Christmas To Be Banned

[stjimmythepunk]

If they ban Christmas they will have to ban every other religious festival which is wrong for many reasons.For example ff they said they were going to ban a hindu religous festival that would be seen as racist but if they ban a christian festival its seen as not wanting to offend people.

[thereal]

I'm unsure as to what everyone means when they are talking about whether or not Christmas can be "banned". Are you talking about not being allowed to make any mention of it in a place such as WalMart? I don't see that as ever happening, as privately-owned businesses can support any belief they want to; it's up to the consumer whether or not they want to shop there. That's why I find this whole "Happy Holidays vs. Merry Christmas" argument fruitless...they can say whatever they want to say, but their decision is based on which customers they want to satisfy. However, if you're talking about not having a White House Christmas tree or nativity scenes in front of courthouses, I think it is definite possibility, as it is a clear-cut violation of the separation of church and state. Yes, this country was founded by Christians, but Christianity is not the "national" religion...there is none, and we are afforded freedom FROM religion as well as freedom OF religion. For any tax dollar to be spent on any religious displays, such as Christmas trees or nativity scenes, is illegal and could very well be banned in the future.

[ryo dokomi]

as it is a clear-cut violation of the separation of church and state.

nobody knows what the whole separtion of church and state started as...it wasnt what it is now. that is what makes me sooo mad.

[Believer]

I've been to several Walmarts within the metro area, and they still say Merry Christmas to me and I say thank you and have a good one too. If people are offended, they can 1.) go back to their country and/or 2.) they can simply look away from things that burn their eyes and plug their ears to things that make their ears bleed. Silly people.

[thereal]

Code: Select all

Nobody knows what the whole separtion of church and state started as...it wasnt what it is now. that is what makes me sooo mad.

I don't know what you are trying to say, as this document (the Constitution), as well as events surrounding its creation, fall into the category of recorded history. It is clearly stated in the the Constitution that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." that means you can practice whatever you want, but a religion cannot be forced upon you or taken away from you by the government. You are right though, that the way it is now isn't the way it was before...before, the Christian holiday of Christmas was recognized by the government as a federal holiday but nobody brought up the fact that this was illegal. Now that this illegality is in the public eye, Christians realize they may not have their way anymore and it angers them. I know if there was unfair treatment that benefitted me, I might be reluctant to let go of it easily as well.

I've been to several Walmarts within the metro area, and they still say Merry Christmas to me and I say thank you and have a good one too. If people are offended, they can 1.) go back to their country and/or 2.) they can simply look away from things that burn their eyes and plug their ears to things that make their ears bleed. Silly people.

Just the bigoted attitude I would expect from a "Christian"..why does someone who wants the illegal federal acknowledgement of Christmas stopped have to be from another country. Why can't it simply be someone who sees an injustice and ignorance of our country's legal documents? This may be a Christian country in terms of the religious majority, but it is not a Christian government (of course I don't mean the people running our country, but rather the legal documents our country are built upon). What if from now on, all Christmas displays on any federal property were changed to Kwanzaa displays or Hanukkah displays...would you still be as open-minded about displaying religion on federal property? Keep in mind, this would still be illegal, but just think about it...despite what any religion thinks, the laws of our country do not endorse any one religion.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

You are right though, that the way it is now isn't the way it was before...before, the Christian holiday of Christmas was recognized by the government as a federal holiday but nobody brought up the fact that this was illegal. Now that this illegality is in the public eye, Christians realize they may not have their way anymore and it angers them. I know if there was unfair treatment that benefitted me, I might be reluctant to let go of it easily as well.

How is having Christmas a federal holiday establishing a religion.

And while we're at it, the myth of religious freedom.

http://www.spencepublishing.com/books/i ... oductID=36

http://www.acton.org/publicat/m_and_m/2 ... uerra.html

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Just the bigoted attitude I would expect from a "Christian"..why does someone who wants the illegal federal acknowledgement of Christmas stopped have to be from another country.

