Christmas and Schools

[Yan Wang]

We all know (I hope) that our government seperates religion from schools. The problem is, in this society which is mostly Christian dominated, it is very easy for many people to realize that, Hey that's religious! At our high school last year, someone put up a pine tree and there was a fiasco about it, and it's hard not to in this overly-liberal town. If you look at BBC news online right now, there's an article about how Christmas in America is a subtle yet dangerous issue.

Today, Christmas day, my 7-year old sister started singing the 12 days of Christmas. I wondered where she learned it and she said - from school. From her music teacher. At school.

After today, when I get back home from Ohio (where I'm right now), I will send an email to the principal of her school (who used to be the vice principal of my middle school a while back), and kindly ask them to seriously rethink what they're doing. Personally, I have no problems with what my sister is learning. It's a song that has almost no religious importance anymore (like Christmas), but nonetheless it is still religious and being taught in schools. If one thing is allowed, then more boundaries will end up being pushed. I would much less mind Christmas decorations at high school because we are at an age where we can think for ourselves (though not always). However, in elementary school, the kids are much too young and impressionable to the words of their adult teachers.

I wonder, what do people feel in general about keeping religion and school seperate during these major holiday seasons?

[KenWittlief]

I guess I dont see why you think the 12 days of christmas is a religious song- its only about giving gifts at the traditional holiday period -its says nothing about Jesus or religion

Christmas is a pagan holiday (the winter soltice) that was, well... confiscated by the roman catholic church. If you research it a little you will discover that the church actually frowned on the celebration of christmas for longer than they have accepted it (because of its pagan roots)

its only been in the last 100 years or so that it was commercialized, that it became more or less ok with the church as well.

but I have gotten off the subject. The best research indicates that Jesus was actually born in late september (based on the birth of John the Baptist and his fathers duties as a temple priest, and other events related in the biblical account).

but the thing that I find curious, you say you think your sisters school hasnt really done anything wrong, but you are going to give the principle a good talking to. I dont understand that. Im sure he is quite aware of the sensitive nature of the christmas holiday

i mean winter holiday

no wait, I mean the winter soltice observation break (which happens to coincide with the relgious observations of at least 3 cultural groups now).

now that I think of it, almost every culture had some sort of mid winter or winter soltice holiday, from the myans to the druids.

Personally I would prefer it if the christians threw in the towel on christmas - let it remain a time for santa claus, and observe the birth of Jesus when our best information shows it actaully occured, around the end of september.

[srjjs]

[quote=KenWittlief]christmas holiday

i mean winter holiday

no wait, I mean the winter soltice observation break (which happens to coincide with the relgious observations of at least 3 cultural groups now).
[quote]
Actually, I don't see why there's a special break for Christmas when Jews have to miss a day of school for Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, or such, and Chinese New Year, when skipped, counts as an unexcused abscence (read:truancy) because it's not a "religious holiday."
To me, something like extending semester break another week (it's
1/15-1/18 now) and letting Christians take the 25th off if they want to sounds a lot more fair.

[Ryan Dognaux]

Originally Posted by srjjs

To me, something like extending semester break another week (it's
1/15-1/18 now) and letting Christians take the 25th off if they want to sounds a lot more fair.

Sounds good I'd love missing more school!

[Kristina]

So once again I must come out of my posting slumber because I can't resist political discourse (even on Christmas). My ideal path would be to be a Constitutional lawyer but remember I'm not one yet so this just my brief analysis from what I've learned thus far in political science and at a law forum in DC I went to, where our main case was actually sepearation of church and state in high school.

