Merry Christmas -- Let's Honor the Separation of Church and State
It happens every year, right on schedule. As the Thanksgiving leftovers get eaten and the remnants of Fall disappear, the Christmas rollout begins. With it come the ads for shopping bargains, the decorations, and the attendant questions about what is appropriate and legal in terms of public religious displays.
The conversations get louder as Bill O'Reilly weighs in, pontificating about the "War on Christmas." This week, MSNBC had two guests on to discuss why merchants should have their employees say "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays." Their reasoning was based on the economic factor that most American shoppers were Christian, and therefore retailers should be targeting the Christian consumer.
Sen. Chris Buttars of Utah received media face-time for his legislative proposal urging stores to greet consumers with "Merry Christmas" in lieu of the nonspecific "Happy Holidays." His motivation...he wants to "end the war on Christmas" as the United States is a "Christian Nation." (The state of Utah isn't as insular. They were the second state to elect a Jewish governor.)
A governmental action that quietly slipped by under the radar on December 11th, 2007, was the passage of House Resolution 847. Congressman Steve King of Iowa introduced the resolution that was titled, "Recognizing the Importance of Christmas and The Christian Faith." Only nine members voted no. Ten voted present, which in essence is an abstention.
At the time, Paul Kurtz, Chair of the Council for Secular Humanism stated, "How does this bode for Americans who do not identify themselves as Christians, or as non-believers in God? At a time when candidates are tripping over each other to discuss and affirm their 'personal faith,' is the separation of Church and State in America under serious threat?"
This year's news included the story about Gov. Christine Gregoire, who was at the center of a brouhaha when she allowed a sign described as an "atheist's placard" to be displayed in tandem with a crèche at the Legislative Building in Olympia, Washington.
For every group such as The Freedom From Religion Foundation, there are alternative organizations. The National Clergy Council and The Christian Defense Coalition
are co-sponsoring "The Nativity Project," which has been encouraging people to "secure permits and permission to place [religious] displays on public property." The National Clergy Council defines its mission as being "to introduce classical Christian moral instruction into the conversation and debate surrounding public policy." For a primer in the litigation surrounding these issues, including the Establishment Clause, check out Dahlia Lithwick's Slate article of 2001, "Crèche Test Dummies."
In a related vein is the issue of the participation of religious figures in the Obama inauguration. (During a press conference with members of the foreign press corps dating back to January 2005, reporters had asked about the role of clergy in "the inauguration ceremonies.") Moving to open the tent and welcome in different points of view, Obama has invited Pastor Rick Warren to give the Invocation. Obama, who had to work hard during the campaign to dispel rumors that he was a Muslim -- to the extent of sharing with the voting public that he "prayed to Jesus every night" -- has also tapped Rev. Joseph E. Lowry to deliver the Benediction. In response to critics on his choice of Warren, Obama has stated that the long-time civil rights activist, Lowry, will create a balance.
But where is everybody else that is part of the religious mosaic of America? Where is the Catholic priest, the Jewish rabbi, the Muslim imam? Where will the Buddhist, Greek Orthodox, or Hindu observers see themselves, not to mention the agnostic, atheist, or secular humanist. Shouldn't they all be up on stage as a group presence? If that seems too unwieldy, not to mention far-fetched, maybe there should be no religious invocation or benediction at all. It's hard not to wonder why we look at other countries' connections to religion as fanatical or misplaced theocracy, but don't see any aspects of it in our own culture.
Perhaps putting Christ back into Christmas would be more truly fulfilled by extending compassion and understanding to those we feel are the most different from us and our way of thinking. Too bad Gandhi isn't alive. He would have been perfect to deliver "comments" at the inauguration. A man with a strong faith in God, he said, "God has no religion."
Follow Marcia G. Yerman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mgyerman
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
People are totally missing the point. So long as humanity continues to embrace the fallacy of science fiction mythology of an invisible man in the sky or any other anthropomorphic representation of The Higher Power that controls the atoms and particles of the universe and in some people's mind controls the behavior, thoughts, feelings and opinions of it's creation through spiritual blackmail, this country will ALWAYS be a religious country, who will nominate and support politicians who make decisions based on millenia old dictates of superficial, arrogant insecure MAN who had no other sense but to dictate the thoughts feelings and actions of the people, for no other reason than to remain in power.
We need to do more than just insure separation of Church and State, we need to remove ALL religion and morality from politics, and begin to embrace secular humanism (what used to be called Atheism), and start to look at the world from a scientific empirical perspective, that HAS shown evidence of a higher power, minus all the moral and ethical judgement that humans apply to their given diety of choice.
rom417,
yes, my friend, Christianity is very much a religion (with many different versions, of course.) Jesus didn't come to end religion, but to show people a specific spiritual experience that one can only get through a living master, not by reading books and developing concepts of a reality they do not have. In that sense, yes, he would be ending religion for those who received what he was offering. What we have today, however is far removed from Christ consciousness. It is pure religion based on a plethora of ideas and concepts by extremely mortal men and surely does need to end.
