US Constitution Secular or Judeo-Christian Based, Constitutional Spirit & Intent



Fair enough. 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?

Question(s) for Debate (ill add some more to spice things up):

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?

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?

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

1) Do you think that endless "Jingle Bells" at every corner, fake Santas, and frenzied crowds at shopping malls is a way to remember Jesus Christ? Like it's the case with many other holidays, this holiday is commercialized beyond repair, the original meaning of Christmas is long gone, and I estimate that a sound majority (at least here in the Northeast) celebrate Christmas for what it is - just a day to spend with family away from work.
2) Christmas tree is NOT a religious symbol, and, as a matter of fact, has nothing to do with Christmas - it evolved form pagan traditions long before Jesus was born (as an indirect evidence, Communists in Soviet Union were decorating Christmas trees around the end of December - and, as we all know, they wouldn't do that if that tradition had anything to do with Christianity).
Symbols of Christianity do not offend me, even though I am not a Christian. As long as they're not erected by the government, I have no objections other than aesthetic ones (some Menorahs or Nativity scenes just plain tacky). I tend to look at Christianity and other religions for their impact on world's history through the centuries - and boy, the Church has a lot to ask forgiveness for.
3) There're some people, myself included, who want to limit to absolute minimum any impact that the organized religion has on their lives. Some people mistakenly view it as a "crusade against Christianity" - it's not. People all over Western Europe are free to go to church and practice their beliefs - as long as their beliefs are not in a way of other people' way of life.

Christmas is not a holiday because our government established it as such. The majority of us decided it was and the government just went along for the ride.
So did Madison avenue, and the stores, the toy makers, and everyone else who makes a buck off of it. Based on the principle of "making a buck", I predict it will NEVER go away.

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?

The same deal with philosophies - the cute thing about Christmas is that it means whatever you want it to mean. A time to be with and remember family, a time to give to charity, whatever. Setting aside the probability that Jesus was born in the spring, and its pagan roots, Christmas means to many people, including myself, a time to go out of your way and spend lots of money to make people happy There honestly isn't one definition of what Christmas is, because so many people celebrate it for so many different reasons.

That aside, it only makes sense to designate it a federal holiday. With the majority of Americans being Christian, what kind of sense would it make to have schools open on a day when most students and teachers wouldn't be there?

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?

I'm really undecided. I think if a place is going to celebrate the holidays, they should represent all of them. Not saying it should be mandatory, but that's how I feel they should go about it. If not, I think it would make more sense to not have any religious decorations up. Who's really going to notice a lack of holiday decorations? In any case, if it's a business - like Kroger, or the mall - then it has every right to market towards its majority demographic - Christians. However, I don't think government buildings should have any decorations.

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

Sure there is. It's a backlash to the "more than a select few" who are trying to make this country a theocracy. Both extremes are wrong, but one is a responsive extreme. It's not like extreme secularists up and one day decided "hey, I hate religion, so I'm going to go on a crusade to remove it everywhere in America." It's the fundamentalists who kept and kept and kept inserting religion (intelligent design? Pledge of Allegiance? Ray Moore? Or how's about Ashley McKathan?) where it doesn't belong, and you can't do that without a backlash.

Those who are trying to erase all things religious are in the wrong, but I completely understand where they're coming from.

Before i spill ito my post let me take a second to explain myself in relation to my position. I go from fact and all that, i like natural history and respect science and such. I dent follow any religion with that said(the fact thing) i dont say i do think or dont think there is any kind of "higher" thing or what not(the fact thing). I do respect things that try to build something "better", like the whole dont lie to kill type of stuff, and i respect liberty and a secular nurture for a society or a public, and i do very much respect americas constitution, while seeing the ability for relativity to hold an impact on its application.

To my post, i do think that such should not be federal, just on the constitution alone. It should be left up to the public, i mean work places give days off, they can on their own choose to respect a religion in such ways or not if they want to, and do anyways in their own fashion. Just like i think any token or establishment of religion again from the constitution should never be a federal matter as in against or for any various religion. The government could never step in and tell a person they cant build a 500 foot statue to praise their specific faith, save it starts to take liberty or so from others, like it puts to much shade on someones house I dont know why, but i always get the strange feeling the religious right is constantly trying to find its way to flex authority via government, something that is not to happen in america due to the constitution, and i dont know how americans can go about ending this really, save america becoming a theocracy slowly.

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?

Although Christmas represents a special interest, albeit a large one, I don't view it as any different than any other holiday respecting the federal government. There has to be at least as many people who don't celebrate Christmas as a religious holiday as there are people who don't give a hoot about MLK, most people are just happy with a day or two off.


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?

