Short of a counterrevolution, Christmas is doomed in America’s public spaces

Yet another public school—in Mustang, Oklahoma, of all places (pop. 13,156)—has killed a Christmas performance, consisting of a Nativity scene and the singing of “Silent Night, Holy Night,” not because of complaints from non-Christians who are offended, but because of a fear of such complaints. In my view, there is no point any longer in getting outraged about such outrages, or in saying, as a Mustang parent said, “Who is that making so mad that you had to take it out of a fifth-grade program? … Come on, this is Christmas.” These are not principled arguments, they are pleas for an unprincipled exception to the general imperative of equality as enforced by the federal courts operating under the Incorporation Doctrine. As long as we have the comprehensive reign of equality in this society, any public expression of Christianity—because of Christianity’s claim to higher truth, and because it’s the majority religion—must seem like an unconstitutional imposition of the majority’s religion on minorities. The only solution is to eject modern liberalism utterly and return to organic self-government as it existed under the Fourteenth Amendment prior to its perversions. Then, if a community wants to have Christmas carols or Nativity scenes in its public schools, it can have them—period, end of subject. If some local grinch or atheist doesn’t like such performances, too bad.

Here are excerpts from the story:

… Superintendent Karl Springer ordered the Christian portion of the program removed because of legal concerns.

Parent Shelley Lewallen told KOCO-TV that she is furious about the school’s decision to ban the nativity scene and the song “Silent Night” from the program. She said she didn’t understand why a program that also discusses traditions such as Kwanzaa and Chanukah would not include the story of Christ’s birth….

The problem, according to Springer, is that the play highlighted the Christian story above the other religious and cultural traditions. He said a non-Christian community member who saw the program and was offended could have held the taxpayer-funded school district accountable in court.

“I just could not break the law,” Springer said. “We may have sins of omission occasionally, but we won’t have sins of commission. If I know about something that I believe to be against the law, (then) we will take action on it.”

Lewallen contends that the decision discriminates against Christians by excluding their faith, while still including others. Her suggestion, she said, is to leave the play alone.

“What about my right?” she said. “I’m not putting our system down—and I know they have to cover their behinds on everything because everyone is out to get everybody—but come on, this is Christmas.”

According to Springer, the decision was made because the school district didn’t want to risk a complaint.

The superintendent said the school district’s attorney felt that according to the U.S. Constitution, all viewpoints needed to addressed equally. Otherwise, Springer said, the play could violate the First Amendment clause that separates church and state.

No formal challenges to the decision have been filed against the district. The school’s play was scheduled to proceed on Thursday.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 09, 2004 10:33 PM | Send