This Is What’s Going on In My Home Town–Nativity Scene Drama
| December 17th, 2007Apparently they are fighting over a nativity scene.
The problem erupted after a Columbus man apparently complained about equality of religions in displays at state parks.
After a letter to the business manager of Ohio State parks regarding symbols of religion, an order came down to remove the nativity scene which the Garden Club has provided. the letter told all start parks in the state to take down their nativity decorations.
On Friday, Dec. 7, Ohio Governor Ted Strickland intervened.
Under current law, government entities (city halls, courts, public schools, etc) can generally acknowledge religious holidays so long as they do not create an impression of endorsement of religion by the government, according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
Strickland issued an order mandating that Shawnee and all state parks continue their traditional nativity displays.
And he appears to be well within the law, according to the ACLU. “Just because a nativity scene or other religious display appears on government property does not necessarily mean that it is owned or is being displayed by the government, using tax dollars. Many local and some state governments have within their boundaries public areas whereby citizens are permitted to erect displays, including those of a religious nature, of their own choice” says the Ohio ACLU web site.
This is right in my parents’ backyard. This lodge is really fancy (at least by southern Ohio standards), and most of the folks who stay there are upper middle class folks, who come from places like Columbus and Cincinnati to explore the wilderness in the luxury of fancy hotel.
I wish somebody I know would go up there and put up a Menorah, and see how the locals respond. In my experience, a very large majority of southern Ohio folks are all for freedom of religious expression, when it in involves Christianity. But if somebody went up there and put up a Menorah or any other non-Christian symbol, they’d throw a fit.
I remember around the time I graduated from high school when there was some court decision about prayers at graduations. The administrators and students really wanted to have a prayer (of the Christian variety, of course), so they decided that the graduating seniors could vote on whether or not to have a graduation prayer. I bet I was the only person to say that I didn’t want a prayer. Of course, this was a school was everyone was a Christian or person like me, who was tired of Christianity. Nobody was Muslim; nobody was Jewish,;and if anyone was an atheist or any other religion, they wouldn’t say it publicly.
This is one nice thing about living in a town with a noticeable non-Christian population. There seems to be a great deal more tolerance.
December 17th, 2007 at 11:55 am
I’m all for displays like this provided the local goverment that approves these things goes out of their way to make clear that EVERYONE is entitled to display/celebrate their holidays, and make sure that everyone knows how to do that. And they have to MEAN IT.
The graduation situation is obviously a different issue, because it’s a binary situation. (also, I don’t understand why some people need to make everything a religious issue. Like they’re going to be damned to hell if they go 30 minutes without acknowledging Jesus.)
This comment was written by jd.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2007 at 11:55 am
Well, you could always petition for a Wiccan pentacle-wreath and a festivus pole:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/W/WI_FESTIVUS_NATIVITY_WIOL-?SITE=WIFON&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
I’m actually pleased to read that they _did_ include the Wiccan pentacle-wreath.
This comment was written by Silenced is Foo.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Actually, the guy who complained sounds like a prick. According to another article, he was given a chance to display his religious symbols. He provided a Hindu swastika and a Zoroastrian figure. Now, aside from there being no major Hindu holiday this December and Zoroastrianism being so remote, neither of those symbols are specific to any holiday.
There is a big difference between putting up a nativity scene or a menorah at the appropriate time of year and putting up a cross or a star of David (or Hindu swastika) for the hell of it. Clearly Christianity is the most popular religion in this country and clearly Christmas displays will get more time and energy. So either this guy is one of the extremely rare American Hindu/Zoroastrians who feels marginalized in a Christian-dominated society or he is a jerk with a bone to pick.
This comment was written by Michael.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
It seems to make sense to me that in a country and a region where there are a large number of people of a given religion, a display noting a holiday season specific to that religion should be able to be displayed on public land, especially if the funding is private. As far as the menorah goes, given that this is the season for that as well I think you’d find that you’ve misestimated your fellow Ohioans. Or are you falling into a stereotype that Christian = intolerant?
Now, as far as the Wiccan pentangle goes, a) was the person who asked for it Wiccan, and b) is there a Wiccan holiday this season that this pentangle is used to commonly denote? If both A and B are true, then it makes sense that such a thing should be allowed to be displayed somewhere on public land. OTOH, if it’s a concept that “Christians are displaying something, so let’s try to force a display of [our religion’s] symbols as well”, then it seems inappropriate to me.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
It’s entirely possible that the guy feels marginalized, but I don’t think he has to be Hindu/Zoroastrian in order to feel that way. He may have picked the symbols that he did in order to try to make Christians feel as uncomfortable with his symbology as he does with theirs. Not because he’s a prick, but because he wants to make a point.
I saw a pro-atheism display yesterday near where I live, set up next to where the dozens of nativity scenes provided by local churches will soon spring up. I bet somebody will tear it down before that, though.
This comment was written by Bjartmarr.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
He may have picked the symbols that he did in order to try to make Christians feel as uncomfortable with his symbology as he does with theirs. Not because he’s a prick, but because he wants to make a point.
You have to be a prick to want to make that point in that way. OK, he’s uncomfortable with Christian symbology. I’m uncomfortable with gay themes on broadcast TV. Amp is uncomfortable with depictions of rape in comics. Cry us a fucking river; there is no right to not be made uncomfortable by the cultural themes of our neighbors.
There is, on the other hand, a right to express one’s beliefs, within broad parameters. That’s why it’s OK to have a private group put up a nativity scene, or a menorah, or a Hindu swastika, or a plinth arguing for atheism and materialism. If that’s what you believe, then more power to you.
But putting up the swastika, or the creche, because you don’t like the beliefs of the people who it will irritate and you want to make them uncomfortable, isn’t you expressing your beliefs; it’s just you being a dick.
Aren’t there enough dicks in the world?
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Just FYI: Yes, there is a Wiccan Holy Day in the Winter. The Wiccan “Wheel of the Year” celebrates the Winter Solstice as Yule. Other NeoPagan religions celebrate a Winter Festival around this time as well (Modranicht (Mother’s Nights), Saturnalia, etc.) There are a LOT of religions that celebrate a Winter Festival of some kind.
As to whether a pentacle is a direct symbol of the Wiccan celebration of the winter solstice, I suppose other people may battle that out - it’s not an arguement I would personally embroil myself in (and I myself am a Pagan, though not Wiccan). I *do* object to the promulgation of overt religious displays and symbols of any kind on governmental property. These displays together form a symbol in itself of our culture’s privileging of one religion over another and the false assumption of America as a “Christian” nation (when it is no such thing), and as the practitioner of a non-Christian religion, yeah, I find nativity scenes on governmental property problematic. I like nativity scenes, to be honest - I think they’re often lovely and warm (when they’re not those icky plastic ones). But when placed on governmental property, they become symbols of something that I think flies in the face of claims to church/state separation.