If I was to be religious, I presume I would be a christian, but I'm essentially a heathen. What I could never understand is the notion of being offended by a nativity scene, christmas tree or a cross for that matter. If I were to walk up to a courthouse and see Menorahs or a Koran, I certainly wouldn't feel like I was a second class citizen or that I would be denied my full rights by the government....especially if I was in an area that was dominated by that religion. While I don't condone any semblance of government mandated religion, I see nothing wrong with an observance of all major faiths during their holidays, wouldn't that be tolerant and celebrating diversity?

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

There surely is a vocal minority recently who seem to be trying to eradicate all semblances of religion in public life. Everything from Salvation Army bell ringers to saying Merry Christmas. However there are also some on the opposite pole who try and inject religion wherever they see fit. I really don't see any winners or losers in this struggle (maybe the SA), it really just provides fodder for pundits and entertainment for political junkies.

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

I’m only going to address this question, because I see it as the crux of the issue. I’d like to know what “select few” you are referring to. Liberals? Atheists? Non-Christians? Christians (evangelicals in particular) are feeling more empowered than ever to criticize anyone who believes differently than them as a result of the Bush administration’s return to power. Religious intolerance is generally perpetrated by those who have strong religious beliefs themselves, and have a problem because someone else does not believe the same things they do. And many so-called “Christians” have a problem with the peaceful teachings of Christ and lean more towards the warlike “Left Behind” folk who hate anyone who isn’t like them. America is full of hate (I give you all right-wing talk show hosts as pluperfect examples), and the Bush administration has provided a focus and a blessing for religious hatred of any and all who are different.

There have been some disturbing events of late in the SoCal area where white Christians have decided to erase all things not of THEIR religion. The latest being this:


For those of you not familiar, Thousand Oaks is an affluent, overwhelmingly Caucasian, mostly Catholic suburb in Ventura County, California.

According to this source, religious hate crimes in general are down…except for anti-Semitic hate crimes, which are up. 84% of all religious-based hate crimes are perpetrated against Jews (I assume by Christians). And I would imagine anti-Islam crime is climbing, too.

So, no, I don’t believe a “select few” are trying to erase all things religious. I believe it is more likely that the Christian majority are trying to remove and erase all things secular and of other religions.

There’s a very funny (and insightful) article here regarding the hysteria about the atheists “taking over Christmas”. Here’s a snippet:

We'd all be better off if we'd just remember...Peace on Earth, Good Will towards Men (and Women!)

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?

Actually, the winter celebrations began with pagans and was borrowed by Christianity. As pointed out, Jesus was proabably born sometime in the spring. This is pretty clear from the Gospel accounts of shepherds with their sheep, a husbandry practice that indicates spring when the ewes have dropped and the predators hang around for a snack.

I don't know of any federal thing that states the holiday is meant to remember Christ. That holiday is Easter. If anything, Christmas is supposed to be Jesus' birthday party from the Christianity viewpoint; however, the religion would have never taken hold without the Ascention on Easter. Easter is the high religious day, not Christmas. Since Easter falls on a Sunday always, there's no problem!

[B]2) Do you believe that religious symbols (i.e. nativity scene, christmas tree) should be removed from public places even if it w

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?First off, I am not a Christian. With that said, I believe that the constitution says FREEDOM OF RELIGION, not freedom from religion. Our founding fathers were for the most part religious and would not agree that religion should play no part in the federal government.

I certainly feel free to celebrate my religion and do not feel that a federal holiday in anyway is an imposition on me.

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?Somebody is offended if there are religious symbols and others would be offended without them. My advice, get over it. I do not impose my religious views on anybody and will walk away from anybody that tries to impose them on me.

3) Is there a crusade by a select few in this country who are trying to erase all things religious? Yes there is. There individuals and groups that seem to think that we should have freedom from all religions. Which to me is a kind of religion in itself.

Yet isn't this a contradiction of your earlier statement? Christmas is a federal holiday for religious reasons...people can talk about the materialism and the other meanings...but the fact remains that Christmas is a religious and public holiday. Basically what you are saying, is that religious tradition is ok as long as you find some joy in it. Its not ok for the Constitution to be based on Judeo-Christian philosophy but if the government wants to recognize something that gives me gifts...then so be it.



No, this is beyond liberals or even non-christians...because i know that there are many people on the left just as appauled by what is going on as people on the right. What this is, are the far left secular progressives who want everything religious to be taken out of the mindset of Americans. And if you can take religion out of the minds of most Americans...you can change the country. Look at Sweden where only 10% of the citizens attend church.

You can find cases where people on the far right want to make all things Christian...but i guarantee to you that it is not as rampant as people trying to take religion away.

Technically speaking, Christmas is no more a religious holiday than Martin Luther King's birthday. It is about the birth of Christ, and there is little debate about whether Christ existed at one time or other. It is not about religion; it does not take organized belief.

So why is Christmas a federally recognized holiday in the first place? Because it was upon the principles this man (Christ) espoused and taught that this country was founded. Philosophy is not religious. To believe that he died for our sins and the rest of the Christianity package is completely different from recognizing the birth of a great man. Exactly like MLK, who was a devout Christian and preached Christian principles. Yet we celebrate him, do we not?




