Taking Christ Out Of Christmas?

[Kenngo1969]

The United States Supreme Court has the tricky, dirty job of determining what displays and activities might constitute impermissible government establishment of religion, particularly this time of year. Are the purpose and effect of a particular display or activity which contains Christmas-related elements sufficiently secular to avoid running afoul of the Establishment Clause, and if so, how do we know? In the op-ed I link to below, I argue that however one feels about the religious aspect of Christmas (and other religiously-rooted celebrations that occur this time of year), such celebrations are culturally significant even if one does not find them religiously significant. One of the aims of the First Amendment is to promote largely unfettered freedom of expression, including freedom of cultural expression. And wherever else culture may spring from, religion and culture are inextricably intertwined.

It might be said that the "classic" understanding of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause is simply that the government may not establish an official state religion. Perhaps that understanding made sense in an overwhelmingly Christian country. However, new questions and issues have arisen about the Clause's meaning in light of the fact that the country has become both more religiously pluralistic and more nonreligious in recent times. Is the "Christmas-as-culture" argument at least an effective partial response to these trends? Why or why not? Do I concede too much? Do I attempt to dilute Christmas's religious significance in my effort to find a workable compromise among the religious, the non-Christian, and the nonreligious? Do I concede too little? Am I not sensitive enough to the concerns of non-Christians and of the nonreligious?

Here is my op-ed: http://www.tooeletra...or-lack-thereof

Professor Fred Ge-d-i-c-ks of BYU's J. Reuben Clark Law School wrote a scathing critique of the U.S. Supreme Court's Lynch decision, a case which examined a public Christmas display in light of the Establishment Clause (the link is to an abstract, but the full paper is available on that same page for download). Here is Professor Ged-i-c-k-s's paper: http://papers.ss...ract_id=1922802 (P.S.: I can't get the link to the good Professor's paper to work. It's easy to find, however, if you do the search "Ged-i-c-ks" "Lynch" on Google.)

Here is a post on my blog about the issue, including my commentary regarding Professor Ge****s's criticism of the U.S. Supreme Court's Lynch decision: http://www.greatgour...religiously-so/

What are your thoughts?

P.P.S.: I don't know what I'm supposed to do with the good Professor's name. After all, he's not Professor Ge-Richard-icks!

Edited December 26, 2012 by Kenngo1969

[thesometimesaint]

The Puritans outlawed Christmas celebrations.

My religion is between me and my God. Governments need to keep their noses out of my religion. By the same token religions need to keep their noses out of my government.

[Kenngo1969]

The Puritans outlawed Christmas celebrations.

My religion is between me and my God. Governments need to keep their noses out of my religion. By the same token religions need to keep their noses out of my government.

Well, thanks! I guess that solves the whole problem then! I don't know what I was thinking, suggesting that there might be more to any of these issues than meets the eye! Jeez, given your penetrating, incisive, insightful analysis, I think we ought to start a movement to remove the religion clauses from the First Amendment entirely!

Do you, by chance, have anything more substantive and useful to say? Did you, by any chance, read any of the linked material?

Edited December 22, 2012 by Kenngo1969

[blackstrap]

I could do with a whole lot less Christmas 'culture' and whole lot more individual Christlike 'action'

To me Christmas culture is 95% business culture,that has usurped a Holy Day to squeeze a buck out of the people. As such,the public buildings should only display a 'dollar' tree to reflect the tendency for public officials to cater to monetary interests.

All displays that reflect a religious tone should be put ONLY on private property. Public property displays should be confined to Fourth of July and Memorial Day types.

As you may be able to tell, I am in my annual 'funk'.

[Duncan]

I think there is a backlash now against PC and so people are able to put up trees and whatnot, I don't care if Jewish people put of Hannukah stuff or announce it on the TV/Radio or people celebrating Kwanzaa or Chinese New years, makes me no nevermind!

here is a recent Canadian case of a backlash of sorts

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/12/17/saskatoon-bus-merry-christmas-atheist-ashu-solo_n_2318477.html

[thesometimesaint]

What other issue could there be? The US Constitution already prohibits the government from being sectarian. If you want your religious/Christmas celebrations to go 24hrs per day/7 days a week/52 weeks a year on your own property be my guest. Just don't demand that my ears or my tax dollars pay the price.

