Christmas holidays & separation of church & state [Archive]

nebuli

12-13-1999, 09:01 AM

David to respond to your points:

Yes, many people have forgotten the meaning, but that meaning is still the
reason it is a holiday.
Are you referring to the birth of Sol Invictus? :)
Just as Christians hijacked a pagan holiday and made it Christian, so the nonreligious are hijacking a Christian holiday and making it secular.

I mean, the holiday is called Christmas, after all.
True, but etymology is not the same as meaning. For instance, the name used in the English speaking world for the Christian Feast of the Resuurection is derived from something to do with pagan fertility celebrations- I doubt that many bishops therefore consider Easter a pagan holiday.

The tree is supposed to represent the cross Christ died on or some such thing
(although it's actually an excuse to use a pagan symbol, but that's their problem, not mine).
Exactly- it is just feeble after-the-fact rationalization. My tree certainly represents no such thing, and I don't personally know of any Christians who subscribe to the theory either.

The fact is that it is most certainly not a secular holiday.
That is merely your reassertion of the point in question. I believe it is wrong. Lets get back to advancing arguments for our respective positons.

It is celebrated by Christians. Not Jews. Not Muslims. Not anybody else. Christians.
This is inaccurate. I am a non-believer and I celebrate it. Other non-believers have told you they celebrate it. I know secular minded Jews and Muslims who celebrate it. I can't find the post now, but I recall somebody posting something on this or another SD messageboard about how Christmas was becoming popular in Japan.

It is a religious holiday that has gotten out of hand a bit, perhaps, but it is a religious holiday nonetheless.

I beg to differ. It was a religious holiday; it no longer is so exclusively.

David B

12-13-1999, 11:04 AM

Tell it to the Pope.

Ok, so I went overboard (never say "never"). Yes, some secular folks celebrate it, but they do so, in my experience, almost exclusively because they had Christian roots, even if they are atheists now. The point remains that it is a Christian holiday. Not Jewish. Not Muslim. Not Native American. Christian. Yes, a few Jews will rationalize that they want to celebrate something too. BFD. I also knew a few who clamored to see the Pope when he was in town a while back. Is the Pope secular?

Frankly, all of this is just so much rationalizing, by the courts and those here defending them. Christmas is a Christian holiday. If it were not a Christian holiday, the government would never have given its workers the day off (you don't see people getting Yom Kippur off, do you?). The current overcommercialization doesn't change the fact that it is, at its heart and root, a Christian holiday. If non-Christians want to take off the day, good for you. But nobody should force governmental workers to take it off as a holiday if they don't want to.

I feel somewhat like I'm repeating myself, so I would encourage folks to check out the link to the earlier thread.

12-13-1999, 11:09 AM

If it were not a Christian holiday, the government would never have given its workers the day off (you don't see people getting Yom Kippur off, do you?).

Actually, yes I do. My husband teaches for the Los Angeles Unified School District. They shut down for Yom Kippur.

-Melin

David B

12-13-1999, 11:15 AM

D'oh! I should have known better than that!

Yes, some public schools do shut down for Yom Kippur -- if they have a large population of Jewish students and/or teachers. (In other words, they do it for logistical reasons, not religious ones.) Similarly, it would make sense to do this for Christmas in the schools as well (which doesn't really come into play because all the schools are on winter break anyway). I was talking more along the lines of other governmental agencies. For example, you won't see the EPA shut down on Yom Kippur.

Sorry 'bout that.

Manda JO

12-13-1999, 11:42 AM

The problem I see, David, is that if Secular Beauracrat Joe wants to work on Xmas, then Xian Watchman Bob has to work on his (Bob's) religious holiday to unlock the door. I suspect that the vast majority of jobs where the employee has unassisted access to his place of work do not activly prevent employees from working that day, in the same way you are allowed to work at home on the holidays. (How can they stop you?) However, security at most comanies demands that someone else be there--something that can be diffucult to provide without trampleong on someone's sensitivities.

12-13-1999, 11:45 AM

David, those same logistical reasons exist throughout government for the Christmas holidays.

And it's a bit disingenuous, isn't it, to say that "oh well, the schools are closed for winter break then anyway." I'm willing to make a wager that the reason winter break exists is because of the Christmas holiday.

-Melin

Liberal

12-13-1999, 11:51 AM

David:

My man, if you don't want to celibrate it, then don't. I don't.

------------------
"It is lucky for rulers that men do not think." — Adolf Hitler

pldennison

12-13-1999, 11:55 AM

Don't you think it's coercive, though, to say that I can't do business with the post office because other people celebrate Christmas? ;) (Just funnin' ya.)

Falcon

12-13-1999, 01:00 PM

David....

I'll wait until people read the thread to comment further, but FWIW, I agree with you. (As you probalby remember from the thread.) At my company, we get one holiday in December. It's "officially" for Christmas, since we're a government contractor. However, as long as you take the 8 hours of holiday time in December, no one really cares. It's a good system...wish more companies did it.

------------------
"There is no worse lie than a truth misunderstood by those who hear it." - William James

Liberal

12-13-1999, 01:36 PM

David:

I'd expect a Libertarian to realize that this is a First Amendment violation and that the government should not be recognizing a specific religion's holiday in this way.

Oh. That's different. Nevermind the first amendment. Government should be about the business of securing rights. I see what you mean now. Sorry about that.

Of course, Phil can explain to you why whatever the majority mob wants is good for you. [ducking...]

------------------
"It is lucky for rulers that men do not think." — Adolf Hitler

pldennison

12-13-1999, 02:05 PM

Yeah, like that majority mob who all believe in a deity.

Liberal

12-13-1999, 03:01 PM

Phil:

Exactly.

------------------
"It is lucky for rulers that men do not think." — Adolf Hitler

Occam

12-13-1999, 03:36 PM

Common, nobody's denying your First Amendment rights by giving other people a break. If you don't like it, go to work on Dec 24th and 25th. I don't recall it being, "...life, liberty and the pursuit of days off." This 'Athiest Inquisition' is gettting out of hand. Next you guys are going to argue that Snow Days are a religious holiday for Loki.

Gaudere

12-13-1999, 03:42 PM

Now, now, don't get silly. No one would want snow days off for a holiday for Loki.

After all, everybody know the god of snow is Ullr.

David B

12-13-1999, 03:46 PM

Congratulations, Occam, on completely missing the point!

PunditLisa

12-13-1999, 04:53 PM

The court, by not striking down Christmas as a federal holiday,is recognizing the fact that a great majority of the people in this country celebrate Christmas and will: 1) want the day off to spend time with their family; and 2) not be venturing out to their local government office to do their business that particular day.

To force government employees to work on Christmas day in order to wait on the 2 people that MAY want to come in would be a complete waste of our tax dollars. Closing down government offices simply makes sense.

If Mardi Gras were celebrated nationwide, no doubt IT would be a federal holiday. And it would have nothing to do with Lent.

BTW, why do you think government workers get Saturdays and Sundays off? Whoa boy!

jab1

12-13-1999, 05:20 PM

The government could be open 7 days a week the same way that McDonald's is open 7 days and 7-Eleven is open all week and Sears and Denny's and so on and so on: You schedule it that way. You hire enough workers to fill all 56 hours and fix the schedule so that no one works more than forty hours a week.

The only reason we don't is because of tradition and because it's frankly easier to just have everyone come in 9-5 M-F.

As for religious holidays, simply give everyone 7 Free Days (Or some other number) and that they can take them on the holidays of their choice. The only restriction is that no two days can be used consecutively unless you can prove that your religion requires you to take more than one day and you can prove it with a letter from your Priest or Minister or Coven or Witch Doctor or...

And if most people take December 25 off, it's because habits are hard to break.

------------------
>< DARWIN >
____L___L__

nebuli

12-13-1999, 05:27 PM

David,

I did read the thread on the link you provided before I first posted on this thread. However, I saw nothing to resolve the point I've been debating with you- namely, what is the definition of a religious holiday? You seem to feel that if its origin is religious, and some people still observe it as a religious event, then constitutionally it can only be considered a religious event.

On the other hand, it is my belief that if a significant number of other people observe it as a secular event, then it is a secular event.

I think PunditLisa's example on Mardi Gras is right on target. Assuming for the sake of argument that there were absolutely no logistical problems associated with remaining open that day, would you consider it wrong for a government to declare Mardi Gras a holiday? It is definitely religious in origin, and I know lots of Christians who use Shrove Tuesday to prepare for Lent.

jab1

12-13-1999, 05:29 PM

Oh, and I read that other "discussion." Kinda degenerated into a lesson on how to use UBB Code, didn't it?

------------------
>< DARWIN >
____L___L__

tracer

12-13-1999, 06:41 PM

nebuli wrote:

Pray tell, what do a jolly fat old elf imitating a chimneysweep, decorated conifer kindling, shop till you drop, and airborne caribou have to do with Christianity, or any religion?

Well, they definitely sound like the kind of things you'd see on a Peyote Vision Quest. (Especially the elf and the airborne caribou.) And Peyote Vision Quests are supposed to be religious expirences, aren't they?

------------------
"Love 'em, fear 'em, and leave 'em alone." -- Dr. Spockiavelli

Gr8Kat

12-13-1999, 07:18 PM

But nobody should force governmental workers to take it off as a holiday if they don't want to.

As a governmental worker myself, I find it amusing that you assume we are "forced" to take a day off ;)

"Not another holiday! And I so wanted to spend 8 precious hours of my life behind my desk! Agony, oh agony!" ;)

------------------
"I hope life isn't a big joke, because I don't get it," Jack Handy

The Kat House (http://members.aol.com/gr8kat1/KatGen/home.htm)
Join the FSH Webring (http://members.aol.com/gr8kat1/KatGen/fshwebring.htm)

nebuli

12-13-1999, 07:58 PM

Tracer said:

Well, they definitely sound like the kind of things you'd see on a Peyote Vision Quest. (Especially the elf and the airborne caribou.) And Peyote Vision Quests are supposed to be religious expirences, aren't they?

To be consistent, I will have to fight on this one too, because I know some who have gone on Peyote Vision Quests for more secular reasons :)

12-14-1999, 12:18 AM

pl, I DO wish the post office would stay open on all holidays.I hate that everything shuts down.What if i want to see a movie(well,Blockbuster IS open),or anything?
Manda: xian's are people who worship BobDobbs,BTW.

------------------
We are on an irreversible path to democracy and freedom. But that could change-Dan Quayle

David B

12-14-1999, 12:50 AM

I hate to sound like a jerk, but I really do wish everybody would go read the previous thread, since I'm pretty sure I responded to issues just like the ones you're bringing up here. Anyway.

Manda said:if Secular Beauracrat Joe wants to work on Xmas, then Xian Watchman Bob has to work on his (Bob's) religious holiday to unlock the door.Does he? While you "suspect" that this is true, it has not been my experience at all. The government agencies I'm aware of have ID card access or the like, so no guard is necessary. In fact, there are generally more guards when nobody's around (nights, weekends, holidays) because, well, nobody else is around.

And please note that I'm not talking about private companies. I'm talking about government employees. Private companies should be able to do whatever they damned well please.

Melin said:David, those same logistical reasons exist throughout government for the Christmas holidays.Not at all. If you're a teacher, and a large percentage of students aren't there, it's somewhat pointless to have class. If you're a government engineer working on permits for landfills (or whatever) and a percentage of your coworkers aren't there, you're probably jumping for joy 'cus you can actually get some work done!And it's a bit disingenuous, isn't it, to say that "oh well, the schools are closed for winter break then anyway." I'm willing to make a wager that the reason winter break exists is because of the Christmas holiday.Uh huh. Let's see, they get 2-3 weeks off for a 1-day holiday? Sorry, Melin, don't think so. It may have been one reason, but not the reason.

Libertarian said:My man, if you don't want to celibrate it, then don't. I don't.Funny, that's not the response I'd expect from a Libertarian. I'd expect a Libertarian to realize that this is a First Amendment violation and that the government should not be recognizing a specific religion's holiday in this way.

Again, I encourage everybody to read that old thread. Among other things I discussed what I think the government should do that would be Constitutionally valid: Give each employee a certain number of personal holidays to use at their discretion. If they want to take off Christmas, they can. If they want to take off Yom Kippur, they can; if they want to take of Christmas, they can. Right now, a Jewish government employee has to use his/her own time to take off Yom Kippur, but is forced to take off the Christian holiday of Christmas. How anybody can consider that fair is beyond me...

David B

12-14-1999, 06:58 AM

PunditLisa said:The court, by not striking down Christmas as a federal holiday,is recognizing the fact that a great majority of the people in this country celebrate ChristmasAh. So it's ok to violate the First Amendment if "a great majority of the people in this country" think it's a good idea, eh?To force government employees to work on Christmas day in order to wait on the 2 people that MAY want to come in would be a complete waste of our tax dollars. Closing down government offices simply makes sense.First, it would not be forcing government employees to work on Christmas. It would simply not be the government recognizing a religious holiday. We do it all the time now. Second, I (and others) have already explained how a simple use of personal holidays would mean people would certainly not be forced to work on that day if they don't want to. Third, your estimate of the number of people who would work is rather underestimated, in my opinion. At my office, for example, we have a number of Jews, Indians, and Muslims who would likely come to work that day and take off another. Fourth, even if it is "only two," as I have previously noted, it's not like the office is going to disappear anyway. It's there. The heat is on. The electricity is running. What's the diff?

Nebuli said:You seem to feel that if its origin is religious, and some people still observe it as a religious event, then constitutionally it can only be considered a religious event.You make it sound like there are these few religious nuts who celebrate Christmas as a religious holiday. I don't know where you are getting this idea, but almost every Christian I know still celebrates it as a religious holiday. Many go to church (in fact, for many it's about the only time they go to church), etc. The fact that some others celebrate the present-giving aspect simply does not change the fact that it is a religious holiday for Christians.I think PunditLisa's example on Mardi Gras is right on target. Assuming for the sake of argument that there were absolutely no logistical problems associated with remaining open that day, would you consider it wrong for a government to declare Mardi Gras a holiday? It is definitely religious in origin, and I know lots of Christians who use Shrove Tuesday to prepare for Lent.I can honestly say that I don't know enough about Mardi Gras to answer that question. Pretty much all I know is that it's a party. But the thing is, if the government were to use the suggestion I've brought forward here, it wouldn't matter. People could take off that day if they wanted, or not. It would be up to them.

