Nativity scene removed from courthouse lawn.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
RAVENNA — A group of people stood along Main Street in front of the courthouse in 20-degree weather on Saturday night to protest the city’s decision to not allow the display of a Nativity scene this Christmas season.
A Nativity scene that was added to the Christmas display at the Ravenna Courthouse Lawn last year was the subject of complaints, including a letter from an out-of-state group that advocates for the separation of church and state. The courthouse is located at 203 W. Main St. in Ravenna.
“We would like to have the Nativity scene come back on the courthouse lawn,” said David Ballert, pastor of Bethel Baptist Church in Ravenna. “I’m here with my people because we care very much about the Lord Jesus Christ ... I believe Ravenna is a great town. I believe that a town deserves to have Jesus Christ in it.”
Ballert said 40-50 members of his church were holding signs and singing Saturday to demonstrate their love of Ravenna and Jesus. He said he and his flock also were demonstrating Dec. 1, and plan to return Dec. 22. He said he wants permission from “the powers that be” to return the Nativity scene to the Ravenna Courthouse Lawn.
As members of the Bethel Baptist congregation sang carols and hymns, and waved and wished passersby “Merry Christmas,” friendly responses and car horns could be heard.
“Everybody driving by seems to be saying ‘hello’ to us and ‘Merry Christmas’ ... I have no doubt the people are behind what we’re doing here.”
As previously reported in the Record-Courier, Rebecca Markert, legal director of the Freedom from Religion Foundation in Madison, Wis., wrote a letter last December to Ravenna Mayor Frank Seman after he allowed the display, which featured wooden cutouts of Jesus, Mary and Joseph, along with a star and a sign with a Bible verse.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
105 visitors
A local mayor understands the constitutional concept of separation of church and state so he keeps a Nativity scene from the courthouse law. That scene should instead be on the lawn of a church or a private residence where it belongs.
I'm proud to be a supporter of the Freedom From Religion Foundation.
I expect that this discussion to be civil. If you wouldn't say it to your mother then don't post it.
Are you the REAL Grinch?
Only for a few days of the year.
The Grinch got to cut the roast beast.
Nowadays there would still be somebody that would whine and complain about it wherever it is as long as it could be seen by anybody against it. That's just the way things are lately.
Notice that one of the compalinants was an 'out of state' group. What business is it of theirs? Ravenna (if this is the Ohio Ravenna) is a small town.
I always wonder why people that are so opposed to Chrisitanity are willing to accept a day off for the holiday. Hypocrtical, don't you think? Almost like 'I stand for __________ (unless I get some benefit from it)'.
The mayor of the city of Ravenna Ohio understands that the constitutional requirement of the separation of church and state isn't limited to just Ohio. If this nativity scene was permitted to stay then the Satanists would have showed up. It was easier to remove it to private property where it is protected.
I lived in Santa Monica, CA for a long time and that's exactly what happened there. For decades there was a beautiful nativity display every December in Palisades Park on Ocean Avenue. I think there were a dozen separate displays, each portraying a different portion of the story. Several years ago (these things tend to start in places like Santa Monica), some atheist stick-in-the-muds insisted they were triggered every time they drove by the thing and so the city decided it wouldn't be allowed in the park anymore. This is why we can't have nice things.
You can have nice things on your own property or church.
Indeed. And they would have insisted that their Baphomet statue be allowed to be erected as well. The town would have to either comply, or remove the nativity scene.
That's what some places have done when it came to erecting a display of the 10 Commandments. Much easier and less costly than fighting a lawsuit, which a town would lose.
The facts of the matter seem to disagree with you,
Equal representation for all religions on public property seems to be a problem for religious people such as yourself.
Not really. Of course, as usual, you just accuse and attack instead of presenting a civil response including an actual position supported by evidence. I caution you before challenging me on this with an account in USA Today. I was there.
So what?
Try laying some ignorant claims on me, [deleted]
I await your reply.
I answered your question. Did you not read the very comment you replied to? If you're trying to be clever, it's getting embarrassing.
