PDA

View Full Version : Thanksgiving violates separation of church and state...


Preacher
11-27-2009, 02:10 AM
So why hasn't it been banned?

Seems to me it is a "Religious Holiday" much like Christmas. THis time, it is to give thanks to the almighty God. There is "Pilgrims" and "Mayflower".

Not wanting to start a tussle over a great holiday, just was struck by the. . . inconsistency of the evangelical atheists.

By the President of the United States of America.
A Proclamation.
The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God. In the midst of a civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign States to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theatre of military conflict; while that theatre has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union. Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defence, have not arrested the plough, the shuttle or the ship; the axe has enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege and the battle-field; and the country, rejoicing in the consiousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom. No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity and Union.
In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the United States to be affixed.
Done at the City of Washington, this Third day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the Independence of the Unites States the Eighty-eighth.
By the President: Abraham Lincoln
William H. Seward,
http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/thanks.htm

theplatypus
11-27-2009, 07:34 AM
So why hasn't it been banned?


Probably because at this point it's considered by many to be a secular holiday.

revefsreleets
11-27-2009, 07:36 AM
"bu-bu-bu-Lincoln"?

theplatypus
11-27-2009, 08:03 AM
Since it's approaching fast and can't possibly be considered secular why haven't they banned Christmas?

Vincent
11-27-2009, 08:32 AM
In as much as atheism is a religion, why hasn't it been banned?

http://wilstar.com/holidays/wash_thanks.html

George Washington's 1789 Thanksgiving Proclamation

Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me to "recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:"

Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand, at the city of New York, the 3d day of October, A.D. 1789.

http://wilstar.com/holidays/wash_sig.gif

Contrast this proclamation with the "secular" tyranny of today.

GoSlash27
11-27-2009, 08:36 AM
What the heck is an "evangelical atheist"? :noidea:

This argument is absolutely loaded with holes, BTW.
#1 Thanksgiving was celebrated long before the Pilgrims at Plymouth Rock.
#2 Even way back then it was a secular holiday.
#3 The Constitution says "Congress shall pass no law" The President is free to attribute the holiday to whatever wanders into his mind, as that is non-binding.
#4 You may well be the only person in the Western Hemisphere that believes that Thanksgiving is a religious holiday.

Furthermore, the argument itself is one giant knot of logical fallacies.
#1 Nobody has tried to "ban" any holiday. The first time anybody attempts to erect a shrine in thanksgiving to the Dark Lord Kromdor on the courthouse steps, I'm sure that will get banned, but Thanksgiving itself will always remain intact.
#2 Our government's powers are defined by the Constitution, amended, and interpreted by the Supreme Court, not Abe Lincoln.
#3 Even if your premise were true, violations of the law do not nullify the law. No matter how many instances you cite of our government doing things that are forbidden, this will always be a secular nation by decree of Constitutional law.
#4 The persecution complex act gets tired. You have all the freedom to celebrate your faith in any way you wish, so long as it does not interfere with my right to do the same. You do not have the right to push your religion in my face on property my tax dollars pay for.

I truly hope you you are doing well and had a joyous Thanksgiving. :hug:

revefsreleets
11-27-2009, 08:39 AM
Since it's approaching fast and can't possibly be considered secular why haven't they banned Christmas?

Christmas most certainly IS a 100% religious holiday. The only one recognized by our government...at least for now....

theplatypus
11-27-2009, 08:45 AM
Christmas most certainly IS a 100% religious holiday..

YOu agreed with me, holy cow it's Christmas miracle. :chuckle:

GoSlash27
11-27-2009, 08:46 AM
Christmas most certainly IS a 100% religious holiday.
This is true. A Pagan one at that. :popcorn:

xfl2001fan
11-27-2009, 08:52 AM
Christmas most certainly IS a 100% religious holiday. The only one recognized by our government...at least for now....

What about Easter...and Good Friday? As a Federal Employee, I get Good Friday off each year...and I can't think of a singular non-secular reason for having that particular day off.

That being said, most people consider Thanksgiving as being a non-religious holiday and they base it off of giving Thanks to the "Indians" who were here to help us through the trying first few years of being on this great nation in it's earliest stages. Watch a Charlie Brown Thanksgiving and you'll see what I mean.

Most of us were raised with that believe, so there's nothing for the "evangelical atheist" to really grasp on too.

