Haley's right, Suzy. This debate IS-or was SUPPOSED to be about whether or not Christmas should be a federal holiday.

The judge said that there were secular reasons behind the establishment of Christmas as a federal holiday. I said so as well. But the judge did not speak for the legislature of 1870. She said:



She didn't say those were the sole reasons that the government created Christmas as a federal holiday.

I said that the reasons behind Christmas and the reasons Christmas is federally recognized are the same, because they are. The only difference is in the bureacuracy.

Concerning your sarcastic reply to my comment about the vocal minority taking over the majority: you won't win ANYbody over with your ranting and raving. You're right, this ISN'T a debate, where both of us look over each other's sources and civilly respond to one another.

Achilles,

Don't worry too much about the majority on this one. I'll bet odds that 100 years from now Christmas will still be a Federal holiday. It's too bad that I won't be around to collect on that bet.

Okay, I'm new here so please take it easy on me

The original question was:
This is the question to debate: What was in the mind of the Founding Fathers as they drafted the US Constitution, Secular government or a representative government based on Judeo-Christian “Values?”

Without getting into all the pros and cons, and frivolous law-suits that have been filed, let's consider:

1 - Louisiana & Arkansas established Christmas as a State holiday in 1831
2 - President Ulysses S. Grant established Christmas as a Federal holiday in 1870.

So we've been celebrating Christmas as a Federal Holiday for 134 years. I have friends that are Jewish (Reformed) and Muslim, and they have no problem with it.

In-as-much as our Beloved Nation was founded on "religious freedom", our founding fathers being of various religious beliefs did not intend for the United States to have a "state" religion. However, the belief in God by whatever name you wish to use, was part and parcel of their everyday lives, and the basic tenants of the Christian-Judeo faiths was evident in their drafting and enacting of our laws.

Whether or not anyone wishes to acknowledge it or not, these beliefs of honor, truth, morality, integrity, justice, etc., have been driving influences throughout our history.

Thus we have a Democratic-Republic founded on Christian-Judeo beliefs with secular overtones.

And - Should it be removed as a Federal holiday?? Not only NO - but HELL NO NO NO

I've had fun reading this thread. I thought it was slam dunked by Bill in the second response. The federal holiday of Christmas is necessary because far too many people will not be at work on that day. Though I suspect, increasingly we could find enough people in our society that do not make a religious or secular celebration out of Christmas to staff many of our federal services if we needed to.

I was reminded as a history teacher (prompted by a reference to the Puritans) that the morale boost that helped us get some momentum in the revolutionary war happened because most of the Continental Army which had formed in Boston after Concord and Lexington consisted of Puritans who did not celebrate Christmas. (The Puritans wanted to purify religion and get rid of the "unnecessary" ritual) Because of this their was an opportunity to make a surprise attack in Trenton,NJ on Christmas in 1776. The Hessians had settled for the winter and had received a christmas bonus allotment of spirits and were caught with a little too much celebration after effects to effectively respond to a surprise attack.

I was shocked to learn that a city I lived in (Thousand Oaks) was overwhelmingly white and catholic. After looking more closely at the link though I think I'll rely on my observations that the town was largely white but not very Catholic. (It does have a Catholic high school though.) The county, true to its namesake, has a large hispanic population and that would mean a high percentage of catholics. It also has the Reagan library on its border with Simi Valley.

I don't require that Christmas be a federal holiday, but I won;t be going to work that day. I also won't be going to the church, but it would be a lot cheaper if I did.

Finally, the court rulings on this seem to universally defend the holiday.

Here is one



link

I guess Christmas can be either a religious or a secular holiday, depending on the person.

I would like to see the season become a universal celebration of the human spirit. Whether or not someone celebrates it as the literal birth of Jesus or something entirely different, the time of, gathering with friends, etc should be comfortable and relaxed for everyone. Here are a couple of interesting facts:

Irving Berlin, the man who wrote Bing Crosby’s (and the more than 1800 entries for the song on www.allmusic.com) “White Christmas” was Jewish.

http://www.fau.edu/library/bro82.htm

“White Christmas” was one of the first and perhaps the most popular of all secular Christmas songs.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=850892

Leonard Bernstein, also Jewish, recorded a fine Christmas album The Joy of Christmas as conductor of the New York Philharmonic Orchestra in coordination with the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. It doesn’t get any more ecumenical than that.

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/culture/Mu...O/Bernstein.htm

You forgot to mention Barbra Streisand .



Why? Any particular reason you choose December, of all months? Or just to convert the pagans?

Christmas essentially is what you want "the season" to be, if you look past the commercialism. Because Christianity--at least a PART of Christianity, aka the way one lives--IS about the celebration of the human spirit. About helping out your fellow man. About doing good to those who despise you and lifting up the hands that hang down. About not unjustly judging other people. And about, like I said before, being a nice person. That's it. Also like I said before, you don't have to accept Christ as the savior of the world to appreciate that.

And if everyone lived according to those principles? Wow...wouldn't that be great? Paradise.

But anyway.


It's hard to see Christmas as a secular holiday. Why? Because if it wasn't for Christ's birth, it would not have come into existence. (You think the traditional winter solstice celebration of the pagans was about "celebrating the human spirit"? Heck no. It was about hedonism, aka celebrating the human body. Which is the exact opposite of the Christmas spirit, selflessness.)

But I can see the point regarding the secularity of Christmas. I guess Christians can celebrate Christmas by celebrating the birth of Christ and others can celebrate it however they want.

Eh. I'm having wierd, contradictory feelings right now. So if you don't get what I'm saying, don't worry about it. But BoF, I THINK I'm agreeing with you...but we'll see.

Oh, and I'm Mormon, like the Tabernacle Choir.

What were the questions?

1) Since Christmas is as of now a public holiday meant for remembering Christ, should the government no longer recognize it as a Federal Holiday?

Okay, "meant for remembering Christ" has been shown to be an invention of the 4th century Roman Catholic Church. It has also been shown that Christmas became a federal holiday in 1870 for reasons not associated with religion. Since the premise omits some important information, I don't think this is a valid question.

2) Do you believe that religious symbols (i.e. nativity scene, christmas tree) should be removed from public places even if it was not erected by the government because it offends a small minority?

