It is inevitable every year that there are massive complaints from Christians about God, Jesus and all the other Christian traditions being either watered down or removed entirely from Christmas, especially in the public sector. Christian teachers, parents and students resent how the public schools now practice “holiday” events rather than Christmas ones. Citizens and public employees oppose the near complete secularization of the holiday in courthouses, libraries and other civic buildings.
But what in the world did we expect? Did people believe, when they infused a Christian tradition with secular society, that the rest of the country would conform their lifestyle to the holiday rather than conform the holiday to their lifestyle? Did Christians sincerely believe that, despite the complete failure to merge religion into secular society in other areas, Christmas would actually catch on?
Consider the state institutions of marriage or public schools. Christians lament about the “godless” state of both of them - public schools have abandoned prayer, bible instruction and Christian holidays while marriage has recently been augmented by civil unions and homosexual marriage.
In the schools, for example, Christians were a large proponent of public schooling - both out of a desire to provide education for the poor, and to convert all those idolatrous Catholics in their fancy-pants private schools. But secular society, and rightfully so, is not going to tolerate Christian institutions ramming doctrine down their kids throat by force. Eventually, there is going to be a backlash, and their was. The problem is not that “God got kicked out of public schools” it is that we put him there in the first place.
Likewise, unless the government gets out of holidays altogether (which seems to be the direction things are moving) then we should not be surprised to see Jews and Muslims wanting equal state acknowledgment of their religious celebrations.
We Christians need to learn that we cannot, and should not, attempt to force our values on the rest of society. Jesus was so effective because, rather than overthrow Herod and establish a new Christ oriented government, he taught, instructed, exampled and helped people in a private, non-coercive way, so as to allow them to choose to follow him. Every single time we inject our values into secular apparatuses, we restrict people’s ability to chose, bearing the fruit of forced (false) conversions, resentment and rejection.
It’s a wonderful thing to celebrate Christmas, and it is great to demonstrate a holiday spirit as we go about our business. Let’s chose to let go of the “war on Christmas” - its a war we can never win, and one we never should have started in the first place.
Yeah, I’m tired of the inevitable barrage of Put Christ back in Christmas screeds that surface every December. I’m perfectly comfortable with allowing the rest of the world to celebrate a secular Christmas. I don’t want unbelievers to celebrate my religious holidays anyway.
Colin said, “We Christians need to learn that we cannot, and should not, attempt to force our values on the rest of society.”
Well, the problem here is that if feels the other way around. Our American society has become more secularized over recent decades, so what feels like is happening is that I’m being told there is no place for religion in American public life. As a historian, you know that is a big change since the founding of this country. (Yeah, yeah, I know, we never were a “Christian” nation, etc, etc, but people were allowed to be religious and lots of those early documents sound pretty religious to me.)
Not only have we become more secularized, we’ve also become more polarized, I believe, when it comes to religion.
American history classes are going to soon have to teach about how religion used to shape public policy,laws, language, etc. because it will no longer be common knowledge.
This article completely reverses the facts. It’s not that American Christians “forced” their beliefs on the society in the first place, but they were the natural system of things when a majority of Americans were Christians. Any basic study of history shows this to be the case. Rather, the secularists are now FORCING Christian values out of the culture.
My favorite?
“Jesus is the reason for the season”
What…winter? December? Well sure, in an “all encompassing God is in charge and made everything” sort of way, but not in the “focus on Jesus this holiday season” sort of way. We created Christmas, not God. Christmas is an observance of a day that we created. God didn’t mandate it. So why this huge backlash that the rest of the world doesn’t celebrate a day we made up? While I enjoy Christmas, and what it means to me as a Christian, I hardly see why getting in an uproar over the “secularization” of an observational non-biblically mandated holiday gets the collective Christian’s panties all up in a wad.
My favorite? Our condemnation of pagans celebrating their rituals on “the same day” (oh yes, I’ve seen it plenty). Really? Last I checked, those pagans were celebrating winter’s solstice on this day looooong before Christ was born. We took that day in an effort to Christianize. Not that there is a problem with that, but perhaps “winter is the reason for the season” would be more accurate from a historical point of view.
Honestly, I think it’s Christians who need to see that “Jesus is the reason for the season”…and I don’t mean Christmas. I mean “the season of our lives”. Modern Christians seem to worship holidays and observances and their sanctity more than what their sanctimonious about: Christ.
P.S.
“X-Mas” is not “xx’ing out Christ from Christmas”…last I checked, “X” was Chi in the Greek alphabet, and the first letter of Christ. Often used to symbolize that, sometimes including the “P” rho as well, as in Constantine’s cross. Just a side-bit to stop many naysayers who seem to weep and moan about this every stinking year.
Blaming Christians for expecting (not demanding) others to continue wishing “Merry Christmas” and not “Happy Holidays” (or as my pastor said last week, a store cashier told him “have a good one” because he wasn’t allowed to say Merry Christmas) is like blaming Christians for making marriage an issue. It is completely absurd; the natural state of marriage is between a woman and a man. Pagans and homosexuals have made marriage a battleground in the first place, not Christians. Same with the Christmas battle, the natural state of things is to recognize the holiday that is honored by the MAJORITY of people, not to be so politically correct as to recognize no holidays so that no one is offended.
