Santa?

[poky]

That is a false equivalency, though. Marriage isn't based in one religion like Christmas is based in Christianity.

But I didn't say non-Christian. I said non-religious. Just trying to figure out where the line is drawn, and why. No, they're not exactly equivalent, but the same 'dilution' argument has been and is being made to keep same-sex couples from marrying (and probably was made to keep mixed-race couples from marrying, too). If same-sex couples can't, then why can non-religious couples?

[Thirteen]

I'm scared.
Someone, please pass the maple syrup so I can put it on my spaghetti!
(Yay, "Elf" reference!)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[corn poffi]

Medped, I think your friend might feel that way, by that's not representative of everybody. All are welcome at our Passover Seder. My BF is Catholic, and we light the menorah together. I would NEVER be offended if somebody wanted to celebrate with me, just as they are not offended when I celebrate Christmas with them.

ETA: high holidays might be different due to capacities at synagogues. Plus, I can't see anybody wanting to fast just for fun

[poky]

Scared to make a comment because I get the feeling that hollyday's question should not have been posed. DISCLAMER - I in no way believe you should believe as I do. However, I have to admit that I am curious as to why non believers celebrate christian holidays. Before you hate me for even questioning this, please let me explain. When I took religions of the world in college I fell in love with several holidays/traditions/beliefs,etc. I've often thought about incorporating these into my life...heck, it would almost make the whole year a holiday . However, a friend pointed out that it would be offensive for me to do so - not exactly her words but she basically pointed out that I'd be half-ass-ing other people's high holy days. So, when the question about Christmas came up I have to admit I was excited to hear your different points of view. Unfortunately, I think some have an angry tone but I may be totally wrong...I hope I am for I would really like to hear your thoughts. By the way please know that in no way do I have any hidden agenda nor do I intend to pass judgement or offend anyone. I am truly curious.

I get your point, and I think it boils down to "dominant culture norms" Most of the western world was almost completely Christian (at least nominally) for hundreds of years, and the non-religious were basically non-existent. Christmas as it's celebrated now by most of the US is as much my cultural heritage as it is anyone else's who was born or raised in the US, religious or not. Picking some holiday from a religion you've only read about to celebrate is totally different, to my mind.

[diggitydot]

I understand your point, BUT, if everyone is celebrating Christmas, even people who are decidedly NOT Christian, isn't the real Christmas already being forgotten? I think I'd rather see Christmas only celebrated by the faithful. Otherwise you get what we have now, which is a holiday that has been diluted to the point of irrelevance.

I guess it depends on what you see as the "real" Christmas. Is it the celebration of being kind and giving to others or celebrating the birthday of some dude born thousands of years ago?

I don't buy into any single religion because dogma is written by humans and as such, is flawed. I don't buy into the "oh, but its divine inspiration means it's all infallible". Humans are not infallible, Christians or otherwise. If god exists, I'd imagine that loving each other and being kind is a high priority. Probably higher priority than being all Judgy McJudgerson because ZOMG-someone-isn't-doing-it-the-way-I-think-they-should. That there? Not so Christian. Might even have a diluting affect...

[MrsK]

Wow! I'm amazed at the discussions that have sprung from a question about whether our kids believe in Santa!

Just an update on one tangent, BabyK's day care teacher made a point of reading a hannukah book to the class -- and then read it 6 more times at BabyK's request. Apparently, he got really excited about it. She also helped him make a hannukah gift for us when his classmates made their Christmas crafts. He's really enjoying Hannukah this year and I'm so grateful that she's been helping him navigate through all the Chrismas stuff without feeling like a weirdo.

[GrayMatterWife]

Mrs.K: that's great! They spent a lot of time on Chanukah at DS's school this year. He now knows the whole tradition of the dreidel and the song. Damn top--it's scratching up my coffee table!

[spotty_dog]

Well, this is the Debates forum. No better place for a pointed discussion!

When I was growing up, we kept Christmas tied to Christian beliefs (despite being a non-churchgoing, lapsed Episcopalian family). We read the story of the nativity, and I usually attended at least one Advent mass with my Catholic grandma. So when we started our own non-religious family traditions after I was married, I found I was more comfortable calling it "Christmastime" or "Xmas" to be as clear as I can be that we aren't Christian. So I see where hollyday is coming from.

But I thought of the same analogy as poky. If somebody is going to have a celebration where they exchange presents on December 25th (as everyone in their family has done for generations), decorate an evergreen tree, put up a stocking, burn a Yule log, and exchange stories of a fat round man in a red jumpsuit while the radio station hums with Rudolph and Frosty and "Rockin' around the Christmas tree", then why on earth would they NOT call that celebration Christmas? And why on earth would their using the word Christmas take away from your similarly-named purely-religious holy day? Like it or not, the word has been co-opted by Western culture and no longer belongs wholesale to a single religious tradition.

