It’s Called Christmas!
November 30th, 2007 by ACTivist
It is that time of the year where the Christian world gets to celebrate a most favorable day-the birth of Christ Jesus. Or is it? The cards have started rolling in with funny scenes and sayings. The stores are actively pushing their wares under the “Happy Holidays” banner. What holidays? New Years Day is a holiday but we don’t give gifts. Chanukka is a gift giving time but we don’t get a holiday for it. What happened to Christmas? Now there is the real question.
Christmas isn’t gift giving. It is a time off to allow Christians the chance to worship the birth of our Savior. It allows all believers of different religions and non-believers alike to have a “holiday” from work or an excuse to do whatever. But Christmas is truly for Christians. Don’t allow the watering-down of its real reason. Don’t be politically correct and subvert its intent. Our savior is born and allow us to celebrate for His sake. Understand what this day is and call it by its name……..Christmas!
Merry Christmas to all. May God grant us peace.
This entry was posted on Friday, November 30th, 2007 at 9:19 am and is filed under Holidays, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:50 am
“Understand what this day is and call it by its name……..Christmas!”
Why should a person who wishes to send you a card to wish you a happy holiday be forced to reference a religion he/she does not believe in? Can’t you be happy that even the evil Jews and Muslims wish you well during this time of year?
Maybe what is needed is less “celebrating” the birth of Jesus and more contemplating the message of Jesus. Perhaps you can consider that Jesus may not wish you snub those who wish you well simply because they did not invoke His name while doing so.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:02 am
Personally, I like to alleviate work for the postal workers by NOT sending cards this time of year. I love sending cards throughout the year when I think of someone. Keep a bunch of pretty postcards handy in a kitchen drawer. Postage 26 cents.
November 30th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Those captured by the god of political correctness don’t seem to get it.
You have go very slow or use crayon in order for them to capture the meaning of all of this.
The Holiday IS called Christmas. The name itself only has 9 letters. The first 6 letters spell Christ. Christ was the son of God. The holiday is a celebration of his birth, hence the name Christmas. This is not real complicated.
For those who do not believe in Christ, that is OK, no problem. Don’t celebrate the holiday. I will not insist you add my beliefs or concerns when you celebrate Budda or Frosty the Snowmans birthdays. I will never insist anyone add the cross to their Kwanza festival.Might I suggest you do the same.
If the celebration of Christmas offends you, tough, get over it. Your right to persue happiness does not not include the right to never be offended. If the thought of others celebrating a religious holiday makes you so uncomfortable, might I suggest a hobby or a pet.
Merry Christmas !!!
November 30th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Troll,
You just don’t get it. The “evil Jews and Muslims” as you put it, would wish me Merry Christmas because they are recognizing MY special day. They don’t have to believe in what I believe to respect my beliefs. Just as I respect theirs. At least they recognize the occassion and what it means. You are part of the problem of this occassion. It is considered a Holy day and deserves that respect.
Greg,
You do get it. Well said.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
So, are stores supposed to wish everyone that comes in a Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, and Happy Kwanzaa?
Isn’t it just easier to wish everyone Happy Holidays so that if you’re Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Atheist, or whatever, you’re still welcomed?
You guys put such a small box around your world, and then when you’re reminded that not everyone in the world fits in that little box (and, in fact, you’re just a tiny minority), then you get all confused and think everyone else is a moron.
Well, guess what? When everyone’s out of step but you, time to look in the mirror.
December 1st, 2007 at 9:51 am
Sanity,
It is up to the establishment (store, restaurant, gas station, etc) to determine how to address their customers.
Not sure what “tiny minority” you are talking about, given that the United States is overwhelmingly Christian. If I were in Iran I certainly wouldn’t expect a “Merry Christmas” from behind the counter of the photo hut, and I would not take offense to any Muslim Holy greeting. I don’t think I’ll ever visit Iran, but you get my drift.
If you want to wish everyone a “Happy Holiday” feel free to do so, but don’t throw a hissy fit at those of us that wish others a “Merry Christmas.” Smile and wish them a Happy Holiday in return and go about your business, I do it all the time, it is called manners.