*Edited for uncompleted sentences

Achilles: nicely said!
And because we celebrate Labor Day doesn't make us communists, either.


If you can guarantee it, maybe you can provide a source for that claim? I haven't seen any wild-eyed, frothing-at-the-mouth secularists throwing people out of churches and burning them down or banning the Bible, or the like. I'm curious where these crazy people are coming from.

"Christmas is a federal holiday for religious reasons"... once again, your incorrect conclusion, stated matter-of-factly without any supporting evidence. You have a bad habit of this, leder.

Second. There is absolutely nothing, not a damn thing in my post that you could possibly misconstrue in any freaking way as me saying "religious tradition is ok as long as I find some joy in it."

Actually, you know what? I'm not going to respond any further. When you scoop to tactics as completely pulling words out of your rear and attributing them to me, you lose your status as someone worthy of debate. PM me when you're ready to tackle the issue and use words I've actually said.



So Loreng, since there is no freedom from religion, you'd agree with a Muslim teacher being able to teach your children in public school that Muhummad is the True Prophet of God? After all, they'd just be practicing their religion, and like you said, you nor your children have any freedom from it.

Freedom of religion is by definition freedom from religion. In order for someone to freely express their religion, there cannot be restrictions from someone else's religion put upon them.

The "is kind of a religion in itself" would be kind of cute if it had any basis in reality. Secular individuals have no places of worship. They have no doctrine. Some have no god. Some believe in a god or many gods. The only thing tying them together is that they do not have a professed religion. Sure, a lack of religion is a religion. And bald is a hair color.

I don't think most of it is as wild as you're describing (though I would bet that there are some people like that); it's more of using euphemisms for Christmas like proclaiming December "Gift-giving month," or saying "Happy Holidays" (even though there's only one actual holiday in the month of December) or "Season's Greetings" and things like that.



http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/commentary/a0034902.cfm

Banning Christmas carols: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,140037,00.html

Or banning a church group from a Christmas parade--excuse me, I mean "Parade of Lights": http://www.thedenverchannel.com/holidays/3963530/detail.html

Everything in David Limbaugh's Persecution.

And many, many more.

Those who are not on the conservative side of the argument often proclaim loudly: "How can those in this country's overwhelming religious majority maintain that they are victims in a fiery battle with forces of darkness?" and things to that effect. (Link

But it isn't what the majority of Americans think. It's the ones with a voice. And the voice, coming from what small minority it is, is very specious. They use words like "tolerance" and how can you be against tolerance? It's almost equivalent to a witch hunt. Slowly the nation's ideals change because the vocal minority is telling the majority that if they don't conform to their ideals, than they are not tolerant of them. And no one wants to be labeled intolerant.

Happy Ramahanuqwanzmas!

? Christ-mas....Christ-mas...Christ-mas. What exact proof do you need? I apologize, i thought it was common knowledge that the purpose of Christmas was to celebrate the birth of Christ...the Christian God. Is this not a recognition of religion on the government's part?





Its a contradiction. You find Christmas to be enjoyable so it is ok for the government to recognize it. However, if another aspect of Christianity was advocated by the government you would find it offensive.

It seems you agree with an atheist, Robert Ganulin, who feels that Christmas should not be a federal holiday because of its religious origins and filed a suit in 1998. Ironically, there is a legal precedent for Christmas remaining a national holiday.

One might also argue that since Christmas is really Christ Mass, and only Catholics celebrate Mass, that all other denominations should not celebrate it as Christmas.

But that would just be dumb.

Do we have to make it into this religious/secular ISSUE? Can't everyone just celebrate the day the way they see fit, whether it is to get down on your knees in church and eschew all the commercial aspects, or by putting up a dead tree , participating in the blatant consumerism because it means we can do something special for those who are special to us if we see fit to do so, wrap the stuff up in pretty paper, and then enjoy the company of family, friends, too much food and eggnog while being away from the daily grind of work?

As for me, I'll go for the tree, the family, friends and eggnog.

Edited to add: It looks as if the Supreme Court has taken a position on at least part of this issue (following is part of a letter to a county that refused to allow a Christmas tree). The bolded text serves as a reminder what a tempest in a teapot this whole issue is.

If you think Christ is more important to Americans as a symbol of Christmas than Santa Claus, or heck even Frosty the Snowman or Rudolph, then I think your living in a sheltered world. The truth is Christmas isn't about Jesus to most Americans, it's about getting a day off to celebrate cook a turkey with the family, to exchange gifts, and to get together with loved ones you haven't seen in a long time.