This leads back to your reply in 1.2.7. You claimed that you were there and that I was wrong. Then you claimed that you were going to correct my supposed ignorant claims. I said to go ahead and post your threatened reply. After that reply the dicsussion has become a game of "Who's on first".
Yes. You have confused yourself. I cannot correct ignorant claims until you make them.
You implied I was mistaken about something because someone disagreed with me, but you never said how. I can't correct you until you actually make a coherent point. Vague claims that someone disagrees with me don't allow for a specific response. We don't know the nature of the disagreement.
This really isn't that complicated. They're your words, after all.
Facts of the matter always seem to disagree with these poor, poor victims of 'christian' persecution.
Absolutely. No problem with that.
Their ground, their electric, their security, etc.
The US Constitution prevails once again against the attempted subversion by unamerican theocrats.
But...but Trump said that he had single-handedly WON the war on Christmas....
I like this nativity scene.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8tSq-fNNyk
As an atheist, I don’t mind seeing nativity scenes in public - just as long as any display is welcome on the same grounds. Jesus, Santa, and Baphomet can all coexist in public spaces. After all, they all have something very obvious in common.
For many years the city of Chicago had a large manger scene (and a Menorah) on display , on city owned property (Daley Plaza) across the street from city hall.
I assume it is still there at Christmastime , but i haven't been by there in a few years.
I think that these seasonal scenes should be permitted, as long as the atheists are allowed to put up a display if they wish. I believe that is where it stands for a lot of local communities.
I'm not really a fan of a national atheist organization filing suit against small towns hundreds or thousands of miles away, either.
In his mind, it was better to keep all religion out than to have the courthouse lawn become a religious battleground.
Yeah, think of the bloodshed if someone tried to put a statue of Muhammad there.
That is not outside of the realm of possibility,
xenophobic thumpers would definitely lose their shit and probably start a religious turf war.
Thank you Perrie for changing the thread title to the proper visual.
It kind of depends on how the courthouse lawn is normally used. If the city routinely issues permits for displays, then denying permission for this display could potentially violate the 1st Amendment. If they never do that, then allowing it would likely be a violation.
These folks might have better luck getting a permit to put the display in a park just because parks are more commonly locations where permits are issued for various uses. And of course, if they can find some conveniently placed private property, then they can do what they like.
Constitutional issues aside, what business is it of some busybodies in Wisconsin what some little town in Ohio is doing on their courthouse lawn? Where is the complaint? Who is the victim? How about a little Christmas portion of Mindyourownbusiness?
Maybe you could obey the First Amendment and keep religious displays on private property where they are constitutionally protected, unless you want the Satanists to show up with a 30' lighted Baphomet and wicked Pastafarians will erect a 40x15' FSM as equal religious speech? Conservative Christians whine when that happens and claim that your religious beliefs are being trampled when other religions have equal representation on the public stage.
Really? How many of these losers live in Ravenna, Ohio and wanted to put up a display at Christmas?
Your personal attacks are noted.
It doesn't matter if it is just one person. In the US our rights are not meted out by popular vote. We have the Bill of Rights to prevent that from happening so all people have equal rights.
You haven't identified one person. So far, you have identified zero aggrieved persons. I'll ask again: How many people in Ravenna, Ohio complained about this?
Kind of makes you wonder if those complaining whiners go through life with blinders on so they never see anything that "offends" them, doesn't it?
SMH at the freaking snowflake nation we have become.
Seriously, how frail do you have to be to be triggered by a nativity scene because it's on public property . . . AND . . . in someone else's town?
It only needs to be one person. The fact that the complainant understands the separation of church and state doesn't mean that they are "triggered". The mayor knows he was looking at an expensive losing battle because of the past decisions so he forced the nativity scene moved to where it belongs on private property. Nobody cares whether you like it on private property because the property owner has religious exercise rights that don't apply to the same scene when it is on public property such as the courthouse lawn.
Funny, I've asked more than a few conservatives the same question, Also funny, It seems both sides dont have as much tolerance as they like to profess.
Both sides of today are much more like the person ordering at burger king, They want it all their way. + NOW !
Yes, that's fine. But again, you don't have one person. You have zero persons.
