Forum Klix.ba

zlata wrote:Princezo

Zasto bi MERRY tj. Vesel...imao religijoznu konotaciju...a ne HAPPY-sretan. I jedno i drugo su vjerski blagdani i drzavni praznici.

RELIGIOUS HOLIDAY - MERRY CHRISTMAS

Sunday, December 19, 2004

'Merry Christmas' vs. 'Happy Holidays'
By David Davenport
Scripps Howard News Service

It's beginning to look a lot like . . . "

Wait, don't say it. In fact, in many schools, you'd better not sing it, either. In the South Orange/Maplewood School District in New Jersey, you can't even play the instrumental version, without the words.
Why? Because "Christmas" is now deemed offensive to some, and the defenders of our liberties are hard at work seeking to limit its use. The people who brought you a ban on the Ten Commandments in public places and a court decision seeking to remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance have set their sights on Christmas.
But, alas, is Christmas a religious holiday, or a secular one? That was the struggle one federal judge in Rhode Island recently undertook in considering a challenge by the American Civil Liberties Union to Cranston, Rhode Island's, public holiday display.
Cranston allowed its citizens to set up holiday displays on city property last year, with some providing religious scenes and others secular decorations. The ACLU claimed that the religious displays on public property violated the separation of church and state.
Of course the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the U.S. Constitution, so the legal question was whether such a display violates the establishment clause of the Constitution, prohibiting Congress — courts later included all government entities — from acting in such a way as to "establish" religion. Courts have long held that this requires a showing of a religious purpose on the part of the government.
Fortunately this federal judge was not from the Bah Humbug 9th Circuit in California and, as a common-sense Rhode Island jurist, he found the Christmas displays permissible. "The fact is," the judge wrote, "that Christmas is a holiday with both religious and secular overtones." As a consequence, the city of Cranston had a valid secular purpose in hosting a diversity of displays for the holidays.
Such diversity was not welcome in Denver's annual Parade of Lights last weekend. There a Christian group was not allowed to enter a float with a "Merry Christmas" message or carolers singing Christmas hymns. A spokesperson said they did not allow religious themes since these could be "construed as disrespectful to other people." This might make more sense had the organizers — Denver Civic Ventures — not included an American Indian salute to "holy people" and floats celebrating German culture and the Chinese New Year in the parade.
As the holiday season approaches, is there truly no room in the inn of public life for traditional carols or an explicit Christmas celebration? Must we throw out the baby Jesus with the bath water of church and state? Only very flawed thinking, and a lack of courage by our leaders, would lead us in that direction.
To live, as we do, in a diverse society, requires respecting various religions, not discriminating against them. If there is room for Native American "holy men," there is a place for Christmas. Religion may have a seat at the table of American public life, though it may not, under the Constitution, run the table. While we celebrate diversity and pluralism, Christianity need not and should not be excluded.
Neither the Constitution nor good sense requires us to erase our history, either. Imagine moving to Italy and objecting to a Catholic holiday, or to Iraq and seeking to eliminate Muslim celebrations in public places. All the lawsuits in the world will not blot out the fact that Christianity played a key role in developing our culture and society and that may still be celebrated without violating any law or anyone's conscience.
Finally, protection of minority rights does not require the suppression of majority rights. The argument in Cranston, R.I., was not that a creche prevented someone who is not Christian from having a display. The "Merry Christmas" float in Denver was not a problem because it kept others from having floats with their own holiday message. The actions by the ACLU and others are aimed not at protecting minority rights but at suppressing the same rights held by the majority. That isn't the law.
So have yourself a merry little Christmas. (This column void where prohibited by law.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

David Davenport, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, is a professor of public policy at Pepperdine University

SECULAR HOLIDAY - HAPPY HOLIDAYS ( Christmas & New Year)

By Gregg Dobbs
Scripps Howard News Service

I love Santa Claus.