Firstly, we have no idea what it was like to live in a society that did not separate church and state. American History education brainwashes us with garbage like "the Puritans came to America to establish freedom of religion". Yeah, right. For themselves. Anyone else, and there were both Jews and Quakers living in the Massachusetts Colony, had to attend Church or pay a fine. One cannot truly understand the Constitution and Bill of Rights unless one knows that, under English law, one was tried for one's crimes in both civil and church court. It was even possible to be acquitted in civil court and found guilty in the church court. The same powers that enforced civil law enforced church law, so one was treated the same way whether the crime was "state" or "church".
Secondly, if Christians want to protect Christmas by insisting that people engaged in the disgusting consumerism that has nothing to do with the religious meaning of the holiday be greeted with "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays" more power to them.
The USA has an extra legal tradition of , at least, tolerating religion. The US Senate & House have chaplains; the US armed forces have had chaplains since they were formed; it is an established custom that clergy persons say a prayer or prayers from the innaguration platform. Diests among others prevented the USA from establishing 1 religion as the national religion. Prayer, public prayer, is tolerated among federal legislators but is forbidden at public high school football games, etc.
While some radical fundies claim that the USA was established as a Christian nation: the Diests, among our nation's founders, took great pains to prevent that. Despite the fundies practice during their gatherings & during periods of interest in Christianity, of saying that the USA is a Christian nation, the USA has never been a Christian nation. The tradition of tolerating, unofficially tolerating, religion in the USA, always confuses radical fundies. Fundies get emotional about their beliefs. The official disinterest & apathy toward their deeply held beliefs of the USA, as a nation, & many individuals angers very many radical fundies. That is a reason that many people avoid fundies . Fundies are free to pray in privacy; they aren't allowed to prey publicly upon those who don't share their beliefs. It's impossible for fundies to see that their vision of a god isn't the only view of a god. This brings fundies problems when they demand that their vision of a god be accepted as the only view.
All this uproar about ANY religious aspects of any public function is WAY overblown. Most people forget that almost ALL nations have official religions that are taxpayer funded. The US is still one of the few countries that does NOT have religious mandates in public functions. So I think that until we start going like Britain, and the rest of Europe which almost ALL have official religions, I don't worry much about this.
Very, very good observation.
You're wrong; most nations do NOT have official religions.
Consult this graphic map and you'll see that in fact a majority of countries do not: http://en.
Too bad that you don't read. It states that Germany while NOT having an official national religion, the STATES DO! You get religious instruction in the schools, you pay TAXES to the church of your choice. etc.. I have a number of friends who are Dutch and they all pay taxes to the church of their choice. So yes there is NOT an established church, but there is state sponsorship of religion in virtually ALL of Europe. THAT is the point.
Not only that, but in most countries there are religious requirements for holding public office too. In Argentina, you MUST be a good Catholic to be President. There are even some US states which have a religious test for office, but those were struck down by the Supreme Court. Did you miss the FACT that Obama had lessons in Islam when he was going to public school there? That is the STANDARD in Europe which is why he got that since Indonesia was a Dutch colony.
Don't think that wikipedia has all the answers, and at least read and understand what it does say.
Furthermore, your claim that practically all of Europe has official religions is flat out false. Actually with the exclusion of England and few others, most European countries do not have an official state religion.
Other prominent nations besides that US that do not have an official religion include: Australia, New Zealand, Italy, France, Spain, Sweden, Ireland, Japan, South Korea, Brazil, India, South Africa, Canada, Russia, Mexico, Turkey, and Singapore, just to name a few.
Moreover, there is a difference between a de facto religion and an official religion. For instance, in the Philippines the de facto religion (or in other words the most dominant and widely practiced religion) is Catholicism; however it has yet to be declared "official" by the government or legislature.
Furthermore, for countries that do have official religions, most of them are not, as you stated, "taxpayer funded." For example, most state churches, such as the Church of England in the UK, do not receive any direct government support or money. Donations are their main source of income in addition to money from various historic endowments. What's more, just because a nation has a state church, that does not mean that the state church is in fact the official religion. Although in a lot of cases it may be, such as in the case of the Church of England, in others it is simply the de facto religion or the something else different entirely.
Gandhi was correct in that God has no religion-- but don't tell the fanatics that.
Actually, the original first followers of Christ ; had no religion called Christianity, they were given the name Christian by the Romans.
As a Jewish Catholic--I agree -- now more then ever, we need to have a separation of church and state.
I don't understand why the innaugural can't just be a simple swearing in without the fanfare. Let's get on with the business of the government.
Heck, why not do away with the formality of a swearing-in? We all know Obama was elected.
We *have* to have the swearing in ceremony in order to sanctify the election by having the PE swear to uphold the Constitution by placing his hand on the Bible. No PE would dare to betray that oath onced it has been invoked by the holiest of books.
Frankly, I'd much rather have people admit that what is primarily being celebrated and commercially pushed -- with decorated trees, gift-giving, mostly Christian-themed carols playing on Muzak, and Santa Claus everywhere -- is Christmas and not try to group all winter holidays of all religions into some ecumenical lump. I really, really hate expressions like "Merry Christmas and Happy Chanukah" as if they are the same holiday but with different names.