So first you look at the first amendment and the establishment clause in particular and it's pretty vague. No help there so you go to current court cases and presently the legal standard for seperation of church and state is the Lemon Test (from Lemon v. Kurtzman). Basically it outlines this criteria:

(i) a statute [or public policy] must have a secular legislative purpose

(ii) the principal effect of of the statute [or policy] must neither advance nor inhibit religion

(iii) the statute [or policy] must not foster "excessive [government] entanglement with religion"

So basically for a public school's actions to be deemed consitutional, they have two options: All or nothing. They can't just celebrate one holiday (with decorations, songs, parties) even if the majority of the students are of one religion because that would be advancing one religion. The school must either decide whether they not do any single holiday festivities or promote learning about various ones. Learning them all would therefore make it have a secular purpose because you're learning about the world and it's religions, basically like a History class.

That's the legal standpoint and for my personal view I would go with the "all" option. Teach and celebrate Christmas but also cover Hanukkah, Kwanzaa and other religious holidays that may be celebrated by students at a school. That's the point of school right? Sure you learn the basics out of a book but why not teach students skills to do with the outside world, like FIRST does with technology. Think about it; what's the source of so many problems in today's world, the source of hate? It's ignorance. If you can start exposing kids to different beliefs and fostering acceptance of different people's cultures from a young age (c'mon, in elementary school you have time to teach this stuff since there are no AP tests or finals) then I think we'll be setting kids on the right path. Ignoring differences by keeping them out of school won't help anything.

[Yan Wang]

Very true Kristina but the schools don't do that. Holidays are mentioned but obviously not all of them can or are covered. And if they were to cover the roots/history of Christmas or some religious holiday, it'd be ok. However, elementary schools don't cover that history. Instead, the activities seem to lean towards one religion. I found out that my sister's class had to bring in tiny little presents for "Secret Santa". Sure, the presents were small (less than dollar store items), but nowhere on the teacher's notice for the event was an option to not bring something due to either financial problems or unwillingness to participate in the Christmas-related event.

Also, the mention of "Christmas" in the song the 12 days of Christmas is not kosher in Ithaca schools (or at the least the high school). As I mentioned, this is an overly-liberal town, and if some employee at the high school said merry christmas or put up a decoration/poster/etc in the hallway, there would be hell to pay. In fact, that happened before and that employee was almost fired last year.

Ken, there seemed to be some bitterness in your argument. I'm not trying to offend. One thing I wanted to mention was that in my Chinese family, we don't actually have a holiday during this time. The only reason we have a Christmas tree and get presents is to entertain my sister, who, from her schooling and society, has come to expect that Christmas is for everyone. I really don't care. My parents care more about Chinese New Year, which is in late January this year - in fact, during my regents testing week. And that is not a break from anything. So if the schools wished to have a true holiday to cover all the holidays, then it should go at least all the way to the last week of January. Our Chinese new year is possibly the biggest in the world (or 2nd to Indian holidays, since their population is also excessively large, and the Jan 1st New Year) and most celebrated. And no, Ken, I don't plan on yelling at the principal as you seemed to suggest. I said I'd be sending him a kind email asking him whether such curriculum is considerate of the various cultures represented by all the students.

[LBK Rules]

The main problem is that our government is not even listening to themselves.

FOX News Report

Andrea Skoros sued the New York City public school system after being told her kids' Nativity scene could not be a part of the holiday display although a Hanukkah menorah and the star and crescent representing Islam could be exhibited.

So, obviously, it is Christianity, not religions in general, that our government dosn't want anyone to know about.

http://www.afa.net/journal/july/religiousfreedom10.asp

Before the middle of the last century, everyone understood that the Establishment Clause [of the First Amendment] was erected against institutions – like the Episcopal Church or the Catholic Church – so that church institutions wouldn’t seize power and rule over our government. As our culture fell away from God, however, the idea took root that the Establishment Clause wasn’t just aimed at the institutional church, but also at the individual believer.

[Jillian B.]

One of my friends, and a fellow FIRSTer, once told me that the person who can argue best knows all sides of the argument.

So, here I am. Baptized Catholic, attended 8 years of catholic schools, and an equivalent amount of non-denominational institutions (from day-care to now in my junior year of highschool), was raised with Quaker/Friends influences, have attended 17 different schools, and am now what some would call an atheist.

