Taking Christ Out Of Christmas?

[Kenngo1969]

Do I understand correctly? Christmas has been so ingrained into our society over the past century that it can stand alone as a cultural event ,regardless of any religious connection.Atheists,Jews,Muslims,Hotentots,etc. celibrate the holiday without any reference to Christ at all. For all intents and purposes they could proclaim 'Merry Festivous' and continue with all the whooplaw as usual.

I'm not asking anyone who finds Christmas religiously significant to give up that point of view; what I am asking is that people who do not/cannot accept the religious significance of Christmas accept that it is significant nonetheless, because of the tremendous impact Christ and His teachings have had on humanity, even if they do not revere him as Lord and Savior.

Edited December 23, 2012 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

Are you asking me or Kenngo? Because he is the one making the argument in his articles that the Christmas culture and religion are inseperably connected. As I said in my previous post, to try to seperate the two would be to take Christ out of Christmas. I don't want a cultural Christmas on my government property, if the true meaning of Christmas is extracted. In that case, do away with it all together. I don't want some empty plastic Jesus.

What I said is, "Wherever else culture springs from, there is no denying that religion and culture are inseparably connected." I'm not saying that culture is religion's only source, but I am saying that religion is such a big source of culture that a world without it would be culturally impoverished. I also believe that a world without religion would be, not only culturally impoverished, but morally impoverished (I stopped short of making that argument in the op-ed so as to avoid any hue and cry from moral atheists and agnostics.)

[Storm Rider]

The Puritans outlawed Christmas celebrations.

My religion is between me and my God. Governments need to keep their noses out of my religion. By the same token religions need to keep their noses out of my government.

I disagree with this position entirely. Government is a representation of the people and there is no reason for any government to pose the farce of being culturally or religiously objective for the simple reason that none such exist nor has ever existed. What is not acceptable is for a government to only allow the celebration of a single religion, denomination, or church. The government should be an example of tolerance. Tolerance is not taught or exemplified by excising religion from the body politic. More importantly, such behavior results in the exact opposite; the creation of a people devoid of culture or religion.

[blackstrap]

I see your point Kenngo and raise you a query.I wonder how much influence the life of Christ is directly felt by Muslims,Jews,atheists, and particularly secular progessives.How much/often do they think of Christ in their celebrations at this time of the year?

[Kenngo1969]

I don't have a problem with personal observation of any religious teachings/remembrances/ festivities any citizen wants to observe. Even get together to do so. In fact I encourage such. However I see no such desirability let alone need for governments to get involved. Private buildings are just that private and can do pretty much as they want as long as health and safety concerned are adequately addressed.

Even if those religious observances or activities are visible to the public? (And even if you see no problem with these things, militant, rabid, antireligionists well might. Do we let them dictate what happens on private property, just because those activities might be visible to the public?)

Public buildings should of course appeal to as many citizens as possible, but I don't desire my public library to look like a European Renaissance church.

You could fit what I know about architecture into a thimble, and you could fit what I know about architectural history into an even smaller thimble. That said, you nonetheless appear to draw a false dichotomy: European Renaissance church vs. utilitarian, nondescript public building. A public building can incorporate numerous features one might find in a European Renaissance church without necessarily totally resembling it. (In fact, one reason religion and culture are inextricably bound together is because of the impact religion has had on architecture, even when it comes to such things as public buildings.)

[Kenngo1969]

I see your point Kenngo and raise you a query.I wonder how much influence the life of Christ is directly felt by Muslims,Jews,atheists, and particularly secular progessives.How much/often do they think of Christ in their celebrations at this time of the year?

Muslims at least revere Christ as a Great Teacher. Do I believe they should see Him as more than that? Yes, but I'll take what I can get. Jews at least revere Christ to come. Do I believe they should revere Him who Proclaimed Himself the Messiah to them in the meridian of time? Yes, but I'll take what I can get. (I have no problem conceding that Judaism and Islam, like Christianity, have made magnificent contributions to culture, even if I don't share their assessment of the significance of the religious tenets of those faiths. As for atheists and secular progressives, they might have to wait until the next life before they realize the significance of the stirrings they felt from the Light of Christ when exposed to Handel's music, Michaelangelo's art, D-i-c-kens's literature, and so on: "Oh, so that's what that was all about." I'm not arguing that the nonreligious think of Christ often enough. Heck, as has been pointed out on this thread, even many of the religiously devout don't do that enough. I'm with you: I think they should think of Christ more this time of year. Will persuading them to recognize Christmas's cultural significance (even if they don't recognize its religious significance) do that? No, but it's a step in the right direction: half a loaf is better than none.

Edited December 23, 2012 by Kenngo1969

[Calm]

Have you noticed that Halloween is getting bigger and bigger over the years? Does this not say something about the culture?

People like to dress up and pretend.

