Staredit Network

Do you think Christmas should remain a holiday in the United States? It ties to religion, yet nearly every school gets off on "Christmas Break". I mean, they celebrate Christmas, but it's Christian, and it goes with schools, and at the very least they should rename it. Give me your views on this. Only 26 days left till Christmas!!!!!

Yeah, christmas should be allowed, if only for tradition! I mean, everyone would take off anyway, so what's the point?

Christmas has become something bigger then just a religious tradition (for most fo the world anyway). Plus just because you have christmas off does not mean you have to celebrate it.

its not really because of that, its because they have to let the schools disinfect for a while, so nobody can be in there, they just tie it together with Christmas so people get it off

If you really think about it it's not fair because jewish people and kwanzaa people O_o have their holidays at a different time. But, since most people would skip school it's the way it should be. Don't get me wrong I would rather have Christmas than school.

Christmas is no longer a religious holiday. True, Jews and other don't celebrate it, but it is a tradition. That is what I believe.

But, the real reason it will never be abolished is all the buisness stores get from it. THey do 50-70% of their buisness between November 1 and December 25.

that actually is true, business soars during the early winter months...

Christmas is a holiday! The media made it non christian. THey made it a holiday where everyone is on break...except grocery stores (i work at one....) and they made it so that people buy presents for everyone. THey made a christian holiday into another day where sales go sky high.
Although there were issues with the pledge of allegiance...changing the under God part... i think christmas should be left alone.

i think the pledge should be left alone, our forefathers were Christian and they started that, let that be the one thing that the government didn't change, besides Christmas

That i can agree with Neo...

Christmas is no longer a religious celebration, it has evolved beyond the concepts and ideologies from which it sprang. The Christmas for which we receive time off from school doesn't represent the birthday of Jesus any more than Thanksgiving means thanking American natives for a feast.

Chirstmas is just a time when you gather with your friends/family and have fun and give/recieve presents. The only time I really ask for something is at Christmas.

Well...yeah, of course. In fact, Christmas day (December 25) isn't really the true birthday of Jesus Christ; it was actually a holiday established in 4 AD when Jesus' birth was celebrated alongside Roman festivities marking the beginning of winter and the birthday of the deity Mithras (which the Romans from the Persians, BTW; all the Roman pagan deities were taken from the Greeks and other cultures).

Hahahahhah Nozomu.. I'm sorry. but i had to laugh at that

I learned around a month or two ago that Thanksgiving has nothing to do with Pilgrims and Indians and the "feast".

It actually has to do a couple hundred years later when Lincoln made the "Thanksgiving proclomation" (I believe thats what it was called.. try a google search using that) where we should set aside the 4th thursday of every November to give thanks to God.

Yet another Christian-based holiday turned into a sales horse for the market eh?


P.S. I wish those freaking public schools would put in that majority of the founding fathers and heros in early America were Christian.. those annoying public schools and their stupid censorship..

and while they're at it, they should also state that Evolution has some flaws like how the sediments for beach costs don't layer up like this:
Coast|======= youngest
Coast|========= oldest

but like this:
Coast|\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Coast|\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Oldest ^................^Youngest

Sorry, went on a tangent there

What's that have to do with evolution? And of course beach layers add up like that, any new additions to the sediment deposited by waves and such would show up at the edge of the water, and not far inland. I don't see what that has to do with evolution, though.

Oh! You see, Evolutionists would use fossils in sediments to measure how old stuff is, and that is how they would create the evolutionary tree, by age of course. So the oldest things would be at the bottom and yadda yadda you already know that.

What am i saying is that they would confirm the age of a fossil by starting from the bottom of the sedimentary rock to the top, but actually sedimentary rock in the ocean at the coast OR in deep water would go from the coast into the sea, (as people later learned) which would mess up the evolutionary tree.
BUT for some reason they still teach in public schools for evolution that you date sedimentary rocks from bottom to top.

Get it?

(Also, I can't remember this other part specificly, but I do remember learning somewhere that sedimentary rocks can't be used to accurately define age of fossils at all because of some reason)

Edit: Sorry about last post up there, I was only laughing about the thanksgiving part, but still you are true how Christmas is just an excuse as time off from school instead of the birth of Jesus Christ.

i like the school's out part

Another startlingly intellectual contribution...

Well, I think we should keep Christmas as it is. The government doesn't have to be subjected to pressure from other religions as they don't officially endorse Christmas - if they did endorse Christmas they would be under pressure to call it 'Presents Day' for official purposes.

We can choose whether we celebrate Christmas as a time of religious festivities or giving/receiving presents. We also don't have to celebrate it at all...

I seem to have forgotten what I was talking about... meh

I think you answered your own question. If they told you that current methods of dating fossils from sedimentary rock are inaccurate, then how could they have told you the first statement? Not that it matters, because radiocarbon dating is always accurate. But you don't need to know the depth of the fossil or any nonsense like that. I think they just use depth to estimate age (like 1000 to 5000 years, etc.), but not to stick a definitive year on a particular fossil. It's more likely that the age of a layer of sedimentary rock can be determined by radiocarbon-dating its contents, or the rock itself.

Simple, Nomozu; they learned the first thing and ONLY the first thing. The 2nd part of it (using organization of sedimentary rocks to date the "estimate" is inaccurate) is not told.

But anyways, can't radiocarbon dating be also inaccurate because some of the carbon could have been moved by other particles? (wouldn't a worldwide flood do that? Agh I wish I could remember this stuff better. )

Edit: Oh ya i learned about 2nd part of sedimentary in a science class video in my private school. YAY!

Radiocarbon dating requires only a small sample of the substance being examined. See, every element has what's called a "half-life", or the amount of time it takes before half of it "decays", or becomes other elements. Basically its electrons spread to other elements and they form new ones. This was all explained to me in chemistry class when I was a sophomore in high school. Basically, since the sma element always decays at the same rate, we can determine long a particular sample has consisted of its base element as long as we know the half-life of the base element. Well, we know the half-lives of all of the elements, so no problem there. Using this, we can determine exactly how long ago a fossil actually became a fossil. This doesn't mean we know its exact age, but it does tell us that, say, this particular animal died 1000 years ago, or later. Usually "later" can be determined relatively easily by determining the age of the rock in which the fossil was buried. That's why we draw that correlation. When we date rock, we know exactly how long ago it became rock. It wasn't living in the first place. A worldwide flood would have no effect on a fossil, because any part of it that had been "moved" (even though if it was a flood it wouldn't have touched fossils deep in solid rock anyway) would not be dated - it wouldn't even be considered part of the fossil.

I was told the second part, actually.

But what would happen if the elements made from the carbon decaying were removed, changing the ratio and thus changing its "date". That's the question im going after.. which the answer to it I still can't remember specificly gah! .

Edit: Haha i just realized that the topic is completely changed because no one else is responding to the main question about Christmas, and I'm the reason for it!

It’s technically referred to as Winter Break.
(sorry if someone else already pointed out the obvious)

From Christmas to rocks? wow well i just wanna say merry christmas and happy new year Not much eles. Have a fun Holiday!!!

There's always been some ammount of church and state integration, and there will probably be for some time. I'm pretty mad that relegion plays such a large role in our lives. It doesn't seem, to me, to be that important.