Well, I've made my own position as clear as I can. Since it happens to be the prevailing view in our society right now, I won't harp on it. It's up to you to convince me that the generations-old tradition of closing on Christmas is unconstitutional. Here's why your arguments so far fail to do that.
1) Semantic Fallacies - A staunch Republican once tried to convince me that political conservatives, not liberals, were the real environmentalists because the words "conservative" and "conservation" have the same root word. You make a similar mistake when you argue that "Christmas" necessarily refers to a religious holiday because the word "Christmas" has religious roots. Clearly for millions of people, "celebrating Christmas" has little, if anything, to do with Jesus. 2) Genetic Fallacy - When fundamentalist Christians condemn Christmas because it has roots in pagan Europe, they commit the genetic fallacy. You do the same thing when you insist that the Christmas traditions of a secular nature (like visiting relatives, taking off work or exchanging gifts) are somehow tainted by the fact that they have religious roots. 3) Appeal to Ridicule - When you say that my arguments can be found on religious websites, you are committing a fallacy known as appeal to ridicule. It may have rhetorical value, but it's not logical, and it won't work on me. :-) 4) Cherry Picking - The first amendment says, in relevant part, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." You consistently leave out the second clause, even though it has just as much constitutional weight as the first. 5) Framing Mistakes - You frame the question in such a way that the government "intends" Christmas to be religious and forces you to celebrate it by preventing you from working the way you want to. A more apt interpretation would be that the government responds to the wishes of the majority to participate in the cultural institution that is Christmas. Unfortunately, this decision makes it difficult for you to treat Christmas Day like any other day. The truth is that in our culture December 25th is not just like every other day, and the government has no interest in helping you pretend that it is. Aaron On Sep 1, 9:26 pm, Clogtowner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi y'all - I hope you are not suggesting that there is something wrong > with my genes. I admit to lady killing (in the nicest possible way) > genes, but there is nothing fallacious about them. > > You pick on the one word "entirely." If the Government intended this > holiday to be anything other than religious, (and Christian at that) > they would designate it so in the title. By your logic, it seems that > Mardi Gras has nothing to do with pancakes on Tuesday but rather > blueberries whenever one feels like it. If it looks like a > duck.......................... > > There is no secular aspect to Christmas - wrong!! There maybe a > secular aspect to December 25th - I usually find one. > > I've heard your interpretation of the first amendment elsewhere. I > think it may have been on a religious website! "No law respecting an > establishment of religion" Let's take it step by step - "no law" > first. By forcing all Federal Employees to take a day off which the > Govt.gives a religious name to, and declaring it a Bank Holiday, thus > closing down the country, I submit that is sufficient evidence to > satisfy the "law" requirement. I next submit, that by the very term > they use and the power they employ their law directly addresses the > establishment of a religion. The only thing missing is the headline > "This is Jesus' birthday - we command you to observe it and we make it > virtually impossible for you not to" > > Again, I think your logic is reversed. Since when has this Govt. > catered to the wishes of it's people? The people are forced to obey > and observe the holiday. It takes a real atheist to abstain! Join me! > > On Sep 1, 8:53 pm, Aaron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Come on, Clog. You can do better than that. Your first argument is > > an example of the semantic fallacy. By that logic, you should be > > arrested for being a lady-killer. ;-) There's also a hint of the > > genetic fallacy.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy > > > You'll notice I don't deny that Christmas is a religious holiday. I > > deny that it is "entirely" so. In fact, I suspect that the secular > > aspect of Christmas is larger than the religous these days. > > > The Free Exercise Clause is equal to (not subordinate to) the > > Establishment Clause. (Santa Clause is bigger than both, of course.) > > If the rationale behind government closure is this: "the government > > acknowledges Jesus as Lord and encourages all citizens to celebrate > > his birth," that would be unconstitutional. > > > If, on the other hand, the rationale is more like this: "the > > government is constitutionally obligated to respect the people's right > > to exercise religion. Most of our religious employees are Christians > > who celebrate Christmas. Most of our non-religious employees still > > have cherished family traditions on these days. So, we've decided > > it's easier to just close shop rather than try to find people like > > Clogtowner to hold down the fort for us," then that's perfectly > > constitutional. > > > The fact that people can visit their friends and families on other > > days is irrelevant. Millions of families, religous and secular, have > > a tradition of gathering on Christmas. So many, in fact, that the > > government continues to cater to their wishes. You'd almost suspect > > we live in a democracy! > > > Aaron > > > On Sep 1, 2:37 pm, Clogtowner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi y'all - Aha! an argument at last, albeit devoid of foundation. > > > > >Your assertion that Christmas is > > > > "entirely a religious holiday" is patently absurd > > > > If it is absurd, why is it officially called "Christmas Day." How can > > > christmas day be described any other way than religious? If it is > > > secular, why not give it a secular name and choose a day other than > > > "Jesus' Birthday?" > > > > > Taking time off work to visit family or participate in family traditions > > > > Does this have to be performed on a religious holiday? Aren't there > > > 364 other possibilties? I contend that by voluntarily participating, > > > one not only condones but encourages the pernicious practice. > > > > <Your understanding of church-state separation disallows the closing > > > of government offices on days that have religious > > > significance. My understanding does not necessarily disallow it. > > > > How can you possibly affirm that a mandatory closing down of the > > > Government, requiring compliance from most other businesses, on a > > > Christian holiday, is not promoting a religion? A clear breach of the > > > first Amendment! Please clarify how your understanding does not > > > disallow it. > > > > < So, your Christmas rituals > > > > I submit that I do not have Christmas rituals. I try to live out the > > > day as I would normally - eating out, shopping, lustful gazes at the > > > opposite sex. The wall that the Government erects in the name of > > > Christianity tries to prevent me. If you can suggest a simpler > > > normality on that special day, I'll be happy to hear it. Don't tell me > > > to turn on the TV or radio. Perhaps I should hide in the closet - but > > > that wouldn't be normal. > > > > Nevertheless - I'll be happy to share the brandy with you in a > > > suitable location. > > > > On Sep 1, 1:35 pm, Aaron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Well, Clogtowner, I think you've carefully chosen a definition of > > > > "observe" that fits your bias. Your assertion that Christmas is > > > > "entirely a religious holiday" is patently absurd. Taking time off > > > > work to visit family or participate in family traditions does not make > > > > anyone a "hypocritical" atheist. The mere disbelief in gods requires > > > > nothing of us, so there's nothing to be hypocritical about! One can > > > > be dishonest, perhaps, by pretending to believe, but not hypocritical. > > > > > We can be hypocritical about other things, though - political and > > > > economic beliefs, for example. That's what you're really talking > > > > about. Your understanding of church-state separation disallows the > > > > closing of government offices on days that have religious > > > > significance. My understanding does not necessarily disallow it. > > > > Your economic and social beliefs prefer businesses that stay open on > > > > religious holidays. Not so much with me. > > > > > So, your Christmas rituals are consistent with your political, social > > > > and economic beliefs. Mine are, too. We just have (slightly) > > > > different beliefs about those things. Logically speaking, atheism has > > > > nothing to do with it. Even religious people could share our > > > > political positions. > > > > > If you want to talk politics, though, we have to bring out the brandy. > > > > > Aaron- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