[Calm]

Dentists should love Halloween! Mind you people are also getting bigger over the years! except for me of course, I have high metabolism. Never got the Zombie fascination though

We had a local dentist pay kids for their candy a buck a pound. To me this is rather counterproductive and insulting of those who are giving out candy to be kind...basically saying "give us your gifts and we will give you something better while throwing these other gifts away". Kids end up going out not for fun, but for the purely selfish reason to make some money. Edited December 23, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Public buildings should of course appeal to as many citizens as possible, but I don't desire my public library to look like a European Renaissance church.

By "public" you mean government own and not just any business or building not a private residence?

[blackstrap]

Here's the problem. Is a public building 'owned' by the government ,or by the 'people'.What is the actual legal situation? If it is a majority rule kind of thing then I suppose the majority,through their reps could establish rule whereby they hang sheets on the Capitol grounds to celebrate All Ghosts Day.

[Kenngo1969]

Dentists should love Halloween! Mind you people are also getting bigger over the years! except for me of course, I have high metabolism. Never got the Zombie fascination though

People like to dress up and pretend.

We had a local dentist pay kids for their candy a buck a pound. To me this is rather counterproductive and insulting of those who are giving out candy to be kind...basically saying "give us your gifts and we will give you something better while throwing these other gifts away". Kids end up going out not for fun, but for the purely selfish reason to make some money.

I may agree with these sentiments, I may disagree with them ... but Halloween, and Candy, and Cavities, and anything of that sort is NOT the topic of the thread. (Alas, I seem to lack the ability to moderate my own thread. Does anyone know in which direction I should bow, and what incantations I should chant to the Mods?) Well, whether you do or whether you don't ...

PLEASE DO ME THE COURTESY OF CONFINING THIS THREAD TO ISSUES RAISED IN THE O.P. AND RELATED ISSUES

[Kenngo1969]

By "public" you mean government own and not just any business or building not a private residence?

I believe by "public buildings" he's referring to offices and facilities where the government conducts its business: courthouses, city and county buildings, other facilities run by federal, state, and local government.

[Calm]

PLEASE DO ME THE COURTESY OF CONFINING THIS THREAD TO ISSUES RAISED IN THE O.P. AND RELATED ISSUES

Sorry, one of those nights...brain got stuck into skull upside down.

[Calm]

I believe by "public buildings" he's referring to offices and facilities where the government conducts its business: courthouses, city and county buildings, other facilities run by federal, state, and local government.

There was reference earlier to how a church might look IIRC so am wondering.

[Duncan]

I may agree with these sentiments, I may disagree with them ... but Halloween, and Candy, and Cavities, and anything of that sort is NOT the topic of the thread. (Alas, I seem to lack the ability to moderate my own thread. Does anyone know in which direction I should bow, and what incantations I should chant to the Mods?) Well, whether you do or whether you don't ...

PLEASE DO ME THE COURTESY OF CONFINING THIS THREAD TO ISSUES RAISED IN THE O.P. AND RELATED ISSUES

spoilsport

[Sleeper Cell]

My religion is between me and my God. Governments need to keep their noses out of my religion. By the same token religions need to keep their noses out of my government.

Many churches believe that “speaking truth to power” is a religious duty.

As long as the government can tell a church which of its activities are religious and which are not (and therefore subject to government regulation), your statement has little meaning.

[thesometimesaint]

By and large the history of civilization is the delineation between the proper roles of government and the proper roles of religion. Here in the US there is a dynamic tension between the two. The Church can control the beliefs of just their members, and to a more limited extent their behaviors. The government has control over just the behaviors of all of its citizens, but a very limited roll in their beliefs. IE; We may believe in throwing virgins into a volcano, but unless we actually do it the government has little to say.

[Kenngo1969]

In the interest of furthering the discussion, I offer the definition of culture from Dictionary.com:

cul·ture

[kuhl-cher] Show IPA noun, verb, cul·tured,cul·tur·ing.

noun

1. the quality in a person or society that arises from a concern forwhat is regarded as excellent in arts, letters, manners, scholarlypursuits, etc.

2. that which is excellent in the arts, manners, etc.

3. a particular form or stage of civilization, as that of a certain nation or period: Greek culture.

4. development or improvement of the mind by education ortraining.

5. the behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular social,ethnic, or age group: the youth culture; the

drug culture.

And I ask, are there any of those ways in which religion and religiously-rooted celebrations are not significant?

Edited December 24, 2012 by Kenngo1969

[Robert F. Smith]

they are virulently, militantly antireligious. As such, they likely would object to such things as the reciting of the pledge of allegiance, the display of a cross on Memorial Day, or the singing of all four verses of the Star Spangled Banner.

I understand what you are saying, and that the whole issue is ignored in nation-states which have established religions, and in which minority religions are often mistreated.

However, just for perspective, you should realize that the original pledge of allegiance (which I grew up reciting every day in public school in the 1940s) did not include the phrase "under God." It was added later by militantly religious and political powers which were quite intolerant of the secular state. It would never occur to me to foist my religious views on others in that fashion, but many ardently religious people and organizations do not hesitate to try to enact into law their systematic religious views -- whether Roman Catholic, Evangelical, or Muslim Sharia Law. They haven't the foggiest notion of why that is wrong.