As already pointed out, the idea that all these pagan symbols are being used to celebrate Jesus is some wicked sort of irony. Santa Claus in the past 50 years has been made into a secular American deity(whether he ever was truly a Christain symbol is up for debate). The mythos spurring off this rather jovial and non-religious character has spawned other incarnations such as elves, reindeer, and it is to the point now where even children of Atheists celebrate Christmas and recognize Santa Claus as a real thing.

Yes, the Chrismas Holiday is related to Christianity, but the truth of the matter is it's a Pagan Holiday still remembered. Since about .01% of the population are practicing Pagans, I would consider this holiday ultimately non-demoninational, it is more about what Christmas Represents from a "spirit" perspective, than the fact that Jesus has been born.

Wow.

The point of Christmas is about being good people. That's the core of what Christ stood for. That's why people feel best when they do nice things for other people. Like giving. Like donating to the poor. Like helping out your fellow man. Being a good person. That's one of the core points of Christmas: to remind people to be, in one word, nice.

I seriously doubt that Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer is more important than most Americans (over 80% Christian btw) than the Christ-child. More dominant in their lives, perhaps, but not more important. Yes, Christmas has been extremely commercialized, but I don't think it has changed what people truly feel about Christmas.

The supposed "paganry" of Christmas is dumb, saying that Christmas is actually a pagan holiday. It was, but it was converted to a Christian holiday. The only thing similar is the date. The symbols of today are commercialized Christian symbols. This was done by corporations, etc. (Ever seen the Charlie Brown Christmas movie?)

Do the American public really think that Christmas is about Santa Claus and mistletoe and "ho ho ho" and all that stuff? I SERIOUSLY doubt it.

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?

Christmas means different things to different people. For some, it’s the birth of Jesus, to others Santa Claus, tensile, etc. I personally like to think of the season as the Winter Solstice. Still I remember the excitement the day brought when I was a kid. Any religious significance is outweighed by what kids get out of it. If Christmas were no longer a holiday, then we might have the first kid led revolution in history.

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?

Theoretically, I would like to see all religious symbols removed from public buildings, though I don’t consider Christmas trees, Rudolph, Frosty, etc. religious symbols—at least in the sense of nativity scenes or crosses. I think we are already “Christmas saturated” from private sources—malls, Starbucks, radio stations, etc. I don’t see why it’s necessary in public places.

On a practical level, this would be a mammoth project that would involve endless ferreting out of offending symbols and uprooting of traditions. With Bush’s newly announced domestic agenda removing religious symbols would rank low on a list of priorities.

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

This is a push/shove proposition. The conservative Christian support for Bush in the last election more than offsets any effort to eradicate all traces or religion. I think we have more to fear from Christianity than it has to fear from “non-believers.”

I did and I do and I'll do again...



::nods:: Sure, leder. You've got me there. Emphasizing the "Christ" part of Christmas really did put me in my place. You've proven without a shadow of a doubt that the goverment made Christmas a national holiday purely in remembrance of baby Jesus.

Or. Not.

Quote:

Merry Christmas leder.

I think i am going to go nuts. I am not going to sit here and argue with you that "Christ" is the reason for Christmas. It is just beyond stupidity. If Christ was never born...there would be no Christmas. All you are trying to do is justify your celebrations of a religious holiday which is ridiculous in itself.

Leder, now you are redefining the question for debate. The question, which you asked, was not "did Christians establish Christmas to celebrate Christ" but 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?

I have effectively proven that the question itself was flawed. Christmas is not "of now a public holiday meant for remembering Christ" (at least, as it pertains to its federal recognition). I have posted a link which explains perfectly the secular reasoning behind Christmas being a federally recognized holiday, and guess what? It wasn't because the government wanted to recognize Christ! It was done purely for practical and secular purposes. You are the person who stated that Christmas was federally recognized for purely religious purposes, and you are wrong.

I do not care what you think the meaning of Christmas is. That is irrelevant to the questions poised for debate. I do not care why Christians established Christmas, or why they (and people of other religious leanings) celebrate it in some way, shape, or form today. That too, is irrelevant to the questions poised for debate. This debate centers around the government recognition of Christmas - making it a federal holiday. You indicate that it was done because the government made a conscious decision to make it a federal holiday because it wanted to recognize the importance of this religious event. I have proved otherwise.

Leder,

We don't even know for sure when Jesus, the historical figue, was born, but it was probably in the spring rather than in December. The holiday is what it has evolved into over time--malls, pushing and shiving, traffic jams, stress, jabbing people with packages and eating 'till our sides split. You might as well say "bah humbug" to Suzy as to accuse her of stupidity.

But it is still a religious holiday! You can have all the secular reasoning you want...you can bring up the materialism, the good will, the spirit of the season...but you cannot escape the fact that it IS a religious holiday with the name of the Christian God in the name.

Christmas was established by the church for rememberance of Christ yet when the federal government recognizes it, it is somehow a secular holiday?

Bottom Line: If Christ wasn't born...there would be no Christmas. Jesus is the reason for the season and no secular rhetoric can run around that.

