National Day of Prayer is on, despite court ruling

Agreed. My point was that A LOT of people in this country don't value religious freedom as much as they value having the government endorse or encourage their particular view.

If Ramadan became a federal holiday in this country how do you think that would go over with the Christian majority? What about a National Day of Fasting?

 

i like the fasting idea, but i don't want it mandated

you're right...and that's why i have no problem with changing the name or doing away entirely with the day of prayer.

 

you said: Just that establishing a federal day for observance of a Christian holiday is an example of government being pro-religion moreso than them *not* establishing a federal day for the observance of a Christian holiday.

that's the post i was responding to

I'm saying...I don't think them making this holiday is any evidence of the government being more pro-religion than they already were before. That they never had federal holidays before...and addressed it for the first time in 1870...doesn't mean that Christmas wasn't pretty well universally recognized as a holiday before then. I'd say there were far stronger signs of "establishment" than giving govt workers Christmas day off in a country where about 80% weren't just identifying themselves as Christians, but were regular church-attenders.


Look, I'm all about making sure we're not overtly Christian. Frankly, there's loads of crap that the US has done that I would never want confused with Jesus. And I don't want ANYONE to feel persecuted by the cross or any symbol of my faith. But we go to great lengths to suggest that the Founders of our country weren't believers and that they would shun a day like the National Day of Prayer. I believe that to be a flawed argument on two counts:

1. who cares what they thought? we're a much more pluralistic society today than then. a national day of prayer with Christian overtones in 1776 would have been far less offensive to most Americans than it might be today. I don't believe the Founders had perfect wisdom and that their words are eternal....I see the Constitution as guideposts and brilliant;

2. even the heroes of the notions of separation of church and state (particulary Jefferson of course) allowed for and attended decidedly Christian events and church services IN FEDERAL BUILDINGS. There were worship services in the House of Representatives during Jefferson's term....he commented he was fine with it because they weren't mandatory, and he attended them. That same line of reasoning would allow for a national day of prayer.

I think we go too far in suggesting that Freedom of Religion...AS IT MEANT TO THE FOUNDERS...means we must exclude all government involvement at all in matters religious. But in the end...for my own opinion...that isn't very important.

 

That makes no sense either.

So why make it a federal holiday then?

What is the point, if not to establish government recognition of a Christian holiday?

That, in and of itself, is a promotion (albeit a weak one).

I don't see how you can say this with a straight face.

 

How about National Goat Sacrifice Day?

 

You'd be eliminating sex for at least 20% of Mississippi.

 

why make federal holidays at all?

because you're acknowledging that people aren't planning to work that day, is my answer. you can fight it...but when you know 80% of your workforce is taking off...guess what? it's a holiday.

the national holidays aren't binding on the states, even. each state decides its own legal holidays for its own employees. this isn't a proclamation that Christmas is good, true or real...it's an acknowledgement that a gigantic majority of people ain't showing up for work that day, which would have been ridiculously true in 1870.

 

That's a pretty terrible reason.

Did we make MLK day a federal holiday because we knew people weren't planning to work that day?

As for 80%, that's scary "majority rules" reasoning. Just because it's a majority doesn't automatically mean the government has to acknowledge/promote a religious holiday.

Like I said, let them voluntarily take off if they want. If it's enough people, close it down. But don't make it a mandatory, annual closure.

Edit: Or at the very least, since you're such a pragmatist ... don't make it a federal holiday explicitly to celebrate Christmas. Make it a federal holiday for something else, that way everybody gets to stay happy and business can go about as usual without the government giving special treatment (at least explicitly) to one religion.

 

I think federal holidays have come to mean something more....because I agree with you that the idea has very little application to MLK Day.

But at heart, this is about the federal goverment managing its workforce...not anyone else's, including the states' govt employees.

I'm with you on a ton of this stuff...but i have a difficult time seeing giving federal employees Christmas off as an establishment of religion.

