Centerfield

I believe that there needs to be something added to the term "liberal" in this context. Not all liberals are ignorant! Ignorant liberals are a subset of the larger group of liberals. I have had an ongoing debate with a member of the subset, who holds defensively to his defended policy rather than listen to impassioned pleas, intellectual discourse, or sarcasm. He also seemed offended that he would be under fire for such a policy! Imagine that. A public servant being criticized. Go figure.

Posted by: Kris at December 23, 2004 11:02 AM

How about "secular liberal"?

Posted by: EG at December 23, 2004 11:25 AM

I have to wonder if stuff like this happens because the school is afraid of lawsuits from the "I'm Offended, I'll Sue!" crowd.

Posted by: JonBuck at December 23, 2004 11:32 AM

I agree that we need to strike a balance that allows everyone to get along. But as Julian Sanchez over at Reason points out:

It's a Christmas tradition as venerable as mistletoe and caroling: As the days grow shorter, conservative activists claiming to speak for American Christendom raise their voices, not for a rousing round of "Good King Wenceslaus," but to complain that the roughly 75 to 80 percent of Americans who profess allegiance to some denomination or another of Christianity constitute a cruelly oppressed minority.

The kvetching is especially loud this year, with a spate of stories chronicling the outrage over a particularly insidious form of anti-Christian bigotry: the Satanic phrase "happy holidays."

Non-idiotarian liberals are fine with things like letting kids use school grounds for an after school club that studies the bible, or celebrating christmas and other winter season celebrations because it's all a big hodge podge and kids should be able to include their culture in school and be exposed to other ones.

If arch-conservatives weren't prone to going overboard and casting themsleves as culture-war victims even though they have 80% of America on their side, like the ones Sanchez re-counts, maybe non-idiotarian liberals would be even more flexible.

Posted by: bk at December 23, 2004 11:37 AM

Didn't Nixon institute Medicare? Of course, he was a pretty good liberal himself.

Posted by: Literally Retarded at December 23, 2004 11:46 AM

Johnson instituted Medicare, in the summer of 1965. Nixon instituted the Supplemental Security Insurance program for the disabled as part of the Social Security in the summer of 1974. He was out of office well before it took effect in 1975.

Nixon was just plain weird.

Posted by: Tully at December 23, 2004 12:16 PM

I don't think I've ever met a liberal who was "ignorant" in the sense of uneducated. But many live in a bubble in university towns, or places like New York and San Francisco, and little understanding of how most Americans think.

I'm not exactly sure of the political dynamics going on in my former hometown. When I lived there, it was overwhelmingly Republican, of the Christy Whitman type. I believe that Democrats have taken over in recent years, in part due to changing demographics. But I still would not put in in the ultra-liberal category. It may be that the Ed schools have pushed administrators in this direction without real support from the communities where they reside.

Posted by: rickheller at December 23, 2004 12:37 PM

Why do you attack all liberals for the actions of an administrator in one single school district? If most liberals support what Mr. Santoro did, then they deserve your criticism. But I doubt that's the case (anyone with evidence on the matter, feel free to tell me I'm wrong).

From what I know about how we run public schools in this country, this sort of decision arises because no one wants to (or is permitted to) make common sense judgments. Rather rather than make a judgment about religious music (how much religion? Santa Clause but not Jesus? etc.), the administrator just banned it all.

If so, it's a sad comment on school bureaucracy, not liberals.

(On a related note, all I've seen about this incident are Op/Ed reports, which makes me wonder if we're really getting the facts.)

Posted by: Oberon at December 23, 2004 01:25 PM

And Merry Christmas to everyone at Centerfield.

Posted by: Oberon at December 23, 2004 01:26 PM

I have a lot of liberal family members living in New York -- and some conservative family members -- and I agree that they sometimes don't understand how the rest of America thinks. Actually, sometimes they forget there *is* a rest of America -- I'll always remember my mother being surprised that the New York local news wasn't broadcast nationally. :)

But as far as Christmas goes, the vast majority of liberals, even in New York, are not opposed to singing Christmas songs in even public schools. That said, I'm sure they try a bit harder than people in a lot of other places to recognize religious diversity, because New York City *is* religiously diverse, so you can't very well focus only on Christmas. Nonetheless, it just isn't hard to find Christmas celebrated in the New York metropolitan area, either as a religious or a secular holiday.