Oh? Was that the goal, then? Blackmail a little town of less than 12,000 people? I get it now, thank you. Get the big national atheist army to go after tiny towns across the country because they can be bullied.
Why do you think that I would know who this person is? Did someone tell you that we are issued secret decoder rings for communicating when our annual donation is deposited into the FFRF's account?
Forcing them to obey the 1st Amendment is not blackmailing them. There is no national atheist army, despite your apparent beliefs.
What in the hell are you talking about? Have you identified yourself as one of these in this seed somewhere? If not, stop playing that you are somehow hurt.
He should have stuck to the discussion topic and not made personal attacks. That action is unnecessary to discuss the topic.
That is not a personal attack. It is nothing more than a general statement. A personal attack would be something like this...(disclaimer..this is not an attack on you, simply an example of what a personal attack would look like) "How many of these losers like you live in Ravenna, Ohio?"
Glad I can clear it up for you...
Ok, so it's an ad hom attack rather than a personal one. Tomato, toma-toe.
You should re-read post number one.
Oh Bullshit. How is anyone supposed ot know where the seeder lives? As to an Ad Hominem attack? It is directed to a group outside of this site. Please save the butthurt for something real.
He made am ad hom attack. I simply called it out for what it is.
[Removed]
[This is] the [last warning that we will] be [discussing] the [topic and not members of] the [forum, if it continues beyond this point] you [will have] a [2 day vacation.]
Yes, I do say. You referred to Satanists as "losers," your words. It doesn't get much more obvious than that. So spare me the whining and own up to it!
TiG, epistte and Gordy all state - the "delusional loser religious people" - in their rants ? or just state that religious people are all delusional ? could you show everyone an example comment ? or is this another example of being "persecuted" that seems to be popular lately with a lot of the conservative minded ?
[Removed]
[Removed]
I consider that the same thing.
Oh, so if I complain it, I'm whining about being persecuted, but if you complain about it, it's a legitimate CoC violation. Gotcha!
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Let's get back] to the [seeded conversation]
[Removed]
[Removed]
i do too - so point out where that has occurred already with TiG or the others you have mentioned , then you can report it to a Mod so you will feel better and not feel so " persecuted "
please point out to me in any of my comments where i have complained about such a thing ( or even the other poster who replied in a positive manner with their emoji might be able to point it out to me in any of my comments ). Once you get that done - then we could talk about what i do or don't complain about vs what you do or don't complain about . I love this " persecution " complex because i see it on both sides on this site in reference to mods and it's hilarious and yet you are the one " persecuted ". Gotcha !
Funny thing....I actually knew what I spoke of based on the comment I commented on.
No problem. I'm more than happy to do that. That's all I have ever wanted to do in this seed.
The FFRF has an affiliate chapter in Ohio.
I'd like for you to explain your opposition to the strict separation of church and state.
Filed under: Who gives a shit? [She answered your question. Further uncivil responses and badgering will be deleted.]
What do you mean by "strict separation of church and state" and why should I care one way or the other about it?
You claimed in a previous post about what should the mayor of Ravenna care about the ideas and opinions of an atheist group from Wisconsin. The fact that the FFRF has an affiliate in Ohio means that we are not just some out-of-state group of rabble. The FFRF like the ACLU have affiliates in every one of the 50 states.
[Removed]
Are you going to explain what you mean or not?
What would you like me to explain to you?
I already stated it. So, for the 2nd time, explain what you mean by "strict separation of church and state" and why I should care about it.
The person making the claim was reported to be from Wisconsin, so the existence of a chapter in Ohio doesn't seem relevant. Certainly no connection was made in the story. You still have not cited any people who complained in Ravenna, Ohio, so with the facts in front of us, all we have is an out-of-state busybody trying mess around with someone else's Christmas celebration. Typical!
The letter to the mayor came from the national office.
How is the Nativity scene on public property part of your Christmas celebration that would not be the same if the Nativity scene was at a private residence or a church lawn?
It's a matter of what the community chose. If you don't live there, what do you care?
The community does not get to decide if they will comply with the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution by popular opinion. That action would be an example of the tyranny of the majority and would result in only the majority having rights. The core idea of freedom is that it doesn't matter if it is one person or if it is 2.5 million people who objects and has the right to say no. Religion and religious displays are to kept to private property where they are constitutionally protected.