How is that illegal? You state what the First Amendment says, and then you claim because of that something is illegal, even though the First Amendment says nothing of the sort.

Also, STOP saying God exists if you don't believe in God. Sheesh, you're trying to say that being a bigot (if he was being one) is objectively wrong. Stop stealing from Christianity.

[Jbuza]

I don't know what you are trying to say, as this document (the Constitution), as well as events surrounding its creation, fall into the category of recorded history. It is clearly stated in the the Constitution that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." that means you can practice whatever you want, but a religion cannot be forced upon you or taken away from you by the government. You are right though, that the way it is now isn't the way it was before...before, the Christian holiday of Christmas was recognized by the government as a federal holiday but nobody brought up the fact that this was illegal. Now that this illegality is in the public eye, Christians realize they may not have their way anymore and it angers them. I know if there was unfair treatment that benefitted me, I might be reluctant to let go of it easily as well.

Everything was perfectly legal until the government started legeslating law from the bench banning the exercise of a religion. What the UCLA and the Liberal Judges have been able to do to remove religious symbols from America are the most clear violations of passing laws or enforcing legal orders upon the display of a religion. That is the only violation there has been and anyone who cannot see that is more interested in looking . . .

away from things that burn their eyes and plug their ears to things that make their ears bleed. Silly people.

than they are in protecting that freedom of religion from having laws passed against or for it.

[thereal]

How is having Christmas a federal holiday establishing a religion.

Is it simply "coincidence" that there is a federal holiday on Christmas? Why no federal holidays for Hanukkah, Ramadan, any other occasions having to do with other religions? By creating a federal holiday on a Christian holiday, the government is promoting one specific religion above others.

And while we're at it, the myth of religious freedom.

There are plenty of subjective arguments for any side of any argument, and this is no exception.

Stop stealing from Christianity.

If you believe Christianity is the only thing in the world capable of teaching right from wrong, I believe your view of the world is quite limited.

Everything was perfectly legal until the government started legeslating law from the bench banning the exercise of a religion. What the UCLA and the Liberal Judges have been able to do to remove religious symbols from America are the most clear violations of passing laws or enforcing legal orders upon the display of a religion. That is the only violation there has been and anyone who cannot see that is more interested in looking . . .

I have no problem, and I believe the judicial branch of the U.S. government has no problem, with anyone practicing their religion or displaying religious symbols on their own property. I don't believe there have ever been any legal orders to remove religious symbols from private property...correct me if I'm wrong, because that would be shocking to me. However, government buildings are public property and are thus subject to the laws of separation of church and state. Whether or not it appears that way, displaying religious symbols on federal buildings constitutes forcing a belief on someone. Even if it seems trivial to you, consider that everyone's tax dollars are spent to pay for those buildings and those symbols. Maybe not all the people whose tax money contributed to those buildings and symbols believe in Christianity, and to have their money go towards promoting a certain belief that they do not hold is another example of why this is wrong. Do you think this is acceptable? Again, I'd be interested in opinions on this subject if the religious depictions on federal buildings weren't Christian...

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Is it simply "coincidence" that there is a federal holiday on Christmas? Why no federal holidays for Hanukkah, Ramadan, any other occasions having to do with other religions? By creating a federal holiday on a Christian holiday, the government is promoting one specific religion above others.

First, are you saying there is something objectively wrong with this? And second, how is this promoting Christmas? I'm sure people celebrated it before it came a federal holiday. And why do you bring Ramadan into this? All you do is eat at night and not during the day.

f you believe Christianity is the only thing in the world capable of teaching right from wrong, I believe your view of the world is quite limited.

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that objective morality can only exist if there is some transcendental Law. Or else it's all relative, and what's right for you can be wrong for me, and vice versa. In your worldview, saying what I do is wrong is about as nosensical as saying I'm wrong for thinking ice cream is too sweet. Morality becomes a matter of subjective tastes for you. But that's obviously not what you're saying. You're saying right and wrong are objective. Also, God must exist for there to be such a thing as a universal right or wrong.

