I don’t suppose you see the problem with these two statements. If Christmas isn’t Christian, and we don’t own it, then using the day for a national holiday isn’t endorsing Christianity.
There’s a set up line if ever I saw one.
Regards,
Shodan
Sorry, but that’s exactly what it means. When a high school valedictorian is forbidden to talk about her religion in her graduation speech, or when Christian children are not allowed to read from the Bible when the teacher asks students to give a short reading from their favorite book, the cause of religious liberty is not served. Moreover, the state must be even-handed in such matters.
[/quote]
These are different issues. No student is legally prevented from praying in school or reading from the Bible. I don’t know what particular case you’re talking about but it probably represents some teacher misunderstanding the law, not an imposition by the state. Speeches by Valedictorians are different because the speaker is speaking in an official capacity, using school PA’s and microphones, and speaking to basically a captive audience. If the speech has been pre-approved by the school, then it’s especially problematic because such approval amounts to a de facto state endorsement of any proselytizing content within the speech.
On the other hand, the ACLU has gone to bat in cases where students have been wrongly deprived of an opportunity to express personal religious messages in unofficial contexts (yearbooks, for instance).
The religious right is hardle a minority and it has never had a single right of practice abridged or restricted. They are not being persecuted or “bullied” by any minorities. Simply asking the state not ti endorse a particular religious view does not amount to an assault on anyone’s religious rights. This kind of paranoia is, frankly, laughable.
I don’t know what this statement is supposed to mean.
Excellent idea! In the meantime, we must work to eliminate all other non-inclusive things from our society. I suggest that we change the letter “T” to something else. It looks suspiciously like a cross. Also, we’ll need to burn all the books. The printing press was only invented to make bibles, so that whole technology is tainted.
Bill Maher has a good routine on this: Why must everybody do everything! Why does everything have to be “inclusive”? If 85% of the country is Christian, I don’t see why it would be a big deal even if we did have a holiday that’s Christian in nature. (This isn’t the case now, since Christmas is a secular holiday as has been pointed out.)
It’s not as if the government invented Christmas. It was already there. It’s going to be celebrated by nearly everyone regardless. All the government is doing is recognizing it. Not recognizing the Christmas holiday would be like the government refusing to pave or maintain a public road simply because it leads to a church.
I mean that Abraham Lincoln named it a national holiday in 1863.
Invisitext so that I need have nothing but a quote.
There is no conflict between those two statements. Christmas is neither exclusively nor originally a Christian holiday, but the “Christmas” IS a specifically Christian NAME. That’s why I’m only suggesting changing what the government (and only the government) calls the day in its official language. If you read my first post, you’ll see that I have not objected to the state holiday itself, only the official NAME for it.
It doesn’t really matter much from a practical standpoint. I’m just expressing a technical objection, not an emotional one. To me it’s in the same category as “In God we Trust” on the money. It’s mildly annoying and I firmly believe it’s a technical violation of the Establishment Clause but it’s not worth losing sleep about. If I’ve given the impression that I really care very much then that’s a mistake on my part. I’m not going out to march or anything. All i’m saying is that the state probably shouldn’t endorse “The Mass of Christ” in its official language. It’s a minor issue not a major one, but in the current political climate I guess that makes me an “anti-Christian Wacko.”
The reason I would be okay with a name change is fairly simple. Right now, it appears that people like Jerry Falwell believe that if Target doesn’t say “Merry Christmas” they are 1. being politically correct and, 2. persecuting Christians and, 3. denying that this is a Christian country.
Changing the “official” title of the holiday might take the wind out of the “But it’s Christian it’s Christian it’s Christian it’s Christian!” people’s sails, without changing anything fundamental about the holiday itself.
Now, would that wind-taking be worth getting all worked up about? No. I also don’t get worked up about “one nation under god” or “in god we trust.” But if someone wants to get worked up about it, I think they are right, though perhaps a leetle overwrought.
Stae official language != “society.”
Yeah, and I bet all your Christmas Tree ornaments were RED!! 
I have to agree that renaiming Christmas is idiotic. It’s no different than any other kind of doublespeak-- trying to make people think differently by changing the labels.
