Christmas recital cancelled not to offend other cultures

[Rational Agnostic]

Its not logical, its emotional and experiential. Empathy, in a word...the threat of ostracism is a powerful one for the abused.

How does a Christmas recital have any connection to abuse? Your argument genuinely makes no sense to me.

 

[sealchan]

My apologies...I was continuing a line of thought I started in post #73. I know personally people who have experienced emotional trauma as part of their Christian culture though a church which was either directly abusive or supported a person remaining in an abusive marriage. Church teachings become deeply associated with that abuse and the threat to exclude people is seen as a part of that.

Saying that you wouldn't associate with those who might be offended by a Christmas recital could easily be seen in a threatening light by those who have undergone this sort of experience. Now they (and I) might also understand why you said that and that it wasn't in any way meant to be a threat, but it can carry such meaning nonetheless.

My point was meant to indicate that people from other religious backgrounds potential to be offended or, more likely, to feel excluded or as an outsider, aren't the only people who might greatly benefit from a separation of church and school/state.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Maybe Christians should not eat pork to avoid offending Jews and Muslims. I do not see how celebrating one's own beliefs is offensive. No one said other cultures must take part in it.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

My apologies...I was continuing a line of thought I started in post #73. I know personally people who have experienced emotional trauma as part of their Christian culture though a church which was either directly abusive or supported a person remaining in an abusive marriage. Church teachings become deeply associated with that abuse and the threat to exclude people is seen as a part of that.

Saying that you wouldn't associate with those who might be offended by a Christmas recital could easily be seen in a threatening light by those who have undergone this sort of experience. Now they (and I) might also understand why you said that and that it wasn't in any way meant to be a threat, but it can carry such meaning nonetheless.

My point was meant to indicate that people from other religious backgrounds potential to be offended or, more likely, to feel excluded or as an outsider, aren't the only people who might greatly benefit from a separation of church and school/state.

I understand the point you are trying to make, and I can see that it's possible some people might be offended by a Christmas recital for that reason. I realize that my posts may have been a bit too unfriendly toward certain groups so I apologize. However, I still hold that there is no connection between a Christmas recital and abuse. If I had a friend who was offended by Christmas recitals for the reason you mentioned, I would be confused as to why their anger and offense is directed at something so unrelated, but I can see your point and was probably a bit too harsh in my initial statement.

 

[dianaiad]

I can see this occurring in mono-cultural areas of the world, America is not a mono-cultural society like say, Japan is. You have large communities of people from a multitude of different cultural backgrounds, yes the dominating religion of America is Christianity, but there are those pesky things called rights, stuff like freedom of expression, that would generally meddle with you trying to stifle another from expressing themselves and religious freedom.

So....because Christianity is, as you claim, the 'dominating religion of America,' then it's OK to tell CHRISTIANS that they can't exercise their freedom of religion?

Because that's what telling Christians that they can't have a Christmas concert is doing. I can guarantee you that any school that wanted to have a Channukah concert, or a Hindu 'festival of lights' concert, would not be told they could not do that. The world would crash in on them if they did.

My own opinion is that every school should have such celebrations to educate everybody, and reflect the religious cultures of all their students. So...Christmas, Channukah, festival of lights, Kwanza...if there is a student who comes from some religious culture that has such things, then HAVE a party so everybody can learn.

..........and let the Jehovah's Witness kids have the day off.

 

[sealchan]

I understand the point you are trying to make, and I can see that it's possible some people might be offended by a Christmas recital for that reason. I realize that my posts may have been a bit too unfriendly toward certain groups so I apologize. However, I still hold that there is no connection between a Christmas recital and abuse. If I had a friend who was offended by Christmas recitals for the reason you mentioned, I would be confused as to why their anger and offense is directed at something so unrelated, but I can see your point and was probably a bit too harsh in my initial statement.

I would only extend the potential objection to the recital performed at a public school where people are required to be there.

I understand that Christmas has long been a tradition in many public places. I also know that many people don't appreciate that it is being removed or disguised. It is a hard thing to bear and it is a sacrifice for many.

