Hi Rich,

I've been busy. Sorry for the delayed reply..

>>Tamar,
>>
>>>DN >>Why does my daughter have to learn Christmas songs in the school then?
>>>>
>>>DD >Why would my child be forced to abandon the songs she/he would like to sing?
>>>
>>>No one would force your child to abandon those songs. The issue is whether the teacher in a public school (who is a representative of the state) can make singing them part of class. Outside of class, kids can sing whatever they want (within the bounds of school rules about making noise in various places, etc., that apply to all singing). However, the teachers and principal and other adults in a school are authority figures - when they say "We're now going to sing 'Silent Night'," the child whose religion prohibits him from singing it and who simply is uncomfortable singing it is put into an unreasonable position. "Teacher says to do this; Mom and Dad say not to. What do I do?"

Well, the problem I'm getting at Rich is the notion that people are using the notion of "offense" as a justification. I totally understand that different people have different issues that they are offended over. Goodness gracious, we all have to deal with this at some level during the course of each and every day it seems. I hear a lot of people throwing the word "tolerance" around but my observations have been that those who typically use this phrase a lot are the most intolerant. If we use "offense" as a justification for excluding anyone then IMO we have just tossed out the notion of tolerance for the plain reason that we are using soimeone's intolerance to a given situation as reason to prohibit some behavior.

>>
>>So, then instead of your child asking that question you now force my child to ask the same question?
>>
>
>Sorry, but I don't see how your child would be asking the same question. For Tamar's child (mine too), teacher says "Sing these songs" and I say "Don't." If teacher doesn't say "Sing" what question is your child asking? S/he can certainly sing them at home, at church, in the park, and in the playground at recess. I don't even have strong objections to religious songs as part of a concert given at the school (although I find the inclusion of the random Chanukah song as more condescending than inclusive). It's when the singing of essentially religious songs becomes a class activity in which my child is expected to participate that I take great offense. I don't object to the use of public facilities for religious activities that are not "required." Allowing the Newman Club to use a classroom for meetings is, at least to me, the same as allowing the Chess (I wish it were bridge) club to use the room. I also believe that if the Newman Club is allowed to use the room, so should the
>local Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Bhuddist, Rasta, Atheist, We are descended from seeds planted by visiting alien, etc. groups be allowed the same access.

If it is important enough for you to not want your child to sing some song then you should make arrangements with the teacher. They (the school and teacher) should respect your wishes but when you want everyone to change their behavior because you are offended then IMO you have stepped over the line and using your sense of offense as justification for imposing your point of view on others who do not share it. IOW, you have just done what you are asserting others have done to you. That's not an answer or solution. Now, if 'offense' is a justification for imposing change of behavior upon others at this point I will raise my hand and assert that I am offended by your request to remove certain songs. Based upon the notion of offense who is right? I will assert that we really cannot determine the answer to that question if all we are using is the notion of 'offense' as a justification. There really is no end of it.

So, what are we to do then? This seems the most reasonable question to me. <g> I say that we let others express themselves and teach true tolerance and not attempt to stop them simply because we disagree with each other. Of course, I would stop at the point of causing harm so, no, I'm not a snake handler... <g>

>
>A different set of circumstances. My wife's family lives in rural Nebraska. We went to a cousin's high school graduation. Several of the speakers, including the validictorian, gave testimony to the effect Jesus had on their lives. I'm uncomfortable; but this is after all a personal expression of faith and I don't have objections to it. But when the minister gives the invocation (which I don't feel is appropriate but I can live with) and ends the prayer with "In Jesus Name" I am highly offended. When the valadictory address includes a "let us pray" I wonder how the audience would react if a Jewish student included a Hebrew prayer. I'm pretty sure I know how you would react and I admire you for it. But I've seen enough anti-semitism in my life to know that large numbers would react differently.