I get the sense that some of those very conservative folks who are complaining want not only Christmas but Christianity -- and a particular type of Christianity -- to be formally recognized as *the* religion in the United States. So having Christmas trees and Christmas carols and songs easily accessible isn't enough -- it isn't enough, apparently, to have the religious holiday celebrated in churches across the nation, and the secular holiday celebrated everywhere you turn. I'm Christian, and I'm personally having *no* problem celebrating the holiday, so I'm a little perplexed. I don't really need a Nativity Scene on the yard of the public library.

There are, of course, a handful of liberals who are idiots. Just like there are a handful of conservatives who are idiots. But it's hardly a representative sample of either group.

Posted by: kate at December 23, 2004 01:27 PM

Oberon,

I don't think that most liberals favor eliminating religious holiday music in schools, but I do think that the people who do favor eliminating it are liberals. This is not an isolated, bizarre acts by a crazy administrator, but it part of a pattern of secularization is advocated by one segment of the left. You're right that it could be partly inspired by fear of lawsuits, but those kind of lawsuits, generally filed by the ACLU or similar organizations, are a way of imposing unpopular policies on an unwilling public.

It's true that sometimes, the moral thing is to stand up to the majority, even at the price of losing popularity, when issues of great import like segregation or gay-bashing are at issue. But when one stands up to Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer and shouts, "Stop!" one has lost perspective.

Posted by: rickheller at December 23, 2004 01:42 PM

The guy on the radio this morning reported that some town had a policy of opening the town common to free expression of holiday spirit, and someone had put up a festivus pole.

I think that Festivus is going to grow, in large part because it's based on a joke, and on the idea that we're not well served by taking the idea of the "right way to celebrate" seriously.

Posted by: bk at December 23, 2004 01:42 PM

From what I know about how we run public schools in this country, this sort of decision arises because no one wants to (or is permitted to) make common sense judgments.

I think Oberon has nailed the problem to a large extent right there. Bureaucrats are by nature cowards. School bureaucrats especially so. Any conflict that threatens to upset the status quo is best dealt with by eliminating the conflict, not by escalating it or facing it.

There is indeed a segment of the left that (religiously!) promotes the total secularization of all public forums. That they gain traction and results such as the above is mostly due to the bureaucrats who opt for the path of the status quo through legal unreproachability. Common-sense judgements require taking a stand that can be litigated, whereas eliminating the disputed event eliminates the (legal) problem.

Sort of a Gresham's Law of politics. When common sense and militant insipidity are given equal legal weight....

Posted by: Tully at December 23, 2004 02:15 PM

Resulting in idiocy like this.

Posted by: Tully at December 23, 2004 02:22 PM

"I think Oberon has nailed the problem to a large extent right there. Bureaucrats are by nature cowards. School bureaucrats especially so."

Some school bureaucrats. On the other hand, there are plenty of schools that do Christmas stuff. *Lots* of Christmas stuff, even if it's labelled as "holiday" pageants and the like.

Now, it's not explicitly religious, in the sense that we're not talking about Nativity Scenes. (Though I'd bet you can find plenty of Handel.) But why *should* Nativity Scenes be present in public schools? I'm Christian, and I don't need them there. My children get exposed to religion in appropriate places -- our home, our church, among our friends. They're not lacking religious influence. I really don't want the public schools moving into religion (though I don't object to the singing of religious music, because that's primarily about good music). I don't want them eaching about Jesus -- I don't even know if the teacher has the same beliefs as I do. If I wanted my kids to be taught by people with similar beliefs, I would have sent them to a Christian school. The kids at public schools often have a tree, they give presents, they see Santa. The entire week and a half off is structured around Christmas. It's a national holiday.

And for a lot of people, the reality is that Christmas *is* primarily a secular holiday. And for most people, there are secular aspects to it, such as the tree, that are perfectly appropriate to celebrate in public areas. I don't really understand why some conservatives are so worried about not being able to put a Nativity Scene -- and only a Nativity scene -- on the grounds of city hall. It just strikes me as pretty rude.

I do think there are a handful of people on both sides -- and a handful of really paranoid school administrators -- that cause problems. (And ironically, the administrators generate more comlaints than they would have gotten otherwise). And those problems are the ones that get reported, anecdotally. Just the fact that this became a national story speaks to its rarity -- since media has become all about reporting rare events. But I don't see *any* evidence that this is a widespread problem on either side.