This year two pentacles put up near nativity displays on gov. property (one decorated in a greenery wreath, appropos of the season) - in response to the direct invitation by city officials that other religions should feel free to have a display in the same area - have been vandalized, almost immediately after being put up. One was backed over with a truck and the other was taken down and chucked under some bushes. While I personally don’t consider this the greatest horror ever committed in the name of religious bigotry by a long shot, I think, like most Culture War hooha surrounding this season, that it *is* symbolic of cultural perceptions of real religious diversity in this country.
America *may be* predominately Christian. Sure. But our *governments* aren’t Christian - they can’t be if they want to preserve the integrity of a democratic state that purports to embrace cultural and religious diversity (though, ha ha, it hardly keeps to that ideal in real life anyway), and when it comes to governmental property, there cannot be any kind of preferential treatment given to any one display. If some dude wants to put a Hindu symbol up next to a nativity display because he wants to make a point, or Circle Sanctuary chooses to put up a wreath with a pentacle in it to both make a point and be festive, as long as they are privately funded according to the current law, they get to.
If folks want to avoid this kind of silliness, they could just stop allowing nativity scenes to be erected on governmental sites. They won’t, because the fact is that they too are making a point via the use of symbols, they just aren’t being honest about it. Sounds awfully jerkish to me.
This comment was written by chickenbishopthefirst.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
RonF:
Yule, the holiday that Christmas is historically stolen from… er… derived from, is a day that most Wiccans hold sacred. It falls on the Winter Solstice.
The pentacle is basically (accurately or not) seen as a symbol of the faith across the board, much like the cross or Star of David to their respective faiths.
Honestly, I don’t see displaying the pentacle as any different than showing the Nativity, which is a clearly religious scene affiliated by Americans solely with Christianity. It’s tantamount to the cross, only a more seasonal depiction.
As for the guy’s choice of a Hindu swastika or a Zoroastrian figure… Maybe he is being a dick by insisting on them when it’s clear that there isn’t a holiday nearby to justify them. On the other hand, what about all the other religious days throughout the year that didn’t get time on display? Honestly, December is like the ONLY month without a Hindu holiday in it. So what about those other eleven months?
jd said:
I completely agree. The problem is that many of them do not make it easy and certainly aren’t interested in helping people of other faiths in many cases. In evidence, it’s only been recently that pagan and Wiccan service-men and -women were even allowed to have pentacles put on their headstones (from what I understand, over the objections of our beloved Commander-in-Chief).
This comment was written by MisterMephisto.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Robert said:
I disagree. I think he’s clearly expressing his belief that all faiths should be given equal time and support under the law.
Which, I think, is a more honest option than just labeling him as a dick because you don’t like what he’s doing.
This comment was written by MisterMephisto.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
I think that overemphasizing this distinction gives too much power to thoughtless or selfish individuals who want to bellow their beliefs from the rooftops without regard for others. To my mind, a wish to be free of the oppressive beliefs of others is just as valid a motivation for performing an act as is a belief in a religion. Well, more valid, actually.
I also think you’re leaving out an important part of why he did it, that being, to make the point that these sorts of religious displays, especially when overdone to the extent that Christian ones have been overdone, are oppressive.
People choose to believe what they believe, and people are responsible for the actions that they take regardless of whether those actions are motivated by belief, or by something else.
This comment was written by Bjartmarr.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
In these matters, I distinguish between the public and the private.
1. For purposes of government action, what significance should I attach to the allegation that the objector is a dick? For that matter, what evidence has anybody seen to demonstrate that the people who put up the Christian-related stuff where or were not dicks? Are we applying an uneven standard here?
I argue that people who make a display of their Christianity in ways that offend others are failing to practice Jesus’s injunction to do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and therefore may not be sincere Christians but rather triumphalist dicks. And I also defend their right to be such. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion is freedom to be a dick. Questions about the sincerity of someone’s belief miss the point. Everyone is sincere in their beliefs. They just may not be candid in characterizing their beliefs to others, nor do they have any obligation to be so.
I understand that gov’t must discriminate between people based on their conduct (e.g., legal conduct vs. illegal conduct; more bona fide occupational experience vs. less experience). But I get uncomfortable when government discriminates on the basis of religion. Each of us should be free to believe in being a dick (whatever that may mean) or in Christianity (whatever that may mean), or in both or in neither, and gov’t should be indifferent.
2. For purposes of private action, what significance should I attach to the allegation that the objector is a dick? Or the putative Christians?
As a private citizen I’m generally free to discriminate on any basis I chose, including on the basis of religion. We’re free to engage in “informal sanctions” against people who embrace a world view we oppose — whether that’s a view the promotes irritating religious displays or dog-in-the-manger dickishness.
Much of the discussion on this blog addresses the harm of these informal social sanctions that promote conformity. We bemoan how these sanctions make life difficult for progressive non-conformists. Occasionally it may be appropriate to reflect on how these same informal social sanctions make things difficult for reactionary non-conformists — “dicks,” if you will.
Thus, while I don’t believe government should discriminate between displaying a cross and a swastika, I expect informal social sanctions will limit the number of people setting up illuminated swastika displays at every county courthouse. But if it doesn’t, so be it.
This comment was written by nobody.really.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
The real problem here, IMHO, is that the U.S. Supreme Court screwed up royally when they ruled on situations like these. Basically, holiday decorations can go up as long as they’re inclusive. Well and good, except that SCOTUS defined “inclusive” as “multiple groups represented AT THE SAME TIME.” Now, that’s fine for Christians, because we can always stick a menorah up next to the creche and some sort of Passover symbol next to the crucifix and the two holidays they care about are covered. Everyone else gets screwed if their holidays don’t fall near someone else’s.
A better solution would have been to look at how open the town was to use of public land generally, at any time of the year. So Christians, Jews, Pagans, Hindus, etc. get to display on their holidays. (and cultural or philosophical groups too, on any days they feel like celebrating) That way, public space would really reflect the whole community, rather than paying stupid lip service by smashing everyone together around Christmas.
This comment was written by jd.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
The Wild Hunt Blog has been chronicling the adventures of multi-cultural displays involving Wicca.
First, Olean, New York had a nativity. As I recall, it was against local ordinance to have a religious display, but the mayor insisted that by God, they would have one, and invited anyone of another religion to display symbols as well. So local Pagans stepped up. The Pagan pentacle display lasted, I think, a day, and was vandalized. When the Pagans put it back up, protesters heckled them. The mayor cancelled the whole thing and moved the nativity to the church.
Next, Green Bay, Wisconsin stepped in. They wanted to prove they were different from those godless liberals in Madison, so, again in violation of statute, they put up a nativity and invited “any other religion” to put up their own symbol. Selena Fox of Circle Sanctuary brought a Yule wreath (with pentacle) and again, it lasted a day and was vandalized. That was yesterday.
Most of the Pagan symbols of Yule are familiar as Christmas symbols: Trees, stars, mistletoe, holly. Incorporating the pentacle is a polite way of making it more obviously Pagan to modern eyes. The impolite way, which some people do privately, is to have the birthing Mother be nude and have the newborn Sun Child have a solar aura about his head and/or horns.
This comment was written by Deborah.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
This is precisely right, and I think it’s a big part of what my problem is with asking whether or not there’s a Hindu holiday in late December.
