Thing is, it really is celebrated as a non-religious holiday by a great many non- & indifferent Christians. So at most getting removed from the list of official holidays would just result in people coming up with some secular word for it and having that declared a holiday, and then everyone calling it Christmas anyway.
And really, this is a case of picking your battles. The fact is, the secularists have already largely won the Battle of Christmas by secularizing it. At this rate give it a few more generations and the name “Christmas” will have as much connection with Christianity as Thursday has with the worship of Thor. Why not stick with a winning strategy?
The names of the days of the week are, to anyone with half a functional brain and an ability to parse English prose, a clear endorsement of paganism, and Christians get it shoved down their throats 24/7/52, not just one day a year. The rational approach would be to rename them Firstday, Secondday and so on, just as the Society of Friends did, but nooo… :rolleyes:
The US courts have a complex way of turning down laws that obviously favor religion by invoking various non-demoninational/traditional excuses. Hence blue laws are okay as well as having “In God we trust” on coins and Congress starting off with prayers from limited types of religions.
Yeah, a federal Christmas holiday favors a specific religion. (And a subset of one at that. There are Christian sects that are anti-Christmas. I’m related to people of that ilk.) But judges are humans, flaws and all.
I like the way some companies handle this. You get X number of personal holidays and you can use them to take off whatever days you wish to celebrate.
How about we move the feast back to its original day?
the official secular name would be SOLSTICE Day and everyone can celebrate what or whoever they want on this 2 day holiday.
This is one of those times when the courts put up a polite fiction to dodge an issue that just isn’t important enough to get 75% or more of the population riled up about. Christmas is a Christian holiday. Full stop. It has some secular elements, but so does every holiday. Thank Og that Easter is on a Sunday.
I’d rather see the practical excuse used-- too many people would take the day off to make it practical for the rest to work. Not enough supervisors, support staff or whatever.
Just switch to speaking Hebrew
(well, except for that pesky Shabbat; although all it really means, when you take away the back-story, is “Day of Rest.”)
I hope you’re kidding, because that doesn’t mandate the names for the days of the week.
A better attack on a similar angle would be the naming of US cities after saints. Presumably, some of that happened after the ratification of the constitution. But good luck with that. Unless someone is proposing a name for a city today, I think we just have to accept that it’s grandfathered in after “x” number of years, and the hassle of changing it isn’t warranted.
Given the spending and consumption that seems to be the true meaning of a modern US Christmas, I believe it is the most American of all holidays. A true celebration of capitalism and excess!
Well, it officially mentions (declares? recognizes?) that Thursday is a day in November – indeed, that there are at least four Thursdays in November – which arguably gives it that aforementioned “appearance of public approval”.
Frankly I think coming up with a secular name would be preferable. Christmas is still to a significant degree an actively Christian holiday - moreso than a lot of people in this thread acknowledge. Coming up with purely secular holiday on the same day would solve a lot of problems: everyone could celebrate it (and no, not all non-Christians currently celebrate Christmas), the government wouldn’t get entangled in religion, and Christians wouldn’t feel like one of their big holidays is being diluted.
It’ll never happen, but it seems like a good idea to me.
I think we can safely assume that Malacandra was joking. But if you want to defend the idea that constitution mandates that we change the English language (or modify it when writing laws) such that no word used in any law may have a religious connotation, go ahead and make your case. I suppose we can’t have any “holidays”, then can we?
I don’t really see much of the issue with it, and I don’t celebrate Christmas at all. As others said, by closing the government, it doesn’t force anyone to recognize the holiday, they can sit at home and watch Maury Povich and Jerry Springer all day (are those shows still on?). What it does do is recognize that a lot of people do celebrate it and both allows those people to do so and recognize that and ,considering so many would take it off anyway, save the government money by just closing down.
For instance, Obama declared today a federal holiday and the government is closed for military and civilian but open for contractors. I’m at work today and the building I’m in usually has roughly 30 people in it, there are 4 of us here today, and it looks like we’re on the high side, not accounting for watchstanders, most of the other buildings on base are completely empty. So I think it only makes sense to let it be a holiday from that perspective.
No, my point was rather the opposite: you could say that I find “Thursday” as objectionable as “Christmas” – but it’d be more accurate to say that I find “Thursday” as unobjectionable as “Christmas”.
When you start havering on about Christmas yet again, there is very little chance that I will stop my eyes rolling long enough to find a cite that water is wet, so you’re in for a long wait.
I had no idea that what I posted had such an influence on your ability to discuss things intelligently. Since I last posted, I drove 100 miles and noticed several roadsigns (sponsored by the Knights of Columbus) exhorting us to “keep Christ in Christmas.” To me, they might as say “Fuck the Constitution” though the courts feel differently, and with amazingly blatent hypocrisy. I mean, as long as I get the day off, I couldn’t care less what the day is called, though the more religion bleeds into my daily life, the less I enjoy it. It’s just astonishing that a court lacks the stones to say “Ha, ha, non-believers, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, we were raised Christian, and this is a Christian country, and we’re going to celebrate the birth of Jesus whether you like it or not!! Ha, ha, ha!”, instead relying on flat contradictions to assert their own personal (and to my mind unconstituitonal) prejudices.