You didn't answer my question why do you - and your organization - give a crap?
Tyranny against whom specifically?
Our religious freedoms as part of the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution. Wasn't this concept covered in your high school civics requirement?
Anyone who is not a member of the majority.
In state rabble or out of state rabble makes no difference. It is still rabble
In your opinion which Americans are not rabble? What differentiates rabble from non-rabble?
Your religious freedoms are just fine. AGAIN! Why do you care?
You still have not named this person.
Why would I know who it is?
Why wouldn't you know? Your righteous indignation has been on display all over this seed. You talk of rights being abused or denied. You make it sound like the FFRF is a crusading advocate, flying in to protect the innocent.
But there's no client. No victim. And even if there is/was such a person, you have no idea who they are or how they have been affected by the display. But your ignorance of a victim doesn't prevent you from being outraged by the display. I think that's all very telling.
I therefore think the FFRF is not representing anyone but themselves, although I'm sure if pressed, they could recruit someone to play the "victim." Instead of a crusading advocate, it appears to me that FFRF is a big bully looking to force little towns to submit to their will or pay, all with the goal of satisfying the agenda of the militant atheist army.
Ravenna is a town of less than 12,000 people. According to the interwebz, it looks like they have about 16 Christian churches and an Islamic mosque (how bout that?! but I digress). So, I don't know if every single person in town loves the display, but I'd be amazed if there was a single resident who actually thought it was worth dragging the town into court to get it removed.
And this is sort of the point. You don't go around making sure every little tiny town in America is enforcing every little law whether there is a victim or not. But for something like a little Christmas créche, we have to pull out the big guns and put a stop to it. And it is stopped because this tiny town can't afford to fight the big national organization.
That's not justice; it's bullying. And this isn't about protecting anyone's religious freedom. It's about screwing with religious people as much as possible.
I have stated elsewhere how the law kind of works in these matters. That's not my focus here. Even if the law is on their side, that doesn't change the nature of what the FFRF is doing in Ravenna. And what they're doing is just mean-spirited.
I'd nominate you for a Tony award because of the dramatic performance in this reply. You deserve it.
You seem to have a very high opinion of what an annual donation of a couple of $20.00 gets me. I didn't hear about this from the FFRF but by reading the Akron Beacon Journal. I don't get mail from them, I have never been to a meeting, I'm not sure of they have meetings. I don't vote on issues and it has been more than 20 years since I have been anywhere close to Ravenna. The last time I might have been there was to get gas when driving on I-76E
There is no militant atheist army, despite your apparent religious persecution.
Did you ever consider the idea that not all Christians are like yourself who view the separation of church and state as a thorn in your side?
Is a Nativity scene less religious when it is on private property instead of on the town square?
Nobody is persecuting religious people because the 1st Amendment is being obeyed.
We have different views of the First Amendment and that obeying it isn't optional.
Where do I sign up?
Well, that's a joke. I have been neither uncivil nor badgering in this seed - certainly no more uncivil or badgering than the anyone debating me. I came here for an honest debate and have been met instead with censorship. I drop by today and three on-topic, benign comments that furthered the debate have been deleted. I will not participate any further. Leftist tyranny wins again, but try to remember that censoring dissenting voices is a poor argument and doesn't make you right.
This comment to be deleted in 3, 2, 1 . . .
Oh please.
I believe that the Federal Constitution and all of the States Constitutions and all of law enforcement, right down to building codes inspectors are designed to do exactly that.
Really? It's ok to ignore the Constitution? Besides which, it says in every article about Raveena that there were complaints last year i ncluding a letter a letter from out of state - the article never says the letter was the sole reason for reverting to pre 2017 display policies.
It's interesting when a moderator sides with her known political side and one person on the other side gets deleted and pinged for what both are doing.
Well, it's not interesting. I recall that's how that 'other site which will remain unnamed' started it's nosedive.