That is, “When we’re loudly and publicly celebrating my religion, I suppose it might be okay if we also allowed your religion to piggyback on the celebration a little . . . as long as the way in which you do it and your reasons for doing it meet my criteria. ”
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
chickenbishopthefirst said:
This, in my mind, is the worst element of issues like this: the blatant hypocrisy of the Christians
-uber-alles“majority.” They’re supposedly not making a statement, but, if they really weren’t trying to make a statement they would:1) Not put Nativity or other religious icons/scenes up in government-owned space in the first place;
2) Be much more reasonable about taking these things down when they do show up in government space and someone gets offended.
Instead what we see is them insisting upon doing the former and then ranting at the other side for being “dicks” when asked to do the latter. And when the non-Christian side tries to exercise its right to do the former? Those icons/scenes get vandalized, destroyed, desecrated, and otherwise disrespected… if the local government figures don’t take them down in the first place (while leaving the pro-Christian elements in place).
[MisterM, the Nazi reference is needlessly insulting and in poor taste. I’ve struck it out; please don’t do it again. –Amp]
This comment was written by MisterMephisto.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Beautifully put, Myca.
This comment was written by Deborah.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Just FYI: There is a Zoroastrian holiday celebrated on the solstice; it’s called, in Persian, Shabeh Yaldah, and it is still celebrated by Iranians and others with a Persian cultural heritage. It predates the Muslim conquest of Iran by quite a bit.
This comment was written by Richard Jeffrey Newman.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Did anyone else catch Richard Dawkins’ recent comments about carol singing? He’s distinguishing cultural practices surrounding Christmas from religion. Perhaps it’s easier to make that call from a country with a state religion.
This comment was written by Thene.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
chickenbishopthefirst:
These displays together form a symbol in itself of our culture’s privileging of one religion over another and the false assumption of America as a “Christian” nation (when it is no such thing),
I disagree. For one thing, it’s only privileging if other religions are not allowed equal access. And I stand against vandalizing displays regardless of who put them up, BTW.
Before I can argue whether or not it feeds an assumption that the U.S. is a “Christian” nation, I’d have to know what you mean by that phrase. Do you mean it in the sense that people think the U.S. is a Christian nation in the same way that Saudi Arabia or Iran are Islamic nations, where that’s the official state religion and other religions have no freedom to practice/build churches/proseltyze/etc.?
and as the practitioner of a non-Christian religion, yeah, I find nativity scenes on governmental property problematic
Well, fortunately, even a stopped clock is right twice a day (except in the military …) and the Supreme Court recognized in this case that “freedom of religion” != “freedom from religion”.
MisterMephisto, there are a lot of things that are useful to do that will offend one small group of people or another. I don’t see why the fact that a small group of people may find something offensive should in and of itself be a particularly compelling reason not to do it.
Bjartmarr, how are displays of faith in the Christian religion during the major Christian festivals “oppressive”?
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
RonF siad:
I neither implied, suggested, nor, especially, said that.
What I said was that putting religious displays in government areas while claiming that one is not “making a statement” and then refusing to take it down when it clearly offends people is hypocrisy.
By putting your faith on display on government property, while other faiths are repeatedly given short-shrift (either by the powers-that-be or “just the locals”) , you are clearly making a statement that the existing government clearly supports your faith at the expense of others whether they be Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim, Mormon, Taoist, Shinto, Pagan, Heathen, Bahai, etc. And, more importantly, that you, yourself, and the government don’t care and don’t think that those other faiths deserve equal time or respect simply because they’re not the dominant religious paradigm.
There is no reason that your faith, regardless of what that faith may be, needs to be in a government-owned location. Have it at your home. Have it at your church. Have it at your “Christian community center” or whatever. But it is clearly intended to identify the local government with a specific faith when you put it in Town Hall, in the Governor’s Office, or on State or Federal Parklands.
To All:
This comment was written by MisterMephisto.I apologize for the “uber-alles” comment. Thank you, Ampersand, for the cross-out.
Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
But other religions aren’t allowed equal access, not with such strong social pressure against non-Christian displays.
Furthermore, not all religions have proselytizing/conversion as a major goal of the religion. When the government endorses proselytizing, they are inherently endorsing those religions which feature proselytizing as a major part of the religion.
Oh, for FSM’s sake. No, that wasn’t what he meant.
In a recent well-publicized poll*, 55% of respondants agreed that “the Constitution establishes the US as a Christian nation”. Senator and Presidential Candidate John McCain agreed. Perhaps you should be asking them what the hell they were thinking when they answered affirmatively. But I’m pretty sure that Chickenbishop, John McCain, and a substantial portion of that deluded 55% are well aware that Americans are generally free to practice their own religions. (As long as they pray properly in schools, that is.)
Are you kidding? Or perhaps you have been living outside the US for the past thirty years?
Christmas decorations strung up all over the city. Christmas music blaring from loudspeakers both public and private. Christmas advertisements on TV, buses, billboards, and radio. Christmas light displays. Christmas nativity scenes. Christmas as an official federal holiday. The Christmas gift-buying season, lasting from Nov. 1 to Dec. 25. Post-Christmas sales, lasting Dec. 25 to Jan 15. Christmas movies. Christmas bus schedules. Santa Clauses everywhere you look. Need I go on? Don’t forget about the Jehovah’s witnesses, and the funny looking guys down on the boardwalk handing out Christian literature — that goes on year round, not just two months per year. And no beer sales on the Christian sabbath! Oh, and then there’s Easter chocolates and Easter egg hunts and Easter bunnies — almost forgot about the *other* big Christian holiday.
“But wait!” you say. “Half of that stuff isn’t state-sponsored at all!” Yeah, so what? It still contributes to the oppressive atmosphere, which is what your question was about.
“But wait again!” you say. “That’s not really Christian stuff. It’s just got the Christian names and Christian symbology and Christian mythology and conveniently falls on Christian holy days, but it’s not REAL Christianity (tm!).” Well, Christian is as Christian does, and to the millions of Christians around the US, the above is an integral part of Christianity — so all that stuff, as far as we outsiders are concerned (and especially for purposes of its oppressiveness), is Christian.
*see http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=19031
This comment was written by Bjartmarr.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
There is a big difference between putting up a nativity scene or a menorah at the appropriate time of year and putting up a cross or a star of David (or Hindu swastika) for the hell of it.
Maybe, but the reactions to demands to install a menorah at the Seattle airport last year weren’t exactly welcoming. As I recall, the response was, “Oh, yeah?? Well then, we’ll just pack up the 7 xmas trees we have up at the airport.” Basically, “Fuck you guys! It’s my ball & I’m taking it home.” Unsurprisingly, the rabbi who wanted to put up the menorah then started to receive death threats.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,235772,00.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6612943
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003961584_holidaydisplay19m.html
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003470331_trees10m.html
From that last link:
After a long debate, the board of commissioners supported the airport management’s decision to take down the trees and punt the issue into next year.