[Kenngo1969]

I could do with a whole lot less Christmas 'culture' and whole lot more individual Christlike 'action'

Your point about individual Christlike action is well taken, as is your point regarding the overcommercialization (indeed, probably the commercialization, period) of Christmas. However, perhaps you ought to consider how I'm using the term culture before you dismiss my attempt to find common ground among the religious of varying stripes and the nonreligious by appealing to the cultural significance of Christmas and other holidays.

To me Christmas culture is 95% business culture,that has usurped a Holy Day to squeeze a buck out of the people. As such,the public buildings should only display a 'dollar' tree to reflect the tendency for public officials to cater to monetary interests.

I get your cynicism, I really do. But again, that is not how I'm using the term culture. Perhaps we ought to start with the dictionary definition of the word "culture" so you can get a better sense of what I mean when I appeal to the cultural significance of religious holidays

All displays that reflect a religious tone should be put ONLY on private property. Public property displays should be confined to Fourth of July and Memorial Day types.

Fair enough. That's certainly one solution to the challenges we, as a multicultural, multireligious (as well as nonreligious) society face. It might not be the solution you hope for, though, when you consider that many of those who object to public religious displays not only are nonreligious, they are virulently, militantly antireligious. As such, they likely would object to such things as the reciting of the pledge of allegiance, the display of a cross on Memorial Day, or the singing of all four verses of the Star Spangled Banner. (And they would oppose these things, not just at public or government venues, but also at private venues which are accessible to the public. And, for the record, I don't think many [if any] of those folks are likely to be placated by my appeal to the cultural significance of religion and of religious holidays. The problem with this extreme view is that, once we get rid of all of the stuff they don't like, we will realize too late that we've thrown the "cultural baby" out with the "religious bathwater."

As you may be able to tell, I am in my annual 'funk'.

Again, I get where you're coming from, I really do. I tend to get rather depressed myself this time of year. As much as there might be a seasonal component to my condition, I do think part of it is not being able to live up to expectations (both internal and external) about what the holidays are supposed to be like. As bleak as things might seem, though, I'm still not ready to cede too much territory to the hypercommercialists and to the antireligionists.

[Kenngo1969]

What other issue could there be? The US Constitution already prohibits the government from being sectarian. If you want your religious/Christmas celebrations to go 24hrs per day/7 days a week/52 weeks a year on your own property be my guest. Just don't demand that my ears or my tax dollars pay the price.

I don't think I demanded any of that stuff, and I don't wish to engage you further if you're not willing to consider (however much in passing) the linked material.

P.S.: Obviously you think there's a brighter line than I have suggested exists between religion and culture, but I'm not sure how far we can go in throwing out the "religion bathwater" before we find (much to our dismay) that we've also thrown out the "culture baby".

Edited December 22, 2012 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

I think there is a backlash now against PC and so people are able to put up trees and whatnot, I don't care if Jewish people put of Hannukah stuff or announce it on the TV/Radio or people celebrating Kwanzaa or Chinese New years, makes me no nevermind!

here is a recent Canadian case of a backlash of sorts

http://www.huffingto..._n_2318477.html

It's always interesting to know how these issues are engaged in my Neighbor to the North. I agree with what City Councilman Hill says at the end of the article you linked:

"We are a multi-cultural society, multi-faith, and we need to embrace that," Hill said Monday. "We don't need to single out individual ones and say which is appropriate and which isn't."

What scares me is, I wonder if the Canadian Human Rights Commission would agree with him? I don't remember enough to cite any specifics yet, but somewhere in the far recesses of my mind, a wisp of a memory is tugging at my consciousness regarding some decision(s) the Commission made and I thought, "Holy cow, I'm glad we don't have a Human 'Rights' Commission." Does the Canadian Constitution have anything to say about freedom of religious practice or about government prohibition against religious establishment?

