The Religious Right and Contemporary American Politics

So george, if everyone gets to practice the religion of their choice.......why can't they do so within their own family? There's nothing wrong with religion as long as everyone is respectful about the rights of others. It's like smoking in a public place. Smoking at home or out on the balcony is fine, but doing so where others are subjected to your second hand smoke violates the rights of others.

What is so hard about this concept? It seems clear and fair to me. I don't know anyone who is advocating freedom from religion. But public places should be religion neutral.

Still resonating...

I agree. This year, when "Merry Christmas" apparently is a politically incorrect phrase, it seemed a bit strange when I did not hear it all over the place. After awhile, I began to enjoy the lack of the greeting. In years past, it seemed that you could not escape from the Christmas greetings.

I find though, that I do get just a bit out of joint when a store clerk asks me if I am "ready" for Christmas. I usually answer something like, "I am as ready as I will ever be", which is the exact truth!

I don't buy Lola's methaphor with respect to smoking in public at all. References to God, or the absence of them, or to prominent religious symbols, or their absence, don't in themselves do any harm to anyone - as does second hand smoke. I believe that individual freedom and mutual consideration should dominate here. If one university, public or private, is pleased to omit any invocation or reference to God from (say) its graduation ceremonies, that is fine with me. Similarly if another wishes to include them that too is OK. The people can choose their universities and their ceremonies. If they are displeased by the presence or the absence of such references they can stay away or go elsewhere. Nothing in our law or constitution compels the government to purge references to either God or Christianity from its public utterances. It is merely prohibited from establishing any particular religion. If you don't like to hear specific Christmas Greetings your friends and even some of your casual contacts will sense that and oblige. Such perception and consideration should be encouraged on that and many other things as well. By the same token those who find solace and joy in them should not be denied offering and getting such greetings when they believe they will be welcome. We must all make some accommodations to others if we are to live together agreeably and peacefully.

I've always been amazed that a country that is 70% christian allows itself to be terrorized by the 30% that isn't.

I guess it has something to do with all people being equal in America and the ability to respect each others rights. That's why when I see a christmas tree, nativity scene, menorah, kwanzaa bush, sickle and mistletoe, or whatever, I do not get offended.

I just wish everyone would do the same.

I have no problem with menorahs or other symbols celebrating Judiasim on their holidays or holydays as the case may be. Same goes with the symbols of Islam as long as its proponents exhibit and accept the religious tolerance that is indeed a core element of the required civil virtues of this country. All should also give consideration to unbelievers who wish merely to either ignore or make a holidays out of such events. Toleration and considerate accomodation for others are the key elements here. Kwanzaa was invented out of whole cloth by black activists a few decades ago. It is not at all religious, but it does indeed emphasize self reliance and family values- it lacks the stature of the great religions, but does no harm.

Me, too, McG! Kinda like Rodney King...can't we all just get along???

Meanwhile...they are fighting back

Evangelicals Use Courts to Fight Restrictions on Christmas Tidings

Evangelicals Use Courts to Fight Restrictions on Christmas Tidings

By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 20, 2004; Page A01

From Mustang, Okla., to Maplewood, N.J., they are filing or threatening lawsuits to win the inclusion of manger scenes in school plays, Christmas carols in school concerts and Christmas trees in public buildings.

"The pendulum has swung completely," said Charles Haynes, a senior scholar at the nonprofit First Amendment Center in Arlington. "There's a push-back by many conservative Christians, perhaps emboldened by the recent election and by the increasing presence of evangelical Christianity in the public arena. They're saying the secularization of our society and public schools has gone too far and become hostility to their religion."

Last year, a school administrator stopped Jonathan Morgan at the door to his classroom because the "goody bag" he had brought to a school party on the last day before Christmas vacation contained candy canes with a religious message attached. Titled "The Legend of the Candy Cane," it said the candy was shaped in a J for Jesus and bore a red stripe "to represent the blood Christ shed for the sins of the world."

This year, the 9-year-old and his evangelical Christian parents went straight to court. They were among four families who persuaded Judge Paul Brown, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, to issue a temporary restraining order on Thursday securing their children's right to hand out "religious viewpoint gifts" at school-sponsored holiday parties.

The family had some high-powered help. Two conservative nonprofit law firms, the Liberty Legal Institute and the Alliance Defense Fund, took the case free of charge. The Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice also wrote the Plano Independent School District last week to say it was investigating its "alleged refusal to permit students to distribute religious messages during school parties and on school property."

Kelly Shackelford, the Liberty Legal lawyer who argued the case, said in a telephone interview that Supreme Court decisions since 1969 clearly have established that students do not give up free-speech rights when they walk through the school door. Expressions of religious faith that would be unconstitutional coming from a teacher in a classroom are acceptable among students as long as they do not "materially and substantially disrupt" school operations, he said.

The Plano school district's lawyer, Richard Abernathy, maintained that school administrators can impose reasonable restrictions on the "time, place and manner" of students' religious speech.

"This area is predominantly white, and it's predominantly Christian. Frankly, it's pretty conservative Christian," he said. "We have to be careful, though, that those students who are Hindu or Islamic or Jewish don't have their rights trampled on."

