Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Seasonal symbols make some people see red
TownHall.com ^ | Monday, December 17, 2001 | by John Leo

Posted on 12/17/2001 2:26:34 AM PST by JohnHuang2

TownHall.com: Conservative Columnists: John Leo
QUICK LINKS: HOME | NEWS | OPINION | RIGHTPAGES | CHAT | WHAT'S NEW

townhall.com

John Leo (back to story)

December 17, 2001

Seasonal symbols make some people see red

Conflict may erupt again next year, but for now the war over the poinsettias has come to an end in St. Paul, Minn. Someone touched off hostilities by smuggling a few forbidden red poinsettias into the religion-free, perfectly neutral, non-Christmas decorations at Ramsey County Courthouse-St. Paul City Hall. The decorations consist of a world peace exhibit with doves and a 36-foot-tall Vision of Peace statue.

Red poinsettias had been banned because they offended somebody who understood the flowers to be a Christian symbol. After much bitterness, an uneasy compromise was reached: Red poinsettias are still banned, but white ones are allowed, since nobody in St. Paul seems to regard them as overly Christian.

Here we go again. The December war of religion is among our most cherished traditions. Somebody is always angry or hurt over something. (Hey, that dove of peace in the exquisitely neutral St. Paul exhibit flew in from the Bible. Let's fight over it.) But the type of battle is changing. The customary struggle has been over the role of the nativity scene on public property. The emphasis was on making the majority aware of minority sensibilities and the need to respect non-Christian religious expression. Now the battles increasingly involve minorities assaulting majority sensibilities. Some assaults were undreamed of a few years ago -- attacks on the display of Santa Claus, Rudolph, Christmas trees, poinsettias, holiday lights, and even the colors red and green.

Instead of just broadening Christmas displays to accommodate other traditions, the emphasis now is on trying to erase and disparage all mention of Christmas in the public square. The city of Pittsburgh invented the term "Sparkle Days" so that no Pittsburgher would have to utter the controversial word "Christmas" (or C------mas, as it is known in our house, since we hate to give offense).

Some schools and public institutions have banned the exchange of religious greeting cards and removed even the most secular trappings of Christmas. In Seattle, King County executive Ron Sims ordered employees to avoid saying "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Hanukkah" while on the job. An uproar followed. Sims backed down last week, still talking about the need for saying seasonal hellos "in a respectful, inclusive and sensitive manner." In 1999, two l3-year-old girls at a middle school in Rochester, Minn., were suspended for wearng red and green scarves and saying "Merry Christmas" in a school video presentation.

The word "inclusion" comes up all the time as a term used by those who wish to obliterate rather than include. This is certainly so in Plainfield, Ill., where elementary school principal Sandy Niemiera made a startling announcement: Because of diversity concerns, students will no longer be allowed to celebrate any holidays at all. So goodbye to Valentine's Day, Halloween and Thanksgiving as well as Christmas and Hanukkah because the school needs to "respect each individual's uniqueness but also to help us look for and celebrate those things that we have in common." What the students will have in common, of course, is a sterile, tradition-free public environment. And the school-induced sense that religion and ritual are inherently dangerous.

In plain English, the term "inclusion" has come to mean "exclusion." In New York's Central Park, we have a Christian nativity scene, a Jewish menorah and a Muslim star and crescent, all privately paid for and displayed on public property. That's inclusion. Banning all signs of religion from schools and public property (neither of which is called for by the Constitution or the Supreme Court) is exclusion posturing as inclusiveness.

There's another new wrinkle in inclusiveness ideology. Call it the sensitive person's veto. Last year, the city of Eugene, Ore., barred Christmas trees from public property, then backed down a bit and allowed firefighters to put up a tree on Christmas Eve and Christmas. But the city manager said that if one person objects, the tree must come down. This allows the most sensitive person in town to set policy. Kensington, Md., banned Santa Claus from this year's tree-lighting ceremony because of two complaints.

The sensitive person's veto was born in the anti-smoking campaign and has spread to other fields. Now it's showing up in the wars over Christmas and Hanukkah. Those who want to keep those traditions alive in the public square had better push back. The sensitive person's veto requires only one vote to topple any norm. And that vote will always be easy to find.

Contact John Leo

©2001 Universal Press Syndicate

townhall.com

QUICK LINKS: HOME | NEWS | OPINION | RIGHTPAGES | CHAT | WHAT'S NEW


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-37 next last
Quote of the Day by randog
1 posted on 12/17/2001 2:26:34 AM PST by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: xsmommy
The city of Pittsburgh invented the term "Sparkle Days" so that no Pittsburgher would have to utter the controversial word "Christmas"

And you have the nerve to call me A jagoff??????