[Kenngo1969]

Sometimesaint does bring up an interesting question to consider, though. (Sometimesaint, I know you're not arguing for an end to any visible religious presence, but rather only an end to such presence on government property. Still, carried to an extreme, the total santization of visible religious symbols from public life, but still ...) If the government doesn't proscribe (for example, through a zoning ordinance) what I do on my property (even if that activity somehow involves religion or religious observance) isn't that an "establishment" or an endorsement of religion, however small? What if my religious observance somehow were visible to the public? What if someone complained about it, and the authorities changed the zoning of my property as a result?

Are we ready to live in an America (or in a North America) in which the only visible manifestations of religion occur in our homes and churches, and there's nary a hint that we are in any way religious as a society once we step out of those sanctuaries? (What would that do, for example, to our architecture? Are we ready for churches that look as nondescript as prisons?)

[blackstrap]

Here is what can happen.A few years back there was a memorial presentation on Canada's east coast commemorating the death of many in an airplane crash there ( Swissair IIRC ). The government of the day(liberal) decided that no Christian prayers were to be given on that occasion,but because of PC- ness they allowed a Muslim and other religious prayers. Our media folks thought that most appropriate. Some Christians were a bit miffed but they were ignored as inconsequential.

As for the Human Rights Commissions ---all the power of the justice system with none of the checks and balances and accountability. Nuff said.

Edited December 22, 2012 by blackstrap

[Calm]

What are your thoughts?

That perhaps governments could find better ways to spend money than dressing up the town for holidays, leave that to the private sector.

I know...bah humbug, but it does bug me to think that my tax dollars are going to pay for what often is some pretty tacky displays....and if they are done right, that can be a lot of money. I feel the same way about doctors, dentists and others who throw in a lot of trinkets and such into the "presents" they give their patients and customers...such presents are coming out of my wallet and I would prefer to chose what I want to spend it on than be given stuff that usually just ends up in the garbage as unnecessary.

With the government, I would prefer the money be put to good use in helping people, whether it goes to support welfare or some improvement of service such as buying more books for the local library or improving something in the schools, etc.

Edited December 22, 2012 by calmoriah

[Kenngo1969]

Here is what can happen.A few years back there was a memorial presentation on Canada's east coast commemorating the death of many in an airplane crash there ( Swissair IIRC ). The government of the day(liberal) decided that no Christian prayers were to be given on that occasion,but because of PC- ness they allowed a Muslim and other religious prayers. Our media folks thought that most appropriate. Some Christians were a bit miffed but they were ignored as inconsequential.

Wow. It never crossed my mind that such a concept as "Religious Affirmative Action" ... disadvantaging historically-less-marginalized religions in favor of those which have been more marginalized historically ... could exist. I guess it really is true that if you live long enough, you really will see everything. Can you find any links to sources describing that situation and its aftermath in greater detail? I'd be keenly interested in seeing them.

As for the Human Rights Commissions ---all the power of the justice system with none of the checks and balances and accountability. Nuff said.

Uuy! I shudder to think where the "Progressives" in our neck of the woods might want to take us if they have enough power for a long enough duration.

[california boy]

Sometimesaint does bring up an interesting question to consider, though. (Sometimesaint, I know you're not arguing for an end to any visible religious presence, but rather only an end to such presence on government property. Still, carried to an extreme, the total santization of visible religious symbols from public life, but still ...) If the government doesn't proscribe (for example, through a zoning ordinance) what I do on my property (even if that activity somehow involves religion or religious observance) isn't that an "establishment" or an endorsement of religion, however small? What if my religious observance somehow were visible to the public? What if someone complained about it, and the authorities changed the zoning of my property as a result?

Are we ready to live in an America (or in a North America) in which the only visible manifestations of religion occur in our homes and churches, and there's nary a hint that we are in any way religious as a society once we step out of those sanctuaries? (What would that do, for example, to our architecture? Are we ready for churches that look as nondescript as prisons?)