Christmas Break, Holiday Break, or my personal favorite as my Chem class has come to call it, Late Semester Break, is not all about religion, boycotting religion, or whatever it may seem to be. In my opinion, it is better to embrace all religions and beliefs, than to boycott all. What better way is there to learn about other cultures than to expierience this break in America!

In Catholic school, we learnt about all religions. In fact, most of our education during one semester a year is about other religions. I am now educated on Hindu, Chinese, Muslim, Catholic, Jewish, and many other beliefs. Now, let me ask any of my classmates at the public high school I attend this year to explain what the eight-fold belief of Confucianism is. Or where is Mecca, and why it is there. Or why was Catholicism persecuted in it's early years. Or why were any of these religions began, were embraced, and fight eachother now. I have no need to doubt what they would say. Most cannot answer past their own denomination. So what does that say about America, and you people who dislike the integration? Not much positive.

So, before you begin to give the principal something to dread when he or she returns from a relaxing break, or before you frown at the red and green decor, the lighted Christmas trees, or jump to conclusions when your little sister or brother begins to sing a Christmas song, realize that the doer of that action you detest is more cultured than you are.

[Yan Wang]

Originally Posted by Jillian B.

So, before you begin to give the principal something to dread when he or she returns from a relaxing break, or before you frown at the red and green decor, the lighted Christmas trees, or jump to conclusions when your little sister or brother begins to sing a Christmas song, realize that the doer of that action you detest is more cultured than you are.

As I mentioned in my first post and referenced again in my second: "and kindly ask them to seriously rethink what they're doing". The key word being kindly. If nothing happens (and I don't expect anything to - our city is already as liberal as it could possibly be), so be it, but as mentioned in a post above by someone else, I DO need to know that I am someone who feels like I'm doing something - especially when it involves education. I think that my sister knowing christmas songs is not evil. I won't have a real problem until she starts saying, God did it (which she has done before... that I can't tolerate). But after reading the BBC article the other day, going through the last week before break in high school with teachers cracking jokes about how they'd get fired for referring to Christmas things, it really made me think why the subject isn't taken seriously at the elementary school level.

Jillian, it seems that you liked the education you received in Catholic school, Jillian. That's great and I hope you keep that knowledge with you always. I like my public high school very much too. You have not attended my school and I have not attended yours, so please (< I stress that) make no more assumptions about what my schooling or knowledge may be.

I also don't frown at green/red decor or christmas trees because our school has none. Our family, however, has all that plus lighting. I don't hate Christmas. Read the "I love it when..." thread - I love presents and cramming myself with food. I don't agree with the religion, but I will take advantage of the 2 week break it provides and the presents/food. In fact, it's lovely that there's so many religiously-based holidays - there's so many vacations in US schools.

My initial question asked what people thought about the relationship between Christmas and school. Keep your answers to that please.

[Melissa Nute]

Originally Posted by monsieurcoffee

My initial question asked what people thought about the relationship between Christmas and school. Keep your answers to that please.

Jillian was on topic in her own way.
A responce to a subject should be personal in an open-ended question like the one you gave.

Take a philosophy or Theory of Knowledge class and you will see.

[Yan Wang]

Apparently what I said was offensive to many. I'm sorry. But that was my way of defending myself from the attack against my knowledge of cultures and my tolerance to others without any knowledge of me beforehand. End this now and please continue the discussion. If you can't calmly state your opinions, then don't.

[Jeff Waegelin]

Originally Posted by monsieurcoffee

Apparently what I said was offensive to many. I'm sorry. But that was my way of defending myself from the attack against my knowledge of cultures and my tolerance to others without any knowledge of me beforehand. End this now and please continue the discussion. If you can't calmly state your opinions, then don't.