December 1st, 2007 at 9:55 pm
C-mac,
No one is complaining about individuals wishing each other anything. The right wing nuts (RWN’s) complain about stores wishing people “Happy Holidays” and companies having “Holiday Parties”. They are anti-diversity calling it “political correctness”. I call it good business.
I was referring to the RWN’s as the tiny minority. Non-Christians are at least 15% of the U.S. This is a larger percentage of African-Americans and a larger percentage of Hispanics. If you feel that businesses shouldn’t ignore either of those minorites, than they probably shouldn’t ignore non-Christians either.
Having a “Holiday Party” and playing secular Christmas music (Frosty the Snowman, etc.) are typically the easiest ways to be “with the program” without being religion-specific. I support this.
The RWN’s seem to think that we should ignore everyone’s perspective except white Christians. That’s what my post is in response to.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:00 pm
What if the 85% Christian Majority raise a fit about “Happy Holiday,” would their complaints be heard? Does majority rule or do those that scream the loudest win when it comes to tradition and culture? Unfortunately, it is the later. We are living in a country where slowly but surely the minority rules and to hell with the rest of us.
I don’t know where you were going with the 15% racial minority vs 15% non-christians. If you are referring to discrimination, there is no comparison.
Most Christians I know are not RWN’s, but they are tired of hearing about how wrong and narrow-minded greetings such as “Merry Christmas” are. Like G. Stone said, there is no right not to be offended.
Merry Christmas!
December 2nd, 2007 at 8:22 pm
Happy Holidays everyone! and I mean EVERYONE!!!
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:29 pm
fact: there is more than one holiday this time of year, hence the plural “holidays”
fact: there’s nothing stopping you from saying merry Christmas to whomever you want. 1st amendment. If you say merry christmas to someone, and they tell you to go f— yourself, also 1st amendment.
If a store wants to put up a banner that says, “Happy Holidays,” or if they want to put up a nativity, there’s not a damn thing anyone can do about it.
…well, they can get annoyed, and shop somewhere else if they want to, that’s freedom, baby. If it’s good enough for the Iraqis it’s good enough for us.
fact: this is another one of those BS non issues the Party’s echo chamber uses to whip up the base.
fact: Home Depot is not a church, and is in no way obligated to proselytize to customers
qed
December 3rd, 2007 at 9:13 am
Stay Puff:
I couldn’t agree more, you are talking about a couple different things.
1st Amendment - yes. Saying “FU” to a Merry Christmas - bad manners. Organizations bowing to Political Correctness and using Happy Holidays - disturbing.
Whipping up the base of any party has nothing to do with it. Regular people are tired of the Political Correctness affecting our culture - it has been going out for decades.
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:10 pm
RWN’s, the Party, secular holiday parties, minorities, diversity, even Kwansaa(?). This is the point and shows where some people are-lost. Stamp out or nullify what you don’t like if it isn’t “diverse” enough for your tastes. I wonder what other “holidays” will be watered down for lack of diverseness. With minds like these is it any wonder why America is losing its sovereignty?
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Two things ACT:
“The “evil Jews and Muslims” as you put it, would wish me Merry Christmas because they are recognizing MY special day. They don’t have to believe in what I believe to respect my beliefs.”
What you are saying is if you can’t wish me well the way I want you to, I don’t want your good will. Real “Christian” attitude there.
AND
“I wonder what other “holidays” will be watered down for lack of diverseness.”
Why do you rely on popular culture or public opinion to define the validity of your own religion? Its your holiday, go celebrate it - no one is stopping you.
December 3rd, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Troll,
“What you are saying is if you can’t wish me well the way I want you to, I don’t want your good will. Real “Christian” attitude there.”
That may be your inturpretation but that is NOT what I’m saying. It is validation and respect. AND you STILL don’t get it. That’s alright. I’m sure the calender you use shows December 25th as “Holiday Day”.
December 3rd, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Here’s a novel idea:
Do what you feel comfortable with, and don’t be offended when others do the same.