Posted by: kate at December 23, 2004 02:35 PM

I agree on the nature of the problem, but I wouldn't go so far as saying it's cowardice without also at least noting that discretion is the better part of valor, which leads to what I always like to call an @ss-covering festival.

And be sure to note that making decisions on the bases described above by Oberon and Tully is not at all limited to public sector bureaucrats. It's often driven by legal advice and occurs quite often in both the public and the private sector. Ironically, lawyers like to talk about such issues in terms of "exposure," meaning legal exposure, but the idea lends itself well to the corollary of flabby cheek exposure.

Put people in circumstances where taking some sort of principled stand brings them nothing but grief, and then offer them an inflexible and overly restrictive policy solution that leaves their hindquarters warm and cozy. Guess which they tend to choose.

Posted by: bk at December 23, 2004 02:39 PM

"You're right that it could be partly inspired by fear of lawsuits, but those kind of lawsuits, generally filed by the ACLU or similar organizations, are a way of imposing unpopular policies on an unwilling public."

I don't think that's true. My recollection was that civil liberties attorneys were on record as saying that this banning of all religious music was stupid. I've never heard of the ACLU objecting to the playing of Handel's Messiah in a holiday pageant. What it has a problem with is government banning speech -- whether it's the woman with the Confederate flag prom dress, or the Handel music at Christmas, or the kid with the gay rights t-shirt. *Banning* speech is not something they generally support, regardless of the content of the speech.

Now, I'm sure that they don't support government supporting a particular religion. I mean, the ACLU might object if the holiday musical in question only had Christian music, complete with the little baby Jesus, Advent candles, and the like. And no images representing other religions. And so would the U.S. Supreme Court, probably.

But I don't think it generally objects to Handel's Messiah as a part of a larger musical performance. I mean, Handel's Messiah is generally recognized as good music, and could be considered as preferable from a secular perspective, aside from its religious basis.

Posted by: kate at December 23, 2004 02:46 PM

Okay, in the interest of actually figuring out how much of this is a rare event, does anyone have any idea of how many schools refuse to play Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer? Or even Handel's Messiah (not that the kids at my son's public school are quite ready for that).

Does anyone have any specific sources that give information about how public schools celebrate Christmas? My impression was that Christmas performances were very widespread, including a diversity of music (mostly stuff like Rudolph, for better or worse), and a lot of schools had trees, kids could bring in gingerbread cookies, presents for the teachers, etc.

I'm sure in some places they throw in the obligatory menorrah (not where I live, granted), and in the best classrooms, they might actually *talk* about the different religions. But my impression is that a lot of it is a pretty standard celebration of the secular aspects of Christmas.

Because I'm not going to belive that one thing that has become a national news story is really a serious educational problem, at least without empirical evidence to the contrary.

Jingle bells, jingle bells....

Posted by: kate at December 23, 2004 02:51 PM

But when one stands up to Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer and shouts, "Stop!" one has lost perspective.

My wife rejected "Yukon Cornelius" as a potential name for our first-born. She hates Christmas.

Posted by: Oberon at December 23, 2004 03:14 PM

Rick:

There are liberals who are Christians just as there are liberals who are Jewish. You continue to link liberals with atheists and/or secularists.

Political beliefs do not necessarily link to religious beliefs.

Posted by: EG at December 23, 2004 03:34 PM

Well, I may owe the ACLU an apology. I searched for "Christmas" on there web site, and only found one entry

The American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts today asked a federal district court in Springfield to protect the First Amendment rights of high school students who were disciplined by school officials for distributing candy canes with religious messages just before Christmas.

I still believe the pressure toward secularization is coming from the left rather than the right (that's common sense) but I don't know if it's an organized movement, or just herd thinking among school officials.

Posted by: rickheller at December 23, 2004 03:38 PM

I was about to comment "what the hell is wrong with giving out candy canes", but then I clicked the ACLU link and learned that the school rule prohibited distributing any literature not related to the curriculum.

Which leads us to the obvious solution: prohibit all music in schools.