Leder. Pay attention. To what I am trying to explain to you.

You did not ask why Christmas was created. That is not the question posed for debate.

You did not ask to explain the reasoning behind the creation of Christmas. That is not the question posed for debate.

You stated, incorrectly, that the government recognition of Christmas was for religious reasons, and then asked us to debate whether or not we should still recognize it as a federal holiday because of this (incorrect) "fact."

The government made Christmas a federal holiday for practical, secular purposes. The reason why Christmas was created has nothing to do with it.

This debate centers around the reason why the government made Christmas a federally recognized holiday. It has nothing to do with why Christians created Christmas.

If you do not understand this difference, and continue to ignore your own question that was originally posed for debate in favor of saying that it was "why did Christians create Christmas" and attacking my intelligence when I respond to the original question posed for debate instead of your New and Improved question, there is nothing more I can say to you.

What i am asking you is...how can the government recognize a religious holiday to be secular? It doesnt make any sense. My question is not flawed because it is in fact a religious holiday. You are telling me that a religious holiday somehow becomes de-christianized when it is recognized by the government. Just becuase the court decided in 1995 that there are NOW secular reasons for Christmas doesnt take away for why it was established in the first place.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt said on December 24, 1944, during a national wartime address:

I don't care what the President had to say about Christmas, the courts ruled that it is a federally recognized holiday for secular purposes. Go on, pull up various quotes by various individuals proclaiming that it is a day for Christ. I will again direct you to the fact that the courts have ruled that it is a federally recognized holiday for secular purposes. This is not about the meaning of Christmas, so please, please, please don't start bringing in a multitude of individuals' saying that Christmas has religious roots. Of course it does. Who. Cares???

That is not what this debate is about.

This debate is about the reason why Christmas is a federally recognized holiday.



The government is not saying the holiday is secular. It is saying that the reasoning behind recognizing it as a federal holiday is secular. I have stated this over and over again, practically ad infinitum, and each time you ignore it and barge ahead, trying to portray me as dumb because "I said that Christmas doesn't have a religious basis." No. I am saying that the government recognition of it is secular. This has nothing to do with the meaning, intent, celebration, whatever of the holiday itself. It has to do with the reasoning behind the government making it a federal holiday.

Your question is flawed. You stated: 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?
The italicized portion indicates that you were indicating that the reasoning behind it being a public holiday was "meant for remembering Christ." I have already disproven that. The question is flawed. It is not a public holiday so people can remember Christ. It is a public holiday for practical, economical, and secular purposes.

We are not debating the reasons behind Christmas. We are debating the reasons behind the federal recognition of Christmas.

... and you still won't get it.

Actually Leder the holiday was celebrated as the winter solstice long before the chuirch Christianized the pagan holiday. If we didn't celebrate the season as "Christmas" we would probably celebrate it under some other name. I don't think it's necessary to adopt a particular reason for "celebrating." You celebrate the birth of Jesus and I can celebrate the "return of the sun." In fact, some Native American recognized the winter solstice before Christmas was ever brought to North America.

Here's some historical information:



http://www.candlegrove.com/solstice.html



http://www.circlesanctuary.org/pholidays/WinterSolstice.html



http://www.circlesanctuary.org/pholidays/S...iceArticle.html

Actually I do not want religion to be taught in school, any religion, by anybody. My statement was simply that it is not necessary to expunge religion from all public life.
As for secular individuals having no places of worship, who cares? As for their not having any doctrine, yes some do not, others do, they wish to impose their views on all of society.

And yes in some states bald is a hair color too

I have yet to see anyone post a source to substantiate this claim. I think the Supreme Court's recognition of Christmas as a holiday proves quite the opposite is true.

This secular person doesn't believe that I must go to a particular building, read a particular book, and listen to a particular person who will tell me what to believe in order to feel spiritually fulfilled. Please, I (and others) have not disparaged your beliefs; do not disparage mine just because they differ from yours.

Loreng, your statement was not "simply that it is not necessary to expunge religion from all public life." Your statement was that there is no freedom from religion. Meaning that we do not have the right to be free from religion - any religion. You don't have the right to be free from Muslim or Wiccan or Hindu laws, practices, or ceremonies. No freedom from religion. Okay. Muslims can force your daughter to wear a veil in public after her first period - after all, they're just exercising their freedom of religion, and according to their religion this is moral. And you can't do a damn thing about it, right? Because you don't have a right to not have religious ideals imposed upon you. Your own words, not mine.

"I believe that the constitution says FREEDOM OF RELIGION, not freedom from religion." That is what you stated - pretending you said something else later doesn't really fly with me.

"Who cares" about secular people having no place of worship? Um, maybe you didn't realize it but the entire argument tore your premise that "secularism is a religion" to shreds. What kind of religion is a religion in which its followers worship different gods, or no gods at all? What kind of religion doesn't have a doctrine or a founder? What kind of religion doesn't have places of worship? A religion may lack one of these things, but what kind of religion lacks all of them?