“We didn’t have other cultures represented, and rather than scramble around and find representations of other cultures at this late date, we decided to take them down and consider it later,” said Patricia Davis, head of the Port commission
“I felt we’d also have to put up Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish symbols. Where does it stop?” said Commissioner John Creighton.
Oh, Jesus! Where, indeed? Mr. Creighton.
What kind of symbol did Commissioner Creighton think a menorah was? So, I’ve just got to say to those defending Christian displays on government property that you’re deluding yourselves if you think that normally it’s all fair and equal and open to all faiths. The death threats often heard really encourage other faiths to speak up.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
Yeah, “Where does it stop?” At actual diversity? The horror!
The Christian majority becomes oppressive when those who display alternate decorations (including on their private property) risk vandalism, threats, and/or violence. It’s oppressive when 4 Jewish guys on the NYC subway are beaten up for saying “Happy Chanukkah” in response to “Merry Christmas” (during Chanukkah). And while none of these things are actually caused by nativity displays, the constant trumpeting about the “oppression” of Christians and the “war on Christmas” and the evils of “liberal secularism” (or is it secular liberalism?) and how dangerous it is, adds up to fomenting hatred, and this trumpeting, this fomenting, accompanied by religious displays in the public square and with tacit or explicit government support are, indeed, designed to intimidate and silence the minority.
This comment was written by Deborah.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
I don’t understand why our society sanctions *any* religious symbols in the public sphere. I don’t mean that in an antagonistic way, it really just doesn’t make sense to me.
When I see religious symbols in public I assume that people put them there a) to proselytize, and/or b) to encourage societal conformity, and/or c) to make people in the in-group feel better about being in the in-group. I don’t mean that people in the in-group are necessarily being snide about it - I know lots of folks who are genuinely cheered by religious Christmas decorations - but their cheer comes at the expense of those of us who are in the “out-group” and feel alienated by religious symbols , especially in a publically-owned place like a park or courthouse. I don’t think that our government should be in the business of forwarding goals a) through c) above. If a) through c) are not the state’s goals, then what is the objective in allowing these symbols?
I guess that you could say that people put those symbols there because they want to celebrate religion . . . but why do they need outward displays of religion *everywhere* to remind them to celebrate? There are plenty of venues for people to celebrate common religious feeling in public - shopping malls, television, churches, sides of homes - I just don’t understand why we need to sanction slapping religious symbols on our state property as well, as if every square inch has to be covered.
This comment was written by marmelade.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
It’s difficult for me to understand how the presence of cultural symbolism that one feels “alienated” from can be considered oppression. As a young man, I lived in Iran for a time and was literally immersed in an ocean of alien religious cultural symbolism; was I oppressed, or was I just a member of a minority?
This reaction seems extremely reminiscent - to the point of identity - with the heavy breathing of anti-gay people who talk about having to “see it at the mall” and “why can’t they just do what they want to do in private and not bother us decent people”.
Now, I agree that if you are seeing menorahs getting smashed up, that’s oppression. I agree that people getting attacked in the subway for saying “Happy Hannukah” is oppression.
But seeing a nativity? A Christmas tree? A Christmas sale? If that’s oppression, then what word do you have in reserve for people who are enslaved or subjected to rape as a war crime or rounded up into camps? Are those people getting shoved into the murder pit thinking “well, at least we don’t have to hear Jingle Bells while they kill us”?
I do understand that being surrounded by these symbols can be a draining experience; nobody likes to feel that they are a distinct and different minority, that the rest of the monkeys might not like if they knew. Being a cultural minority isn’t generally fun. I sympathize with anyone who, as such a minority, is genuinely mistreated; been there, done that, and it does indeed suck. But the existence of the majority, and their callousness in celebrating their beliefs and pursuing their culture, are not attacks on the people in the minority.
This is America, and our shared near-consensus value is freedom OF speech, not freedom FROM speech. If hearing other people having their culture in public is really bothersome for you, then I’m afraid that the problem, and its solution, lie with you, and not with the society you live in. I think this is true whether you’re opposed to homosexuality and don’t want to see gay pride parades, whether you’re opposed to racial integration and don’t want to see interracial dating, or whether you’re opposed to Christianity (or any other faith) and don’t want to see people espousing its symbology.
All three of those folks (and a thousand others) are all just going to have to cowboy up. I didn’t die from hearing the call to prayer from the minarets - in fact, I underwent no detectable harm at all. You won’t die from seeing Santa Claus or the Baby Jesus, or the FSM for that matter. If you WILL die - if you really are going to undergo harm because people who don’t believe what you believe had the temerity to actually say so in public - then you’re doomed, amigo, because no society on earth is going to wrap itself in silence to preserve your feefees. If being in the minority is THAT painful, then form communities where you’re a majority.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
I just don’t understand why we need to sanction slapping religious symbols on our state property as well, as if every square inch has to be covered.
I just don’t understand why we have to have gay people holding hands in the mall, as if they’re entitled to be free and human on every single square inch of the earth. They’ve got homes and clubs - why can’t they PDA there?
Oh right - because they’re free people and can do what they want, if it doesn’t hurt anybody. Seeing people hold hands, or seeing a creche, neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg; that being the case, any problem I have with it is just that, MY problem.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2007 at 11:40 pm
Robert:
Oppressive - adj.
1. burdensome, unjustly harsh, or tyrannical: an oppressive king; oppressive laws.
2. causing discomfort by being excessive, intense, elaborate, etc.: oppressive heat.
3. distressing or grievous: oppressive sorrows.
Oppression - noun
1. the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner.
2. an act or instance of oppressing.
3. the state of being oppressed.
4. the feeling of being heavily burdened, mentally or physically, by troubles, adverse conditions, anxiety, etc.
Oppressive #2 fits the bill perfectly.
This comment was written by Bjartmarr.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2007 at 11:55 pm
Well, no, Robert, if the creche in question is being put on public property as a government endorsement of religion, it’s not “my problem”. It’s a Constitutional problem. People who get their panties in a wad because the town council isn’t allowed to use tax money to buy a Nativity scene need to cowboy up, or persuade enough of their fellow voters to get the Constitution amended like grown-ups.
It’s not a matter of “oppressive”. It’s a matter of a bunch of whiny twits who can’t fathom the idea that the separation of church and state also applies to their church, and there is nothing whatsoever preventing them from sticking a creche on their own property, saying “Merry Christmas”, or going caroling to their heart’s content.
And there’s more than a whiff of anti-Semitism, particularly in all the heavy breathing about the “war on Christmas”. Gee, what other major religious group has a holiday in December and isn’t into Jesus? That’s a toughie, I might have to Google it.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2007 at 12:04 am
Well, no, Robert, if the creche in question is being put on public property as a government endorsement of religion, it’s not “my problem”. It’s a Constitutional problem.
Surely. That’s not what we’re talking about here. Even the ACLU acknowledges that isn’t what’s happening in Ohio.
