; and
(b) It has to be investigated in a similar manner as a miracle would be and the exorcist convinced there is no earthly cause for the behaviour involved.

While it's true some Christian sects will occasionally suggest a Catholic exorcist in cases of this kind, it's not an organised system or anything like that - it's more often than not a case of "Well, this might work" and it typically involves a Protestant minister or church with a somewhat more ecumenical outlook on life; as said, Southern Baptist Convention has a real hard-on against Catholicism in general, but other Protestant churches, not so much. It's not any sort of acknowledgment that when all else fails you go back to the One True Christian Church, it's more a case of "Well, these guys have a certain success rate with spiritual cases like this, you could try them." From memory a person doesn't have to be Catholic to receive the rite of exorcism -- the most famous case, that of "Robbie Manheim", upon which the film The Exorcist was based, was from memory not a Catholic.

There is one consistent stream I've noticed about advice from Catholic exorcists at large, though: don't fuck with Ouija boards, and don't fuck with tarot cards. They keep running into a prior history of this shit whenever they're called in to exorcise a person, and it seems these are some of the most direct methods for calling up, let's say, other places that you shouldn't be calling up.

Of course. I did not mean to imply that exorcisms were taken lightly by the church. Though I do think their fear of silly past-times such as ouija and tarot is unfounded. Tarot was simply an unpopular alternative to the original four suits (hearts, diamonds, etc.) and so they had to come up with a use for it. Ouija is a middle-school girls' sleepover game, nothing more.

Tarot cards, had designs directed by A.E Waite, who was a member of the golden dawn...which was/is a strange occult group that fits into the sort of freemason/illuminati mystery. He also had dealings with another occult weirdo, Aleister Crowley. I think for 'bad things' to happen with them someone has to invest faith in them, the same way that miracles only happen to the religiously faithful.

As for exorcists in the south/appalachia. I like to visit churches, and the exorcist talk I've only heard a few times at small country churches. The same kinds where you can still see snake handling preachers.

There seems to be some confusion in regards to tarot here. I mean the original set of playing cards that was developed as an alternative to the standard set, back in the late middle ages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarot

The 20th century occult stuff should obviously be discredited, as any 'recent' religious movement.

[YoungBlade]

(11-30-2015 02:42 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  

(11-30-2015 02:15 PM)YoungBlade Wrote:  

Though I do think their fear of silly past-times such as ouija and tarot is unfounded. Tarot was simply an unpopular alternative to the original four suits (hearts, diamonds, etc.) and so they had to come up with a use for it. Ouija is a middle-school girls' sleepover game, nothing more.

Some people think all spirituality is silly, and dismiss it out of hand. For those who are more open to an unseen reality that can be intuited or sensed in some other way, there is a well known warning to stay away from tarot cards and Ouija boards, not just from Catholics and Christians. A fair number of ghost hunters and psychics will also say that in particular these two occult practices tend to have bad outcomes.

In fact it may well be that because people see these things as harmless, their guards are down, and it allow negative spiritual influences into a person's mind and heart. (And, for atheists or empiricists, these influences may only have to be the direction of the individual mind, and not necessarily an external spiritual force to be negative.)

The difference between saying a prayer and casting a spell is that a person who prays asks humbly, though ultimately accepting the judgement of God in the matter.

Casting a spell is a pure power move, and involves commanding the world to bend itself to your will. It is an attempt to be a god, in a way, and removes all love and humility from the equation.

So even if you don't believe in such things, you are still accessing different parts of the human mind and heart when you engage in these sorts of behavior.

There are various warnings against calling up spirits or divining in the bible, and tarot and the Ouija fall under these warnings.

There are many people who have scary tales to tell about experiences with these, especially the Ouija, but they are too embarrassed to do so. Might be better just to leave them alone.

Like, you probably won't die taking a selfie on the very edge of a cliff either, but why tap on that glass?

I reckon that one could certainly act on the darker parts of one's mind and blame the 'occult' if one had little self-control and no accountability, but I find the fact that one could buy mass-produced ouija boards and tarot cards from a retailer to be a sign of just how mundane the objects themselves are.

[CynicalContrarian]

When it comes to dogma specifically.
The first action one should undertake (especially if one is inclined to devote some sense of reverence for the Bible),
is to discern whether that dogma is Biblically derived or derived from some random priest or pope ~1000 years ago.

Then, when one understands that so much dogma & tradition practiced today is not Biblically derived,
yet permeates through most denominations, the question then becomes.

Do you follow man made / organized religion, or the core tenets & text of your religion?

Some don't call the catholic church the proverbial "Whore of Babylon" for nothing.

[Paracelsus]

(11-30-2015 07:29 PM)CynicalContrarian Wrote:  

When it comes to dogma specifically.
The first action one should undertake (especially if one is inclined to devote some sense of reverence for the Bible),
is to discern whether that dogma is Biblically derived or derived from some random priest or pope ~1000 years ago.

Then, when one understands that so much dogma & tradition practiced today is not Biblically derived,
yet permeates through most denominations, the question then becomes.

Do you follow man made / organized religion, or the core tenets & text of your religion?

Some don't call the catholic church the proverbial "Whore of Babylon" for nothing.

Oh for fuck's sake - there is no way I'm participating in a shitfight over sola scriptura and thus reargue the Reformation on an internet thread without a couple of spare centuries to hand. Protestantism says "Bible only", Catholicism says "Bible plus what the early Church patriarchs left us" -- how about we leave it at that and not start accusing entire Christian sects of sucking off the Antichrist?

[CynicalContrarian]

(11-30-2015 08:56 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

Oh for fuck's sake - there is no way I'm participating in a shitfight over sola scriptura and thus reargue the Reformation on an internet thread without a couple of spare centuries to hand. Protestantism says "Bible only", Catholicism says "Bible plus what the early Church patriarchs left us" -- how about we leave it at that and not start accusing entire Christian sects of sucking off the Antichrist?

It wasn't intended as a catholic vs. protestant rant.
More-so, whether it be x-mas, easter or any other old school tradition found in your average church.
If you were to ask the average church goer, the where & why those traditions exist.
Most wouldn't be able to answer specifically.

So these days, x-mas for example. Some folk get upset when x-mas traditions aren't allowed due to political correctness.
Which is rather amusing if they're supposedly Christian, when most distinctly x-mas elements aren't Biblically based.
(Tree, mistletoe, reindeer etc).

[Paracelsus]

(11-30-2015 09:09 PM)CynicalContrarian Wrote:  

(11-30-2015 08:56 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

Oh for fuck's sake - there is no way I'm participating in a shitfight over sola scriptura and thus reargue the Reformation on an internet thread without a couple of spare centuries to hand. Protestantism says "Bible only", Catholicism says "Bible plus what the early Church patriarchs left us" -- how about we leave it at that and not start accusing entire Christian sects of sucking off the Antichrist?

It wasn't intended as a catholic vs. protestant rant.
More-so, whether it be x-mas, easter or any other old school tradition found in your average church.
If you were to ask the average church goer, the where & why those traditions exist.
Most wouldn't be able to answer specifically.

So these days, x-mas for example. Some folk get upset when x-mas traditions aren't allowed due to political correctness.
Which is rather amusing if they're supposedly Christian, when most distinctly x-mas elements aren't Biblically based.
(Tree, mistletoe, reindeer etc).

Ah. Right, sorry for the Grumpy Old Catholic rant there.