Posted by: Oberon at December 23, 2004 03:53 PM

Relevant point from CJR today: of the three stories which keep popping as proof of "anti-Christmas" bias (Maplewood school songs, Macy's greetings, and City of Denver parade) the Maplewood one seems to be basically true.

http://www.campaigndesk.org/archives/001200.asp

Posted by: Oberon at December 23, 2004 03:59 PM

Kate,

I think it happens more then you expect. I know our local school system which has kids decorate the hallways with stuff they've drawn for the holidays(we're talking grade school here folks) refuses to allow kids to include anything even vaguely religious in such drawings (were talking about something as innocous as a dove).

Seperation of church and state was NEVER intended to be a RESTRAINT on peoples freedom of personnel expression.... that is the opposite of what the 1st Ammendment was created to achieve. Bottom line, as long a school or other public body provides a venue for individuals/community to express thier PERSONAL beliefs then they have no business censoring such expressions if a little religion happens to be apart of it.... if some-one happens to become "offended" by that let em learn to grow a skin. Since when has the definition of "tolerance" become preventing anyone from saying anything that some-one else might possibly dislike?

Posted by: Cengel at December 23, 2004 04:04 PM

Your local school won't let kids put up a drawing of a dove? Bizarre.

Someone ought to notify the ACLU.

Posted by: Oberon at December 23, 2004 04:52 PM

Cengel,

I don't doubt it happens. Sepech does get limited, by government and by private entities. By both conservatives *and* liberals. All with good intentions, I'm sure, but it's still annoying.

And I actually have no expectations about how often this happens in the schools -- that's why I'm asking. I am skeptical in the absence of evidence that it is a substantial problem. My question is whether anyone knows how often it happens -- not anecdotal evidence about whether it happens or not, because I can find examples of religion in the schools, as well as examles of religion being suppressed in the schools, but actual evidence about how often these incidents occur, *overall*.

I don't know about doves, but I know that the children in the schools around here can draw Christmas trees to their hearts' content. In fact, they have a tree in their room. Santa comes. The assumption is that everyone celebrates Christmas. And, in reality, I'm sure that assumption is close to true. I would prefer a system where the students actually learn about the diversity of religions -- but that's hard to find, particularly in a school system where almost everyone is Christian.

Frankly, I think that part of what makes this all a debate is that almost everyone *does* celebrate Christmas, albeit some in a largely secular manner, and so schools and the like might want to celebrate -- but not religiously. It's a really difficult line to draw. I don't think we have these kind of debates about Ascension, or even Easter, or anything like that, even though those are commonly celebrated religious days. There's no confusion between the secular and the religious there. There's no reason for a public school teacher to talk about Ascension -- so there's no problem. But Christmas, well, it's a national holiday....with a religious basis.

Anyway, here's an examle of multi-religiosity in a public place:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/23/xmas.festivus.ap/index.html

And I quote,

"The debate began December 15 when a handmade creche with the figures of Joseph, Mary and baby Jesus was erected by a Bible study group from the First Baptist Church of Bartow. "The real spirit of Christmas is the birth of Christ," said Marvin Pittman, a retired law enforcement officer and member of the congregation. "We felt it needs to be in the public eye, so we did it." Other displays are fine, too, he said, adding, "If somebody wants to do that, it's their right."

Ah, how refreshing, although I'm sure the display wouldnt be to my taste. :) Someone from the ACLU did object (as I mentioned above, I don't think they're thrilled with Nativity Scenes on public property), but it's unclear to me whether he was speaking for the organization.

Anyway, I'd guess that Polk County is on pretty strong ground as long as they put / allow other scenes. I wonder if the ACLU will actually sue. Civil liberties lawyers certainly didn't seem pleased when the school administrators that we were talking about changed the holiday music. I'd guess if there's a meaningful diversity of perspectives presented, the ACLU will put up (but who knows, again, about one individual area.) I mean, they pretty much don't object to voluntarily organized prayer on the part of students as an exercise of free speech -- they just don't want the school itself to sponsor or organize it. At least here, anyway.

Posted by: kate at December 23, 2004 05:06 PM

Thanks to whoever posted the CJR Daily link. Media too often does that -- cover rare events, and then use other coverage without doing good fact checking.

On the other hand, re the deaprtment store example -- even if not true -- it's smart to say Happy Holidays if you work at a big department stores, or anything like that -- I mean, there *are* multiple holidays being celebrated during this time. It's just polite to say "Happy Holidays" when you're talking to people you don't really know, or people who aren't Christian.