Lighten up, y’all.
December 3rd, 2007 at 2:51 pm
“It is validation and respect.”
And my question stands, why do you have to demand to “respect” from other to validate your religion for you? Are you really that insecure in your beliefs?
“I’m sure the calender you use shows December 25th as “Holiday Day”.”
I do use the “holiday” euphemism when speaking to my traditional Jewish sister-in-law. Otherwise, I celebrate the Christmas holiday and am perfectly happy about balancing the two in our culture along with whatever else may require accomodation. No skin off my nose and I’ll take all the “Happy Holiday” wishers I can get regardless of who they worship.
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:00 pm
FYI - The Town of Herndon calendar lists 25 December as “Christmas Day”.
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Of COURSE the Town of Herndon lists December 25th as Christmas, because it is! It likely also lists the start of Hanukkah and (possibly) the start of Kwanzaa. It might even list New Year’s Day as January 1st!
The issue is whether it’s right to cram the Christian holiday down everyone else’s throat. It’s YOU who are disrespecting everyone else by insisting that everyone say Merry Christmas instead of Happy Holidays.
Happy Holidays is a sane way for businesses to friendly greet our diverse population without excluding any sizable minorities. “Inclusion” is the right answer, “exclusion” (which y’all seem to preach) is not the answer.
You’re complaining, not about Christmas or Christianity getting the shaft, but that a lot of us are refusing to give the shaft to non-Christians. You’re pissed ‘cuz you can’t Lord it over everyone (pun very intended) like you used to.
Embrace diversity. Embrace inclusion. That’s what we’ve always done. It wasn’t too long ago that the hellfire and brimstone Protestants were complaining the same way about the Roman Catholics. Put a sock in it.
December 3rd, 2007 at 9:26 pm
dude no one is “watering down” Christmas. Seriously. Christmas is the most overblown holiday imaginable. Giant inflatable gas-powered nativity scenes, Jesus Mary and Joseph!
http://purgatorio1.com/wp-content/pics/inflatednativity.jpg
I don’t hear Jews complaining that some “happy holidays” banner is forcing them to water down their observance of Chanukah. Know why? Because it isn’t! If the sign in the walmart entrance is affecting your ability to observe the birth of the lord baby Jesus, maybe you need some adderall.
Cathy: if you think stores wishing you happy holidays is disturbing, I have one word for you: Gitmo.
December 4th, 2007 at 7:46 am
Stay Puft: It is stores and people secumbing to the PC craze that is disturbing, not the greeting. You need a little holiday cheer.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
don’t you mean christmas cheer?
December 4th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
All,
This is a country where over 80% of the people are self identified Christians. The ACLU types file a suits forbidding colored lights in public areas. We have Target not allowing Santa’s. Other assorted acts of PC-ness. OK, the 15 to 20% find the 80% to 85% offensive.
So were is the tolerance? If I recall 1/2 troll and the rest of the PC crowd are always crowing how tolerent we neanderthal christian rwn need to be. Look in the mirror, practice what you preach.
So we have a vocal, intolerant minority demanding it not be offended. Not being offended is not part of the deal. A pluralistic society involves running into sharp elbows. It also involves people not having to agree with you or approving of you choices.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
http://www.coloradoan.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071107/NEWS01/711070323/1002/CUSTOMERSERVICE02
This is just a sample of what I am talking about. If multi-cultural holidays start Nov.1st and go thru Jan. 30th, why don’t we hear anything until Thanksgiving? Then you only hear Happy Thanksgiving. Afetr New Years you don’t hear anything again. During Dec. you will hear Happy Chanukka, Happy Holidays and Happy Kwanssa. Where did Christmas go? Hmm. Where are all these “other” holiday observances? Hmm. American law and faith were (and still are) based on the Christian faith. Christian-Christ-Christmas! Now I get it! We are trying to stamp out the Christian faith. Otherwise we would celebrate and “list” Christmas as the holiday it is. Christmas is for Santa Claus and Easter is for the Easter Bunny. Let’s change the names of those days so that we don’t get them confused with “White Christian Religion” nut-jobs. After all, that would be the politically correct thing to do.