Gr8kat said:As a governmental worker myself, I find it amusing that you assume we are "forced" to take a day offI know you are at least partially joking, but I've already noted a suggestion that would not require government workers to lose any holidays -- just being able to take them when they would like rather than when the Christian majority is deciding.

I mean, don't you think a Jewish employee would rather take off Yom Kippur than Christmas?

12-14-1999, 08:53 AM

I would like if you could take your "holiday" days off when the weather is really bad(snow,here).After all,who wants to be out on 6 degrees days anyway?

David B

12-14-1999, 08:57 AM

Maybe people who worship the cold. :)

Around here, we have inclement weather policy days -- meaning you can take off your own time without previous approval on days when it's really bad out. So under a system as I've described, you would be able to use a holiday then. Of course, you have to get to work to find out if such a day was declared...

12-14-1999, 09:02 AM

So why Not an atheist holiday? David??

David B

12-14-1999, 09:04 AM

What would an atheist do on an atheist holiday? Nothing? :)

Polycarp

12-14-1999, 10:02 AM

David, you forget that December 25 is a major religious holiday for virtually all members of a large demographic group with their own theology, ethics, accounts of miracles, and associated legends ... who can prove the efficacy of their religion by objective evidence. I refer, of course, to Santaism. :)

Actually, your argument fails due to a logical fallacy regarding the relationship of religious belief and governmental action. Government is obliged neither to promote any one religion, any religion whatsoever, nor stand in the way of anyreligious practices which conform to a standard ethical code. I am not thrilled by that interpretation, but it seems to be the constitutional standard. If your religion calls for prayers at high noon, fine -- you may do so, and government rules cannot stand in your way; if it calls for sacrificing a bullock in the village square on May Eve, get a permit to do so; if it calls for polygamy or taking LSD, sorry, Charlie -- you're out of luck.

Now, a parallel: government is absolutely prohibited from attempting to influence your vote by any direct means. It may not encourage you to vote for the Republican or Democratic candidate, or for or against any ballot proposition. By inference, your right to vote or not vote is also protected. Current law requires employers to give you time off needed to exercise your franchise if you would be unable to do so during non-work hours. By your standards, because some people choose not to vote, New York State would be prohibited from declaring Election Day a state holiday, which it does. Those who choose not to (take time off to) vote on that day would be entitled to take time off at their discretion.

Occam

12-14-1999, 10:30 AM

Listen here Grinch (David B), I understand your point, I read all the posts and I still don't agree.

Yeah, we could give everyone 8 private days off and schedule 56 hours a week and have people rotate days. We could do a lot so every American citizen can practice his god given right to be an ass and demand sanctuary down at the DMV on Chirstmas day. The government isn't telling you or anyone else what to do. You can have a christmas tree, or don't. You can put a pentagram on the floor for all they care. Having a government declared holiday simply means poeple don't have to work on that day. It does not mean the government is forcing you to worship Chirst.

pldennison

12-14-1999, 11:27 AM

Listen here Grinch (David B), I understand your point, I read all the posts and I still don't agree.

Boy oh boy, I was just talking about this with my wife in the car this morning. Why is it that anyone who chooses to criticize the Federally-recognized legal status of Christmas is labelled a "Grinch"? He isn't trying to ban Christmas, to prevent you from celebrating it, or anything else. He (and I) simply think it should not be recognized as a legal holiday and so honored by shutting down all government services.

Quick question: What other religion, major or minor, also has holidays that are so honored as Federal, state and local legal holidays?

------------------
"It's my considered opinion you're all a bunch of sissies!"--Paul's Grandfather

Bucky

12-14-1999, 01:15 PM

what other religion gets holidays in America? How about "Americanism," which gets July 4 off? Is Martin Luther King, Jr. Day a religious day? For some, yes (although I grant it's tied in with Christianity). Labor Day had spiritual (not religious) elements once.

Do we really have holidays any more in the sense of "Holy Days?" Isn't Christmas sort of just "It's Jesus' Birthday and everything is ON SALE!!!"

The day off to me is more efficacy than anything else. When I taught at Cornell, teachers and students didn't have Labor Day off; secretaries, custodians, everyone else did. It was chaos, and stupid. Sometimes less that at least a quorum of a staff means that we might as well shut down.

BTW, I used to piss people off at another school where I taught by reminding them that paying for Christmas trees with public money violated the Constitution. They claimed that Christmas trees (Martin Luther's pagan-appropirated symbol of the eternal life of Christians through Jesus Christ) wasn't religious, and besides, they had a menorrah somewhere on campus, too.

Bucky

pldennison

12-14-1999, 02:44 PM

Polycarp

12-14-1999, 03:16 PM

Phil: In the U.S., principally founded by Christians, none. In numerous other countries, there are numerous examples of legal holidays tied to their major religion, or to one of their major religions where there are more than one. No, this does not answer your question, but it is apropos of it.

Simple question to you, then: Considering that the vast majority of Americans, including, I would presume, the majority of civil servants, celebrate Christmas as either the religious holiday it originally was or the secular Santa-and-presents holiday it has become in the last century, what is your objection to their having the day off as a paid holiday, not as an optional day but as a designated government-offices-are-closed day like Independence Day or Presidents Day? If it is simply that it was (and to some extent remains) a religious holiday, and you don't believe in that religion, then you are proving precisely the point that you, Gaudere, and David have been at pains to deny. My thesis would be, when a majority wishes something that does not injure the rights of a minority, the {political unit} as a whole should conform to those wishes. When, of course, the rights of the minority are injured, then other processes should come into play, in particular optionality. I don't see that as a problem here, unless you feel that you need to go pay your taxes, renew your driver's license, or something on Dec. 25 and no other day, a necessity I feel you would have a hard time proving to a reasonable man.

There are a number of offensivenesses associated with Christmas. If you had, for example, complained of elementary school teachers teaching carols to children of atheists, I'd be backing your point. I don't see a clear thesis behind how closing government offices for a generally celebrated holiday with Christian origin and trappings in any way injures atheists.

pldennison

12-14-1999, 03:44 PM

So, minus all the commentary, the answer was "none." Thank you. That's all the point I wanted to make. If you're of a non-Christian religion and want to take time off to celebrate your holidays, you have to take it out of your personal/vacation time; if you're Christian, you get a freebie. That's all I wanted to know.

------------------
"It's my considered opinion you're all a bunch of sissies!"--Paul's Grandfather

Keeves

12-14-1999, 04:09 PM

Well put, Phil, and very clearly. Yes, for Christians it's a freebie. In some years, so many of the Jewish holidays fall out Mon-fri that I use up almost all my vacation days. Sure, I'd love to come in to the office on Christmas and Christmas Eve, and have a few extra days for myself. And on a few occasions, when I was working on big projects, I did do exactly that.

But I realize that there are practical realities to be dealt with. The hospital and police station need to be staffed on Christmas day, and if there aren't enough Jews, Hindus, atheists, etc, around to cover the requirements, then tough luck, but some Christian is gonna have to leave his family and come in to work. And similarly, there are many offices which have zero contact with the public, and truly do not need to be open every single day. If 95% of the employees want to stay home on Christmas, then it is an unfair imposition that they should require the security staff and supervisory staff to show up just because it's not my holiday.

David B

12-14-1999, 07:13 PM

First, I'd just like to say that I'm not going to bother to reply to the few people who said things to me recently because Phil already said exactly what I would have said. We could work as a tag team on this issue.

Second, it turns out that there was actually a recent lawsuit on this very issue (I figured people had given up long ago on trying to get the courts to see reason on this issue). You can read about the judge's rhyming verdict at: http://cnn.com/1999/US/12/07/fringe/christmas.lawsuit.ap/index.html

As you can see there, the judge completely missed the point, as several people have here. It's not that there is something inherently wrong with giving goverment employees a day off; it's that Christians are given preferential treatment. As Phil said, anybody of any other religion needs to use their own vacation day (or the like), but Christians are privileged, it seems.

To add to my rant, I wanted to relay a story to you about growing up non-Christian in a Christmas world. My 3 1/2-year-old son goes to a park district child-and-parent class. They focus on Christmas for the last two classes of this "semester," with Santa coming the last day. The teachers are very nice and acknowledge other holidays, wishing the few Jewish kids a "Happy Hanukkah" and the like, and I'm sure they mean well, but like some of the people around here, they are Christians in a Christian world with a Christian mindset. They simply don't understand how it is for a child who knows Santa will not be visiting his house and who does not celebrate Christmas. I have heard from several Jewish parents whose children have been upset because they felt left out. Then, last week, my wife and son went to the class. They came home early and I asked why. My wife informed me that my 3 1/2-year-old son wanted to leave because it was all Christmas and he felt out of place.

To anybody who says that Christmas is just a secular holiday, to anybody who says it's no big deal, to the stupid judge mentioned above who thinks Santa is a great lark and everybody is better for having Christmas, I would have wanted them to see my child's face when he told my wife that he wanted to go home from a place he normally loves to be at. And I would have had two words for them at that point (though out of earshot of my son) -- "Fuck you."

David B

12-14-1999, 07:27 PM

Keeves said:If 95% of the employees want to stay home on Christmas, then it is an unfair imposition that they should require the security staff and supervisory staff to show up just because it's not my holiday.I already addressed this above -- you may have missed it. Please allow me to requote myself:

The government agencies I'm aware of have ID card access or the like, so no guard is necessary. In fact, there are generally more guards when nobody's around (nights, weekends, holidays) because, well, nobody else is around.

Satan

12-14-1999, 07:31 PM

I enjoyed reading the banter here. So interesting to see whom took what side - guess Christmas makes strange bed-fellows.

The most compeling argument to this debate is that the mainstream populace has assimilated Christmas into a "secular holiday," and seeing how often a huge corporation would spend billions to associate itself with Santa, but would never do so (publicly) with Jesus Christ is telling.

It should also be noted that a bunch of our founding fathers found the very idea of "National Holidays" to be a reminder of the types of leadership/government they were trying to break free from. I believe Thomas Jefferson in particular found them to be a "monarchial practice," so if we start to look at what THEY said (like we try and so with other issues such as Separation of Church & State and Gun Control), we come up with ALL holidays endorsed and sanctioned by the government is bad.

------------------
Yer pal,
Satan

12-14-1999, 07:36 PM

Well, all you government folks, you're all going to have to go work on January 1, folks. Yep, sorry to tell you so, but it's been a holy day -- indeed, a holyday of obligation for Catholics (in honor of Mary, no less!) -- for hundreds or thousands of years, and since that means that everyone who takes the day off is observing that Christian holiday, giving it to you as a paid holiday at the taxpayers' expense is just a no-no. Otherwise, you are honoring the "ancient Roman Feast of St. Mary [which] was restored to January 1."
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/idxref/3/0,5716,7813,00.html

What's that? You think it's a secular event, just means football and parades and the start of a new year? Well silly, New Year's is and almost always has been a day of religious significance for many different peoples and cultures. See what the Encyclopedia Britannica has to say about it here: http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/4/0,5716,56914+1,00.html . So I guess that means you have to go to work. Can't have you honoring a day that has religious significance to so many people, even if it has none for you.

Cancel the caterer, turn in the football and parade tickets for a refund, and put away the champagne; we expect to see you down at the DMV bright and early January 1.

David, you REALLY think that the winter school holiday "just happens" to come at Christmas and New Year's? Absolutely no connection between the two, eh? You wanna make any bets on that?

-Melin

David B

12-14-1999, 07:42 PM

No, Melin, I never said it's just a coincidence. The point, however, is that it's a 2-3 week break from school. Linking that directly to a 1-day holiday would be a bit difficult. Whether Christmas is there or not, it is a reasonable stopping point for the semester (meaning it comes pretty darned smack in the middle of the school year). In college, for example, we had our finals before winter break.

By the way, nice straw man there. Of course, you're missing the main point (apparently on purpose). I've already explained it so many times I grow tired of doing so again. So feel free to reread what has already been said. Phil did the best job of explaining it. Here, I'll even requote it for you:If you're of a non-Christian religion and want to take time off to celebrate your holidays, you have to take it out of your personal/vacation time; if you're Christian, you get a freebie.That about sums it up.

David B

12-14-1999, 07:43 PM

Satan said:ALL holidays endorsed and sanctioned by the government is badAnother reason to just have the government give "personal holidays" to workers, to take off whenever they feel it is most appropriate to their beliefs.

tracer

12-14-1999, 07:52 PM

Satan wrote:

The most compeling argument to this debate is that the mainstream populace has assimilated Christmas into a "secular holiday," and seeing how often a huge corporation would spend billions to associate itself with Santa, but would never do so (publicly) with Jesus Christ is telling.

I always giggle when some churchy type gets his/her panties all in a bunch over the "decline of Christmas morals into commercialism" and how "we've lost sight of the true meaning of Christmas."

Never mind that the True Meaning of Christmas is the Sol Invictus at the height of the Staurnalia festival.

Never mind that the church itself once forbade Christians from celebrating Christmas several centuries ago, because of all the revelry and carousing associated with the holiday. (I guess those medieval people celebrated New Year's Eve a week early!)

Which all makes it a weensy bit hard for me to see Christmas as a decidedly religious holiday. It's a day of pine trees wrapped in dangerous electrical wires, of egg nog, of the second annual turkey dinner, of a-capella chamber music, of a red-clad bowl full of jelly and his eight supersonic reindeer, and most importantly of kids (who can't earn their own money yet) getting radio-controlled toys wrapped in red-and-green paper. And speaking of which, where's that Evel Kinevel motorcycle jump set I wanted when I was 8?!

------------------
"Love 'em, fear 'em, and leave 'em alone." -- Dr. Spockiavelli

12-14-1999, 07:59 PM

Phil had asked:
Quick question: What other religion, major or minor, also has holidays that are so honored as Federal, state and local legal holidays?

and again:

Um, OK, now that we've seen these strawmen, does anybody have an answer that involves actual religions?

New Year's Day is a religious holiday not only for Catholics (and I KNOW there are those of you out there who doubt that we are Christian ;)), but for many other religions as well. The secular world has co-opted New Year's Day, just as it has co-opted Christmas. If you are going to be consistent, then you are going to have to say that New Year's Day should not be a paid holiday, either. No straw man there at all.

