We live in strange times. I’m writing this post from the Alliance Defense Fund Center for Academic Freedom office in tiny Columbia, Tennessee, listening to Christmas carols being broadcast from the courthouse in our town square. And yet, in this same rather conservative state, the ACLU sent letters to public schools statewide, warning them against holding Christmas parties and recommending only “holiday celebrations” and endorsing “secular symbols such as Santa Claus or dreidels.”
I understand why Ross Douthat would decry the “war on Christmas drumbeat,” and (as I note in a recent Washington Post “On Faith” piece) it’s easy to snicker when people start arguing over “merry Christmas” versus “happy holidays.” After all, the whole issue reeks of oversensitivity on all sides.
But let’s not forget that the secular Left created an entire litigation engine out the “offended observer.” When religious symbols are taken from public land, those cases are launched through a unique standing rule that allows a person who’s merely offended at the sight of a religious symbol to literally make a federal case out of their fit of pique. As a general rule, we do not enjoy a right not to be offended (and it’s a good thing too; imagine a world where every perceived slight could launch litigation) — except when it comes to public religious displays.
And yet the Left treats those sensitive souls who can’t bear the thought of a memorial cross in a national preserve as heroic dissenters. Their offense is a matter of national outrage. But what about Christians’ outrage when the very name of “Christmas” is a cause for public apology or when school principals face litigation threats for acknowledging a public holiday? Well, those people are fools who create fake issues out of a sense of false victimhood. Or, as I put it in the Post piece, “[Y]ou’re a hero of the Republic if you find ‘merry Christmas’ offensive and a hypersensitive rube if you roll your eyes a ‘happy holidays.’”
The bottom line is that we all need thicker skins. At the same time, however, one cannot remain silent when there’s ACLU demand letters flying about. For every demand letter, there will be a response, and the Christmas skirmishes will continue one more year.
But I’ll stop now. I think the courthouse speakers are playing “O Holy Night,” my favorite carol. It’s still Christmas in some parts of this great land.
As a non-Christian kid growing up in public schools that were wonderfully inclusive of kids from many different backgrounds, I loved the fact that we celebrated the holidays in a general sense, without giving Christmas -- and by extension, Christians -- a sort of primacy.
In most countries where sectarian groups get to jostle for who has primacy in the public square, things have ended very badly for my people. To grow up in a country where our constitutional protections directly blocked that sort of competition, allowing us to celebrate privately as we wished but keeping our public spaces and funds devoted to non-sectarian purposes, has been a really glorious thing, and a facet of America that I get to describe with enormous pride to foreigners curious about life in America.
Feel free to wish anyone a Merry Christmas if you like -- but I'm glad that the government, along with the corporations that depend on my business and the business of other non-Christians, simply wish me "happy holidays".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. French clearly did not actually read the ACLU letter he links to. The letter doesn't "warn against Christmas parties"! It's actually a reasoned presentation of the distinction between the celebration of a popular holiday and the endorsement of a particular religion -- one that ought to be understood by ANY public institution, even one located in a "conservative state".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNot to worry Mr. French, the intrepid sentinels of the "Tennessee Fusion Center" are all over this.
External Link
*sigh*
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUm, since when is the Jewish Hanukkah toy, better known as the dreidel, a secular symbol?
I missed the memo.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm not the most learned of the practices of Jehovah's witnesses, but, since they don't celebrate Christmas, I think one could make the case for offense with simply being offered a "happy holidays". Actually, the same goes for most non-Christians, as there aren't really a ton of holidays right now. It is a little ignorant (or condescending) to wish a Jew to have a happy Hannakuh two weeks after the fact.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"To grow up in a country where our constitutional protections directly blocked that sort of competition, allowing us to celebrate privately as we wished but keeping our public spaces and funds devoted to non-sectarian purposes, has been a really glorious thing, and a facet of America that I get to describe with enormous pride to foreigners curious about life in America."
That's nice for you, but the American Constitution is not supposed to work in the fashion you describe. It's not supposed to keep "our public spaces and funds devoted to non-sectarian purposes".
It prohibits the federal government from establishing a national religion. Full stop.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am an Orthodox Jew. I find it bizarre how much people try to erase X-mas from this season. I think it is absurd and I am offended for the people who celebrate this holiday!
I am not threatened or bothered in the slightest by the fact that x-mas is a huge holiday, celebrated by most of my fellow Americans. Enjoy!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseflenser:
Not quite. The text of the First Amendment provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". This clearly means more than a prohibition against the designation of a national religion; if not, a national religion could effectively be established by the creation of a series of laws favoring a single religion over all others. The 14th Amendment, enacted to prevent States from denying Constitutional rights and freedoms to individuals, requires the same degree of independence on the part of the States.
Interpreting the Constitution in the way you "suppose" it works would mean undoing more than a century's worth of jurisprudence. You may also suppose that life was better in 1890, but returning to the thinking of that age is impossible.
