Conservative columnist and movie critic Michael Medved has penned an interesting op-ed on the controvery we often see around Christmas. What makes this op-ed pertinent to the readers of American Creation is that Medved makes some controversial (though not indefensible) claims regarding America's founding.
In this latest op-ed "Christmas Symbols Deserve More Respect Than Atheist Insults," Medved focuses on the latest holiday season display controversy in Washington state.
Apparently, once Washington state officials opened the door to a nativity scene, they felt pressured to accept (at least initially) displays from other faiths and perspectives as well. This led to a highly contentious and often comical parade of controversies.
**Read about the anti-religion display sponsored by the Freedom From Religion Foundation that helped stoke the controversy. Click here.
**Read a transcript of Bill O'Reilly interviewing Glenn Beck on the Washington state capitol controversy. Click here.
Washington state has apparently suspended any further holiday season displays to stem the controversy. Medved says (I think correctly) that this could all have been avoided had Washington state officials not succumbed to the "reasoning [that] once you've permitted a nativity scene, there's no reasonable basis for resisting the Flying Spaghetti Monster Holiday Display."
Says Medved: "Those who believe that Christmas symbols and Festivus poles equally challenge the First Amendment establishment clause unthinkingly accept some of the pernicious and prevalent distortions of ignorant political correctness."
According to Medved, it is constitutionally and politically acceptable for public buildings to permit (perhaps even embrace) traditional (i.e., religious) symbols associated with Christmas.
Medved, who is Jewish (and thus not theologically aligned with evangelical Christianity), argues that "all framers of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence accepted and endorsed the deeply religious nature of the people they represented" and that many Founders, including even Thomas Jefferson, "openly expressed their conviction that the survival of liberty depended on Christian faith."
To read the rest of Medved's article, click here. Even if you disagree, I'm sure it will provoke thought and discussion.
6 comments:
Interesting article, though I find a lot wrong with his assumptions re the Founding and Religious pluralism.
On the EC issue itself, even someone like Justice Scalia (in his dissent in McCreary) has problems thinking through this.
The "originalist/textualist" answer that solves this problem would be like this [it's something similar to what Phillip Munoz or Philip Hamburger has argued]: There is no EC issue implicated when government merely speaks or expresses a POV on religious matters. And the content of said religious message is entirely government's to make. So whereever the buck stops with government [whoever is at the top or whatever democratic majority rules] it's their choice to express what they want period. If it's "We endorse the Trinity," "We Deny the Trinity," "We are the Mormon State" or "Satan Rules," it's government's choice to make and no EC issue is implicated. Once you starting granting "rights" against religious speech (i.e., government can't say X; government can't for instance endorse one version of the Ten Commandments over another) then it becomes really difficult for govt. to make an originalist textualist case that doesn't end in either a Naked Public Square of a Free For All government square.
Personally, I like the Free For All public square better -- it makes things more interesting.
"Personally, I like the Free For All public square better -- it makes things more interesting."
I totally agree.
What I find totally flabbergasting is the assumption that America and Christmas celebrations go hand in hand.
In fact, Christmas was essentially outlawed until the late 19th Century. It wasn't until the influx of Irish and Northern European immigrants that celebrating Christmas garnered wide public acceptance.
Ok, I understand that Christmas has a lot of pagan roots that date back to the Roman Saturnalia festival, however, I think Medved has a VERY good point to make here, especially when he writes:
"Those who believe that Christmas symbols and Festivus poles equally challenge the First Amendment establishment clause unthinkingly accept some of the pernicious and prevalent distortions of ignorant political correctness."
I mean, let's be serious here for a minute. Yes, not everyone in America is a Christian and yes, Christianity should not be given special treatment in any way, shape or form by the government. With that said, December 25th, despite its debatable origins, IS set aside for the celebration of Christmas...the most celebrated holiday in the world by the way. To give a festivus pole the same credence as a nativity scene is like those Guitar Hero nerds thinking they can play a real guitar. It just doesn't make sense.
Are the anti-Christmas people afraid that these are KILLER nativity scenes? Isn't this all a bit 4th Gradeish?
BTW, good to see you, Brian!
Who takes Medved seriously any more? Isn't he in the same category as all the other washed up, white trash, good for nothing apocolyptic talk show retards out there?
Wow, Raven, and to think I almost missed this scholarly argument of yours.
A verse for you, Raven...
Proverbs 1:5
Post a Comment