It has been shown that a Christmas tree is not a religious symbol. However, the nativity scene is of question, both of its historical accuracy (should be displayed in the spring) and its appropriateness in the public square whenever shown. A good one was brought up about the use of crosses on military graves.

Aren't Stars of David used with Jewish military graves? Other symbols for other faiths? If so, doesn't this make the argument moot? After all, the idea is either support all religions or none of them when it comes to the use of public property.

3) Is there a crusade by a select few in this country who are trying to erase all things religious?

This question doesn't seem connected. If in fact the Christmas holiday is an invention of the 4th century Church and has no connection to theological fact, then there is really no reason to use religious symbols with this holiday.

There is a right in this country to have religious freedom, as there is a right to free speech. The question becomes when does the exercise of a right violate the rights of others?

So the "crusade" is to preserve rights. Okay, that's a strong one in this country, and rightfully so. We Americans are guilty as sin for protecting one another's rights.

Good point.

1) Since Christmas is as of now a public holiday meant for remembering Christ, should the government no longer recognize it as a Federal Holiday?

No. I believe I've pretty much conveyed that throughout my posts in this thread.

2) Do you believe that religious symbols (i.e. nativity scene, christmas tree) should be removed from public places even if it was not erected by the government because it offends a small minority?

No. Just as if you were visiting a predominantly Muslim or Jewish country (which is not ruled by theology), one should not be offended by religious symbols which convey the belief of the majority of Americans, and perhaps a town's mayor. Similarly, one should not be offended at the sight of a symbol of another religion (other than Christianity) on public property.

This isn't creating a state religion, this isn't barring someone else from their freedom of religion, this isn't legislating Christian rules or laws. It's simply the majority expressing their freedom of religion.

3) Is there a crusade by a select few in this country who are trying to erase all things religious?

I believe there is. I would detail it, and probably will later, but at the present moment I need some sleep. Lots of Christmas and family stuff to do tomorrow.



Then why on earth did the government call it "Christmas"? The only thing "shown" was that there are secular reasons for recognizing Christmas. The court case did not say that it was founded for secular reasons alone. We don't know WHY it was put into legislation in 1870; that's up for speculation. But do consider the fact that the majority of the population was overwhelming Christian in that time period.



What does "historical accuracy" have to do with the matter?

Allowing a religious symbol in a public place does not the first amendment break, though I suppose it's for the judiciary to ultimately decide that.

The first amendment says that Congress can't make any laws dictating an official church government; that people are free to worship as they choose.

(There will probably be a court case brought up to use against me, but this is solely my opinion, which I personally think is right, oddly enough.)



Theological fact? Have you ever heard of the Book of Luke? In the Bible? New Testament? It chronicles the story of Christ's birth. It was most definitely NOT made up by the Roman Church in the 4th century.



Preserving the rights of whom? Are you protecting my right to worship freely on public property? If so, then I am sorely mistaken and I apologize profusely. If no, then the state is barring me from worshipping as I choose, and is thus violating the first amendment.

Dont be silly, christmas is a federal holiday because some secular atheist wanted something to do for his kids i guess.

Dont get me wrong, secular humanism is a great thing to me, and i would dub it a religion of sorts, or personal philosophy really, save it needs to cut some stuff first and just get to fact really. Though in terms of our system and ours laws, like a government, secular humanism is not dubbed a faith, or has a god, or gods, or an animal or a women or something to worship like that, i dont think it really gets past a couple of pages and more or less is just a nifty viewpoint i generally held before i even new of it. Its like people trying to get organic evolution to be dubbed a religion, even though i know it does not tell you what to do with your life, I know some try to explain human behavior through it, but in terms of biology, 100% fact has not been attained, much to the dismay of people that try to explain human nature. Which brings me to a point on this one, trying to explain in detail human nurture, which does not have a complex map of data or much anything to explain it in terms of fact, and when dealing with the human made already, i think that makes such even more complex. So such is left open to my perception to be relativity in perception/ignorance again on this issue. I mean if we look around the world at places that celebrate their christmas, is it not or is not always related to the christian faith, and i mean like russia and various christian nations or so on, or have a majority of people to that label, all the labels I am not an atheist either, that is as silly to me as being religious, its the fact thing, and my support of a secular american government that is making my opinion for me

My point is that its the federal government, and if christmas, or christ mas, or what not can be related then to a faith, the federal government in all its form should have nothing to do with it, not because its christian, but because its religious, or dare say we are not patriots

Achilles,
Yeah, but the Christ Mass was. It should be celebrated in the springtime, but Easter gets the attention then. So the birth celebration and the Ascention celebration would be too close together.

Speaking of Easter, it is a celebration of rebirth, and much of the symbolism goes back to pagan times. Theology is an interesting study, how religions have borrowed from earlier beliefs. Might I suggest looking into Zoroastarian?



On the public square. Right, so the idea is that the majority can lord over the minority when it comes to expressing religion. Sorry, that notion isn't acceptable in our democratic republic. Regarding offense, that's an emotional situation that can't be supported with logic -- however, it can't be argued against, either. Emotions just are. I personally find no offense in Christian symbolism and highly respect the faithful. Same goes for other religions. I think communities just take the easier path of no religious symbols on public property rather than covering them all. There are just too many of them!



Why on earth does anyone call it Christmas? Because the 4th century Church called it Christmas. The celebration took hold, and there you go -- it became tradition. And again, the argument becomes majority rule over the minority all the time, and that's not how government works here. I suppose some folks in 1870 who contributed to making the law did so for religious reasons only, but the majority? Maybe not. I'll admit to the speculative nature of this situation.



Well, it's historically inaccurate to celebrate a Messiah's birthday on the wrong date, even in the wrong month. I suppose that doesn't make any difference to some believers in the diety of Jesus Christ, but it is still a fact. I think it heads toward the argument of ownership. Winter celebrations are very old, much older than Christianity. Yet Christianity grabbed hold of them as its own, as have other religions done with other traditions -- including Islam (in Iran). People love their traditions -- and maybe that's one of the points here? Maybe traditions of the majority are being missed, as in religious displays in the public square? That begs the question of whether displaying something in the public square constitutes worship. Ah well, that goes down a whole different road.



You're onto the core of this whole thing with the point that Congress is restricted from dictating an official religion in this country.