"Secular" and "Religious" are not antonyms - it is prefectly possible to be a secular Christian - someone who is not a member of the clergy. Unless we have vicars or preachers here that I don't know about, I'd say that every Christian on AD is secular.

Therefore, I think that a perfectly good secular state might be deeply Christian (or Muslim or freakin' Jedi) in philosophy and behaviour, but it does not see it has any business proselytising or preaching it's religion to anybody.

It is not, therefore any kind of contradiction for the state to be avowedly secular, and pronounce religious festivals as state holidays. They are not trying to tell anyone what they should or should not be doing on Christmas Day, after all. Provided you comply with public health and animal welfare legislation, you'd be prefectly within your rights to sacrifice goats to Satan on 25 December (or the nearest weekday*).

Here was me thinking that the only purpose of state-nominated public holidays was to give some times during the years when employers could not compel their workers to come in to work? Going back to the definition - public holidays are primarily worldly in intent, and so are necessarily secular. (Government itself, being concerned with worldly matters, is therefore mostly secular).

* Is this not more evidence that the only government intention of having a public holiday at Christmas is to give most people a day off work? If it were a primarily religious public holiday, what would be the purpose of it if 25 December were a Saturday or Sunday? I take it all the Christians here fully intend to work on Friday 24th, which has been declared a public holiday since Christmas Day falls on a Saturday this year, since the only purpose of Christmas is as a Christian religious festival that can be properly celebrated no matter what day of the week it is? Will they also work on Monday 26th when Christmas Day is a Sunday in 2005?

Another line of argument for this is that the government does not do the same for Easter in the USA, which is a more important Christian festival, after all - Jesus's birth was important, but it was his death that supposedly saved sinners. If the US government were as Christian as some here seme to think they are (or should be), should Easter not also be a public holiday?

People in general or americans dont need a federal holiday in order to get together and enjoy each other in some fashion. Americas government also should not be having religion up in its matters, regardless of particular faith. I dont think anytime soon a person running for president that is an open atheist will be elected, he might be "evil" or something, so yes religion is a matter in american thought very much important to people, or such like this would not occur period, it would be some trivial aspect and not even a thread on this website. Despite what is being said, people are tying to push to have creation "science" put into public education, i hear people say things like, "i dont know what evolution is but its wrong", or "i dont care if evolution has fact its wrong". I dont want to spin this into a evolution debate, if you want look it up yourself, or go become a biology major or something

Christmas should not be a federal holiday anymore then the government should have megaspeakers blasting muslim prayer out all times of day to respect that religion. No laws for or against, and being the government is a system of law, and this holiday is respected in such fashion, regardless of its diluted appearance to some, which is open to debate. its religious in design, as in made by people in relation to a religion, or religious, or that of a theological creation, or something of the divine, and is against the constitution then.

So we say let little white lies type stuff go on now, and who knows what that can lead to, maybe a crusade against gay rights and all other sorts of things being pushed on public education, natural history and freedom in general. Nothing on the left pushes for religoun out of the public, they always push to keep it from government, and i can agree with such behavior very easily myself. The american government was to not be a mechinism to allow religion of any kind to flex authority from it.

You have totally missed my point. Number one my rights end with me. I do not have the right to impose a view point on anybody, which means that if I choose to practice a religion it does not give me the right to impose it on anybody, because that would violate freedom OF religion. Number two to insist that I see no display of another religion is equally as bad. If a priest walks by with his collar is that not a religious display? I think it is, but since it his and does not interfere with my religion I really couldn't care, the same can be said of a Mosque, though I think the call to pray should not be amplified since the noise would be an intrusion. As for a menorah display that too does not interfere with me. So unless I willing to impose a total removal of religion from this country we will see religious displays and that does not interfere with people's rights.

Number three as for the "Who cares" there is that darn freedom thing again. Those that are secular are allowed to do whatever works for them. That is the beauty of freedom, we are free to choose what we will and won't do. So yes I could care less if somebody does or doesn't have a place to practice their beliefs, that is part of the whole freedom of choice portion.

Number four as for flying or as the case maybe not flying with you, fine too, that is part of discourse and we are allowed and nay sometimes encouraged to have differing point of views.

BoF,

Yeah, and being nice to each other, making lights and food goodies, giving presents came way before Christmas. This year Solstace was on the 21st, yesterday, and last evening it started to snow.

Regardless of human bickering, nature follows its own ways. So to appease the whistle-blowers out there who have picked this issue as the most important thing we face today, I propose we eliminate Christmas (call me Grinch) and place the Winter Solstice Light Celebration in its place. Makes for a cool acronym, WSLC, which could be pronounced "whistle-see," and somehow that seems to fit.

There. A secular holiday for a secular nation.

