|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 4, 2018 15:45:31 GMT
Nope. Christmas is a federal holiday here. I'm not sure what the point of that is. So is New Year's Day, MLK Day, President's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Columbus Day, Veterans' Day and Thanksgiving. The government can't have a Federal holiday on a religious occasion? That isn’t the issue. The issue is, can the government have a Federal Holiday based on a religious holiday and named for the religious holiday. And the legal answer is, no it cannot, per the very FIRST clause of the FIRST amendment to the US Constitution! 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.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 4, 2018 16:14:17 GMT
Nope. Christmas is a federal holiday here. ...except that I gather that in recent years it has politically incorrect to say Merry Christmas ( apart from nutter Trump) and express the more secular 'Happy Holidays' with reason for the holiday left unspecified. With all due respect, I believe this is a myth perpetuated by the far right. The fake “war on Christmas” is not a real thing! I have never seen a situation in which anyone has ever expressed offense at “merry Christmas”. Your point is taken. However in their defense, the reason for viewing the US as a Christian nation has more to do with the fact that the overwhelming majority of the population self identifies as Christian. Not because of any constitutional definition or restrictions. No. because that in itself is a contradiction. Atheism is not a way of life or official government position. It’s a negative condition that indicates a lack of religion. Since the second clause of the first amendment clearly allows for religion, it wouldn’t be appropriate to refer to the US as an “atheist” government.
|
|
|
Post by kls on Feb 4, 2018 17:13:09 GMT
I'm not sure what the point of that is. So is New Year's Day, MLK Day, President's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Columbus Day, Veterans' Day and Thanksgiving. The government can't have a Federal holiday on a religious occasion? That isn’t the issue. The issue is, can the government have a Federal Holiday based on a religious holiday and named for the religious holiday. And the legal answer is, no it cannot, per the very FIRST clause of the FIRST amendment to the US Constitution! 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. So you're saying if the Federal government is giving its workers ten days off a year it wouldn't be allowed to pick a day some may have a religious celebration as one of the ten? No. What people call the day or what's on the calendar is not relevant.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 4, 2018 17:23:43 GMT
That isn’t the issue. The issue is, can the government have a Federal Holiday based on a religious holiday and named for the religious holiday. And the legal answer is, no it cannot, per the very FIRST clause of the FIRST amendment to the US Constitution! 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. So you're saying if the Federal government is giving its workers ten days off a year it wouldn't be allowed to pick a day some may have a religious celebration as one of the ten? No. Correct, the answer is NO...as in, that’s NOT what I’m saying (and I think you know that). Actually IT IS, because that’s the reason it was chosen as a holiday in the first place (it being a popular Christian celebration). It’s what the government chooses to call it that makes it relevant. You see, the government can pick ANY day to make a holiday. But when the government chooses to recognize a specific day, in honor of a specific religious celebration, named for that religion, then that is by definition of “respecting an establishment of religion!” What part about that do you not understand?
|
|
|
Post by kls on Feb 4, 2018 17:35:32 GMT
So you're saying if the Federal government is giving its workers ten days off a year it wouldn't be allowed to pick a day some may have a religious celebration as one of the ten? No. Correct, the answer is NO...as in, that’s NOT what I’m saying (and I think you know that). Actually IT IS, because that’s the reason it was chosen as a holiday in the first place (it being a popular Christian celebration). It’s what the government chooses to call it that makes it relevant. You see, the government can pick ANY day to make a holiday. But when the government chooses to recognize a specific day, in honor of a specific religious celebration, named for that religion, then that is by definition of “respecting an establishment of religion!” What part about that do you not understand? First off, the government didn't choose to call it anything. The government didn't create the holiday. The government does nothing more than give people the day off work. If people choose to spend it in church that's their choice. If they spend it with family (feasting, giving and opening presents and what not that's their choice. If they choose to do nothing at all that's another option.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 4, 2018 21:03:55 GMT
tpfkar No. it's generally been Christian for a long time and needs to stay that way for the countries sake (hell, and probably the worlds to for that matter). but with that said... it's obvious things are becoming less Christian as people move away from God and towards the ways of the world and therefore, not surprisingly, the general standards of the country get lower-and-lower. the moral decline is pretty obvious over the last 50 years or so. hell, even in the last 15-20 years it's taken a solid hit. Yeah, it's terrible. The sheer horror of Catholic priests/leadership finally being stopped from and punished for attacking kids and facilitating the attacks. 90% chance
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Feb 4, 2018 21:07:21 GMT
"Secularism" would be more accurate. Or at least it's supposed to be (We still have "In God We Trust" on our money and pledge of allegiance).