This might be strictly interpreted to say that no federal-funded property should be used to dictate an official religion, since federal funds come from Congressional law. What about public property funded by state or local law? I think you have a good point here, with support from Amish and other religious communities.

We have a city-owned park here that's pretty well-known, The Garden of the Gods. Christians regularly hold Easter and other services in the Garden, and that's okay both legally and by me. Of course, Native Americans regularly do their thing in the Garden too, and they started way before Christ was born. I'm okay either way, and so is the community.

My particular beliefs include the symbolism of fire. By gosh, the city put BBQ grills in the Garden! I'm happy.

Have a great Christmas (and I support your right to do so).

Wrong. Please try not to write things you have not researched, at least a little bit.
The Christmas holiday, as most christian holidays have been co-opted from pagan holidays in order to move people more easily onto new beliefs. The births of many gods and goddesses have been celebrated in this time.
Paganism in December was no more an orgy of hedonism than todays consumerist Christmas. Paganism is a belief in humanity in its relation to the seasons and nature. December 20th or 21st, depending on the calendar is the shortest day of the year. In many ceremonies, including many native american, it is the calling back of the sun, the time turns now, the days begin to get longer from the 21st onward. It has always been celebrated with gifts, food and merryment.

21 December
Winter Solstice / Yule / Midwinter / Alban Arthuan / Fourth Station of the Year
This is the major festival of December, although in modern times it tends to be celebrated four days later. The fourth station of the year signifies enlightenment, when the light is reborn within the womb of darkness. The birth of many solar dieties is celebrated around this time: Osiris, Baal, Attis, Adonis, Helios, Apollo, Dionysus, Mithras, Jesus, Balder, and Frey. All of these dieties have been given similiar titles: the Light of the World, Sun of Righteousness, and Savior.

25 December
Christmas Day
In the Roman tradition this day is Dies Natalis Solis Invictus (The Day of the Birth of the Undefeated Sun). The modern festival of Christmas is an amalgram of many religious traditions -- Pagan, Zoroastrian, Jewish, Mithraic, and Christian -- all celebrating aspects of the traditional winter solstice celebrations.
http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~iborchar/Calend/dec.html

Christmas/Yule celebrations go back to the very beginnings of human understanding of the workings of nature and the sun. Its so old its in our genetic memory by now. Even if almost all the world died and a new generation evolved from scratch without concious memory of why, we would celebrate this time.

In 350, Pope Julius I declared that Christ’s birth would be celebrated on December 25. There is little doubt that he was trying to make it as painless as possible for pagan Romans (who remained a majority at that time) to convert to Christianity. The new religion went down a bit easier, knowing that their feasts would not be taken away from them.
Sorry, little to do with Jesus, just the same old story repeated with a new name.
(not that it matters, we had to celebrate it sometime)

authormusician wrote this....
"Have a great Christmas (and I support your right to do so)."

who is trying to take away a persons right to have a christmas, i dont understand.

artemise wrote this…
"Christmas celebrations go back to the very beginnings of human understanding of the workings of nature and the sun. Its so old its in our genetic memory by now. Even if almost all the world died and a new generation evolved from scratch without memory, we would celebrate this time."

Even if i wanted to i could not agree with this position, and nothing save faith in something right now will support it either. Even if so, we have laws and methods around sexuality, and sexual reproduction is something you can actually say is in our nature. Now is you want to get over into nurture, sure its in ours, but I don’t know about humanity in general, unlike sexual reproduction, though sexuality has broad form in human nurture. I could go on to almost say that statement is racist but I know that would be false, its just narrow.

If Christmas is religious, should it be federal, I think the constitution says no, but then again, its just a piece of paper.

No quote system use.
No edit either.

In the first post in this thread Leder sets out an interesting comment from Bill O'Reilly:

I was listening to O'Reilly earlier and he brought up a great point. If Christmas is a public, federalls recognized holiday, how can you say a nativity scene which symbolizes the holiday we are celebrating be unconstitutional?

O'Reilly has a point. Supreme Court precedent says that a nativity scene in the public square is only ok if we have all the other holiday symbols present in the public square. (Silly view in my opinion)

Christmas may have alot of secular (and even pagan) overtones but you have to admit it is first and foremost Christianity's special day to recognize Christ's birth. So, I think O'Reilly has a point.

But ultimately, the judicial aristocracy has decreed that "Christmas" has enough of the secular in it that it doesn't offend our establishment clause. So, we the people, have to accept that don't we? Phew, I guess we slid by on that one. But who knows what is coming down the pipe-- depending on who gets put on the Supreme Court.

I am a undergrad science major, with dreams for grad status in a few years. I do pay attention and nothing in terms of hard fact of the hard sciences will support a holiday being genetic or a specific one at that right now. Nor will it support organic evolution occurring again or having the same results right now. Lots of holidays do not gain federally witnessed status, i guess people are then barred from doing such or having such in their lives. I guess only making some holidays of some religions federal is doing more damage then just having religion in government alone as in christmas or so on, and overall the constitution does not matter as we are almost making people illegal these days with the government for no real reason save why we have chrismas in the federal government but should not in accordance with the constitution. I can only wonder how long until public education is sunday school really, or we fight resource wars over stuff that kills life and the environment. I just want to claim ignorance and relativity in perception like always, but i feel that does no good. One fact is if christmas in religious in nature, if it is it should not be in federal standing then, if someone can point out without a doubt its some secular thing devised to pump economy and give the slaves a day off, then i guess it should be for some reason federally recognized.I see more stuff then i care to about baby jesus in christmas and i dont see anything about baby buddha or monks decorating christmas trees really for example, if you have had the rare chance in life to see such, let me know, i would like to see...
I guess if its not federally recongnized though, it cant happen anymore or something, i guess we should not be stuck in the infinity war with drugs then.

Human nature in terms of human biology or biology in general is not at the 100% understanding level, or hard fact. Human nurture or related life form behavior is not at a 100% understanding either in terms of hard fact. The relation between the two is also not 100% in terms of hard understating, that is the fact in terms of such right now. Speaking on such then really has ignorance on it, and in terms of all the people that do, and dont care about fact makes such even that much more a blurry mess really. Like most i look for fact and the best way to obtain such, i am sorry for my behavior, please let me reform to a "human" that does not require fact in any form.

