|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#15
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Christmas and Schools
There are heaping piles of bad information floating about in this thread.
The government, as per the Establishment Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, is precluded from taking action to endorse any single religion. The impetus behind enacting these measures was to prevent history from repeating itself -- or, specifically, to avoid oppression by the State such as that of England and its officially endorsed Church of England. Remember why the Pilgrims piled into the Mayflower in the first place? Kristina's already done a good job in explaining the legal processes at work in these debates. A quick search of the internet will reveal the text of the important court decisions regarding this issue. Let's talk about some of the erroneous assumptions made, though, and maybe dispel some of their incorrection assertions.
That's simply wrong. Christmas was first celebrated by Christians in 336 A.D., while Pope Gregory officially included December 25th as Christmas day in his sixteenth century reign. Christmas was adopted as a means of stymieing celebration of "pagan" holidays in empires that officially recognized Christianity as their state religion. It certainly has been "okay with the Church" for quite a bit longer than the last century, and has since been manipulated into a celebration of Christ as a means of further denying its heritage as a celebration borne out of oppression.
Christian history itself shows that the Christmas holiday is little more than a convenient appropriation of other celebrations, notably Iranian and Roman, intent on minimizing their practice and significance. Similarly, courts of the United States and its States have ruled that Christmas is not considered to be a religious observance by the population and, as such, our government's recognition of December 25 as a federal holiday is not in violation of the Establishment Clause or the Fourteenth Amendment. The history of Christmas, coupled with such decisions by our courts, raises some interesting questions. The precedent of such cases is that it's possible to "secularize" religious observances by coupling or shrouding their observance with consumerism and recreation. It gives the government the power to underhandedly give preference and precedence to certain holy days, typically Christian, by conjuring up secular celebrations to coincide with them. In many ways, the courts have deconstructed the Christian establishment of Christmas by claiming it as a secular celebration, conflicting with the Church's own actions toward stripping Christmas of its secular, or "pagan" history. One must wonder the extent to which it may be possible to "secularize" religious observances and make them sanitized enough for government support. If the Catholic Church declared that our Memorial Day were to be observed as a religious celebration, are we to abdicate its significance as a national holiday, or would the recognition of its secular roots retain strength enough to clearly maintain the "separation of Church and state"? Such precedents may result in the de facto establishment of an official religion, or, in my opinion, the continued establishment of Christianity as the sanctioned religion of the United States of America.
In fact, everything points to the opposite. I've already written about the move toward supposed "secularization" of Christian observances and the sanction given by courts. There exist in our government myriad references to God, found everywhere from our currency to our Pledge of Allegiance. The backlash against these policies and practices is easily characterized as an explicit attack on Christian sensibilities and morals, but it is not. It is a rebellion, in its earliest stages, against the tyranny of the majority. Christianity is, by far, the most popular, practiced religion in the United States, and as such, is implicated in a proportionate number of court cases intent on examining how the Establishment Clause is being upheld amid a population that has, in the last decades, become increasingly religious. Court cases challenging the Pledge of Allegiance, nativity scenes on public property, or public funding of religiously-affiliated private schools are not designed, however, to squelch Christian practice or deny Christians their right to believe in the God they trust. Instead, they are designed to make sure that Christianity does not, in its increasing influence, strip minority groups of their rights to freedom of religious expression. If Buddhism were of similar prominence, it's likely that it would be subject to exactly the same criticisms. Those things said, the ways that courts, schools, and other organizations deal with that backlash is often ineffective and inconsistent.
The Establishment Clause does not distinguish between institution or individual. It was erected to defend against the possibility of the power of government being used by those charged with its operation, via election or appointment, to support, encourage, or proliferate the belief system of any one religion over another. Where the influence to take such action in support of certain religions originates is inconsequential.
Gross generalizations about the beliefs, ideas, or potential of other people to do good or harm are, almost universally, without legitimacy. To claim otherwise, or to engage in such generalizations is sophomoric and indicative of an utter lack of understanding of the issues at hand; those of power balance, privilege, oppression and opportunity. Furthermore, while I don't believe that Yan's action is responsible or consequential, I admire him for acting upon his conviction. It is, without doubt, considerably more respectable to enjoy the benefits of government while participating in its processes than it is to simply enjoy its benefits without understanding or caring about who has suffered to bring them to you.
I can only speak for myself, but this is not true. In fact, to my thinking, to suggest that people are "flaming" one another is often a tactic used when one has no other recourse in defending themselves or their argument. To suggest that someone writes from emotion strips them of their credibility, such that any points they may make are rendered immaterial and discarded. It's a simple, convenient mechanism for ignoring issues we do not want to address. It's ineffective. There's nothing that's happened here insofar as giving any indication that people are upset with the discourse taking place. People are, instead, reacting to this thread and writing their opinions about the issues contained herein. Because they do not seem germane to any one person's views, ideas, or hopes for this discussion does not mean that they're without merit, nor without place. Instead, I think that varied contributions provide more viewpoints from which we can each examine our own feelings. Last edited by Madison : 26-12-2003 at 15:41. Reason: formatting. and stupid errors. |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|