Holiday Wars
While the First Amendment's
Establishment Clause forbids government from promoting
religion, that same amendment's Free Exercise Clause
protects its open practice. The tension between these
clauses is most evident during the "holiday season."
How government resolves that tension is often confused,
contradictory and discriminatory. And while it may be
the opposite in the Bible Belt, here on the coasts,
perhaps motivated by sensitivity to minority faiths,
the bias is often against Christians.
On May 20, 1998, Catholic
League president William Donahue testified before the
US Civil Rights Commission that in "Manhattan Beach,
California, a public school removed a Christmas tree
from school property after a rabbi objected that the
tree was a religious symbol; however, the school allowed
the display of a Star of David. ... in Mahopac, New
York, Boy Scout students were barred from selling holiday
wreaths at a fundraiser, even though a wreath is a secular
symbol; Hanukkah gifts, however, were allowed to be
sold at the school's own fundraiser."
Yet government does not
consistently regard Jewish symbols as secular. Donahue
adds, "I confronted an attorney for New York City
Schools Chancellor Rudy Crew regarding the practice
of banning crèches in the schools while allowing menorahs.
At first, she cited the 1989 County of Allegheny
v. ACLU decision to buttress her case, but when
I pointed out that that decision undermined her case
— making the argument that the high court declared a
menorah to be a religious symbol, not a secular one
— she quickly retreated. Such ignorance strikes me as
willful."
Adding to the confusion,
US Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito is unconvinced
that menorahs — or crèches — must be banned from state
property. On July 1, 2005, the Washington Post
reported that, while on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals,
Alito "wrote for the majority in 1997 in finding
that Jersey City officials did not violate the Constitution
with a holiday display that included a creche, a menorah
and secular symbols of the Christmas season."
Thomas M. Sipros
Enter Stage Right
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1205/1205holidaywars.htm
—
Silencing Silent Night
"Silent Night! Holy
Night! All is calm ..."'
These are the opening words
of one of Christendom's most beloved Christmas carols.
One wonders if these very
words now signify the demise of America's most sacred
day of celebration, Christmas, the anniversary of the
birth of Jesus Christ. Will all of the nights of the
Christmas Season be driven into silence within the next
generation?
If the so-called secularists
get their way this certainly would come true.
Never before in modern
times have attacks against Christmas and Christianity
been so intense. In many of our public schools references
to Christmas are prohibited, the singing of Christmas
carols is denied and locations for nativity scenes are
denied.
The time-honored phrase
"Merry Christmas" has been tossed into the
secularists' trash can. A sterile, politically correct
"Happy Holidays" has replaced it. If one doubts
this, just try to find a Christmas card with the words
"Merry Christmas."
The word secularism is
not necessarily a kitchen conversation word.
According to Webster's
New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, secular
is derived from the Late Latin word "saecularis,"
meaning "worldly, profane, heathen."
Needless to say, the modern
day secularists have dusted this definition off a bit
for use in the newest definition of secularism, "A
system of doctrines and practices that disregards or
rejects any form of religious faith and worship,"
would seem to bring secularists more into line with
atheists.
The mass media in America
has taken up the secular cause and is parroting it day
and night at every opportunity, especially during the
Christmas Season.
E. Ralph Hostetter
Enter Stage Right
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1205/1205sing.htm
—
The Alito Campaign
Is Judge Samuel Alito stumbling
on the road to confirmation for the Supreme Court, instead
of following Chief Justice John Roberts' smooth path
to Senate approval? Not really, but pro-and-con Alito
campaigns are hitting full stride in the holiday season
prior to Senate hearings beginning Jan. 9. The process
becomes a debate over who this judicial nominee really
is.
The impression that Alito's
nomination may be in trouble is being created by left-wing
interest
groups and their Senate allies, who project what
the judge's defenders call the "jack-booted thug
theme." Alito's past decisions are used to depict
him supporting strip searches of little girls and legalization
of machine guns. In a pre-emptive strike against more
such attacks, his conservative backers this week have
dubbed this "law
enforcement week," to paint Alito as the scourge
of crime.
Little of this has much
to do with how Alito actually would conduct himself
as a justice, but Supreme Court confirmations have taken
on the characteristics of American elections. In truth,
the Alito campaign is one part of a relentless, sustained
struggle for control of the Supreme Court extending
far into the future. Nan Aron of the Alliance for Justice
in 2004 declared she will do "whatever it takes"
to keep conservatives off the Supreme Court. This year,
when Aron was asked what she would do to stop Alito,
she replied, "You name it, we'll do it."
Robert Novak
Townhall
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/robertnovak/2005/12/12/178648.html
—
Universal Preschools
in California?
Celebrities with a social
conscience are a growing breed in Hollywood. But it
would be nice if they'd stick to whales and landmines
and leave our children alone.
Unfortunately, California
parents have no such luck. Movie director turned child
advocate Rob Reiner — best known for playing the role
of "Meathead" on "All in the Family"
— recently acquired a million signatures to put his
Preschool for All initiative on the California ballot
next June, his second attempt to launch a "universal"
preschool program. The initiative would impose a 1.7%
income tax on couples making over $800,000 a year ($400,000
for individuals) to offer three hours of free preschool
for all the state's 4-year-olds.
This soak-the-rich scheme
would put $2.3 billion into the state's coffers. But
the people most dreading Mr. Reiner's latest foray are
not the superrich, who would no doubt find ways to dodge
— by moving out of the state if necessary — what would
effectively be a 19% increase in their tax rate. The
real victims would be low- to middle-income women who
run nearly all private early-care centers that comprise
70% of California's child-care industry. The onerous
credentialing requirements and union mandates that the
initiative would trigger would devastate the industry's
entrepreneurs without improving instruction one iota
…
Driving out women and minorities,
closing down private providers, and delivering preschools
to a union monopoly would of course all be worth it
if, in the end, children were better off. But studies
have found virtually no gains on cognitive outcomes
for preschoolers taught by teachers with bachelor's
degrees.
But the most powerful evidence
that Mr. Reiner's requirements would, if anything, hurt
rather than help California's kids is California's K-12
public school system itself. After all, it is run by
teachers with precisely the kind of fancy education
degrees drawing union wages that Mr. Reiner wants in
preschools. California's fourth graders' reading and
math scores are 47th among the 50 states on national
tests. Furthermore, a study by the Rand Corp. this year
found California's children trailing on every objective
measurement of student achievement — even after controlling
for its disproportionate number of low-income, minority
kids.
Shikha Dalmia and Lisa
Snell
Opinion Journal
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007662
