Do non-christian religions in the USA get offended?

[clintl]

Originally Posted by hoosiergoody

Merry Christmas. This is the time that we celebrate Christ's birth- that's why it is Christmas, not X-mas.

I'm guessing that you do not realize that Xmas has been a common abbreviation for Christmas since the 13th century, and that its origins come from the Greek letter chi (which looks like an X), which was used as a symbol for Christ. So Xmas is exactly equivalent to Christmas linguistically.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I've been away for the hollidays, but as soon as I hit the road I realized I should have added Christians to the list of people I offend and placed "Happy Hollidays" along with "Merry Christmas".

Add good spellers to the list as well!

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by clintl

I'm guessing that you do not realize that Xmas has been a common abbreviation for Christmas since the 13th century, and that its origins come from the Greek letter chi (which looks like an X), which was used as a symbol for Christ. So Xmas is exactly equivalent to Christmas linguistically.

I'd like to see you lay down that smack before one of shorty's gang fights.

[clintl]

Dola...

To answer the original question, I think that outside of government activities, the answer is no, non-Christians do not get offended by Christmas wishes and Christmas celebrations. I'm an agnostic, and I celebrate Christmas. I've worked with a number of non-Christians (mostly Jews and Muslims), and they always participated in the workplace celebrations. I think very few are offended when the government celebrates the secular Christmas traditions (i.e. lighting a Christmas tree). Where some start to get offended is when the government starts celebrating the religious traditions of Christmas (such as public display of a nativity scene). At that point, it gives the appearance of endorsing Christianity, to the exclusivity of other religions, some of which also have solstice-time holidays.

The other thing I would say is that I think "offended" is a loaded word that does not accurately convey the feelings of those opposed. I don't think people are really offended, as much as they think that government endorsement of any religion to the exclusivity of others (and let's be honest, this is exactly what the Christians making such a fuss over this want) is unconstitutional and promotes religious discrimination. And they're pretty strong evidence that this is true. All you have to do is read about how non-Christian children were ostracized if they didn't participate in classroom prayers, or how JFK's Catholicism was a big issue in the 1960 presidential campaign because some people were afraid he would be a puppet of the Pope.

As for ID theory, it simply is not science, has nothing to do with science (other than being a flat-out fraud being perpetrated by people who want science to be theology), and belongs in a philosophy class if it's taught at all. Being offended has nothing to do with the objections to it. There's simply no scientific evidence for it.

[hoosiergoody]

Originally Posted by clintl

I'm guessing that you do not realize that Xmas has been a common abbreviation for Christmas since the 13th century, and that its origins come from the Greek letter chi (which looks like an X), which was used as a symbol for Christ. So Xmas is exactly equivalent to Christmas linguistically.

and you are guessing wrong. If you have been around many Christians today, they aren't "offended" in the use of x-mas, but they will state that it feels to them as if Christ is being left out of Christmas. Throughout the years that has been lost to many, and when they explain to their children the x vs. Christ, it is typically shared that the x is just a shortcut or a different way to take the focus off of the true meaning of the holiday (despite the fact that we also know that Jesus' birth wasn't truely 2005 years ago to the day... another one difficult to explain to a child).

Thanks for taking the time to bring that point out, as well as for adding your other post and detailing your thoughts.

[Dutch]

I don't think people are really offended, as much as they think that government endorsement of any religion to the exclusivity of others is unconstitutional and promotes religious discrimination.

Fair enough, but others contend that being a government employee does not reduce your rights as an American and government cannot probibit their right to freely excercise religious beliefs. It gets tricky when you are asking government to censor religion.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

To me, the choice is between common sense and majority rule. It shouldn't be between all or none.

[MrBigglesworth]

Who is asking government to censor religion?

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Fair enough, but others contend that being a government employee does not reduce your rights as an American and government cannot probibit their right to freely excercise religious beliefs. It gets tricky when you are asking government to censor religion.

There is a huge difference between government employees expressing their religious beliefs as private citizens, and the government permitting the use of government property for public religious displays and messages. For what it's worth, I don't have a problem with the latter, as long as all religions have equal opportunity to create displays. That means Jews. That means Buddhists. That means Wiccans. That even means Satanists.

So, to be neutral, which the Constitution requires, you either do not allow religious displays on government property, or you allow religions that you find distasteful to display. I'm fine with either one.

To me, the choice is between common sense and majority rule. It shouldn't be between all or none.

The Establishment Clause exists to protect the minority from discrimination and repression from the majority. Something there is a long, long history of occurring whenever the opportunity arises.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by clintl

So, to be neutral, which the Constitution requires, you either do not allow religious displays on government property, or you allow religions that you find distasteful to display.

Where in the constitution does it say or imply that religious displays must be neutral?

Originally Posted by clintl

The Establishment Clause exists to protect the minority from discrimination and repression from the majority. Something there is a long, long history of occurring whenever the opportunity arises.

How is having a nativity scene on town property discrimination?

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

Where in the constitution does it say or imply that religious displays must be neutral?

On an individual basis? It doesn't. What it requires is that the government be neutral in its dealings with people of all religious beliefs.

How is having a nativity scene on town property discrimination?

It's not, as long as you're willing to accept Hannukah displays, Wiccan solstice displays, Ramadan displays, Buddhist displays (whatever they might consist of, etc), Satanic displays, etc. However, if you're only going to have a nativity scene, and not also have displays honoring the religious traditions of the religious minorities in your town, or if your town government is going to pay for the nativity scene but not for the other religious displays, that absolutely is discrimination. The government in both of those cases is endorsing one religion over all others.