We’re talking about the oppressiveness of “Christmas decorations strung up all over the city. Christmas music blaring from loudspeakers both public and private. Christmas advertisements on TV, buses, billboards, and radio. Christmas light displays. Christmas nativity scenes. Christmas as an official federal holiday. The Christmas gift-buying season, lasting from Nov. 1 to Dec. 25. Post-Christmas sales, lasting Dec. 25 to Jan 15. Christmas movies. Christmas bus schedules. Santa Clauses everywhere you look. Need I go on?”
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2007 at 12:05 am
Bjartmarr - OK. But that type of “oppressive” doesn’t rise to a level of, not to be too blunt, most people giving a shit. Yeah, it’s sure oppressive heat today. And…?
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2007 at 12:10 am
Robert:
No, that’s exactly what marmelade was talking about, in the post you were responding to when you made your ridiculous gay analogy. You can generate all kinds of confusion by switching back and forth between my objection to the overwhelming load of Christianity being dumped on my head from parties both public and private, and marmelade’s objection to religious crap on State property, but they’re actually two different objections.
Got an unbiased source for that? I’m quite ready to believe that your Christian friends don’t give a shit. But I give a shit. Most of my non-Christian friends give a shit. Who are you to say that all of us don’t give a shit?
This comment was written by Bjartmarr.Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2007 at 12:20 am
Bjartmarr, this may come as a shock, but religious people are allowed access to state property just the same as non-religious people. We bar (rightly) the government endorsement of religion; we do not bar our citizenry from expressing its religious beliefs.
Even if that means seeing the Baby Jesus in the city park.
Got an unbiased source for that? I’m quite ready to believe that your Christian friends don’t give a shit. But I give a shit. Most of my non-Christian friends give a shit. Who are you to say that all of us don’t give a shit?
You and your non-Christian friends don’t amount to “most people”. The lack of any coherent “yeah, let’s get that Santa Claus out of the mall!” outpouring - in a world where who wins “American Idol” can generate a million phone calls - would seem to be indicative that your concerns are extremely minoritarian.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2007 at 8:01 am
I think that we should be focusing on this particular incident because it is the one that Rachel linked too and it is an illustration of a way in which religious and cultural expression should be done in the public square. First, no tax dollars were directly involved. The creche in question was put up by a local Garden Club. Other religions were given a chance to provide their religious and cultural display. The brouhaha resulted as most brouhahas do; a middle management government employee who was ill-equipt to handle what any reasonable person would see as an act of protest rather than true marginalization and made a “take the ball away” decision. That is a shame.
So just as citizens should be allowed to get a parade permit for their cultural parades, so too should the citizenry be allowed to donate religious/cultural material around a major holiday.
As to whether or not there is a Hindu holiday in December; clearly the answer is not to merely allow other cultures to piggyback onto Christmas and proper allowance should be given for anyone who wants to at the appropriate time. This is why I disagree with the man in question’s protest iconography. It really doesn’t address the issue. There is a real difference between a nativity scene around the appropriate holiday and putting crucifixes up on the walls of a courthouse. The latter spells out oppressions that violate the constititution and an endorsement of religion; the former shows the government permitting the citizenry to publicly celebrate an important cultural holiday. Choosing a generic Hindu symbol with unfortunate ties to Nazism does nothing to advance understanding on both sides of the issue. It may make it’s point but it clouds the situation.
Unfortunately Christmas is a major cultural holiday as well as a religious one. Asking that the majority refrain from celebrating their cultural heritage publicly is unreasonable, especially when tax dollars are not used. In a town next to mine, there is a relatively large Indian and South Asian population. Every year they have a huge celebration of Diwali and the town gets decorated. And no one really seems to mind. Because it is an appropriate celebration of a holiday at the appropriate time. Ideally this is what we should be doing. And I just don’t feel like sticking a statue of Zoroaster next to a creche is the way to bring that about.
This comment was written by Michael.Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2007 at 9:13 am
A question that will hopefully cut through the back-and-forth over oppression:
If you lived in a community that actually did open up public space for displays from anyone (all celebrations, religious or otherwise), throughout the year, and the general population was actually supportive of that, would seeing those displays feel oppressive, even if you didn’t celebrate most of the events connected to the displays?
This is meant as a serious question. I put forward this sort of arrangement as a solution to the “War on Christmas” nonsense and I want to know if this actually would work for people, or if I’m just talking out my ass.
This comment was written by jd.Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2007 at 9:20 am
What I said was that putting religious displays in government areas while claiming that one is not “making a statement” and then refusing to take it down when it clearly offends people is hypocrisy.
Who says they’re not making a statement? The people who put the display up are certainly making a statement - they’re celebrating Christmas. In fact, it seems to me they’re saying “Remember the reason we are celebrating in the first place”. But then that’s just me; a work of art says different things to different people, after all. I re-read all the posts up here and the original article, and I don’t see anywhere where anyone said “We’re not making a statement”. I also don’t see that the people who put it up think “Oh, no one’s offended by this” - that would be foolish, as in this day and age there are people who state they are offended by any display of religious sentiment, and a lot of others who are offended by the expression of any religious sentiment they don’t agree with. Given also that no one’s alleging that the intent is to offend people, I don’t see how not taking it down when someone says they’re offended is hypocritical.
By putting your faith on display on government property, while other faiths are repeatedly given short-shrift (either by the powers-that-be or “just the locals”) , you are clearly making a statement that the existing government clearly supports your faith at the expense of others whether they be Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim, Mormon, Taoist, Shinto, Pagan, Heathen, Bahai, etc.
Fair enough, if that actually occurs. But to my mind the solution is to allow other faiths their fair share of access. Religion is an important part of American history and current American culture; it shouldn’t be banned from the public square, and there’s no legal or other reason to do so. As has been stated, freedom of religion doesn’t mean freedom from religion. The separation of church and state means no official religion, not that the State doesn’t acknowledge religion at all.
As far as the issue of “oppressive” goes, I have nothing to add to Robert’s comments, I think he’s expressed it nicely.
Marmelade, you are free to make your own assumptions about why people would want to put a Nativity scene up in the town square. But that doesn’t mean that any of them are right or that the government should have to act on the basis of those assumptions. I’ll wager that if 5 people work to put up a Nativity scene they have 5 different reasons for doing so.
Mythago, I’m glad to agree with you that people who get cranked up because the town can’t pay to put up the Nativity scene or that the clerks in Old Navy say “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas” are out of bounds. If someone says “Happy Holidays” to me I say “And Merry Christmas to you” and let each celebrate these days in their own ways and keep their own counsel in their own hearts. I don’t see it rising to the level of anti-Semitism, though.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2007 at 9:25 am
I have some sympathy for your points of view, Robert and Michael. I do believe that we, as a culture, have embraced Christmas in a way that we have not embraced Chanukkah, and that our embrace of Christmas (as Dawkins says) can be separated to a degree from Christianity itself.
I mean, hey, I don’t worship Jesus, and I celebrate Christmas plenty. My girlfriend is Christian and doesn’t celebrate Christmas.
Where it all falls down for me is what happens when a non-Christian religion tries putting up some sort of celebration of its values and holidays on public land. What happens? Vandalism, assault, death threats, and a cancellation of all religious displays on public land.