I love children's faces when they see him. I love artists' versions when they paint him. I love the presents he leaves when people believe in him. I just love it when Santa Claus is coming to town. Plus the trees, the lights, and Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer too.
But I don't necessarily love the nativity scene.
What's the difference? For better or worse, Santa and Rudolph and the colors of Christmas have become secular symbols of the holidays. Of course that troubles some Americans and I understand, but it's a fact: for both Christians and non-Christians, Christmas has come to mean a bright light during the darkest days of the year. And gifts and eggnog and gingerbread cookies.
But how many Americans — how many Christian Americans — even think on Christmas Day about the birth of Jesus? Lots, but not even close to all. It's kind of like asking, as we're wolfing down our turkey and stuffing on Thanksgiving Day, how many Americans ever actually stop to think about being thankful?
For those who do celebrate Christmas as a sacred holiday, is there always a place to go? Of course there is. Church. Home. There is no limit on the number of places for pious Americans, save one: a government building. Likewise, there is no limit on where religious displays like nativity scenes are appropriate, save one: a government building.
Perhaps as critics charge, this takes the separation of church and state too far, but the issue a couple of weeks ago in Denver wasn't really about the First Amendment, it was about the Right Thing To Do. Denver's mayor wanted to replace a lighted sign on City Hall that says "Merry Christmas" with "Happy Holidays." Discrimination laws notwithstanding, while Home Depot doesn't have to be perfectly inclusive, nor Macy's or Starbucks, government ought to be. Anyway, what's the harm? No matter what happens on government property, citizens have no shortage of places to go where the religious spirit of Christmas is alive and well.
Predictably though, the mayor's decision in Denver created a big stink, and he had to be politically pragmatic and reverse himself. A radio talk show host had charged that the mayor was trying "to take Christianity out of public view." That's hogwash. It's in public view on half the street corners of America. And no one was trying to change that. This was about government. It was about places and events to which the entire public is invited, Christian and non-Christian alike. It was about including all Americans — taxpaying Americans, I might add — in any holiday celebration on public property.
For my part, I think the mayor would have made more sense if he had proposed to remove the manger scene from government grounds rather than the less religiously blatant "Merry Christmas" greeting, but his motive, either way, was noble: inclusion. Think of it this way: Anyone of any faith or no faith at all can merrily sing "Jingle Bells"; only Christians can find meaning in "Oh Come, All Ye Faithful."
In a society of Christians, Muslims, Jews and others, the words "Merry Christmas" clearly are less inclusive than "Happy Holidays." Why? Because "Merry Christmas" leaves people out. "Happy Holidays" doesn't. Inclusion is not a dirty word. To the contrary, it fits the spirit of Christmas!
So the question shouldn't be, Is Christianity being officially erased from public view? Rather, it ought to be, Is the Christmas spirit part of everyone's holiday season, or just Christians'?
So let the herald angels sing. . . . just not at City Hall.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Greg Dobbs was an Emmy Award-winning correspondent for ABC News. He now hosts a Rocky Mountain PBS discussion program and reports on global issues for the satellite television network HDNet. His e-mail is: [email protected]

zlata wrote:Princezo Jerbo..uobicajeno je reci Merry Christmas, ali Happy Easter. I jedno i drugo su vjerski blagdani i drzavni praznici.

Even the proper greeting for the season is in dispute, far beyond the difference between the US "Merry Christmas" and the British-style "Happy Christmas."

The bland "happy holidays" has emerged as the most popular and safest way to greet people in December. Wal-Mart, the largest retailer in the US, orders its employees to use the phrase to customers.

While "Merry Christmas" might be suitable to Christians, it may not fit well with Jews, Muslims or those of other faiths.

"`Happy holidays' is a pleasant greeting that applies to everyone," Sharon Weber said, a spokeswoman for Wal-Mart. She added that daily, hundreds of thousands of costumers roll through the company's nationwide stores during the holiday season.

But the debate goes much further than politics or commercialism. In many cases, it stretches to the roots of US society, sometimes ending up in the courts.

For years, public schools, trying to comply with the US Constitution's separation of church and state, have been careful about how their teachers celebrate Christmas with their students, often banning songs or lessons that make explicit references to Christmas, Jesus Christ or even God.

One school chorus in Chicago, for example sang We Wish You a Swinging Holiday instead of We Wish You a Merry Christmas, The New York Times reported.