I believe in the separation of Church and State as a matter of principle. I don’t think “Under God” should be in the pledge, I don’t think “In God We Trust” should be on the coins, and I definitely don’t think we should have prayer in school or nativitiy scenes on courthouse lawns.
But the other day I saw something on the news about the National Christmas Tree…and it didn’t bother me. Having the Ten Commandments incorporated into the design of courthouses doesn’t particularly bother me either (depending on the context and tone in which it’s presented). Am I being hypocritical? How far do you take the separation of Church and State? Should Christmas theoretically even be a national holiday?
No, but it’s sufficiently entrenched and not enough of a problem to justify aggressive efforts to get rid of it. There are more important battles to fight, including efforts by religious groups to insinuate themselves into the education systems of various states. Minor Christmas observances like taking the day off and slapping up a bunch of decorated trees represent a state that is, say, 90% separated from religion. It’s more important to keep it from shifting to 85% than to force it to 95%.
Not me either because Christmas has been sufficiently secularized in my opinion so as to lose almost all religious meaning. This is why Christmas as national holiday doesn’t bug me.
I think celebration of the winter solstice is enough of a cross-cultural phenomenon that it’s OK to let it ride. I suppose you could be a purist about it and insist it be referred to as “Yuletide” and eliminate any of the references to Jesus, but I can accept the Christian stuff as just historical baggage that’s been picked up over the years, like the British Yuletide obsession with Turkey and Brussels sprouts.
I’m not that bothered by nativity scenes on courthouse lawns. But let’s face it, a minority of religious activists would very much like to see America become a lot more Taliban-like and if you don’t set the borders as far out as you can, they’ll move in on us mighty fast. If we don’t fight them on school prayer, nativity scenes, Ten Commandments in the courthouse, etc., they’ll take all that and them move on to requiring all elected officials to swear a religious oath of affirmation (of some kind) and outlawing the teaching of evolution in schools, etc. This is not a slippery slope argument, just an acknowledgement that there are people out there who would enthusiastically support these things, if we let them have all the other things. So let’s keep the fenceposts distant.
I believe in as high a wall of separation as practical. That being said, I have little problem with the tree, although I think it should be decorated non-religiously. Christmas is only religious for some people; I celebrate it, and I’m certainly not religious. I’d prefer to rename it something like “Solstice”, “Yuletide”, or “Shiny Tree Day” however.
I’m much more worried about the 10 commandments in a courthouse; it amounts to an announcment that “If you are not Christian, expect no justice here”.
I’d love to see a strict separation of Church and State, but your strategy will only ensure more intermingling of the two. Face it, people like us (on this issue ) are in the distinct minority in this country, but so are those who want religious oaths (against the constitution, btw) and who want to outlaw the teaching of evolution. You’re fighting a battle that doesn’t exist in any meaningful sense and only angering the mildly religious in the process.
The problem is, the constitution simply does not require a strict separation of Church and State. And if you fail to recognize that we have been moving towards a more secular society over time, then you’re missing the main theme. Go back fifty years, and tell me you wouldn’t see much more mingling of Church and State. Don’t win a battle just to lose the war. The death of secularism in government has been overly exagerated.
One issue is the balance of power. Neither church nor state should exert undue power over the other. As history has shown, churches and states can each become pretty oppressive given unlimited, unchecked power.
If the overwhelming majority of people in the nation choose to celebrate a holiday, it’s going to be a “national holiday” no matter what the government says or does about it.
Theoretically, no. But christ…we godless heathens hijacked this holiday so long ago that the notion of it being a celebration of christ’s birth has been on the back burner for quite some time.
I’m an atheist, and I celebrate Christmas, giving gifts, putting up a Christmas tree, eating and drinking myself silly. Just because “Christ” is in the name doesn’t mean that it’s exclusively Christian. We have Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, even though very few of us believe in the Norse gods any more.
I’m definitely on board with the opinion expressed by the OP; the tree doesn’t bother me, either. As other posters have noted, the tree is itself not an object with particular religious signifance. What significance it has mostly from history is associated with non-Christian “pagan” religions.
I think most Americans do not want too much religion pushed onto them. There is evidence that the Religious Right has already gone too far politically, and politicians who overtly support them are finding themselves with declining approval ratings. On the other hand, most Americans don’t want to religion ushed out of the way too aggressively, either. Starting a well-publicized move to, say, abolish the National Christmas Tree would be a huge mistake. It’s trivial, and would do little more than garner support for people who want the religious aspect of Christmas to be a big deal.
I say, let the damn holiday continue sliding into commercial oblivion, and as John Mace noted, there are more significant battles to fight than whether or not “In God We Trust” should be on currency.
Well, I personally feel that government should be barred from attempting to stop anyone from freely carrying out his religious beliefs in the way he chooses, so long as he doesn’t abuse someone else’s rights in the process. And that government should not be able to dictate any form of religious belief on anyone, or spend tax dollars to support it (except in those ways that are also secular purposes, like aiding the poor or those in disaster areas).
The ideas aren’t original with me, though. Some guy named Madison wrote them up a while ago.
And I don’t see any reason to change the formula he devised.
I’m with the OP as well. I don’t mind a nativity scene on the courthouse lawn either, as long as people that want to put other seasonal religious symbols there are accomdated as well.
In God We Trust on the money seems over the line, and Under God in the POA is more so.
If the OP is referring to the allegorical representations of Moses on the Supreme Court building as something that doesn’t bother him, then I agreewith him.