The censorship on this seed is stunning. Random, innocuous phrases are being flagged and deleted. There seems to be no rhyme or reason to it other than to intimidate people into not commenting. I make no accusations, of course. It's just how it seems from here. I have had multiple comments deleted for having "no value" but the seeder herself has responded to those comments, so they must have some value.
I should probably research that. When I get an answer I'll post it.
Someone decided to use the "trolling" option for moderators, something which I have never seen here before. If that is the case, more than half the comments on here should be deleted for that reason only, but only one side has been hit with it..
Wonder why?
Are you hinting that I am trolling?
Are you half the comments on here? No
The point is there are many comments on here that could be subjective to the "trolling" flag, something in which I have never seen on here, but one moderator has decided it needed to get dusted off in favor of one side over the other.
My comments are between 1/4 to 1/3 of the thread.
I suggest that you don't do what that person did and you will be safe from the purple hammer.
Then you made my point. I said half the comments, not one third, not one quarter.
I suggest that you don't do what that person did and you will be safe from the purple hammer.
Don't really care what you suggest.
And spikegary, MUVA, and bugsy:
On further review, the deleted comments have been restored. In future, it would be more appropriate to contact either me or Perrie, via PM or chat, rather than go into a metafest here. My response may not be immediate, as I do have a job and a son, but I will get to it.
I read a heated exchange in which it seemed that epistte was being asked to answer the same question repeatedly. Had I known that Tacos! wanted the name of the complainant, which she had not provided (probably because it was not available), I would have understood that that was not the case. I apologize.
Cut me some slack here, please, guys and gals. I've been doing this for all of a month. There's a learning curve.
And BTW, for those who think I'm biased, a look through threads with deleted comments will show otherwise, as would the protests from liberals I get on chat and PM.
Honestly, had Tacos just said what he said here:
Sandy wouldn't have been had had the wrong impression. I just read it, and I would have had the same impression. But bottom line, if you feel something is not fair, just contact the mod who marked it up, or me. And try to remember, we try our best to be as fair as possible.
So other than violating the Constitution, you are wondering why someone would complain? You don't feel that going against the single most important document in our country is enough?
Yes I am.
First of all, you don't know for sure this actually does violate the Constitution. It hasn't been adjudicated. Nativity scenes on public property are not automatically unconstitutional. The case history on these things is very fact driven (as opposed to a clear policy everyone can understand). Even with Supreme Court rulings on the books, there is a split of authority in the federal circuits about how to interpret those opinions.
We're talking about an act with no identifiable victim. In a small town. And someone from outside that town - from outside the state even - cares. Why? They are not impacted by it, nor is anyone they can point to.
You don't think there might be other acts in other towns around the country where there are arguably Constitutional violations? There are an endless number of state and local regulations that impact freedoms of the press, of religion, of association, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, etc. and so forth. And a lot of times, these regs are on the books for generations with no complaint.
I've seen a picture of this nativity when it was up last year.
Here's a link.
The thing was small and sat way out on the edge of the property. It's not like it's in the lobby or you had to pass the thing to do business in the courthouse. And, it was created by a local artist. It seems like a nice thing to show it off a little.
So, other than the fact that they are against the law, how do you feel about murder, robbery, and assaults?
Do those crimes have victims?
Did you even read what I wrote above?
So a crime and/or constitutional violation is ok as long as it's victimless?
Of course they do, but then so does the nativity scene. Tax payer money is being taken and used for an illegal purpose. That gives you several thousand victims.
How?
And even if true, shouldn't there be a local person complaining rather than some unaffected party from outside the state?
I could actually care less.
But I will say this, if the display had been there for fifty years, I would say let it be (I would also allow Hanukkah decorations and the like) . Yet since it was only started last year, keep it down. It seems the Mayor decided to allow it (last year) for some reason. Meaning to me, it sounds like it was an organization or group of people that wanted it all the sudden to be displayed.
I think the pastor may be missing the point of Christmas.
What IS the point of Christmas? From what I've seen it seems to me it's to make a retailer's financial year. Even the movie "Miracle on 34th Street" is more about the competition between Macy's and Gimbel's and whether or not there is a real Santa Clause than about religion.
By George, I think you've got it!
IMO, if even one person in Ravenna, OH believes in Jesus, then the town has Jesus in it
Absolutely.