2 posted on 12/17/2001 2:41:52 AM PST by hobbes1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hobbes1;dubyaismypresident
obviously the Pittsburgh City Council is full of jagoffs to come up with something like this! i had not heard this.
3 posted on 12/17/2001 2:48:57 AM PST by xsmommy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
How can a society stop at banning just symbols? Once the symbols have been affectively removed, don't you think the next logical step will be the persons who believe Christian ideas?
4 posted on 12/17/2001 3:05:11 AM PST by wjeanw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xsmommy
This allows the most sensitive person in town to set policy

It's obviously time to send these idiots a copy of "Harrison Bergeron." We were warned decades ago that this would happen!

Handicapper-General, indeed! I have something to tell these "sensative idiots". We have a little something we do when relatively benign things upset up...it's called COPING WITH IT! Geezus..this sort of thing pisses me off to no end.
5 posted on 12/17/2001 3:05:49 AM PST by WyldKard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
We need to "unelect" the officials.
6 posted on 12/17/2001 3:07:54 AM PST by The Raven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
All of these "Christmas wars" serve only one purpose: to divide and enrage people who would otherwise live together in peace. Vociferous confrontations over such trivial matters are hateful and destructive.

The U.S. Constitution prohibits Congress from making laws regarding an establishment of religion. In the very same amendment, freedom of speech and the press (and, by logical extension, expression in general) are also protected. Prohibitions against free speech, including religious expressions such as "Merry Christmas" are unconstitutional!

I just hope I'm in a safe place when the inevitable backlashes against this shortsighted and stupid rash of attempts to alienate and stir up resentment against religious minorities begin to occur -- and occur they will.

Assaults on anyone's right to religious expression are essentially provocations to much more serious conflicts.

Instead of a sickening, misguided PC campaign to stamp out religious expression, how about a little tolerance and allowing anyone who wants to to express their views? Or is free expression too un-American a concept to be practiced in public places?

Thoroughly disgusted by this nonsense,

Imal

7 posted on 12/17/2001 3:16:51 AM PST by Imal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wjeanw
"...How can a society stop at banning just symbols? Once the symbols have been affectively removed, don't you think the next logical step will be the persons who believe Christian ideas?..."

This is the historical model, of course. Symbols first, and then the people who use them.

Except that, in this place, at this time, millions of those intended victims will respond by returning fire.

8 posted on 12/17/2001 3:36:23 AM PST by DWSUWF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Comment #9 Removed by Moderator

To: JohnHuang2
JohnHuang2, your posts are great. This one in particular and selected others get printed and have my children read and discuss. Thanks for taking the time to do this. You save this homeschooling mom from having to search down all these articles.
10 posted on 12/17/2001 4:07:41 AM PST by Boxsford
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Boxsford
Thanks for taking the time to do this

You're more than welcome. And thanks for being a homeschooling mom =^)

11 posted on 12/17/2001 4:09:30 AM PST by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
These "senstive" jerks are no better than the talibum. Let's deal with them accordingly.
12 posted on 12/17/2001 4:15:04 AM PST by Robert-J
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Robert-J
I hope you are being sacastic. I loath these 'sensitive' people too but the Taliban are in a lower class of their very own. Last I have heard these 'sensitive' ones are not cutting off hands and feet of their enemies--not yet anyway.
13 posted on 12/17/2001 4:20:35 AM PST by Boxsford
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
If one doesn't believe in God, how can Doves, Christmas trees, Santa Clauses, or even manager scenes offend them? After all, if something doesn't exist, how can it be offensive?
14 posted on 12/17/2001 4:32:07 AM PST by ODDITHER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
When a symbol offends me, I look away, such as the kkk emblem, ect. I see red and seeth, but realize that in a land of the free, they too are entitled. So, to those who oppose American symbols, Christian symbols, do as I do look away and keep moving, while thanking God that we have the privilege to have our symbols, whatever yours might be.
15 posted on 12/17/2001 4:35:23 AM PST by D. Miles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Now the battles increasingly involve minorities assaulting majority sensibilities

He's wrong here. The battle has ALWAYS involved minorities assaulting majority sensibilities. (Note I am speaking ideologically and not racially here)

God Save America (Please)

16 posted on 12/17/2001 4:41:39 AM PST by John O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xsmommy; hobbes1
obviously the Pittsburgh City Council is full of jagoffs to come up with something like this! i had not heard this.

What a bunch of jagoffs on that city council. What one nebby complains and yinz get your Christmas replaced by "Sparkle Days."

17 posted on 12/17/2001 4:45:27 AM PST by NeoCaveman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: wjeanw
Once the symbols have been affectively removed, don't you think the next logical step will be the persons who believe Christian ideas?

This is the Thought Patrol!
Please, pull over to the side of that Line....NOW !!

18 posted on 12/17/2001 4:52:13 AM PST by Alabama_Wild_Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: dubyaismypresident; hobbes1
so i am guessing there is no creche in dahntahn Pittsburgh. probably sparklers, ya think?
19 posted on 12/17/2001 5:00:38 AM PST by xsmommy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: dubyaismypresident; hobbes1
so i am guessing there is no creche in dahntahn Pittsburgh. probably sparklers, ya think?
20 posted on 12/17/2001 5:01:29 AM PST by xsmommy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-37 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson