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.
From the author of the Constitution, James Madison
"The great desideratum in Government is so to modify the sovereignty as that it may be sufficiently neutral between different parts of the society to control one part from invading the rights of another, and at the same time sufficiently controlled itself from setting up an interest adverse to that of the entire society." Madison, 1787
"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together." Madison, 1822
“...exempt from the authority of the society at large ...is wholly exempt from cognizance.” Madison 1785
If that is meant as a reply to my post, I would appreciate the courtesy of hearing from you in your own words rather than starting a thread consisting of duelling quotations, particularly if they have been truncated.
Besides -- the quote does not address my query to you, namely:
How does "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" equal "excluding religion from the government", as you put it? The obverse would seem to be true...
Would those who are proponents of a "total" seperation advocate the elimination of the Christmas Holiday altogether as being a legal holiday?
Actually, the holiday wasn't established at all until 1870, and it applied only to federal workers in Washington DC at that time. It would be another 15 years before federal departments outside of the District were able to recognize it. Though some had before, states sort of recognized it, one by one, after that, the last having been Oklahoma in 1907. In any case, the federal statute actually made a holiday out of December 25, noting only that the date was commonly called Christmas Day.
One way among others to equalize the holiday would be to free it from Dec 25 and allow an employee to take off any day of his or her choosing as the equivalent holiday throughout the year. That would allow anyone, even atheists, an equal recognition of whatever day on the calendar they felt was most important. Sort of a way to get government off our backs, I guess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday
How about putting up "Merry Christmas" banners on the street lights?
Personally, I would doubt that we need to go so far as the Pilgrims or Puritans by banning Christmas celebrations altogether. People do have their individual rights, after all. At the same time, any governmental entity should recognize its obligation to religious neutrality. Failure to do so would be like...well, being in the country without a valid visa or work permit. Seeing as we get to observe the holiday at all only because it serves a valid secular purpose, perhaps goverments should stick to that secular purpose. No Merry Christmas and likely no Heathen's Greetings either. Certainly there must be something out there that would be a little less narrow and hence a lot more appropriate...
Actually, the holiday wasn't established at all until 1870, and it applied only to federal workers in Washington DC at that time. It would be another 15 years before federal departments outside of the District were able to recognize it. Though some had before, states sort of recognized it, one by one, after that, the last having been Oklahoma in 1907. In any case, the federal statute actually made a holiday out of December 25, noting only that the date was commonly called Christmas Day.
One way among others to equalize the holiday would be to free it from Dec 25 and allow an employee to take off any day of his or her choosing as the equivalent holiday throughout the year. That would allow anyone, even atheists, an equal recognition of whatever day on the calendar they felt was most important. Sort of a way to get government off our backs, I guess.
Personally, I would doubt that we need to go so far as the Pilgrims or Puritans by banning Christmas celebrations altogether. People do have their individual rights, after all. At the same time, any governmental entity should recognize its obligation to religious neutrality. Failure to do so would be like...well, being in the country without a valid visa or work permit. Seeing as we get to observe the holiday at all only because it serves a valid secular purpose, perhaps goverments should stick to that secular purpose. No Merry Christmas and likely no Heathen's Greetings either. Certainly there must be something out there that would be a little less narrow and hence a lot more appropriate...
Not the issue I raised - not even close -
I asked, clearly, if those, who think there should be a "pure seperation" would advocate doing away with the Christmas Holiday - TODAY- Not 140+ years ago -
I asked, clearly, if those, who think that there should be a "pure seperation" would advocate not putting up Christmas decorations on light polls TODAY - not 140+ years ago
I asked, clearly, if those, who think there should be a "pure seperation" would advocate doing away with the Christmas Holiday - TODAY- Not 140+ years ago -
I asked, clearly, if those, who think that there should be a "pure seperation" would advocate not putting up Christmas decorations on light polls TODAY - not 140+ years ago
I live in the present and not the past -
The post wasn't that long. You might have read it. See the parts about equalizing the holiday TODAY and about governments finding something other than Merry Christmas to say TODAY.
I added the (not very well known) history of the holiday in response to intimations here (and elsewhere) that the Christmas Holiday as we know it must be some sort of long-standing tradition dating from our ancient past. It's not. It's a relatively recent affectation all in all...
The post wasn't that long. You might have read it. See the parts about equalizing the holiday TODAY and about governments finding something other than Merry Christmas to say TODAY.
I added the (not very well known) history of the holiday in response to intimations here (and elsewhere) that the Christmas Holiday as we know it must be some sort of long-standing tradition dating from our ancient past. It's not. It's a relatively recent affectation all in all...
The Christmas holiday is hardly an affectation. Sneering contempt for it, however, in the service of an assumed sophistication and cosmopolitanism, most assuredly is...
The Christmas holiday is hardly an affectation. Sneering contempt for it, however, in the service of an assumed sophistication and cosmopolitanism, most assuredly is...
The foundations of the holiday as we know it were taken up by the well-to-do segment of a society suffering from a serious inferiority complex over the lack of a worthwhile American culture by stealing what seemed like genteel traditions from the fictional accounts of upper-crust British celebrations presented by Washington Irving, Charles Dickens, and the like. This appropriation did mark something of an improvement of course, as prior to around 1820, the stereotypical way in which an American Christmas was celebrated was in drunken rioting and fist-fights.
I will agree that congress has not made a law establishing a religion. but there are plenty of laws prohibiting the free exersise there of. you anti religious folks LIE thru you're teeth when you say you only want it out of the goverment arena. is that the response you wanted? its the argument you started this thread for, right? for only being 10% of the population why is it always those that interfere and infringe on everybody else? you just cant stand the fact that our money says "in GOD we trust". with all the issues we have in this country, thats what rubs you the most? GOD help us. because people like you aren't. remember you offened me first.
Not too many people think that In God We Trust and under God constitute the worst problem that this country currently faces. Neither do most people accept the premise that one must work only on the most critical problem while ignoring all the others. Religion in this country is an individual matter. This is what is guranteed by a strict and, as has been pointed out, entirely beneficial separation of church and state. The point that religious extremists so consistently overlook is that those individual rights stop at the tips of your fingers. You MAY NOT reach out and touch someone else with your religious beliefs, as you then begin to violate the individual religious rights of that other person, and his or hers are equal to yours. And you most particularly may not use the agency of the state to accomplish what is forbidden to you personally. You're welcome to all the individual free exercise you can stand. This makes you the biggest fish in the smallest pond. You might wish to consider heeding The Word and cease coveting so many of your neighbors' ponds...
Not too many people think that In God We Trust and under God constitute the worst problem that this country currently faces. Neither do most people accept the premise that one must work only on the most critical problem while ignoring all the others. Religion in this country is an individual matter. This is what is guranteed by a strict and, as has been pointed out, entirely beneficial separation of church and state. The point that religious extremists so consistently overlook is that those individual rights stop at the tips of your fingers. You MAY NOT reach out and touch someone else with your religious beliefs, as you then begin to violate the individual religious rights of that other person, and his or hers are equal to yours. And you most particularly may not use the agency of the state to accomplish what is forbidden to you personally. You're welcome to all the individual free exercise you can stand. This makes you the biggest fish in the smallest pond. You might wish to consider heeding The Word and cease coveting so many of your neighbors' ponds...
I like what you have to say. I believe that the seperation of Church and State has been crossed one to many times by the politicians today. It seem to me that all they are doing is trying to get the Churches to do thier biddings for them. If the Churhes continue to breach the line and talk poltics, then they should be made to pay taxes like anyother business.
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.
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.
I'am offended.
remember you offened me first.
I like it