Christmas is a difficult religious holiday for us. I'd really like to celebrate it as only a religious holiday, and just have another celebration for winter solstice, but it's hard to go against the overwhelming flow of today's society. I mean, if Santa visits our house on 12/21, it's a little hard to explain the separate trip. But I definitely do not have trouble finding ways to celebrate Christmas, in either its religious or secular aspects.

Posted by: kate at December 23, 2004 05:16 PM

If arch-conservatives weren't prone to going overboard and casting themsleves as culture-war victims even though they have 80% of America on their side, like the ones Sanchez re-counts, maybe non-idiotarian liberals would be even more flexible.

I agree with BK!!!!

This is a red letter day for me!

(happy dance)

Posted by: carla at December 23, 2004 06:02 PM

Thanks to Kate, I just remembered to wish every a happy Festivus. Today!

One part of Festivus might to change though -- you hardly need to bother with the Airing of Grievances if you already have a blog.

Posted by: Oberon at December 23, 2004 06:08 PM

When Oliver Cromwell and his Puritan forces took over England in 1645, they cancelled Christmas. Charles II was restored to the throne shortly thereafter.

"Christmas" was celebrated long before the Romans took Judea (even long before the Romans were Romans) and the Christian holiday was placed in December after the solstice as part of a conscious effort by the Church to co-opt the pagan holidays in facilitating conversions and quelling obvious dissent. The celebration of the winter solstice, along with the celebrations of the return of spring and the fall harvest, are the oldest holidays known to man and cross pretty much all cultural lines in one form or another. The names may change, but the symbols stay much the same.

Yep, "ass-covering festival" pretty much says it in relation to school bureaucrats, and Brian's point about private bureaucracies not being much better is well taken. The difference is that there's not the same levers available against private bureaucrats. For the religion/school issues, there's a definite batch of militant atheists and secularists promoting the total secularity of public schools through noise and litigation--and there's an equally militant batch of Christian fundamentalists fighting to push more religion (but only their brand, of course) into the public schools under various ploys. A plague on both their houses!

Posted by: Tully at December 23, 2004 06:20 PM

I personally believe that public dollars shouldn't be used for anything religious. I don't have a problem not allowing religious songs to be song at school events, for example. Unless of course you're going to allow songs in school by any religion that wants their tune carried.

But somehow I don't see fundamentalist style Christians who want a creche of the baby Jesus at the schoolhouse door sitting still for a Satan worshipping tune (if such a thing exists) at the next chorale concert.

Posted by: carla at December 23, 2004 07:20 PM

Merry Christmas everyone!

Posted by: Chris at December 23, 2004 08:08 PM

I think this is an issue worth looking at closely for a couple of reasons.

First, I sense that the problem is not that widespread. There are isolated cases of school administrators or other public officials making odd choices, but I'm not sure it reaches the level of a systematic problem.

Second, I think it's very likely that we're stuck with this issue -- it has been and will be brought up endlessly by religious conservatives -- even, I suspect, by a lot of people who genuinely believe it to be true. It's a seductive pattern of thought -- being persecuted, that is -- and the political mileage to be gained from it is substantial.

In support of my first contention above -- that it's not widespread -- I would point you in the direction of a remarkable and cooperative effort in the mid-90s that involved the major church denominations, the Clinton administration, and liberal civil rights groups like the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

In 1995, the major churches and civil rights groups came up with a detailed review of the specific issues that arise in a public school setting that involve religion. The document they produced is remarkable in it's effort to both preserve the rights of individual students and teachers to express their beliefs, while not simultaneously allowing public institutions to be used to promote a specific faith.

That's the missing piece in this discussion. Civil liberties groups are for the most part trying to protect both the rights of the individual to express religious belief and our rights to be free from government coercion. It's actually hard to have one without the other, though that fundamental insight has not been achieved in some quarters.

In 1996, the Clinton administration published a set of guidelines based on the 1995 statement by the churches and civil rights groups. It's called "A Parent's Guide to Religion in the Public Schools", and it was distributed to every public school district in America.