You know what, regardless of the disagreement over whether or not Christmas should be a federal holiday, IT IS, and I'd just like to say....


MERRY CHRISTMAS and a HAPPY NEW YEAR TO EVERYONE.

Since I am one of the few people in the United States who truly hates Christmas (and I hate the secular aspects more than I hate the religious aspects), I feel compelled to add my two cents. Allow me to assure you in advance that my opinions will offend you.

1. I don't care if the Supreme Court has stated that Christmas is a secular holiday. The Supreme Court is wrong. Christmas (unlike Solstice, or other winter celebrations) is, at its very heart, purely Christian. To be sure, a lot of non-Christian stuff has attached itself to Christmas, like barnacles attaching themselves to a ship, but that does not lessen the fact that it is a religious holiday. Government recognition of Christmas as an official holiday is inappropriate. This is purely a theoretical point, of course, since this will never change.

2. First of all, let's get rid of the myth that legal cases involving government involvement in religion have anything to do with "offense." This is nonsense. These cases only involve government expressing approval or disapproval of religious beliefs. A nativity scene placed on government property is inappropriate. It would be equally inappropriate for me to place a sign saying "Gods Do Not Exist" on government property. If you suggest that both be allowed, let me remind you that my sign will be torn down by those who disagree with it as soon as it is set up, and that I would be lucky to escape with my life. Make no mistake; there are few people who are hated as much as atheists are hated, and our opinions are not welcome. This is why the government must never take any side on any religious question.

3. No. There is only a feeble and doomed attempt by some of us to eliminate religious opinions by the government. Our voices are drowned by the endless roar of the true believers, who have an enormous influence on the American government.

AuthorMusician:



I'm saying that anyone who feels the need to put up a symbol should be allowed to. The point is not that the state institutes all religions or none, the point is that the state does not institute any religion in the first place and the public is allowed to celebrate and worship as they choose.

For example, just because a nativity scene (which in and of itself is not historically inaccurate, btw) stands on public property, it doesn't mean that the government is now Christian. The public property is just that: public. If people want to put up religious symbols than they should be allowed to.

And if you want to go into technicalities, ANY kind of thing someone disagrees with could be classified as offensive to someone's beliefs. But that wouldn't be a very good thing, would it? Not very diverse.

Artemise:

If it was not for Christ's birth, the holiday we call Christmas and celebrate as the birth of Christ would not exist. If not for Christ's birth, Pope Julius I would not have wanted to convert the Roman empire to Christianity and therefore create Christmas. That's all I'm saying. The holiday would not be instituted as it is today, and it's speculation whether our society would celebrate winter solstice on its own.

On a side note, I saw this today. Horrible.

We don't recognize MLK for being the son of christ. That would be religous.

In this country we have seperation of religion and the government. Not a seperation of civil rights and the government. Should the pope have a federal holiday, because in your view, that wouldn't be considered religous?

The government cannot pass any laws regarding religion, this includes funding religous establisments. The government also protects religious beliefs.

This is a very simple equation. Anything related to religion cannot be funded by the government. No religion can be preferrenced over another belief or supressed so long as it maintains it's beliefs within the law of the land. Basically the government does not step into religion.

As long as the symbols are not paid for by the government then it is protected. Religous symbols on government property is unacceptable because then the government is sanctioning religion. Individuals within the government that are religous have protection to retain their religion.

Im not against Christmas, but if there are people shoving down our throat to remind us that it is to remember Christ, and is federally recognized as such, then Christmas should not be recognized as a federal holiday because that would be religous.

Is there a crusade by a select few in this country who are trying to erase all things religious?

Quite the opposite.

Count your blessings and be glad that it is recognized as a secular holiday and take your christ stuff into your living room were you can scream at the top of your lungs, not into the government establishments. I have absolutely no problem with that, no one is attempting to take away your right to believe in your religion or symbols that recognize your religion. I'll count my blessings and be thankful the 1st amendment hasn't been repealed by the bible thumpers pointing to versus.

http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/re...premecourt.html


Religous liberty can only be maintained if the government is seperate from religion and protects all religous beliefs so long as it maintains it's beliefs within the law of the land. If the government began to erect religous symbols, that wouldn't maintain my liberty to not respect that religion, because then I would be forced to pay for that religion.

That's just dumb on the school's part. Santa Claus is not a religious figure. Another example of the "stilted overreaction contrary to our history and our holdings" the Supreme Court stated.

Christ mas and saint nick are not pagen, nor are they hindu. I would opt to say that they are christian, though someone can come to say i am wrong on that, i will listen to such though i dont know why. The government is to not make laws for or against any particular religion. If you can define christmas is to being religious, then it has no place in our government. No one is saying a person in america cannot go to church, that was never part of this. That is nothing more then spin. Many holidays(holy days?) are not federally recognized, more so many religions dont get their culture to become federal law, as in you have no choice but to obey to stay legal. A company cannot say you cant take chrismas off can it?

That is all it boils down to in terms of my position, if christmas is religions, i am going to say yes on that one, it should not be federal then, its rather simple i would think. No more should something like christmas be in the federal government as is, then we should make legal mandates for people of the muslim faith to engage in all the times they have to pray, the government has no place in that save when people try to take that away from you, as in i say i wont hire religious people at my company, i dont think i can get away with that can i?

I guess though with all the postcards, meetings, behavior and trees that had to die for nothing, we still cant say a religious atmosphere rules the american people really.... i think one could say lies or maybe you can actually pin disillusion to something finally, to me that is.

What a mess that would be. Can you imagine everyone thinking they can exhibit whatever they want over public property, especially religious symbols. We'd have riots and destruction of public property to deal with and a very asthetically ugly situation to boot. Therefore all religious symbolism should be forbidden on government and public property for the sake of the common good, fairness and equality in a nation that separates church and state.

Though the evergreen tree is not religious, unless you go back to paganism again, it has always been the symbol of everlasting life through the darktime when the earth sleeps. (does not put forth growth)



There is no reason to believe that without the birth of Christ and the instituted remembrance on the 25th that we would have stopped celebrating the planetary turn, the old gods or named it something else along the way, however your position recognises Christmas as a Christian only holiday and therefore should not be sanctioned by Federal Law in the US.

I am inclined to support Victoria and several others here that, for debates sake, Christmas should not truly be a Federal Holiday if we want to get sticky about it.