Everybody happy? No? Oh, I get it -- use the Christmas holiday as an excuse to bring religion into government. If you can do this, then why not that?

Right. If you can kill cows, why not people? Or, if the donuts were free, why not the car? Or, if you can tell little lies to save people's feelings, why can't you tell big lies like how well a business is doing?

Every principle can be rationalized away. That's what the attempt is by saying the federal government promotes religion through having a Christmas holiday.

From historychannel.com:



I believe that pretty much settles the ancient source of Christmas.

But to believe that we, as a society in the 21st century, would be celebrating the winter solstice just for the heck of it is ludicrous. Christmas wasn't even introduced as a federal holiday until 1870.



What?!? They're the exact same thing! Why else would the legislature of 1870 institute a federal holiday? To celebrate Christmas, an ancient holiday that honored the birth of the man whose philosophy this country was built upon. That's it.

Oh, and DaffyGrl: It's not necessarily "them" trying to impose their beliefs on us, but rather to keep us from expressing our beliefs.

I’m with you! Let’s take it to the street like Kerry did. Like the Puritans of Massachusetts banned any observance of Christmas, and anyone caught observing the holiday had to pay a fine. Connecticut had a law forbidding the celebration of Christmas and the baking of mincemeat pies!
http://hoover.archives.gov/exhibits/AmChristmas/index.html

Federal Court supports Christmas Bah Humbug! see link and check out bottom of site for more controversyhttp://www.becketfund.org/index.php/case/25.html

Easter must make secular agenda cringe and alter media viewing. Yet, I support you in your quest and I’m glad the secular movement has chosen the Democratic Party to affiliate with. The more the secular agenda strikes out the weaker the party it supports becomes because the party contains Christians. It breaks a party of combined splinter groups back into splinters that individually are ineffective politically. So, support the destruction of the Christmas celebration, remove all signs of Christianity form the cross in San Diego to the crosses on Arlington National Cemetery from all of the US if you can? Rah! Rah! Out with Christianity! But, of course you cannot, for the party judicial forces affiliated with the anti-Christ agenda will be held accountable and it is all about interpretation of law now isn’t it?

The will of the majority will determine the outcome of this debate in my opinion and my money is on you are in the minority!

First off, who is this amorphous "them"? And second, that's a load of horsepucky; religious members express their beliefs everywhere, constantly and publicly, and even go door to door promoting them. Who is imposing whose beliefs on whom????

Christmas is evolving into a more and more secularized holiday. I believe that we should let it take it's natural course -- it will soon be only religious to those going to church on that day.

Even though I'm a neo-pagan, I'm not offended by Christmas, and it's nice to have a day off and a reason to get together with loved ones.

It still could be considered a national holiday as the main value of Christmas is now about consumption -- and everyone knows that no one can beat the U.S. at our favorite national pastime of consumption!

jenreiautter,

I really like the tone and openness of this reply.

This debate is not new. In the 60s, Tammy Wynette recorded a song entitled "Let's put Christ Back in Christmas." Edited to add that Red Foley recorded a similarly titled song, "Put Christ Back in Christmas" in 1953. I have no idea if they are the same song. Fortunately, the holiday has expanded to allow everyone, regardless of specific belief to celebrate the season.

Nora Jones has a song, secular in nature, called "Peace" written by Horace Silver.



This is my holiday wish for everyone on AD.

http://www.123lyrics.net/n/norah-jones/peace.html

Them = lawyers, mostly. And the occasional atheist. Or atheist lawyers. o.O

Funny how the majority always has to bend to the minority.

Did you read those examples I gave you?



*sigh* I thought I went over that? It's not them imposing their beliefs on us, it's them trying to censor our beliefs from the public.

Do you really want to compare the number of Chirstmas Programs with Santa Claus as a character vs. Jesus as a character? How about Sitcoms, Cartoons, and other TV Shows with "Christmas" specials? How about you walk down your block and compare Santa Signs, Hats, Reindeer and other Paraphanalia to Christain Symbols displayed? You might find a manger here or a neon cross there, but Santa and his Merry Reindeer are EVERYWHERE, while Jesus and his Merry Apostles are NOT.

Like it or not, Santa Claus IS more important to Chirstmas than Jesus. And that is proof that this holiday is secular in America.



How Ironic that you would use a perfect example of why Religion has no purpose in government to support your argument that Christanity should be openly supported by the government.

Christmas means solemn religion and church-going to you maybe, but for me, for the entirity of my life, it has meant nothing specifically religious, but an annual occasion I can enjoy and take part in, whether I love Jesus or not.

No. You cannot impose your religious views on people because they have the right to be free from your religious practices. Your reasoning doesn't make any sense. Are you telling me that the only people you can impose your beliefs upon are secularists, because, since they don't practice a religion, their "freedom of religion" rights can't be violated?

You cannot impose your religious views upon anyone. We do have a freedom from religion.