Regarding Christmas,the Puritans forbade celebration of it due to its highly pagan roots. Secular society -- and the influence of other Christians with more ties to pagan history than they knew -- has made Christmas a much bigger holiday than it originally was.

And blame Coca-Cola for Santa Claus as we know him today. St. Nick's feast day is December 6.

-Melin

12-15-1999, 12:42 AM

David:what would an atheist do on an atheist holiday?
Well,maybe take some tracts around to churches about why they should convert to atheism!
read
think
have fun

pldennison

12-15-1999, 07:11 AM

Oh, for . . . the fact that New Years Day and the Feast of St. Mary both fall on Jan. 1 is no more significant than the fact that I was born on Thanksgiving Day, 1969. I mean, really.

Fact is, I've worked plenty of Jan. 1s in my life, especially when I worked retail. It isn't a paid holiday for everyone.

Melin, it seems like you're simultaneously trying to make nonreligious holidays (Jan. 1) religious, and make religious holidays (Christmas) nonreligious, in order to apologize for the fact that Jews and Muslims don't get their holidays off for free. You want to make a choice, here? Which is it? Is New Years religious, or is Christmas nonreligious?

------------------
"It's my considered opinion you're all a bunch of sissies!"--Paul's Grandfather

PunditLisa

12-15-1999, 08:15 AM

David B., for someone who tries to be so logical about this issue, I think you are reacting based on emotions. I'm sorry about your son feeling left out. I truly am. Just as my heart breaks when the little child down the street with cystic fibrosis can't play baseball with the other kids.

What good does anger do, though?

I don't know what the answer is for you, except to say that adversity builds character. You realized that you'd have these issues when you chose to have children. Being in the minority is never easy. Perhaps you get a little sense what it is like to be a black child in America today.

But it seems to me that you are looking to the government to insulate you from people who make your son (and you)feel "different." And I must opine that forcing government offices to stay open on Dec. 25th will do little to change how your son feels at Christmas time. All it would do is cause millions of people in the United States to be angry and upset.

Or is that the reaction you're after?

Bucky

12-15-1999, 08:33 AM

I'm going to contest the "strawmen" designation that pldennison gave to my argument that July 4 is a religious holdiay.

Americanists may not call what they do a religion but they:

Worship an idol (pledging allegiance to it, putting it in houses of other worship)--no other idol may be put above it, it must be ritually destroyed if damaged (purification via burning), and was repeatedly referred to as "sacred" during debates on making its desecration a violation of the Constitution.

Worship the country--it is "God's experiment," the "shining city on the hill," and it's members are the new "Chosen People."

Have hymns--we must sing the hymn of our nation (which honors the idol) even before sporting events. hats are to be taken off and an oath of fealty made by placing the hand over the heart. Those who don't wish to participate, even if non-believers (a Denver Nugget a few years back) are labelled as "blasphemous"--I am not making this up.

We have a "Day of the Dead"--two of them, really, Veteran's Day and Memorial Day. These exist solely to extoll the virtues of martyrs to Americanism. We sometimes get vacation for Columbus Day, to honor a guy who didn't discover this blessed land.

I'm not saying that it flies above the radar, but I have known a lot of people who worship America more than they worship any deity (or who would claim that God is an American--maybe he's Uncle Sam?).

If Wicca is a faith system, if animsim is a faith system, if atheism is a [non]faith system, how is Americanism not?
As to MLK Jr.'s birth being religious, I have African-American friends who would tell you about that.

Liberal

12-15-1999, 08:41 AM

Phil:

All kidding aside, would you mind explaining why the will of the majority isn't good enough for you in this particular case? If you say, "because it is a constitutional issue," then would your conscience be mitigated if that same majority amended that part of the constitution?

------------------
"It is lucky for rulers that men do not think." — Adolf Hitler

nebuli

12-15-1999, 08:50 AM

PLDennison wrote:

Oh, for . . . the fact that New Years Day and the Feast of St. Mary both fall on Jan. 1 is no more significant than the fact that I was born on Thanksgiving Day, 1969. I mean, really.
Fact is, I've worked plenty of Jan. 1s in my life, especially when I worked retail.....

Melin, it seems like you're simultaneously trying to make nonreligious holidays (Jan. 1) religious, and make religious holidays (Christmas) nonreligious, in order to apologize for the fact that Jews and Muslims don't get their holidays off for free. You want to make a choice, here? Which is it? Is New Years religious, or is Christmas nonreligious?

The point had been made that Christmas should not be an official holiday because Christians get a freebie. A rhetorical question was posed, challenging anyone to name a similar situation. Melin provided a factual answer to that question- Roman Catholics get a second freebie. And the connection is not entirely coincidental- New Year's Day is on January 1, the Feast of St. Mary, because Pope Gregory transfered the beginning of the year to January from March.

The fact that Christians get a freebie on Dec. 25 would indeed be unconstitutional if they got it solely because they were Christians. You may feel that the answer to that is so obvious as to be self-evident. I maintain that an examination of the historical record suggests otherwise. Specifically, I maintain that if Europe had never been converted to Christianity, or even if Christianity had never existed, we would still be celebrating a holiday on or about Dec. 25.

In the OP Trumpy, speaking against the idea that Christmas should be governmentally sanctioned, said "of course you could just call them something else, but it'd still be the same thing". I agree with that logic, it's just that he wasn't applying it consistently to the whole process.

The celebration predated Europe's conversion to Christianity, it even predated the birth of Jesus, it probably goes back to before Stonehenge was just a daydream in the mind of some Neolithic sage. In fact the only threats to its continued existence that I can find in the historical record were the conversion to Christianity and later the Protestant Reformation. It passed through those barriers rather effortlessly.

So is Dec. 25 a holiday because it is a Christian holy day? No, it is a Christian holy day because it was already a holiday- Christians get a freebie because they hitched their wagon to it. Does the official sanction of Christmas reflect a Eurocentric cultural bias? Yes, but that's not the issue we've been debating, and hardly the only example.

As for David's proposal that there be no official holidays, and everyone be allowed an equal number of days off to use at their discretion, actually I have no problem with that per se, assuming it was doable. I just dispute the implication that the present system violates the First Amendment. Since the question of whether it is doable requires a very thorough analysis of efficiency issues which I can't make, I will leave it at that.

pldennison

12-15-1999, 09:01 AM

If Wicca is a faith system, if animsim is a faith system, if atheism is a [non]faith
system, how is Americanism not?

Because I've never heard of it until you said it?

As to MLK Jr.'s birth being religious, I have African-American friends who would tell you about that.

Gee, I have African-American friends, too.

Libertarian:

All kidding aside, would you mind explaining why the will of the majority isn't good
enough for you in this particular case?

Because it is a constitutional issue."

If you say, "because it is a constitutional issue,"
then would your conscience be mitigated if that same majority amended that part of
the constitution?

If such an amendment were passed, I would immediately begin both moving for its repeal and looking for another country to live in.

------------------
"It's my considered opinion you're all a bunch of sissies!"--Paul's Grandfather

Liberal

12-15-1999, 09:05 AM

Actually, it only goes back to 208 BC. It was to celebrate the birth of Mithras, who was a Persian god. So it isn't even of European origin, though the Romans, to patronize their soldiers, adopted Mithraism as their official religion until Constantine. And you know the rest of the story.

------------------
"It is lucky for rulers that men do not think." — Adolf Hitler

pldennison

12-15-1999, 09:12 AM

So is Dec. 25 a holiday because it is a Christian holy day? No, it is a Christian holy day
because it was already a holiday- Christians get a freebie because they hitched their
wagon to it.

I suppose if the United States had existed prior to the spread of Christianity, and had already been celebrating a holiday on Dec. 25, and if Christmas hadn't once been illegal to celebrate in many of the early American colonies, there might be a point, but otherwise, I really fail to see how a historical look back at Dec. 25 really changes anything. The government obviously feels that the religious holiday occurring on Dec. 25 deserves treatment that no other religious holiday gets. Seems like preferential treatment to me.

------------------
"It's my considered opinion you're all a bunch of sissies!"--Paul's Grandfather

12-15-1999, 09:12 AM

Nebuli has said it at least as well as I could.

Christmas and New Year's are religious holidays for some people. They also happen to be, or to have become, secular holidays that are celebrated by a great number of people who are not religious, or are not Christian.

And, as Nebuli also pointed out, you asked a question to which I provided a factual answer, Phil. Maybe you and David don't like the answer, because maybe you don't want to make the same arguments about New Year's Day that you make about Christmas. Certainly David has totally avoided THAT issue. You at least have argued that there's a difference, but you haven't articulated that difference yet.

BTW, the whole point of Thanksgiving -- and certainly its origins -- lies in giving thanks to a Deity for the blessings of abundance. So I guess the government folks have to go to work that day, too.

-Melin

nebuli

12-15-1999, 09:15 AM

Libertarian wrote:

Actually, it only goes back to 208 BC. It was to celebrate the birth of Mithras, who was a Persian god. So it isn't even of European origin, though the Romans, to patronize their soldiers, adopted Mithraism as their official religion until Constantine. And you know the rest of the story.

No, the situation with Mithraism actually bears some parallels with how Christianity adapted itself to the holiday. The celebration predates the Mithra manifestation of it. In fact the northern European Yuletide celebration did not pass through the Mithraic phase at all.

Keeves

12-15-1999, 09:30 AM

David B wrote:I already addressed this above -- you may have missed it. Please allow me to requote myself: The government agencies I'm aware of have ID card access or the like, so no guard is necessary. In fact, there are generally more guards when nobody's around (nights, weekends, holidays) because, well, nobody else is around.Actually, I did see it the first time, but I must admit that I didn't make myself clear enough. The way I wrote it puts too much emphasis on the security staff. My actually feeling relate more to the supervisors. Just because someone has an ID which certifies that he really does work in that building and should be allowed easy access during regular work hours, that does not mean you'll allow him to be alone in that place for eight hours unsupervised. He could spend that time sleeping, snooping around on other people's desk, or doing even worse damage. And that kind of situation, to me, justifies closing the office to everyone.

There are also many positions where workers are dependent on each other. People in the postal system, for example, have specific roles in the delivery process, and cannot do their function properly unless others are there in the pipeline.

As I understand it, most laws on these topics say something about making "reasonable accomodation" for individuals' religious requirements. The current discussion centers on what we consider to be "reasonable". My feeling is that it is reasonable for me to require that my office allow me to leave a bit early on Friday to be home in time for the Jewish Sabbath, and I make up those hours by staying a bit overtime on Mon-Thurs. If I would insist on making up those hours on Sunday (when the building is closed and the air conditioning is off) I don't think that would be "reasonable" to the same degree.

pldennison

12-15-1999, 09:36 AM

I'll articulate the difference:

1) The calendar is simply a tool for keeping track of rotations of the planet on its axis and its orbit around the sun. The fact that certain religions place their holy days on certain calendar days does not make those days "religious." Jan. 1 is going to be the date on which the calendar changes, Feast of Mary or no Feast of Mary. Nothing wrong with recognizing that fact.

On the other hand, Christmas is dedicated to celebrating the supposed birth of Jesus Christ. It is specifically a religious holiday; Dec. 25 would have no other significance on our calendar if not for that. It would simply be the day between Dec. 24 and Dec. 26.

2) The New Years thing is moot for me, anyway, because I only have it off by virtue of the fact that it is a Saturday. My company is open 24/7, and if Jan. 1 is a weekday, I'm at work. I am using one of my three floating holidays on Dec. 31, only because I would not get caught in downtown Cleveland after dark on that night for all the money in the world.

------------------
"It's my considered opinion you're all a bunch of sissies!"--Paul's Grandfather

nebuli

12-15-1999, 09:48 AM

PLDennison wrote:

I suppose if the United States had existed prior to the spread of Christianity, and had already been celebrating a holiday on Dec. 25, and if Christmas hadn't once been illegal to celebrate in many of the early American colonies, there might be a point

It seems to me that the example you cite buttresses my point- the origins of the holiday in the this country were perceived by the colonial clerical powers-that-be as non-Christian or even anti-Christian. How does that translate into "ergo, it is exclusively a Christian religious holiday"?

but otherwise, I really fail to see how a historical look back at Dec. 25 really changes anything.

Because I am trying to show that it has always had a nonChristian component. Therefore to base an argument on the premise that Christmas is exclusively a Christian religious holiday is to base it upon a historical inaccuracy.

The government obviously feels that the religious holiday occurring on Dec. 25 deserves treatment that no other religious holiday gets. Seems like preferential treatment to me.

Since there is a concurrent secular holiday occurring how is it obvious that it is the religious one being favored? I agree that if government gets involved in the religious one by erecting nativity scenes, etc. it clearly is preferential treatment. Absent that, it does not seem like preferential religious treatment to me.

12-15-1999, 10:00 AM

1) The calendar is simply a tool for keeping track of rotations of the planet on its axis and its orbit around the sun. The fact that certain religions place their holy days on certain calendar days does not make those days "religious." Jan. 1 is going to be the date on which the calendar changes, Feast of Mary or no Feast of Mary. Nothing wrong with recognizing that fact.

Well, no. You're overlooking the history and development of the calendar, for one. That day was considered a holy day long before it was considered to be the beginning of the calendar year.

On the other hand, Christmas is dedicated to celebrating the supposed birth of Jesus Christ. It is specifically a religious holiday; Dec. 25 would have no other significance on our calendar if not for that. It would simply be the day between Dec. 24 and Dec. 26.

Phil, I've known you long enough to know that you're neither stupid nor incapable of reading comprehension. So what part of the bit about this holiday having significance in many cultures pre-Christianity don't you get? Is it a fact you don't like so you just decide to ignore it?

2) The New Years thing is moot for me, anyway, because I only have it off by virtue of the fact that it is a Saturday. My company is open 24/7, and if Jan. 1 is a weekday, I'm at work. I am using one of my three floating holidays on Dec. 31, only because I would not get caught in downtown Cleveland after dark on that night for all the money in the world.

But this is not relevant to the discussion at hand because the topic has to do with separation of church and state and whether government workers should have paid holidays that are also holydays.