That said, I personally don’t think Christians should be offended or demand that non-Christians recognize their holiday. However, pointing out the hypocritical nature of political correctness IS something Christians should feel free to do.
Well, the problem here is that if feels the other way around. Our American society has become more secularized over recent decades, so what feels like is happening is that I’m being told there is no place for religion in American public life. As a historian, you know that is a big change since the founding of this country. (Yeah, yeah, I know, we never were a “Christian” nation, etc, etc, but people were allowed to be religious and lots of those early documents sound pretty religious to me.)
Not only have we become more secularized, we’ve also become more polarized, I believe, when it comes to religion.
American history classes are going to soon have to teach about how religion used to shape public policy,laws, language, etc. because it will no longer be common knowledge.
Religion has and always will have a valid place in “informing” public policy through the personal beliefs of public officials. This was the attitude in the founding of this country. However, when the society was a majority Christian, it was decided to formally infuse the institutions with religion - this has backfired and led to the polarization you accurately cite. People have a problem with Christians because they feel, rightfully so, that we want to legislate our beliefs on them. Christians feel persecuted by this reaction because we feel we have a cultural and historical president to do so (see Darius’ response for a perfect example of this).
This problem will not be solved until religion is removed from the official public institutions.
This article completely reverses the facts. It’s not that American Christians “forced” their beliefs on the society in the first place, but they were the natural system of things when a majority of Americans were Christians. Any basic study of history shows this to be the case. Rather, the secularists are now FORCING Christian values out of the culture.
For a country that prides itself on freedom of religion, one cannot be moslem or atheist or whatever religion, and be forced to obey Christian values/practices while attending publicly funded things. Then, it is no longer free. I very much doubt you would enjoy sending your child to a place that taught Buddhist meditation principles and chants as part of a school curriculum, especially when you weren’t sending him/her to a Buddhist school.
Colin never disagreed with the “forcing out of Christian values”…that’s the point. They WERE forced out, and rightfully so. I’m a Christian, but I don’t believe that requiring adherence to a Christian value system is part of a free society. Takes that choice out that Colin pointed out, is so important to free will. Just because things were “founded” on Christian principles, doesn’t make it any less of a “forceful” act of adherence. It was just more subtle, and albeit, innocent.
It’s not that American Christians “forced” their beliefs on the society in the first place, but they were the natural system of things when a majority of Americans were Christians. Any basic study of history shows this to be the case. Rather, the secularists are now FORCING Christian values out of the culture.
Yes, Darius they did. The majority of Christians in this country, most without realizing it, put their religion into the official public sphere. In other words, while we were the private majority, we “occupied” the sovereign territory of the secular state. People are going to resent occupiers at all times in all places.
Again, no one is saying Christians shouldn’t practice their holidays - they are asking us to do it privately, please. And that is a fair request.
Blaming Christians for expecting (not demanding) others to continue wishing “Merry Christmas” and not “Happy Holidays” (or as my pastor said last week, a store cashier told him “have a good one” because he wasn’t allowed to say Merry Christmas) is like blaming Christians for making marriage an issue. It is completely absurd; the natural state of marriage is between a woman and a man. Pagans and homosexuals have made marriage a battleground in the first place, not Christians. Same with the Christmas battle, the natural state of things is to recognize the holiday that is honored by the MAJORITY of people, not to be so politically correct as to recognize no holidays so that no one is offended.
Most of that is an economic issue. Not all shoppers are Christians, or care about Christmas. In a smart economic mood, say “happy holidays” since in this nation, there are many holidays celebrated this time of year. Why is that so offensive to not hear “merry christmas” in a store? Does a store have to recognize ONLY your religion, merely because you are a majority? Would you crap your pants as you are buying more crap for your wife/kids if someone said “happy hannukah” to you? Or “enjoy your winter solstice”? It’s not a “fight against Christians”, it’s a recognition that not everyone is, and an effort to keep people shopping. Smart move.
As for marriage…as has been said ad nauseum….governmental recognition of marriage has nothing to do at ALL with religious recognition of marriage. While the natural thing IS for a man and woman, why does this have to be a governmental mandate? Do you base all your religious institutions by government? Should we make a law requiring “only grape juice and matza crackers” for communion, to uphold the sanctity of it? What if you prefer saltines and wine? HERETIC!
Some big fallacies are being missed in this discussion…
One: that religion/faith can be privatized and shouldn’t be a natural offshoot of one’s life. This is false. One doesn’t live a separate life privately than he does publicly. Thus, it wasn’t a “formal infusion” of religion initially but instead the logical fruit of a Christian nation (notice I didn’t say Christian government) living out their lives in society according to Judeo-Christian values.
Two: Ornot claims that the “war on Christmas” is mostly an economic issue. This is not the case. It is a PERCEIVED economic issue because of the liberal intelligentsia in this country claims that everyone has to be politically correct. No one besides a tiny minority (like a tenth of a percent) actually gets offended when someone says “Merry Christmas,” while you are much more likely to annoy someone if you say “Happy Hanukah.” Basic economics 101 teaches us that good business practice is to appeal to the MOST people possible. Do you honestly think that more people get offended/annoyed by “Merry Christmas” than by an overt hostility to the phrase?
