[topic regretted] (was Jews against anti-Christian ...)

[yovargas]

Yov, I hardly know how to respond to what you are saying, other then to say that no, I don't believe that it is "the anti-Christian" lawyers that are to blame.

That's not what I was saying at all...

One involved a situation where a person was terminated from her job because she was listening to a Christian music station at work. Other people in the same position listened to other radio stations and were not discliplined.

But was it because they hate Christians? In isolated cases, perhaps, but I am doubtful that that is a widespread problem. I certainly don't think such was the case in Anthy's situation. Jn's explanation seems most plausible to me.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Yov, I hardly know how to respond to what you are saying, other then to say that no, I don't believe that it is "the anti-Christian" lawyers that are to blame.

That's not what I was saying at all...

You know what? I went back and read what you wrote and saw that I completely misread it. My apologies.

One involved a situation where a person was terminated from her job because she was listening to a Christian music station at work. Other people in the same position listened to other radio stations and were not discliplined.

But was it because they hate Christians? In isolated cases, perhaps, but I am doubtful that that is a widespread problem. I certainly don't think such was the case in Anthy's situation. Jn's explanation seems most plausible to me.

Ah, not we start to get to the nub of the matter. Certainly what Jn is saying is part of it. But not the part I am talking about. I think what often causes the kind of anti-Christian situations like the one that I described is not so much hostility to Christianity but rather hostility to religion in general. And because a high percentage of people who are religious in the U.S. are Christian, this hostility towards religion manifests itself in an anti-Christian bias.

[Sister Magpie]

To me (and this is of course just me) opposing discrimination based on any religion is opposing discrimination based on all religions. I don't see why opposing discrimination against Christians would lead to the conclusion that you are in favor of discrimination against Jews, or Hopis, or athiests, for that matter.

Really? I think people oppose discrimination against one group all the time without wanting to oppose discrimination to others! Logical people see them all as one, I agree, but I don't think all people do by a longshot.

Look at the situation in Anthy's office, after all. Hopi religious holidays being guarded isn't the same as guarding the rights of Christians. Plenty of people angry over not saying "Merry Christmas" would turn around and say Jews should work on Yom Kippur.

The difference for a lot of people just comes down to which religious is "real" or deserving of whatever they are asking for. Groups often put down other groups to raise themselves up. I'd guess many many people lose interest when they are not part of the group or don't particularly care about the group that's being defended.

But some groups have a better chance of winning a lawsuit against me than others do, so I'll appease them to save myself legal fees.

Yes--that's why I think it does matter *why* the person is being discriminated against so we can get to the root of the problem. It doesn't matter to the person--all they know is that they are, for instance, not able to listen to Christian music at work when someone else can listen to whatever they want. But I think it's always important to know what's really going on.

What Ethel described is important too, because I know I'm a person who has trouble taking vacations. I'm always very aware of not wanting to inconvenience people. So even if you've got your holidays off by law, you're probably still going to have to deal with bosses who want you to take time off according to their schedule. You're going to worry if taking off a Jewish holiday is seen as your just being difficult and affect how you're perceived.

That, I think, gets into the whole awful way work is viewed in the US at least. People are afraid to take any vacations sometimes, and things like religious holidays just aren't given respect if they aren't convenient for work. It just makes me feel like the world is so unnatural. Calendars based on stuff like seasons or religious observances are too often not acknowledged as valid.

-m

[anthriel]

why the notion that there is an "anti-Christian" problem was bothering me. We have all heard of actions and policies that are anti-Jewish, anti-black, anti-female, anti-gay, etc. All these are things that are done because of a prejudice or fear or hatred towards that group: women being considered "lesser" then men, Jews being considered greedy, blacks being considered violent or criminal, gays being considered perverts, etc. In this sense, can what happened to Anthy be considered anti-Christian?

Well, it can certainly be considered anti-Anthy's rights to celebrate her religion with the same freedom afforded the members of another religion.

And THAT is because I am a Christian, and they were not.

I haven't read all the pages of this thread, I admit, but did we say at some point that we were only discussing discrimination based on hate, or discrimination based on government policies? It is certainly possible to be discriminated against because someone fears your wrath less than the other guy's, and I think that's what happened to me.

My contact in management clearly stated that to deny the Hopi holiday would possibly be bad publicity for them, and to deny my holiday would not.

I am a clinical microbiologist, and as Jn guessed, we cannot leave the lab "unmanned" because of holidays... sick people get sick all the time, and health care in general gets no days off.

I have had to negotiate my holidays for all the many years I have been in this field. I have worked my share of Christmases, etc., because the competition is fierce to have those particular days off. Sometimes being a member of the majority religion is a drag... our lone Muslim and our two Jews get their holidays off, every year. There's always someone to cover for them.

I don't think I was denied Easter off because anyone hated Christians. I think I was denied Easter off because they needed people to man the lab, and denying a Christian a religious day off is a commonplace occurrence.

I think the Hopis were allowed that day off because denying them would have created a potential legal and publicity nightmare, and that concern was a greater one than leaving the lab undermanned.


