No, it doesn’t, because rudeness lies not in the facts, but in the attitude. "I’m not being rude–I’m just speaking the TROOOOOOTH!!!11!1"is the first refuge of the boorish.
I made the argument without contemptuous and contemptible
stereotyping. You didn’t; and therein lies the difference.
Daniel
If the government has to use the common term, they should have a “4th of July” holiday. Instead, it’s “Independence Day.”
There’s no reason the common term and the official term have to be the same word or words.
Words can invoke change. The Christians overlaid their holidays on older festivals and renamed them. To the victor belongs the spoils, and I think it’s clear that secular Christmas has overtaken religious Christmas. Hell, that’s what the religious Christians get so pissed off about.
There’s nothing imprecise about having two terms for something, one of which the religious folk use, the other that the government uses, and the rest of us get to pick which one we like better. Having two terms for two similar things is better than having one term for two dissimilar things, if your interest really is communication.
In the midst of much apparent rudeness and ridicule, I wish everyone here a Merry Xmas.
Bah Humbug!
First off, I’m guessing that you’ll find nowhere near the consensus on what to call July 4 as you’ll find on what to call December 25. Second, July 4 is a holiday invented by the government (or vice versa); their decision on what to call it has an official quality that is disanalogous from what the government chooses to call December 25. Third, if the government decided to call it The Fourth of July, I wouldn’t have a problem with that.
There’s nothing imprecise about it, but there is something obfuscatory about it. And nobody has demonstrated any harm whatsoever behind the government’s referring to the holiday the way that it’s universally referred to by the government’s constituents.
Daniel
:shrug:
You’re entitled to your opinion. I disagree, of course. 
I said the secular left was “wacko” you called their position “ridiculous”. Tomato, Tomaato.
Aren’t I allowed to poke fun at stereotypes as long as your a member of the group? (Ex: A Polish guy can make polish jokes without being a racist.) I am a secular person. That’s why it irks me even more that some secular people can be such wackos.
Holy pronoun confusion, Batman. “Aren’t I allowed to poke fun at stereotypes as long as I’m a member of the group?”
I don’t think I need to demonstrate harm to say that in an ideal world the US government wouldn’t have a holiday called “Christmas.” You will recall, I hope, that no one in this thread has said that he wants to see it changed. A couple of us have said that yeah, it’s not a neutral term and yeah, a different name might be nice. So it doesn’t make sense to say that we haven’t demonstrated harm or thought of the practicalities when none of us are suggesting this happen.
It’s definitely a Caesar’s wife sort of situation.
Yes it is. It’s a ridiculous stretch. The ACLU fights FOR religious rights, not against them. I defy you to show a single cite for the ACLU ever once lobbying to deprive a single person of his right to free practice of religion. I can show you cites where they have fought to protect the rights of Christian students in public schools. You can’t show me any where they tried to deprive any Christians of their rights.
Regards,
Shodan
So, the whole “Your Right to swing fist your ends when it reaches my nose” fact goes away when you want it to, I suppose.
Actually, yes you do.
Unless you want to establish the principle of “you aren’t hurting anyone, but I don’t like it, so stop” as valid. In which case, gay marriage is done for.
Regards,
Shodan
What does this link have to do with my question? I asked for a cite for the ACLU trying to abridge anyone’s religious freedoms. You linked to an ACLU list of John Ashcroft’s civil liberties abuses. How does that constutute a response to my question? Are you actually trying to suggest that Mr. Ashcrofts religious liberties have somehow been assaulted by the ACLU? Please specify exactly what religious right you think the ACLU is attacking on this page. As it stands, I’m baffled by your link. It seems to be a complete non-sequitur. Did you accidentally link the wrong page or something?
The establishment Clause doesn’t say it’s ok to endorse a religious view “if you aren’t hurting anyone.” The government doesn’t have a right to endorse Christianity. Period.
But they don’t. They’ve got employees who celebrate a holiday on December 25, and those employees call their holiday Christmas, so the government calls the holiday by the name that it’s known by.
If my name is Jesus Almodovar and I get a job for the government, should the government change my name to James–er, Josh–er, Jay? Of course not: the fact that the government refers to me by a name with a Christian etymology does not constitute government endorsement of Christianity. Changing my name in government documents would be obfuscatory and unhelpful. Similarly, they’re calling a holiday by a name with a Christian etymology because that’s its name. Coming up with a new name for it would be obfuscatory and unhelpful.
Daniel
Did you even read the thread? How many times do I have to repeat that I am not, and have not, suggested that it be stopped? In an ideal world, you would get your head out of your ass. That doesn’t mean that you’re hurting anyone, except maybe yourself, by having your head in your ass.
You’ve lost me. How is that not the government having a holiday called “Christmas”?
In the sense that the government has an employee named Jesus, they’ve got a holiday named Christmas. But the government is no more responsible for the holiday’s name than for the employee’s name, and it would be equally silly for them to create a new name for either the holiday or them employee.
Daniel
Well, I’m not Shodan, but perhaps he is referring to the 3rd bullet in “Other Concerns”
I personally fail to see how a person having voluntary sessions of prayer and Bible study blurs the line between separation of church and state. Granted, this doesn’t really fit your definition of the ACLU abridging Ashcroft’s right to carry out these activities, but the fact that they find such mundane activities as a “concern” is a little troubling to me.
That’s a good point. But my argument would be that the government’s “Christmas” isn’t the same thing as Jerry Falwell’s “Christmas.” At least it shouldn’t be. The government’s Christmas includes a day off and trees stuck on windows (that’s how the local SSA office decorates, with window clings). Jerry Falwell’s Christmas includes nativity scenes and religious ceremonies.
If government employees want to put a big nativity scene in city hall, should that be okay? After all, that wouldn’t be the government making a choice or picking the decorations, just allowing an extant holiday to be expressed in a pre-existing way. Or if it’s not universal, does that make it not okay?