Topic category:  Other/General

One of the shortcomings I remember the most about the Christian elementary school I attended was how a number of the less-than dedicated educators would punish all of the students for the misbehavior of a single pupil. To this day, I remain convinced this had more to do with lazy teachers preferring not to mess around with recess than correcting actually delinquency.

As miniature societies, the dynamics of schools often reflect the processes that govern nations and countries. Unfortunately, the good students --- or rather citizens in the macrocosmic case --- are having something that is by every right their's taken away just because those in charge don't want to deal with those out to ruin things for everyone.

For nearly 15 years (or at least since I've been writing about the topic annually), Christians and allied conservatives have waged a noble effort against secularists claiming the First Amendment, through an expansionist interpretation of the Separation Clause, forbids the erection of Nativity scenes and even less conspicuously devout Christmas symbols on public property.

Since Christmas has become a pivotal component of our culture, most Americans instinctively recoil at efforts to banish the beloved winter festival even if they are not particularly religious. Thus to be successful, secularists realized they would need to pursue a different strategy.

One of the foundational dictums (feigning a posture of sophistication, those of this mindset eschew the notion of creeds) of radical ecumenicalism is that, if you can’t beat them, join them. However, the ecumenicalist does not seek union or compromise with the more thoroughgoing traditionalist for the purposes of common ground but rather to eventually wear down the traditionalist to the point where the traditionalist capitulates to the original demands of the ecumenicalist.

For example, realizing that Americans aren’t willing to give up the public recognition of Christmas yet esteem the idea of fairness nearly as much, a number of wily atheists decided on a new strategy. These hostile unbelievers surmised, “Fine, we will allow you to have your religious display provided we are granted equal access to put up a display depicting our beliefs as well.”

Frankly, in some ways they had a point as it is often through verbal conflict one not only comes away better knowing what one’s opponent believes but what you believe as well. After all, Americans --- both devout and apostate alike --- are often complacent in regards to both theology and politics.

However, a critical populace of an analytical inclination is the last thing the government wants. And in the clamp down to prevent an outbreak of citizens thinking for themselves rather than handing the process of ratiocination over to leftist bureaucrats, even more radical academics and the media dupes of each, victory by default is handed over to the more malevolent brand of secularist.

It is pretty much the establishmentarian consensus that public displays commemorating America’s religious roots in the Judeo-Christian tradition cannot be directly set up by the government. Rather, in most instances, a public forum is established with a mad dash being made by adherents of the respective viewpoints to get permits to sponsor the annual display or to divvy up the space equally.

Thing of it is there is only a finite amount of space in most government buildings even if the power of the agencies housed therein often is not while the number of worldviews clamoring for public acclaim in an age of pluralism is nearly infinite. The rational American at their noblest wanting to see the greatest number possible satisfied and at their most base just wanting the incessant whiners to shut up would probably be willing to accept a Nativity with a snowman, a Menorah, and possibly even a flying spaghetti monster to please the acolytes of evolutionist Richard Dawkins though most would be rolling their eyes and mumbling under their breath about it.

In an age where every viewpoint is considered equally valid, who is to say more eccentric belief systems are not as worthy of exhibiting their own Yuletide emblems? For example, upon opening their display space to both the glory and Hades bound alike, the Washington State Capitol saw the erection of a Festivus pole, a fabricated holiday popularized by the minds behind Seinfeld, at least one of whom now thinks it is comical to urinate on artistic portrayals of Christ.

Where does it end? Since Star Wars has also weaved itself into the Christmas fabric of many that grew up during the 70’s and 80’s (just recall the fan film “Christmas Tauntauns” as well as the Star Wars Christmas special Lucas is claimed to have seldom acknowledged the existence of with its Wookie Life Festival), are we going to allow a display to this as well?

In the name of getting a handle on this, the Washington State Capitol has banned all holiday displays from the building. Leesburg, Virginia tried to pursue a similar policy, but rescinded the edict after citizen outcry against the abrupt ending of a tradition that extended back decades.

Of those of the mind that we must downplay the acknowledgement of certain statutorily recognized holidays because certain elements of the population finds them disturbing, does that mean we also eschew all other civic commemorations because a scant few find these others distasteful as well? For example, should Martin Luther King Jr. festivities transpiring on or near public property be cancelled since there a few that know this figure was hardly the godlike personage he is portrayed to be in the popular memory but rather someone with questionable Community ties and faulty theological assumptions no matter how laudable certain aspects of his philosophy might have been.

More importantly, what about Black History or other assorted ethnic supremacy months? One reason no one is suppose to mention Christmas since to do so is to be "divisive" because it is not a celebration that everyone embraces.

So because around three percent have an attitude problem, the rest of us are suppose to sit around with out lips sealed shut. Few would admit it for fear of losing their jobs or having rocks hurled through automobile windshields as I can assure you does occur when one enunciates positions on these kinds of subjects other than the one insisted upon by the diversitymongers. However, there are definitely more than three percent of the Caucasian population that, if you could assure them that there would be no repercussions, would admit to opposing these fill-in-the-flavor-of-the-month history months.

As Ann Coulter, I believe it was, once remarked the United States is not a bus stop. All should be free from violence and deliberate mistreatment even if their ideas fall outside the norm. However, as a nation, Americans should not have to cower in shame before a few disgruntled malcontents whose rights have otherwise been upheld and protected.

by Frederick Meekins

Frederick Meekins
Issachar Bible Church & Apologetics Research Institute

Biography - Frederick Meekins

Frederick Meekins is an independent theologian and social critic. Frederick holds a BS in Political Science/History, a MA in Apologetics/Christian Philosophy from Trinity Theological Seminary, and a PhD. in Christian Apologetics from Newburgh Theological Seminary.