Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, it is almost that time of the year again. People working in departments stores are instructed to say “Happy Holidays” instead of "Merry Christmas."
Well, yeah, Christmas is a religious holiday, but these days many people that are from other religions celebrate Christmas as well more as a holiday since its a large tradition in this country.
I wonder do you feel pressured or obligated to say "Happy Holiday" instead of "Merry Christmas"?
Freedom of religion is not freedom from religion. I'm agnostic and I still say Merry Christmas. If someone is offended by that, it's their problem, not mine.
No, it has always been Merry Christmas (Not Xmas) in my life and will continue to be as well as Happy Thanksgiving, Happy New Year, Happy Halloween, Happy Birthday.
No, it has always been Merry Christmas (Not Xmas) in my life and will continue to be as well as Happy Thanksgiving, Happy New Year, Happy Halloween, Happy Birthday.
This claim is common, but it rests on a misunderstanding of what real freedom of religion entails. The most important thing to remember is that freedom of religion, if it is going to apply to everyone, also requires freedom from religion. Why is that? You do not truly have the freedom to practice your religious beliefs if you are also required to adhere to any of the religious beliefs or rules of other religions.
As an obvious example, could we really say that Jews and Muslims would have freedom of religion if they were required to show same respect to images of Jesus that Christians have? Would Christians and Muslims really have freedom of their religion if they were required to wear yarmulkes? Would Christians and Jews have freedom of religion if they were required to adhere to Muslim dietary restrictions?
Simply pointing out that people have the freedom to pray however they wish is not enough. Forcing people to accept some particular idea or adhere to behavioral standards from someone else’s religion means that their religious freedom is being infringed upon.
Freedom from religion does not mean, as some mistakenly seem to claim, being free from seeing religion in society. No one has the right not to see churches, religious expression, and other examples of religious belief in our nation — and those who advocate freedom of religion do not claim otherwise.
In the 1994 case Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, Supreme Court Justice David Souter wrote in the opinion for the Court that: "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion". Everson v. Board of Education established that "neither a state nor the Federal Government can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another". This applies the Establishment Clause to the states as well as the federal government. However, several state constitutions make the protection of persons from religious discrimination conditional on their acknowledgment of the existence of a deity, making freedom of religion in those states inapplicable to atheists.These state constitutional clauses have not been tested. Civil rights cases are typically brought in federal courts, so such state provisions are mainly of symbolic importance.
More recently, in Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985), Justice John Paul Stevens explained, "Just as the right to speak and the right to refrain from speaking are complementary components of a broader concept of individual freedom of mind, so also the individual's freedom to choose his own creed is the counterpart of his right to refrain from accepting the creed established by the majority. At one time it was thought that this right merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam or Judaism. But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all. This conclusion derives support not only from the interest in respecting the individual's freedom of conscience, but also from the conviction that religious beliefs worthy of respect are the product of free and voluntary choice by the faithful, and from recognition of the fact that the political interest in forestalling intolerance extends beyond intolerance among Christian sects - or even intolerance among 'religions' - to encompass intolerance of the disbeliever and the uncertain.
Even the current Supreme Court, the most reactionary since before World War II, has refused to back down on the court's protection of "freedom from religion." Just this year, in Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, the court ruled that a public high school cannot allow "voluntary" student prayers over its loudspeaker system at football games.
That said, I feel no obligation to use either but generally use Merry Christmas - having been brought up with Christian principles and in a predominantly Christian environment. Of course, when I find myself in areas that are not predominantly Christian (say, NYC, for example), I use the more universally applicable Happy Holidays.
Last edited by Fuselage; 10-10-2013 at 09:28 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.