LET ME REPEAT: I don’t think Christians should be offended or demand that non-Christians recognize their holiday. However, Christians should be willing to point out the utter stupidity of extreme political correctness, especially when it comes to the Christmas season.
Ornot, you need to open your eyes. Most Christians don’t have a problem with not teaching Bible verses in school, but that IS NOT the issue. Christians are being forced to NOT acknowledge God at all. It’s not an issue of what government SPONSORS but what they CENSOR. Meanwhile, schools are building special wash rooms for Muslims. Anyone besides Ornot see the hypocrisy???
One: that religion/faith can be privatized and shouldn’t be a natural offshoot of one’s life. This is false. One doesn’t live a separate life privately than he does publicly. Thus, it wasn’t a “formal infusion” of religion initially but instead the logical fruit of a Christian nation (notice I didn’t say Christian government) living out their lives in society according to Judeo-Christian values.
Religion is inherently private. It is inherently personal - especially Christianity - there is no need for state sponsorship. I am not saying that Christians should compartmentalize their views, but they must not legislate them outright.
Otherwise, you are correct that a Christian nation is different than a Christian government. But along the line, the distinction has blurred. We need to separate this out again and liberate Christmas from government and vica versa.
Christians are being forced to NOT acknowledge God at all. It’s not an issue of what government SPONSORS but what they CENSOR. Meanwhile, schools are building special wash rooms for Muslims. Anyone besides Ornot see the hypocrisy???
I would love to see even one example of this in the US. One example where Christians are being “forced” to not acknowledge God.
Christmas isn’t a religious holiday. How many atheists celebrate it? Christmas is less religious than Halloween - which *is* a religious holiday.
But it’s strange retailers want “Christmas” business when it comes to buying gifts, but then deny the holiday exists! It’s for that reason (absurdly illogical) than I’ll take my Christmas business elsewhere. I’m sure all the people moaning about Christmas being Christian decide to work those days instead of taking them off … NOT!
If I was buying a Menorah, that would be entirely appropriate. So I guess the answer is no.
Again, if I was buying a yule log, that would be appropriate.
If you’re buying gifts for December 25, they are, by definition, Christmas presents. Thus it’s entirely correct and appropriate to say “Merry Christmas”. Denying the holiday people shop for is bizarre.
The reason people are upset is it’s only Christmas treated this way. Nobody seems to care about Halloween, or Hanukkah, or Ramadan or ….
Exactly, Coward :). It DOES NOT make sense at all, and that’s what I contend. My faith isn’t offended when stores command their employees to not say “Merry Christmas,” my intelligence IS. It is so stupid as to be offensive. All political correctness/hypocrisy is offensive to me.
“I would love to see even one example of this in the US. One example where Christians are being “forced” to not acknowledge God.”
Wow, seriously? You and Ornot need to get out more, it’s happening all over the place. I’ll look up just a couple examples and post them on here.
Darius said: “One: that religion/faith can be privatized and shouldn’t be a natural offshoot of one’s life.”
I don’t think that’s how Colin used the term private. He was using it in the governmental sense. If it’s done by the government it’s public; otherwise it’s private. In that sense, religion should be private. It’s foolish and dangerious to have the government get involved in sponsoring religion.
Oooh, great example, Coward. {Feels like I’m insulting you everytime I speak to you.
}
http://www.boston.com/news/education/k_12/articles/2006/07/14/religious_valedictorian_sues_nevada_school/
Here’s one… of many. And the school had no grounds for the argument that they were “sponsoring” her speech; it’s basic free speech rules.
http://www.rutherford.org/KeyCases/Borden.asp
I find it kinda funny that libertarians don’t recognize when basic freedoms are being assaulted.
Another great place to go is Mindingthecampus.com, which documents all the free speech violations at American universities. Almost anything written by John Leo is also good at opening one’s eyes.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/july/27.52.html
Need I (or Coward) go on?
I pretty much agree with Colin. All this fuss really overshadows real Christianity. Jesus did not come to establish Christian institutions in public life. If that wasn’t his purpose, why should that be the purpose of any Christian? Christ came to reconcile men back to God, not to wage a culture war. No one was ever reconciled back to God as a result of a heated debate.
To tell you the truth, I don’t care if the Ten Commandments are removed from every court in the land. I don’t even care if homosexuals go around thinking they’re married. I’m not going to lose any sleep whatsoever. Am I supposed to be threatened by that? Here’s a revelation to all Christians: the whole world lies in wickedness. How would you expect wicked people to behave?
It’s pretty funny to see libertarians who get their underwear in knots over lost freedoms yet don’t care when certain freedoms are infringed upon.
“I don’t care if the Ten Commandments are removed from every court in the land.”
Nevermind the freedoms of the local individuals who placed them there to begin with, huh? Religious freedom be damned, ironically enough, I guess.
“I don’t even care if homosexuals go around thinking they are married.”
Again, Chris, when it comes to topics involving libertarianism, you and Colin and Ornot tend to put up straw men to represent the position against which you argue. Most Christians (and I) would agree with you about not losing sleep if homosexuals think they are married. What we don’t like is when the government ENDORSES it and PROMOTES it. Government endorsing evil isn’t my idea of a good government.