All secularists are not insisting that you see no displays of religion. This is a gross strawman. Religious expressions do not belong on government property. Period. The government exists to serve people of all faiths and denominations. A religion-neutral government is the only way to do this. Privately-owned businesses can do whatever they want.



You missed the point I was making by a mile. The entire intent of me saying that secularists have no place to "practice their beliefs (what beliefs?)" was in response to you indicating that secularism is a religion. I proved that it does not, in any way, shape, or form, resemble a religion.



I cannot believe this. I really, really, really cannot believe this. I state it over and over again. I explain my reasoning to a fault. I point it out, I bolden it, I italicize it, I enlarge the writing.

Why else would the legislature of 1870 institute a federal holiday? Um, hello! I provided the link! I quoted from the source! I have already answered the damned question. It was not made a federal holiday to celebrate Christmas, because if it was, the atheist who filed the case would have won. But he lost, and on the grounds that Christmas was declared a federal holiday for secular reasons.

Christmas was created for whatever reason. It is irrelevant to this discussion. I will quote again:



And you're going to keep repeating, over and over again, despite evidence that I've posted twice now that you are completely wrong, that Christmas was declared a federal holiday for religious reasons. Sure. Just scream it over and over and over and over and over again.

This isn't a debate. Debate requires two parties who are willing to examine and critically consider the evidence and arguments the opposing sides present. There has been none of that in this thread. I provide evidence and it gets completely ignored. I respond to the question for debate and the question gets redefined.

This isn't a debate. This is more of an exercise in "if I repeat it enough times people will think it's true" thinking.



::nods:: I agree. When, oh when will us secularists stop shutting down churches? When will we stop infiltrating services and covertly stealing from the collection plates? When will we stop passing laws that say that limit the number of times you can worship? I can most definitely see how your ability to express your beliefs are limited. What with us putting cameras in your home and arresting you every time to say a mealtime prayer, to not allowing teachers to proselytize in public schools, to prohibiting religious private schools. I agree, you can only have the ability to express your beliefs when you have the right to impose them upon other people. Until then, despite what the liberal media may say, you are being persecuted.

Putting blatant religious displays on government property is not "expressing your beliefs" it is being obnoxious and deliberately trying to send the message that "by god this is a CHRISTIAN country and no other religions are to be tolerated."



Stating "I believe that the constitution says FREEDOM OF RELIGION, not freedom from religion" and later claiming "my statement was simply that it is not necessary to expunge religion from all public life" is not a matter of "differing point of views," it's a matter of dishonesty.

Ol Sarge, I will respond to you when you want to debate me on my personal beliefs and things I've actually said, instead of googling random things some secularists believe in and then attacking and ridiculing me for their beliefs.

I will also respond to you when you decide to address the topic posed for debate and not just take it as another opportunity to rip on secularists.

By the way, I'm not a Democrat. But I'm in the minority, right? So I don't have any rights. What I think doesn't matter.

Sorry, but no. America's democracy is not set up by a mob mentality. I have already stated in this thread that it doesn't matter if this country is made up of 100 million people and 99,999,999 of them are Christian. They still cannot impose their religious beliefs on the minority. The Bill of Rights applies to everyone.

You don't seem to understand the difference between being able to express your religious beliefs and not having the ability to impose them on others.

Can someone please explain why anyone should object to Christmas being a federal holiday? Let's be pragmatic. Balance the two sides: Does the offense someone may take at Christmas being a holiday (and a day off work to boot) outweigh the joy that most people take in Christmas as a special day?

I don't think so. I think some members of our society have just become too thin skinned or something.

No one is objecting to it being a federal holiday. This discussion is about the reasons why it is a federal holiday. I don't know, maybe you guys have a plastic filter on your monitors where every single time I state "this discussion is about the reasons why Christmas is a federal holiday" gets whited out.

It sure doesn't read that way to me.

No one here is arguing that Christmas should not be a federal holiday, the argument is that half the people here seem to think Christmas being allowed means we should have the Ten Commandments printed on our W2 Forms, while the other half agrees with the Supreme Court in the fact that Christmas is currently percieved more importantly as a secular holiday than a religous one.

The most extreme argument presented is a man who sued the gov't over Christmas. (Sited in previous posts) This man was not trying to BAN the celebration of Christmas, but questioned whether the government using Christmas as a holiday was a violation of the consitution. Everyone here I think agrees he was wrong, however it was an important question that has been answered.

So, to put this to people who aren't getting it... Easter COULD be a federal holiday because of the completely non-religous Easter Bunny. But Good Friday and Yom Kippur could NEVER be a federal holiday without reversing the idea of Seperation of Church and State.

Seriously, in these types of debates I really think everyone should be forced to state whether they actually believe there should be a seperation of church and state. 95% of the secularist=anti-christ arguments stem from the fact that these people don't believe in a fundamental reality of our constitution.