It doesn't have to be something as overt as personal hate or unfair government policies to create such a disparity of treatment. It often just has to do with picking which course will lead to the least public outrage.

I think they picked well, actually.

[Rowanberry]

OK, this is already from a week back, but:

Rowanberry, there was a book published last year by an American journalist concerning a year of interviews with Europeans about their views on the EU and America and future relations between the two entities.

One of the things he emphasized was the incredulity with which Europeans regard American religious involvement in politics. I've not read the book yet, but I listened to a long interview with the author (whose name now slips my mind) and I had the impression that this went beyond 'separation of church and state' because he so frequently used words like 'ridicule' to describe the European attitude toward this aspect of American culture.

He claims that European youth is overwhelmingly agnostic and considers the emphasis placed on religion by Americans to be simply inexplicable.

From what you said, it seems to me that the author of that book is more than just a bit biased, or he has completely misunderstood why many Europeans find the American way of letting religious matters influence political decisions irrelevant or even offensive. Also, he doesn't seem to realize that, being indifferent to religion doesn't mean the same as being against religion. (I also have a feeling that most of his impressions might be from France, where the separation of church and state is very strict, for historical reasons; remember, the European countries are very different in this respect.)

As I said in my previous post, it's rather about religion being a more private matter for most Europeans, and about keeping religious and secular issues separate.

But, this is derailing the thread from its original topic so, with this, I bow out of it.

[Meneltarma]

Has anyone read this? What do you think?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Melly, I had not seen that, even though it is in my hometown paper. Interesting stuff.

[JewelSong]

Good article.

I agree with it.

[Sister Magpie]

What a great article.

[Frelga]

And, as for greetings appropriate for this season or any other, how about Peace on Earth, Goodwill Toward All.

[Meneltarma]

And, as for greetings appropriate for this season or any other, how about Peace on Earth, Goodwill Toward All.

Are those words ever inappropriate?

[anthriel]

Melly, I think I might swipe that phrase and use it in my sig.

It is just that wonderful!



Has anyone else commented on how beautiful you are in your avatar, btw?

to teh Melly...

[nerdanel]

I am in love with The Onion, which can imbue a simple short satire with so many layers of meaning. Given that they're talking about Reinhardt, I realize it might be hard to tell, but I promise this is not real. This says it all:

Activist Judge Cancels Christmas
(source: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/43438)

December 14, 2005 | Issue 41•50

WASHINGTON, DC—In a sudden and unexpected blow to the Americans working to protect the holiday, liberal U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Reinhardt ruled the private celebration of Christmas unconstitutional Monday.

[caption: Per the court order, city workers take down the Christmas tree from New York's Rockefeller Plaza.]

"In accordance with my activist agenda to secularize the nation, this court finds Christmas to be unlawful," Judge Reinhardt said. "The celebration of the birth of the philosopher Jesus—be it in the form of gift-giving, the singing of carols, fanciful decorations, or general good cheer and warm feelings amongst families—is in violation of the First Amendment principles upon which this great nation was founded."

In addition to forbidding the celebration of Christmas in any form, Judge Reinhardt has made it illegal to say "Merry Christmas." Instead, he has ruled that Americans must say "Happy Holidays" or "Vacaciones Felices" if they wish to extend good tidings.

Within an hour of the judge's verdict, National Guard troops were mobilized to enforce the controversial ruling.

"Sorry, kids, no Christmas this year," Beloit, WI mall Santa Gene Ernot said as he was led away from his Santa's Village in leg irons. "Write to your congressman to put a stop to these liberal activist judges. It's up to you to save Christmas! Ho ho ho!"

Said Pvt. Stanley Cope, who tasered Ernot for his outburst: "We're fighting an unpopular war on Christmas, but what can we do? The military has no choice but to take orders from a lone activist judge."

Across America, the decision of the all-powerful liberal courts was met with shock and disappointment, as American families quietly took down their holiday decorations and canceled their plans to gather and make merry.

"They've been chipping away at Christmas rights for decades," Fox News personality John Gibson said. "Even before this ruling, you couldn't hear a Christmas song on the radio or in a department store. I hate to say it, America, but I told you so."

[caption: Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the U.S. 9th Circuit of Appeals issues his ruling.]

Gibson then went into hiding, vowing to be a vital part of the Christmas resistance that would eventually triumph and bring Christmas back to the United States and its retail stores.

The ban is not limited to the retail sector. In support of Reinhardt's ruling, Sen. Ted Kennedy, a Jew, introduced legislation that would mandate the registration of every Christian in the United States and subject their houses to random searches to ensure they are not celebrating Christmas.

"Getting rid of every wreath or nativity scene is not enough," Kennedy said. "In order to ensure that Americans of every belief feel comfortable in any home or business, we must eliminate all traces of this offensive holiday. My yellow belly quakes with fear at the thought of offending any foreigners, atheists, or child molesters."

America's children are bearing the brunt of Reinhardt's marginal, activist rulings.

