Talk:Jesus Day

False Implications

I've renovated this page to dispell some false implications that it made by omission or suggestion. I realize it still needs help with its NPOV. Some might ask for a reference backing the following sentence:

"Since then, it has been widely and erroneously implied or asserted that Jesus Day is invention of George Bush, that it was singular to the state of Texas, or that it is/was an official Texas state holiday held annually."

Unfortunately, the best reference I have for this is this very page before I edited it.

Manawyddan (talk) 19:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Is there any other document mentioning Jesus Day? If you know more about it, please leave a comment or expand the article. (Eddie 22:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC))

Problems with reference section

Earlier I had edited the reference section to clarify it and make it more NPOV, edits I still stand by. In this post I would like to discuss why the References section needs to be modified.

1. The 1st link has nothing to do with Jesus Day. Instead, it discusses Arthur Blessitt’s meeting with George W. Bush. As such it needs to be removed.

2. The 3rd and 4th links are titled 'Anti-Christian website' and 'Anti-Christian' respectively. Such titles are blatantly biased in context of the links actual content. My solution is to change them to be more neutral.

The 3rd link points to a reprint of a NY Times article. Personally, I thought the article was well written and balanced. In short, it states that though the declaration of Jesus Day was locally well received but encountered some controversy when it became known nationally. Both sides of the argument were generally well represented. Just some highlights Pro: Tom Pelton, founder and organizer of the March for Jesus, stating that he wanting to establish Jesus as “point of unity” between different people. Furthermore, the article states that George W. Bush also signed proclamations supporting Bahai centenary day, Holocaust Remembrance Day, and a Hanukkah celebration. Con: Phil Baum, the executive director of the American Jewish Congress, stating how he felt it was insulting to religious minorities and an “egregious and blatant violation of the spirit of the First Amendment.”

The 4th link points to a Freedom From Religion Foundation news release asking then governor Bush to apologize for declaring Jesus Day. This article limits itself to opposing the proclamation from the point of view of an atheist and with respect to the First Amendment of U.S. Constitution. However, it is not anti-Christian the article simply states a different point of view and asks the rhetorical question would Bush consider declaring an Atheist Day in celebration of nonbelievers.

3. The link to pbs.org should have a title telling that it points to a copy of the official memorandum.

Personally, I think all of this is probably a misunderstanding. However, I would still like to hear why you reverted the article. Marticus 05:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I believe the websites talking about Jesus Day have a clear point of view, thus they do not represent a NPOV. Websites such as refuseandresist.org undoubtly bear bias against some belief, Christianity in this case. Therefore, they should be addressed according to what agenda they are pushing. Any article criticizing Jesus Day can and may be referred to as Anti-Christian because it talks against Jesus who is associated with Christianity. Governor Bush obviously had a purpose naming this day Jesus Day not Muhammad Day or such. He is a man who confesses his religious beliefs even if others disagree. And in this particual case these people can all be addressed as Anti-Christian. I hope you understand why I called the links as specific as I did. Please do not change it. Thank you, best wishes: (Eddie 00:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC))

Sources Bias

How is ffrf.org an anti-christian group? I can not see the logical reasoning behind this, especially when the link is for a New York Time article? If ffrf.org is considered to be an anti-christian website, then pbs.org should be considered anti christian for the following reasons:

1.) PBS airs programs that contradict the teaching of the bible (ie: Nature & Nova).
2.) PBS is receives government funding, thus a socialist group. Socialism leads to communism and thus atheism.

See how asinine my arguements are? Just because a group professes to promote secular government, does not by any means make them anti-christian. Just like PBS is not anti-christian. TchussBitc 16:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You must have not noticed that the links for the "Anti-Chrisitan" websites do not include pbs.com Please read above my reasoning and stop modifying the description for the links. Thank you, (Eddie 18:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC))

You did not understand my arguement. PBS.org is not listed by you as "anti-christian", but since they air programming that is contradicatory to some people's beliefs, they may be considered anti-christian. Just like how you consider a group promoting seperation of church and state as an "anti-christian group". None the less, several people continually edit this page for the usage of "weasel words" and you keep reverting it. The arguement made by Matricus states it best, but you feel free to keep changing the wiki to promote your beliefs. That is why I added the dispute. And the blessitt.org link really has no relevance as well and should be removed. TchussBitc 04:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I redid the links since "www.refuseandresist.org" was being flagged as an anti-christian website. The link is to www.beth-am.org now, which will hopefully be viewed as a more amicable venue for the NYT article. Also the ffrf.org link was changed to a link containing the groups call for an end to the day, and Gov. Bush's response. I also concede that in earlier discussions that I confused the link for the two "anti-christian" websites with one another. But, I still stand by my statements. A group that calls for non-secular government, is by no means anti-christian or any other religion. TchussBitc 06:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Christian or not?

All of you people have to admit that the article is clearly criticizing Governor Bush's decision about the declaration of Jesus Day. Declaring a day to be named Jesus Day is unquestionably a move toward Christianity. Therefore, speaking against such a thing can be refered to as Anti-Christian bias.

However, I do not understand why my fellow editors don't understand this. Stating that the New York Times article has an Anti-Chrisitan bias should not be a suprise to anyone. Please notice that I did not judge the article in any means, which would be wrong. Newspapers publish many writings with specific bias, and someone stating that the bias is there, is a simple form of excersising our First Amendment rights.

For everyone's conviniance and to avoid further sensless page editing, I would like to propose two different sections to separate our external links based on supportive, neutral, and crititicical references. Wish you all the best, (Eddie 21:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC))

"Blah blah blah stop being biased like I clearly am blah blah blah." All that's missing is a "god bless" at the end of your repugnant reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.21.232 (talk) 13:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Is it really a holiday?

Can someone clarify what a 'state holiday' is? None of the referenced sites nor the reproduced proclamation make any reference to a holiday, state or otherwise. Surely this is an important point - days get proclaimed this or that with gay abandon even at governmental level, not to mention that it was the Texas legislature that passed a resolution commending the Boston strangler. (http://www.snopes.com/legal/desalvo.asp).

ae7flux

State governors can declare any stupid thing to be a holiday, hence things like "jesus day" and "secretary's day". To keep from sounding biased, this does not just include Texas, a lot of states have holidays that are not nationally recognized holidays. Only the president and congress can declare national holidays. The point is to just show a small amount of appreciation towards the subject, nothing more, nothing less. Other than showing up on a few calendars, they are generally disregarded for their insignificance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.21.232 (talk) 13:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Dead link

Sadly, the link for Jesus Day is now dead. I found a few others from smaller sites and added them. Greenw47 13:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jesus Day. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120904132158/http://www.marchforjesususa.com/usa/index.htm to http://www.marchforjesususa.com/usa/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)