And what about Thanksgiving?

-Melin

Bucky

12-15-1999, 10:12 AM

pldennison said that Americanism is not a religion because she/he had never heard of it until I talked about it.

I would guess that something approaching 100% of Americans (or at least my college students at five different schools) had never heard of:

Wicca
Zoroastrianism
Dionysianism
the Greek Orthodox Church
Shakers
animism
etc.

Who, outside of a small group, had heard of David Koresh before Waco? or the comet/ castration club?

Is religion a belief system that acknowledges a power greater than oneself and which establishes codes of behavior? Is something a religion even if other people claim that it isn't?

When I hear America and its icons described as "sacred," that suggests a religious orientation to me (it also suggests balsphemy if the utterer is Christian, but that is another story). To someone who is fond of the Constitution but who doesn't worship USA! USA! USA!, I have similar feelings about our self-worship as I do when surrounded by forced-Christian holidays. That's not proof, I know, just illustration.

BTW, the point on MLK Jr. Day (for me, at least) was that some of my African-American friends treat it as a religious holiday. Who is to tell them that it isn't?

Bucky

Satan

12-15-1999, 10:26 AM

David, David, David...

Satan said no such thing bout what you quoted me as saying. As my post says (and it's really unlike you to take a soundbite out of context and run with it - you cretainly don't like it when that tactic is used on you), our FOUNDING FATHERS (or at least a bunch of them) found the practice of government sanctioned holidays to be monarchial and too much like what the country they were breaking free from would do for them to partake.

I threw this out in the hopes someone might decide to wonder, since we always seem to take into account what our founding fathers thought (gun control, seperation of church and state), how come we're not taking this into account?

Is it because there are no specific comments about this in the actual legal documents themselves (AKA The Constitution)?

Doesn't stop religious folks from bringing personal letters and feelings into the matter when they want prayer in schools. Doesn't stop gun control people theorizing on BOTH ides of that debate what they really meant.

So I ask again - Since our founding fathers were against ALL holidays (not me, David), why on earth can we justify spending a single day of the year at home, whether it's for Christmas, Thanksgiving, or blatantly "secular" holidays like Veterans Day and ironically enough, President's Day?

------------------
Yer pal,
Satan

pldennison

12-15-1999, 11:17 AM

Melin:Phil:On the other hand, Christmas is dedicated to celebrating the supposed
birth of Jesus Christ. It is specifically a religious holiday; Dec. 25 would
have no other significance on our calendar if not for that. It would simply
be the day between Dec. 24 and Dec. 26.

Melin: Phil, I've known you long enough to know that you're neither stupid nor incapable of
reading comprehension. So what part of the bit about this holiday having significance in
many cultures pre-Christianity don't you get? Is it a fact you don't like so you just
decide to ignore it?

OK, Melin, let me turn it around so you can see my point a little better: Exactly what was celebrated by the American people in the American colonies on Dec. 25 each year during the time that the celebration of Christmas was illegal? Do you think that if Christianity did not exist, the American people would be celebrating something on Dec. 25?

And, the corollary question: What exactly did people do before Christmas was made a Federal holiday by the executive order of Richard Nixon? Why can't they just do that now, too?

------------------
"It's my considered opinion you're all a bunch of sissies!"--Paul's Grandfather

pldennison

12-15-1999, 11:21 AM

Corollary question #2: Who was it that went about the process of lifting the prohibitions in the colonies concerning celebrating Christmas, and for what reasons?

------------------
"It's my considered opinion you're all a bunch of sissies!"--Paul's Grandfather

John Bredin

12-15-1999, 11:30 AM

"We have a 'Day of the Dead'--two of them, really, Veteran's Day and Memorial Day. These exist solely to extoll the virtues of martyrs to Americanism."

Not to nitpick -- well, maybe a little -- but Memorial Day is for the martyrs while Veterans Day is for those who performed military service and survived. By definition, a "veteran" is someone who completed service in the armed forces alive.

Or to put it another way: given a choice, most people fighting in a war would prefer that their service be commemorated on Veterans Day than Memorial Day. :^)

tracer

12-15-1999, 01:41 PM

Americanism: http://www.infidels.org/org/aha/essays/patriot.html

------------------
"Love 'em, fear 'em, and leave 'em alone." -- Dr. Spockiavelli

jab1

12-15-1999, 05:37 PM

Kwanzaa is not a religious holiday. Nevertheless, should people be granted seven days off in order to observe it? Just because it was created in 1966 by one man, Dr. Maulana Ron Karenga, does that make it any less legitimate than any other special day or week or month? (BTW, the founder of Kwanzaa did not specify days off. But someone somewhere might ask for it anyway.) Info on Kwanzaa can be read at www.melanet.com/kwanzaa/ (http://www.melanet.com/kwanzaa/) .

----------------------------------------------

The reason Christmas Break, or Winter Break, if you prefer, is so long is because it can take two weeks or more to make the journey to Grandma's house. Back in the horse 'n' buggy days, it could take that long just to travel to the next county and back, let alone the next state. Twenty miles a day was pretty good speed, especially in the winter when days are shorter and there's snow on the ground. Since the parents were going to take their kids out of school that long no matter what, the schools bowed to practicality and made the two weeks around Christmas and New Year's an official school holiday.

You may say, "But one can fly across the country in less than five hours today. You really only need, at the most, two days to make a cross-country visit."

Yeah, if you can afford to fly. Far too many people must drive (or prefer to drive: "Damn the statistics! I don't care if some pencil-necked geek with a pocket protector says it's safe! I ain't flyin'!") to get anywhere. Or, as I'm going to do, ride the big Grey Dog to Texas to see Mom and the relatives I didn't see at Thanksgiving. It's gonna take thirty-six hours for the trip alone.

So, schools close for two weeks in December and January because:

1) Tradition.
2) Even with modern transportation, it can take a week or more just to make the journey to see the folks.

------------------
>< DARWIN >
____L___L__

pldennison

12-15-1999, 05:55 PM

Phil:1) The calendar is simply a tool for keeping track of rotations of the planet on its axis and its orbit around the sun. The fact that certain religions place
their holy days on certain calendar days does not make those days "religious." Jan. 1 is going to be the date on which the calendar changes, Feast of Mary or no Feast of Mary. Nothing wrong with recognizing that fact.

Melin: Well, no. You're overlooking the history and development of the calendar, for one. That
day was considered a holy day long before it was considered to be the beginning of the
calendar year.

So, if we change the day that we recognize that the Earth has returned to the same point in its orbit to, say, June 21, when the North Pole is as pointed towards the sun as it's going to get; or to May 14, or Oct 4, or any other date, and it happens to be the same day as a saint's feast day, does that make that day a religious day, too?

------------------
"It's my considered opinion you're all a bunch of sissies!"--Paul's Grandfather

12-15-1999, 07:25 PM

You aren't getting it, Phil. The POPE changed the date of the calendar, and changed the start date as indicated to a religious holyday.

Your argument simply proves my point. We can just as easily say that we chose to give a winter holiday at or around a calendar point that marks the natural phenomenon of the winter solstice. The date also happens to be (or to have become) a Christian holiday. Winter holidays and celebrations at or around the time of the solstice are a long-standing tradition across cultures and religions. Because it also happens to be a Christian holiday, should the government not be permitted to observe it?

And what about Thanksgiving, for, oh, say, the third time?

(At least you're still here! ;) David seems to have picked up his marbles and gone home!)

-Melin

nebuli

12-15-1999, 10:37 PM

tracer posted the following link:

Americanism: http://www.infidels.org/org/aha/essays/patriot.html

Thanks tracer. It looks like I stand corrected about nobody meaning it literally. However, it still seems to me that what the essay is describing is not a religion but a secular idealogy attempting to substitute for a common religion.

nebuli

12-16-1999, 12:24 AM

pldennison wrote:

? Do you think that if Christianity did not exist, the American people would be celebrating something on Dec. 25?

IMHO,this is the crux of the matter. As I very specifically said in an earlier post, I believe the answer is yes. I've tried to give my reasons for believing that. You believe the answer is not yes, but what are your reasons for not accepting the possibility?

If Christianity had not existed, as far as we can infer from the historical record, most Americans, at least most from the European derived majority, would still be decorating trees, wassailing, kissing under mistletoe, decking the halls with boughs of holly and entertaining visions of sugar plums dancing in their heads to name a few activities.

And, the corollary question: What exactly did people do before Christmas was made a Federal holiday by the executive order of Richard Nixon? Why can't they just do that now, too?

Well, it is certainly possible to go back to the previous system whereby it was a holiday by State enactment instead of Federal. But why should we deny Federal workers a freebie which State workers can get?

nebuli

12-16-1999, 12:49 AM

Bucky wrote:

pldennison said that Americanism is not a religion because she/he had never heard of it until I talked about it.

Bucky,
"Americanism" has been referred to as a religion, as have Marxism, Nationalism and other isms. But that is usually meant metaphorically, not literally. It is used to point out some of the parallels between those idealogies and religion, not to really imply they are the same.

Is religion a belief system that acknowledges a power greater than oneself and which establishes codes of behavior?

Yes, but not the only one. I acknowledge that the federal, state, county and local governments are more powerful than I and that I have to follow their codes of behaviour. That doesn't make it a religion. I think the common understanding of religion would require a supernatural aspect to both the greater power and to the self (allowing that for all practical purposes superior alien lifeforms in a saucer hiding behind a comet should be considered supernatural). Lacking that aspect, mere devotion to a cause, no matter how extreme, would not qualify as a religion IMHO.

12-16-1999, 06:43 AM

First, let me apologize to Melin for daring to not explain the details of my life to her and mention ahead of time that I would be away for all of one day (yesterday). If I had known she would be so concerned as to mention it no less than twice in that one day, I certainly would have explained to her that my father, who is retiring next week, had a party that I went to in order to surprise him (since I live out of town from him). Now, I didn't realize that I had to justify my one day of absence, but since Melin decided that I was "avoiding" her comments (9:12 AM yesterday) and also that I had "picked up [my] marbles and gone home" (7:25 PM yesterday), she is obviously very concerned about my personal life. So I promise, from now on, if I dare to be busy for a whole day, I will notify Melin ahead of time. (Of course, this also ignores the fact that I did address Melin's point about Jan. 1 by noting it was a straw man. Phil made the same point and has continued to explain while I was gone.)

That aside, I'm kind of glad I was gone. Phil did an excellent job saying pretty much what I would say, and he, rather than I, got to deal with the frustration of arguing with people who just don't get it. It's still unbelievable to me that Christians can sit there and claim that Christmas is not a Christian holiday. It really does blow my mind.

Anyway, PunditLisa said:for someone who tries to be so logical about this issue, I think you are reacting based on emotions.I'm glad you wrote this -- not because I am acting the way you said, but because I wasn't sure if anybody actually saw that message, which was the last one on the first page, and which I followed almost immediately with what became the first post on this page. But on to your point. The only reason I posted that was to counter those who claim Christmas is not a Christian holiday. I was not trying to use my son's experience in any way to relate directly to the government giving holidays, just to point out how utterly ridiculous that claim is about Christmas. But, I suppose if they didn't get it before the example, they aren't going to get it afterwards. :(But it seems to me that you are looking to the government to insulate you from people who make your son (and you)feel "different." < sigh > No, Lisa, that is not it at all. I want my son to understand how many differences there are among people! My neighborhood, for example, is a perfect situation for this. Next door is an interracial couple. Across the street is a Sikh Muslim Indian married to a Catholic whose father is Jewish. Etc. I enjoy the fact that we have so much diversity around and my son is learning about how different people have different beliefs. What I don't enjoy is having some of these people force their religious beliefs on him to make him feel uncomfortable when he should be enjoying himself. There is quite a big difference. And that certainly has nothing to do with the government holidays.And I must opine that forcing government offices to stay open on Dec. 25th will do little to change how your son feels at Christmas time. All it would do is cause millions of people in the United States to be angry and upset.Jesus H. Christ -- did you even read my messages in this thread? How many times do I have to repeat myself? I am not -- do you understand? NOT -- trying to force Christians to come to work on Christmas. I have suggested alternatives that would work just fine and not be a First Amendment violation. Why have you ignored these?Or is that the reaction you're after?No, the reaction I'm after is understanding. Apparently, you're missing that...

Satan said:Satan said no such thing bout what you quoted me as saying.Sorry -- I thought it was obvious to anybody who had been following the conversation that I was just quoting a quick line. I didn't mean to imply that you were saying that directly (as opposed to paraphrasing somebody else). In any event, there was an implied ;) in that message that may not have poked its head thru.

Keeves said:My actually feeling relate more to the supervisors. Just because someone has an ID which certifies that he really does work in that building and should be allowed easy access during regular work hours, that does not mean you'll allow him to be alone in that place for eight hours unsupervised.Um, actually, having an ID that lets you in pretty much could let you in any time. I know that's the way it works where I work. I could go in to work in the middle of the night (and have on a few occasions), without ever seeing a guard. I could do whatever I wanted while I was there.He could spend that time sleeping, snooping around on other people's desk, or doing even worse damage. And that kind of situation, to me, justifies closing the office to everyone.Like I said, I'm sure they could do the same thing any other time. And it should be noted that most ID card systems that I'm aware of keep track of whose ID was used. So if only a few people showed up on Christmas and the boss's computer got trashed... As far as sleeping, etc., well, if the boss distrusts his employee that much, well, it's a sad situation. But the same could be said about a lot of things. Many (all?) federal offices, for example, offer four-day work weeks. They can work long days for 4 days and then get the 5th off. During those long days, they are unsupervised for several hours each day (effectively adding up to that 5th day), when they could do any of the things you mention. All in all, I don't find that argument terribly compelling.There are also many positions where workers are dependent on each other. People in the postal system, for example, have specific roles in the delivery process, and cannot do their function properly unless others are there in the pipeline.As I believe noted in the previous thread (and one of the reasons I encouraged people to read it), I would understand why jobs like that would have to be looked at differently. But that is the exception, not the rule.As I understand it, most laws on these topics say something about making "reasonable accomodation" for individuals' religious requirements. The current discussion centers on what we consider to be "reasonable". My feeling is that it is reasonable for me to require that my office allow me to leave a bit early on Friday to be home in time for the Jewish Sabbath, and I make up those hours by staying a bit overtime on Mon-Thurs.< gasp! > But, you could be sleeping during that late time! You could be snooping through the desks of other employees, or worse! You're unsupervised during that time! How can you even suggest such a thing?!If I would insist on making up those hours on Sunday (when the building is closed and the air conditioning is off) I don't think that would be "reasonable" to the same degree.Which is not comparable to what I've said here, for the reasons I've already explained.