"Why did the bad man take away Christmas?" 5-year-old Danny Dover said. "I made a card for my mommy out of paper and glue, and now I can't give it to her."

Shortly after Dover issued his statement, police kicked down his door, removed his holiday tree, confiscated his presents, and crushed his homemade card underfoot.

A broad, bipartisan coalition of lawmakers has been working closely with the White House, banding together in the hope of somehow overruling the decision. So far, however, their efforts have been fruitless.

"Our hearts go out to the Americans this ruling affects," Sen. Chip Pickering (R-MS) said. "If it's any condolence, I wish you all a Happy Holidays, which, I'm afraid, is all I'm legally allowed to say at this time."

[vison]

[Voronwë the Faithful]

[Jnyusa]

[removed]

[Faramond]

I do not think the article Meneltarma linked to is a good article. I think it is a polite rant.

The thesis of the article appears to be that people must compartmentalize religion, and I don’t agree with this at all.

I believe the author is using the point that no one should be forced to celebrate Christmas as a wedge to argue that no one should publically celebrate Christmas.


We have made sure that if there are kids in school who aren't Christian, aren't raised in a family that believes in the Bible and its stories, they will feel different this time of year unless a tree is in the living room with gifts stashed beneath it.

I don’t thinking sparing some people from “feeling different” is a good enough reason to make the majority be quiet about what they believe and celebrate.

The only thing that should be done is to make sure no one is forced to participate.


When is it enough? When will people of faith, like Jerry Falwell and those who follow him,

When Jerry Falwell is your example of a person of faith, then you have delivered a dishonest rant.


This is not about eliminating Christmas. But it's about putting it back where it began. In the hearts of those who believe. In family living rooms. In movies that you can choose to watch, or not.

In churches. Where hymns are sung in praise of the Lord.

In other words, we all need to properly compartmentalize our religions.


How did this happen? How did we hijack December? Who made us the boss?

There is a communal aspect to religion. A great majority of the people in the United States celebrate Christmas, and they are choosing to make it into a communal event. That isn’t a hijacking.

When I as a Dodgers fan attended a Giants-Dodgers game in San Francisco, were the Giants fans hijacking the game from me by making a public spectacle of their joy at the Dodgers losing?

Who made them the boss? What about my rights? Nasty Giants fans ...

[Sister Magpie]

I think her point is a lot more reasonable than telling anyone to not be public about Christmas. She's pointed out that Christmas is very public and is not complaining about that. She's simply saying that to want more is pretty arrogant. She used Jerry Falwell because he is at the forefront of the very thing she's responding to. I don't think he is her example of a person of faith--I think she herself was an example of a person of faith. He's an example of the person calling for a boycott on Target if they don't say Merry Christmas to everyone who comes in.

The point of the boycotts is not that anyone is trying to make Christmas non-public. It's specifically that saying "Happy holidays," which includes Christmas, is "offensive" because it does not privilege Christmas enough. It's scoffing at the idea that people feel left out if you're expected to celebrate Christmas and don't and then turning around and complaining you're left out if the store having Christmas sales, selling Christmas trees and Christmas lights and Christmas cards wishes you Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas. I think her point is that this is *not* telling you you can't be public. If you don't think a Jewish person is being forced to compartmentalize his or her faith by attending a school concert where they sing Silent Night how is your faith being compartmentalized by being wished Happy Holidays? Being public yourself does not mean other people must mirror your own faith back to you at all times.

Your ballgame analogy seems to actually support that. People don't act the same way at a ballgame as they do at work or at Wall*Mart. The stadium is more like the church of the sport and as such behavior with regards to teams is different. Most of those fans making a big deal about winning do compartmentalize their feelings about the sport a bit. It's not like because the Giants won they get to complain if you don't greet them with "Dodgers suck!"

-m

[Voronwë the Faithful]

And I'm somewhere in between the two of you.

[Sister Magpie]

And I'm somewhere in between the two of you.

Heh--Well, I'm perfectly willing to concede that people have certainly often used "they feel left out" to try to enforce a blandness and censor others and that's not right, whatever it's applied to--not just religious things, but skill-levels, language, ethnicity etc. I don't think it's unfair or wrong that Christmas is the big holiday because the majority or the US is Christian and it's also got other aspects to it so non-Christians celebrate it as well. But when you live amongst people of different faiths who don't all celebrate you do just naturally feel less entitled to be "the boss" because you happen to celebrate the number one holiday. It's just natural to put Christmas on the same level as everything else, even while you know you get a National holiday and decorations everywhere. You don't want to act like a Giants fan who just won a ballgame and is happy somebody else lost--and really, is that religious anyway?

I just think two problems are often wrongly combined, so you've got these two extremes of things happening that don't counteract each other even though people say they're supposed to do that. I'm just always going to be skeptical (which doesn't mean I won't believe you) if you're claiming that someone is forcing you to hide being Christian in America, or that Christians are this isolated, persecuted group whenever they're not specially acknowledged.

-m