As for the inauguration, once you've got swearing on a Bible, you might as well sit back and enjoy the religiously oriented ride! My feeling is that if it's an event that is noting Obama's inauguration as president, then he as a Christian is within his rights to have clergy representatives of his faith do the prayers. It's not like a professional football game, where an invocation is actually out of place but one would think that if they *were* going to have one, it would be as inclusive of the entire audience as possible, rather than ending in something like "in Jesus's name."
Yes, by all means, all people should feel free to exercise their religion in their personal lives all they want to. Just please, don't ask the government to do it for you.
I've never understood why Christians apparently feel so unsure about their religious beliefs that they require all levels of government to confirm it for them.
You don't ever see any other relgions in this country yelling that the government must put up public display acknowledging their faith do you? They must feel enough confidence in their own beliefs that they don't feel they need the "assist".
Regarding the inauguration: the point of having the elected official swear on the bible is to hold him or her to the standard of the highest authority that he or she answers to, to take his/her most solemn oath, to activate his/her deepest conscience. If Obama was a muslim, it might be appropriate for him to swear by Allah on the Koran, not sure about that because I don't know enough about Islam to know if they do things that way. It really doesn't matter what faith the person is, what matters is that they give their deepest commitment in the way that means the most to them. It's not a state establishment of religion, it's the state recognizing the power of sincerely held religion or spirituality or personal commitment to hold people to the highest standards. If he was a humanist, perhaps we could devise some other way of taking his most solemn oath. Likewise, to some extent, with who prays and what deity they invoke. If he didn't really believe in or practice christianity it would be hypocritical to have christian leaders pray over him as he is inaugurated, but since he does/is he has made an effort to be as inclusive as possible. It is his day as well as ours, his faith should not be suppressed either. He should have some kind of freedom to structure the ceremony in the way that is meaningful to him, without all this bickering.
Great Post. The Federal funding of religious organizations coupled with the acceptance of Gag orders on employees of federally funded family planning organizations has created a Government preference for one religion over another and/or non-religious beliefs. This is exactly what the establishment clause was intended to prevent.
This encroachment of Religion into Government under the guise of an "Accommodation Theory" needs to be stopped before it is too late.
Here's a thought experiment. Say the Christian religion didn't overtake the Roman and Greek god beliefs, and remained a minor sect throughout European and North American history. Now, the U.S. president swears in, holding his hand on a book describing those ancient gods, and by all that Jupiter and Mars declare as true, so swears our new President. How would our Christian minority feel about this sort of benediction? Still like the merging of church and state? Still like having our elected officials pass a religion test - all must believe in Athena and Zeus, Venus and Neptune?
By the way, some of our founders were not religious at all - perhaps agnostic or atheist - and insisted that the state not take sides. Which is as it should be. Let believers and non-believers of all stripes participate in this democracy, all all levels.
You'll never get any influential Christian to consider that position. It is outside the realm of their logic to consider themselves as anything less than the dominant religious power in this country. If they could do that, if they could try to imagine themselves as the minority, don't you think someone would have done so already?
I should add that some of them are so in love with being the dominant power; if Christianity hadn't achieved that position, they'd worship the gods of Olympus.
"You'll never get any influential Christian to consider that position."
You mean, Obama isn't open to letting everyone participate?
Christianity is not a religion. Catholicism and Protestant denominations such as Episcopal, Methodist, and Baptist are religions. Jesus came to remove religion. Followers of Christ as described in the Book of Acts are not religious, but I believe most call us fundamentalists, conservative Christians, or evangelicals. I am a follower of Christ and not a follower of religion.
God's people make up the government and one cannot separate the people from the State, therefore, the Chruch (body of believers) cannot be separated from the State not even by the religion of atheism. If you don't believe me I am sure Gandi may have a word for you.
ONE OF MY ALL-TIME FAVORITE GANDHI QUOTES:
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
-- Mahatma Gandhi
As a traditional witch, Winter Solstice is my time to reflect.
I would request the rabid Christians GIVE BACK MY HOLIDAY and acknowledge it was stolen for their selfish needs.
http://boo
What did Gandhi say about witches?
I do not shop in December. I don't care to be accosted by the belligerent, in-your-face defiant "Merry Christmas" wishers. (I have no problem with being wished a "Merry Christmas". I will respond, "And to you, too.") But many wish it so vehemently and/or go on to say how awful it is that not everyone feels that way. I had an elderly cousin who upbraided me for sending out "Happy Holidays" cards. So I had to explain to him that my in-laws are Jewish, many of our friends and co-workers are Muslim or of unknown (to me) religious beliefs, and I had no idea that anyone I knew would be offended by a holiday card wishing them well.
I no longer look forward to the Christmas season and am happy to see it over. Those who have declared that there is a war on Christmas have made others of us who used to enjoy the season just want to abstain from the whole mess.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