[medpedspouse]

Wish I could quote and paste but im on the iphone. There may be a way to do so but dont know how. I grew up in a a very multi cultural city. So different religious holy days were if not observed, were acknowledged at school plus friends of other cultures/religions than mine invited me to their homes. This is normal...to me. . However, now that I think of it, none of my non Christian friends family celebrated Christmas or their own style of. From your responses to my post, am I accurate in thinking that the adoption of Christmas for non believers is either due to keeping familial traditions (totally get that) or the fact that they are such a minority where they live that they assimilate to those around them? I would add the fact that inter-cultural/racial/religious couples are now more common too. I used to be asked "what are you?" - havent heard that question in a long while. When you are combining family/religious traditions, you may end up with something not as "traditional" - right?

[SoonerTexan]

Actually Xmas is just a Greek shortening of Christmas... Look it up on Wikipedia. Actually used to really offend me until I learned the history about a month ago. Random fact.

At any rate I wholeheartedly agree that Christians are as guilty of secularizing and diluting Christmas as everyone else, myself included. However, I do wonder if there would be backlash if Wal Mart, etc decided to co-opt Hannukah or Eid ul-Fitr on the same scale as Christmas. Or does that happen in other nations? I have no idea.

But I didn't say non-Christian. I said non-religious. Just trying to figure out where the line is drawn, and why. No, they're not exactly equivalent, but the same 'dilution' argument has been and is being made to keep same-sex couples from marrying (and probably was made to keep mixed-race couples from marrying, too). If same-sex couples can't, then why can non-religious couples?

Well, I think we should abolish "marriage" by the state and everyone (same sex couples included) should be issued a domestic partnership. Then if you would like a religious ceremony, you have a "marriage" ceremony in your respective church.

[poky]

Well, I think we should abolish "marriage" by the state and everyone (same sex couples included) should be issued a domestic partnership. Then if you would like a religious ceremony, you have a "marriage" ceremony in your respective church.

So it's the words marriage/husband/wife that are special, not the legal partnership? You'd have no problem with the state issuing "domestic partnerships" that have *every* single bit of legal weight that a legal marriage currently does, as long as it's not CALLED marriage? Why would you need the distinction if there weren't different rights associated with the different types of partnerships?

My point is, language is fluid, and cannot be owned by a single group, and meanings of words change over time. "domestic partnership" is a horribly clunky phrase, too. How about religious people can use "married in the <x> church" instead of just "married", if they need everyone to know that their marriage isn't "just" a legal partnership?

[GrayMatterWife]

For many religious people, though, the definition of marriage does not change and is not fluid. It means something specific, namely the joining of two persons (in many faiths, a man and a woman) in an indissoluable covenant between themselves and God. It has nothing to do with being state-sanctioned. Personally, I couldn't give a flip if the state considers me "married," which at the law is nothing more than the legal union of two people that creates a unity of interests in property and childrearing rights. A legal definition is definitely fluid and
subject to change. I think it's misleading to use "marriage" as a legal term, although I appreciate the Anglo-American jurisprudential history. And to try to make "marriage" mean the same thing at the law as a "domestic partnership" makes the
situation even more difficult, because you are trying to co-opt a word ("marriage") for political purposes and redefine it for a social agenda. It would be a lot cleaner toake marriage a religious construct with no legal protections or effect and create a union recognized by the state for two people wishing to join as a matter of law. Some people, of course, will be both married (religiously) and joined (legally). And no one can whine about being "second-class citizens" under the law because the law follows religious understandings of unions. Everyone will equally be able to suffer through a union.

[spotty_dog]

And no one can whine about being "second-class citizens" under the law because the law follows religious understandings of unions.

Could you give an example of this sort of whining?

[Vanquisher]

Yeah, but I was married in a church, and now I am far less religious than, well, pretty much anyone including many homosexuals. I'm sorry, but I don't feel like marriage is a religious covenant. That can be what it is to you, but to me it is the definition of my relationship signifying our life commitment to one another.

ETA: I am pretty sure that I am married in every definition of the word. I am in a commited, life-long relationship with a man who is the father of my children. I love him more than I can possibly explain. We stood up in front of our friends and family, exchanged rings, I wore a white dress, my father walked me down an aisle, and we had a reception to celebrate our wedding. We ARE married, and to suggest that because I don't believe in God cheapens or has less meaning than someone who does crosses a line with me.

I am a human being. My gay friends are human beings. We all deserve love and MARRIAGE and all the meaning and love and legal rights and priveleges therein. God or no God. Man and woman. Man and Man. Woman and Woman. Love is not unique to religious Christians and it is not defined that way. All over the world in all different faiths people are married and have marriages and have been getting married long before Christ purportedly walked the earth.