| Submit your comments on this article | ||
| Home Front | ||
| NYC Schools allowing Jewish & Islamic symbols - bans christian.... | ||
| 2003-11-12 | ||
In a dispute over display of holiday symbols, New York City schools are allowing Jewish menorahs and Islamic crescents but barring Christian nativity scenes, alleging the depiction of the birth of Christ does not represent a historical event.
So does this mean that the Jews and Muslems loose their ’Freedom of Religion’ status? Thought not.... Robert J. Muise, who will challenge the school policy at a federal court hearing tomorrow in Brooklyn, told WorldNetDaily be believes most Americans don’t see it that way. "The birth of Jesus is a historical event which serves as the basis for celebration of Christmas," Muise stated. "It’s of importance for both Christians and non-Christians." Considering the impact Christianity had on Europe and even the Jewish and Islamic world... I think it is just a tad siginificant. Muise’s Michigan-based Thomas More Law Center filed a motion to temporarily restrain the city from enforcing its ban on nativity scenes. The center asserts New York’s policy "promotes the Jewish and Islamic faiths while conveying the impermissible message of disapproval of Christianity in violation of the U.S. Constitution." If this isn’t a direct violation of the 1st admendment I don’t know what is... The Michigan group says one public-school principal issued a memo encouraging teachers to bring to school "religious symbols" that represent the Islamic and Jewish religions, but made no mention of Christianity. Jewish menorahs adorned the halls of the school as part of the authorized displays, the More Center said, but students were not allowed to make and similarly display nativity scenes. A parent who wrote a letter of complaint to her son’s teacher received a copy of the school’s "Holiday Displays" policy in response. Kate Ahlers, communications director for New York City’s law department, says schools can use things that are secular like menorahs, stars and snowflakes, but the crÚche is considered religious. "There is a separation of church and state that is part of the Constitution," she claimed. "It’s a clear belief that people try to follow in schools and public office, and schools are saying they adhere to that belief." Classic Doublespeak.
then her lips fell off.... The federal civil-rights lawsuit was filed on behalf of Andrea Skoros and her two elementary-school children against the city of New York and several school officials. Skoros and her children are devout Roman Catholics. "Can Christianity be erased from a public school?" Muse asked in a statement. "Can ’Christ’ be removed from Christmas? We will soon find out." Amendment I 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. | ||
| Posted by:CrazyFool |
| #11 ..New York City schools are allowing Jewish menorahs and Islamic crescents but barring Christian nativity scenes, alleging the depiction of the birth of Christ does not represent a historical event. No problem. School can be in session on or around 12/25 of every year then. No use closing it for something with no historical significance. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2003-11-12 10:22:58 PM |
| #10 Old Patriot wrote: "There is NO SUCH THING as the "separation of Church and State". The only single reference to this is in a letter from Thomas Jefferson, years after the Constitution (and the Bill of Rights) were ratified." His point is valid -- there is no Constitutional provision requiring the separation of church and state -- but I think his history and understanding are a bit off. I recall from research years ago that the first reference was actually in a letter by Roger Williams of the Rhode Island Colony where he talked about the need to establish a wall protecting the "garden" of religion from encroachment by the state. The point he was making (as was Jefferson) was that there needs to be a wall of separation between church and state to protect the CHURCH from interference by the STATE. The ACLU and nitwits like Americans United for Separation of Church and State have turned the phrase completely on its head to mean that the STATE must be protected from encroachment by the CHURCH. The establishment and free exercise clauses --"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" -- square completely with the Williams/Jefferson notion. Most of the Framers, including Jefferson (but not John Adams, who was a visious anti-Catholic), the author of the Virginia religious freedom statute, had a healthy respect for the place of religion and established churches in society, even when they themselves were not members of any organized religion (Jefferson and Madison were Deists who believed in God but not belong to any particular church). To them, the notion that the state would be "establishing" a religion by permitting (or even sponsoring) a creche on public property would be absurd. Their understanding of an establishment of a religion would be an Act of Congress establishing the Church of the United States as the official religion of the U.S. |
| Posted by: Tibor 2003-11-12 6:36:57 PM |
| #9 We have moved from a republic with freedom of religion to a secular state that tolerates religion sometimes. It is insane. We have lost our way. |
| Posted by: Sgt.DT 2003-11-12 6:31:04 PM |
| #8 Personally I think they should either allow all or ban all. The 1st admendment, at least in my view, says that the state should not either promote a particular religion (or religions) or suppress them. It should leave them the fark alone. What the school district is doing is promoting the Jewish and Islamic faiths by allowing their religious symbols while at the same time suppressing the Christian faith by banning its symbols: Displaying the menorahs or Islamic cresent in this way is a religious context and not a secular context. The Michigan group says one public-school principal issued a memo encouraging teachers to bring to school "religious symbols" that represent the Islamic and Jewish religions, but made no mention of Christianity. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2003-11-12 6:19:48 PM |
| #7 penguin is correct that the seven candled menorah is from the temple, and the 9 candles menorah is in memory of events in the temple. Id say its somewhat more secularized today than creche (mainly cause jews dont have any equivalent of an xmas tree, and so menorah for many takes on that secularized role) but then id end up quibbling about the secularization of creches - which i as a non-Christian and voter SHOULD NOT be doing - thats the whole point of seperation, to keep discussion of such issues in the private sphere where it belongs. Ergo I think a valid case can be made for excluding menorahs and muslim symbols. Its true Wall of seperation was not in the bill or rights, but it doesnt seem that unreasonable a reading of the no establishment clause. and hanging folks who take that reading with a barbed wire rope is a tad, well, extreme. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-11-12 5:39:27 PM |
| #6 Yeap.penguin. Allow all,or ban them all. |
| Posted by: Raptor 2003-11-12 5:28:17 PM |
| #5 I'm beginning to believe the only legitimate argument against any of these 'anti-Christmas', 'anti-Christian' stories is to take the perps out and give them a dose of 12-gauge lead in the gut at close range. Let's see how much they start praying. There is NO SUCH THING as the "separation of Church and State". The only single reference to this is in a letter from Thomas Jefferson, years after the Constitution (and the Bill of Rights) were ratified. The entire thing is the product of the ACLU and activist judges, and all of them should be hanged with a barbed-wire rope (shootin's too good for them). |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2003-11-12 5:28:16 PM |
| #4 This is about the gayest story I heard. The Menorah is damn sure a religious symbol. It is from the Temple. The Crescent moon is a symbol of Ramadan. So it may be a symbol of religion, or it may be a symbol of violence. Depends on your POV. How anybody not see that the three are all religious is laughable. And you know what? They should allow all three. |
| Posted by: Penguin 2003-11-12 5:00:40 PM |
| #3 This is total insanity. How can they claim that the story of Chanukah is a historical event, but the nativity isn't? It's all fictional bullshit. Remove ALL religious symbols from public land. Do it just at least to keep the KKKoran off of our public lands. |
| Posted by: ISLAM SUCKS 2003-11-12 4:41:03 PM |
| #2 i guess they were thinking of menorahs as equivalent to santa and trees, (not quite right, though not quite the same as nativity scenes either). I presume they allowed santas and xmas trees. On the whole Id prefer NO symbols - a paper menorah on a school wall doesnt do it for me, and isnt worth opening the door to creches and so forth. One Jewish group, chabad lubavitch, tends to oppose bans on creches, precisely cause they want the opening to menorahs wherever they can put them (its got special connotations for them) Most Jews I know of dont think much of this approach. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-11-12 4:40:07 PM |
| #1 I'd say "unbelievable", but it's not. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2003-11-12 4:34:15 PM |