So, all you did was present a strawman. You claimed Christianity is not the only thing that can talk about right and wrong...true...but it's the only source (true, Judaism and Islam can...but they're not true) that lays a foundation for objective morality-which is what most people, even though they have no foundation, believe.

However, government buildings are public property and are thus subject to the laws of separation of church and state.

There is no law of separation of church and state.

There are plenty of subjective arguments for any side of any argument, and this is no exception.

Subjective? It's all subjective? LOL. I love this garbage. The idea of religious freedom either is, or isn't, a myth.

[thereal]

First, are you saying there is something objectively wrong with this? And second, how is this promoting Christmas? I'm sure people celebrated it before it came a federal holiday. And why do you bring Ramadan into this? All you do is eat at night and not during the day.

I'm saying there is something legally wrong with this. My point was to bring up the fact that other religions in the U.S. do not have their holidays recognized with a federal holiday.

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that objective morality can only exist if there is some transcendental Law. Or else it's all relative, and what's right for you can be wrong for me, and vice versa. In your worldview, saying what I do is wrong is about as nosensical as saying I'm wrong for thinking ice cream is too sweet. Morality becomes a matter of subjective tastes for you. But that's obviously not what you're saying. You're saying right and wrong are objective. Also, God must exist for there to be such a thing as a universal right or wrong.

So, all you did was present a strawman. You claimed Christianity is not the only thing that can talk about right and wrong...true...but it's the only source (true, Judaism and Islam can...but they're not true) that lays a foundation for objective morality-which is what most people, even though they have no foundation, believe.

Interesting take on the matter, I must admit. Aside from our own laws acting as a potential source of portraying right and wrote (I realize it's not objective), aren't concepts of good and evil, right and wrong, etc. arising from religion subjective as well. Are they not based on how their religious documents are interpreted by man? Although religions lay a foundation for objective belief, aren't the ideas they they are interpreted by man and that they don't come to a complete agreement on things evidence for their subjectivity?

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

I'm saying there is something legally wrong with this. My point was to bring up the fact that other religions in the U.S. do not have their holidays recognized with a federal holiday.

How so?

Interesting take on the matter, I must admit. Aside from our own laws acting as a potential source of portraying right and wrote (I realize it's not objective), aren't concepts of good and evil, right and wrong, etc. arising from religion subjective as well. Are they not based on how their religious documents are interpreted by man? Although religions lay a foundation for objective belief, aren't the ideas they they are interpreted by man and that they don't come to a complete agreement on things evidence for their subjectivity?

You're having fun by equating epistemology with ontology. You're saying that because everyone does not agree with what is right and wrong (epistemology), you're saying objective morality does not exist (ontology). Non sequitor. Because people do not agree about something, doesn't mean that an objective truth doesn't exist. Second of all, all religions don't set a foundation for objective belief. Even less set a foundation for objective morality. And, another strawman. You pointed out that all people don't agree about what the Bible says on right and wrong-true, but that doesn't mean there is no correct way of interpreting it. And, this does not blemish the fact that Christianity lays a foundation for objective morality-something no non-theistic religion does. Islam and Judaism can, but that is it.

Also, you're starting with the assumption that God does not exist-an unfounded an intrinsically impossible to prove assumption. In the end, it is God who is the objecitve moral standard-yes, the Bible does built a foundation for determining what is right and what is wrong, but in the end right and wrong are rooted in God (because if God does not exist, then it's moral relativism-the morals in the Bible just become one man's opinion, no better than another's.

And the problem with the idea of having laws defining morality, is that whatever the state says, is moral. So, Hitler wanted to murder the Jews? Perfectly moral. Stalin wanted to send millions to the gulags and attack the Orthodox Church? Completely moral! And the fun part that I'd love to use against liberals...death penalty legal? Then it's moral! And the even more interesting part is that this assumes the existence of some objective moral standard, which is the very thing this moral system tries to get rid of! Because....who says the state has the right to define right and wrong? And what interests me even more is for what purpose this moral philosophy was first used (legal positivsm)-as a defense argument for the Nazis at Nuremberg.