Christmas is a part of our culture in the majority, and I am not for bleeding the culture dry or homogenizing ourselves to the point of utter boredom. I am also not for the right of the religious to demonize or take away Halloween as they have been trying to do, but..

Its of importance to remember that no Jewish holidays are recognised as Federal. Some have argued the country was based on Christian thought, but not entirely, since we are actually a judeo-christian nation by religious majority, christians do not only consider only the New Testament as prophecy and teachings but recognise the two books in conjunction.
However christians believe the savior came to earth, the jews do not. That makes celebrating Christmas as the birth of Jesus- by modern standards- a religious holiday. Federally sanctioning Christmas makes it discriminatory to Jews first and all others by default in the melting pot which is the US.
This is of no consequence to Spain or Italy for example, which although they have Muslim immigrants and Jews, this conversation would never take place. They are predominantly Christian and so be it, end of story. No pretense of separattion of church and state. They actually do celebrate the Christian holiday time as the Birth of the Christ, a set of national holidays taking weeks to commemorate. The Nativity dominates the scene, everywhere.

I like to spend this time with friends and loved ones over good food and gifts just like almost everyone, have a tree and so forth and its wonderful for the kids. Its a time that has been celebrated for millennia, regardless of the why. I dont think its worth a battle of right or wrong.

Side: In alaska many of us think its a big deal that the sun is coming back! Almost everyone clocks the Solstice in their heads and many greetings are given in aknowledgement.

Achilles,

Cool -- so I can put up my pineapple symbol of the Solstice season (photo of the Great Pineapple) in the public square, maybe a 12-foot plastic thing. Victoria can put up her Gods Do Not Exist sign (really big one), and the Hells Angels motorcycle club can have a beer party! Oh man, I can see it now, diversity up the chimney.

Seriously though, I think your argument goes to the question of whether some group of people is out to eliminate religious symbolism of any form in the public square, no matter if fed funds are involved or not, and that this is a problem in that people's First Amendment rights are being violated. Okay, I can see that side of it, but you have to admit that this applies to all religions, not just Christianity.

In other words, the public square belongs to everyone in the community. Either everyone gets the same religious access, or nobody gets it.

Author Musician wrote:
In other words, the public square belongs to everyone in the community. Either everyone gets the same religious access, or nobody gets it.


Why does it have to be that way? If the local community predominantly celebrated the solstice and wanted to put of their giant pineapple -- why shouldn't they be able to?

The Court appears to have interpreted the 1st amendment to mean what you say-- either all the symbols or none of them. But it didn't have to be interpreted that way. I think it should be left to local communities to decide. If the local community is predominantly muslim and wants to put up a symbol of the koran during ramadan-- so be it.

I dont think its a matter of everyone should get or not get access to portray something religious or "up" something religious into the federal system, its not to happen period in the first place. It would be never ending the holidays america would have really if all religions big and small had their holidays made federal, and that is not even a reason to say no to it. Its about the constitution and its separation clause and the about christmas being religious. People of certain faiths can take it on the nose as by their own perception that its against them to make it so a holiday of their faith cannot be federal, but that is not what its about it any shape or form.

Like the ten commandments thing in alabama with the "judge". the government in no way shape or form could ever stop or make a case to stop him putting that in his house no more then it can stop a giant sign of jesus that is around my community on one of the roads. that is the fine line that people miss in this issue, its not about stripping away everything religious from any particular group of people, its about making sure the government does not become an entity or a vehicle of one particular faith or any faith's' period. Christianity in all its glory has over 27000 denominations, and that is just that faith, we dont want to go into the big book of religions and the total amount one can bring to bear and the diverse nature of america as is in regards to such.

It is wrong though to only make federal just christmas as it stands, being that breaches the governments duty on two fronts now, instead of just one. Its like the whole marriage thing, liberty and so much more. The government is not takeing care of its citizens in respects on the constitution very well anymore it seems on a social front. I know it would make me happier to see it removed from federal standing, not as a blow against religious which i openly despise for various reasons aside, just as a token the government will stay as it should be a free from various vices like religions or so on.

still to this point in the debate, i still firmly hold the idea that christmas is religious in design, and in application in america, and should then not belong in the system of laws that is the government as by the constitution, not because i dislike religion for various reasons

Hiya hayleyanne,

This goes to being fair within a community. Should a symbolic Koran be put up during a holiday, and most people in the community are Muslim but some are not, the nots should have the same rights as the Muslims. Therefore, to exclude the desire of some other religion in the community is unfair if the Muslim desire is given the right to be expressed. This of course has to do with public-owned places.

In large communities with many religions, this could be an overwhelming problem logistically for the community, and thus it might be wiser to refuse all displays in public-owned places.

Overall, I absolutely do not support the community favoring the majority at the expense of the minority when it comes to the use of public properties. What if only Muslims were allowed to use the city park?

As for the pineapple, well, it'll be nice and ripe for New Years.

Hi Author Musician!

I guess you and I just fundamentally disagree on what should be the use of the "public square". In every community there is a "majority". That majority should be able to put up its stuff (to put it simply). If others in the "minority" want to use the public square to display their things - all the better. But it should not have to be a requirement that they do in order for the majority to display what it chooses.

I understand that as far as holiday religious symbols go-- my view is not supported in constitutional precedent. But I disagree with the current precedent. Life is such that there are "majorities" in every local community. That is life. People need to learn tolerance and not be so easily put off or offended.

If I lived in a predominantly Muslim community and they put up the koran, like I said, my view would be -- it goes with the territory.

hayleanne wrote....

"I guess you and I just fundamentally disagree on what should be the use of the "public square". In every community there is a "majority". That majority should be able to put up its stuff (to put it simply). If others in the "minority" want to use the public square to display their things - all the better. But it should not have to be a requirement that they do in order for the majority to display what it chooses.

I understand that as far as holiday religious symbols go-- my view is not supported in constitutional precedent. But I disagree with the current precedent. Life is such that there are "majorities" in every local community. That is life. People need to learn tolerance and not be so easily put off or offended.

If I lived in a predominantly Muslim community and they put up the koran, like I said, my view would be -- it goes with the territory."

