Essay by Martha Quillen
Modern Life – January 2005 – Colorado Central Magazine
Christmas 2004.
Disagreement about government-sponsored Christmas displays and performances is so timeworn it’s a cliché. But this year seems to have inspired even more debate than usual.
A few months ago, the daughter of some friends was upset about talk that religious carols might not be allowed at Salida High School this year. As a Christian, she couldn’t understand how eliminating Christ from Christmas could possibly be desirable. After all, without Christ, what are our Happy Holidays all about? Greed? Shopping? Tinsel?
She had a point.
But that’s the way the Christmas cookie crumbles. The legal rulings concerning government-sponsored holiday displays and performances are unclear, contradictory — and sometimes even comical. According to the University of Missouri, Kansas City, School of Law:
“Only absolutists would find objectionable a religious painting in the National Gallery of Art, and only absolutists would see no problem with the placement of a giant crucifix on top of the Capitol Building. A line will have to be drawn, and the differences between a constitutionally permissible religious display that is close to the line and a constitutionally impermissible display that is also close to the line may seem laughably small — or even silly. Welcome to ‘the-two- plastic-animals rule.'”
The rule which the law school refers to evolved from the difference between two U.S. Supreme Court cases. In 1984, the Court decided that a creche at a government building in Rhode Island did not violate the Establishment Cause in the Bill of Rights. But five years later a creche in Pennsylvania was found to be in violation.
The difference? The nativity scene in Rhode Island included a Santa Claus and two plastic animals (reindeer and elephants) which tended to make the decorations seem more like a seasonal display. Whereas the more solemn Pennsylvania creche was merely surrounded by poinsettias so it was deemed inappropriate. At the same time, however, the court upheld the constitutionality of a Pennsylvania Menorah because it was dwarfed by a nearby giant Christmas tree.
You don’t have to be a born-again Christian to question some of the court rulings regarding government-sponsored Christmas ceremonies. In fact, recent rulings seem to encourage turning religious holidays into Disneyesque festivities.
But since such rules only apply to government-sponsored displays and performances, why not just eliminate public observances?
Because that idea opens up a whole other can of peanut brittle. This year, schools all across the nation are reviewing their holiday festivities due to a controversy stimulated by a school in Maplewood, New Jersey. There, a music director decided to eliminate Christmas carols completely in favor of seasonal music, and school officials supported his decision on the grounds that it is difficult to decide what’s appropriate in terms of Christmas selections.
BUT THEN A RADIO talk show program questioned whether Maplewood had any right to eliminate Christmas presentations, whereupon television news coverage followed, which inspired internet discussions, and that alarmed Christian political organizations…. And pretty soon worry about Christmas carols was spreading like Mistletoe.
Such anxiety is probably a mite premature since our courts have thus far deemed it acceptable for school performances to include carols. But due to the excellent saturation capabilities of America’s news media, our emotional distress is often in inverse proportion to the severity of the causative problem.
When this story broke, the Maplewood high school decision was unusual. But apparently, Maplewood’s school officials thought that their community would accept it, and they may have been right. At least, the internet doesn’t feature any stories indicating that Maplewood citizens rose up in armed rebellion or even furious protest.
Instead, prominent Jewish residents in Maplewood quickly pointed out that they had made no complaints about Christmas carols — even though many of them were not opposed to seeing Christmas carols jettisoned. According to the Jewish Times, David Mallach, a Maplewood resident said that local Jewish students, including his own daughters, had “‘had some uncomfortable moments’ coping with Christian themes in the town’s public school system.”
Other Jewish leaders, however, felt that the issue had been overplayed. Rabbi Mark Cooper of South Orange said, “I think there are far more important issues to be discussed, such as teaching tolerance and inclusiveness and respect.”
But now, Americans everywhere are talking about endangered Christmas carols — even though carols haven’t even approached the stage of being threatened. In fact, federal court decisions have consistently upheld the idea that government sponsored holiday displays and performances can include religious music — as long as the overall effect is secular.
But nothing lasts forever, not even the Acropolis and the Sphinx. And because our society and its laws are ever-changing, there is a possibility that eventually Christmas carols, creches, and Menorahs may be confined to chapels, synagogues, people’s front yards, Chamber of Commerce centers, Elks lodges, office buildings, malls, and the like.
Ahhh, yes…. It’s entirely possible that someday religious Christmas carols may have to be presented by churches, or merchants’ associations, or community orchestras, or children’s choirs, rather than by schools and towns.
And ironically enough, that day may be hastened by conservative Christian groups which insist on putting religious observances back into our public schools. All of this controversy seems to be raising awareness and hence encouraging more law suits — which could probably go either way, because this is a sticky issue.
