When government privileges the so-called secular aspects of Christmas over the religious aspects, or when it detaches the cultural accessories of Christmas from their religious roots, it is, in effect, taking the anti-religious side in the continuing struggle over the meaning of Christmas as a cultural resource. And it is in that sense establishing, not the neutral secularism that is built into our constitutional dispensation, but an anti-religious secularism that is foreign to that dispensation. (p.8, Dane, Perry, "Christmas" (November 2006). Available at SSRN)His argument is, in short, that using government property to display Xmas trees and Santas, absent their religious context, is deleterious to our establishment-centered Constitutional provisions; the clearest, but least popular, solution is to not use government property to celebrate or endorse any aspect of any holidays. He recognizes that accomodationist positions of embracing pluralism won't work, and would be likely to cause more legal issues than they solve. And he admits that the austerity here isn't attractive, but it is, incontrovertibly, a true legal solution, and perhaps the only workable one.
________________
Technorati tags: God, Religion, Church-state
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteWhile it does not really overlap with your concern here (a concern I share, by the way, despite my Christian faith - faith should not be imposed, both because it violates the rights of those onto whom it has been imposed and because, having been impoosed, it ceases to be faith) I thought you might enjoy what I wrote about the culture war and Christmas last year. If you're interested in a quick read that will make those culture warriors who fight for the right to wish you a "merry Christmas" look even sillier than they already look, you can find it here.
By the way, I saw you on Hannity and Combs via the link of Debunking Christianity. You acquitted yourself well, despite the fact that you were essentially set up to be a strawman of secularism run amuck. The whole piece struck me as being dishonest, but you held your own.
Sandalstraps,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment. I did my best, knowing full-well it would be ugly.
I also enjoyed reading your post, not knowing that, "The now sacred phrase 'Merry Christmas' has, as we have seen, its bawdy origins."
I'll definitely remember that. Did you know that Bill O'Reilly, and FoxNews generally, were quite hypocritical in their drumming up a culture war when they were selling "Holiday Ornaments" for "Holiday Trees" and etc.?
See this and this.
The sorts of people who mindlessly suck down O'Reilly are no better than the sorts of people who mindlessly suck down Dawkins or anyone else; that said, O'Reilly is a f-ing idiot. Why people think he has opinions worth hearing (versus an Oxford don) is beyond me.
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteBill O'Reily and his ilk are an American cultural phenomenon worth studying. They are essentially pseudo-populists, in the truest since of the prefix pseudo (false). That is, they make populist appeals (argumentum ad populum) while having almost nothing in common with those who buy those appeals. They prey on a distinctly American ideal, that anyone can be an authority. As such, we are suspicious of authentic authorities, whose extensive study and education may place their views at odds with the polular "common sense" that is seen as the foundation of democracy.
In other words, I don't think that O'Reily is an idiot. Rather, I think that he plays one on TV, making him far worse and far more dangerous. He is a hypocrite in the most literal sense, an "actor" who puts on a mask for his own economic and social benefit. Clever enough, in other words, to be far more dangerous than the moron he appears to be.