[Kenngo1969]

... [J]ust for perspective, you should realize that the original pledge of allegiance (which I grew up reciting every day in public school in the 1940s) did not include the phrase "under God."

I was aware of that, but thank you for bringing it into the discussion.

It was added later by militantly religious and political powers which were quite intolerant of the secular state. It would never occur to me to foist my religious views on others in that fashion, but many ardently religious people and organizations do not hesitate to try to enact into law their systematic religious views -- whether Roman Catholic, Evangelical, or Muslim Sharia Law. They haven't the foggiest notion of why that is wrong.

It's true that I have not studied the issue exhaustively, but, respectfully, I am not prepared to concede your characterization of those who advocated amending the Pledge of Allegiance to include the phrase "under God" as militant and intolerant. The nation as a whole was quite a bit more accepting of religious/Christian ideas when the change to the Pledge was adopted, so it makes me wonder why such militancy and intolerance would have been necessary. Thank you for your contribution to the thread, and thank you in advance for any reply you would care to make.

Edited December 24, 2012 by Kenngo1969

[Sleeper Cell]

By and large the history of civilization is the delineation between the proper roles of government and the proper roles of religion. Here in the US there is a dynamic tension between the two. The Church can control the beliefs of just their members, and to a more limited extent their behaviors. The government has control over just the behaviors of all of its citizens, but a very limited roll in their beliefs. IE; We may believe in throwing virgins into a volcano, but unless we actually do it the government has little to say.

So ”freedom of religion” refers merely to religious belief, not to religious practice?

There is quite a difference between murder and criticizing the government. Nobody has the right to do the former. The latter is a right guaranteed to everybody by the First Amendment.

Perhaps there would be less “dynamic tension between the two” if there were fewer attempts to twist the words “Congress shall make no law … prohibiting the free exercise thereof” to mean the opposite.

BTW, the entire point of the Bill of Rights is that the government does not have the right to control the behaviors of its citizens, except in a limited sense

[DH]

I'm not clear on why we need displays of religious symbols on public property. There is plenty of private property on which people are free to celebrate or advertize their religion as much as they want. For example, in the downtown of my city, there is a skyscraper in front of which they put a nativity scene every year. The property is privately owned, so no problem. Why would you need another nativity scene a couple blocks away, in front of City Hall? For that matter, there are a number of churches in the same general area. I don't "get" why some Christians get all up in arms about not being able to put their displays on public property--why don't they just put them up on their own property? People can see them just as easily there.

[Kenngo1969]

I'm not clear on why we need displays of religious symbols on public property. There is plenty of private property on which people are free to celebrate or advertize their religion as much as they want. For example, in the downtown of my city, there is a skyscraper in front of which they put a nativity scene every year. The property is privately owned, so no problem. Why would you need another nativity scene a couple blocks away, in front of City Hall? For that matter, there are a number of churches in the same general area. I don't "get" why some Christians get all up in arms about not being able to put their displays on public property--why don't they just put them up on their own property? People can see them just as easily there.

What do you mean by "public property"? If, by public property, you mean property owned or controlled by the government, I'm inclined to agree with you. However, there is a certain subset of the nonreligious who are not only apathetic toward religion, but who are also militantly and virulently antireligious who decry any manifestation of religious faith, even if that manifestation occurs on private property which is visible and/or accessible to the public.

Edited December 24, 2012 by Kenngo1969

[thesometimesaint]

So ”freedom of religion” refers merely to religious belief, not to religious practice?

There is quite a difference between murder and criticizing the government. Nobody has the right to do the former. The latter is a right guaranteed to everybody by the First Amendment.

Perhaps there would be less “dynamic tension between the two” if there were fewer attempts to twist the words “Congress shall make no law … prohibiting the free exercise thereof” to mean the opposite.

BTW, the entire point of the Bill of Rights is that the government does not have the right to control the behaviors of its citizens, except in a limited sense

Freedom of religion is meaningless unless we are free to practice it.

Agreed. However the government does have an affirmative responsibility to protect the unwary from the unscrupulous. The question is how does government allow for full freedom of religion and still protect its citizens? That is the dynamic tension I'm referring to.

" It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods, or no gods. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg".

Thomas Jefferson

I'm pretty clear as to what I mean when I say what's in the Constitution.

Agreed. However those limits are subject to change by "We the people".

[thesometimesaint]

What do you mean by "public property"? If, by public property, you mean property owned or controlled by the government, I'm inclined to agree with you. However, there is a certain subset of the nonreligious who are not only apathetic toward religion, but who are also militantly and virulently antireligious who decry any manifestation of religious faith, even if that manifestation occurs on private property which is visible and/or accessible to the public.

I've never really understood those that would impose their religious/anti-religious views on what others do on their own property. As the late Dear Abby said: MYOB

(Mind Your Own Business).