I've known for some time now that Christmas is really just some Pagan holidays enveloped by Christianity. I've also known that if Jesus was born during the Passover, which the Bible claims, then he would have been born in April not December. In fact, Mormons hold that Jesus' birthday was April 6th. So, I kind of chuckle under my breath when people say that it's Jesus' birthday.
At any rate, I'd never really thought before about the irony of Christians now claiming that people are trying to "take the Christ out of Christmas" when in fact it was never there to begin with. They should be complaining that we've taken the Paganism out of Christmas, because that's what it was to begin with. I suppose this is just one more example of how Christians can be hypocritical without even realizing it. They take a holiday away from one religion (or several) and then get all huffy and offended when they feel like someone's trying to take a holiday away from them (even though this isn't the case).
People all too often argue that there's some sort of war on Christmas or on Christianity. Why? Well, in part because some people say "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" instead of "Merry Christmas". I already wrote about why I think it's silly to complain about that. Other people complain about efforts to remove Nativity scenes from public property. I'm sorry, but one of the problems that early Americans had with Britain--one of the reasons they wanted to declare independence--was that they were tired of having only one choice for religion. They didn't want to be dictated to by the Church of England. They wanted people to be able to choose for themselves what religion to believe (or to believe in none at all). So, merging church and state in this way is not a step toward freedom of religion, it is a step away from it.
To publicly support one religion by using public property and public funds to celebrate its holidays is a step toward an establishment of religion, which the Constitution forbids--and for good reason. Therefore, requiring that public entities remain neutral in the religious sphere is only promoting religious tolerance, by allowing people to worship whichever religion they want and to celebrate whatever holiday they want.
At any rate, I'd never really thought before about the irony of Christians now claiming that people are trying to "take the Christ out of Christmas" when in fact it was never there to begin with. They should be complaining that we've taken the Paganism out of Christmas, because that's what it was to begin with. I suppose this is just one more example of how Christians can be hypocritical without even realizing it. They take a holiday away from one religion (or several) and then get all huffy and offended when they feel like someone's trying to take a holiday away from them (even though this isn't the case).
People all too often argue that there's some sort of war on Christmas or on Christianity. Why? Well, in part because some people say "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" instead of "Merry Christmas". I already wrote about why I think it's silly to complain about that. Other people complain about efforts to remove Nativity scenes from public property. I'm sorry, but one of the problems that early Americans had with Britain--one of the reasons they wanted to declare independence--was that they were tired of having only one choice for religion. They didn't want to be dictated to by the Church of England. They wanted people to be able to choose for themselves what religion to believe (or to believe in none at all). So, merging church and state in this way is not a step toward freedom of religion, it is a step away from it.
To publicly support one religion by using public property and public funds to celebrate its holidays is a step toward an establishment of religion, which the Constitution forbids--and for good reason. Therefore, requiring that public entities remain neutral in the religious sphere is only promoting religious tolerance, by allowing people to worship whichever religion they want and to celebrate whatever holiday they want.
I have a different take on this. The constitution is flexible enough to allow a community to celibrate their culture and the DIVERSITY that exists in a community. I hate Madison Avenue cookie cutter American culture. Corporate welfare has robbed us of uniqueness and richness of culture & diversity that made us special. So a Nativity display is very cool as long as others can display their thing. A prayer in school is not offensive as long as other have fair opportunities for expression. Atheist I suppose too should be given their voice even if its more of an approach to living rather than a cultural expression. Tolerance is the key. When any of these groups show intolerance for others then it violates that Constitutional barrier. The founding fathers did not want exclusion in our goverment and cultural expression. They rather promoted inclusion. Inclusion is a concept that I'd gather you'd feel something about. Just guessing
ReplyDeleteShow me a city, county, state, or any government that displays Nativity scenes and displays from every (or any) other religion, and then I might accept your opinion. Honestly, celebrating Christian holidays, as our country does, but not others is in my opinion and establishment of religion, which shouldn't happen here.
ReplyDeletethere are lots of non christian displays.... You missed Keat's point. Be INCLUSIVE not exclusive. It's not only constitutional its what a gay man should welcome in our society
ReplyDeleteI am being inclusive. I don't see how you can accuse me of being exclusive. And I also don't think you can tell other people what a gay man should or shouldn't do. I don't know if you're gay or not, and I don't really care, but the surprising fact is that all people are different, whether they're gay or not. Not all gay men are a cookie cutter that need to follow your idea of what's right and wrong in the world. So, I'll live my own life and let you live yours. Please don't tell me what to do.
ReplyDelete