Jesus told his followers there would be times like these. Not a bad 2,000 year profiecy.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Marshmallow,
I ceratinly mean Christmas Cheer. Have a great Holiday. (or do you celebrate Christmas?)
December 4th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
stay puft: Whichever you prefer.
December 4th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
It’s because of folks like you that we have the Bill of Rights. Thank God for that? Or would you guys say Satan? After all, the only good amendment is the 2nd, right?
We’re supposed to be PROTECTING minorities, not suppressing them. You don’t think that a city that displays only Christian stuff is violating the establishment clause? Sure seems like an implicit sponsoring of a religion to me!
Jesus, if I recall, was completely against getting involved in state government in any way. If your brand of Christianity can get stamped out just by ensuring local governments don’t endorse it, that’s pretty darn sad. Christianity has survived much worse. Not, of course, by trying to be “king of the hill”, but by spreading its messages of peace, love, brotherhood, and eternal salvation.
You should try it some time! (How you guys can miss His messages so completely is something I have yet to understand.)
Said the night wind to the little lamb,
“Do you see what I see?
Way up in the sky, little lamb,
Do you see what I see?
A star, a star, dancing in the night
With a tail as big as a kite,
With a tail as big as a kite.”
Said the little lamb to the shepherd boy,
“Do you hear what I hear?
Ringing through the sky, shepherd boy,
Do you hear what I hear?
A song, a song high above the trees
With a voice as big as the the sea,
With a voice as big as the the sea.”
Said the shepherd boy to the mighty king,
“Do you know what I know?
In your palace warm, mighty king,
Do you know what I know?
A Child, a Child shivers in the cold–
Let us bring him silver and gold,
Let us bring him silver and gold.”
Said the king to the people everywhere,
“Listen to what I say!
Pray for peace, people, everywhere,
Listen to what I say!
The Child, the Child sleeping in the night
He will bring us goodness and light,
He will bring us goodness and light.”
December 4th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Insanity,
Protecting minorities is miles away from cowering before them. Furthermore, being offended is also miles away from being oppressed. Not sorry at all my belief system offends you.
As for amendments, I like the first ten. I like the tenth the best. It is the forgotten amendment.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:54 am
This may seem a little like a ramble, but hang with me….
Original position of the country: Established in attempting to escape the religious persecution of the European countries that had established, government sponsored religion (denominations would be more the word, since it was Roman Catholic, Episcopal, or some of the minor denominations at the time). People moved here with a broad acceptance of the idea that in a free, non-coerced environment, they would thrive.
The amendments to the constitution should be read not in our culture, but in that culture. If what it says is not okay, then the constitution has a mechanism for change — not through interpretation through the lens of a different culture, but through amendment (it has worked well in the past and can do so again).
Those that are Christians in this country should not be surprised that from their world view, the country is going down the tubes. The initial position of the country was from a strong, reformed faith perspective — the initial immigrants where out of England (Protestants, many “Puritans”, Presbyterians, and reformed Baptists) France (the Huguenots) and some from Germany. The vast majority of the immigrants where serious enough about their faith that they would leave their homes, take what little they could on a small ship, and travel for months at sea with all the peril that entailed in order to stay within their own faith. The religious capital of those founding fathers has been dissipating ever since. This used to be a country that truly believed (hundreds of years ago) that there was one God existent in three persons, and that is what they felt would be the case for many generations.
Early Christian church: Before the rise of Constantine and his legalizing Christianity (worst thing that ever happened to the church, by the way) the church was a church under siege. As a church under siege, the people knew they were risking their lives for being “atheists” (the charge against Christians during the centuries immediately following Jesus’ time on Earth). The carried on in secret, they did what was required in order to survive (including working on Sundays, meeting during their few “days off” whenever that would be — even if the main body met on Sunday). They were in a world that hated them, because no servant is above his master. If the world killed Jesus, it would persecute the servants of Jesus even more. Sometimes we forget that in this country where the Christians started the governments and institutions. But were did it get the church? (Not the church at that particular time, but the Church — that eternal organization of all those that have willingly bowed the knew to Christ in this age rather than those that will bow the knee in the age to come to Christ, as all must, but because of the conquest of Jesus at the end of this age.) The church in this age has grown fat and lazy. Very few today would seriously give up anything for the sake of their beliefs. Few today even know what they believe.