|
|
|
Post by kls on Feb 4, 2018 21:29:58 GMT
tpfkar No. it's generally been Christian for a long time and needs to stay that way for the countries sake (hell, and probably the worlds to for that matter). but with that said... it's obvious things are becoming less Christian as people move away from God and towards the ways of the world and therefore, not surprisingly, the general standards of the country get lower-and-lower. the moral decline is pretty obvious over the last 50 years or so. hell, even in the last 15-20 years it's taken a solid hit. Yeah, it's terrible. The sheer horror of Catholic priests/leadership finally being stopped from and punished for attacking kids and facilitating the attacks. 90% chanceI'd consider them being stopped and punished a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 4, 2018 22:17:15 GMT
...except that I gather that in recent years it has politically incorrect to say Merry Christmas ( apart from nutter Trump) and express the more secular 'Happy Holidays' with reason for the holiday left unspecified. With all due respect, I believe this is a myth perpetuated by the far right. The fake “war on Christmas” is not a real thing! I have never seen a situation in which anyone has ever expressed offense at “merry Christmas”. Your point is taken. However in their defense, the reason for viewing the US as a Christian nation has more to do with the fact that the overwhelming majority of the population self identifies as Christian. Not because of any constitutional definition or restrictions. No. because that in itself is a contradiction. Atheism is not a way of life or official government position. It’s a negative condition that indicates a lack of religion. Since the second clause of the first amendment clearly allows for religion, it wouldn’t be appropriate to refer to the US as an “atheist” government. I don't see any contradiction. I just said that about atheism and so surely 'a negative condition that indicates a lack of religion is more in accord with the First Amendment, than many in the USA considering it is a Christian nation? Also 'allowing' for religion is not the same as a government espousing any or all, so it still should be considered an atheist nation, by virtue of the fact that recognition is not the same as allowing nor espousing, Atheists recognise that others believe in Gods, they just have no belief themselves, as should not a secular government and its institutions.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 5, 2018 1:44:51 GMT
Correct, the answer is NO...as in, that’s NOT what I’m saying (and I think you know that). Actually IT IS, because that’s the reason it was chosen as a holiday in the first place (it being a popular Christian celebration). It’s what the government chooses to call it that makes it relevant. You see, the government can pick ANY day to make a holiday. But when the government chooses to recognize a specific day, in honor of a specific religious celebration, named for that religion, then that is by definition of “respecting an establishment of religion!” What part about that do you not understand? First off, the government didn't choose to call it anything. The government didn't create the holiday. The government does nothing more than give people the day off work. BECAUSE it’s a religious holiday! As true as all of that is, it isn’t particularly relevant to my argument.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 5, 2018 1:51:27 GMT
With all due respect, I believe this is a myth perpetuated by the far right. The fake “war on Christmas” is not a real thing! I have never seen a situation in which anyone has ever expressed offense at “merry Christmas”. Your point is taken. However in their defense, the reason for viewing the US as a Christian nation has more to do with the fact that the overwhelming majority of the population self identifies as Christian. Not because of any constitutional definition or restrictions. No. because that in itself is a contradiction. Atheism is not a way of life or official government position. It’s a negative condition that indicates a lack of religion. Since the second clause of the first amendment clearly allows for religion, it wouldn’t be appropriate to refer to the US as an “atheist” government. I don't see any contradiction. I just said that about atheism and so surely 'a negative condition that indicates a lack of religion is more in accord with the First Amendment, than many in the USA considering it is a Christian nation? Also 'allowing' for religion is not the same as a government espousing any or all, so it still should be considered an atheist nation, by virtue of the fact that recognition is not the same as allowing nor espousing But it recognizes AND allows. The majority of the country EXPECTS that its elected leaders express and expose Christian faith. That’s a good enough reason for declaring it a Christian nation. Well then that would most certainly NOT represent the US government because most government elected officials are not atheist; they are CHRISTIAN. That a secular government should espouse atheist views is your opinion, but it’s not a matter of fact, and it is certainly not reflected in reality. Secular and atheist are not synonymous.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 5, 2018 1:56:15 GMT
I don't see any contradiction. I just said that about atheism and so surely 'a negative condition that indicates a lack of religion is more in accord with the First Amendment, than many in the USA considering it is a Christian nation? Also 'allowing' for religion is not the same as a government espousing any or all, so it still should be considered an atheist nation, by virtue of the fact that recognition is not the same as allowing nor espousing But it recognizes AND allows. The majority of the country EXPECTS that its elected leaders express and expose Christian faith. That’s a good enough reason for declaring it a Christian nation. Well then that would most certainly NOT represent the US government because most government elected officials are not atheist; they are CHRISTIAN. That a secular government should espouse atheist views is your opinion, but it’s not a matter of fact, and it is certainly not reflected in reality. Secular and atheist are not synonymous. Then both the point you just made are against the First Amendment. America should not be a Christian country and only recognise the existence of all other religions equally and not preferential to one.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 5, 2018 2:31:23 GMT
