BellaOnline Forums News and Politics Republican Party Obama wanted “non-religious Christmas”?

Obama wanted �non-religious Christmas�?

EXCERPT: President Obama and the First Family were planning a �non-religious Christmas,� according to Social Secretary Desiree Rogers. Ms. Rogers reportedly told a gathering of former social secretaries that the Obamas did not intend on putting the Nativity scene on display � a longtime East Room tradition.

The White House confirmed to the Times that there had been internal discussions about making Christmas more inclusive . . .

************
So perhaps July 4th should not be about independence, MLK day not about civil rights, Thanksgiving Day not about gratitude, Easter also not about religion!

And to be more inclusive: when we do celebrate July 4th, perhaps we have to include July 14, May 5, May 14, etc. For MLK day, must we include Malcolm X, or Susan B Anthony?

The logic behinds a "non-religious," "inclusive" Christmas is entirely lacking. It's not that inclusivity is not important; it's that each event has its own time for celebration.

And the logic of removing "religion" from a religious holiday baffles the mind. Suppose Muslims would be up with removing "religion" from Ramadan, or Jews with removing religion from "Hanukkah," or Hindus with removing religion from Diwali?

This is outrageous! The meaning of Christmas is a Christian feast commemorating the birth of Jesus - Christ's mass or festival. How can anyone take Christ out of Christmas?

I agree with you, Linda, that each event or holiday has it's own reason and time of celebration. If the Obama's want a non-religious party they should do it some other time rather than trying to tie it in with Christmas.

Would it be right to celebrate "Laylat al-Qadr", Arabic for �The Night of Power�, the holiest night of the year for Muslims, without honoring God and the Qur'an?

Exactly, Phyllis. This president's notion of political correctness leads him astray, time and again, and he has to reverse himself.

Even though the Obamas did relent and now the Nativity scene will appear in the East Room according to tradition, the fact that they, at first, suggested a religionless Christmas is, as you say, outrageous.

It is respecting the separation of Church and State. As the leader of the United States he sets the example of the government not favoring any specific religion. Government should not favor any religion. When it does bad things can and often do happen. The founders of the Constitution understood this. That is why the First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

I do see your point, maybe though as Craig just said, if he doesn't celebrate Christmas - he shouldn't celebrate any religious holiday.
BTW: I don't think anyone should celebrate 'thanksgiving' - isn't that just celebrating the death's of thousands of innocent lives?

For a head of state to recognize and celebrate a religious tradition cannot in anyway be construed as making a law to establish a religion. Iran and Saudi Arabia are states that have established a religion and they operate under Sharia Law.

All presidents have celebrated Christmas as a religious holiday and that celebration did not signal that the US legal system was under "Christian Law," since there is no such thing.

The Obamas claimed they wanted to make "Christmas more inclusive." Your explanation would result in no celebration or recognition of Christmas at all. And they clearly did not suggest that.

But Christmas is all about the celebration of a signficant religious leader, and when they suggested that they wanted to make "Christmas" religionless, they were spouting nonsense.

Maybe for Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, Ward Churchill, and that ilk. I humbly suggest that giving thanks to the Divine Beloved for the blessings one enjoys is the purpose of Thanksgiving. The name says it all--it's all about "gratitude."

Well, I'm not American - but I don't agree with it at all, hopefully the massacre of nearly an entire race has nothing to do with God, and should there be a day in thanks for that at all, even related to it? I don't think so personally.

Back to your point about the Obama's - I don't see why it's such a huge deal again? It just seems like certain ppl are looking for anything to attack him in some way, which I honestly don't understand. Every single President, every single person up there in power is corrupt to an extent. There isn't one who hasn't been - EVER. That's human nature. Give him a chance - he still has to try and clean up the mess that George Bush started, and that was a lotta mess. It reminds me of when Clinton had that affair and everyone was out to get him - the point was he was doing his job well, what buisness was it if he had an affair? It might not be a popular opinion, especially in highly religious eyes, but there you go. I can see why ppl would be suspisious of all this Obama love - but I'm also suspisious of the opposite.

You certainly have a right to your own opinions; but facts are not so free-wheeling.

Perhaps, the following books would help you get a clearer understanding of American history:

1) Bevin Alexander's How America Got it Right
2) Thomas Sowell's Race and Culture and Black Rednecks and White Liberals
3) Mark Levin's Liberty and Tyranny
4) Larry Schweikart's 48 Lies About American History
5) Lt. Col. Robert Patterson's Dereliction of Duty: Eye Witness Account of How Bill Clinton Compromised America's National Security

Thanksgiving did not exist as an American holiday until the middle of the nineteenth century. Thanksgiving focuses on one moment in American history, which was Not the beginning of the American colonies. The Pilgrims landed in Plymouth in 1620, more than a decade after the founding of Jamestown in 1607. Unfortunately, Thanksgiving has given many Americans an inaccurate historical view of the early colonization of America and the origins of the United States.