If this was just cultural, we wouldn’t see that. If we were okay with a panoply of religions, we wouldn’t see that. Most telling to me is that when given the choice between allowing no displays of religion on public land and allowing more religions than just Christianity to display on public land, how many local governments choose no displays at all.
In the end, what we’re saying to members of other religions seems to be, “If you try to publicly celebrate your holidays, we will destroy your decorations, beat the shit out of you, threaten to kill you, and if, despite it all, you somehow manage to get approval to display anyhow, we’ll just cancel the whole damn thing.”
That’s making a statement. The statement is saying that if you are not Christian (whether religiously or culturally), you have no place in our world.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2007 at 10:11 am
I actually think that would be delightful. I would love to see Christian displays and Durga Puja displays and Ramadan displays and Beltane displays and Pesach displays as a regular part of community life, if all were equally accepted and not attacked. It sounds almost idyllic. I’m sure the space could also be used for rationalist or scientific displays between religious holidays.
This comment was written by Deborah.Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2007 at 10:18 am
In all seriousness, you are probably much less aware of those things which agree with your personal perspective on life, and much more aware of those which disagree. We’re all like that, of course, not just you. But the probable result is that, as someone who is inclined to appreciate Christmas displays, you are less able to see it rising to the level of anti-Semitism.
So, for example, you may be comfortable with Christmas displays. You may not realize that the court has held that some things like christmas trees can be “non religious.” (hmm….)
This, of course, is a reflection of the majority of christians in the U.S. But the interesting fact is that this mean that there are a lot of christian-related things which are held to be NON-religious, and not many thinngs from other religions which are similarly viewed.
Chanukah’s actually a fairly minor holiday, which just gets bumped up because of its proximity to Xmas. It’s not one of the High Holidays (which, incidentally, happen around Easter.)
Now, there’s an Easter Bunny and there are xmas trees. But there’s no “secular” religious symbol that pops up around the actual major holidays for the jews. It might be tempting to put up a star of david, I suppose. Or a symbol of a Torah in all its glory. One could build a sukkot. An
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2007 at 10:19 am
Seconded.
We live in a country made up of thousands of different cultures and traditions, and I think that that’s a good thing.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2007 at 10:34 am
oops–won’t let me edit for some reason. So I’ll just summarize instead:
The anti seministm tends to pop up when jews exceed their “alloted” level of minimal participation. Want to put a small and inconspicuous menorah at the side of the square to “balance” the enormous tree, creche, etc? Go ahead.
OTOH, want to, say, discourage the public school from singing the Messiah and only the Messiah as their holiday concert every year? Would you prefer that they choose from the thousands of other pieces of music, themed around the holidays, winter, solstice, etc, which don’t specifically glorify christ? Prepare to be pilloried, you’ve “gone too far.”
What you don’t–and perhaps can’t–understand is that there’s a constant awareness of where those limits do (or may) lie, and a constant awareness of what happens to those who cross them. THAT’S the anti semitism. And that’s the part that you probably are, unintentionally, not noticing.
Where I used to live, around Easter the (public) library tacked up an enormous cross, complete with hanging Christ. I asked them to take it down. I don’t think I got smiled at for the rest of the year.
If you’re a christian (global you, not you specifically) and you went into the library:
1) You might not notice it.
2) Or, you might notice it and not think to ask for its removal.
3) Or, you might ask for i’s removal but specifically claim that YOU like it, and you’re only asking for it to be taken down so “those other folks” don’t sue, etc.
4) You might ask for its removal, and express solidarity with the non christians. You’d still be ID’d as a christian though.
5) You could simply say that you, personally, don’t like it and want it removed.
As a Jew, I probably am limited to option 5. I’m sure as hell going to notice it. I don’t like it. I am not going to talk about “those people” who might not like it. I’m not going to identify with the christians who put it up.
I just want the fucking jesus off the door of the goddamn library. And the fucking Lord’s Prayer off the ‘customer window’ of the goddamn police station. Is taht too much to ask?
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2007 at 10:44 am
Actually, (although this is a bit of a tangent), I think refusal to accept the idea of a solidly multicultural society is a big part of what lies behind many of the awful things we encounter on a daily basis.
I mean, it’s what lies behind the Westboro Baptist Church folks, it’s what lies behind Ann Coulter’s comments about ‘a world without Jews’, and it’s what lies behind this. It’s the underlying theme that ‘people who are not like you have no place in our world.’
I think that’s awful, and that that’s precisely the problem, because people who are not like me are great! I want more of them in the world! This covers so much ground . . . it gets down to the whole idea of monoculture, the idea of acceptance (as opposed to tolerance), the idea of differing gender roles, etc . . .
This is what it’s all about. Diversity is what it’s all about. I expect not just grudging inclusion from those around me but a commitment to a multicultural world, and I think that anything less is kind of childish and selfish.
—Myca
ps. This ends the tangent. I now return you to your regularly scheduled comments thread. ;-)
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2007 at 11:22 am
Myca:
Where it all falls down for me is what happens when a non-Christian religion tries putting up some sort of celebration of its values and holidays on public land. What happens? Vandalism, assault, death threats, and a cancellation of all religious displays on public land.
Where that happens, that’s a horrendous thing. Where the response to displays of non-Christian religious symbols is vandalism, etc., I’d say that the people who act in such a way are criminals and also have a serious misunderstanding of what Christianity really is.
But you say “What happens?” and then list crimes and intolerance. I’m not surprised if that happens, but one could also answer “Nothing happens.” How often does vandalism and other criminal acts happen, and how often does absolutely nothing happen? For that matter, how often do the Nativity scenes get vandalized? Does that mean that anti-Christian feeling is prevalent in our culture? Because these things happen at times doesn’t mean that this is the overall cultural reaction or that it even indicates the overall cultural feeling.
OTOH, want to, say, discourage the public school from singing the Messiah and only the Messiah as their holiday concert every year? Would you prefer that they choose from the thousands of other pieces of music, themed around the holidays, winter, solstice, etc, which don’t specifically glorify christ? Prepare to be pilloried, you’ve “gone too far.”
My kids’ high school is in an area which is mostly Christian but has a number of Buddhists, Moslems, Jews and probably some Shinto. The concert this time of year (I don’t remember if it’s called a Winter Festival or a Christmas Concert or what) definitely features a mix of songs and instrumental music from various cultures (Christian and non-Christian) and languages. Some are Christmas related, some are holiday pop (e.g., seasonal but non-religious), some are neither. But there’s a very long standing tradition (the school is > 100 years old but I don’t know how far back this goes) of what the last song is; Handel’s Hallelujah Chorus. The choruses are combined for it, the orchestra plays, and all school alumni who were ever in any of the school’s choruses are invited to come up onto the risers and sing as well. Many do. I did - I never went to the school, but I was in my own HS’s chorus and no one’s checking IDs. Besides, I know the part.
Now, I’ve been wondering how long this is going to last. But apparently people figure that as long as there’s a strong content of non-Christian-religiously oriented music in the program, they’re covered.
Sailorman:
I just want the fucking jesus off the door of the goddamn library. And the fucking Lord’s Prayer off the ‘customer window’ of the goddamn police station. Is that too much to ask?