I created a thread that was meant to create a new sense of the holidays that might allow some "Christian" expression in public places under the umbrella of a more diverse "mission statement".

 

[Curious George]

Maybe Christians should not eat pork to avoid offending Jews and Muslims. I do not see how celebrating one's own beliefs is offensive. No one said other cultures must take part in it.

But that is not really comparable, is it. More like saying maybe schools should have pork alternatives in their lunches or not use pork in school lunches. It is about finding a way to accommodate all students, not about any sort of Christian oppression.

 

[Curious George]

Because that's what telling Christians that they can't have a Christmas concert is doing

Except no one is telling Christians anything. They are telling schools something and public schools are not Christian.

 

[Shad]

Government money was spent on those Christmas trees, and they take up public space. Should be banned as they are not inclusive.

Should have a Secular Shrubbery of Humanity instead imo.

Culture and history are bad m'kay.

Herring axes too?

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

But that is not really comparable, is it. More like saying maybe schools should have pork alternatives in their lunches or not use pork in school lunches. It is about finding a way to accommodate all students, not about any sort of Christian oppression.

Unfortunately, trying to make everyone happy usually means that Christians give up their rights to celebrate with music and decorations. Why is it always the Christians who give up something?

 

[Curious George]

Unfortunately, trying to make everyone happy usually means that Christians give up their rights to celebrate with music and decorations. Why is it always the Christians who give up something?

Again Christians aren't giving up anything.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Probably the best solution would be a grass-roots effort to introduce safe discussion of religion and story-telling that comes from those religions into our public education in the context of cultural studies.

A safer solution is to leave religion out of the public schools. What you are proposing may seem constructive to you, but it would be seized upon as an opportunity to get a foot in the door and begin proselytizing.

How local communities come together to safely recognize the need for mutual understanding in terms of religion may be ...

Mutual tolerance does not require knowing one another's beliefs and customs - just a willingness to tolerate other hard-working, peace-loving and law-abiding members of society whatever their beliefs and rituals, and would leave learning about such things to interested people using their own resources. Surf the Internet, take an extension or university course, buy a book, or go visit an ashram or Scientology center if interested.

My point is that mutual tolerance does not require mutual understanding of one's religious traditions. I am an American expat living in the very Catholic country of Mexico, which is an alien form of Christianity to me. Their Christmas, for example, is about baby Jesus, not Santa, and Palm Sunday and the Passion plays are very public demonstrations of the local religious culture, foreign to me, but which I enjoy and have even participated in. I've followed Jesus into Jerusalem while carrying a sword fashioned from a palm frond, walking over flower petals all the way.

And at Christmas, we watch Joseph and Mary wandering from door to door to find a place to spend the night, being sent away repeatedly before finally being received every year by the Mexican family across the street from us, when a party begins and children swat at pinatas.

I'm not hostile to any of that. In fact, my house is filled with religious art representing many traditions. I just don't want to make any of that part of the public school curriculum. It's not necessary for mutual tolerance, and specific knowledge of who believes what is of little value to the uninterested.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So....because Christianity is, as you claim, the 'dominating religion of America,' then it's OK to tell CHRISTIANS that they can't exercise their freedom of religion?

Who's saying that? Perhaps there is some dispute about which behaviors are included among the religious freedoms, but there seems to be pretty widespread agreement that whatever those rights are that believers be allowed to exercise them..

This brings us back to the idea of Christian exceptionalism and what people believe their extra rights are because they belong to the dominant religion.

Because that's what telling Christians that they can't have a Christmas concert is doing.

Who is saying that Christians can't have a Christmas concert? Just make sure that if it is an exclusively Christian event that it be Christians underwriting it, and that they stage it in appropriate venues, not public schools.

My own opinion is that every school should have such celebrations to educate everybody, and reflect the religious cultures of all their students.

My opinion is to leave religious education to the private community of interested people, not the state. If you want to know what a Passover seder is like and what it means to the participant, go seek that information from the source. Befriend a Jew, express your sincere interest in learning, and hopefully, snag an invitation to a seder. It's fun and interesting, but not a necessary part of understanding that Jews are human beings and deserve to be treated with tolerance and respect whatever form their religious beliefs and observances take. That's the limit of the state's legitimate interest.

