Like FSM

_________________

_________________
mechaphil

Not to bump a thread or anything, but I have to disagree that this country was founded on Christian ideas. They may be ideas that are Christian, but they are the same ideas that countless other religions share, including Jews and Muslims.

Church and state should absolutely be kept separate.

Amen!

_________________
This time, like all times, is a very good one, if we but know what to do with it.
--Emerson

Sometimes to make things make sense you have to flip them. Why SHOULD the church be linked with the government? Most people's argument is that the founding fathers based it on Christianity. This may hold some truth, but Franklin and others chose NOT to start the proceedings with a prayer. I can't tell you what their intentions were, and they ain't here now to verify, so why bother. If you want to understand interpretations, you're going to have to read Supreme Court opinions. I HIGHLY recommend it. You can buy some good books on it cheap, or look them up online(case briefs a plenty/I think I wrote some good ones myself). Here's a sample of what you may find:

The whole idea of drug testing employees came from the railroad(ironic ain't it). You see, the Supreme court really can't fuck the populace with rule changes unless it presents a very clear danger to it. Well, apparently there were SO many train accidents that they figured it had to be drunk(drug) drivers. They allowed them to blood test them , and now, low and behold, you are going to find yourself blood tested to flip a Whopper Jr(eventually). Your government is making HUUUUUGE changes to your rights, and you're(for the most part) accepting them face value, because most people just don't understand. If I could add one class to every curriculum, it would be Supreme Court rationale 101.

/breathe daz breathe. Sorry I was long winded, but it had to be to make sense.

I don't think there is a seperation of church and state and I think that it's a shame.

_________________
"Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Hockey Night in Buffalo

The USA, and the founding fathers were visionaries in secularism. Read the first fucking amendment

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Its totally 'gone to hell' now, as one might say

_________________
When I was a boy I spoke as a boy, I understood as a boy, and I thought as a boy; when I became a man I took that boy outside and shot him.

I would hope most people understand that before making any statements in here. It's hard to talk about freedoms if you don't know what the are, but interpretation(as you know from Stanhope) can be a bitch. Pasting an amendment is just about worthless. Helping someone to understand the interpretation is priceless. ABSOLUTLEY PRICELESS!!!

I think the crux of the matter comes in the varying interpretations of what the Establishment Clause is supposed to mean. Just what actions can be considered making a law respecting an establishment of religion? I think it likely that the interpretation has gotten broader and broader than the intended meaning, as I believe to be the case with the interstate commerce clause. Though I'll have to do some more reading to get a more informed opinion.

Ham

_________________
Do you believe yet?

Interstate(old)=Patriot(new)

Bull fucking shit. Give me back my rights bitch!

What about the National Cathedrial? I dont see a National Mosk or anything...? So what now? lol sorry Im just rather curious if someone could clarify that for me...

_________________

LETS GO BUFFALO!

_________________
mechaphil

National Mosque
http://www.sacred-destinations.com/usa/ ... mic-center

National Synagogue
http://www.ostns.org/

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

Alot of good conversation on this subject, thanks for everyone posting, and sorry for the early confusion, I'll post clear, concise statements in the future.

As to the Original Post, I was curious how everyone felt about the national holiday marking of "Christmas" (clearly a religious holiday) with a recognition by the Federal Govt.
I went and tried to find a similiar regulation for Judiasm and Islam as well as Hindu and Buddhist, I couldn't find any. Doesn't mean they don't exist though and if anyone has any information on how the Federal Govt. recognizes these religious holidays, posting it would be appreciated.

No, the reason I posted it was to get a determined conversation on 2 fronts, is it legitimate for the Federal Govt to recognize this holiday? If so, what reasons are given that do conform and adhere to the constitution? Also, if the balance of religious belief were to swing from a majority of christianity in the nation to another religion, would this recognition be changed to that religions respected recognized dates of significants?

_________________
Lord Stanley's Cup is what its all about.
Mr. Pegula, your destiny awaits you sir.

IMO the Federal government recognizes Christmas etc. because most people would take the day off anyway.

It's a matter of practicality, not of promoting a religion.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

in addition, the christmas that the government would be "recognizing" isnt the virgin birth but the fat man with presents

_________________
Check out my website: http://www.artistzero.com

"That wasn't very nice...I do believe you killed my hat."

Driver of the FIRE LINDY RUFF Bandwagon since 2008.

heh...that's true.
Hell, I've got a bunch of agnostic and atheist friends that celebrate Christmas in at least some form.
Presents, a tree and lots of food, just no baby Jesus.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

The whole premise behind 'secularism' isn't to eliminate, or squelch religion. In actuality it's meant to 'protect' the various religions. The more involved a government becomes in a particular religion or group, the more it takes away from the others.

