Two Christmas's

[wesw]

thank you meade.

I refrained from rebuttal myself, but I completely endorse your perfectly rational interpretation of fairly plain language.

I know that this will make you re think the matter, my agreement that is, but even a blind squirrel finds the occasional acorn....

[Big RR]

Well Sue, I don't think that's the analysis required, but then I also concede that I do not routinely handle Constitutional law questions, so you may well be right.

But face it, public museums often present art with Christmas related themes during December and have no problems with it. Indeed, I would think it's more the season promotes the art than the art promotes religion. That being said, I have no problem in presenting the music/artworks in other months either, although some might allege that's just an attempt to extend the season and promote religion over a longer time.

Meade--I don't see the opposition as anti-Christian, although it is based on secularism. And establishment has been seen by the courts as inclusing activities that promote or appear to give government promotion or approval to any particular religion. IMHO, just as I want no government entanglement in my religion, I also do not want the religion being associated with or endorsed by and government entity.

[Crackpot]

Look i think we can all agree that in order to keep the idea that government might possibly be promoting religion or system of beliefs that the only song grade school kids can sing is "Baby It's Cold Outside"

[MajGenl.Meade]

wesw finds an acorn



As to the Supremes, Big RR:

.. and there's another good argument for getting "the government" (or perhaps, the lawyers) out of the business of education

[Big RR]

Look i think we can all agree that in order to keep the idea that government might possibly be promoting religion or system of beliefs that the only song grade school kids can sing is "Baby It's Cold Outside"

I actually read an op ed in the NY Times a few years ago that denounced that song as sexist and promoting date rape. It's kind of funny, because when it fist came out in the 40s (as I recall) it was seen as groundbreaking because (at least in some versions) the woman decides to stat. I recall seeing it in a movie from that time where it was sung twice, in once with the man being the aggressor, and in another with a woman filling that role (the guy was Red Skeltin in that one as I recall).

eta: the movie was Neptune's daughter and I think it was the first time the song was introduced.

[Sue U]

The Constitution was hijacked by secularist anti-Christian zealots a long time ago - and hardly anyone noticed.

I believe the culprit you're looking for is named James "Li'l Jemmy" Madison. He and his pal Thomas "Long Tom" Jefferson (the original Mutt and Jeff) had been making a point of it for decades.

JK -- it was that anti-Christian secularist Sandra Day O'Connor (County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)).

[Lord Jim]

As I said before, if there's a "war on Christmas" then clearly Christmas is winning...

Just look around or turn on a television at this time of year...

However, what we do have, is a handful of PC ninnies (like the doofus at Big RR's daughter's high school) who every year do stupid things that get coverage in the press, that then serve as ammunition for the Bill O'Reilly's of the world to wave the "war on Christmas" bloody shirt:

The school administrator who forbids "Silent Night" or selections from " Handel's Messiah" being performed at a school "Holiday" concert...

The small town city manager who promulgates an order prohibiting "religious themed" floats from participating in the town's "Winter Parade"...

The retail chain that issues a memo to its employees instructing them not to wish their customers a "Merry Christmas"...

The fact of the matter of course is that these are "man bites dog" stories; 90% plus of the time these kinds of moronic edicts aren't issued....

But this tiny percentage that make these dumb decisions play right into the hands of those who want to demagogue about a "war on Christmas"...

[MajGenl.Meade]

The Constitution was hijacked by secularist anti-Christian zealots a long time ago - and hardly anyone noticed.

I believe the culprit you're looking for is named James "Li'l Jemmy" Madison. He and his pal Thomas "Long Tom" Jefferson (the original Mutt and Jeff) had been making a point of it for decades.

JK -- it was that anti-Christian secularist Sandra Day O'Connor (County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)).

Except I believe at the time (a) the government did not run education and (b) those two gentlemen understood the meaning of "make no law" and "establish" - that is, they knew of what an established religion was (meaning a denominational church such as the CofE that was declared to be the official church of the country).

[Guinevere]

Since when did government not run education? Private public education BEGAN in Massachusetts. Right at the beginning. It's one of the fundmental principles of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights (written by that other commie bastard, John Adams).

Article III:

And the people of this commonwealth have also a right to, and do, invest their legislature with authority to enjoin upon all the subjects an attendance upon the instructions of the public teachers aforesaid, at stated times and seasons, if there be any on whose instructions they can conscientiously and conveniently attend.