The public square is government property in this situation, and the government property is to be governed in accordance with the constitution. So if we agree with allowing the government then to endorse a religion, then that would be against the constitution, not what i feel about it as in it being offensive. i guess one should not care if i walk out on my lawn and smoke some crack with a blowtorch in front of your kids, somethings are cool or not depending on the person, and well people should just be more tolerant. Of course that example via relativity can by some be called a little out there, but is it really. I am all for making drugs legal, but that is something else. If we are to dictate law from the government, to be in accord with it, the government is to separate itself from religion, having a religious holiday in federal standing then goes against this, and or breaks the law one could say. Of course its not going to matter to some people, save more when you are of that faith, so does that mean you are subversive or something against america and need to be watched by the patriot act well anyways, it does go against the constitution, weather you are offended by it or not, its the simple point in the debate. Its like the little library in my town, it has a picture of jesus on the wall, and i do seriously always think about how to make that come down actually, being what it is, not what it is i guess.

How are you going to argue against a day off??!!!! Seriously, this is a tough question. On the one hand Christmas is the celebration of the birth of Christ. On the other hand no one really celebrates the birth of christ. Here is what i mean...

You know how many Jesus in the manger nativity scenes are on my block.....zero, zip, none. we've got quite a few snow men and reindeer and Santa Claus sleighs... plenty of lights and almost every house has a Christmas tree... so what's this got to do with Jesus?? I just tucked my babies into the bed and let them no to close their eyes and go to sleep and that Santa was on his way... but ask me if they ever heard of Jesus.....nope!!!

My point... whether we like it or not Christmas has evolved beyond a religious day. Little of Christmas deals with Christ even for Christians. And we liberals are doing a great job of keeping the non-secular parts of Christmas outside of the Government Federal, State and local.

So I guess it depends on whether we are looking at Christmas as what it "is" or are we looking at it as what it is "based on". It is based on religious philosophy, but it is a Holiday that celebrate stories and concepts that are completely secular.

hayleyanne,
This sounds ok at first glance, you know , everyone getting along famously; but think about the little out of reach communities that have some particular ideas which are usually not that acceptable in the rest of the country, where the 'majority' getting government property to place signs or symbols would have a direct threatening effect on the minority.

Its easy to see happening, just thinking about the KKK, or people who have bombed Mosqes lately.

Its very important that we keep a clear separation of church and state in this country, especially on public and government property, not only for convenience but to afford protection to those most in need of it at any given time in history, and there have been plenty in the course.

I personally am not for ANY religious displays on public property, not equal representation, none.
People have their churches, they have their homes, how much space does one need to feel that proper representation of ones personal beliefs has been met?

Merry Christmas haleyanne,

Actually, I'm in agreement. The requirement is for the minority to have the same options as the majority, but nobody is required to exercise options. That's the freedom of having rights and the freedom of decision whether or not to act on those rights.

Given a community, the local government, usually a city council or mayor, needs to be approached by either the majority or minority regarding the use of public squares (a metaphor for whatever the city owns). This can become a constant political struggle as the elected ones try to keep the majority who voted for them happy, while still being fair to minorities. This is why a decision in government might go toward nobody having the right to use public property for any religious display, or whatever the situation might be. That might be a terrible thing in that nobody gets the right to use public property, but it also might be the only thing that keeps to the principle of equal access.

Oh, it came upon me last midnight clear: The only thing that a federal holiday means is that federal offices are closed that day. Other businesses can go on as usual. So does this really mean anything? Not very much from what I can see. It's like a Presidents' Day -- some might observe it, some might not. It isn't a requirement unless you work for the feds.

Christmas Day is here, and the excitement of little children is in the air, along with some mighty old melodies. What is displayed or not displayed on public property doesn't really matter at this level.

That is easy. A Nativity Scene represents the Birth of Christ. Christmas however, is not ONLY about the birth of Christ for most people, and many people celebrate Christmas without believing in Christ at all.

Santa is by far more of a symbol of Christmas then Christ to the Majority of Americans these days. For that Matter the Christmas Tree (who's origins are Pagan, Druidic I think) is more of a symbol of Christmas than Christ to most Americans.

All sorts of people recognize Christmas and Celebrate it in all sorts of ways. Whereas the Nativity Scene only represents one groups view of the holiday.



One problem I have with this argument is that the Founding Father's feared the Tyranny of the majority so much that they chose to have a representative REPUBLIC rather then a democracy.

The other problem I have with this argument is that it has been used before. "The majority who live here are White, so we should be able to limit what blacks can do here", being a good example from our country's history.

I often hear this comment made when democracy is cited in an argument. It makes no sense to me. Our country may not be a pure democracy -- but it is nonetheless built on democratice principles -- AND it is a representative republic. Our Legislatures are still accountable to the people.

As to your second point-- no we should not be able to limit what blacks can do here-- we have a constitutional amendment that speaks specifically to racial inequality.

These days we are walking a fine line (I think we have crossed over) heading toward the tyranny of the Minority.

Artemise, I don't think we are walking a slippery slope when it comes to holiday displays. If the "majority" in a local community wanted to put up a display or symbols that were truly offensive or threatening to the minority in that community, the 1st amendment separation of church and state would not the be way to stop it. There are plenty of other laws in place that guard against such a scenario. The 1st amendment isn't one of them.

The public square has historically been the place for the community to express all types of ideas, holiday celebrations included. I see no reason why this is offensive to the 1st amendment establishment clause. But alas, I have been overruled by the Supremes who say-- you only get access to the public square if EQUAL ACCESS is provided to all groups. I may not agree but I can live with that.

They are accountable to the people, if the people choose to hold them accountable. However, in this age of rabid partisanship where people will sooner re-elect a dug addict, their or lair then vote for a member of the other party that they see as the being the destroyers of the world or whatever. This rabid partisanship has all but eliminated the most important check and balance in our system of government, the ballot box.



The tyranny of the Minority can become a problem as well, good point. However, since many of the founding father's spoke about the evils of religion and the Separation of Church and State (feel free to check out my blog for an older post on that subject) I do not think that this is one of those times. The government of the people for the people by the people. The government is supposed to represent all of the people, that is why the requirement tends to be represent all of the religious angles on the holiday or represent none. This is because to represent only one or two you imply governmental support of those religions which clearly violates the establishment clause of the first amendment.

I am curious though, what "Constitutional Amendment" on racial inequality are you referring to?

