Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

alaska1415 t1_j9y0tfb wrote

Reply to comment by insofarincogneato in Pennsylvania Lawmakers Propose Making Diwali a State Holiday by zorionek0

A day off isn’t, in any way shape or form, an endorsement of a religion.

2

insofarincogneato t1_j9y7ump wrote

Tell me you only respect a culture's holiday because it gives you a day off without telling me you only respect a culture's holiday because it gives you a day off.

Seriously, if you think that's what a state holiday is about, I don't know what to tell you.

0

alaska1415 t1_j9ymju8 wrote

Nothing you said was in any way a response to anything I said.

0

insofarincogneato t1_j9z0jpw wrote

How not? No one else said a day off is an endorsement of religion. You did. I said a state holiday is more than that. Where's the confusion here?

0

alaska1415 t1_j9zn9l6 wrote

Are you slow? My comment was in a reply wherein you said a day off in observance of a religious holiday is an endorsement of a religion which violates the establishment clause. I corrected you that it is in fact NOT an endorsement of any religion.

0

insofarincogneato t1_j9zqw5a wrote

Nope, I never said a day off was an endorsement of religion, I said a state sponsored holiday is an endorsement. The day off for SOME folks is a result of that sponsorship. The only reference to a day off I made was after that point were I said your boss probably isn't giving you a day off for it. That's why I want to know why you and l assume state holidays are just a day off👍

Even if I did say that, (and I didn't)... it DOES endorse a religion if it doesn't do the same for others.

If your going to keep implying I said something I didn't we have nothing to talk about here. 🤷

Why don't you move on with this conversation and express your reason for why giving specific religion's holidays days off but not every other belief isn't a violation of the establishment clause if you actually want to debate in good faith?

0

alaska1415 t1_ja0f6br wrote

You literally did. Now that that’s settled.

It’s also not since:

  1. The action is not coercive.

  2. No one could reasonably see a day off as proselytizing or endorsement.

  3. Christmas (for example) is a holiday, yes, but there are numerous secular holidays as well meaning the government isn’t promoting that they only recognize Christian things, as an example. Saying that giving the day off is a violation would also call into question things like Black History Month as a violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments which ban government preference based on ethnicity or race.

  4. Granting days off that hold societal significance is itself a reasonable enough secular purpose.

From Ganlun v. United States:

Instead, the government’s accommodation simply acknowledges the existence of this religious exercise and avoids stifling it. Zorach, 343 U.S. at 314 (“When the state . . . cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs.”)

I hope you’re done playing dumb and actually learn something.

1