Yan, I think that if you're concerned about flames, you should be as concerned about what you say as you are about what others say. This discussion appears to be going well, and you seem to be the only one really complaining about its content. Everyone has been calmly stating their opinions. Just because they disagree with you doesn't make it an attack.

[FotoPlasma]

Originally Posted by LBK Rules

The main problem is that our government is not even listening to themselves.

FOX News Report


So, obviously, it is Christianity, not religions in general, that our government dosn't want anyone to know about.

http://www.afa.net/journal/july/religiousfreedom10.asp

I'll leave the First Amendment argument out of this because it's entirely based on a person's subjective interpretation of the Establishment Clause, as Kristina pointed out.

I wasn't planning on replying to this thread at all, but your second statement, that "it is Christianity, not religions in general, that our government doesn't want anyone to know about," is absolutely the most absurd thing I have ever read, bar none. Both houses of the United States Congress hold a Christian prayer service before each session. And, as far as I know, every modern President of The United States has attended highly publicized church services, not to mention the very specific personal beliefs they hold.

I'm willing to bet a good sum of money that neither of the two houses of Congress have a rabbi or mullah on hand, in any official capacity, while they both have an official Christian / Catholic chaplain, with a personal office, on hand.

Utterly asinine comments like that really get my goat.

[Gabriel]

Originally Posted by FotoPlasma

I'm willing to bet a good sum of money that neither of the two houses of Congress have a rabbi or mullah on hand, in any official capacity, while they both have an official Christian / Catholic chaplain, with a personal office, on hand.

While the House and Senate chaplains have almost always been protestants (the first Catholic was elected in 2000), there are many deputy and honorary chaplains who represent a wide range of faiths. I know a rabbi who was the chaplain of the CT legislature. A chaplain isn't supposed to represent his faith at all. That's very much besides the point however.

I have a lot to say about religion and government, but not at 2:00 AM so I'll just paraphrase something Aaron Sorkin wrote about school prayer: its not about suppressing Jesus, its about the 4th grader who gets beaten up because he didn't participate in the "voluntary" prayer, its tough enough being a kid without the people in authority showing you more ways you're different.

Ah, what the hell. I was never any good at shutting up.

In a college environment, when kids are supposed to be using their $@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@# detectors, its okay to teach one point of view on a subject people are passionate about or to promote one culture. But you can't do that in a grade school because the whole system is designed to cram as many skills and pieces of information down a kids throat as possible, and teachers are heralded as authority figures who MUST be obeyed. So it is a good teacher's responsibility to talk about as many viewpoints and lifestyles as possible. When you talk about Christmas in college its one lifestyle and you're supposed to be old enough not to have to want to conform to it, when you talk about it in grade school, you probably will end up talking about it exclusively, in which case a non-Christian student will feel like you're telling them they should be living a life they don't want to live. If you're Christian, imagine that you went to a Jewish school and all they did was sing Chanukah songs, after awhile you'd start to feel very different and very alone. It may not seem like a big deal, but I think it really can be. There are a lot of gay kids for example who don't experience blatant homophobia but still end up with all sorts of complexes about themselves because they grew up in a culture that told them to live a certain lifestyle that they just biologically can't live.

I'm sure that didn't make any sense (given that its now 2:15 AM) but I don't have the heart to delete it.

[Madison]

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.

• Christmas was officially recognized by the Church in the last century alone.

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.

• Christmas is a religious observance.

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.

• "So, obviously, it is Christianity, not religions in general, that our government dosn't [sic] want anyone to know about."

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.

• Before the middle of the last century, everyone understood that the Establishment Clause [of the First Amendment] was erected against institutions – like the Episcopal Church or the Catholic Church – so that church institutions wouldn’t seize power and rule over our government. As our culture fell away from God, however, the idea took root that the Establishment Clause wasn’t just aimed at the institutional church, but also at the individual believer.

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.

• People with liberal ideals are bad, crazy, immoral or misinformed.

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.

• People are angered by this subject and, thus, write with emotion rather than intelligence.

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.