Darius said: “Government endorsing evil isn’t my idea of a good government.”
That’s all well and good, until it’s your lifestyle that the public deems evil.
Were you ever in college? Perhaps the biology department? You know, the one branch of science where they ignore any evidence not fitting in with evolutionary dogma and “God” makes you persona non gratta.
Coward (if I may) there is no force involved here. There is ignorance, but not force.
http://www.boston.com/news/education/k_12/articles/2006/07/14/religious_valedictorian_sues_nevada_school/
Here’s one… of many. And the school had no grounds for the argument that they were “sponsoring” her speech; it’s basic free speech rules.
Actually, she was using the public graduation ceremony as means to proselytize. The force would be on her, and the school, for making the community attend a defacto crusade.
http://www.rutherford.org/KeyCases/Borden.asp
Again, the force is actually on the part of the head coach, who is a representative of the government, participating in prayer and in effect, “leading” people who may not want to do so.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/july/27.52.html
Like the other examples, there is no “force” here. The guy is still free to believe whatever he wants, but everyone is forced to go to the public secular school and they have requirements to keep a safe learning environment. For contrast, I would agree with a person’s right to wear a “Death to Americans, you are all supporters of America the great Satan, and all Christians must die” t-shirt. But he is disrupting studies to wear that to a public school.
you and Colin and Ornot tend to put up straw men
Please go look up the definition of straw man, and find one that I have put up in this thread.
It is painfully obvious that there is a lack of understanding of what “force” means. I am not going to sift through illegitimate examples where force is not taking place. Again, we are talking about the government forcing Christians to “to not acknowledge God.” I have yet to see it.
We libertarians use the word force in a particular way, and we shouldn’t expect others to understand it or to agree with it.
To be fair, I found 36 definitions for the word. However, it should only take a carefully thought moment to apply the term “force” in a situation to derive a useful interpretation.
The threat of getting fired or expelled is pretty strong force to me. It is really sad that libertarians aren’t willing to stand up for free speech. You all are confusing individual’s liberties with government sanctioning. Just because a valedictorian praises her Savior during her speech or a coach kneels down with the rest of the players for a prayer doesn’t imply any endorsement from the school. That is liberal left-wing hogwash! If the school says that there will be time set aside for proselytizing, then THAT is wrong. Censoring free speech is extremely wrong, at least in this country, and it is amazing to me that most of you just seem to shrug your shoulders at it.
Ok, I’ll bite. What is the libertarian’s definition of force?
If by force you mean only when the government threatens imprisonment or worse, then I would most strongly not agree with that limited definition. Any time the government threatens punishment in ANY form of an individual for using their right to free speech, that is FORCEFUL censorship and WRONG!
Ok, some of you are having a hard time understanding this issue from the right perspective… so, let’s come at it from the reverse side. Who is getting FORCED (by any definition) to participate in religious activities when the coach chooses to pray with some of the players?
Darius:
1) I have put forth no straw men
2) They rightfully pulled the plug on her speech. It was forced proselytizing at a public school with a captive audience. This would have been pulled, and rightfully so, for political or other religious reasons.
3) That case with the coach IS ridiculous. It is student-initiated prayer, with a coach joining. It says he leads it, but i don’t have a problem with that because it is student initiated. AND, the coach is not forcing the team to participate. So yes, I agree that that one is ridiculous.
4) Thanks for your constant accusations and lumping of libertarians into your broad and meaningless categories like you do with ‘left-wing liberals’. You sound like a conservative radio-talk show shill. In no way do we all represent all of libertarianism, and in no ways are we ignoring anything. Objectively looking at something does not lump us into a giant liberal-conspiracy. Knock it off.
5) It IS a partial economic thing. They are a private industry, and if they DO choose to be “politically correct” and say that just for the sake of saying it, SO WHAT? It’s not anti-Christ, as much as it’s just falling to the common denominator of the nation, which tend to be holiday Christians anyways. If you and Coward are so upset by this, then boycott or answer back ‘merry christmas’. Or whatever. You are raging against the wrong machine.
Here is another issue with Christmas….it’s a cultural war about TRADITION. It’s not biblical. It’s not necessary to salvation. It isn’t anything but a religious celebration. If a store feels it might be offensive to the one-tenth of one percent of the population so they don’t say “Merry Christmas”…so what? Do i find it silly? Of course I do. Do i really really really care? No. But is seems pastors across this nation (including mine) seem to think of it as “evidence of a war on Christianity”. Which it isn’t.
I don’t need to open my eyes. If a school says student initiated prayer is illegal, or that reading a bible is illegal, or that telling a classmate about God is illegal…then that school is WRONG. And I think that it should be rectified. i don’t see how you think i think that’s okay. Colin and my point is about “forcing”, which involves two things: 1) power 2) captivity. A classroom is a captive audience, a teacher has power. A required graduation speech is captive. While I don’t have a problem with “I want to thank Jesus Christ, my God, and my parents for helping to get where I am today”. I have a problem with altar calls and requests to pray from that. If it were a Muslim asking us to face East and join in prayers to Allah, i’d be just as upset.