 

Been on both sides of the debate on this one, and I think the both sides get too radical.

1.) The non-religious crowd will freak out at any little thing involving the words "government" and "religion" in the same sentence and will inevitably start b****ing about separation of church and state. Not every small mingling of government and a religious act is a sign that we are vastly moving toward establishing a government that will endorse a religion and then move us back to 17th Century England.

2.) The religious crowd will act as if the Government is taking their religious freedoms away when in reality they are just doing what the Constitution mandates (depending on who you believe knows the "real" interpretation of Separation of Church and State). They will demonize atheists in liberal cities like San Fransisco who protest the usage of the phrase "In God We Trust" on money.


And everyone will hate everyone.

 

not arguing either side, but with the commercialization of christmas most people probably don't even think about it celebrating the birth of Jesus

 

totally agreed..and the Church will create its own little idol (the reserved day...or the Ten Commandments monument at the Courthouse...or etc)....and then mourn it all by screaming that the God they claim is everywhere and beyond human reason was somehow kicked out of public life. reducing God to the level of someone caught by the old Dome Redcoats sitting in the wrong seats at an Astros game.

 

Oh man, you should have seen how freaked out my crazy Stepdad got over the Ten Commandments at the Courthouse thing. I think he even ordered some shirt that supported Roy Moore.

THIS IS WHY GOVERNMENT IS SO CORRUPT! THEY DON'T WANT GOD ANYWHERE NEAR IT!

 

ugh. i remember those debates. all form over substance...and sooo minimizes the God I believe in.

 

Actually, yes, every little connection between religion and state does move us toward theocracy. It may be small, but you cannot justify something that is 1% wrong by the fact that it isn't 100% wrong. The perfect is not the enemy of the good. There is nothing wrong with defending an absolute line drawn between the two.

As I've said before, defending the freedom FROM religion is as much as the same as defending freedom OF religion... whether you're non-religious is irrelevant to the discussion. It is about protecting everyone's rights, minority or majority.

 

I disagree.

Was the government's intention to manage its workforce in relation to George Washington Day?

I think you're creating a reasoning that never existed to justify your position, and even if that *were* their reasoning, it still doesn't make government acknowledgement of religion or religious practices any more justified. The government should be ambivalent.

 

Sorry Donny Obi-Wan has bested you here. The government is ambivalent. They give holidays off that happen to coincide with cultural/religious events that are typically understood as holidays to a good portion of the public. This is merely a conveniance. In no way are you being forced to observe the holiday in question. If you want to celebrate December 25th with hookers and blow, have at it.

Similarly, a "national day of prayer" is as meaningless as memorial day. No one is forcing you to do anything. It's just a recognition that a good portion of the citizenry is involved in this sort of activity, and assuring that the government "cares" about cultural phenomena too.

I think stamping "in god we trust" on currency, and inserting "under god" in the pledge is too far though. The difference being that those instances coincide with expressions utilized by everyone regardless of creed. Everyone uses money, and most students say the pledge at one time or another in a moderately forced environment.

I guess I'd call my stand pragmatic...harmless instances of conveniance or "recognition" are ok. Putting a 10 commandments post by a courthouse, for example, is not ok because it gives a horrible impression regarding justice.

 

you'd think in 140 years they'd have figured out how to force me to wake up on sunday mornings, march me down to the protestant church and force me to take communion. i guess the government really is that inefficient.

 

Stupid droid ... ambivalence would be not recognizing it at all.

Pretty simple to compute, even for a droid.

Edit: If you want to argue semantics that making Christmas a federal holiday isn't "encouraging" religion, then what the heck is it? Mandating time off to observe a particular religion's holy day isn't a promotion of that faith? At the very least, it is recognizing it. And since the government doesn't "recognize" all other faith holidays, it's kinda unfair. And beyond that, I refer you right back to religion vs. non-religion in that recognizing one is automatically stepping on the toes of the other---because they are in direct opposition to one another!