I absolutely can not stand this kind of hyperbole. How you jump from official government property not showing religious symbols to they are not going to allow me to display religious symbols on my own private property is a complete dishonest leap of what the courts have ever ruled on.

I personally think it is rather sad for a person to be so insecure about his personal religious beliefs that he feels threatened or imposed upon if the government does not put a nativity scene or a cross on the front lawn of the local court house. Rather than focus on what the government does not allow you to do to express your religious views of Christmas on government property, why not focus on what you can do to express that religious belief personally. The Sometimesaint that you so quickly dismissed is right.

My religion is between me and my God. Governments need to keep their noses out of my religion. By the same token religions need to keep their noses out of my government.

And yes, I did read your links.

• 
  
• 0
  

• Quote
  
• MultiQuote
  

You will be the second poster thread banned in that many minutes for calling someone dishonest over a disagreement.

[pogi]

The Christams-as-culture argument is just another way of taking Christ (the meaning of Christ) out of Christmas. That said, Christ is hardly in Christmas as it is. Dec 25th has nothing to do with Christ's birth. The Christmas tree is a pagan symbol. Santa Clause and magical reindeer? Commercialism has hijacked Christams creating a nasty consumeristic and consumptive Christmas machine! I don't need the government to keep Christ alive for me, and I'd be happy to do away with most of the culture, creating a much more Christ centered culture in the privacy of devotion with my own family.

Huh, hum...Merry Christmas!

Edited December 22, 2012 by pogi

[Kenngo1969]

I'm not alarmist. I'm not suffering from any kind of a persecution complex. Although I am religiously devout, I think I have a good handle on many of the reasons those who are not might not feel the same way I do about religiously-rooted symbols and activities in public places. I do think, however, (strange as it may seem) that some of the things that are happening in Enlightened, Progressive Places That Are Not the U.S. with respect to religious expression do not portend good things here in the Benighted, Backward U.S.

Edited December 22, 2012 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

The Christams-as-culture argument is just another way of taking Christ (the meaning of Christ) out of Christmas. That said, Christ is hardly in Christmas as it is. Dec 25th has nothing to do with Christ's birth. The Christmas tree is a pagan symbol. Santa Clause and magical reindeer? Commercialism has hijacked Christams creating a nasty consumeristic and consumptive Christmas machine! I don't need the government to keep Christ alive for me, and I'd be happy to do away with most of the culture, creating a much more Christ centered culture in the privacy of devotion with my own family.

Huh, hum...Merry Christmas!

Thanks for your reply. Just so I know, are you responding to what I actually said (after having read the links provided) or are you responding to what you think I said? As for your lament regarding the commercial hijacking of Christmas, I agree.

[blackstrap]

Have you noticed that Halloween is getting bigger and bigger over the years? Does this not say something about the culture?

[pogi]

Thanks for your reply. Just so I know, are you responding to what I actually said (after having read the links provided) or are you responding to what you think I said? As for your lament regarding the commercial hijacking of Christmas, I agree.

Hi Kenngo, I did read your links. I have a hard time understanding your Christmas-as-culture argument if culture is inseperably connected with religion. In that case, your argument is really the same as a Christmas-as-religion argument, which is what the courts (and I) don't want to place on government property. I would rather do without a nativity or Christmas tree on government property, than to have my tax dollars pay for other religious "cultural" displays that I do not adhere to, in the name of culture (even though we know that culture and religion are inseperable, and it is really a display of their religion under the guise of culture). Lets just call it what it is. They are religious symbols, to strip away the religious aspect of it and call it culture is to strip away it's purpose and meaning.

Edited December 23, 2012 by pogi

[blackstrap]

Do I understand correctly? Christmas has been so ingrained into our society over the past century that it can stand alone as a cultural event ,regardless of any religious connection.Atheists,Jews,Muslims,Hotentots,etc. celibrate the holiday without any reference to Christ at all. For all intents and purposes they could proclaim 'Merry Festivous' and continue with all the whooplaw as usual.

[Duncan]

Have you noticed that Halloween is getting bigger and bigger over the years? Does this not say something about the culture?