But it recognizes AND allows. The majority of the country EXPECTS that its elected leaders express and expose Christian faith. That’s a good enough reason for declaring it a Christian nation. Well then that would most certainly NOT represent the US government because most government elected officials are not atheist; they are CHRISTIAN. That a secular government should espouse atheist views is your opinion, but it’s not a matter of fact, and it is certainly not reflected in reality. Secular and atheist are not synonymous. Then both the point you just made are against the First Amendment. America should not be a Christian country and only recognise the existence of all other religions equally and not preferential to one. I agree with you. I’m not telling you what it “should be”; I’m only telling you how it actually is. What it should be isn’t necessarily the way it is.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 5, 2018 7:14:18 GMT
Then both the point you just made are against the First Amendment. America should not be a Christian country and only recognise the existence of all other religions equally and not preferential to one. I agree with you. I’m not telling you what it “should be”; I’m only telling you how it actually is. What it should be isn’t necessarily the way it is. OK thanks. We have had a reasonably cordial posting history(?), so we can jusy sit and see what others say. I feel it is a very controversial subject.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2018 21:29:53 GMT
One can only review the laws and behaviors of other atheist states and conclude that the U.S. government does not enact law or behave in a way that resembles those examples. Interestingly enough, the Constitution itself does not allow for it.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 5, 2018 21:45:21 GMT
One can only review the laws and behaviors of other atheist states and conclude that the U.S. government does not enact law or behave in a way that resembles those examples. Interestingly enough, the Constitution itself does not allow for it. I don't think you and I agree on what constitutes an 'atheist' state. My definition is very broad, and I don't attribute their atheism as having much to do with their political system. Most I would classify as secular states with different political systems. My theory about the USA is purely because they have those clauses in the Constitution which are seemingly at odds with how the government actually works, especially in reference to the Republican Party.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2018 21:52:00 GMT
One can only review the laws and behaviors of other atheist states and conclude that the U.S. government does not enact law or behave in a way that resembles those examples. Interestingly enough, the Constitution itself does not allow for it. I don't think you and I agree on what constitutes an 'atheist' state. My definition is very broad, and I don't attribute their atheism as having much to do with their political system. I only include as part of my argument the states that claim atheism.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 5, 2018 22:16:43 GMT
I don't think you and I agree on what constitutes an 'atheist' state. My definition is very broad, and I don't attribute their atheism as having much to do with their political system. I only include as part of my argument the states that claim atheism. I have an article for your to read before we continue further with this conversation, if you wouldn't mind. It is only a blog and opinion piece butt it brings up some interesting ( at least to me) points on the subject. You might find it a little confronting butt at least you will know where I am coming from on the issue of 'atheism in politics'. michaelsherlockauthor.wordpress.com/2014/10/21/the-atheist-atrocities-fallacy-hitler-stalin-pol-pot-in-memory-of-christopher-hitchens/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2018 22:42:16 GMT
The article isn't 100% accurate. Hitler was not a Christian. He certainly wasn't an atheist, either. Hitler's belief system was so complicated and erratic (not to mention the fact that it seems to have evolved) that we should actually start a thread on this board called "Try to classify Hitler's spiritual beliefs if you want to be proven wrong." It's a more mystifying topic than asking what The Holy Spirit is. But regardless of that, my argument isn't based specifically on Pol Pot or Big Brother, individually. My argument is based on governments that have proclaimed an atheistic approach to governing. North Korea is a great, current example. I don't know Rocket Man's personal belief system; what I do know is the line his state operates by.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 5, 2018 22:56:11 GMT
The article isn't 100% accurate. Hitler was not a Christian. He certainly wasn't an atheist, either. Hitler's belief system was so complicated and erratic (not to mention the fact that it seems to have evolved) that we should actually start a thread on this board called "Try to classify Hitler's spiritual beliefs if you want to be proven wrong." It's a more mystifying topic than asking what The Holy Spirit is. But regardless of that, my argument isn't based specifically on Pol Pot or Big Brother, individually. My argument is based on governments that have proclaimed an atheistic approach to governing. North Korea is a great, current example. I don't know Rocket Man's personal belief system; what I do know is the line his state operates by. Yeah, we had that thread a couple of times on the old board and it got really heated. The point is though, that the article promotes the idea that people who see atheism as a 'religion' of sorts claim that these leaders merely exchange the religion of political ideology of a regime without a religion with a new ideological religion.
|
|