Among other things, it says:

Generally, individual students are free to pray, read their scriptures, discuss their faith, and invite others to join their particular religious group. Only if a student's behavior is disruptive or coercive should it be prohibited. No student should be allowed to harass or pressure others in a public school setting.

If it is relevant to the subject under consideration and meets the requirements of the assignment, students also have the right to express their religious views during a class discussion or as part of a written assignment or art activity.

That last point covers the example brought up by Cengel above. No telling the kids they can't use religious imagery in their art. They have a right to individual religious expression.

It also says that students may pray in school:

Students are free to pray alone or in groups, as long as the activity is not disruptive and does not infringe upon the rights of others. These activities must be truly voluntary and student-initiated. For example, students are permitted to gather around the flagpole for prayer before school begins, as long as the event is not sponsored by the school and other students are not pressured to attend. Students do not have a right to force a captive audience to participate in religious exercises.

And it says this about religious music in a school setting:

Sacred music may be sung or played as part of the school's academic program. School concerts that present a variety of selections may include religious music.

Obviously, some school districts are confused about this last part. Hardly anyone on either side of the political aisle thinks religious music should be banned from public school band classes.

My point is this. Liberals participated with the churches in an effort to clarify these issues a decade ago. They came up with a really reasonable set of guidelines. The Clinton administration turned those guidelines into a nice glossy little booklet that they provided to every school district in America.

It is odd, therefore, to think of these little eruptions of "Christian oppression" as some kind of legitimate wedge issue that divides churchgoing red America from blue America. That perception will almost certainly be out there. That doesn't make it factual or true. It does mean it will have political consequences.

An issue to watch. And to look at factually and logically.

Posted by: William Swann at December 23, 2004 08:58 PM

William,

I hadn't heard about that before. Thanks for bringing it up.

Too bad the millions of O'Reilly fans will never hear about it.

Posted by: Oberon at December 23, 2004 11:25 PM

To all of my fellow distressed Democratic friends,

As we all remember that "Values" was one of the deciding factor during the 2004 election. This only points out to those in the "Red States" that the Democratic Party is out of touch with mainstream Americans. Yes I believe in the separation of church and state. But Christmas is not only a secular holiday but a holiday that has been celebrated since the creation of our country as a religious tradition. Just as the Declaration of Indepence and the Constitution mention "God", Christmas should be celebrated as ithas been. Singing songs such as "Silent Night" do not breach the separation of church and state.

Posted by: Paul at December 24, 2004 12:00 PM

To all of my fellow distressed Democratic friends,

As we all remember that "Values" was one of the deciding factor during the 2004 election. This only points out to those in the "Red States" that the Democratic Party is out of touch with mainstream Americans. Yes I believe in the separation of church and state. But Christmas is not only a secular holiday but a holiday that has been celebrated since the creation of our country as a religious tradition. Just as the Declaration of Indepence and the Constitution mention "God", Christmas should be celebrated as ithas been. Singing songs such as "Silent Night" do not breach the separation of church and state.

Posted by: Paul at December 24, 2004 12:00 PM

The more I think about this, the more I'm convinced that this is something that Bill O'Reilly & company has decided to complain about, that resonates with people, but that is not in fact a widesread phenomenon, to be it mildly. I doubt it's even a widespread problem among school bureaucrats. And, based on what I've learned here, liberals have been more active than conservatives in actually trying to address any confusion. (Thanks to William Swann for posting all that information).

Just the fact that so many people celebrate Christmas (goodness knows, it's impossible to escape), and the fact that the same single instance gets repeated over and over and over again makes one skeptical about any widespread problem.

"This only points out to those in the "Red States" that the Democratic Party is out of touch with mainstream Americans. "

Both of the major parties are large enough that it would be difficult to consider either, as an institution, to be out of step with mainstream America. Even in Red States, a large minority of people vote Democratic. Nor, to my knowledge, has the Democratic Party itself paid any attention to the issue. One school bureaucrat does not equate the Democratic Party (and, thankfully, Bill O'Reilly does not equate the Reublican Party).

**********

"But Christmas is not only a secular holiday but a holiday that has been celebrated since the creation of our country as a religious tradition".

The celebration of Christmas has really varied a great deal over time and space. In New England, apparently Puritans didn't celebrate Christmas -- at least not the way we think of the word "celebration", though they may have had religious observations. Until the mid-1800s, I believe, students in New England went to school on Christmas day. Southern celebrations historically had more of the secular trappings of today, including large quantities of food and drink. :) Our current celebration of Christmas is *very* new.