To overland sailor:



(1) Re; the partisanship comment: True-- I agree completely that rabid partisanship is a major problem in the way our "democracy" functions. I would add to that the cowardice of the legislature in general. They are all too happy to let the courts do the dirty work and sort out the mess of stuff they enact.

(2) You asked: I am curious though, what "Constitutional Amendment" on racial inequality are you referring to?

I hope you are not being disingenuous in asking that question. The "constitutional amendment" that addresses racial inequality in its application is the 14th Amendment. An example of its application (in the context of racial inequality) is in the famous Brown v. Board of Education case where the Court held that the segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race deprived the minority children of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

I wasn't being disingenuous or a jerk asking the question (though my wife will tell ya that I can certainly be a jerk at times ). I was asking it because the way you worded what you said suggested to me that you thought the constitution had be amended to address racial inequality, and it had not. However, the 14th amendment does prevent states from restricting the rights of US citizens in that a state cannot restrict a citizen from a rights granted by the federal government. the original intent of the 14th Amendment, considering its age, was likely not to give equal protection to all, though thankfully the court has ruled that way. However, it was the courts interpretation that applied racial equality to the 14th amendment. The Amendment itself does not "Speak Specifically" to racial equality. Now, perhaps if the USSC ever chooses to hear one of the cases they will determine if this should REALLY apply to all in regard to recent cases in both the realms of domestic policy and national security.

I mistook what you wrote and thought you were referring to the Civil Rights Act as an amendment. The CRA being something that was written specifically to give equal rights to all. And something that should have been an Amendment IMHO

my mistake

I posed the question about the majority because you seem to suggest that majority rule should be applied in regard to nativity scenes. Yet in doing so we would first, violate the establishment clause of the first amendment, and second, disenfrancise any members of the community who were not christian. I was wondering how far you were willing to go with this majority rule thing, because at the rate the churches are loosing members, it should only be another century or so before the Christians are in the minority. Should we then feel free to focus all our attention on Ramadan (considering that Islam will quite possibly be the majority religion in 100 years when you consider it's current growth) with no mention of Christmas?

Why can we not simply leave peoples person beliefs about religion to their personal lives and let the public side of their life (the government) remain neutral?

Post #35 (my post, un-refuted) on thread US Constitution Secular or Judeo-Christian Based would indicate unless the post is refuted all basis for supporting the wall of separation are removed. Any reference to separation of church and state is clearly based on politically correctness or judicial activism.

Political theory from Plato to the present has been more about what should be, or better--what the theoretician--be it the ancient Greeks, John Locke or Karl Marx to name a few--thought it should be. Your argument on this thread and the other is theoretical. It doesn’t need to be refuted, since in practice we have a secular Constitution.

We have a de facto secular government. Debating what some of the founders may have thought may have some esoteric value, but why refute it when we have more than 200 years practical experience with an actual model—The Constitution of the United States

We also had a thread on judicial activism. I don’t think we ever came to any consensus on its meanings. While the phrase might set of a four alarm fire in you, others of us see it as less a problem. The line between what you term, “judicial activism” and “judicial review” is blurred. You might wish for a more restrained court or one with “strict constructionist" judges, whatever that means.

In practice, the courts have long ruled in favor of secular government. Two early cases I remember are Engel vs. Vitale (1962) and Murray vs. Schempp (1963). Theoretical or practical? I choose to see things as they are not what some fringe groups wish them to be.

BTW: Many of us who believe in a “wall of separation” have no problem with the holiday being observed as a secular proposition with historical roots reaching back to the pagan celebration of the winter solstice or for that matter, however any individual wishes to celebrate it.

[quote=BoF,Dec 30 2004, 08:52 PM]
[quote=Ol Sarge,Dec 30 2004, 01:09 PM][Post #35 (my post, un-refuted) on thread US Constitution Secular or Judeo-Christian Based would indicate unless the post is refuted all basis for supporting the wall of separation are removed.  Any reference to separation of church and state is clearly based on politically correctness or judicial activism.[/quote]

[QUOTE]Your argument on this thread and the other is theoretical. It doesn’t need to be refuted, since in practice we have a secular Constitution.[/QUOTE]

Absent of facts for refuting you are in de Nile equal to CNN advertising on FOX News Network as they close down CNN Financial Network begging for viewers. Refute #35 line by line.

If political theory is what floats your boat fine. Given more than 200 years of Constututionl history, both the written document and what it has become through interpretation and practice, I choose not to invest the time refuting something I consider of spurrious value to start with.

You are trying to demonstrate that the founding fathers wished to do something entirely different than what they, in fact, did.

I, of course disagree, with this statement and think the opposite is fact.

I’m a realist and could care less as to what you believe in your heart of hearts but think I found factual “logical reason” in post #35 for my basis of debate. Archaic laws produced in early times of our government by states support what I posted. I say since, as I stated when opening the post, a winner would not result from debate on the subject you submit your best rebuttal and add a poll for viewers to vote on as to is: Ol Sarge’s #35 more convincing or your answer to #35.

I think that is a very fair offer, so go for it and let the folks decide with “reason” which is factual and which is smoke and mirrors. Do a poll and let the readers grade our debate.

Ol Sarge,
I think we shall go about confusing things by criss crossing threads here, if you cant get results there to what you seem to think is brilliant and irrefutable, Im not sure its ok to go trolling for one in another thread...... however to refute what you say that pertains to THIS thread:

Ex 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth:"

Le 26:1 Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up [any] image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I [am] the LORD your God"

That pretty much takes care of the nativity scenes and displays on public property if you have Judeo Christian values which actually adhere to the book, which is supposedly the word of God.

It didnt quite work out that way. People intepreted the Bible to mean whatever they wanted. Some human also changed Gods Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday for conveinience. So much for Gods laws.


Anchaiic laws also used to burn people at the stake for being witches. Perhaps people have learned overtime that the way to protect All the People is to interpret the Constitution in the form of clear separation of Church and State.

I didn’t find my post as brilliant just more believable to me and nearly all things are refutable. I didn’t consider the post as trolling since this is a sub-thread of the one cited.


The answer to why I don’t do Bible. Perhaps the secular folks have been putting the nativity scenes out at Christmas to mess with the Christians.