If the church in this country is no longer willing (at least even a bare majority) to suffer for the sake of the gospel, then how do we expect the church to thrive and be light and salt? If we change churches because we don’t like the programs at one local church, even though the Word is properly preached, the gospel is unadulterated with “God is your buddy” or “God is the path to wealth” then how do we expect to have that lukewarm church affect the world? If the salt looses its saltiness, it is worthless — don’t make the mistake of thinking “but to be thrown out and tramped under the feet of men” is some lingering value — salt was more precious than almost anything, and if you would throw it out, it was worthless.
The idea of finding a Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego today that would willing give their bodies to be burned rather than worship other gods is strange. The country is slowly sinking to the mean/median of the world. While some of the past heritage remains, unless God hears the prayers of his saints crying out for this country, I do not believe it will get better. The only path for it to get better is the people, who are called by Christ’s name to humble themselves and pray, turn from their wicked ways, then God will hear from heaven and heal the land.
December 5th, 2007 at 10:04 am
Brian,
“The only path for it to get better is the people, who are called by Christ’s name to humble themselves and pray, turn from their wicked ways, then God will hear from heaven and heal the land.”
I see Christmas as a reminder to those “of Christian faith” and others who have no faith and are lost to explore and understand what it is to be Christian. “You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink”. If we dilute Christmas-time for diversity’s sake, those that may be saved will have one less reminding opportunity.
BTW as you already know, Constantine also changed the true Sabbath from saturday to sunday for the sake of Christianity. Another bad idea.
December 5th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
“Season’s Greetings” and “Happy Holidays” may come across as bland and politically correct. But as James Lileks documents on his blog, the shift toward such nonsectarian greetings actually began in America in the 1950s, not as an attack on religion but in “acknowledgment” of an increasingly diverse society…part of “evolution” people (for those who deny we “evolve”)!
At a recent press conference, President Bush wished everyone “Happy holidays” twice and “never” mentioned Christmas. He must be in on the left-wing plot…LOL!!!
December 6th, 2007 at 7:49 am
Mark - That is all well and good, however if someone is going to get offended at Merry Christmas they have growin’ up to do. Diversity goes both ways.
December 6th, 2007 at 9:09 am
Cathymac,
I never read in the original post nor have I ever had anyone get offended by the words “Merry Christmas”….if this has happened (I’m sure it has) it’s such a small fraction not worth discussion.
Those Americans who don’t celebrate Christmas obviously have to be tolerant of the vast majority who do; but they also have a “right” to a public square which does not loudly tell them they don’t belong.
It’s worth noting, too, that quite a few non-Christian Americans celebrate Christmas as a “cultural tradition”, and being inclusive toward them is a “good thing”.
Meanwhile, many Christians are genuinely concerned about the secularization and commercialization of the holiday. But for those who truly want to “put Christ back into Christmas,” the answer is in giving more time and attention to religious and charitable activities, not in demanding more Christian symbolism at the place where you shop.
Macy’s is not a temple…LOL!!!
December 6th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Mark: Where is the right in the Constitution, Bill of Rights or Amendments that protects someone from feeling like they don’t belong? I missed that one in history class.
Oh, wait, it may be listed after the right to drive a car or health insurance.
What you are talking about is feelings, not rights. There is no consitutional right to feel good. I think in your world the minority always rules, so that they won’t feel like they don’t belong.
December 6th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Sorry, meant say “Constitution, Bill of Rights thru Amendments” - it is all one document.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:36 am
Activist,
There is evidence in the New Testament that Christians from the time of Paul met on the first day of the week. Acts 20:7 speaks explicitly to worship (the breaking of bread is the communion table) and implicitly in 1 Cor 16:2 (the setting aside money for the relief effort is done on the first day of the week — the offering). The day was referred to as “the Lord’s day” in Rev. 1:10. And it appears to have been the sabbath from the time of the apostles.