But, tell me, Keeves, don't you find it just a little unfair that you have to use your personal time to take of Yom Kippur (not to mention Rosh Hashanna, etc.) while the Christians get Christmas off?

[b]Phil<

12-16-1999, 06:43 AM

David B

12-16-1999, 06:47 AM

Incidentally, more on the topic of my 3 1/2-year-old son (and not directly related to this topic except as I've already noted). He also goes to a park district pre-school. A couple weeks ago, the teacher pulled my wife and the mother of a Muslim boy aside after class to tell them that the classes were doing a "holiday" program (read: Christmas) and they could either allow our sons to participate or have them sit down with the parents during the program (which is today). What were we, the parents, supposed to do? Tell our small children that they can't sing songs with their friends? Would they understand such a thing or view it as punishment? To make matters worse, the projects these past couple weeks have all been Christmas-related. A wreath. A Christmas ornament. Santa's hat. Etc.

Oh, but Christmas is for everyone!

Bullshit.

pldennison

12-16-1999, 07:24 AM

Melin:

1) I don't celebrate Thanksgiving, but I can see how it can be celebrated nonreligiously, as well as without fealty to any particular religion.

2) If the country moved the celebration of our "secular winter holiday" to Dec. 21 to coincide with the actual date at which the Northern Hemisphere is tilted as far from the sun as it's going to get, do you think Christians would raise a great hue and cry about it? I suspect they would.

------------------
"It's my considered opinion you're all a bunch of sissies!"--Paul's Grandfather

PunditLisa

12-16-1999, 07:24 AM

Okay, Dave,if you were the pre-school teacher, how would you handle the situation? Pretend that Christmas didn't exist? Spend one day studying each religion?

Don't criticize until you can offer a better alternative.

David B

12-16-1999, 08:43 AM

You're one to talk, Lisa -- you criticize without even apparently bothering to read what had been said previously!

But that aside, I do have a better solution (contrary to your apparent assumption that I don't). Either teach about all the different winter holidays (either all the "major" ones, like Christmas, Hannukah, Kwanza, and Ramadan, or about all the ones children in the class celebrate) or don't teach them at all. I mean, Christian kids are going to do Christmas at home and/or church anyway, and that is where religion belongs -- in the home and church.

But in any event, if you want to discuss this further, we should probably break it off into a new thread.

12-16-1999, 08:56 AM

In my sons school,its all about xmas right now.They are practicing singing for the show,made an angel for the top of the tree,etc. I'd rather they work on adding,subtracting,etc!
BTW,I once saw a "xmas" card that had santa nailed to a cross! :D

Keeves

12-16-1999, 09:00 AM

David B --- Yes, I can see your point very well about how an ID lets people in whenever they want, and they can do whatever they want at those times. Well put, and I concede that in most cases people should be able to come in an do real work on Christmas etc. We agree that this would not apply to situations where the employees are dependent on each other.
But, tell me, Keeves, don't you find it just a little unfair that you have to use your personal time to take of Yom Kippur (not to mention Rosh Hashanna, etc.) while the Christians get Christmas off?Yes, definitely. And I mentioned it in my post of 4:09pm 12/14. But 100% fairness is difficult to acheive, and I believe that the current system is one attempt at minimizing the unfairness.

For example, let's take an office which is currently closed on Christmas. They consider changing to the following policy: "We will now be officially open on Christmas. We are also giving everyone a flexible holiday which they can use on Dec 25 or at any other time that they want." I think that although there will be some people who will use this new policy to their advantage, most of them would have been satisfied to continue under the old system, and the new system might invite more trouble that it's worth. There may be issues such as paying the heating bill for the two employees who show up, for example, when the bouilding could have been left unheated. (I don't know about the winter, but the building managment charges my company $40 per weekend day, if we want air conditioning on a Saturday or Sunday in the summer.) There will also be people who start asking to work on Thanksgiving, New Years, Labor Day, et al. I'm not saying this is unjustified, but that many Jews, atheists, and others, do not mind being told to take a day off on 12/25, and although you do mind, it just might not be worth the headache to the office management.

But everything I've written so far relates purely to the question of working or not working. In that regard, I do not feel that it constitutes government involvement in the Christian religion. It is simply an acknowledgement that most people would prefer to not work, and so the office will stay closed. Observance of any kind is another matter entirely.

I remember the "holiday" programs in school when I grew up, and I am totally opposed to it. The holidays can be mentioned, or even studied, in Social Studies class, but anytrhing beyond that is totally out of place in a public school, and I fully agree with your comments on that.

12-16-1999, 09:39 AM

Sorry David, but when you are jumping in responding to people's posts almost immediately after they appear, and then all of a sudden disappear for a while without explanation, it makes it look like you've just left.

My, aren't we pissy about it? Can't have a civil discussion without getting all defensive about it?

Phil, it's nice that you can celebrate Thanksgiving without reference to God. I'm sure a lot of people can and do celebrate the winter holiday the same way. Thanksgiving is more directly linked to God historically, since we know that December 25 was not, in fact, the actual date of Jesus' birth.

The first Thanksgiving Proclamation was issued by the revolutionary
Continental Congress on November 1, 1777. Authored by Samuel Adams, it
was one sentence of 360 words which read in part: "Forasmuch as it is
the indispensable duty of all men to adore the superintending
providence of Almighty God; to acknowledge with gratitude their
obligation to him for benefits received....together with penitent
confession of their sins, whereby they had forfeited every favor; and
their humble and earnest supplications that it may please God through
the merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot them out of
remembrance.....it is therefore recommended...to set apart Thursday
the eighteenth day of December next, for solemn thanksgiving and
praise, that with one heart and one voice the good people may express
the grateful feeling of their hearts and consecrate themselves to the
service of their Divine Benefactor...acknowledging with gratitude
their obligations to Him for benefits received....To prosper the means
of religion, for the promotion and enlargement of that kingdom which
consisteth 'in righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost'."

and

Congressional Record, September 25, 1789

"Mr. [Elias] Boudinot (who was the President of Congress during the
American Revolution) said he could not think of letting the
congressional session pass over without offering an opportunity to all
the citizens of the United States of joining with one voice in
returning to Almighty God their sincere thanks for the many blessings
He had poured down upon them. With this view, therefore, he would
move the following resolution:

Resolved, That a joint committee of both Houses be directed to wait
upon the President of the United States to request that he would
recommend to the people of the United States a day of public
thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful
hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God....

"Mr. [Roger] Sherman (a signer of both the Declaration of Independence
and the Constitution) justified the practice of thanksgiving on any
signal event not only as a laudable one in itself, but as warranted by
a number of precedents in Holy Writ....This example he thought worthy
of a Christian imitation on the present occasion; and he would agree
with the gentleman who moved the resolution....The question was put on
the resolution and it was carried in the affirmative."

There's nothing pagan, nothing pre-historical, nothing non-Christian about the origins of Thanksgiving. It was initiated to give thanks to God, and specifically to give thanks to the Christian god. You say thta it has evolved to the point in your life where you don't celebrate it, and that you see ways it could be celebrated without religious motivation. That's a great rationalization, and I submit the same argument can be made for Christmas.

And you have begged the question, which again David has ignored -- should we do away with Thanksgiving as a government holiday, too? As demonstrated, it's a much more Christian holiday than Christmas is.

-Melin
(who will likely be in a courtroom from 1:00 on today)

David B

12-16-1999, 09:58 AM

Thanks for letting us know where you'll be, Melin. Wouldn't want to accidentally think you were here but not responding. Maybe we should all post our calendars. Because obviously if we were posting and then stopped, that can't mean we were away from the computer or got busy. It must mean we decided to drop out of the conversation.

Anyway, regarding your whole Thanksgiving complaint, I have nothing against removing it as a government holiday as well. Indeed, my whole suggestion would include getting rid of all official government holidays for employees and letting them use those holiday days when they feel it most appropriate. Does Thanksgiving have religious origins? Probably. But Christmas doesn't just have religious origins, it is still a Christian holiday. This is a point that some folks here just don't seem to get. I just don't understand the mentality that says Christmas is not a Christian holiday.

David B

12-16-1999, 10:04 AM

Keeves said:There may be issues such as paying the heating bill for the two employees who show up, for example, when the bouilding could have been left unheated. (I don't know about the winter, but the building managment charges my company $40 per weekend day, if we want air conditioning on a Saturday or Sunday in the summer.)I can only talk about that which I'm familiar with. But for every state and federal office that I'm aware of (between knowing and/or working at some, having friends that work at others, etc.), they are air conditioned or heated anyway. In most cases, there are guards around (as I've noted earlier), and you can't just let the guards freeze or overheat. In other cases, there is always the possibility (indeed, probability) that somebody will come in late at night and over the weekend to work. Also, leaving the heat off brings on the possibility of frozen pipes. All in all, it just isn't going to really change.There will also be people who start asking to work on Thanksgiving, New Years, Labor Day, et al. I'm not saying this is unjustified, but that many Jews, atheists, and others, do not mind being told to take a day off on 12/25, and although you do mind, it just might not be worth the headache to the office management.Maybe they don't mind. But that doesn't make it any less a First Amendment violation. Besides, I am sure those Jews and atheists and Muslims and whoever else would mind even less if they had the option to take off a different day instead.It is simply an acknowledgement that most people would prefer to not work, and so the office will stay closed. Observance of any kind is another matter entirely.I disagree with your first statement. I don't think it's just an acknowledgement -- it is, indeed, observance of a religious holiday. And that is precisely why I think it is wrong.

12-16-1999, 10:05 AM

Nobody said it isn't a Christian holiday. What has been said is that it is not exclusively a Christian holiday. Maybe you should go do some historical research and get your facts straight before you start taking positions that are easily disputed with facts.

Nice of you to acknowledge that Thanksgiving "probably" has religious origins. Haven't seen you get so riled up about it. I take it you don't let your kid celebrate that holiday either, given its Christian origins?

Oh, and David? Pull the corncob out of your ass. Not only is it making you walk funny, it's affecting your posting, too.

-Melin

Liberal

12-16-1999, 10:14 AM

Phil:

If the country moved the celebration of our "secular winter holiday" to Dec. 21 to coincide with the actual date at which the Northern Hemisphere is tilted as far from the sun as it's going to get, do you think Christians would raise a great hue and cry about it? I suspect they would.

I wouldn't.

------------------
"It is lucky for rulers that men do not think." — Adolf Hitler

nebuli

12-16-1999, 10:16 AM

David,

You said:
(Of course, this also ignores the fact that I did address Melin's point about Jan. 1 by noting it was a straw man.

Merely reiterating that an opponent's counter-argument is a strawman does not advance the discussion. Why do you think it is a strawman? Melin had drawn attention to the fact that the same standards and logic you were using to declare that official recognition of Christmas was impermissible would make recognition of New Year's impermissible also. At least Phil responded by stating the reasons he did not the cases were comparable. However, since his case omitted to consider a key piece of evidence the question is still open.

For a really outrageous example of a strawman refer to your statement that it is unbelievable to you that Christians can sit there and claim that Christmas is not a Christian holiday. The reason that statement is a strawman is because, as far as I can see, nobodyhas made such a ridiculous statement in this thread. What some of us have maintained is that Christmas is not solelya Christian religious holiday.

By "solely" I mean not only that some nonChristians celebrate it (which as you correctly point out is only a small number in relation to the Christians who celebrate it) but more importantly that there are very significant portions of the Christmas celebrations which have nothing to do with Christianity. Name one Christian denomination whose creed is that Santa comes down the chimney to deliver toys to all good little girls and boys? These portions are part of a cultural celebration which predates Christianity, and is independant of religious significance. The fact that the vast majority of those who still practice them today are Christians is because of the historical coincidence that their ancestors had been converted to Christianity.

The key issue for me was framed perfectly by Phil when he asked if this nation would still be celebrating a holiday on Dec. 25 if Christianity had not existed. I have already given my reasons in prior posts for believing that the answer is Yes. So if you want to convince of your position either:
a- show me more compelling evidence to support a "No" answer to the question; or
b- convince me that this is not a significant question

But please don't keep taking our position and by deleting a few key words change it into an obvious absurdity.

You had said that it really blew your mind that somebody could hold our position. Sometimes that feeling is Nature's way of hinting that one should re-examine what the opposition is truly saying, or re-examine one's own starting assumptions.

pldennison

12-16-1999, 10:18 AM

Just out of curiousity, Melin, why is it any of your business what holidays David "lets his kid" participate in? The only kids whose holidays you need to be concerned about are yours. And I bet if your children's school decided to start actually celebrating Samhain on Oct. 31 you'd be in the principal's office so fast people's heads would spin.

If Christmas is not exclusively a Christian holiday, let's rename it Solstice and move it back to Dec. 21. Everyone OK with that?

------------------
"It's my considered opinion you're all a bunch of sissies!"--Paul's Grandfather

pldennison

12-16-1999, 10:21 AM

Name one Christian
denomination whose creed is that Santa comes down the chimney to deliver toys to all
good little girls and boys? These portions are part of a cultural celebration which
predates Christianity, and is independant of religious significance.

Saint Nicholas predates Christianity? Color me surprised.

