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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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".

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.

Mary Lou,
You missed the point. I visited 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

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.

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.

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 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.

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-my...
"(...) 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."

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

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

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.

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.

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

Bravo, SDG, and no qualifiers: you're right! Merry Christmas, all...

"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.

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-amazon...
Then, substitute a large number after /page/
http://www.jimmyakin.org/2008/12/scrooge-at-amazon...
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

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

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.

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.

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)

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/2006/0...
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! ;)

"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/c...
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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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).

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?

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.

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.

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)

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.

"You don't break the rules..."
Perhaps the Hobby Horse rule?

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.