CURRENTLY, OUR FEDERAL COURTS often rely on the three-pronged Lemon test to determine whether religious material in our schools is appropriate. Derived from a 1971 Supreme Court ruling, the Lemon test holds that government-sponsored activities 1) must have a legitimate secular purpose; 2) must not have a primary or principal effect of prohibiting or advancing religion; and 3) must not cause “excessive entanglement” between government and religion.
At this point, however, a lot of legal experts believe that Lemon’s days are numbered because: it tends to be sporadically applied; and some courts use it and some don’t; and it’s led to many contradictory decisions.
The best reason for rejecting the Lemon test, however, is because it doesn’t make the law clear. Instead, it leads to numerous subjective questions like: What exactly is a legitimate secular purpose? And what happens if the secondary purpose of a display is to promote or prohibit religion? And what is “excessive” entanglement?
And with guidelines like Lemon in place, just how are our school officials supposed to make sure that holiday festivities are legal without employing six lawyers and a crystal ball?
Don’t get me wrong, though. As I see it, our federal courts are just trying to make sure that our schools honor the “establishment clause” in the Bill of Rights. It declares: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
As our courts see it, that means the government can’t go around establishing schools which tell children what they should believe in, either. And therefore public school teachers and administrator can’t pray, proselytize, or instruct students in religious matters. In short, families get to determine what sort of religious instruction is appropriate.
YET WHEN A LOCAL PUBLIC SCHOOL gets enmeshed in legal wrangling over religion, there sure don’t seem to be many parents who think, “Well, good, the Supreme Court is safeguarding our constitutional rights.”
In fact, some conservative Christians claim that our schools are promoting agnosticism and atheism by not allowing staff to deliver Bible readings and prayers. And some conservatives maintain that our courts are depriving teachers, administrators, school boards, and whole communities from freely exercising their religion….
Such arguments are more holey than holy, though. Despite angry rhetoric from conservative pundits like Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, community members don’t have the authority to make anyone sit through prayers, hymns, Bible readings, or religious instructions — because in a democratic nation the community of citizens is the government, and the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights is to keep the government from toppling individual rights.
Despite all of the grumbling, though, the students in our public schools do have rights. Students have the right to pray, and speak out about religious issues, and even hand out religious tracts. In fact, our courts actually protect their rights to wear crosses, head scarfs or Stars of David; and to carry Bibles; and to express their religious viewpoints in class discussions and homework.
Proponents of school prayer frequently point out that there is no constitutional passage insuring freedom from religion. Nor is “separation of church and state” mandated. There is merely a clause preventing establishment of a state religion.
And they’re right. But our courts have not actually imposed most of the rules that Christian conservatives condemn. Misinformed school employees, however, frequently overstep the bounds and prohibit religious discussions, religious jewelry, religious pamphlets, Bibles, Korans, and head scarfs — which are all protected by law. And public schools also schedule baccalaureate prayers, and prevent talk of Wicca and agnosticism. But our legal system can only do so much….
Well, sure, they can question us, fine us, and imprison us….
But the courts can’t make us like the law, or accept it, or even conform to it. And many of us don’t (even though the federal courts sure haven’t backed that reality).
But Christian political spokesmen also claim that our courts are “secularizing” religion. And that strikes me as a far more legitimate gripe.
CLEARLY, THERE IS SOMETHING distasteful in only allowing a creche if it’s surrounded by plastic elves.
But on the other hand, it’s so astoundingly American, that it brings to mind a possible solution to all of this controversy: Maybe states could put out bids to solicit plans for seasonal secular displays featuring a permissible number of religious figures from multiple cultural traditions.
Then communities and schools all across the country could purchase pre-approved holiday plans and displays. And with such a large market available, surely corporations like Mattel and Nintendo would come up with real extravaganzas. Then our communities would be able to buy all sorts of professionally designed displays.
Just imagine: A McDonald’s plan featuring the baby Jesus jumping out of a giant Happy Meal box along with Ronald McDonald, Buddha, and the Fiddler on the Roof.
Or the Disney Dazzler with the three wise men, Mickey Mouse, Bambi, Rudolph and Moses dancing under a twinkling sky, lit by a Menorah, the North Star, and a crescent moon.
It’s enough to make you really appreciate being an American. Isn’t it?
WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT, you probably couldn’t create a single public Christmas display that some political group wouldn’t find appalling. And Maplewood, New Jersey proves that not having a Christmas program can be just as appalling.
Yet controversy over school Christmas programs is nothing new. When I was in tenth grade, a friend of mine insisted that Christmas carols had ruined her high school education. She claimed that she’d had to drop out of band and choir, because she just didn’t think it was right to glorify Christ through song when he was clearly not the true Messiah….