------------------
"It's my considered opinion you're all a bunch of sissies!"--Paul's Grandfather

David B

12-16-1999, 10:27 AM

Melin said:Nobody said it isn't a Christian holiday. What has been said is that it is not exclusively a Christian holiday.And I've already gone over that, not that you'd pay attention. Here is what I said a couple days ago:Yes, some secular folks celebrate it, but they do so, in my experience, almost exclusively because they had Christian roots, even if they are atheists now. The point remains that it is a Christian holiday. Not Jewish. Not Muslim. Not Native American. Christian. Yes, a few Jews will rationalize that they want to celebrate something too. BFD. I also knew a few who clamored to see the Pope when he was in town a while back. Is the Pope secular?I'm sure you'll still respond and ignore this. And if you do so, you'll forgive me this time if I do actually ignore you. I see no point to continue posting the same information when you ignore it repeatedly.Maybe you should go do some historical research and get your facts straight before you start taking positions that are easily disputed with facts.You haven't disputed a single thing I've said "with facts." Maybe in your imagination you have, but not here in reality. Instead, you've pulled out straw men and ignored what Phil and I have said.Nice of you to acknowledge that Thanksgiving "probably" has religious origins. Haven't seen you get so riled up about it. I take it you don't let your kid celebrate that holiday either, given its Christian origins?We celebrate it as a secular holiday, which it really is. While it was "declared" by some folks to be religious, that doesn't really mean a whole lot. Christmas is part and parcel of Christianity. Thanksgiving is not. If you can't see the difference then there is little point in continuing to try to explain it to you (I suspect there is little point in that anyway). I also have to take issue with the way you phrased it, about letting my kid participate. I would like to know if you meant it the way it sounds to me (like I'm prohibiting my son from participating in Christmas, as if this is a bad thing) or it was just a poor choice of words on your part.Oh, and David? Pull the corncob out of your ass. Not only is it making you walk funny, it's affecting your posting, too.That's a good one! Because I point out how you ignorantly implied I was doing things that I wasn't, I have a corncob up my ass.

Well, tell ya what. I'll pull out the corncob from my ass when you pull your head out of yours.

-- Hugs & Kisses, David

David B

12-16-1999, 10:37 AM

Wow! Lots of posts while I was composing that one.

Anyway, yes, Nebuli, the way I said it did make it sound a bit worse than it actually is. But I still think there is some validity. For example, Hannukah is a Jewish holiday. If anybody claimed it was not solely a Jewish holiday, because, for example, lots of people light candles in December, I'd think they were nuts. To me, saying something is not "solely" a XXXXX holiday is effectively saying it really isn't a XXXXX holiday. Why? Because it obviously has some importance and significance to the XXXXX religion.

I see that I'm still not wording this very well. Suffice it to say that, yes, I meant effectively what you said, though I still do think it goes further than that.

You also said:You had said that it really blew your mind that somebody could hold our position. Sometimes that feeling is Nature's way of hinting that one should re-examine what the opposition is truly saying, or re-examine one's own starting assumptions.I think it's a bit insulting for you to imply that I hadn't already examined and re-examined this situation, but I'll ignore that for the moment. Instead, what it tells me is that so many people take their position as the majority religion in this country for granted that they can't even conceive of it any other way. I don't think I've seen Slythe in this thread, but I've seen him post other messages about growing up as an atheist, and it's not pretty. I grew up Jewish in an area with lots of Jews. I did not feel terribly out of place then, because they made efforts (in school, for example) to make sure we weren't made to feel that way. It's not happening that way where I live now (see the other thread I started on the topic of Christmas in the Schools). While the schools thing is somewhat different, they are somewhat linked as well. I think much of this whole "take off Christmas" feeling is because it would simply be ridiculous to many people to even consider not having Christmas off. Around here, many people are surprised every year when we don't get Good Friday off, even though we never have (it's so ingrained into them that they just forget we don't have it off). A lot of the resistance seems to take the form of rationalizing, with some straw men thrown in. Phil has done an excellent job of cutting through that.

The fact remains that Christians get one of their holiest days recognized by the government while not other religion (and heaven forbid nonreligious people) get the same recognition. That is a First Amendment violation, pure and simple.

12-16-1999, 10:49 AM

Please note that David was the first one to bring his kid into this discussion, in an inspiring post which ended with the words "Fuck You."

It's disingenuous at best to say that the one holiday has been coopted out of its Christian roots sufficiently to permit its celebration, yet to ignore the fact that the other holiday has its roots in pre-Christianity and some aspects of it have been coopted by Christianity. Exactly to whom does one "give thanks" on the fourth Thursday in November. You may say that you don't acknowledge a Deity to give thanks to, but that doesn't mean that that is exactly where the holiday started.

It's a FACT, David, that the celebration of a winter holiday pre-dates Christianity. Pick up a book and learn about the Oak King and the Holly King. It's a FACT that 90 per cent or more of the cultural hoopla around the holiday is just that -- cultural, not religious. Mistletoe, Christmas trees, Santa Claus, Yule logs, putting up Christmas lights, etc. are cultural, not religious. What are the songs that are song at this time of year? Sure, there are obviously religious ones like Silent Night. What are you hearing on the radio? Santa Claus is Coming to Town, White Christmas, Jingle Bells, Winter Wonderland, Grandma Got Run Over By A Reindeer, etc. Won't find a religious reference in any one of them.

Hanukah has not been coopted by the secular society, nor has Dewali (sp?) nor any of the other feasts and celebrations -- all of them usually reflecting some aspect of the return of the light that comes at the solstice -- that come at this time of year. Do you want them to be? The cultural celebration tends to overshadow the religious one -- it's a common complaint in Christian households that the true meaning of the religious celebration gets lost in the midst of the cultural one. (Interestingly, at my kids' public school they study many of the holidays that come at this time of year, from a cultural aspect, not a religious one.)

Oh, and Phil? Bad example. My kids DO understand the Samhain celebration, and honor it. You may have seen posts from me around that time of year, wishing everyone a Happy New Year! ;) But I have no patience with those (usually fundies) who do not let their children celebrate Halloween because of its (pagan) religious overtones -- it's another one of those holidays where the cultural celebration has come to nearly obliterate the religious significance of the day.

And we celebrate the solstices (watch for it this year -- the first time in 133 years that the full moon is on the night of the solstice -- supposed to be awesome, and won't happen again for another 100+ years!), and honor and observe the natural turnings of the year.

David, you're such a gentleman. As a mome myself, I'm sure your mother would be so proud of you.

-Melin

12-16-1999, 10:52 AM

To me, saying something is not "solely" a XXXXX holiday is effectively saying it really isn't a XXXXX holiday. Why? Because it obviously has some importance and significance to the XXXXX religion.

So you concede that New Year's Day is a Catholic holyday and therefore it's in the same category with Thanksgiving and Christmas, and government employees had better be on the job.

-Melin

nebuli

12-16-1999, 10:59 AM

pldennison wrote:

If Christmas is not exclusively a Christian holiday, let's rename it Solstice and move it back to Dec. 21. Everyone OK with that?

Actually it would be fine with me but I realize I'd be in a small minority on that.
But lets put in the terms of the question which you thought was so significant, and I still do - If Christianity never existed would we still celebrate a holiday on Dec. 25.... and would most people be pissed off if somebody came along and tried to change its date and rename it? Answer is still Yes.

Why is the holiday the 25th and the 21st? Not sure why, but it predates Christianity. Maybe it's the first date that the day is noticebly longer without having to check where the shadows fell compared to the previous day's shadow- whatever the reason, that's the day that was selected before Christianity existed.

Saint Nicholas predates Christianity? Color me surprised.

I'm surprised that the thread has gone so long before tried this non-sequiter. Do you honestly belief Santa Claus has anything to do with St. Nicholas? As was said in the OP, merely renaming something doesn't change it. Do you believe Kris Kringle is supposed to be "der krist kinder"- the Christ child? As someone pointed out, he sure looks a lot more like Odin.

So, are we going to continue a serious debate or play word games?

David B

12-16-1999, 11:03 AM

In the interest of calming things down a bit and getting back to the main point, I have a question.

What rational argument does anybody have against ending government recognition of any religious holidays (or religious-based holidays or holidays that happen to fall on religiously significant days) and giving government employees "holiday" days, in an equal amount to what they get now, to use when they believe it is significant?

andros

12-16-1999, 11:22 AM

$.02:

David, I have nothing against your proposal. But I'd take it a step farther. Let's bag all Government holidays altogether. Independence Day, Veterans Day, Presidents Day, etc. All of 'em.

-andros-

David B

12-16-1999, 11:29 AM

Andros -- sorry, that's kind of what I meant (though looking back I wasn't terribly clear). If we bag 'em all and replace them with "holiday" days, we don't have to worry if July 4 accidentally falls on the ancient pagan celebration of toejam or whatever.

Keeves

12-16-1999, 11:44 AM

Melin:Mistletoe, Christmas trees, Santa Claus, Yule logs, putting up Christmas lights, etc. are cultural, not religious.I agree. But they are exclusive to Christian culture, not American culture. The more strongly one perceives himself as a non-Christian the more likely it is that he will view your examples as intrusions from a foreign culture.

Folks, we don't need to get bogged down in all this nitpicking over the exact origin of any of these things. The important point (to me anyway) is that their presence is a reminder that my culture is different than the minority culture.

nebuli

12-16-1999, 11:48 AM

David-

I personally would have no problem with the scheme you proposed, if you expanded it to all holidays. By just restricted it only to ones which have some religious connection- whether real or tangential- it appears that the government would be discriminating against religion. For instance, in my case it would appear that I'd be denied government recognition to a secular holiday I like only because somebody else observes a religious holiday at the same time, while those enjoying different secular holidays could apply to have their's recognized. Aside from the constitutional aspect, I think expanding the proposal to all holidays would just be fairer in general. Some people object to certain secular holidays. The prime example would be Native Americans- many very understandably are offended by Columbus Day. I've heard of some who are also offended by Thanksgiving. I personally despise New Year's Day; Steve Forbes probably ain't too fond of Labor Day ;) So, if such a system as you propose could be practical I'd say go for it-but have it cover all holidays.

However, I am somewhat skeptical over whether it could be practical. I don't think I can add anything to the debate on that point though- except to relate an experience where such a scheme did work on a smallscale basis. Many, many years ago, I worked in a state government office where there was an informal system whereby the professional staff could earn comp time by working during nonoffice hours. The limits were no more than 10 hours could be earned in any two-week pay period, and the comp time had to be used within a year. It worked very well under those conditions. But why was it not extended to the nonprofessional staff? Simply class bias, or were there legitimate reasons?

David B

12-16-1999, 11:58 AM

Can't answer for your example. Around here, we can earn comp time (instead of overtime pay) with limits, as approved by management. It's a case by case basis. Meanwhile, the attorneys who work here have much more liberal overtime/comp time allowances. Is it fair? Not really. But they have different managers and work under a different contract than we do. < shrug >

Anyway, my point about holidays is not simply hypothetical. A friend of mine actually works in a place where they do this. And, like you said, extending it to all holidays allows people to observe Columbus Day or not. To observe Martin Luther King Jr. Day or not. To observe 2 days of Rosh Hashana and another day of Yom Kippur or not. To observe Good Friday or not. And to top it off, there would not be any possible First Amendment problems.

Kepi

12-16-1999, 01:06 PM

David -

I think your proposal is a good one - on the surface. However, in practice, it becomes much more difficult to achieve. Not impossible, just more difficult.

I worked in a monitoring center for a home security company that was open 24/7. Corporate employees (those that didn't work in the monitoring center) were given the Big 7 holidays (New Year's, Memorial, Independence, Labor, Thanksgiving, day after Thanksgiving, and Christmas) plus 3 personal days to take whenever desired. Due to the fact that our subscribers expected us to monitor their security systems 365 days a year, the monitoring center was required to be open on holidays. The solution was to give these employees 10 personal days to take when desired.

Sounds reasonable so far, right? It worked well until the big family holidays (Thanksgiving, Christmas) rolled around. Then 90% of the staff wanted to use their personal days. Unfortunately, only a few actually got the days off. And it was always the same people year after year - those with the most seniority. However, the rest of us knew the nature of the job when we took it and realized that most of us would have to work, since few burglars feel inclined to take a day off to celebrate the birth of their lord and savior ;-).

Anyway, my point is that giving government employees personal days in lieu of holidays can be a great idea. Just be prepared for a lot of anger and low morale when an employee finds him or herself working on Christmas - while the rest of the family is home enjoying the holiday – just so someone can renew their driver's license on Dec. 25 instead of Dec. 26.

And just because you give everyone a set of personal days that can be used for their "holy" days, it doesn't mean that they will actually get to observe their "holy" days. As my example above shows, unless you have enough non-Christians to fill your staffing needs on Dec. 25, some Christian employees will have to work on their "holy" day, just as a Jewish employee might have to work on Yom Kippur. In fact, I contend that it's MORE likely that a Christian employee will not be able to use his or her personal day for a "holy" day than it will be for non-Christians and their "holy" days.

So who do we accommodate?

David B

12-16-1999, 01:20 PM

Kepi, I didn't specifically mention it in my most recent post, but earlier in the thread I mentioned that there would be some jobs that simply will have to have the day off because it wouldn't work otherwise (for example, the post office). Yes, there are some government jobs that require 24/7 monitoring, such as those who watch nuclear plants. But those require it now anyway, so I don't see much change. I think for the government, such jobs are the exception rather than the rule.

Hunsecker

12-16-1999, 02:22 PM

David -

I agree with Kepi that your idea is a good one in principle, but I'm not sure how well it would work out pragmatically.

If something like 90% of the people in an office didn't show up for work one day, how much work could the remaining 10% actually accomplish? I would guess that if I only had a 1 in 10 shot of calling someone or getting data from a co-worker or getting tech support on my computer or something, that I'd get far less than a days worth of work done.

If I were the manager, I'd probably just close down for the day, just for sake of convenience. That way I don't need to worry about being potentially understaffed, having problems come up that no one can fix, getting someone to open and close the office, and all that stuff.

So in effect, I would be closed on new years, thanksgiving & the day after, and christmas.
Then with the flexible holiday time, anyone who doesn't observe the above holidays gets them off anyways, so they end up getting 4 free vacation days.

Oh, and just curious, what is your proposed number of days for holiday time? Would this be determined by your faith? I'd hate to think that as a non-believer I get screwed out of vacation days. :)

Kepi

12-16-1999, 02:42 PM

David -

You didn't really address my point. You have argued that the government favors Christianity at the expense of other religions by allowing a government holiday for Christmas, but not one for other "holy" days such as Yom Kippur. You feel that an unbiased approach would be for the government to grant X number of days for employees to use as they see fit, thereby allowing all employees, regardless of religion, the opportunity to observe their own "holy" days without penalty. Government offices would remain open on December 25 as if it were any other day.