The Constitution is neutral on religion as am I. Laws were made by the people based on their morals that may not infringe on the basic rights established by the constitution, an undeniable fact. We are off topic unless you make the connection to the basic thread but I feel compelled to answer your comment on witch trials.
A Harvard law graduate was the judge not a priest in the pre-constitution era you speak of. Yours is a diabolical plot verses a sorcery plot according to Encyclopedia Encarta since burning of witches was merely a remnant of pre-Christian religion. Pre-Christian called it sorcery a practice and post religion called it diabolical practice.
Thank a higher power that smoldering fish heart and liver aren’t used to ward off evil spirits in the bridal chamber through our transition. Yet, we still cover our mouth when yawning to keep out those evil spirits.

1.)The holiday did originate from religious context- the birth of Jesus Christ, but that is not what it represents in America today. Today Christmas is all about Santa Claus, trees, egg nog and gifts. As we all know contexts can change with a mutable society. Interracial dating used to be a preposterous and outlawed idea, but as of Loving v. Virginia, it was considered unconsitutional to ban it. Society's perception changed the law. Carry this concept over to Christmas as a federal holiday. If the context of Christmas still today revolved around the birth of Christ, it would be a breach of the establishment clause to federally recognize it; but, since it doesn't and it represents secular ideas that were formally based on religious ideas, it is constitutional. To find it Unconstitutional just becuase its origin has religious affiliation would be tantamount to finding governmentally licensed marriage unconstitutional because it has religious origins.
2.) As to the second question, there is a simple answer. As long as the city or government opens up the decorating to all individuals of any religion, it would not be a breach of the establishment clause. However, if it does this, be ready for the guys to come out with their sheets and masks.

Absolutely yes to Dec. 25th being removed as an official public holiday,
just on the simple grounds that it is patently unfair to all but Catholics and
some western European christian sects. One point that I'd like to add is
that it is even unfair to many christians. Orthodox christians (i.e. Russian, Greek, etc.)
do not celebrate Christmas on Dec. 25th, so not only is their calendar and beliefs
essentially legally declared "wrong" by calling Dec. 25th "Christmas", if they want to celebrate
their Christmas, they still have to take a personal vacation day. So, Catholics and
some western protestants have a federal holiday coinciding with their most important
religious holiday plus get all of their vacation time. Is this fair? Is this in the spirit
of all religious beliefs being equally valid under the law? Simply put, no. As more
people of Chinese, Indian, Eastern European, Middle-Eastern, etc. origin come
to the United States, this will become even more obvious. Whatever doublespeak
people use defending Dec. 25th (usually invoking what I like to call its Hallmark holiday
status) the choice of day and name is in fact (even if not in intent, which I doubt) giving preference to
particular christian sects and marginalizing other beliefs. Note the late 19th century when
Christmas was finally declared an official holiday, was a battleground time during which
the dominant ethnicities tried ever new ways of discouraging blacks, Chinese, Eastern Europeans
(christian or jew),
etc. from integrating into the social fabric of America. Generally laws made to disenfranchise particular ethnicities (which, regardless of the claims of the proponents made during that time,
I suspect these laws may well fall into this category (if you have ever gone through a California election, you are familiar with how often the claimed reasons for establishing a law have little to do with a group's true agenda)) have been overturned when examined. It is well past time for Christmas to be treated like every other religious/Hallmark holiday (eg. Easter, Yom Kippur, Halloween, Valentine's Day).

Of course the cynical materialist in me can't help but think that perhaps what people are really afraid of is that too many people would not ask for it off, and it would lose its social significance, especially as the establishing point of the annual retail spending cycle.

While those of us who are enlightened enough to understand the qualms of the people do not agree in any sense that Christmas should be a holiday in any meaning of the word. Why would Christmas remain a special observance set aside by the government who cannot support a religion? The law sets no one religion on a higher pedestal than the other, but if the government does nothing to silence the spreading of one secular holiday are they not violating their own laws by letting it's citizens promote; citizens whom I might add fall under the category of government?
Our government is made up of the average citizen, not the President, and not the representatives, it was established to give the people a voice, if it it such, is the government not promoting a religion? Any person or group of persons who promote an observance of religion are guilty. I prefer to abolish Christmas as a holiday, either Federal or Public, because those who practice Christianity are government, and government, by law, is not permitted to further the advancement of a faith.
To those who do celebrate Christmas: do you not feel guilty? Not only are you government promoting something unlawful but you are also sinners. Jesus Christ was born on March 25, A.D. 3. The purpose of celebrating on December 25 made it simpler to convert from Paganism when revisions were made not only to the Bible but to the very timeline of faith itself. Pagan's believed that one of their primary deities was born on December 25. If the Bible warns you to avoid Pagan's and their practices why then would you celebrate a Pagan holiday?
It is a belief shared by those with the will to believe it that Christmas and those who established it were seeking advancement for themselves by making them seem to be righteous infront of all when they motioned to make it a holiday. It is illegal for this kind of promotion of any religion to take place. As citizens; government, we have the right to demand the removal of holiday status. Christmas was wrongly promoted by government, it is time that the government answer for it's wrong-doings.

Untrue! Christmas is not an endorcement of a religion. There is no separation of Church and State unless you can refute facts presented in topic US Constitution Secular or Judeo-Christian Based in this forum.

So to argue Christmas should be abolished you should first prove some authority other than a judge has stated a wall exist between the constitution of the US and religion. The constitution doesn’t say it! The constitution merely states otherwise, read the debate at topic US Constitution Secular or Judeo-Christian Based and refute the conclusion.

I'm a Roman Catholic myself, but at the same time, I whole-heartedley agree that this holiday should be removed. Times have changed since it was first instituted as a Federal holiday, and I think that to be fair to all of the other religions out there, this should be taken out. I think that while having Christmas as a Federal holiday isn't forcing Christianity on Americans, it unfairly favors them, and so it should be removed.

Ol Sarge,

I realize you are proud of the above mentioned thread, but nobody "proved" anything or, for that matter, can anything be proved one way or the other.

Despite your assertion, the US Constitution Secular or Judeo-Christian Based thread, which YOU authored, is not some magic portal through which we must enter, reenter and keep entering every time a separation of church and state issue comes up for debate.

Your opinion of the US Constitution Secular or Judeo-Christian Based thread is a bit inflated.