[thereal]

And the problem with the idea of having laws defining morality, is that whatever the state says, is moral. So, Hitler wanted to murder the Jews? Perfectly moral. Stalin wanted to send millions to the gulags and attack the Orthodox Church? Completely moral! And the fun part that I'd love to use against liberals...death penalty legal? Then it's moral! And the even more interesting part is that this assumes the existence of some objective moral standard, which is the very thing this moral system tries to get rid of! Because....who says the state has the right to define right and wrong? And what interests me even more is for what purpose this moral philosophy was first used (legal positivsm)-as a defense argument for the Nazis at Nuremberg.

Exactly why I said the law is not an objective source for morals...you seem to really want to put some sort of spin on what I say rather than just let my statements stand as they are!! My point is this: if there is a God, and he is responsible for creating some "objective moral code", how would Christians ever know if what they believe and preach to others is anything close to what this code actually is, for different religions have different interpretations of what this "code" is. Even if somehow we could prove that "yes, there is an objective moral code" beyong a doubt, what difference would it make because no one would ever no what is is!

Without getting any further off topic, my contention is that if any religion is supported in any way by the federal government, this constitutes a breach in the separation of church and state. I know you will tell me that there is no law providing separation of church and state specifically, and I agree with this. That is why we must consider what is written in legal documents and interpret it properly. There is also no specific writing gauranteeing a person the right to a fair trial, but it is implicit in the document and the conditions for fair trial are set up by the Constitution. Maybe, to start off and to get a perspective of where you're coming, can you give me your honest opinion in as much detail, what you think the following statement means:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

[Kurieuo]

Exactly why I said the law is not an objective source for morals...you seem to really want to put some sort of spin on what I say rather than just let my statements stand as they are!! My point is this: if there is a God, and he is responsible for creating some "objective moral code", how would Christians ever know if what they believe and preach to others is anything close to what this code actually is, for different religions have different interpretations of what this "code" is. Even if somehow we could prove that "yes, there is an objective moral code" beyong a doubt, what difference would it make because no one would ever no what is is!

The same way we know many things such as child molestation, rape, murder and so forth are wrong despite some morally corrupt people enjoying such things. Furthermore, we know some things are really wrong and right in a similar sense to the same way we accept our memories as accurate despite not have absolute proof they are true.

One has a decision to make from two options:
1) A person can choose to believe nothing is certain and so make no choices or deny all choices. Such seems practically irrational to me, and if followed 100%, it would make someone unable to live life and drive them insane; or
2) A person can choose to believe what appears to be consistent with all they know, feel and experience, and accepting such as most probable and true.

Kurieuo

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Exactly why I said the law is not an objective source for morals...you seem to really want to put some sort of spin on what I say rather than just let my statements stand as they are!!

I was agreeing with you! Sheesh! We can agree on some points you know. That is how Paul managed to get through to the people at Athens-he pointed out similar beliefs. I just thought it would be interesting to expand on your point and say why you were correct.

My point is this: if there is a God, and he is responsible for creating some "objective moral code", how would Christians ever know if what they believe and preach to others is anything close to what this code actually is, for different religions have different interpretations of what this "code" is. Even if somehow we could prove that "yes, there is an objective moral code" beyong a doubt, what difference would it make because no one would ever no what is is!

TheReal, your pluralism is showing. It is logically impossible for even two religions to be true at the same time. Law of non-contradiction. I am saying Christianity is true-not all religions. Also, I don't think another claim of yours is correct-I think a good majority of people do in fact agree on what's right in wrong, and differences between cultures can be chocked up to different perspectives. CS Lewis says that if you take the time to look at the moral systems of several cultures...they do agree a lot.

Without getting any further off topic, my contention is that if any religion is supported in any way by the federal government, this constitutes a breach in the separation of church and state.

But how does having a federal holiday support, in any way, Christianity?