Unfortunately, trying to make everyone happy usually means that Christians give up their rights to celebrate with music and decorations.

Why is it always the Christians who give up something?

 

[Pastek]

I'm an atheist, my kids sing Carol's at school and I happily attend. Well...maybe not happily, but that's logistics rather than religion.
Still, isolated examples of over reaction shouldnt be over reacted to.

And I'm muslim and when i was a kid i loved all the christians's song that i learned at school.
I used to listen to Mariah Carey's christmas songs, and i still to this day listen to them on youtube.
I hate winters, i'm glad there's christmas to enlighten a little bit my mood.
Used to watch and loved the americans movies during christmas like Home Alone.

I read an Italian article which said that.

Btw whether we like itor not, Xmas belongs to the tradition and the culture of the West.
It's not something religious...it's part of our Western identity, otherwise London, Paris or Rome wouldn't look like this.

And you forget that many other countries have Christmas. For economical reasons maybe but this is now like Halloween and all those celebrations that you can find in the whole world.
When i went to Dubai few years ago (almost 10 years ago) i was surprised to see a christmas tree.

By the way many muslims are familiar with Christmas.
Palestine, Syria, Lebanon and Egypt have since years celebrated it. Saying it belongs to the West, well that's true but Christianity came from Middle East.
That's a mistake to think that muslims are "offended" by christians religious celebration. Those are just a minority.
There's even some muslims that celebrate Christmas. My cousin is married to a christian woman so each years they celebrate it.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Again Christians aren't giving up anything.

The title of the discussion says they cancelled their Christmas recital so it sure sounds like they are giving up something.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

I must tell a true story from a number of years ago. I attended a "holiday" program at a public school. The first 30 or 45 minutes were all about Hanukkah with stories and songs. Then they had a short break to redo the stage. During the break all the Jewish people got up and left. The rest of the program was about Christmas. The Christians had to sit through the Jewish part of the program but the Jewish people got to leave without seeing the Christian part of the program. It would have been more fair to take turns. One story about Hanukkah and one story about Christman. One song about Hanukkah and one song about Christmas. Just saying that if anyone gets preferred treatment it is never the Christians.

 

[dianaiad]

The title of the discussion says they cancelled their Christmas recital so it sure sounds like they are giving up something.

I remember a town several years ago....

All the churches of the town got together every year and had a Christmas parade, and each church contributed a decorated float, depicting something about the Christmas story. A lot of children dressed in costume for Nativity scenes, though there were Santas galore, too.

One year, the city told the FOUNDERS and the FUNDERS of the annual parade that they could not have any float that had religious content in it, and the Christmas Parade was retitled a "Holiday Parade." The city had been sued, you see.

Even though every organization or private citizen who wanted to participate in the parade could, as long as the float they decorated complied with a few rules; all had to do with size, movability and a strict 'everybody had to be completely dressed' rule. No bikinis. I've always wondered why that rule was made, given that this was a December parade in one of the northern states, but hey....some people will try anything. Other than that, the content of the float was up for grabs.

Except, of course, that for the last few years the town Christmas parade has absolutely no 'Christmas' in it.

....but the churches were still expected to pay for their own floats, pay for the city permits, and the salaries of the police who closed the main street and organized traffic.

The following year many of those churches decided not to participate; not to contribute their floats, not to do anything. They put their displays on their church properties and 'hosted' a guided tour, giving maps out to those folks who wanted to drive around and see them.

The city sued them for obstruction of traffic, and the local "American Atheists" sued them for using public property (the sidewalks and streets used by the spectators who drove or walked from display to display) to promote their religion.

I haven't heard, recently, what the city has ultimately done, but I don't think the "American Atheists" got anywhere, given that the city ALSO had a long tradition of a "Christmas Tree Lane" where all the homeowners in one long street competed in a house decorating contest, and everybody in town drove down their street at least once a Christmas season, but I do remember the kerfufle about the parade.

