Originally Posted By jdub <<I would think that if Christians thought about it for a few minutes, the term 'Easter Bunny' would be pretty offensive.>> I would agree.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I'm no more offended by the Easter Bunny than I am by Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer. It's for kids. We do things for kids. Tooth fairy anyone?
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <I'm no more offended by the Easter Bunny than I am by Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer. It's for kids. We do things for kids> Then do this one for the kids, wahooskipper! Change 'Easter Bunny' to 'Spring Bunny.' Think about the kids!
Originally Posted By TomSawyer I think if you are taking the kids to buy pictures of them with the Easter (or Spring) bunny, you're doing it more for you than for them.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper My kid knows the Easter Bunny. There is room in my Catholic household for the Easter Bunny. I've got no problem explaining Church Easter and Bunny Easter just as I have no problem explaing Church Christmas and Santa Christmas. I'm an adult, it isn't difficult for me to explain.
Originally Posted By DlandDug I think what this boils down to is the nagging feeling that this is not about inclusiveness, or being inoffensive, or even a strictly business decision. To many, this is about removing Easter from a symbol that is traditionally associated with Easter, a Christian religious holiday that is also a culturally traditional holiday. Around Christmas time there are many holidays. (The Winter Solstice is important in many cultures.) The term "Happy Holidays" isn't that big a deal to most people, because it simply recognizes that there are many happy holidays being celebrated. But when Christmas trees are called Holiday trees, some get their back up. This is because a decorated tree is identified exclusively with Christmas. (Parenthetically-- would Jews be offended if our society started calling menorahs Holiday candles holders?) The Easter Bunny is identified exclusively with Easter. That the bunny was appropriated from pagan sources doesn't really matter. (So was the tree-- from the Druids.) What does bother some people is that by taking away the specific name of the Bunny, the cuturally traditional holiday definitively replaces the Christian religious holiday.
Originally Posted By mele Well then maybe some Christians should examine why they are so determined to hold on to pagan rituals. It truly has NOTHING to do with Christ. I have to wonder how many of the people who are offended by the "Spring bunny" are also quick to judge other people's Christianity and/or other religions. I get the feeling a lot of them are VERY judgemental.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>But when Christmas trees are called Holiday trees, some get their back up. This is because a decorated tree is identified exclusively with Christmas. (Parenthetically-- would Jews be offended if our society started calling menorahs Holiday candles holders?)<< Actually, this analogy doesn't hold. A Christmas tree has nothing to do with the birth of Christ or the religious commemoration thereof except as decoration. The Menorah is one of the essential parts of the celebration of Hannukah as it holds the candles used in the religious rites associated with the day. For the Christiah, the symbols of Christmas would be a Cross or Crucifix, a Creche with the baby Jesus in it for veneration after Midnight Mass, an altar with bread and wine...
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <What does bother some people is that by taking away the specific name of the Bunny, the cuturally traditional holiday definitively replaces the Christian religious holiday.> I understand why it bothers people, but we should remember that no one can replace the Christian religious holiday in the places it matters; the church and the heart. If the local mall, which must cater to shoppers of all religions, chooses to change the name, I see that as their right as a business, and it doesn't really bother me, even though "Spring Bunny" sounds funny to me too (after 45 years of hearing "Easter Bunny.") What does kind of bother me is people putting pressure on mall-owners to conform to the name "Easter Bunny" when it really isn't their business that is affected. "Easter bunny" is warm and cuddly and rolls off the tongue due to familiarity, but what if, say, in a heavily Catholic neighborhood, a self-styled group pressured the local mall to not serve meat during Lent at any of its food facilities? Would that be expressing the religion of the majority of the community, or intrusion into private business?
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Well, the star on the top of the tree certainly has a religious, Christian connection. But, the bottom line is, it has to be the Easter Bunny....because of the song. "Here comes Peter Cottontail, hopping down the bunny trail, hippity-hoppity Spring's on the way." Well, that just doesn't sound as good as 'Easter'. That in and of itself is reason enough.
Originally Posted By mele LOL, wahoo! Beau, I understand the point but I am capable of thinking beyond it.
Originally Posted By hightp "A Christmas tree has nothing to do with the birth of Christ or the religious commemoration thereof except as decoration." I was actually taught differently. The evergreen tree holds a specific place in Christian lore. Since the tree remains green year round, the tree is a representation that God's love is eternal. The same holds true for the Advent wreath. It is a circle decorated with evergreen cuttings. Both are to emphasize the eternity of God's love for us by sending his only son...etc. This may be just the Germanic Mythology behind it, but the nuns taught it to us in grade school, those many years ago.
Originally Posted By cmpaley RE: Post 173. Yes, the symbology of the evergreen is there, but you can have Christmas without the tree, Advent without the wreath, but you cannot celebrate Hannakuh without the Menorah.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>...you cannot celebrate Hannakuh without the Menorah.<< You certainly can. It is necessary to use candles or oil lamps, but the menorah itself, while advised, is not a necessity. (It is certainly an important traditional symbol of Hanukkah.) The issue is not whether one or the other (trees, wreaths or menorahs) are valid religious symbols. The issue is the perception that secular traditions are being given precednece over (and even replacing) religious tradition. I am not, incidently, saying I agree that this is the case. I am simply trying to understand why this would be such an issue to many people. (It is also the case that Easter Bunnies and decorated eggs have been given overtly Christian symbology, as well. Eggs and rabbits, we are told, are symbols of renewed life and rebirth, etc. etc.)
Originally Posted By HRM >>I understand the point but I am capable of thinking beyond it.<< Imagine, this Thread (and many other Threads as well) would stop dead in its tracks, if everybody actually followed this statement! And society would probably get along better as well!!
Originally Posted By imadisneygal "You certainly can. It is necessary to use candles or oil lamps, but the menorah itself, while advised, is not a necessity. (It is certainly an important traditional symbol of Hanukkah.)" Yep, Doug is absolutely right about this one. I just wanted to add that "menorah" is a generic term for a candleabra and a menorah could be used all year long, while the appropriate term for the specific, 9 candled (8 plus the shemash), candleabra used for Hanukkah is called a Hannukiah.