Damn, Sailorman - where do you live?
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2007 at 11:24 am
OK, as a Jewish atheist, I ask: why is this antisemitism specifically and not just anti-non-Christian discrimination? I mean, my flexibility as an atheist in trying to share holiday celebrations is even less than “put up an appropriately sized menorah.” If I protest, I’m a “dick” — let alone whether I try to get people to sing a holiday-themed song– or, as in high school, explain that it’s fucking inappropriate to give extra credit quizzes in a public high school english class based on questions about the Biblical Christmas story, unrelated to any subject matter taught in the classroom because it was supposed to be “common knowledge” (in a classroom shared with not just Christians and atheists, but Jews and Hindus, too).
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2007 at 11:37 am
I have to admit I didn’t read every entry and usually stay silent during the religious discussions because I am non-religious. I do see a bit of a hole in logic here though. We are talking about the errosion of “democracy” by not being fully inclusive of all religions in several of the comments here. Wouldn’t the definition of democracy be to let the local citizens vote on what they wanted displayed? I doubt that will be supported though, because that would mean only the majority and majority tolerated minorities would be represented…yet that IS democracy.
This comment was written by ed.Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2007 at 11:53 am
Robert:
“access to state property” != “putting up dioramas and what-not”. You wanna walk around the park and chant about how cool it’s gonna be when you’re dead, then go right ahead.
And no, it doesn’t come as a shock. Nice stealth ad-hom there, though.
Perhaps not. Doesn’t matter. Still feels oppressive, so that’s what I’m gonna call it. I think I’ve adequately answered RonF’s question by now: if you can’t understand why six-plus weeks of Nothing But Christ per year could feel excessive and overdone (even if you don’t share those feelings) then there’s not much point in explaining further.
jd:
If they were overdone to the extent that Christianity has overdone them, then yes. Otherwise, no. It could actually be kind of nice.
This comment was written by Bjartmarr.Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2007 at 11:57 am
Damn, Sailorman - where do you live?
That would have been Rhode Island. I don’t live there any more.
But there’s a very long standing tradition (the school is > 100 years old but I don’t know how far back this goes) of what the last song is; Handel’s Hallelujah Chorus. The choruses are combined for it, the orchestra plays, and all school alumni who were ever in any of the school’s choruses are invited to come up onto the risers and sing as well.
The EXACT same tradition was in another town I used to live in, in Connecticut.
Someone eventually protested. Not that there was anything wrong with Handel, or that there was anything wrong with a group singing of Handel, but that the every-year “for the Lord God ominipotent reigneth, Hallelujah!” focus could maybe be a bit offputting for some folks.
Hoooooo boy you should have seen the shitstorm.
First people claimed that it wasn’t religious. That it was all about the wonder of the music.
That didn’t last long, as a variety of folks pointed out that, while the Messiah is an amazing piece of music, it’s by no means the only amazing piece of music out there.
My own cynical suggestion was simply to change the words: “For there’s no god at all, and we knoweth. Hallelujah!” Which should be fine if it’s all about the harmony, right? Or for those who really didn’t get it, I could always try to write a Satanic edition.
As you can imagine, that didn’t get much response either. It was STILL (ostensibly) “all about the music”, it just so happened that the music was celebrating christ, and that no other music would do.
Next the tradition thing was brought up. It had been this way for hundreds of years, yadda yadda.
Of course, someone quickly noted that things change all the time. Would we like to go back to 18whatever? Should we never question tradition? Didn’t the school change things often, whenever it wanted to?
As you can imagine, that didn’t work. It was ostensibly all about tradition, it just so happened that the tradition-loving folk were the exact same folk who celebrated Christmas. And–wouldn’t you know it?–pretty much the exact same folk who loved Handel’s music.
Huh. Lots of coincidences there.
Well, eventually the “it’s about the music” facade got dropped, and the “it’s about tradition” facade got dropped, and it was openly a war between the Good Christian Folk and the rest of us. They figured it was perfectly grand to sing about Jesus at Christmas, and we should just suck it up, or not sing.
Incidentally, we lost.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Bjartmarr:
Oh, for FSM’s sake. No, that wasn’t what he meant.
I’m not interested in what you think he meant. I’m not interested (in this context) in what 55% of the respondents to that question you gave answered. Chickenbishopthefirst is the one who made the statement - I’m interested in what he thinks he meant.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Okay, but we don’t practice pure democracy. Next?
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
I guess because I’m not an overly religious person I will never ever understand why NOT putting a nativity or wreath or whatever else on City Hall or other gov’t property is actively PREVENTING people from practicing their faith. I’ve had this discussion in numerous places and it’s really always the same - people acting as though NOT putting up a specific religious display is somehow inhibiting their ability to practice their religion/celebrate as they wish. Now, if someone told me I had to get the Merry Christmas Wreath off of MY front door, well then, I’d have a problem with that. I’m not an overly religious person, but I love Christmas… the cultural celebration anyway. I love Christmas music, I love decorating the tree, putting up stockings, shopping and wrapping presents, baking cookies and making candy… etc. As far as I know, whether or not the gov’t puts a nativity scene in a publicly owned place does not in the tiniest way impede my ability to celebrate.
The way that they staunchly hold the position is really odd to me. I completely understand wanting to be able to practice your religion, celebrate your faith. Why is it so hard to do it if there is no nativity scene at the city hall? It just baffles me.
My childcare center recently instituted a policy that there will be no direct observance of holidays. Instead, they do 4 seasonal parties - Nov was the “Fall Harvest Fest” - complete with a billion symbols of Halloween and Thanksgiving, but also lots of “fall” like stuff. On the actual day of Halloween, no costumes in school, etc. In February they will host “Friendship Day” which is themed around sharing and friendship - no need to buy stupid valentines and send them to every child in the class and load them up with sugar candies. ETc. It’s FANTASTIC. First, it’s respectful, allows children to still have celebrations and parties, but keeps them to a reasonable number, prevents a LOT of the commercialization and competition of many of the holidays (so it costs less money) and the kids have a great time. I couldn’t believe when I overheard parents complaining about the policy because having a Halloween parade at daycare is some sort of “RIGHT” they were being deprived of. I’m thankful. On Halloween, Maya had a mostly normal day at school and then I picked her up early and was able to take her home to get ready and go T-or-Ting. I didn’t have to deal with a kid already hopped up on sugar from earlier in the day, we still got to celebrate Halloween. It boggles my mind that change is *that* scary to people that this kind of thing is a problem and “PCness” run amok.
This comment was written by Kate L..Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
My opinion
Why is there such a big deal when christians want to displays stuff for Christmas, obviously its cultural. Who the hell cares if it makes someone uncomfortable. We have to friggen go through this every dag-on year!
Why do we have to ban or wipe out anything thats unique to something.
Its not oppressing anyone if a religious display is put up. Its not preventing them from 1. Celebrating their Holidays 2. Getting their own displays put up. Instead of eradicating things Christian, get some cajones and fight for your right to put your diplays up. If some numbskulls vadalize it, then so what. Their criminals and should be prosecuted. Just like same numbskulls smash Christian displays, deface images of Christ on churches , tear up Nativity scenes and put profanities on such displays.
