Even as I write this, millions of Americans are erecting Christmas trees and nativity scenes at their homes, and thousands of churches are planning special Christmas services.Years ago Reason Magazine had an interview with the president of the ACLU. She was asked why they ignore the 2nd Amendement. Her answer was that they were not guided by constitutional liberites. Their board descided which liberties they would fight for. They used the Bill of Rights but they did not endorse it.
"Americans United" is set up the same way. They are not interested in Constitutional issues of separation of church and state. They have their own definition. You can see it in their open letter. They are not really about separation of church and state, they are about separation of religion from public life. They are fine with Christmas as long as you keep it behind closed doors. "Don't ask, don't tell."
Consider this section of the open letter:
Contrary to your wild allegations, Jerry, neither Americans United, nor any other civil liberties organization that I know of, is waging any kind of war on Christmas. The First Amendment of our Constitution ensures every American’s right to observe religious holidays or to refrain from doing so. We can wish each other a “Merry Christmas” or “Happy Holidays,” and it’s really none of your business which term we choose. We can call our decorated tree a “Christmas tree” or a “holiday tree,” and that’s our right. (We can observe the holidays of other traditions as well.)But, when organizations such as "Americans United" start telling officials that they have to use the term "Holiday tree" (or "Winter break" instead of "Christmas break") you are forcing Americans to refrain from observing a religious holiday.
Some of the current controversy is over chain stores telling employees to use "happy holidays" instead of "merry Christmas". Where does "Americans United" stand on this issue? It is clearly obstructing people's rights. Also, the constitution allows boycotts. That is part of freedom of speech.
The big question is why are groups like "Americans United" fighting back? This seems like such a little thing - calling a federal holiday by its given name.
For a contrasting view, here is a statement from the First Amendment Center:
Although other issues get lost in the silly, over-the-top arguments over innocuous holiday salutations and what to call the tree, Gibson, Falwell and other Christmas warriors do raise more substantive concerns. When government and school officials decide that being “inclusive” means including everything but the religious Christmas, they take concern for diversity to absurd lengths. Ignoring religion isn’t being neutral; it comes across as hostility."Americans United" doesn't see it that way. Here's their view of the controversy:
I think we all know what’s really going on with your campaign. You want an America where there is no separation of church and state and where your rather narrow interpretation of Christianity is forced on everyone. If you can convince Americans that their cherished Christmas traditions are under fire, you think maybe they will join your nefarious crusade to tear down the protective church-state wall that guarantees our freedoms."There are people on both sides of these fights," says Charles Haynes of the First Amendment Center, "that have a stake in keeping the culture war going. They raise money, they raise emotion."
I've been noticing a common thread across the left - places such as the Huffington Post, The DailyKos, and the Democratic Underground. They are all convinced that Bush is trying to set up a theocracy. Some of them see the Christmas fight as the first step.
This is absurd. as recently as the 1990s cities still has Christmas trees. Stores were still promoting Christmas shopping even more recently. I first really started noticing it last year. Were we a theocracy through the 1980s?
Another problem - fighting back like this may whip up supporters and bring in money but it convinces the other side that there really is a conspiracy.
The dumb thing about the push back is that you don't have to be a believer to celebrate Christmas any more than you have to believe in ghosts to celebrate Halloween. Singing Christmas carols, even the occasional religious one, is acceptable and no threat to someone's religious beliefs according to the Supreme Court.
So why draw the line here? As many as 95% of the population celebrates Christmas is some fashion. Also, Christmas is not a particularly religious holiday as celebrated in America. It is about giving - both presents and charity, about being with family, and nice decorations and music. The religious part is pretty much limited to Christmas Eve. It as been pointed out by both sides that Christmas is not even a biblical holiday.
So why the fuss? Why not go ahead and concede? Make some statements about how most Christmas customs aren't religious anyway and back off.
I disagree with Falwell on a lot of issues. I think that prayer in school (led by a teacher, not said quietly before a test) is wrong. I think that abortion should be legal (although I don't like it and I think that things like waiting periods and parental notification are proper). By rights I should be siding with "Americans United" but I'm not. They have taken such an extreme position that I'm siding with Falwell. The same thing happened when the ACLU started attacking Christmas in the 1980s. I went from supporting them to opposing them.
In the culture wars, you have to be careful not to alienate too many people. The harder they fight against resonable compromise the fewer supporters they will have for real issues.
No comments:
Post a Comment