What mean “we”?
I’ll be getting off work at five o’clock on Dec. 24, and scurrying off to church and hoping that I can catch at least the second half of the pageant. Then I get to get up on Christmas Day and go to work. In seven years of living in Vegas I think I’ve had Christmas off once, while I was working at Wal-Mart.
Just because it’s a federal holiday doesn’t mean “we” have it off.
Not being able to offer the greeting of “Merry Christmas” without reprimand is going rather far beyond a “slight derivation” don’t you think? Wouldn’t it be protected under free speech at the very least?
ooooo. 50 complaints or inquires, huh? How many schools do you reckon there are in the U.S.? A handful of overly cautious administrators, who are likely religious themselves, making some overbroad or incorrect guidelines do not an oppression make. Read and Learn.
Get some perspective, man.
So then you have no problem with signs saying “Merry Christmas,” or carols referencing the birth of Christ? They are, after all, “only words.”
That’s one source, Homebrew. How many more sources do you want before the sarcasm abates?
Additionally, I’m not really interested in policy supported by a group who backs the existence of NAMBLA.
A lot of these kinds of stories are distorted or exaggerated or false. Some of them may indeed represent a misunderstanding of the law by schools. We’d have to see the details of each story on a case by case basis to see if there are any real violations but it should be understood that they would be just that- violations. It is not legal for schools to interfere with voluntary religious practices as long as they don’t initiate or lead such activity.
Reading purely prima facie, I find some of your anecdotes rather dubious and others quite sensible (a teacher should not be reading Christmas glurge at defenseless children in a public school classroom). In general, though, there is no pogrom going on in public schools against the poor little Christians. The vast majority of teachers and adminstrators are Christians themselves. Just because you can’t foist your beliefs on others doesn’t mean you’re being discriminated against.
As to the OP. I’m oretty sure that no one is forcing Christians to secualrize Christmas and I don’t see how it’s any of their business what anyone else does.
What’s what’s really pissing some of them off is that they see "Holidays"and Christmas stuff all over the place, decorations, Santa, bells, holly, etc, They see commercials and sales, but they don’t see anything that’s overt;y religious. They don’t see Christmas sales that mention the “birth of our Lord.” and that’s what they want. They want overtly religious preaching with their Christmases. It irks them that so much of the country happily celebrates Christmas as a secular holday with little or no attention to ancient nativity myths. Why it irks them, I’m not sure but it drives them up the wall. I guess they think they stole the holiday fair and square and they don’t want any “secularists” celberating it without their permission or without praying to their God.
Cite for your mindreading?
All you have to do is listen to Christian radio. That’s what they bitch about. They don’t see Jesus at the mall and it bugs them. They say so themselves.
I’m an atheist of Hindu background who has celebrated Christmas every year since I can remember. I love the holiday and the spirits and the specials and the decorations and the whole atmosphere. I have no problem saying “Merry Christmas” in the same way that I have no problem in saying “Id Mubarak.” The actual meanings of those phrases mean nothing to me anyway and I just consider them expressions of good cheer.
On the other hand, I believe that government has no business in even giving the appearance of giving recognition to the symbols of any religion. Therefore, I would prefer that the federal government come up with a name other than “Christmas” for the Dec. 25 holiday, but it really doesn’t bug me much. I also believe that signs saying “Merry Christmas” should not be displayed on government property, although “Seasons Greetings” would be fine by me (when I do send Christmas cards, that’s what mine say).
However, I think it’s just too egregious for nativity scenes to be displayed on public property. Do all the other stuff – trees, Santa, whatever, but depictions of Jesus are just not appropriate. Again, I have nothing against nativity scenes – when they are displayed on private property that’s just fine, and I can even find myself admiring the artistry and the spirit of the thing, even if I don’t believe any of it as far as dogma goes – it can still be nice, in the way that I can still admire a turn of phrase from the Authorized Version. Some things can be universal if you let them and don’t try to force them on people.
As far as Christmas cards go, I think kids should be allowed to do what they want, but teachers and other government employees should refrain from handing out anything with a religious message or image.
When I do see a nativity scene on public property, I get an urge to go back to my Hindu roots and demand that the local government allow me to display religious depictions that are traditional for my background – Durga Puja and Kali Puja, the two most important religious occasions for Bengali Hindus take place in the fall. Durga is depicted as a 10-armed woman; each hand holds a weapon, one of which is a spear whose point is plunging into the chest of Mahishashur, the buffalo demon. Durga is accompanied by her four children, one of which is the elephant-headed Ganesh. Kali is depicted as a voluptuous, naked, black-skinned woman with unbound hair. She wears only a belt made of human arms and a necklace of skulls. She has four hands: one holds a bloodied curved sword, one a freshly-severed human head. Her blood-red long tongue hangs out (in shame, perhaps, but perhaps in bloodthirst) and she stands on the prone, pale body of her husband, Shib.
Hey, if it’s okay to show a nativity scene on public property, then it should be just fine to put these up at well. I rub my hands in glee imagining whitebread Americans and their tow-headed kinder coming face to face with Mother Kali when they go to renew their vehicle registrations.
That’s a pretty convoluted stance. I didn’t like John Kerry’s lack of support for gay marriage, but I voted for him anyway, eh?
And anyhoo, should groups that support changes in the laws not have a right to exist, simply because you don’t agree with their policy views? Should NORML not have a right to exist for supporting pot legalization? Should the Kato institute not have a right to exist for supporting lower taxes?
O’Reilly is on a rampage these days to expose the “secularization of Christmas”. I don’t know how representative that view is of his listenners, but I don’t think he’d be beating the drum so loudly if it weren’t.
And I want to know what **DtC **is doing listenning to Christian Radio… 
Morbid fascination. Same reason I watch Bill O’Reilly or occasionally peruse the Free Republic Message Board. I am paradoxically attracted to the viewpoints that I most disagree with.
There is absolutely no use arguing against someone who pulls out a gun as huge and ineffective as NAMBLA in dismissing an ACLU cite. That’s a weapon with lots of loud but no bullet. And now I remember why I haven’t missed your presence in the last few years.
Should I not have a right to ignore an organization who’s policies and tactics I don’t agree with?
Hmm. Would that be the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, the National Association of Evangelicals or the National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA? Or did you miss the list:
In addition, their stance was in support of the First Amendment, not of NAMBLA per se.
Are you okay with the ACLU when it defends a Christian Church from eviction by a city? What about when it defends a relgious group’s right to equal use of public property?
You can ignore whatever you want but it’s logically fallacious to assert that a cite is not reliable because the source of the cite once said something else that you morally disagreed with.
It’s like if I said that GWB supports the death penalty, I find the death penalty morally reprehensible, therefore everything Bush says must be considered to be a lie.
Christmas is also a secular holiday throughout much of the world, including countries with small Christian populations, such as Japan. For that matter, in Christianity, the most important day is Easter. That day in fact is more religious than Christmas, because by definition it is the whole purpose of Christianity.
Cute.
Doesn’t mean it’s a lie, it all depends on how important that one thing is to you, or how you think it shapes his policies, if at all.
I abhor the ACLU for many reasons, not just the one. I only used their most egregious example.
So if you’re so hostile to protecting people’s first amendment rights, you should have no problem with outright banning of nativity scenes on public and private property as well then.