I mean changing words to songs, calling Christmas all kinds of wacky names to avoid the “Christ” part. Why the hell can’t Christians sing a song with Christ in it around Christmas?
I’m uncomfortable with pentagrams, I’m uncomfortable with women wearing veils and headscarfs because to me its a symbol of oppression. But so what? I’m not going to fight a school over the fact that my daughter goes to a school where muslim girls are wearing headscarves and its on taxpayers property.
I’m not going to tell Indians they have to stop having their parades and singing their songs around Diwali. Or got to China town and have them remove all buddhist or Shinto items for their square park (gov property) ,Nor would I demand an image of Christ should be put there.
Valentines day Friendship day?
A tall is a small, a grande is a Medium, and a Venti is Large. Starbucks!
Bjartmarr - I feel degraded and dehumanized when ever an athiest or “free thinker” gets on TV, gives me a pamphlet on the street, sues the city because there is a cross somewhere that they can see when they leave their house and then throws a hissy fit every Christmas. Or they tell me to my face how awful Christians and Christianity is and how we can’t think for ourselves and we believe in fairy tales and without knowing if I’m Christian or not. But am I oppressed? Hell No.
Christian displays aren’t put up for the sole purpose of offending people. Thats not the intent. The intent to to celebrate which comes down to a majority of a people’s culture and religion.
And what happens if everyone is allowed to put their religious displays up and then the atheist want it down for the simple fact its religious?
This comment was written by Zakia.Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
I actually thought friendship day was a pretty inspired reading of valentine’s day since it’s for children ages birth to 5 years. A “couples” holiday is inappropriate, but something that celebrates friendship and sharing is extremely appropriate to children in that age group.
Zakia, your post is exactly what I do NOT understand about the “Christmas must be every fucking where or we are not being allowed to celebrate” camp. Come on, NO ONE - ABSOLUTELY NO ONE is suggesting that you can not sing christmas carols, or decorate, or celebrate any damn way you please. What people OBJECT to is the idea that it MUST be done in tax payer funded places where arguably there should be a seperation of church and state. If the principal of a school mandated that female children wear headscarves in order to “learn about and celebrate” Islamic culture or Ramadan or something, and that dressing in such a way constitutes a major classroom activity that is more than likely for a “grade” of some sort (forgive me please, I don’t really know if the two are necessarily even related… you understand my point…), 75% of the Christian parents would be storming the school suggesting that it is totally inappropriate - and I would agree. Just like 5th graders making Christmas ornaments for the school Christmas tree in art class and having it be part of their grade is just as inappropriate.
Having 3rd graders have coloring pages to choose from during some “down time” that includes Santa pictures, menorrahs and whatever else - no big deal. Do you see the difference?
Have a friend who actually had to take a lower grade in choir in the 8th grade because the Christmas concert took place on a Friday night, the sabbath for her since she was Jewish and she was unable to participate because of it. Her parents asked if they could move the concert to another night, but because it had “always” been held on a Friday, they could not (WOULD NOT) move it and she was unable to get full marks for the class because she was unable to attend the concert. Yes, that is oppressive.
This comment was written by Kate L..Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2007 at 11:43 pm
What’s unconstitutional would be government endorsement of religion. However, endorsement isn’t necessarily a given by the mere fact that government and religion intersect. Public parks are owned by the government, yes, but they also function as a public space, something that the ACLU position recognizes. A manger scene in a park does not rise to same level as seeing the Ten Commandments upon entering a courthouse, and the law should allow for that.
Mainly, I wish government would be a little more proactive when it comes to preventing these kind of incidents in the first place, such as those cases when cultural events are axed altogether rather than allow non-Christian religions to be represented.
Yet democracies have such a better historical track record at protecting disliked minorities than any other system of government - including those that tout *constitutions* but not popular elections.
Feel free to ignore the above if you don’t know what I’m getting at. I’ve been watching clips of Ron Paul lately and this truism of the Right is a pet peeve of mine.
This comment was written by sylphhead.Report this comment to the moderators
December 19th, 2007 at 12:10 am
Religion is an important part of American history and current American culture; it shouldn’t be banned from the public square
You know, that horrible ACLU wouldn’t be in business if it weren’t for people thinking along those lines. “So how far can we push this, exactly?” Which is why the sleight-of-hand about how a taxpayer-funded creche is like objecting to gay people holding hands, along with complaints that Christians are being forbidden to sing religious carols.
Goverment endorsement of religion–not just a religion in particular–is the problem, and what all the lawsuits are about.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
December 19th, 2007 at 7:09 am
Huh? What? That is beyond untrue and out in the realm of ridiculous. Democracy may, on average, be the absolute WORST form of government for protecting minorities (although it has some rivals). Remember–Mao’s China, Stalin’s Russia, and Hitler’s Germany were all popularly elected and popular governments.
This comment was written by SamChevre.Report this comment to the moderators
December 19th, 2007 at 7:58 am
Re: Handel
This raises an interesting point; there is not a lot of traditional choral music that isn’t Christian. If you were to replace the holiday music piece with some other piece of choral music, of high quality that doesn’t have Christian themes, you are going to be hard pressed. So performing the Messiah at Christmastime is truly a long-standing tradition *and* religious in nature. It becomes difficult and nuanced to separate the cultural practices from the religious ones.
Someone above mentioned children getting extra credit for being able to answer questions about the nativity story. I do not know the particulars of this story but, again, this raises an interesting question about the intersection of culture and religion. I would argue that a student should know particulars about Christianity because it makes it difficult to understand and appreciate Western art, literature and history without such an understanding. (Again, I don’t know what age group we were talking about and I certainly don’t think it’s appropriate for extra credit; I’m talking general knowledge).
I think governments tread a fine line (as they often have to in a pluralistic society) in these cases and it is necessary for us to attempt to be as reasonable as possible. Unfortunately, when taxes go towards things that, well, towards anything really, people are going to bitch about what they are being spent on. People think of their taxes as being donor-restricted funding. This is why people here feel it is ok to forbid the government from putting up Christmas decorations but also why the mayor of New York thought it was ok to remove art some people didn’t like from a publicly-funded museum.
But in practice, taxes aren’t donor-restricted funding. You cannot earmark your taxes to only to go paying for things you like. And if you could, would that magically make it ok for the government to put up a nativity scene, if the only money spent for it was earmarked by approving Christians? And how about cases of touristy mountain towns whose main crop is evergreen trees and whose primary source of income is selling Christmas? Is the one Hindu or atheist in town correct to demand equal time for his holidays, in a town blanketed in Christmas? Even if the town isn’t a main tourist attraction, decorating the town square brings people in and can boost the local economy which, in small towns, is often hit by suburban sprawl and big box retailers. Throwing up a creche can actually be good for a town. So the decision for a town to erect overtly Christian displays can be complex and nuanced.
This comment was written by Michael.Report this comment to the moderators