For a pastor to fail to understand this very basic principle........
Buzz - I actually visited the town of Bethlehem a month before Christmas in 2016. My guide wasn't able to go there with me. I'm sure you know why.
Anyway, as I was waiting in an incredibly long line to shuffle past the actual spot where Jesus, Mary and Joseph supposedly lay, I admit it was a little weird, not in a bad way.
Any photos of it?
I did have some photos on my home page but I deleted them. They're on my broken computer that I've been too lazy to have fixed. I'll definitely have to take it in and get my pics off of it or I'll lose them forever. This is the problem with saving pictures on an electronic device. I'll try and see if I saved them somewhere else.
THANK You !
The majority of Americans celebrate Christmas. Seeing a nativity scene or something else like decorations or a (GASP!) cross isn't violating anyone's rights.
No one has the right to go through this life never being offended.
But apparently
we have an established set of laws restricting religious beliefs/displays from public property
and keep it where it belongs,
on the property of religious organizations, or their believer's private property.
Not on the public buildings and property supported by taxes of people who don't believe in Christ, his (purported) birthday, existence, death or divinity.
No sweat, no problem.
No tax $$s involved.
There are at least 8 churches, synagogues and mosques in every square mile around my home.
Only one courthouse and one post office and one postal substation.
The religious houses of worship can knock themselves out with nativities, or whatever else,
not the publicly owned property by the Fed, States or municipality.
I think some people forget that a lighted creche on a courthouse lawn is being paid for by city taxpayers. If a maintenance person has to clean it, put it up or take it down, city taxpayers are paying his/her salary.
But I guess we non-believers are just supposed to let the Christian majority continue to shove their religion down our collective throats whether we like it or not. We're a Christian nation, dammit! (or so they like to tell me)
It's a figurative statement.
You live in VA, you don't live in the Bible Belt so please don't tell me what I experience on a daily basis
It is about the state endorsement of religious belief that is at the center of church and state separation. Is this nativity scene somehow less religious if it is on private property such as the church lawn or a private residence? If the Nativity scene is permitted to stay then the Satanists show up with their lighted Baphomet as well as the message from the FFRF and likely other religions. Once the door of church and state separation is breached then all religions must be permitted to take part on an equal basis all year long. That is a security problem and it is unnecessary.
How do you know?
Thank goodness those lighted "Plastic" pieces were removed. "Environmentalist" types can rest now.
And those "Separation" type fanatics...…..They're never happy with anything anyway.....but this should at least get a little "Smirk" outa them again ! The "#metoo's" can rest and won't go "Blinder" now !
Since Christmas Day is based on religion, I guess all government employees should be working.
Many of the traditions of Christmas are Pagan traditions. Jesus wasn't even born on December 24-25
I think I'll take my day off, thankuverymuch
Not on the 24th or 25th....since it's ONLY a misguided Pagan thingy probably !
still based on a religion
so?
your welcomed.
So? Maybe I'm a Pagan.
Cool !
Whatever floats your boat !
Your life....not mine ……. Right ?
Wonderful...what is your point? Either way taxpayers are supporting a religion.
What the hell are you talking about?
Do you think Christian government workers shouldn't have Christmas off? Because that's what I'm hearing from you with "taxpayers are supporting a religion"
Taxpayers support lots of things they don't necessarily agree with. That's what we have to put up with by living in this great country
Shouldn't you be bitching about it though? Taxpayer dollars supporting a religious holiday. I see it doesn't bother you.
I see your point so I googled for some info. I found an interesting legal argument about why making Christmas Day a federal holiday is not supporting a religion today....although I believe it is a valid point to believe that was not necessarily the case in 1870. Maybe, whoever drafted the legislation, wrote supporting documents for the reason? Regardless, the Supreme Court ruled on this in 1999 and their reasoning can be found online if you want to know their viewpoints on the matter.
For a large segment of US population, the retail therapy has become the reason for the season. The retailers probably need a day off to celebrate or commiserate the season's bottom line. However, Christmas Day is a federal holiday. No one except federal employees are guaranteed a day off. Some federal employees providing essential services (including security and military) are still not given the day off.