The T-Shirt one is a mixed bag. I think that has less to do with free-speech as it does for maintaining order. Free speech is limited to encroachment of others, such as the “fire in a crowded movie house” thing. Wearing something that says “homosexuality is shameful” is similar to wearing a shirt that says “My penis is huge, want to have sex with it?” or “Believe in Allah or face punishment”. It may be free speech, but it will be disruptive, possibly dangerous. Hence, the move by some in public schools to adopt dress codes/uniforms. Most schools don’t care if you wear a christian t-shirt, they just don’t want inflammatory t-shirts. There is a difference between a shirt with a jesus dove or a fish on it, and another that says “You are all sinners, and you are going to hell”. The fact that the author of that blog doesn’t know the difference is quite perplexing.
Does the government ever “force” anyone to deny God?
From dictionary.com:
So, to look at the biology class example, if you’ve been in college you’ve likely encountered force to deny God. If you want to pass and graduate, you must deny the existence of God (even if evidence points that direction). You’re “forced” by definition. And since the school is government funded by taxes, it’s really the government forcing you to deny God. That’s a government established religion (atheism), which is unconstitutional.
The Constitution has freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Quite a difference between the two.
Jew said “We libertarians use the word force in a particular way, and we shouldn’t expect others to understand it or to agree with it” - that may be the problem. Perhaps people are using a different non-standard definition of what force means, and if so, that may cause the confusion. We didn’t see a Libertarian definition given in the dictionary so we’re just guessing from Jew’s comment.
I don’t understand - if it’s not biblical, and not necessary for salvation, how is it a religious celebration? I’ll agree Christmas isn’t a religious holiday (atheists I’m sure celebrate it), so why the necessity to eliminate “Merry Christmas” by retailers when you’re obviously shopping for CHRISTMAS presents? If it’s not religious, it must be some other objection.
They want the money without the holiday. Sorry, I’ll take my business to someone not so logically challenged.
It’s like a store selling birthday stuff, but no candles, in case they might offend someone who doesn’t celebrate their birthday. If you’re in the store, and obviously buying stuff for the holiday, and you’re obviously not offended by it.
First, how do you know it isn’t a direct attack on Christianity? If it isn’t (and we’re not saying it definitely is), why no fuss about other holidays with much more religious tones - Hanukkah, Halloween, etc? Why only the holiday about Christ?
“Why only the holiday about Christ?”
My thoughts exactly. This whole “battle” is between Christians and the “principalities.” In other words, we fight Satan, as he is the one behind the attempt to snuff out Christmas.
“2) They rightfully pulled the plug on her speech. It was forced proselytizing at a public school with a captive audience. This would have been pulled, and rightfully so, for political or other religious reasons.”
I have mixed feelings about this one. The student isn’t representing the government, she was just a student at a government-run school. Of course that school cannot and should not promote one religion over another, but I’m not sure that it is necessary or right to censor a commencement speech delivered by a student. If the speech was by a special guest speaker who was brought in specificially to give a gospel message, that would cross the line. But it’s just a student who earned the opportunity to speak because of her hard work and good grades. No reasonable person expects that she represents the views or opinions of the school or the government.
Actually, I guess my feelings aren’t so mixed. It was wrong to cut the microphone during her speech.
EX-FREAKING-ACTLY!
Constitutional Conservative said: “So, to look at the biology class example, if you’ve been in college you’ve likely encountered force to deny God.”
That doesn’t meet the libertarian definition of force. Presumably you have decided of your own free will to take that biology class. If you sign up, you’ve accepted the obligations–which include learning the evolutionary model. Nobody forced you to take that biology course and to learn about evolution. Now, if the government forces everyone to take that course, then you have an argument for force in the libertarian sense. That’s why libertarians are so against the idea of public schools. We don’t want the government forcing anything upon the public. Fortunately it’s still legal to homeschool in America; that’s not true in all nations.
But to get back to the biology question: I don’t know why people get so worked up about that kind of thing. Why not just take the course and answer the test questions the way the professor wants? I did that for my philosophy class in college. Just because I wrote a short essay supporting C.S. Lewis’s view of ethics doesn’t mean I actually believed that. It’s all just an academic exercise. You aren’t violating any moral law by telling a professor what he wants to hear.
It’s not a government established religion if a student is doing it. As Jew points out “No reasonable person expects that she represents the views or opinions of the school or the government.”
The problem is freedom of religion means you’ll sometimes be exposed to other ideas you may not agree with. Personally, I wouldn’t be offended (constitutionally or religiously) if a student prayed to Allah during a graduation ceremony. It has nothing to do with government establishing religion. Freedom has been corrupted to mean “anything I don’t agree with is censored”.
And we’ll disagree with Colin saying “The force would be on her, and the school, for making the community attend a defacto crusade.” Again, it’s NOT the government establishing anything. It’s a private person. Not allowing her her speech is forcing her to deny God - establishing atheism as the official school religion. (”forcing” – verb. to compel, constrain, or oblige oneself or someone to do something. See above definition)
What’s proper is to allow anyone their religious ideas during graduating speeches. If they mention God, fine. Buddha, fine. Atheistic, fine. For the school to do anything restricting student expressions of religions in speeches is wrong (unless it’s unsafe, inciting a riot, etc).
Freedom means you’ll encounter others who might not believe as you do. Isn’t that what tolerance is all about?