December 7th, 2007 at 10:11 am
Brian,
Lots of controversy as to those scripture meanings (sabbath from friday night to saturday night). It was factual though that the Christians tried to “distance” themselves from the Jews because of persicution and with the Roman Empire dictating worship on Sunday, it did make it conveniant later. Still, the Sabbath seems to hold as the “seventh day”.
John
“I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day.” Rev. 1:10 (Mark 2:28, Isa.58:13, Ex.20:10, Clearly show the Sabbath to be the Lord’s day).
December 7th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
not sure what you’re implying Cathy. Seems like you’re saying that because the constitution doesn’t explicitly state that we ought to seek exclusivity in our communities, we needn’t worry about it.
The constitution does not prohibit us form being jerks to each other. I would submit that, nonetheless, we should not be jerks to each other. What good will possibly come out of alienating minority groups in the public square (fig & lit.)? That’s been the root cause of many a violent insurrection the world over.
Having said that, I don’t see any reason why a town shouldn’t recognize the religious beliefs of it’s denizens. If the town plaza has a menorah in it, I wouldn’t be offended. I don’t think too many non Christians would take offense to a Christmas tree, provided the town gives a hats off to it’s resident non-Christians.
I realize that the law of the blogosphere is never give in, but do you seriously have a problem with that? Do you really believe that acknowledging that some people are celebrating holidays other than Christmas amounts to kowtowing to minorities?
Stores put up banners that say happy holidays or seasons greetings for essentially the same reason, and because it’s more convenient than listing a bunch of holidays. Those banner-makers charge by the letter, you know.
December 8th, 2007 at 8:52 am
stay puft:
Never give in? I am not arguing that heartily.
What I am pointing out (yet again) is that offending people and good manners are not covered in the Consitution. It goes both ways.
Someone is always going to be alientated, that is a fact of life. If I am alienated in some small way I walk away, I suggest others do the same.
If we are going to have a “violent insurrection” over a Xmas tree or the display of a religious symbol in the town square, we (as a country) are already toast.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Cathymac,
It’s obvious you don’t get the establishment clause of the first Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
In a nutshell, it means that if YOU want to celebrate Christmas, say Merry Christmas to everyone, and put a manger scene on your front lawn, NO PROBLEM. But it also means that if our government (any branch at any level) does the same things, especially without doing the same for other religions, then it can certainly be viewed as the government saying “Christianity is the most important religion in the U.S.”
This implies an establishment of a national religion and so is forbidden. It doesn’t matter that 85% of the citizens say they’re Christians. The Bill of Rights is intended to protect minorities from the majority and to protect the citizens from the government.
Stores can be Christian-specific if they want to, but it’s bad business.
All of this comes from England’s history of switching between Protestant (Anglican Church of England) and Catholic (Church of Rome). Many people died as the government (read Kings and/or Queens) changed the national religion. I understand the Protestants and Catholics were both Christian, but it doesn’t matter. Protestant vs. Catholic or Islam vs. Judaism vs. Christiantiy. Same idea. We don’t want the same crap that England went through, so our far-sighted forefathers said “No National Religion”.
This allows us to have Mitt Romney run for president without us worrying that any law that contradicts Mormonism will be repealed.
Now, certainly reasonable people can disagree on whether a high school football coach saying a prayer in front of his team violates the establishment clause. But only unreasonable people can disagree about something as egregious as the Ten Commandments on the wall above a judges bench. Not that the Ten Commandments are bad, but there’s not much that screams “Establishment of Religion” like a religion’s top 10 laws looked at as the guide for our court system.
Bottom line: Celebrate Christmas all you want, but give slack to anyone else that wants to be generic. It’s their right to act that way as much as it is yours to act Christian.