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/Constitution

[MajGenl.Meade]

Oh, THAT... well, there's THAT but wesw told me... so...

But seriously - it mandated education at such facilities as existed. It didn't run the damn show

[Sue U]

Except I believe at the time (a) the government did not run education and (b) those two gentlemen understood the meaning of "make no law" and "establish" - that is, they knew of what an established religion was (meaning a denominational church such as the CofE that was declared to be the official church of the country).

Except that if you actually read what they said about the issue, they in fact knew that the constitutional bar extended far beyond federal establishment of a denominational church, and included even such "trivial" matters as a chaplaincy for Congress and presidential proclamations of a "day of thanksgiving and prayer." Madison's famed Memorial & Remonstrance and Detached Memoranda make his position unmistakable, as do Jefferson's collected letters and his draft legislation for the Virginia General Assembly.

Oh, THAT... well, there's THAT but wesw told me... so...

But seriously - it mandated education at such facilities as existed. It didn't run the damn show

That is a specious argument. If you want to send your kids to a private school so they can sing religious hymns all day long, that is your choice. But when government acts -- regardless of the governmental agency -- it is bound by the strictures of the Constitution.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Exactly - do away with the Education dept. Ignorance all round and anarchy for breakfast!

[rubato]

.."...

The Constitution was hijacked by secularist anti-Christian zealots a long time ago - and hardly anyone noticed.

... "

The course of history was hijacked by secularist anti-orthodox humanists who took all power over society away from the church and we can all see the effects today in that people's lives are better, healthier, longer, their rights are better protected, science has advanced, and each generation has been better off than those before it. 1,700 years of Christian barbarism was enough. (Although Spain and Ireland suffered under their semi-Theocratic governments longer than most of Western Europe with the inevitable results.)



yrs,
rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

Yeah, well this wasn't about rule by Christians, Jews, Hindus or any other religion. It was about establishing a religion or not - and I'm glad they didn't allow it. The point is that the plain language of the Constitution (God bless it) has been warped to mean things it never intended. What lawyers and/or politicians and/or lawyers who are politicians have done to the commerce clause is of course an even worse abuse of the Constitution than issues about songs in school.

[wesw]

ding ding ding..., we have a winner

meade is my new favorite American

(you just had to make me a red (italics) squirrel, didn t ya?)

[wesw]

it s your world and I m just a squirrel tryin' to get a nut...

[Lord Jim]

meade is my new favorite American

I'm sure learning that will make his day...

[Guinevere]

Oh, THAT... well, there's THAT but wesw told me... so...

But seriously - it mandated education at such facilities as existed. It didn't run the damn show

But seriously, you're wrong. What part of public education don't you understand? It wasn't just a mandate but a provision of free education for the citizens. Government has been part of public education since the very beginning.

[Guinevere]

Yeah, well this wasn't about rule by Christians, Jews, Hindus or any other religion. It was about establishing a religion or not - and I'm glad they didn't allow it. The point is that the plain language of the Constitution (God bless it) has been warped to mean things it never intended. What lawyers and/or politicians and/or lawyers who are politicians have done to the commerce clause is of course an even worse abuse of the Constitution than issues about songs in school.

I suggest you read said Constitution again, and pay attention to the articles numbered I, II, and III.

[Sue U]

What Guin said.

As to your contention that "the Constitution (God bless it) has been warped to mean things it never intended" by "lawyers and/or politicians and/or lawyers who are politicians," you can take that up with John Marshall (who, not so incidentally, ruled against Madison on what the Constitution required him to do about William Marbury's commission, even though it said no such thing explicitly). The "lawyers and/or politicians and/or lawyers who are politicians" involved in that case might have had some idea of what the Constitution was intended to do. It is therefore obvious that from its very inception, the Constitution required amendment (it came with 10 already attached!) and judicial interpretation.

In any event, we no longer live in the pre-industrial America of the late 18th Century, and by both necessity and popular will the government plays a much larger role in the operation of a much different society than existed at the time the Constitution was adopted. The truly remarkable thing is that the document, which after all is only a schematic for governmental structure and principles of operation, is still relevant today. But it retains its relevance precisely because of developing Constitutional jurisprudence and amendment (effected by lawyers and/or politicians and/or lawyers who are politicians -- including Madison and Marshall) that keeps it vital in contemporary society.