Solstice, on the other hand, as Tully (I think) pointed out, is one of the oldest holidays on earth.

*********

"Singing songs such as "Silent Night" do not breach the separation of church and state "

Indeed. To repeat what William posted, from the Clinton brochure: "Sacred music may be sung or played as part of the school's academic program. School concerts that present a variety of selections may include religious music." (What does it say about this debate that it's got to be Bill Clinton and civil liberties lawyers that are actually pointing out that free expression *is* protected. Why isn't Bill O'Reilly publicizing this?)

I think this has more to do with people like Bill O'Reilly trying to demonize "liberals", even though there's no evidence that this is a huge issue It's a convenient but artificial issue. I'm not sure that O'Reilly & company are really reflecting what I think of as the Christmas spirit. So much for loving one another.

Posted by: kate at December 24, 2004 09:54 PM

Kate, My Friend, I believe you are 100% right. The Republicans and people like Bill Oreilly are using these issues as wedge issues to create confusion and hostility between people in the Red and Blue states. I, for one, a loyal moderate to conservative democrat believe we as a party must be able and to express our views to the voters instead of the republicans.

Posted by: Paul at December 27, 2004 10:00 AM

Guys, you may be right or you may be wrong.... but I think it's kinda tough to sell the idea that it's all a figment of Bill O'reilly's imagination to people (like me) who have actualy experienced it in thier own school distracts/workplaces.

I'm not the only person that I've talked to who has had personal experiences of this kind. Yes, this is all anecdotal but peoples perceptions are often based upon things of which they have had direct personal experience. Why are you certain that the degree of people complaining about the issue isn't related to the number of people who have had direct experience of it?

I think you are correct to argue that the media is not an accurate source by which to judge how extensive a problem actualy is. The media makes a conscious and selective choice about what stories to air and how much to hype them. That cuts both ways, however. It's true that you can't trust media hype over anti-christmass stories to believe it's a prevalent problem ...... however you ALSO shouldn't assume that just because the media spin is all based off of 2 or 3 incidents that those are the only incidents that are out there. I don't trust the media as an authoritative source for anything. I base my pereception that this is a real issue from personnal experience and from talking with others who also have direct knowledge.

Just as note of disclosure, I happen to be agnostic and was not raised Christian. However, I've always celebrated Christmass as a seasonal/secular holiday (just like Halloween).... albiet with some spiritual overtones (i.e. even if Jesus was just some carpenter in ancient Judea, the story is a powerfull metaphor for celebrating important concepts like peace, brotherhood and giving of onself). I definately object when petty beurocrats feel the need to stomp on other peoples expression of religious beliefs and I've seen enough examples of petty beuracrats doing just that to believe that there is a real problem.

P.S. The policy William described sounds like a wise and thoughtfull compromise between competing interests.... too bad so many people in charge of day to day administrative decisions at the local level have chosen to ignore it. I'm certain our local administrator has, even if there's a copy sitting right on his desk.

Posted by: Cengel at December 27, 2004 12:27 PM

Cengel,

I didnt say that it's all a figment of Bill O'Reilly's imagination, or that you're the only person that this has happened to. I'm saying that O'Reilly is potentially taking a small number of cases and suggesting that the problem is more widespread than it is (hardly shocking). Of course it happens sometimes. So does a lot of stuff. I don't doubt that on some occasions, speech gets limited by teachers and school administrators in all sorts of unconstitutional ways. But I don't hear Bill O'Reilly complaining about the kid who can't wear his gay pride t-shirt to class.

I think it would be more constructive if folks like O'Reilly actually took the Clinton approach, and instead of just comlaining about a handful -- actually, one -- case, tried to educate people on what's allowed and what's not. But that wouldn't be as marketable.

"Yes, this is all anecdotal but peoples perceptions are often based upon things of which they have had direct personal experience. Why are you certain that the degree of people complaining about the issue isn't related to the number of people who have had direct experience of it?"

I'm not certain -- as I said, I'm skeptical that it's as big of a problem as O'Reilly and company makes it out to be. (I *am* convinced that O'Reilly in particular is just trying to be provocative.). I'm skeptical for several reasons.

