Christmas holidays & separation of church & state

Great Debates
101

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! :wink: 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

102

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

103

pldennison wrote:

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.

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?

104

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?

105

$.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-

106

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.

107

Melin:

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.

108

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 :wink: 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?

109

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.

110

This idea was mentioned before, but only in passing:

[sarcastic]

— 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?

[/sarcastic]

111

Ooops, I meant:

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

112

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

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!)

113

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

114

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?

115

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.

116

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. :slight_smile:

117

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 ) 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?

118

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:

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.

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.

119

David says:

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.

120

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.