The way we are currently set up, it is tied very hard with consumerism (Black Friday anyone) which draws it that much further away from the religious sector. For that matter, the "evangelical atheist" has won quite a number of battles on the Christmas front. Happy Holidays is now the thing to say due to PC. It's tied more tightly with consumerism than even Thanksgiving is...and there are a great number of things associated with Christmas (Rudolph, Santa, Grinch, etc...) that draw attention away from it's initial intent of a religious holiday. I think that it's understood that it won't be completely abolished anytime in the near future...but that you can nip away at it from a number of angles to cover it with a non-religious context and win your battle that way.

revefsreleets
11-27-2009, 08:54 AM
This is true. A Pagan one at that. :popcorn:

Uh oh! How dare you bring up the fact that the actual DATE of our Christmas is based on pagans celebrating the Winter Solstice! Or that Jesus was most likely born in September.

Vincent
11-27-2009, 08:55 AM
Christmas most certainly IS a 100% religious holiday. The only one recognized by our government...at least for now....

"Christmas", aka xmas, is a retail "holiday" on which our GDP is hugely dependent.

"Christmas", as it is "celebrated" has nothing to do with Christmas. It's entirely fashioned after winter solstice celebrations. Every "education" institution I'm aware of refers to the time off period as "winter break", or something equally innocuous.

Jesus wasn't even born in December.

revefsreleets
11-27-2009, 08:57 AM
Will argues against irresponsible and wasteful Holiday consumer spending...

http://www.ohio.com/editorial/commentary/75603772.html

Scroogenomics for Christmas

By George F. Will
Washington Post

Published on Friday, Nov 27, 2009

WASHINGTON: Another huge value-destroying hurricane is about to slam America, destroying billions of dollars of value. Another Katrina? No, another Christmas.

This voluntary December calamity is explained in a darkly amusing little book that is about the size of an iPhone. Scroogenomics: Why You Shouldn't Buy Presents for the Holidays comes from a distinguished publisher, Princeton University Press, and an eminent author, Joel Waldfogel of the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton business school. He says that the crux of Yuletide economics, which common sense suggests and research confirms, is:

Gifts that people buy for other people are usually poorly matched to the recipients' preferences. What the recipients would willingly pay for gifts is usually less than what the givers paid. The measure of the inefficiency of allocating value by gift-giving is the difference between the yield of satisfaction per dollar spent on gifts and the yield per dollar spent on recipients' own purchases.

By calculating the difference between the consumption of holiday goods (e.g., jewelry, but not gasoline) in December as opposed to November and January, you get a rough estimate of Christmas spending.

Waldfogel's conservative estimate is that in 2007, Americans spent $66 billion on gifts and produced $12 billion less satisfaction than would have been produced if the recipients had spent the $66 billion on themselves.

At least the Christmas stimulus strengthens the economy, right? Wrong, says Waldfogel. If all spending justified itself, we would pay people to dig holes and then refill them — or build bridges to unpopulated Alaskan islands. Spending is good if the purchaser, or the recipient of a gift, values the commodity more than he does the money it costs. Otherwise, there is a subtraction from society's store of value.

Christmas etiquette involves composing one's face to feign pleasure when unwrapping an unwelcome windfall — say, a sweater of an appalling color and a style that went out of style in the 1940s — and murmuring ''Oh, you shouldn't have'' without revealing that you mean exactly that. Price of the sweater: $50. Value to recipient: $0. Actually, less than zero, considering the psychological cost of the forced smile.

But, you say, what about sentimental value? Don't you value the thoughtfulness of dotty Uncle Ralph who gave you the sweater? Actually, Ralph's sentiment in selecting it was like your sentiment when you selected for him the candle shaped like Gandhi — desperate bewilderment about what he might like.

Were it not for sentimentality about sentiments, which are highly overrated, we would behave rationally, giving cash, thereby avoiding value subtraction. We almost do that with wedding registries. And cash for Christmas, or semi-cash in the form of gift cards, no longer seems so tacky.

Between 1998 and 2005, gift-card sales grew 27 percent a year. They now are about one-third of Christmas spending and rank near the top of lists of preferred gifts. Grandmothers, especially, should give cash to grandchildren. Instead, they think, ''What did I get when I was young?'' and then they give a kaleidoscope to Jimmy, who wanted Grand Theft Auto IV and now wants to trade grandma for Grand Theft Auto IV.

A tenth of gift cards' values, worth billions of dollars, are never redeemed. The cards are lost Christmas morning in the blizzard of wrapping paper, or just forgotten. Waldfogel proposes that after a year, gift cards expire and the unredeemed values be given to charities.

Furthermore, he says, there are some goods — e.g., Spam — that people spend less on as they become richer, and there are other things on which people spend larger portions of their incomes as their incomes rise. These are called luxuries. One such is charity. So, particularly for the rich or ascetic person who has everything he or she wants, why not gift cards useable only for charities? Some organizations (e.g., Charity Navigator and charitygiftcertificates.org) facilitate this.