Let's say that employees of a non-essential government office, such as the Department of Motor Vehicles, were given X number of days off per year to use when desired, ostensibly to observe "holy" days. The DMV would remain open on those "holy" days, be they Christmas, Yom Kippur, what have you.

Now let's say a DMV office employees 100 people. The religious breakdown of the US according to the CIA World Fact Book (see www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/us.html (http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/us.html) ) is: Protestant 56%, Roman Catholic 28%, Jewish 2%, other 4%, none 10%. Applying those figures to our hypothetical DMV office, we have 84 Christian employees, 2 Jewish, 4 others, and 10 with no religious affiliation. Let's say that this DMV office requires a minimum of 40 employees on duty to operate (I just pulled that number out of the air). Assuming that all 16 non-Christian employees choose to work December 25, that still leaves 24 Christian employees that will not be allowed to use a personal holiday to observe a day which is "holy" to them. Or else the office must try to get by with 24 fewer employees than is necessary, which makes it harder on the 16 who do work that day – and who are probably less productive due to the increased workload they are expected to carry.

I'm not saying that this necessarily justifies the government "observing" a Christian holiday when it doesn't observe other religions' holidays. I'm just saying that it solves one problem by creating another.

So again, who do we accommodate? Or do we just not allow holidays at all?

David B

12-16-1999, 02:53 PM

Hunsecker, I don't mean to be rude, but have you read thru this thread? I ask because I've addressed pretty much all of your questions earlier. But I'll repeat some of them for you anyway. You said:If something like 90% of the people in an office didn't show up for work one day, how much work could the remaining 10% actually accomplish?I don't know about other folks, but in my office, I could probably accomplish 200% of what I normally do. No stupid meetings. No other people to bug me with their problems while I'm trying to do my work. Etc. Indeed, most of the people I know in state and federal government have told me similar things. I'm sure it's not true for everybody, but it seems to be true for a lot of people.what is your proposed number of days for holiday time? Would this be determined by your faith?As I said earlier, take the number of days they get off anyway, and just make them free-floating. For example, state employees in Illinois get 11 holidays (on election years, they get 12 -- one for election day, but that one would probably have to stay). So they would get 11 "holiday" days.

Kepi: If it is a nonessential part of government that deals with the public, must maintain a certain number of people, and cannot do so, then I think that is a valid reason for closing that day. I've addressed this earlier in discussing schools and the post office. But I've also pointed out that I think this is the exception, not the rule.

Kepi

12-16-1999, 03:30 PM

David says:

If it is a nonessential part of government that deals with the public, must maintain a certain number of people, and cannot do so, then I think that is a valid reason for closing that day.

Isn't that what actually happens? Let's breakdown your criteria that makes closing a government office acceptable:

Nonessential office that deals with the public - I would wager that most government offices are nonessential, i.e., if they shut down for a day, no one's life would be too disrupted. This of course excludes offices such as police, fire, military, etc. - the essential offices.

Must maintain a certain number of people - Most offices do require a minimum number of employees, either within the office or external to the office, i.e., for support. How many government employees don't depend on others in any way to do their job?

Unable to maintain a certain number of people - Since 84% of the population identifies as Christian, it is likely that few government offices, if any, would be able to staff the minimum number of employees necessary.

If all three of these criteria are met, according to David, the government has a valid reason for closing. I contend that this criteria is met every December 25.

David B

12-16-1999, 03:36 PM

The main problem is in your claim about needing to maintain a certain number of people. You say it applies to most offices. I say it probably does not. I base this on my experience and those of people I know who work or have worked for a wide variety of state and federal government offices.

As one example: Yes, you see the few people who work at the drivers license facility. What you don't see are the several hundred other folks who don't work with the public directly but who file, work on programs, work with computers, etc. and to whom it doesn't matter if their coworkers are around that particular day or not.

David B

12-16-1999, 03:38 PM

Incidentally, another problem is the assertion that most people won't show up. Maybe most won't. I don't know. But if so many people view Christmas as a supposedly secular holiday, why should they take it off if they don't have anywhere in particular to go? And there are others who may celebrate Christmas Eve. Or other times (for example, my boss celebrates Christmas at Thanksgiving with his 10 kids, many of whom are spread out across the state and some of whom are now married).

I'm not saying with certainty that folks will show up, because there is no way to know -- it's never been tried.

Hunsecker

12-16-1999, 03:53 PM

Hunsecker, I don't mean to be rude, but have you read thru this thread? I ask because I've addressed pretty much all of your questions earlier. But I'll repeat some of them for you anyway.

Actually, I have, but apparently I missed the details. Thanks for repeating them.

Indeed, most of the people I know in state and federal government have told me [they could accomplish more with less people at the office]. I'm sure it's not true for everybody, but it seems to be true for a lot of people.

Well, in my experience in big companies (and maybe its wrong to equate government work with work at a large buisness), you can't do squat without other people there. At one company I worked for, if you wanted to get in on the weekend, not only did you have to drive around looking for a security guard to let you in the building and your office, but the freakin' lights wouldn't come on, cause they were programmed for regular work hours. (this is not to argue how computerized lighting systems are a problem per se, but just that there are many problems with only a small fraction of the workforce being present)
Now, the work I did was independent of other people, but anyone in like sales, or management, or marketing probably wouldn't have been able to accomplish anything.

Anyway, anecdotal evidence about how much work would get done aside; I agree that the current system is unfair and probably unconstitutional, and that your system is generally better. My concern is that your system may end up being unfair towards christians. You mentioned that the post offices and schools would probably need to be closed on xmas (and Kepi says even more than that). The ones taking xmas off would use their holiday time, and those employees who wanted to work that day wouldn't be able to work, and would likely get a free paid vacation day.
Admittedly, giving minority religions an extra vacation day isn't gonna keep me up at night, but it is still unfair...

PunditLisa

12-16-1999, 04:02 PM

If more than 15% of the school is going to be out due to the flu, the school board cancels classes. Anyone have a problem with that? Makes sense, doesn't it?

In that vain, how about if we change the law to include something along these lines: If more than 50% of businesses will close on a particular day, the federal governmental offices will also close."

That makes it a fiscal issue, not a religious one.

David?

Keeves

12-16-1999, 04:06 PM

Sorry, Lisa, but schools are a way different case than offices. Schools are probably the very best example of where the various workers and customers are dependent on each other, and I can easily see why as few as 15% are enough to cripple the system.

In contrast, if you'll read David's recent posts, you'll see that in many offices, especially David's, efficiency (of those present) goes up in proportion to the number of people who are absent.

nebuli

12-16-1999, 04:26 PM

David-

you said
Incidentally, another problem is the assertion that most people won't show up. Maybe most won't. I don't know. But if so many people view Christmas as a supposedly secular holiday, why should they take it off if they don't have anywhere in particular to go?

I kind of resent that. Just because I don't go to midnight Mass or carolling in front of a nativity scene doesn't mean I don't have anywhere in particular to go. The place in particular I'd like to go is visiting my family, exchanging gifts, spreading good cheer, etc. etc. In case it wasn't obvious from my previous posts Christmas is one of my favorite holidays.

But your attitude has served to enlighten me about what will happen in the scenario Kepi painted. The nonbelievers who would like that holiday off will be under a lot of pressure to come in and work so one of the Christians can get it off instead, "because it doesn't mean as much to a nonChristian".

PunditLisa

12-16-1999, 07:32 PM

Actually, I've worked in a government office before. Have you? I was the City Clerk for a municipality in Ohio for 3 years. I handled plumbing permits, building permits, special garbage pick-ups, etc.,etc. I didn't have an assistant. It was just me. There was also 1 tax clerk, 1 water clerk, and 1 auditor.

We could have all showed up on Christmas Day (or New Year's Day, or Thanksgiving), and twiddled our thumbs all day. We would have missed out on a special day with our family, for what? Because if no one, or very few people, are going to show up to do business, for WHATEVER REASON, it's a waste of money to staff the office.

Keeves

12-17-1999, 12:09 AM

This idea was mentioned before, but only in passing:

--- What about weekends?

Suppose someone would rather take off Monday and Thursday of each week? The current system forces him to observe both the Jewish and Christian Sabbaths. He is grateful that he's not forced to work on Friday (Islamic Sabbath) as well, but he really feels entitled to work every single Saturday and Sunday. Why don't we let him?

Keeves

12-17-1999, 12:12 AM

Ooops, I meant:

He is grateful that he's not forced to take off on Friday (Islamic Sabbath) as well

nebuli

12-17-1999, 12:45 AM

Just for the record I'd like to point out that I have noticed something I posted has an omitted word which could very easily lead people to misconstrue what had been intended as a minor dig into a major slam.

In responding to Phil I said
I'm surprised that the thread has gone so long before tried this non-sequiter.

What that was supposed to say was "...so long before someone tried..."
If some of you read the original sentence and concluded that what I intended was "...so long before you tried..." I sincerely apologize. My intention was to point out how easy and tempting the (IMHO) the nonsequiter was, not to imply that Phil was especially prone to using such. From an extended period of lurking and a short period as a registered member I know that such is not the case. (And dammit, I'll really try to proofread this one!)

12-17-1999, 12:46 AM

Kneeves wrote:

[quote]Melin: quote: Mistletoe, Christmas trees, Santa Claus, Yule logs, putting up Christmas lights, etc. are cultural, not religious.

I agree. But they are exclusive to Christian culture, not American culture. The more strongly one perceives himself as a non-Christian the more likely it is that
he will view your examples as intrusions from a foreign culture.[/quote

No Kneeves, they are not exclusive to Christian culture. I assure you many people who are non-Christian and even anti-Christian recognize and participate in many of the items I mentioned above. I selected them deliberately because they come from pagan sources, or at least some of them do.

I agree with Nebuli that I think we WOULD have a winter holiday at this time of year regardless of Christianity. Note that there are many other Christian holydays that pass by in the year without any secular recognition, some of which are much more important in the liturgical calendar than Christmas is. Good Friday, Easter and Pentecost come to mind immediately; there's also Ascension Thursday, and a host of others. None of them have become in the secular world what Christmas has become, and I submit that the reason for that is the pre-Christian, non-Christian, and secular cultural hoopla that surrounds it. If the cultural aspect did not exist, and the long-standing tradition of winter holiday at or around the time of the solstice, Christmas would likely be celebrated only by Christians and would be a much more quiet affair that would pass virtually unnoticed by the non-Christian community.

By the way, Phil, the feast of St. Nicholas is December 6. Coldfire, don't the Dutch children put out their shoes for him to fill with treats on that day?

-Melin

David B

12-17-1999, 08:42 AM

Nebuli said:I kind of resent that. Just because I don't go to midnight Mass or carolling in front of a nativity scene doesn't mean I don't have anywhere in particular to go.There was nothing to resent there. I didn't say you had nowhere to go. I said those people who don't may come in to work. I didn't say or imply that the only place to go was church. Some go to see family. Some go nowhere. It was just a general statement that those who don't go anywhere may wish to come to work.But your attitude has served to enlighten me about what will happen in the scenario Kepi painted. The nonbelievers who would like that holiday off will be under a lot of pressure to come in and work so one of the Christians can get it off instead, "because it doesn't mean as much to a nonChristian".I doubt it. Frankly, though, I doubt it would take much pressure. In talking to the various people of non-Christian religions (or no religion) where I work, none has indicated any problem with coming in on Christmas if it meant they would get a different day of their choosing off instead.

PunditLisa said:I've worked in a government office before. Have you?Yes. 8 years.We could have all showed up on Christmas Day (or New Year's Day, or Thanksgiving), and twiddled our thumbs all day. We would have missed out on a special day with our family, for what? Because if no one, or very few people, are going to show up to do business, for WHATEVER REASON, it's a waste of money to staff the office.I really do wish you would read the messages before replying. It seems to be a habit of yours to bring up something as if it had never been discussed when, in fact, it already has been.

smilingjaws

12-17-1999, 05:09 PM

Most government offices do allow flex time. So why don't you just come in to work on Christmas and take off on your preferred day?
Why do you imagine that a minority of people would even be able to initate a change of such magnitude as eliminating Christmas Holidays?
Heck, I've worked in places where the real reason for taking off for Thanksgiving and Christmas was to go deer hunting :)
We could have closed down for two weeks of deer season and made everyone happy except me!
Frankly, I think your whole argument is based on your anecdotal experience that you would be able to get more work done. If that's true, then your boss should be amenable to letting you swap days off. Why not ask and see?

Gr8Kat

12-17-1999, 07:15 PM

Fourth, even if it is "only two," as I have previously noted, it's not like the office is going to disappear anyway. It's there. The heat is on. The electricity is running. What's the diff?

I don't know about other folks, but in my office, I could probably accomplish 200% of what I normally do. No stupid meetings. No other people to bug me with their problems while I'm trying to do my work. Etc. Indeed, most of the people I know in state and federal government have told me similar things. I'm sure it's not true for everybody, but it seems to be true for a lot of people.

You're not thinking like the government.

Some one quoted the statistic that 84% of the pop. identifies themselves as Christian. I work in an office of about 60 people. So let's say there's about a dozen people who would rather work the 25th than spend the day watching tv or sleeping in (sickos). Trust me, the heat is not on. It's turned off at 5:00 PM sharp (I used to work until 6:00, I know this for a fact). Do you think the government wants to waste money heating a building for a dozen people? ("We have a responsibility to the tax payers! What would they say??" We get this one a lot.)

Also, who's going to cover for the 84% of workers who stay home? In our office, the majority of people who appear to not give a hoot about Christmas (ie, never participate in parties or gift exchanges, never decorate their offices or cubicles, never distribute Christmas cards, so I don't know if they're atheist, agnostic, or just apathetic) are attorneys, judges and Board members. Are they going to want to spend the day filing or making copies or sorting mail? Unlikely. "The tax payers don't pay me $70,000 a year to make copies all day!!" But these are essential job functions; if someone doesn't do these menial tasks, then work doesn't make it to the big guys. So some people who would like to take the day off, even using their own personal holiday or vacation time, would probably be told, "No, we need you here."

It's just easier and cheaper to shut everything down and send everyone home. That's the way the government likes things, at least when it comes to us little people: cheap and easy. The more money they can trim from our budget, the more they can spend on more important things, like $200 a foot carpeting for the Capitol building.