Conservativism 1, Libertarianism 0.
Seriously though, CC, you have done a great job of explaining what true freedom of religion is all about.
Constitutional Conservative wrote: “Not allowing her her speech is forcing her to deny God - establishing atheism as the official school religion.”
I see what you’re getting at, but I disagree. I presume the school administration approved a speech that didn’t mention religion at all. Failing to mention religion is a far cry from establishing atheism or denying God. The valedictorian doesn’t have an absolute right to give a speech–it’s just traditional. If the school decided not to allow student speeches at all, that would have been acceptable, and it wouldn’t have been establishing atheism.
I’ve *assumed* she was trying to make religious references in her speech, and it was stopped. That was the basis for my arguments. I do know some schools make speeches be approved by the faculty, and that’s what we’re discussing (I thought).
You are correct, if they don’t allow speeches at all, ever, no problem exists. As well as if a student decides to not mention God at all by their choice. Either way, no problem.
The point is, the school should not tell students what religion they can or can not mention in speeches. That’s the problem.
One final note on the school graduation speech issue, and then I think it’s covered
As another way to look at it consider US Code 47 U.S.C. § 230(c) relating to “common carrier” status for ISP’s which yields a similar principle for the school.
If you drove someone to a meeting where two people discussed nefarious deeds, you could be liable as an accomplice. But if two people email about nefarious deeds, the ISP is not held liable as an accomplice under these rules. They’re just a transport, transporting anything and everything.
What’s interesting, is if the ISP begins to filter traffic, then they can lose that protection and become liable for what traverses their network. (Some have claimed spam filtering can cause an ISP to lose their status, be we won’t go there).
Just as the ISP, the school is just a common carrier for the speech - they are not liable for it. But as soon as they begin to say “This religion is OK, this isn’t, this speech is OK, this isn’t”, they become constitutionally liable for their filtering, as they are now establishing religion, be it atheism or something else.
Note: IANAL, so YMMV - do your own homework - we did this research *very* quickly, but the case law of these cases seems to be clear, but then it’s legalese
Source:
http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/zeran/47usc230.htm
Seriously though, CC, you have done a great job of explaining what true freedom of religion is all about.
Darius, you would probably very much like CC’s blog. I highly recommend it:
http://constitutionalconservative.wordpress.com/
The basic idea that you’re getting at is a valid one. If the school chooses to censor or filter what a student says, then the school is at least partly responsible for the content of the student’s message. That’s a valid debate. That’s why I think that schools should take a more hands-off approach and allow greater freedom of speech. The extent to which public schools routinely violate the First Amendment is disgraceful.
The common carrier analogy is a useful one, but I must stress that a school is not a common carrier. A common carrier is a company that provides transportation services to the general public. This includes transportation of data, so the telephone and internet companies count as common carriers. Schools do not provide the general public with transportation or data transmission services. They provide education. They don’t qualify as common carriers. We can look at common carrier law to draw out the general principle, but we can’t apply specific common carrier laws to public schools.
Jew said “That doesn’t meet the libertarian definition of force.”
OK, so we’re using different definitions. The dictionary says force is “to compel, constrain, or oblige (oneself or someone) to do something”, which leads me to two questions.
1. Why do Libertarians use a different definition?
2. What is that definition?
So, if, by your definition, taking a biology class isn’t “force”, then I don’t understand the following either:
By your definition of force you attend the ceremony by your own free will, nobody forced you (same as the biology class). Thus, it isn’t an establishment of religion, since you aren’t forced to attend (just as you aren’t forced to go to biology class).
I don’t mean to sound flippant or insulting, but I really don’t understand, and I’d like to understand your position. Could you please explain?
These seem to be contradictions. Either they’re both acceptable, or both not.
That’s an entirely different discussion, one I’d like to engage in, but it’s really off-topic right here. Perhaps on a different thread?
Ok, some of you are having a hard time understanding this issue from the right perspective… so, let’s come at it from the reverse side. Who is getting FORCED (by any definition) to participate in religious activities when the coach chooses to pray with some of the players?
Darius, I appreciate that you are now at least willing to begin to consider this objectively. Talking to a brick wall gets annoying. Talking to a person who is more into “keeping score”, teambuilding, making wild accusations and “winning” in a discussion, is even worse. I seriously and honestly recommend that you take more time in your thinking and responses when dealing with these issues.
Having said that, applying “force” to all involved is how we need to look at this correctly. Who is being coerced? Obviously the coach is being asked to stop doing something, and I will give that just bowing his head and kneeling doesn’t mean anything. So at best, this is a non-issue. However, If he were leading the prayer, then we have to look at who is being compelled to be there. The kids are required to go to school, by law they are a captive audience. The schools also have the monopoly on the amateur sports for the age. The coach is an employee, not a forced participant - the kids are.
Just as the ISP, the school is just a common carrier for the speech - they are not liable for it. But as soon as they begin to say “This religion is OK, this isn’t, this speech is OK, this isn’t”, they become constitutionally liable for their filtering, as they are now establishing religion, be it atheism or something else.
This is apples and oranges. An ISP can be chosen and competes in a market environment without force. Schools are monopolies and the kids are required to go there or their parents go to jail. The kids themselves are, in the principles of public education, under debt to the state to be educated in the state’s best interest. A girl talking about Jesus on her own time in school can do so without impunity, a girl doing it in an official graduation ceremony is doing so in an official capacity - as are any employees of the school.