As far as I know, it's still a "Holiday parade," and no Christian religious floats are allowed.

this is, IMO, the absolutely wrong direction to go in. It is the OPPOSITE of secularization. It is NOT 'separation of church and state," but rather the interference of the state in the exercise of religion.

The solution is to INCLUDE everybody who wants to be included, not to exclude everybody.

For instance, in my own city right now, City Hall has a sort of 'museum' display in the front hall, and an announcement board. Every single non-profit organization in town may make a display and announce events and fundraisers there....

Unless that non-profit is associated in any way with a religion. Run a homeless shelter? Fine. Have fund raisers. Advertise them at city hall. Get special discounts for permits. ask for, and get, volunteers from city organizations. If that homeless shelter is associated with, or gets funding from, a religion?

It may as well be invisible. It will not be allowed space, or advertising....and even getting a permit for a fund raiser held at the city park is impossible.

this is the wrong way to go.

 

[Curious George]

The title of the discussion says they cancelled their Christmas recital so it sure sounds like they are giving up something.

The title doesn't say who: was it Christians or was it a school?

 

[Curious George]

I remember a town several years ago....

All the churches of the town got together every year and had a Christmas parade, and each church contributed a decorated float, depicting something about the Christmas story. A lot of children dressed in costume for Nativity scenes, though there were Santas galore, too.

One year, the city told the FOUNDERS and the FUNDERS of the annual parade that they could not have any float that had religious content in it, and the Christmas Parade was retitled a "Holiday Parade." The city had been sued, you see.

Even though every organization or private citizen who wanted to participate in the parade could, as long as the float they decorated complied with a few rules; all had to do with size, movability and a strict 'everybody had to be completely dressed' rule. No bikinis. I've always wondered why that rule was made, given that this was a December parade in one of the northern states, but hey....some people will try anything. Other than that, the content of the float was up for grabs.

Except, of course, that for the last few years the town Christmas parade has absolutely no 'Christmas' in it.

....but the churches were still expected to pay for their own floats, pay for the city permits, and the salaries of the police who closed the main street and organized traffic.

The following year many of those churches decided not to participate; not to contribute their floats, not to do anything. They put their displays on their church properties and 'hosted' a guided tour, giving maps out to those folks who wanted to drive around and see them.

The city sued them for obstruction of traffic, and the local "American Atheists" sued them for using public property (the sidewalks and streets used by the spectators who drove or walked from display to display) to promote their religion.

I haven't heard, recently, what the city has ultimately done, but I don't think the "American Atheists" got anywhere, given that the city ALSO had a long tradition of a "Christmas Tree Lane" where all the homeowners in one long street competed in a house decorating contest, and everybody in town drove down their street at least once a Christmas season, but I do remember the kerfufle about the parade.

As far as I know, it's still a "Holiday parade," and no Christian religious floats are allowed.

this is, IMO, the absolutely wrong direction to go in. It is the OPPOSITE of secularization. It is NOT 'separation of church and state," but rather the interference of the state in the exercise of religion.

The solution is to INCLUDE everybody who wants to be included, not to exclude everybody.

For instance, in my own city right now, City Hall has a sort of 'museum' display in the front hall, and an announcement board. Every single non-profit organization in town may make a display and announce events and fundraisers there....

Unless that non-profit is associated in any way with a religion. Run a homeless shelter? Fine. Have fund raisers. Advertise them at city hall. Get special discounts for permits. ask for, and get, volunteers from city organizations. If that homeless shelter is associated with, or gets funding from, a religion?

It may as well be invisible. It will not be allowed space, or advertising....and even getting a permit for a fund raiser held at the city park is impossible.

this is the wrong way to go.

I do mot believe ypu understand or know the story behind the Christmas parade. Specifically, if the churches put on the parade with church monies then there would not be an issue unless the city was denying permits to other religiously motivated parades.

 

[dianaiad]

I do mot believe ypu understand or know the story behind the Christmas parade. Specifically, if the churches put on the parade with church monies then there would not be an issue unless the city was denying permits to other religiously motivated parades.

I believe that you know even less. In fact, you are speculating about what you think SHOULD happen.

Not what actually did happen.