>>>>>>>>>That said, I don't think Christians have any right to try to take ownership of this time of year. The percentage of Americans who are Christian has been falling and is now around 75%. It's probably even lower if it were possible to accurately count those who say they are only because they're afraid not to. Christian beliefs and agendas do not speak for all of us and they certainly do not speak for me.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Then you and the rest of the 25% do not need to celebrate Christmas right? You wouldn't want to be a hypocrite.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I didn't. Actually, it was the best time of the year to get some work done and make up for the days when I just couldn't concentrate or just couldn't. The users are dismissed, cool.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And, of course we don't think muslims should mention ramadan, let alone moon rocks thrown at the earth by allah. And the jewish people must hide their hanaka stuff from our eyes. Instead, why not allow any religion to put up any display on their property any time they wish. Those who are offended may avert their eyes as they pass by. I'm tired of the PC laws. Bottom line - We are all somewhat free individuals and as such we should just get on with the enjoyment of our short time on the planet as a living being. Have I ranted enough?
>>>>>
>>>>>I am not familiar with the Canadian constitution but here the founders specifically separated church and state. Most of them were Christian but they had seen enough examples of theocracies run amok that they wanted to avoid it. We have freedom of religion. We also have freedom FROM religion. This is not political correctness. It is one of the principles this country was founded on.
>>>>
>>>>Actually, they said :
>>>>
>>>>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
>>>>
>>>>No question that we are individually free to practice or not any religion or lack thereof. But I think it is a stretch to say they were trying to protect us from being exposed to other practicing their religion.
>>>>
>>>>Personally I am only a Christian culturally but I don't see where any religious symbols anyplace that honor the origin of the holiday ( or at least the origin of the holiday that co-opted winter soltce rites that long pre-date the first Christmas ) are any more offensive than folk dancing. I think a theocracy riding in on Santa's sleigh or following a star to the manger is the least of our worries. <g>
>>>
>>>I am not offended, either. I just don't think Christmas trees, menorah, etc. have any place other than in houses of worship. And I think that was the intention of the founders. Your lame argument does not persuade me.
>>
>>Well, my "lame argument" was actually to quote the first amendment, which you had misrepresented and confused with your own opinion. Christmas trees were unknown at the time of the Founders, being a later import from Germany where they represented the pagan traditions I referred to earlier and are hardly a "Christian" symbol.
>>
>>You are certainly entitled to your opinion but at as DPM said, not to your own set of facts <s>
>>
>>And you know I'm no defender of theocratic interference where it is important - Leviticus should not determine policy regarding how people conduct their private lives and stories about naked people in gardens or turtles swimming in an endless sea should not be tricked out as some kind of science and forced into school curricula.
>>
>>I just think the holiday symbols represent folk traditions and are not a threat and making a big deal out of them just trivializes real stuff ( like the issues in the previous paragraph)
>>
>>Kind of like the Feminists who make a big deal over personal pronouns or "man" as a suffix or native Americans who honored animals by naming clans and societies after them but choose to take umbrage over being honored the same way by athletic teams.
>
>Charles, you know I am a fan of yours and have the highest respect for your knowledge of history. That post was just really pompous, as is this one. Do you seriously think I don't recognize the first amendment when I see it?
>
>Friends can have disagreements and I will leave it at that.

I just think you tend to make pronouncements that you claim are based on history and then are miffed when you get called on it. If you want to state an opinion about what the law or society norms should be, great, but if you claim historical backup, you are treading into areas where people actually may find facts important. To characterize my argument as "lame" rather than countering with factual argument was not a rebuttal, but more of a "Yeah, says who?" which may lead somebody to think you'd been drinking.

In any case, if you think there is something pompous about my calling you on your pronouncements, so be it. It still doesn't make you right.