As for your proposed "personal holiday" time, in Oregon at least (I don't know if this is uniqute to our state) we do get, in addition to accrued sick and vacation leave, 2 days of "Personal Business" leave per year which cannot be accrued. If they're not used by July 1st, they're lost, but on July 1st we get 2 more for the next 12 months. These could be (and no doubt are) used as "personal holiday" time by those who want to take non-government recognized days off, but it is still in addition to Christmas.

But isn't this supposed to be a democracy? Doesn't the majority rule? If George W. Bush, Jr., wins the presidency by popular vote, then I'd just have to suck it up. Is that fair? If 84% of Americans celebrate Christmas in one way or another and like having the 25th off, then is it any less fair to expect the other 16% to put up with it? Is it any worse than putting up with any other popular position that you hate?

------------------
"I hope life isn't a big joke, because I don't get it," Jack Handy

The Kat House (http://members.aol.com/gr8kat1/KatGen/home.htm)
Join the FSH Webring (http://members.aol.com/gr8kat1/KatGen/fshwebring.htm)

David B

12-17-1999, 10:26 PM

SmilingJaws said:Most government offices do allow flex time. So why don't you just come in to work on Christmas and take off on your preferred day?Because they don't allow that kind of flex time. Christmas is an official government holiday. If you work it, you get 2 or 2.5 times overtime (or comp time) and you need special permission to do so (which ain't gonna happen unless there is a crisis of global proportions except in cases like the police).Why do you imagine that a minority of people would even be able to initate a change of such magnitude as eliminating Christmas Holidays?I don't imagine it at all. I'd like to think that our court system would recognize a First Amendment violation when it sees one, but I've been proven wrong too many times on that to actually believe they will. But does that mean I'm not allowed to talk about my opinion on the matter?Frankly, I think your whole argument is based on your anecdotal experience that you would be able to get more work done.Then, frankly, I think you need to go back and read the thread, 'cus you obviously missed quite a bit of it.

Gr8Kat said:You're not thinking like the government.Thank you! :)
Some one quoted the statistic that 84% of the pop. identifies themselves as Christian. I work in an office of about 60 people. So let's say there's about a dozen people who would rather work the 25th than spend the day watching tv or sleeping in (sickos). Trust me, the heat is not on. It's turned off at 5:00 PM sharp (I used to work until 6:00, I know this for a fact).Um, trust me, the heat is certainly on. It stays on all night and all day at the same level throughout the building. As I've noted before, there are still people around at any given time -- folks working overtime, managers who had to come in, and the security people who wander the building. In case you missed it in my reply to Lisa, I'm speaking from experience here myself. Maybe there are some places like you describe, but I haven't encountered one, and neither have my friends who work/worked elsewhere in state and federal government.Also, who's going to cover for the 84% of workers who stay home?I think we've already gone over this about 3-4 times here, so forgive me for being a bit rude, but please see above.But isn't this supposed to be a democracy?No, it's a Constitutional Republic.Doesn't the majority rule?Not when it comes to violating the Constitution, no.If George W. Bush, Jr., wins the presidency by popular vote, then I'd just have to suck it up.Not necessarily correct. He could win the popular vote and lose the electoral vote. But in any event, even if he becomes President, that doesn't mean he can override the Constitution. Bill Clinton has found this out several times (when he wanted to do random searches at housing projects, when he signed the line-item veto law, etc.).

Gr8Kat

12-17-1999, 11:22 PM

As one example: Yes, you see the few people who work at the drivers license facility. What you don't see are the several hundred other folks who don't work with the public directly but who file, work on programs, work with computers, etc. and to whom it doesn't matter if their coworkers are around that particular day or not.

Well, I did read this part and kind of rolled my eyes. Yeah, Trish the computer guru probably doesn't care if an attorney is there to draft an order, but if the server were to crash, that attorney would be screwed if she were home on holiday. Carol the office specialist doesn't care if a Board member isn't there to review cases, but if no one routes cases to review to the Board member, it's pointless for her to be there. Dani the secretary doesn't care if her judge is presiding over a hearing today, but if no one is there to retrieve his files or manage his case load, how's he to know what's on the docket for today? These higher ups are very dependent upon their underlings to run and fetch and keep everything organized. I'd like to see a Board member trying to operate the date stamping machine in the mail room, or figure out how look up a case in the data entry system. These people are paid to sit behind their desks all day thinking about case law; most of them need us to hold their hand to get through Windows Explorer, for God's sake. Don't you dare argue with me on this point, I am one of the office Super Users. It's my job to answer phone calls like, "This file is read only, how can I get it back to read-write?" and "Where did my e-mail address book go?" and "Can you find this case in the Board docket log for me? I got lost in WANG again." They aren't paid to pick up a manual or hit F10 for help, and they sure aren't paid to sort mail and file.

No, it's a Constitutional Republic.

Doesn't the majority rule?

Not when it comes to violating the Constitution, no.

You're right, I forgot that central issue. So is it really violating the Constitution? The first amendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

Oh, good grief. And how many times have the religion police broken down your door and clubbed your kneecaps for not being Christian? How much time have you spent in prison for your atheist beliefs? How many Bibles has the government mailed to you? How many times have your threads been deleted because you expressed non-Christian opinions in them? Just because everyone is shooed home for one ostensibly Christian holiday doesn't mean a state religion has been established. It means a majority of the country gets one of their favorite days of the year at home with their family, to attend church, or eat candy, or open presents, and the rest of the people in the country get a long weekend to sleep in, or watch a game on tv, or putter around the house.

I disagree with prayer in school because a teacher would be instructing children how to pray. Even other Christians would probably butt heads if the teacher didn't say exactly the right things, let alone all the other religions that would be excluded. I understand how that could be seen as the state endorsing one religion or denomination over another.

But a majority of the country shuts down on Christmas day anyway. You've fussed about how the post office is closed so you couldn't mail a package; how many businesses in the private sector are open? In my office we work very closely with insurance companies and law firms. They all shut down for Christmas without being forced to by the government. We could try to hold a hearing, but how many attorneys from the private sector are going to want to come back from their Christmas vacation to the mountains for that? We would end up with a judge in an empty hearing room with a crashed computer and a misfiled case. THAT'S a good use of taxpayer money.

And one more attempt to appeal to the taxpayer in all of us: imagine millions and millions of government employees staying home. Yes, they get paid for that day, but they aren't making long distance phone calls, they aren't stealing office supplies, they aren't throwing away reams of paper, and they aren't passing legislation to take away more of the taxpayers' money. C'mon, you've gotta like that :)

------------------
"I hope life isn't a big joke, because I don't get it," Jack Handy

The Kat House (http://members.aol.com/gr8kat1/KatGen/home.htm)
Join the FSH Webring (http://members.aol.com/gr8kat1/KatGen/fshwebring.htm)

Gr8Kat

12-17-1999, 11:35 PM

I forgot to address this issue (I've probably forgotten to address a lot of issues):

Um, trust me, the heat is certainly on. It stays on all night and all day at the same level throughout the building. As I've noted before, there are still people around at any given time -- folks working overtime, managers who had to come in, and the security people who wander the building. In case you missed it in my reply to Lisa, I'm speaking from experience here myself. Maybe there are some places like you describe, but I haven't encountered one, and neither have my friends who work/worked elsewhere in state and federal government.

I'm a lousy debater for many reasons, but the one I'm thinking of now is that I tend to tip my hand. I don't work in a government building; we are renting office space in a publicly owned building. I don't know how much the state reimburses the business for the electicity, water, etc., that we use. I would assume we do somehow, but I don't know how. But the building does get awfully chilly after 5:00 PM rolls around, and on Fridays the lights in the hallways and the elevators are all shut off at 5:00 because the owners of the building are 7th Day Adventists. I've had to fight to keep the elevator turned on late enough for me because I'm disabled and don't do stairs. But their Sabbath begins at sundown on Friday, so they send all their own employees home early, especially in the winter when sundown is at 4:00 or 4:30, and start shutting things down. It is a privately owned building and they can do whatever they want with it, and the rest of us just have to put up with it.

So you want to make them come in on Christmas and turn everything on for the state employees? As if they don't already hate having to share office space with us now...

------------------
"I hope life isn't a big joke, because I don't get it," Jack Handy

The Kat House (http://members.aol.com/gr8kat1/KatGen/home.htm)
Join the FSH Webring (http://members.aol.com/gr8kat1/KatGen/fshwebring.htm)

David B

12-18-1999, 08:08 AM

Gr8Kat, you're still repeating a lot of stuff that's already been discussed. If the court system won't work because of its direct interaction with the public and a lack of personnel, then it should be shut down for that reason. This is what I was talking about when I said, in my previous message, "I think we've already gone over this about 3-4 times here, so forgive me for being a bit rude, but please see above."

You also said:So is it really violating the Constitution?Yes, it really is. The police don't have to come in and club me to be a First Amendment violation. The government is giving preference to a specific religious holiday.You've fussed about how the post office is closed so you couldn't mail a packageI have? Where? Please quote me saying this (or rather, when you can't find it 'cus I didn't say it, please apologize).I don't work in a government building; we are renting office space in a publicly owned building.That's the way it works in Illinois as well. In fact, during the recent drivers license bribery scandal, one news article noted that the Secretary of State doesn't "own" any buildings, but only rents space. But so what? I used to rent an apartment, and the electric company, gas company, water company, etc. always knew how much of the bill was mine and how much was for other people. In other words, they get charged for as much as they use. Your situation of a building owned by 7th Day Adventists sounds like a major exception, not the rule.

smilingjaws

12-18-1999, 10:47 AM

Quote from David:
Um, trust me, the heat is certainly on. It stays on all night and all day at the same
level throughout the building. As I've noted before, there are still people around at any
given time -- folks working overtime, managers who had to come in, and the security
people who wander the building. In case you missed it in my reply to Lisa, I'm speaking
from experience here myself. Maybe there are some places like you describe, but I haven't encountered one, and neither have my friends who work/worked elsewhere

Gee, David, and that's not argument based on anecdotal experience? You've repeatedly rejected other people's experience that is counter to yours. My experience is that the heat IS turned down on long holidays.

Also, I wish to clarify that I was not suggesting that you don't have a RIGHT to worry about this--only that it's pretty pointless. But, if you enjoy making yourself upset over something that isn't going to change, go ahead!

David B

12-18-1999, 11:46 AM

Smilingjaws said:Gee, David, and that's not argument based on anecdotal experience? You've repeatedly rejected other people's experience that is counter to yours.Yes, it's anecdotal. And I've noted that. However, it's also my own experience plus the experience of every other state and federal employee I've talked to about this (previous to this thread). In fact, Gr8Kat went on to explain why I think he situation is the exception (owned by the Seventh Day Adventists).My experience is that the heat IS turned down on long holidays.What experience is that? With which level of government?

Oh, and Christmas is one day long -- not a "long holiday." What "long holidays" are you talking about?

smilingjaws

12-19-1999, 06:22 PM

OK, since you asked about my experience with government--the office I worked in was closed for a long holiday--the two day 4th of july holiday--the air conditioner was turned off and you cannot work in the deep south in a high rise building without air conditioners.

I still fail to see why you resent having a holiday that doesn't suit your particular religion. Using your type of evidence-anecdotal--even atheists and anti-christians enjoy having a day to spend with their family. I, personally, have never spent a Labor day in my life celebrating the Labor movement but I sure enjoyed having the day off. Ditto with Martin Luther King/Robert E. Lee day, Memorial Day, Veteran's Day. I suppose I should--but the most I ever do is send up a prayer of thanks for the gift of freedom these people gave us.
Anecdotally, most people enjoy spending extra time with their families. Too bad you don't.

smilingjaws

12-20-1999, 10:40 AM

As I reread my last post, it made me sick. Here it is the season of peace and I'm participating in a fight over the whole thing.
David, I'm sorry you hate having the government recognise a holiday with Christian overtones. It is hard to follow the beat of a different drummer. No society truly accepts that. Even if you are right (and I'm not saying you are) about a federal holiday violating the 1st amendment, it's fruitless to rail against it. If the Supreme Court outlawed Christmas holidays today, tomorrow Congress would meet, propose a constitutional amendment allowing it and the state legislatures would probably meet the next day to ratify it. That's life.
Probably most of us have issues over laws we regard as constitutional. I, for one, think abortion except to save the life of the mother, is nothing more than legalized murder. But, realistically, the most I can do about it is support pro-life candidates, and give my money to agencies who help poor mothers and unwed mothers, and be an advocate for the disabled. It's pointless for me to be angry about it--to hate others with opposing viewpoints--or to ruin my health stewing about it.
So, for those of you who are feeling oppressed by a society that celebrates a holiday you find offensive, I hope that you will be able to leave behind your anger and hatred and ignore the reason behind the holiday and simply enjoy a day of respite from work. I won't offend you by wishing you a Merry Christmas. I only wish you peace and happiness, whatever the day.

Gr8Kat

12-20-1999, 01:48 PM

All right, here's another point that I don't think I've seen addressed, but I've been wrong before.

Most people in my building are under a Union contract. I think it's a relatively safe assumption that in many offices, the represented employees outnumber the unrepresented employees. Our contract makes provisions regarding the days and hours represented employees work; for example, we cannot work more than 40 hours a week, we can only work between the hours of 6:00 AM and 6:00 PM, and we will get certain days off as paid holidays, one of which is December 25th (or December 24th or 26th, should the 25th fall on a weekend). The unrepresented employees, which are mainly the Board members, attorneys, and judges, work whenever and wherever they want, at home, on weekends, etc. They could probably work the 25th if they so desire, but they probably don't desire because the agencies they interact with are closed and the support staff, being represented, is at home.

My question is this: Is it really a 1st Amendment violation if the represented employees have signed a contract with the government, of their own free will, agreeing that December 25th will be a paid holiday? I mean, I also have the right to bear arms, but I'd be disciplined or fired if I brought a gun into the building because I entered into an agreement in which I said I won't, so I can't. Is there a difference? Or do you think the Constitution is being violated in this example, too?

------------------
"I hope life isn't a big joke, because I don't get it," Jack Handy

The Kat House (http://members.aol.com/gr8kat1/KatGen/home.htm)
Join the FSH Webring (http://members.aol.com/gr8kat1/KatGen/fshwebring.htm)