''There are worlds of money wasted, at this time of year, in getting things that nobody wants, and nobody cares for after they are got.'' So said Harriet Beecher Stowe in 1850.

Waldfogel says every generation thinks it invented both sex and Christmas excess. But retail sales statistics demonstrate that the ''Yuletide bump'' was a larger share of GDP in 1935. Data from 1919 concerning the retail giants of the day — mail-order companies (e.g., Sears and Montgomery Ward) and ''dime stores'' (e.g., Woolworth) — actually show that Christmas sales as a share of the economy is about half as large as they once were. This means proportionally less value subtraction. Hallelujah.

Will is a Washington Post columnist. He can be e-mailed at georgewill@washpost.com.

xfl2001fan
11-27-2009, 08:58 AM
"Christmas", aka xmas, is a retail "holiday" on which our GDP is hugely dependent.

"Christmas", as it is "celebrated" has nothing to do with Christmas. It's entirely fashioned after winter solstice celebrations. Every "education" institution I'm aware of refers to the time off period as "winter break", or something equally innocuous.

Jesus wasn't even born in December.

Christmas is a religious holiday. It is tied in with the Winter Solstice...which (I believe) was brought about by the Catholic Church as a way of absorbing a large number of Pagans into the fold (something they've been really good about over the years).

Same with Easter. Jesus Death (and Resurrection) is what we are supposed to be celebrating...yet it doesn't occur on the same day every year...but is instead associated with a Pagan worship...

Regardless of their ties, they are still two very Christian Holidays.

xfl2001fan
11-27-2009, 09:06 AM
Will argues against irresponsible and wasteful Holiday consumer spending...

http://www.ohio.com/editorial/commentary/75603772.html

Scroogenomics for Christmas

I don't agree with this on a large number of fronts, but in some issues...he is right. Ultimately, he is arguing that sentimental value (and lost money) shouldn't count...but spending is spending...and on that front, it DOES help the economy.

If I purchase Revs a $100 gift card that gets lost in the mail because I wrote down the wrong address...and it never gets redeemed, I've still spent $100. The economy has received that $100 into it's "gains" column. Sure, Revs is out $100...but that money was already spent at "x" store...and if he never redeems it for the gift of his choice...he's out that 1940's sweater he's been dying to get...to go with the matching mittens that he's spent a decade searching for. The post office gains because I've spent money on a stamp and an envelope. Hallmark benefits because I put it in a card for him...and the economy does benefit.

GoSlash27
11-27-2009, 09:14 AM
Regardless of their ties, they are still two very Christian Holidays.
To Christians, sure. But by definition, a co-opted pagan holiday is still a pagan holiday, especially if it is celebrated in the Pagan fashion (which it is).
That's the Story of Jesus... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9hLi3Q4ttE)
Warning: contains profanity...

Vincent
11-27-2009, 09:17 AM
Christmas is a religious holiday. It is tied in with the Winter Solstice...which (I believe) was brought about by the Catholic Church as a way of absorbing a large number of Pagans into the fold (something they've been really good about over the years).

Same with Easter. Jesus Death (and Resurrection) is what we are supposed to be celebrating...yet it doesn't occur on the same day every year...but is instead associated with a Pagan worship...

Regardless of their ties, they are still two very Christian Holidays.

You know I agree with you regarding the origin and its place with Christians X. My point is that the pagan aspect of its celebration has greatly overshadowed why these days are observed.

Christmas and Easter are a place in the heart that are observed and celebrated daily by Christians. To the rest its time off, revelry, gift exchanges, etc. I have zero issue with that. It is what it is.

One of my favorite Christmas stories is in WWI when Germans and Brits came out of the trenches, exchanged whatever meager food or drink they had, sang carols, played some football, and for that brief window, ceased the carnage. That's Christmas.

http://hubpages.com/hub/thejockspot_A_Christmas_miracle

xfl2001fan
11-27-2009, 09:35 AM
You know I agree with you regarding the origin and its place with Christians X. My point is that the pagan aspect of its celebration has greatly overshadowed why these days are observed.

Christmas and Easter are a place in the heart that are observed and celebrated daily by Christians. To the rest its time off, revelry, gift exchanges, etc. I have zero issue with that. It is what it is.

One of my favorite Christmas stories is in WWI when Germans and Brits came out of the trenches, exchanged whatever meager food or drink they had, sang carols, played some football, and for that brief window, ceased the carnage. That's Christmas.

http://hubpages.com/hub/thejockspot_A_Christmas_miracle

No doubt we see eye to eye on this. The consumerism/pagan has overshadowed it...but it's still a Christian Holiday. Even the name CHRISTmas can't be ignored. Instead, we have the PC crowd who insists we use Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas.

I LOVE that story bro! Good stuff there!