Dentists should love Halloween! Mind you people are also getting bigger over the years! except for me of course, I have high metabolism. Never got the Zombie fascination though

[thesometimesaint]

Sometimesaint does bring up an interesting question to consider, though. (Sometimesaint, I know you're not arguing for an end to any visible religious presence, but rather only an end to such presence on government property. Still, carried to an extreme, the total santization of visible religious symbols from public life, but still ...) If the government doesn't proscribe (for example, through a zoning ordinance) what I do on my property (even if that activity somehow involves religion or religious observance) isn't that an "establishment" or an endorsement of religion, however small? What if my religious observance somehow were visible to the public? What if someone complained about it, and the authorities changed the zoning of my property as a result?

Are we ready to live in an America (or in a North America) in which the only visible manifestations of religion occur in our homes and churches, and there's nary a hint that we are in any way religious as a society once we step out of those sanctuaries? (What would that do, for example, to our architecture? Are we ready for churches that look as nondescript as prisons?)

I don't have a problem with personal observation of any religious teachings/remembrances/ festivities any citizen wants to observe. Even get together to do so. In fact I encourage such. However I see no such desirability let alone need for governments to get involved. Private buildings are just that private and can do pretty much as they want as long as health and safety concerned are adequately addressed. Public buildings should of course appeal to as many citizens as possible, but I don't desire my public library to look like a European Renaissance church.

[pogi]

Do I understand correctly? Christmas has been so ingrained into our society over the past century that it can stand alone as a cultural event ,regardless of any religious connection.Atheists,Jews,Muslims,Hotentots,etc. celibrate the holiday without any reference to Christ at all. For all intents and purposes they could proclaim 'Merry Festivous' and continue with all the whooplaw as usual.

Are you asking me or Kenngo? Because he is the one making the argument in his articles that the Christmas culture and religion are inseperably connected. As I said in my previous post, to try to seperate the two would be to take Christ out of Christmas. I don't want a cultural Christmas on my government property, if the true meaning of Christmas is extracted. In that case, do away with it all together. I don't want some empty plastic Jesus.

Edited December 23, 2012 by pogi

[Kenngo1969]

Do I understand correctly? Christmas has been so ingrained into our society over the past century that it can stand alone as a cultural event ,regardless of any religious connection.Atheists,Jews,Muslims,Hotentots,etc. celibrate the holiday without any reference to Christ at all. For all intents and purposes they could proclaim 'Merry Festivous' and continue with all the whooplaw as usual.

You got half my argument. It is essentially this: (1) Christmas is religiously significant for Christians; (2) Even if you are not Christian, and thus reject the religious significance of Christmas for Christians, Christmas is culturally significant; (3) Christmas is culturally significant because even if you reject the concept of Christ as Savior, He is an actual person who had an enormous impact on the moral and ethical arc of human history and on the millions who have followed his teachings; (4) This impact manifests itself, not only in the religious lives of His followers, but also in philosophy, in ethics, in art, in drama, in literature, in music, and in countless other areas. (5) Yes, it goes without saying that as a devout Latter-day Saint, I revere Christ as Lord and Savior; (7) I believe you should, too, BUT IF YOU DO NOT/CANNOT, at least revere Him for his impact on history, on philosophy, on ethics, on art, on drama, on literature, and in the countless other areas in which He has an impact on humanity.

Edited December 23, 2012 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

Are you asking me or Kenngo? Because he is the one making the argument in his articles that the Christmas culture and religion are inseperably connected. As I said in my previous post, to try to seperate the two would be to take Christ out of Christmas. I don't want a cultural Christmas on my government property, if the true meaning of Christmas is extracted. In that case, do away with it all together. I don't want some empty plastic Jesus.

You represent only half of my audience, Pogi, not all of it. I'm not asking you to give up the religious aspect of Christmas. I am asking those who cannot accept the religious aspect of Christmas to accept it for its cultural significance, if for no other reason. (See also my previous post.)

Edited December 23, 2012 by Kenngo1969