Well, from the perspective of the Christian we are enjoined by Jesus Himself to make our petitions in his name so what they did was normal and natural from their pov. Perhaps you weren't aware of this. Those folks would most likely be equally uncomfortable if you prayed to Darwin <g> or however you might express your belief system. You should accept them where they are and they should accept you where you are and all sides should recognize and accept that others are different. Now, that's the ideal I will readily admit and I will also say that there are a lot of very rude and obnoxious people out there. However I have seen just as many rude & obnoxious athiests as I have Christians as any other group. Don't get me started on the televangelists. <g> They drive me absolutely nuts as I am of the opinion that most of them very poorly represent God. I think it's heinous actually.

I don't think that most folks would mind a Jewish prayer at an event. If they did, shame on them but that's no reason to eliminate all prayers simply because some folks are stupid.

As I've mentioned before what concerns me here is that we have entered a time in our country where the minority is tyrannizing the majority. The framers of our constitution didn't see this I think as being a potential issue. The reason they didn't is that they all had thought patterns and presumptions that were based (though many weren't believers themselves) upon the Historic Christian position. DOn't steal, lie, commit adultry, etc... Our laws are founded upon these basic truths and, quite frankly, the entire western world and culture owes a huge debt of gratitude to the Jewish people for the 10 commandments. Like it or not it's a part of who we are and the intellectual links are plain and direct to the source.

The founders, I suppose, never dreamed that society would get to the point where right & wrong would be so fundamentally challenged as it has been by existentialist thought. Up until that point in history no one ever really questioned whether or not it was "wrong" to lie, for example. Now it is. I'm 49 and I'm old enough to have seen this dramatic shift in my lifetime. Perhaps you're a little younger and you haven't seen the way things used to be. People laugh at TV shows like The Andy Griffith SHow but I grew up in times when many people were as open and trusting as he wa sin that show. We didn't lock our dors and so forth simply because no one would dream to steal, with minor exceptions of course but that's always been there. Now, there is no commonly accepted set of "rights & wrongs". It's every man for himself and so now we are using feelings as though they were rational. I assert that they are neither rational nor irrational. They just are but they are a poor excuse for justifying the creation of laws which is what is now going on in many cases.

As a Christian I will assert that I would desire everyone to know Jesus personally. Realistically I know that most will not, by their own choice. I do not see my desire as something that gives me the right to force what I believe on others but at the same time I have the same rights as others to express my point of view as well. I accept that others will disagree with me. I actually expect it but it is my choice to take the position(s) I have. I am also enjoined to love those with whom I disagree. That also transfers into the notion that I should be polite. You would find that if asked I'd be happy to explain anything I believe but unless it's an integral part of the issue I won't tend to discuss the matter. Why? Well, it's not a part of the issue. <g>

All I want is a continued committment to real fairness; not one position labelled as fair but really not. That extends to Christians as well BTW. I would be very offended if some group used power to promote a Christian agenda as much as a non-Christian agenda. I'm talking about the public square. For example, I've always thought (and felt <g>) that most of the efforts of groups like The Moral Majority have been misplaced. While I think they have every right to organize as a plotical entity and therefore a 501C(3) and responsible to the US government for their behavior, I think that they would have gotten much further on their knees praying to God had they used the same fervor they used politically. Still, they have the right to speak their minds as well as anyone else. Let's face off, have our debates and so forth and then vote and live with the consequences.

>
>A third situation. A couple of years ago the Republican candidate for governor of Iowa managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory primarily, I believe, due to his overly (even for Iowa) conservative positions. I hope I'm not mis-stating his position, but as a strong advocate of prayer in schools he felt that a clear majority of people in the school district should be able to enforce their preference. In one forum at a Des Moines synagogue, he was asked how he would react if his neighborhood became 80% Bhuddist and his answer was basically "That couldn't happen."

Well, as they say, if you live by the sword you die by the sword. <g> If there happened to be a huge Buddhist contingent I'd think that they would have a right to say their paryers just as well as anyone else. Look, you never grow by not facing issues and this whole 'offense' driven excuse to eliminate this, that or the others really seems nothing more than a head-in-the-sand kind of approach.

I often wonder what so many people are afraid of? And, I often wonder why we don't hear Budda's name used as a swear word. <g>