As for SuaSponte’s point, I disagree. Whether or not employers in the private sector declare Christmas a holiday is besides the point. The key issue is whether or not it’s a Federal Holiday-- ie, the gov’t shuts down. Suppose that we decided, as is common in Europe, to observe Good Friday as a Federal Holiday. Would you just say it doesn’t matter because employers could still require their employees to work? Rather, we should look at it the other way around. If Christmas were NOT a federal holiday, the rest of us could still take the day off if our employers so chose.
I tend to agree with **Diogenes **on this one, in that having Christmas as a Federal Holiday crosses the line of the establishment clause. But the political reality is that we’re not going to eliminate that holiday, or rename it.
I’m sorry, but this is a silly argument. Christians claim Christmas is a Christian holiday. Look at the OP. Look at Jerry Falwell. (I do the OP a disservice by mentioning him in the same paragraph as Falwell, and for that I apologize.) The name certainly is Christian. The holiday has Christian elements, plus elements of other religions, plus a heaping helping of secularity for spice.
Seeing that the name is Christian isn’t part of some conspiracy. If the holiday were called Yule, then the name would be a pagan one. If it were called “Saturnalia” then it would be named for a Roman god. These are facts not in dispute.
There are lots of words that have a religious origin that we use in areligious ways. “Holiday” is an excellent example. It’s unfair to claim that some big nasty group is trying to eradicate all religious mentions from common usage. It’s not happening, goddammit! <------ (See, no one is yelling at me for using that.)
But Christmas hasn’t completed its slide into secular language because some Christians won’t let it. So if they want to insist that it’s a Christian holiday, let them. Accomodate them by acknowledging that “Christmas” is a religious word, and not one that the government needs to use. Save it for the private sector, where it will continue to flourish.
Of course it is. I was deliberately being silly. Whoosh.
Scott Plaid, can you explain what you are referring to in post #45? I don’t follow. Did you post that in another thread?
That is a really bad reason for doing something. If you have to disagree with an idea simply because someone you dislike endorses that idea, then you’re really not thinking on your own. So what if JF wants to campaign to keep the name of Christmas? Fundamentally, he’s correct, even if his reasons are wrong. It is Christmas, not “Winter Holiday”.
Calling all anti-Christmas people: I’m quite sure that any serious proposal to eliminate the Federal holiday or to rename Christmas to something horrible-sounding would be a greivous mistake on behalf of the cause of secularism.
You must remember that it only takes a 2/3 vote of Congress and the assent of 3/4 of the states to rewrite the First Amendment’s take on the Establishment Clause. I can think of no easier way to mobilize such an effort than to get one’s panties in a wad over friggin’ Christmas. Idle debate is all well and good, but I would hope you’d agree that actually pressing this case would be monumentally stupid.
Yep, I agree 100%.
You were exaggerating for effect, but the effect was pointless. There is no similarity between “Christmas is a religiously named holiday” and “T looks like a cross and should be banned.”
I’m thinking on my own plenty. Falwell is attempting to use the name of the holiday as leverage. “Look, we have Christmas! It’s a Christian holiday! Proof that this is a Christian country!”
The name of the holiday is unimportant to me. It can be called Shmooday for all I care.
Either Christmas is religious, in which case the government shouldn’t recognize it, or Christmas is secular, in which case the religious can’t claim they are being persecuted if someone says “Happy holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas.”
So I assume that you agree with the ACLU that the seal of the City of Los Angeles should remove the picture of the mission that was in it? If so, I assume you’d advocate changing all city, street, and town names to purge them of and mention of “San” or “Saint”. Is that right? If not, why not?
Now, that’s a different argument than what you offered before. Previously, you basically said you wanted to change the name in order to stick it to Jerry Fallwell, which I think is not a justifiable reason for doing something. Fallwell’s position on this should be irrelavent. Either it’s a good idea to change the name, or it isn’t. I think it’s a bad idea, but I can respect your opinion otherwise.
Probably. And I’ve never heard anyone argue seriously for changing the name. I wouldn’t care if the name were changed. In a perfect world, I think the name might be changed. But then, in a perfect world, people wouldn’t use words as weapons and there wouldn’t be just one day a year I get lots of presents.
When I saw the above in post six of this threa, I could not believe you were bringing it up again.
Similarly, the months of January, February, March, April, May and June are all named after pagan deities, all of the days of the week are named after pagan deities, and the calendar we currently use was designed by the Catholic church. Obviously the government should be required to abandon it and create a secular calendar for its use.
Hell, if we’re gonna do this, let’s do it right …