Doug Morgan said his son was a victim of "political correctness spiraling out of control." He noted that the school had informed parents that only white paper plates and napkins -- no Christmas red and green -- would be allowed at the generic "Winter Break" party.

"They are so determined not to offend anyone," he said, "that we're being silenced and made to feel that what we want to share is not appropriate to share in a public environment."

That is an increasingly common holiday sentiment, said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, a legal advocacy group founded by the Rev. Pat Robertson.

Twenty or 30 years ago, Sekulow said, the vast majority of lawsuits over Christmas displays were filed by secular groups, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, to block the placement of religious symbols on public property. Though there are still some gray areas, he said, those cases established fairly clear precedents about what does and does not violate the First Amendment's prohibition on government establishment of religion.

On Friday, the ACLJ persuaded officials in Pasco County, Fla., to reverse their decision to remove Christmas trees from all public buildings. Daniel R. Johnson, an assistant county administrator, said the removal had been triggered by a request from a resident to put a Hanukah menorah next to the Christmas tree in the public library.

At first, county officials feared that "if you open the door to one, then you must open the door to all, and not just during the holiday season, but all year long," Johnson said. But on further review, he said, the county's attorney decided there would be "little legal risk" in a temporary display of both a menorah and a Christmas tree, along with a sign saying they are symbols of "our legacy of freedom."

In other cases across the country, Christian groups have argued in court this month against a New York City school policy that allows menorahs during Hanukah and the Islamic crescent during Ramadan but not Nativity scenes during Christmas. A federal judge in Florida on Wednesday ordered the town of Bay Harbor Islands to grant a resident's request to erect a creche next to a local synagogue's menorah on public property.

In Maplewood, N.J., Christian groups threatened to sue over the school district's policy of allowing secular songs, such as "Jingle Bell Rock," but not hymns, such as "Silent Night," at student concerts. In Mustang, Okla., voters angry over the school superintendent's decision to remove a Nativity scene from a student play helped defeat a $10.4 million bond issue to build a new elementary school.

Barry Lynn, executive director of the advocacy group Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said the "new strategy of the Christian Right is forced inclusion -- they take a secular display and demand that Christian symbols and carols be added."

Christian talk radio, Lynn said, is fueling a "huge movement saying there is a war against Christmas both by the government and by private business, which I think is nonsensical, because unless you live in a cave in America in December, you know it's Christmas."

But Anthony R. Picarello Jr., a lawyer with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which works for greater freedom of religious expression, said it is not easy to say which side is truly the aggressor. "If these Christmas pageants and displays have been done for a long time and now there's a push to exclude them, then it appears to be aggression from the left. If they haven't been done and someone's suing to add them, then it appears to be aggression from the right."

george however, does believe that Christianity is the 'one true faith'.

Might we assume that those voices here and elsewhere bemoaning the 'victimization of christianity in America' are similarly minded?

"America is and always has been a Christian nation" and other claims holding the same meaning are not likely to be founded upon any desire for diversity of view or for equal status for all worldviews. They are found, perhaps always, in a context of 'christianity is special/superior/more true'.

The dilemma for any state, if it wishes to promote freedom of ideas and expression and religious belief/practice (which surely was the founders' wish) is that religious groups will commonly attempt to gain a particularly influential status within the state for their own religious ideas, practices and values. They will commonly act to marginalize other belief sets so that their own remains or becomes dominant.

The dilemma for all of us who hold to the principles of diversity and religious freedom forwarded by the founders is that is is quite likely to be our own faith - certainly the majority faith - which is the potential oppressor. Sri Lanka is in little danger of finding the christian church thwarting principles of freedom of religion. America or Canada is in substantially more danger of that.

If one is to stand guard against what the founders tried to prevent, then one must acknowledge that the majority faith is the one most likely to cause a problem. And that is precisely one of the reasons why folks like me aim at Christianity, and not at Dervishes or satan worshippers or animists.

dervishes are tres cool.

Blatham,

When secular humanists become the majority, will you advocate government action on behalf of religion to dilute their then dominant influence, just to preserve the diversity you value above all other things?

There are many dic=verse groups or sects of Christiabity in the USA> Though they compete with one another to a degree, I have not observed any dangerous suppression of one by the other. I think this is a dead horse (more or less a defeated straw man)

By the way may I wish you and Lola the happiest of Christmases

As it happens, it is also found by anyone reading the demographic information in the Historical Statistics of the United States. Moreover, they are easily found by reading or the Bills of Rights in the State Constitutions at the time America was founded. They did tend to give Christianity a privileged status, while prohibiting the establishment of any particular Christian denomination. As I understand it from my somewhat casual reading of history books, the federal constitution did not change this at the time, because it originally was binding only to the federal government. It wasn't until the Civil War that any part of the federal bill of rights became enforceable against the States. And it wasn't until the New Deal and Great Society Supreme Courts that the Supreme Court's doctrine of incorporation was understood to prohibit States from any expressions of religious belief.

