Name one denomination that recognizes him. Catholicism finds his claim to sainthood too dubious.
really? I am catholic, and I was always taught he IS a catholic saint. There are statues of Saint Nicolaus in bishop dress in Poland, and it is supported by the church. Would Bari take his corpse from Mira, if he wasn't an accepted saint?
The christmas tree is from the nineteenth century, unless I didn't pay attention in sunday school and Douglas-firs were growing around the Lake of Galilee around 20 A.D.
I'm not that much in the subject, but wikipedia claims otherwise.
Wrong. Christmas is a celebration of the winter solstice and would have taken place in Europe regardless, as it is the most important day of the year.
Do You really believe we would be celebrating this day was it not for the church to put Christ's birthday in this day? I seriously doubt it. Had church wished to celebrate it on another day, we would. Had church wished and really tried to get rid of any pagan celebrations on this day, it would finally succeed.
We do not celebrate this day today because it's winter solstice, but because it is traditional day of Christ's birth. The choice of this date is not a coincidence, of course, but the fact that it is winter solstice became irrelevant with the pass of time.
It is not a coincidence that Christmas that is inferior in meaning to Easter and Pentecost in Christianity is the most festive season.
it is not a coincidence... It is because celebration of birth of Jesus appeals much more to people than celebration of his death and resurrection, though perhaps finalisation of God's Plan is more important than the start of it.
Yes, the word "Christmas" has no business being displayed in a federal courthouse or any taxpayer funded public place unless all other religions are also represented.
What do You want to say by "displayed in a federal courthouse..." etc? A sign "happy christmas"? If it is paid from public funds, it may seem inappropriate, true, at least when there are some major religious minorities.
But even this is not obvious. Lets say Poland celebrates anniversary of Grunwald (Tannenberg) battle. Or Americans celebrates its war of independance. Sure, for Poles Grunwald is something to celebrate. Also, for majority of Americans, the independance is something to celebrate. But what if german minority in Poland is offended by using public money, money paid by them as well, for celebration of something some of them would rather didn't happen? The same, if someone is neo-loyalist or whatever, and thinks all this independance idea was not a good thing, why should his money be spent on celebration of such an event?
There's NOTHING everyone will like. NOTHING that will not offend someone.
It would be less controversial if "Happy Christmas" sign was funded from someone's personal savings, someone working there or whatever. But...
Lets say a state-owned firm helds a small birthday party for one of its employees. Or even just allows organising it in one of its rooms. It should be banned according to your way of thinking; after all, someone may dislike this person and not be happy with donating anything to him out, even an hour in some hall or a place on the wall for "Happy Birthday" sign.
Additionally, while You may have a point in such cases, when public money or use of public space is in question, it seemed to me that You actually think that even SAYING Happy Christmas in a public building is bad. Glad it's not what You've ment.
Freedom of speech has limitations, if it's unconstitutional and/or dangerous. For example, I can't stand up in a crowded auditorium and yell, "FIRE!" if there isn't one. Freedom of speech doesn't protect such a practice.
I think there's a difference between maliciously causing chaos and probability of injuries or even death, and any religious activity that is not pointed against other people
It also doesn't protect putting up a banner on or in a federal building which says "Christmas" without adding the other faiths to it. That would be the government endorsing one religion over the others.
My opinion is that it'd be the nicest thing if You could have a banner like this for EVERY religion, but it is impossible, because there are so many of them. If population would be 1/3 muslim, 1/3 jewish, 1/3 christian, or even 90% christian and 10% jewish, it would be unproper to put just Christmas sign, and no Hanukkah or whatever. But if population is like in Poland, 98% christian or so, I am doubtful if it is not right to put a Christmas poster... I wouldn't mind Jewish as well, because this faith at least has long tradition in Poland. But declining demand to put a baha'i sign, for example, I would understand, because this religion practically do not exist here etc. But there should be some rules made, like the list of traditional religions and automatic adding new religions that reached some percentage of population of a particular city.
This is why so many public places (like department stores) have been using the all inclusive "Happy Holidays" instead. Not because they are trying to "ban" Christmas.
There are people not celebrating these holidays at all. Why should their money be spent on this poster?
Oh, and I think there is a big difference between state office and department store. Department store, as private ownership, can do whatever it pleases.
To forbid them to wish Merry Christmas is interfering in their marketing. If they find christians a consumer group worth of attention, it's their right. If someone doesn't like it - he will shop in another place. But what a lousy man would it have to be to be offended by this anyway.
It's like if someone with overweight was angry that most of models are thin or that most clothes in the shops are in smaller sizes than his. Perhaps it's not fair, but that's what most people like, and You can not forbid them. There are some who have different views in this matter and it's their right as well.
