Aww, le's not burn her straight off. Le's see if she weighs as much as a duck first. Then we'll burn 'er!
Posted on 12/09/2003 6:30:09 PM PST by kanawa
The center of the discussion at the IU School of Law -- Indianapolis is not a tree but the question: How do people of different faiths and different philosophies best work, live, and learn together? This is an important question, worthy of considerable time, thoughtful attention, and substantive, respectful conversation.
The law school consists of students, staff, and faculty -- and welcomes visitors -- of many different faiths and philosophies, including (but not limited to) Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, agnosticism, and atheism. Indeed, the law school celebrates and seeks to expand the participation of people from different countries and cultures. Our most recent Alumni Magazine (for Autumn 2003) begins with the words: "Cultural Understanding," as the Dean's Message describes "the dynamic international, cultural and ethnic diversity in our school," focusing particular attention on our new Master of Laws Program in American Law for Foreign Lawyers and our new Center for International and Comparative Law.
Early in December, a Christmas tree was placed in the law school's atrium -- the large, multi-story, central, and most prominent part of the building. I objected to the official display of the Christmas tree because it is a symbol of one religion, Christianity. I believe that such a display is of doubtful constitutionality in a state-supported law school, but my principal objection is one of policy, not law. My principal objection is that the official display of a symbol of one religion conveys to those of us who subscribe to other religions or philosophies that we are less welcome, less valued, not fully part of the community; that we are allowed to be present by sufferance only. I certainly do not believe that the Christmas tree was erected with the intention of sending that message, and I understand that some non-Christians did not take that message from the display of the tree. But the Christmas tree conveyed that message to me and to others -- students, staff, and faculty; and it certainly is not unreasonable for those of us who are not Christians to take that message from the Christmas tree.
I am particularly concerned about such a message of exclusion because this is a time of heightened religious and cultural intolerance. To cite only a few, recent, domestic, instances: Some of our Muslim students have told us that they have experienced hostility, and we know that Muslims (and people perceived to be Muslims) are subjected to and anticipate many forms of intolerance. The Holocaust museum in Terre Haute recently was destroyed by arson. The Ku Klux Klan recently demonstrated in Indianapolis to protest the presence of Hispanics here. A uniformed United States Army General has publicly, repeatedly, stated that this is a "Christian nation" and that his Christian "G-d was a real G-d, and [the Muslim G-d] was an idol."
A Christian symbol, prominently, exclusively, and officially displayed in the center of the law school is reasonably read as a statement that the law school gives special respect to Christianity. During the holy month of Ramadan, the law school presented no atrium display to honor Islam. The law school has not displayed in the atrium any menorah or other symbol of Chanukah, and the Jewish High Holy Days come and go with no recognition from the law school. (Indeed, classes are scheduled on those days.) The law school has not displayed in the atrium any symbol of Buddism, Confucianism, Hinduism, or any other religion, let alone agnosticism or atheism. The one and only religious display presented by the law school has been this Christmas tree.
Some say that the tree is not a symbol of Christmas, or that Christmas is a secular, not a religious holiday, and some have pointed out that some non-Christians have Christmas trees. I suggest that the very name -- "Christmas tree" -- indicates that the tree is a symbol of the holiday from which it takes its name. I suggest that most people, certainly including most Christians, consider that Christmas is a religious holiday. I suggest also that the controversy over this event has occurred only because the tree is taken to be a symbol of Christianity.
Some have said that Christmas trees appear in many places. Indeed they do, since the majority of people who live in the United States are Christians, and some people who are not Christians have Christmas trees nonetheless. But the question for us is what should be displayed officially in a public building that purports to welcome people of all faiths and philosophies.
Some have said that the Supreme Court has upheld the secular status of Christmas trees. This is not accurate. In the 1989 case of County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, the Supreme Court reversed an order forbidding the display of an 18-foot Chanukah menorah which appeared next to a 45-foot Christmas tree at the foot of which was a sign entitled "Salute to Liberty." The justices were sharply divided; there is no opinion of the Court with regard to the menorah or the Christmas tree (which itself was not in issue in the case). There is dictum in several opinions disagreeing about whether, to what extent, and in what (if any) circumstances a Christmas tree may be a religious symbol, but there is no resolution of the issue.
In sum, my objection to the Christmas tree is that it indicates a preference for the Christian religion over all other faiths and philosophies. As to the display that replaced the original tree, I think the question is whether the two trees and sleigh connote the religious holiday of Christmas. I believe that they do, though I know that others disagree. With respect to both the original display and the replacement, people disagree about (1) whether the display denotes Christmas; (2) whether Christmas is a religious holiday; and (3) whether a display that denotes a religious holiday of one religion should be placed in the law school's atrium.
I hope that the law school and larger communities will continue to engage in respectful discussion of the varying views about these issues. Freedom of discussion is one of the greatest glories of the United States, and it can be devoted to no more important task than reconciliation of different opinions about how to achieve both inclusiveness and freedom of belief.
Florence Wagman Roisman December 6, 2003
I certainly do not believe that the Christmas tree was erected with the intention of sending that message, and I understand that some non-Christians did not take that message from the display of the tree.
This one statement only serves to prove that this woman is a complete @$$hol€.
She admits that she is wrong but complained until the tree was removed. Classic a-holery.
Get the net. This witch thinks that trees talk to her and her friends.
Isn't the "yule tree" actually an artifact of pre-Christian pagan religion? It has zero zip nada nichevo to do with Christianity.
You know what really, really, really offends me? "Jingle Bells" sung jazz style. It makes me want to run screaming through the mall knocking people over. OTOH, I really like Christmas songs, even the religious hymns, sung by country stars like Toby Keith or Randy Travis, but these singers have an effect on other people that the "Jingle Bells" jazz scat crap has on me.
Diversity means conservative viewpoints are outlawed, gay means sodomy, marriage means two men practicing sodomy, beautiful rainbows mean sodomy, tolerance means fisting clubs but no prayer, the Second Amendment means atheism is the state religion, family means two lesbians, a dog and a turkey baster, freedom of speech means freedom as long as it agrees with them (like any color of car is fine as long as it's black), and republican form of government means judicial oligarchy. It's a new translation.
But she doesn't mind (maybe is even happy about it) that CHRISTIANS are offended. Or even people of other religions who happen to be glad that someone is worshipping God even in a different way!
This stupid letter doesn't even say if the law atrium could have had displays honoring other religious holidays if people had wanted them there. She says there were no other displays - was that because they weren't allowed or no one bothered?
Never mind the net, get the faggots and the stake. lol
I must of missed the expressions 'freedom of discussion' and 'freedom of belief' in the Constitution but I did notice this...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Maybe there's some fine print that says,'only if no one is offended'.
If whomever was responsible for the display had ignored her, would they actually be liable to criminal charges? And if not why are they letting themselves be pushed around by her and 'others' (Can't help but wonder if these others are of the 'convert all infidels or kill them' persuasion).
Note she says,"...my principal objection is one of policy, not law."
Aww, le's not burn her straight off. Le's see if she weighs as much as a duck first. Then we'll burn 'er!
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.