SteelCityMom
11-27-2009, 06:01 PM
So why hasn't it been banned?


A good read, and a good question. The only answer I can logically give you is because, even though it is a nationally recognized holiday, and is widely regarded as having Christian roots, it is not mandated by law that you (personally) take part in any kind of religious activity, or any activity at all on that day.

In the same way, Jews can take off work and celebrate their holidays without any worry that they will be fired because of it.

Separation of church and state was not an idea meant to take anything away from religious holidays. The idea of it is merely saying that there can be no laws mandating the worship, or non-worship of any god. Since there is no law saying that you have to recognize Thanksgiving or Christmas or Easter in your personal life, then IMO separation of church and state is still being upheld.

SteelCityMom
11-27-2009, 06:05 PM
II. How Did Christmas Come to Be Celebrated on December 25?

A. Roman pagans first introduced the holiday of Saturnalia, a week long period of lawlessness celebrated between December 17-25. During this period, Roman courts were closed, and Roman law dictated that no one could be punished for damaging property or injuring people during the weeklong celebration. The festival began when Roman authorities chose “an enemy of the Roman people” to represent the “Lord of Misrule.” Each Roman community selected a victim whom they forced to indulge in food and other physical pleasures throughout the week. At the festival’s conclusion, December 25th, Roman authorities believed they were destroying the forces of darkness by brutally murdering this innocent man or woman.

B. The ancient Greek writer poet and historian Lucian (in his dialogue entitled Saturnalia) describes the festival’s observance in his time. In addition to human sacrifice, he mentions these customs: widespread intoxication; going from house to house while singing naked; rape and other sexual license; and consuming human-shaped biscuits (still produced in some English and most German bakeries during the Christmas season).

C. In the 4th century CE, Christianity imported the Saturnalia festival hoping to take the pagan masses in with it. Christian leaders succeeded in converting to Christianity large numbers of pagans by promising them that they could continue to celebrate the Saturnalia as Christians.[2]

D. The problem was that there was nothing intrinsically Christian about Saturnalia. To remedy this, these Christian leaders named Saturnalia’s concluding day, December 25th, to be Jesus’ birthday.

E. Christians had little success, however, refining the practices of Saturnalia. As Stephen Nissenbaum, professor history at the University of Massachussetts, Amherst, writes, “In return for ensuring massive observance of the anniversary of the Savior’s birth by assigning it to this resonant date, the Church for its part tacitly agreed to allow the holiday to be celebrated more or less the way it had always been.” The earliest Christmas holidays were celebrated by drinking, sexual indulgence, singing naked in the streets (a precursor of modern caroling), etc.

F. The Reverend Increase Mather of Boston observed in 1687 that “the early Christians who first observed the Nativity on December 25 did not do so thinking that Christ was born in that Month, but because the Heathens’ Saturnalia was at that time kept in Rome, and they were willing to have those Pagan Holidays metamorphosed into Christian ones.”[3] Because of its known pagan origin, Christmas was banned by the Puritans and its observance was illegal in Massachusetts between 1659 and 1681.[4] However, Christmas was and still is celebrated by most Christians.

G. Some of the most depraved customs of the Saturnalia carnival were intentionally revived by the Catholic Church in 1466 when Pope Paul II, for the amusement of his Roman citizens, forced Jews to race naked through the streets of the city. An eyewitness account reports, “Before they were to run, the Jews were richly fed, so as to make the race more difficult for them and at the same time more amusing for spectators. They ran… amid Rome’s taunting shrieks and peals of laughter, while the Holy Father stood upon a richly ornamented balcony and laughed heartily.”[5]

H. As part of the Saturnalia carnival throughout the 18th and 19th centuries CE, rabbis of the ghetto in Rome were forced to wear clownish outfits and march through the city streets to the jeers of the crowd, pelted by a variety of missiles. When the Jewish community of Rome sent a petition in1836 to Pope Gregory XVI begging him to stop the annual Saturnalia abuse of the Jewish community, he responded, “It is not opportune to make any innovation.”[6] On December 25, 1881, Christian leaders whipped the Polish masses into Antisemitic frenzies that led to riots across the country. In Warsaw 12 Jews were brutally murdered, huge numbers maimed, and many Jewish women were raped. Two million rubles worth of property was destroyed.

http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christmas_TheRealStory.htm

revefsreleets
11-27-2009, 08:03 PM
Yada yada yada...the Christians (i.e. Catholics) took existing pagan Holidays and, in order to expedite conversion of the unclean heathen masses, they subjugated their already exiting Holidays (based on empirically observed scientifically sound and legitimate events) into the Church's dogmatic holidays which are based on myths and fables...

The victors write the histories....