Propose a modern and positive argument, please, for the idea that public institutions ought to have the unlimited right to favor a single religion. This, after all, is what you appear to believe is right.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAndyS,
Hypothetical:
WE elect an Devote Muslim as Mayor, Governor or President. At various times of day, he will now make a public display of bowing toward Mecca. Even if he cloisters himself during it, the mere fact that he is departing gives prominence to the action he then does out of sight. I chose Islam merely because of the obvious and regular requirements of its practice.
How do we reconcile this public display of religion with the prohibition on other individuals practicing and celebrating their beliefs? Would that Mayor be barred from recessing meetings to allow for prayer? I am not an Islamic scholar so it could be that in this case some specific rule would allow both to coexist. But what if it didn't?
As this would be a sin, are you not them establishing a religious test for office? Public servant of believer but not both? And if it is allowable for that Mayor to give public view of his beliefs, why would we ban it for others?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"The text of the First Amendment provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". This clearly means more than a prohibition against the designation of a national religion"
It does not.
"if not, a national religion could effectively be established by the creation of a series of laws favoring a single religion over all others."
An established religion is not defined as one which is favored over all others. That is a necessary but not sufficient condition for an "established religion". An established religion would be "The Church of the United States" and would have some government official as its titular head. Like the Church of England, in other words.
"The 14th Amendment, enacted to prevent States from denying Constitutional rights and freedoms to individuals, requires the same degree of independence on the part of the States."
Leaving aside for the moment the awkward fact that the 14th Amendment was never legally ratified, this is a terrible misreading of the US Constitution and the First Amendment. The First Amendment does not grant any "rights and freedoms" to anybody. It is a limitation on the power of the Federal government. ("Congress shall make no law ..") There is a huge distinction between the two things.
Also, the 14th Amendment was never understood by the people who wrote it to means the things which modern courts have "interpreted" into it.
"Interpreting the Constitution in the way you "suppose" it works would mean undoing more than a century's worth of jurisprudence."
Less than a centuries worth. And I do not "suppose" that the Constitution should be "interpreted" in any other way than the way which is consistent with both the text and the legislative intent. A great deal of Supreme Court made "constitutional law" is unconstitutional. A lie does not become a truth through the passage of time.
"Propose a modern and positive argument .."
The conceit of the left is always that they are very "modern and positive", though the notion of an oligarchy (which is what you favor) goes back thousands of years.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMost notable in flenser's response:
* "It does not." No argument - flat assertion without reason.
* An attempt to overdefine "an establishment of religion".
* The crackpot idea that the 14th Amendment wasn't actually ratified.
* An unsupported argument about the "intent" of the 14th Amendment that flatly contradicts its actual text.
* A refusal to recognize the extent to which the idea that Constitutional restrictions are incorporated against the states pervades the last several generations of legal thought.
* Most of all, by the refusal to provide a positive argument event when invited. Once again, why exactly would it be a good thing for a government of, by, and for the people to favor and actively promote the religion of only some of those people?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseflenser, check out you're state's constitution. You'll find a separation of government and religion there that makes your 14th Amendment argument irrelevant.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse""Um, since when is the Jewish Hanukkah toy, better known as the dreidel, a secular symbol?
I missed the memo.""
It's a cultural aspect of the holiday, rather than a religious aspect.
It's analogous to Santa and the reindeer, rather than the menorah itself, which is religious in nature (Just like the whole "birth of Jesus" thing.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseToday I got a Christmas card from a government research organisation in Malaysia. It says 'Merry Christmas'. Last year I got a card from a Saudi Arabian colleague with 'Merry Christmas' - and a Nativity scene. Your country needs to take a chill pill...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd yet, AndyS, you feel free to interpret the First Amendment all willy-nilly, using what you like and ignoring what you don't like.
You quote the first part of the Amendments' positiopn on religion and leave out this--"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
The Amendment expressly forbids the government(thanks to that 14th you like when it suits your purposes) to prohibit the free exercise of ANY religion.
You and yours seem to interpret this as demanding that the government forbid any and all religious display.
In all this interpretation one wonders why those simple two words--"no law" get utterly ignored. No, as we have been so often told, means NO.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFrom Teleeveangelist:
""Um, since when is the Jewish Hanukkah toy, better known as the dreidel, a secular symbol?
I missed the memo.""
It's a cultural aspect of the holiday, rather than a religious aspect.
It's analogous to Santa and the reindeer, rather than the menorah itself, which is religious in nature (Just like the whole "birth of Jesus" thing.)"
Really? Thanks for letting us know what you think. I'm glad you can determine what symbols are religious and what aren't for us, then decide if that is appropriate for Christmas in the public square. I couldn't make any of those calls otherwise, since I'm not qualified to do so. Will you make the same calls for us on July 4th?
I always thought Christmas was a holiday that celebrated the birth of the person that changed human life forever. The movement of people who believed that certainly gave Western Civilization its foundation, with ideas as liberty, individual worth and value, and the importance of moral behavior, just for starters.
Ah, sorry, I forgot, I'm Christian, therefore I have no part in this discussion of all you enlightened people. Happy Holydays folks.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse