Christmas Envy?

[lagilman]

In a small town in NJ, a group of people have, for several years, gathered together to light a large menorah a few feet away from the creche set up on town grounds.

This year, they are being blocked from doing so.

Not by outraged Christians.

Not even by the ACLU doing their usual December thing about preventing religious events from occurring on government property (something I 90% agree with, btw).

No, this is being blocked by the mayor...who is Jewish.

Her logic? It's not appropriate behavior, but rather an attempt to expand a small, family-oriented holiday into Christmas-substitute. She doesn't approve.


I am...torn on this. On the one hand -- I totally agree with her logic. Chanukkah is a minor but pleasant holiday that has been put on a forced diet of steroids to compete with Christmas, and I hate that. Chanukkah is about surviving those who would have forced assimilation on the Jewish population -- how is making that more like Christmas a good thing?

On the other hand, if a group of Jews wish to gather and light the menorah together, as equally sanctioned/supported by the government as, oh, the displaying of a creche or singing of carols, then how can the Mayor -- not a religious leader -- say that a community must only gather in private homes, behind closed doors?

It's an interesting dilemma.



Meanwhile, thanks to M. I have boughs of greenery stonking up the apartment with the lovely smell of pine (I mentioned loving the smell of her tree, and we agreed that it was a pagan tradition and therefore could be adapted to any household), my menorah is out of the china cabinet and candled-up, and the makings of latkes and other traditional foods have been assembled for dinner on Saturday. Plus, I got my solstice candle today, so I'm all set. Am lacking only the appropriate bottle of wine for New Year's Eve, but I suspect that will be picked up closer to the date and the place...

Comments

[kokyu.livejournal.com]

You describe the situation nicely, and I agree with you. I think freedom of expression trumps though. If I had my druthers the mayor would have tried to exercise her influence, and would not have exercised her power.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

the mayor would have tried to exercise her influence, and would not have exercised her power.

Yes, there's the dividing line right there; imposing her opinions on the free and legal practices of other adults. Pretty black-and-white to me. Oh, I see her point of view, and if she had written editorials or talked with them or made a public statement, hey, that's all her right.

But to stop people from doing something they want, something that is perfectly legal and (at this point) traditional, something that hurts no one else, simply because she disagrees and she *can* stop it - that's an ugly thing.

IANAL but

[chaoticgoodnik.livejournal.com]

it sounds like this mayor is trying to tell these people how to practice their religion - which is exactly the kind of thing the Establishment Clause is supposed to prevent.

[lagilman]

But to stop people from doing something they want, something that is perfectly legal and (at this point) traditional,

which is the same argument people have for doing a lot of things that is nontheless discriminatory....(up to and including singing overtly religious carols in secular school assemblies, which was something I had to deal with when I was in school). I'm not saying she's right (see above) only that "legal and traditional" and even "not hurting anyone" can be argued as still being Not Acceptable

[neadods.livejournal.com]

the same argument people have for doing a lot of things that is nontheless discriminatory

But in this case, she's stopping something that seems like it was specifically planned to either point out discrimination or to balance it out.

Note: I am not defending the act. Just so we're clear...

[lagilman]

Then again, I'm not saying she's wrong, either. Go not to the meerkats for cousel, for they will say both go and stay.


a) she's blocking it, not "stopping" it. However, as the elected mayor, she does have certain rights with regards to what is done on town property (and is exercising them in this instance, just as someone who said 'no carols song in town hall' would be)

b) she's stopping something that seems like it was specifically planned to either point out discrimination or to balance it out. But that's exactly her well-made point -- that Chanukkah should not be used as a "make good" for those of us who don't celebrate Christmas. Discrimination is bad, yes. But is the ony other alternative to make everything 'even'? Okay, then where's the love for the agnostics, the atheists, and those of us who're tired of tax money going toward anything religious at all? Where's the balance in all that?

Goverment does not equal parent. And even parents occasionally have to say "It is what it is. Suck it up."

[vincam.livejournal.com]

The answer is simple. The mayor should have nothing to say about the assembly, except to prohibit any religious ceremony on public property. (Which, IMHO, is unnecessary even in the spirit of separation of church and state.) Were she a Christian, there would be no question about whether she should be allowed to prohibit the lighting of the menorah while not prohibiting the Christmas tree. Nobody would tolerate that. That she's Jewish (and as you rightly point out not a religious leader) doesn't give her the authority to tell other Jews how to celebrate holidays.

Customs change all the time. Christians certainly don't all celebrate Christmas the same way. Some don't celebrate Christmas at all. Getting pissy about how other folks choose to mark a special day (or days) is just being a busybody.

[kalligraphy.livejournal.com]

The ACLU does not have problems with lighting trees, building creches or lighting menorah. What they have a problem with is when the government sactions/supports only one.