Of course, the school would have let her stay in music even if she didn’t participate when religious music was played. But if she didn’t participate in the Christmas or Easter concerts, she wouldn’t have much chance at solos or first chairs. So that year my friend decided to do something about it. She complained to teachers, school administrators and students and wrote to the governor. And they all said her objections were interesting, but otherwise ignored her — because most people thought that our high school had developed an enviably equitable system.
Ordinarily my friend was a quiet, goody two-shoes. But that year, she rebelled. I suspect that’s because my friend’s mother had spent time in a German concentration camp. (The camp was liberated when my friend’s mom was twelve years old, but by then, her mom’s parents and siblings had all died, so her mom was sent to New York City to live with a grandfather who had emigrated in the 1930s.) That seemed to give my friend a sensitivity to slights and injustices. But more than that, my friend regarded her life as immeasurably easier than her mother’s had been, which made her feel as if she had an obligation to try to keep it that way — for herself and others.
Since it mattered so much to her, I figured my friend should protest. But I wasn’t sure whether she should prevail — and I’m still not sure.
The situation in my high school was different than the one at Salida High School. Every year, my school asked students to fill out an anonymous questionnaire, which influenced both vacation days and holiday programs. Christians were not in the majority at my school, but they did have the deciding population, with Protestants making up 37% of the student body, and Catholics another 10 or so percent. Judaism followed with 33%, then Buddhism, Hinduism, non-Christian Unitarian, Islam, Atheist/Agnostic, and Other.
I don’t remember all of the percentages, but since I had moved to Bethesda, a Washington D.C. suburb, from a small town in Michigan where everyone seemed to be Catholic, Baptist, and Methodist, I was really surprised that 11% of students participating in the survey were Unitarian (Christian, Buddhist, or other). Because Bethesda had a fairly high percentage of foreign professionals who worked in embassies or did research for the National Institute of Health, its population was more diverse than most 1960s-era suburbs. And Bethesda’s school officials seemed to think they’d totally resolved the issues presented by such diversity.
But what they’d really done was create some of the longest, Christmas presentations I’ve ever had the displeasure to attend, with Christian carols, Jewish folk dances, Thai ballet (or at least it looked like ballet), flute music from India, instrumentals from Poland, Hungary and Germany; Scandinavian costume processions….
And when I was in the eleventh grade the cooking classes hosted an international holiday dinner with bone marrow balls, kidney pie, braised brains, and chopped pickled eggs served on Harvard beets — even though stale fruit cake would have been more popular.
IN RECENT YEARS, several school districts and city governments have applied the same principle as my old alma mater. Today, it’s fairly common for schools to try to create seasonal displays that reflect their diversity. But one such exhibit actually inspired a federal court case, after a man charged that his child’s elementary school had created a Christmas display that slighted Christians.
The questionable display mixed elements of three religious traditions (Jewish, Kwanzaa, and Christian) by putting secular holiday symbols and various Jewish and Kwanzaa objects together with an evergreen tree and several books about different religious cultures, all topped by a banner that said “Happy Holidays.”
In terms of how many objects were devoted to each religion, the display definitely slighted Christianity. But the Supreme Court was not impressed, and they made it clear that they were not going to quibble about “How many candy canes offset one Jesus.”
But the rest of us will undoubtedly keep on quibbling. And I think that’s very sad. It’s not in the spirit of Christmas. Or if you don’t believe in Christmas, of Peace. Or if you don’t celebrate Peace, of Brotherhood. Or Virtue. Or Compassion. Or Charity.
Personally, I love Christmas carols, but whatever the Courts decide, I can accept it. If public performances can only include Jingle Bells, Let It Snow, Sleigh Ride, Frosty the Snowman….. So Be It. I can live with that.
Besides, there will still be carols in my home, and in the churches, and outside my door on snowy nights…
Today, our society seems to be getting angrier, ruder, and more divided, while we scrap over things like who gets to pick the music.
In the meantime, there are some very important issues that Americans need to get together on: The United States has the highest rates of poverty and income inequality among Western industrialized nations; people are losing their livelihoods as jobs move overseas; about a million and a half American households declare bankruptcy every year; U.S. citizens now work longer hours than people in any other industrialized nation; medical costs continue to spiral ever upward; Colorado’s homeless are freezing in the streets tonight….
And presumably, as citizens in a Democracy, we could do something about such things — if we could only learn to cooperate.
–Martha Quillen
Post Script: Because Colorado Central Magazine is not a publicly funded entity that is in any way capable of establishing a state religion, We wish you a Merry Christmas, We Wish you a Merry Christmas, We wish you a Merry Christmas, And a Happy New Year. Good tidings to you, Wherever you are; Good tidings for Christmas, And a Happy New Year.