The first reason is that I keep hearing about the same one instance over and over again. Of course there are other instances -- but I think if it was widespread, *more* people really would be talking more about their own experiences rather than about this one. I'd bet the number of school musicals that have traditionally Christmas music -- including stuff like silent night -- number way higher than the number of school musicals where it's been banned.

The second reason is that there are certainly plenty of other issues where the number of peole comlaining about it isn't at all related to the number of peole who have had direct experience with it. The media are filled with examles of that, where the public overstates a problem based on erroneous coverage -- crime, health concerns, etc.

The third reason is that -- as observed earlier -- the *vast* majority of people celebrate Christmas in some way. I just don't believe, based on my own observation in many states, red and blue, that Christians are particularly disadvantaged in the U.S., or that their beliefs don't get recognized. I wonder sometimes what people who really don't celebrate Christmas think -- their holidays get virtually no attention. Virtually no soldiers on the tv sending wishes to their families. Few educational programs focusing on the roots of their celebrations. And that's fine, in my opinion -- Christmas *is* the major holiday. But if anyone should feel slighted, I would think it's those people.

On CNN the other night, a priest was complaining that you couldn't say "Merry Christmas" and that Christians "deserved" to hear it. Well, of course you can say Merry Christmas. People say it all the time. Personally, I think when you talk to people who aren't Christian, or when you don't know what holiday people celebrate, it's more polite to say Happy Holidays -- and that has the advantage of covering New Year's Eve & Day, too. But plenty of people have said "Merry Christmas" to me this season. :) I'm not quite sure what the problem is.

I'm comfortable with expressing skepticism, based on the lack of evidence, that this is a widespread problem.

Cengel, what did you do when your kids weren't allowed to draw doves? That's an opportunity to educate the school administration. It may not be successful, but it's worth a try.

Posted by: kate at December 28, 2004 10:26 PM

As A Centrist democrat, as well as a devout Christian, it makes me sick to hear these so called Christians, ( who usally only appear during election time) raise havoc about singing Christmas songs with a religious overtones and the right to place signs of the Ten Commandments on public property. If these so called "Christians" would follow Christ's example of not saying the Ten Commandments but LIVING them. It would be a different situation entirely. Our founding Father's were an amazing bunch of men to include a seoaration of Church amd State in the Constitution.

Posted by: Paul at December 29, 2004 12:55 PM

.

Paul,

I largely agree.

I wish we wouldn't make Christmas into *such* a secular holiday. Yes, I know, I'm verging on scroogism, and bah humbugism. :) But, honestly, the kids get off schedule at school; at least for my kids, the Christmas season has some negative effects. Despite our efforts to counter this sort of stuff, in the outside world it's santasantasanta all the time, it doesn't really end up being about giving, much less a truly spiritual celebration.....I mean, I really wish that it was just a nice, quiet religious holiday celebrating Jesus's birth.

I know, that's not possible. And it is nice seeing their cherubic little faces that morning next to the tree. But I think we'd have fewer complaints if people really treated this primarily as a religious holiday. Or at least just less going overboard on the whole Christmas thing.

I'm probably just exhausted from watching children who can't get to sleep for 28 consecutive days. :)

Posted by: kate at December 29, 2004 03:27 PM

The thing that's interesting to me about this debate is that it's changed my view of another holiday: Halloween.

A majority of kids, I think, do the dress up thing and celebrate Halloween through (recently) traditional ways of trick-or-treating, etc. But after really thinking about all this, I've concluded that at least for me, I don't think that it's always appropriate to bring that into the public schools. The reality is that a small minority of folks just find it truly religious objectionable, and their kids shouldn't really (in my view) have to watch a Halloween dress-up party, which their parents find offensive, and feel left out. Plus, there are plenty of opportunities to celebrate Halloween outside of the classroom. It's not like there's a scarcity of Halloween.

I don't have any problem with Handel's Messiah or Silent Night at a school concert -- along with good Christmas music in general. I mean, Christmas wouldnt' be Christmas without the Chipmunks. (Just kidding.) And I suspect most people would agree with that sort of approach.

But I don't want Nativity Scenes, or public school teachers talking about the wondrous birth of Baby Jesus. I'm perfectly capable of celebrating religion in my own home.

Posted by: kate at December 29, 2004 03:33 PM