The Name Change: Why We Did It (Paper Drops "Christmas")

Bucks County Courier Times ^ | December 10, 2003 | Editorial Board

[McGavin999]

We understand your wanting to broaden your scope, really we do, but we're going to give to another charity that isn't ashamed of it's reason for being. We wish you luck with your new broadened base, really we do.

[Lijahsbubbe]

People should make an effort to give directly to those in need.

That's the best way to go. I cut out the phoney overhead laden charities years ago. It's a great satisfaction to give to someone and know they're actually getting it.

[Inyo-Mono]

This is really sad. My ancestors settled in Bucks County in the 1720s and established the first Lutheran Church there.

[Kiss Me Hardy]

Boycott the charity -- and boycott the firms that advertisein this rag. And let the stores know why you're not buying there.

Ads are why newspapers exist. If they drive customers away instead of bringing them in, management hears about it pretty darn soon.

[Tall_Texan]

Our goal, after all, is to raise as much money as we can, so we can help as many people as possible.

Osama bin Laden says put him down for $20 mil. After all, nobody cares where the charity money comes from or what other aims the givers may have. < /sarcasm>

[Lancey Howard]

Yeah, but did you notice how, no matter how hard the writer tried, he still couldn't hide his snide, we're-better-than-you-clods attitude?

Oh man, this is nothing compared to the way they normally behave on their editorial page. You should see the editorials they have been publishing where they berate Pennsylvania's Republican legislature for not going along with Fast Eddie Rendell's tax hikes and teachers union payoff schemes ("education funding"). The venom drips from the page. See, Fast Eddie was elected, and so he has a "mandate".

The paper does not even bother to hide it's function as a mouthpiece for the DNC. Truly pathetic.

[Reagan is King]

But replacing Give-A-Christmas with Holiday Fund - a change we implemented last year - wasn't done to minimize the importance of Christianity's most celebrated and joyous holiday.

Sure it wasn't. I mean, what does Christ have to do with Christmas anyway? It's just a "holiday" to people like you.

I wish I took that rag of a paper just so I could have the satisfaction of cancelling it tomorrow.

[Lancey Howard]

By the way, did you catch this line?:

We recognize and accept the profound role Christians played in the founding and development of this nation.

Christians "played a role"? I thought it was Christians who pulled the whole thing off?

[ppaul]

It was a practical decision, not one driven by political correctness or any other ideology, as many of our letter-writing critics have charged. Nor was our intention to water down or in any way neutralize Christmas.

B.S.

Forget this "fund."
Give to the Salvation Army instead.

[Lancey Howard]

"We didn't drop Give-A-Christmas in favor of Holiday Fund in a politically correct effort to minimize religion."

They are lying.
This has the stench of political correctness all over it.

[ppaul]

We recognize and accept the monumental impact Jesus Christ had and continues to have on the world.

But let's not revere him as anything special.
After all, Muhammad is just as important to our modern world, isn't he?
Calling it Christmas is so old-fashioned, so Twentieth Century.
We need to be more inclusive.

[ppaul]

[SaveTheChief]

Our intention was to maximize inclusion

There's that word again.

[Timesink]

To put into perspective just how insipid and anti-Christian this name change is: Even The Guardian's fund is called "The Christmas Charity Appeal"!! The Guardian!!!!

[ppaul]

Because we meant no harm or disrespect. We really didn't.

What hollow, miserable, wretched human beings.

[weeder]

You make an excellent point!

[Lijahsbubbe]

I know you are not supposed to brag about charity to others, but here's an example. Years ago I was able to give a turkey dinner and some cash to a mom. I think it meant even more to her than going in a line and receiving from an organization. (not that people aren't grateful for that)

It was easy. No forms, no qualifications, and I got to decide who I wanted to help.

[Lancey Howard]

Check this out. From the editorial:

We get it. We really do. We understand
we sympathize.
We recognize and accept the monumental
We recognize and accept the profound
And we are proud of that heritage. We really are.
We also recognize the good and charitable
We recognize all of that.
We also recognize that these are trying times for Christians.
We recognize that people are understandably angry
Because we meant no harm or disrespect. We really didn't.

I have a feeling that this paper's "charity" is going down the toilet like a jet turd.

[weeder]

Bulls-eye!