December 8th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
yeah …besides, it’s not a question of what’s constitutional, it’s a matter of what’s bes practice for managing communities made up of people of different religions. ask yourself, is what you’re arguing for a step toward a more inclusive or exclusive society?
now I’m not saying this is going to bring the nation to violence, just pointing out that exclusion and alienation practices are the root cause for all sorts of ethnic tensions, and I see no value in going down that road.
as far as the public square goes, maybe a solution would be for cities to not do the decorating, but for local organizations to do it instead. So K of C could sponsor the christmas tree in town plaza, and chabad house can pay for the menorah. This ought to appeal to any conservative who would rather see people taking responsibility for their communities then for their government to use tax dollars to do things for them. I’m not saying that there should be no decorations, I’m just saying let’s be reasonable
December 9th, 2007 at 12:59 am
Sanity,
I realize the SCOTUS has incorrectly read the amendment. As you quoted: “*Congress* shall make no law …” which is different than what the SCOTUS has ruled. I totally agree with the history of the issue — the founding fathers were not so much using foresight as you stated, but hindsight. They saw the dealings with the establishment of the Anglicans, the RCs, and Baptists (you forgot about Cromwell) and wanted to make sure there was no official state religion. They did not intend what the SCOTUS in recent history changed the meaning of that amendment. They could not have meant it, for many of those that were there were church leaders that relied upon pew taxes for support, and did not find it objectionable. They would certainly not want a national religion — congress was prohibited from establishing such — nor would they want free exercise of religion regulated at the national level. But nowhere in that amendment does it say anything about a local government doing anything. Congress is not the township, county supervisors, the state legislature, governor, or any other body. The SCOTUS erred in expanding the prohibition. Their job is not to change what was stated, but only to say what was stated. The constitution has a mechanism for change (the amendment process) and that has a high bar specifically so change cannot be made easily, but can be made when necessary.
December 9th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
it’s a moot point. The question is whether or not this is such an important issue that it warrants alienating a segment of the community on religious grounds.
Whether it’s in the constitution and whether it’s a good idea for state/local governments to adopt official religious are two different questions. However, states and local governments have refrained from this practice thus far, so its kind of a tradition, if not a de facto common law, that we will not have to deal with the tensions that would arise from the establishment of, say, the Catholic State of New Jersey, or the United Fundamentalist Fiefdoms of America.
can you please tell me what good will come of using Christmas as a blunt object to beat religious minorities over the head with?
regardless of the constitution, the real issue is whether it’s appropriate for the majority religious group to disregard/scoff at the concerns of minority groups, and essentially use a major holiday to bully other groups into submission. I’m saying “No” and you’re saying “It’s not unconstitutional” which skirts the real question of appropriateness. Instead of concerning ourselves with whether we’re within the letter or the law, let’s think about how to deal with the issue as Americans.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Marshmallow,
I feel a head ache coming on …
“However, states and local governments have refrained from this practice thus far, so its kind of a tradition, if not a de facto common law, that we will not have to deal with the tensions that would arise from the establishment of, say, the Catholic State of New Jersey, or the United Fundamentalist Fiefdoms of America.”
The state of the union at the time of the founding witnessed state established relious sects. VA was officialially Episcopalean, and collected taxes to support the church. Pennsylvania was the quaker state and the laws in the state reflected this. Marland was the Catholic refuge in the colonies. Note there was border skirmishes before the revolution between the two colonies. Rhode Island was Baptist, officially so. NY and NJ did not have a sponsored Protestant sect as these where originally Dutch so there was a mingling right off.
The states over the next 40 years repealed or forgot the status of one sect over another peacefully. Thus avoiding what could have been some real ugly sectarian schisms. This whole question in light of the 14th ammendment gets stickier yet.
“Whether it’s in the constitution and whether it’s a good idea for state/local governments to adopt official religious are two different questions.”
It was understood that localities could and already had established religions. The proscription for this was against congress/the federal government.
The founders remebered Cromwell (as Insanity mentioned) and did not want to go anywhere near that idea. England was strongly catholic in the north and the highlands. The English Rev. brought that to an end in a bloody way. The founders were happy to leave the religious texture of the different states in place, rather than try to bring about some orthodoxy, and with it a new world version of the “30 years war”.