Turkey, for example, is both one of the most secular, and religious countries in the world.
It's about impartiality, not exclusion.

I see the dilemma however, as removing christmas as a holiday IS both inconvenient and silly. The name aside, Christmas isn't originally even a christian holiday -- the day specifically was celebrated by pagans and out of pure convenience the Christians decided to celebrate the birth of Jesus on the same day. Scientists speculate that a day fitting the accounts of the constellations and the geography of the area would have actually been sometime in april (i think)


I have no problem celebrating Christmas, or getting the day off for christmas, or being wished merry christmas. Just as I don't mind being told "happy monday", getting gifts on a monday, or getting the day off to spend with my family. I don't really care too much for the church aspect to it, but Christmas truly is intrinsically valuable to society

_________________
When I was a boy I spoke as a boy, I understood as a boy, and I thought as a boy; when I became a man I took that boy outside and shot him.

Christmas is effectively a celebration of the winter Solstice. There are religious Christians I know who refuse to celebrate it as a religious holiday.

_________________
Oh lord, it's hard to be humble, when you're perfect in every way. I can't wait to look in the mirror, 'cause I get better looking each day. To know me is to love me, I must be a hell of a man. Oh lord, it's hard to be humble, but I'm doin' the best that I can.

Captain Pants and ETC as well as crosscheck bring up some very interesting points that do tend to fit the situation. Here is what I found on the birth of Christ and subsequently, the decision to celebrate his birthday, this seems to give merit to all of the posts on this.

Was Jesus born on December 25? There is no evidence for this date. So then, who decided that Jesus' birth would be celebrated on that date? The early Christian church did not celebrate Jesus' birth. It wasn't until A.D. 440 that the church officially proclaimed December 25 as the birth of Christ. This was not based on any religious evidence but on a pagan feast. Saturnalia was a tradition inherited by the Roman pagans from an earlier Babylonian priesthood. December 25 was used as a celebration of the birthday of the sun god. It was observed near the winter solstice.

The apostles in the Bible predicted that some Christians would adopt pagan beliefs to enable them to make their religion more palatable to the pagans around them. Therefore, some scholars think the church chose the date of this pagan celebration to interest them in Christianity. The pagans were already used to celebrating on this date.

The Bible itself tells us that December 25 is an unlikely date for His birth. Palestine is very cold in December. It was much too cold to ask everyone to travel to the city of their fathers to register for taxes. Also the shepherds were in the fields (Luke 2:8-12). Shepherds were not in the fields in the winter time. They are in the fields early in March until early October. This would place Jesus' birth in the spring or early fall. It is also known that Jesus lived for 33.5 years and died at the feast of the Passover, which is at Easter time. He must therefore have been born six months the other side of Easter - making the date around the September/October time frames.

Other evidence that December 25 is the wrong date for the birth of Jesus comes from early writings. Iranaeus, born about a century after Jesus, notes that Jesus was born in the 41st year of the reign of Augustus. Since Augustus began his reign in the autumn of 43 B.C., this appears to substantiate the birth of Jesus as the autumn of 2 B.C. Eusebius (A.D. 264-340), the "Father of Church History," ascribes it to the 42nd year of the reign of Augustus and the 28th from the subjection of Egypt on the death of Anthony and Cleopatra. The 42nd year of Augustus ran from the autumn of 2 B.C. to the autumn of 1 B.C. The subjugation of Egypt into the Roman Empire occurred in the autumn of 30 B.C. The 28th year extended from the autumn of 3 B.C. to the autumn of 2 B.C. The only date that would meet both of these constraints would be the autumn of 2 B.C.

John the Baptist also helps us determine that December 25 is not the birth of Jesus. Elizabeth, John's mother, was a cousin of Mary. John began his ministry in the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar. The minimum age for the ministry was 30. As Augustus died on August 19, A.D. 14, that was the accession year for Tiberius. If John was born on April 19-20, 2 B.C., his 30th birthday would have been April 19-20, A.D. 29, or the 15th year of Tiberius. This seems to confirm the 2 B.C. date, and, since John was 5 months older, this also confirms an autumn birth date for Jesus.

Another interesting fact comes from Elizabeth herself. She hid herself for 5 months and then the Angel Gabriel announced to Mary both Elizabeth's condition and that Mary would also bear a son who would be called Jesus. Mary went "with haste" to visit Elizabeth, who was then in the first week of her 6th month, or the 4th week of Dec., 3 B.C. If Jesus was born 280 days later it would place his birth on Sept. 29, 2 B.C. Some scholars interpret the 6 months to be in line with the Hebrew calendar or the August-September time frame. Since Mary's pregnancy commenced a little before the sixth month around July, Jesus would be born somewhere around March-June.

_________________
Lord Stanley's Cup is what its all about.
Mr. Pegula, your destiny awaits you sir.