Ouch !
That hurt !
I think they call the non-religious types using "Religious Holidays" for vacation time as tailgaters, when it suites them.
Actually it makes sense. There are people that celebrate Christmas that are not religious.
I would think it is easier to have a designated day off than have to deal with people not showing up.
We are not talking about a "season". It is one day, and the purpose of that day is based solely on religion. But I am sure the labeling of "Christmas" will be banned someday. Things seem to change when it suits the non-religious.
Some states provide the option to have the day off.
Why should I bitch? I happen to like Christmas.
Oh....I get it. You think I'm one of those people
thank-you
Do non-union types get vacation time for Labor Day?
How about people who don't celebrate Memorial Day in the approved fashion?
At one time, there were religion based laws that banned retail activities on Sundays. People were not forced to go to church or observe a religious practice just because they had a day off work.
I used to be jealous of people who had holidays. I was raised on a dairy farm. Work is 7 days a week - no exceptions. We NEVER took a vacation.
Labor Day is a Religion needing to be segregated from government ?
Who knew.
I always thought "Labor" simply meant workers for monetary gain.
Okay. Pick your god and worship it on Dec 25th. And allow everyone else to do the same.
The god that you worship is a latecomer in the god gallery. There are people who worship far older gods and have far older traditions that center around Dec 25th.
In fact, a person could even believe that some of these gods chose a birthdate to usurp the observance of the other gods' birthdays.
The idea of Christmas has many origins, not just one religion.
Just seems to me that the government shouldn't be supporting a day based on religion...any religion.
I thought we had that separation of state and religion thingy that athiest are always spouting off about.
Why wouldn't they "show up"? There is nothing in the Christian Bible that designates the birthdate of Yeshua as a holy day that must be observed. If there was a designation, then the accurate date should be given.
Furthermore, millions of Christians do not celebrate Christmas for that very reason.
I believe that every worker in the US should be given a minimum of 3 weeks paid vacation because I believe that a work-life balance is necessary for a productive and satisfying life.
I agree.
Should we all work together to ban Christmas from being a federal holiday and select another date in the last week of December to celebrate instead?
We can call it "December Day" or "Present Giving Day" or something else that people will know that they just observe it as a day of vacation. Maybe- "December Vacation Day" would be adequate.
The legend of Santa Claus is for kids sake.
Didn't know it was actually called Santaclausmas…..
Do you think the federal and state employees will go for it?
I have a better idea. Why don't we just leave Christmas alone and let every body do their own thing.
Those who think Christmas is only a religious holiday can think that. For me, it's a day to spend with my family.
I agree. LOL!
If we replace it with another day in December, why not?
I don't know, they wanted that day.
Me, too.
I was raised in Arkansas among people who believed that unions were evil. They certainly would not admit that they were granted a holiday because of the evil unions.
I have met retired union workers who retired in NW Arkansas. They cannot understand why so many people are so supportive of working for starvation wages. I have tried to explain the effectiveness of the anti-union propaganda among the hill folk, but there are some things that just be explained to the outside world.
Really?
In 1870, federal workers voted on having a day off?
they don't want that day?
That would be nice.
I have no verifiable information on what holidays that federal workers want.
Do you?
cannot be explained to the outside world.
I've been getting that holiday vacation off since I was old enough to work, and that was before 1882.
If they want the day off for religious reasons they can take a personal day as Jews and Muslims do during Hanukkah and Ramadan.
If the business is closed because the Christians took a day off then where are the two atheists supposed to show up and work? Did you ever consider that idea?
I sometimes work on Xmas. But it is considered both a religious and secular holiday.
I work when I have to make dinner. Does that count?
Is Good Friday? Many government state workers off that day. I bet no one bitches about those taxpayers dollars supporting a religious holiday.
That's just silly. Good Friday is not a holiday. When people take off on Good Friday, they use their own time.
So the Non-Religious would just be riding the Coat Tails of the religious when it comes to vacation time ?
Oh dear...not silly at all. Many states offer Good Friday as a paid day off for their government workers.
I don't get that day off
I don't either
This thread took a wrong turn and is closed.