December 14th, 2007 at 9:03 am
I do not have the time to read everyone’s comments right now, but I will be back.
I WOULD like to comment to Troll, though. I do not have any Muslim friends or any that celebrate Kwanza. I do, however, have Jewish friends. And each year I’ve found a card which wishes them a happy Hanukkah because I respect the fact that they worship in a different manner than I do as a Christian. I’m not sure how others believe, but as a Christian I’m to be TOLERANT of others. I do not get offended if someone says “Happy Holidays” or sends me a card of the season that says such because, personally, if I say Happy Holidays, I mean to include the New Year’s holiday as well. What I am offended by is if someone wants to argue and tell me that it is “politically incorrect” to say “Merry Christmas” at all. I am like anyone else and do not wish to have my right taken away from me to believe as I choose to believe.
December 14th, 2007 at 9:45 am
Wish I had checked back earlier.
Becky - you are correct - the PC factor is the most offensive.
December 14th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Jacob,
“Thus avoiding what could have been some real ugly sectarian schisms.” says it all, right?
I’m sure you’re familiar with Jefferson’s letter, in which he wrote,
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”
Others of the “founding fathers” made similar statements regarding the need to keep religion and government separate. I’m sure you’re familiar with those as well.
This separation of church and state is an implicit, if not explicit, part of the constitution, and has historically been interpreted as such. While there have been periods of overlap between government and religion in our country’s history, these arrangements have been abandoned in the interest of a sane and stable society. Thus we have a cultural tradition, inspired by the 1st amendment and the spirit in which it was written, of maintaining a separation between religion and the state, which ought to be (and indeed tends to be) observed at all levels of government.
December 15th, 2007 at 12:35 am
But does that mean that our elected officials cannot call upon their religious beliefs to guide their decisions?
How is it that our Congress can unanimously pass a resolution praising Ramadan, but not Christmas? Our own Bobby Scott voted against the Christmas resolution. Naturally, all nine who voted for the Ramadan resolution and against the Christmas resolution were Democrats.
Is anyone surprised?
December 15th, 2007 at 9:04 am
Marshmallow,
Yes, I am familiar with it. That letter was given legal status for reasons that still boggle the mind. It is not a founding document. If you read the body of Jefferson’s works you will see he is nowhere else as hostile towards the practice of religion in the public square.
Free exercise of religion means it can be practiced not just in the home, but in the public square. If this offends someone, that is the price you pay for living in a pluralistic society. I get offended by what I see as the coarsening of our society. Guess what, that is not societies’ problem, its mine.
If some atheist, or some other minority is offended by Christian manger scenes in the town square, too bad for them. This is not Congress establishing anything; it’s the town of Paduka or whatever setting up a manger scene. Being free from offense does not jive with living in a republic.
If you look at the VA constitution, which Jefferson wrote, you will see not see such language either. Holding on to this one letter as some sort of garlic bundle to ward off the Christian vampires verges on the ludicrous. That a court decision 170 years after the founding used it to make bad law is not surprising; when a Judge is being an activist he will grasp at straws. This one letter is not the lens I would use to view the 1st amendment.
Separation of Church and State is a concept rooted in a letter, not the constitution. The first amendment implies local government, but not the federal is free to enact religious establishment. Such is what is written in the founding document. Marshmallow, you have turned the language not on its head but sideways.
My point in my previous letter was that we were quiet sectarian when this country was founded. Though we had learned not to get violent.
In the letters and speeches of our founding fathers, and the overwhelming majority of our presidents God is referenced explicitly numerous times. In these documents God and not Government is the granter of our rights. For every cautionary word warning against sectarianism, there is many words affirming the God as the wellspring of our rights.
There are even more words warning against the free exercise of religion; Adams, Jefferson and Franklin spring immediately to mind. Atheism is just one more belief system. Chasing Christianity from the public square in order to make room for the null-entity-God is also rank sectarianism.