“Schools are monopolies and the kids are required to go there or their parents go to jail.”
Are we still talking about America? Or are you referring to Germany? In this country, people can (still) send their children to private school or even homeschool them. It doesn’t behoove you to make incorrect statements to support your position.
Constitutional Conservative said: “By your definition of force you attend the ceremony by your own free will, nobody forced you (same as the biology class). Thus, it isn’t an establishment of religion, since you aren’t forced to attend (just as you aren’t forced to go to biology class).”
Great question. This is an area where I disagree with Colin. I think he’s wrong. There is nothing about a religious commencement speech delivered by a student that meets the definition of force. The speech isn’t an establishment of religion at all.
Constitutional Conservative said: “Why do Libertarians use a different definition?”
Maybe I shouldn’t have said that libertarians use a different definition of force. We have the same understanding of the word, we just draw the lines in different places. It’s not a different definition of force, it’s a different understanding of the justification for the use of force. Mainly, libertarianism is based on the principle of non-initiation of force. We don’t believe the government (or anybody else) has any authority to initiate the use of force. Force is acceptable in defense of one’s rights, but only when those rights are threatened or violated by someone else’s aggression (i.e., force). So the only time the government is allowed to use force is to protect the rights of a citizen. Traditional conservative beliefs give the government more latitude in the use of force; the government is permitted to use a limited amount of force for things like eminent domain, income taxes, and labor laws in order to mould and shape a better society.
CC, the definition of force you gave is the same as the libertarian one - which I would not call a “different” definition, but it’s application almost always refers to the state - so in that sense, it’s a little ambiguous at times.
This is true only in a superficial sense. For all intents and purposes, the official graduation ceremony is a monopoly service put on by the monopoly school. You can “opt-out” of the ceremony, but there is no “alternate” official ceremony. This is why baccalaureates are done, and, I think, a good idea - they can be a religious substitute, albeit unofficial.
Biology itself is not a state-sanctioned science. The professors aren’t being mandated to teach it like dogma - it is like any other subject, taught based on the best data they have arrived at scientifically. I think much of it is wrong, but ignorance does not equal force.
There is no “force” in the biology example. To be fair, the force in the graduation example is less apparent, but it is there in whatever speeches are being made by representatives of the state.
Please Darius, try and not school your children. Even if they are homeschooled, they must pass state requirements. Education is compulsory in this country. Again, please take a bit more care in your posts.
Darius said: “In this country, people can (still) send their children to private school or even homeschool them.”
Yeah, but the families are still taxed to fund the public school. I say, if parents don’t send their kids to public school, the government owes them some money toward education expenses. Since many families can’t afford private schools (due to property taxes that support the public school) we can make a case that they are being coerced into using the public schools. It’s not a terribly strong case, but it’s something to consider.
That’s why it’s an *analogy* - it’s not perfect
But again, I think we’re using different definitions of “force”. And many ISP’s are monopolies in a given area, similar to phone companies. But that’s off-topic.
How is a student in an official capacity of the school? She’s not an employee. By that reasoning is every term paper you write subject to rules applying the school as an entity? (i.e. Title IX, affirmative action, religion, etc). If not, what counts student activities as “official”, and who gets to decide?
Employees are a different matter and a different debate so I won’t go there.
No, they’re not. Homeschool, private schools, alternative school, charter schools, vouchers and so on. Public schools are not a monopoly. Education is required, but not attendance at a specific institution. In your terms, it’s not “forced” attendance at any one school.
Let me repeat, since no one seems to be reading Colin’s ORIGINAL statement: he claimed that if people don’t send their kids to public school, they will go to jail. That is WRONG!! I was homeschooled, so I might just know what I’m talking about.
“Even if they are homeschooled, they must pass state requirements.”
Again, an ignorant statement, at least in some states. For example, in Minnesota, we have independent school districts, which means that to some extent, the individual schools decide how they want to enforce the laws. So, I was not “checked on” at all after 1st grade. I took the Iowa Basic Skills tests a few times voluntarily just to give confirmation to my parents that they were doing a good job. Now, some school districts are different; some keep a keen eye on homeschoolers. But either way, this is beside the point. You said that people had to go to public school, thus they were a captive audience at a graduation ceremony. This is NOT TRUE. I would suggest you read your own statements more carefully before you respond next time.
Jew, the school vouchers issue is a separate topic. And yes, I would agree that the government owes that tax money (or at least some of it) back to parents who choose to send their kids elsewhere than public school
Obviously, we’re on shaky ground here because it isn’t a very clear-cut issue and I will be the first to admit that I don’t have all the facts in this particular case. That being acknowledged, she is representing the school because she is being honored by the school as a valedictorian by their criteria. It is their award and they have the right to set the parameters. They told her their parameters, she did not go along with them and they pulled her mic. She’s not speaking in the public square, but in an official government event with official criteria. I will be the first to tell you that in theory, I think the whole thing should be abolished and she should be free to do it - but we have to deal with the situation as it is now in this instance.