None of this goes to deny that seperation of church and state is a good idea. I think those founding fathers who gave Christianity a privileged status were wrong, and I more or less agree on the substance of Supreme Court rulings on this matter over the last 70 years or so. I just don't think you're doing yourself a favor by ignoring that your opponent have a lot of the relevant history and the relevant demographics on their side.


I agree as far as this goes, but this is a general feature of all ideologies, be they secular or religious. Everything you say applies equally to socialists and environmentalists -- even to nice American liberals like yourself, and evil German libertarians like myself.


Are you sure? David Hume, widely believed to be an atheist, supported establishment of a religion because he thought it would "bribe the indolence of the clergy". Judging by the European experience, Hume seems to be right. Sweden, the role model for many an American liberal, is a monarchy with an established religion. On the available evidence, that's exactly what George Bush wants to turn America into. So what's your problem?

Lola-

Going back a bit.

If one lot of nuisances feel terrorised by a bit of second hand tobacco smoke,which is free,why shouldn't another lot of nuisances feel terrorised by exhausts from motors and airplanes or even dioxin plants positioned,for a time at least,in areas of cheap labour.

spendius.

Spendius......I think they should.

Just like second hand smoke, I've never minded or thought much about the Merry Christmas greeting. I like Christmas. It can be fun. I taught my children that it was a celebration of life. And it works that way for me. And I don't object to it now. The market place is no place for suppression of expression. Christian marketing this time of year keeps the world afloat.

But Christianity has caused me and my family a lot of trouble. When my children were young they were terrorized by evangelical christians telling them their mother and father would burn in hell.

In public places, and especially in the schools, I prefer expressions of personal religious belief to remain private out of respect for the rights of others to believe and teach their children as they choose about religion.

I hope the evangelicals do go completely off the deep in on this. I'm hoping the "pendelum has completely swung the other way" because if so, it's finally time for it to begin it's swing back.

I'm in a hurry right now.....I have to hurry out to celebrate the birth of Christ in the market place. So I can't take the time now to fully express myself with the skill and creativity the occasion deserves. But I'll be back.

george

Wishes returned.

You and Thomas (thanks on the legal end of the matter, re which I need to read up, but yes, the principle is the more important element) make a rather clumsy error in equating all 'ideologies'.

To put this another way, would you hold that Taliban-style ideology or fifteenth century witch-hunter ideology or biblical literalist ideology is equal (an exceedingly cute mouse just ran between my feet...perhaps I'll put out a little red stocking with cheese) to an 'ideology' which promotes inclusiveness on principle or which promotes free speech on principle or which promotes an empirical process of discovery? In characteristics and in function, you need to differentiate 'ideologies' precisely as one needs to differentiate the Mafia and the Boy Scouts, though both are 'groups'. Is 'secular humanism' indistinguishable, in any important characteristic related to a discussion of how best to organize the polity, from 'white supremacy'?

As regards your second paragraph, you once again fall back on your utterly dependable 'it couldn't possibly happen here' thesis. Nowhere to go with that one, other than wait until things to get even more transparent in this area as things have become in Iraq such that denial is no longer an option except for the few who cannot cannot cannot conceive of a round earth.

I wrote

thomas wrote

Quite sure. It's a simple point...the dangers of majoritarian influence and the dangers of exclusion of others by those in a priviledged position.

Hume's time and political circumstances, like Descartes, are not much comparable to the present American situation. His assault on the power and the illogic of the church and its theology at that point in time mark, for me, one of the great advances in Western thought. What do you think Hume might say today? You figure he'd join up with the evangelical right or with the ACLU?

You inquire 'what's your problem?'. This is a rhetorical move you make quite often. How about, rather than challenging a thesis (which is fine), you advance your own (which is rare). What do you see being potentially destructive as regards the functioning of the religious right in present America? In other words, why would Hume align himself as I've suggested above?

This is slightly off topic, but pertinent I think. When I attended public school in an small mill town in Connecticut. Which I did K through 12. The school day always began with reciting the lords prayer. That might seem innocuous enough accept that there are three positions on the lords prayer; Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish.. All three of these ritual communities were represented among my class mates. Thus the day began with all 30 of us in the class, standing beside our desk, head bowed, some reciting the long version (Protestant), the short version (Catholic) or not reciting it at all (Jewish). As all three of these versions could be identified with ethnic communities, the prayer started the day by immediately identifying ethnic/ritual community membership, Yankee (Protestant) French Canadian/Italian (Catholic) and eastern European (Jewish). This identity was reinforced else ware in private life with explicitly endogamous messages which all of us received. To wit: "don't you ever come home with one of _________" (fill in appropriate excluded group). The prayer reminded us daily who the _________ were and as we got older, who was an appropriate date (opposite sex only this was 35 years ago). In retrospect (and several anthropology degrees later) I have concluded that the purpose of that daily recitation had nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with making explicit community boundaries.

edit, that was 45 years ago

and using "trial lawyers"... :wink:

same with me. but, by the time i got to my junior year, the commonwealth had figured out that it would satisfy everyone's spiritual needs by moving to " a minute of silent meditation".

an' all manner o' things were well...