As has already been mentioned, please attempt to stop paying your taxes for schools and not educate your children. The government will not allow either of these things. You can go to different schools, but education is still compulsory.
AGAIN, you made the statement that people HAD to go to PUBLIC school, thus attending the graduation ceremony was forced. How are you not able to admit that statement is wrong?? Your point isn’t illegitimized by the falseness of the statement, but your stubborn adherence to that particular statement sure hurts your overall argument.
Thanks for the clarification.
That makes it much more clear with your position. Thanks.
Good summary, and I point I’ve tried to make as many confuse Libertarians with Conservatives, and they are most certainly NOT the same. It’s why Libertarians are OK with legalized prostitution (even if they’re personally against it), while a conservative would not be. If you’re interested I wrote an article on my blog after Paul’s endorsement by a Nevada brothel with similar thoughts - although you likely won’t agree with the conclusion.
So, school isn’t a monopoly
You’re right, education and the taxes for it are mandatory, but you do have a choice of where to go to school. There is no forcing of which school to attend (at least through High School - we’ll leave college out of it).
You can’t opt-out of the biology class at all - it’s required. So I can easily argue it’s more forced than the graduation ceremony.
And as already mentioned, school isn’t an monopoly - you’ve got more choices in elementary education that your cell phone. Education is required, but you can choose from a host of places to get it, or teach your kids yourself. College degrees are much more restricted - you can’t homeschool one AFAIK.
Only within Constitutional law boundaries for the reason they *ARE* a government institution (if you’re talking about private schools, they can do what they want), and that’s where we have the problem. As soon as they say “This is OK, this isn’t”, their either restricting free speech, or establishing religion. Bottom line - if a student (non-employee) wants to mention God or that they worship the chair they sat on or the car they drove in, that’s Constitutionally acceptable. It in no way means the government endorses any religion, for the reason the student isn’t an employee.
By the school logic preventing mentioning God, that could be outlawed as well, as it’s public (government) owned property.
Another student punished for mentioning God in her graduation speech…
http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=66253
CC, I can definitely see what your saying, and I think you can see my point, especially here:
This is the important caveat in the matter - the schools must be fair in either allow all religions to use their ceremonies, awards, classes, and other official functions to proselytize or they must universally censor it. They have resoundingly chosen the latter. As I said, were it up to me, they would back out completely - but this is the precedent they have chosen to put across the board. I would expect a white supremacist, a Muslim or a homosexual advocate to get the exact same treatment.
“They have resoundingly chosen the latter.”
And THAT is unconstitutional, not to mention contrary to the libertarian position.
That’s like saying Chevron was given a monopoly over all gas stations but they preserved the names. It’s not a monopoly, you can still go to shell, chevron or texaco. It’s a false choice.
You are missing the point. The content of biology is not a monopoly, it is determined academically like anything else. The fact that you have to take the class itself, reinforces my monopoly point.
This is not true. Private schools need to be certified and regulated by the government. They are part of the monopoly. We cannot have a private school offer only music class, for example. Diversification from the government mandated core programs is not allowed.
All of that was me, not Sadie… arg…
Darius, the public system, re: the government, is still presiding and regulating your private or home education. You were educated with no (not one) state standards, tests or certificates?
This is what I am talking about Darius. You mention in your response that you were in fact under the supervision of the state. It doesn’t matter how short or in what manner.
Technically, it is constitutional. I don’t agree with it or like it, but it is. Heck, the freaking post office is constitutional.
“Congress shall make no law… or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Actually, it’s unconstitutional. That some current courts twist that to mean something else doesn’t change the original words.
“You were educated with no (not one) state standards, tests or certificates?”
That is correct, my parents chose the textbooks and I did not have to pass any tests to stay in homeschool. The tests I did take were ALL voluntary.
However, this is still beside the point. Even if I was educated with state standards, I still did NOT have to attend the local public school. Thus, I was NOT required to attend its graduation ceremonies.
Personally, I’m not sure why you can’t agree to that point. I don’t think your argument hinges on this one issue, so why not admit that you are incorrect and move on?
Darius said: “Jew, the school vouchers issue is a separate topic.”
It is a separate issue, but it affects the options available to parents. They’re paying the taxes to support the public schools, which can practically mean that the public schools are the only affordable option for many families. If the parents could spend that education money as they chose, then there might be some real freedom of choice. Otherwise, we’ve got a situation where the government is using taxes to coerce families into sending their kids to public school. It’s not being done out of any evil or nefarious motive. Taxpayer-funded public schools are so ingrained in American culture that many people don’t understand the negative consequences.
DING DING DING. We have a winner! EXACTLY! Well said. That is religious freedom, and exactly what The Constitution intends. Freedom is not freedom from it’s freedom to.
Some people just don’t like hearing things they don’t agree with, and want them banned. Freedom means you’ll be exposed to some things you may not agree with. Nobody should freak out if a Hindu mentions his religion in a speech.
Unfortunately that’s not possible. If they try and stop all religion, they’ve enforced atheism, which is a religion itself. So no matter what they do, they can’t stop all religion. So the only logically consistent (and Constitutionally legal) thing to do is allow it. After all, it’s not endorsed by the government as it’s private citizens.
Again, well done. You don’t have to agree with speech to defend it’s right to exist. Some people want any ideas they don&#