I Hope That You Work On Christmas!
Posted by Joshua White on 10.18.2006
Bill O'reilly, I hope that you're reading this because this is the first attack on Christmas of 2006!
There is a common misconception that the term "separation of church and state" is found somewhere in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Yet, while the explicit separation of church and state is not to be found, the idea has become very ingrained in our public conscious.
History lesson time! The concept of the separation of the church and state comes from the establishment clause of the first amendment. The first amendment states in part that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." As you may know there are quite a few different interpretations of this little bit of the Constitution.
Here are just a few different views that I found while looking online. Each one is a little different.
Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the "separation of church and state.
This interpretation is one that I think that many hold. I'm not convinced it is entirely right because nowhere does it say that this amendment "enforces the 'seperation of the church and state'" (as I have mentioned before). All the amendment says is that a state religion won't be established.
On the other end of the spectrum is the Christian Coalition's Drew McKissick's view that those who argue for a separation between the church and state seem to forget that the very next phrase in the First Amendment states, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". In other words, it provides for freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. So the state can't force a religion on you, but that doesn't mean that religion can't be all up in the state's business. This, too, seems to be extreme. It seems to me that it is almost impossible to not interpret Constitution in some cases. McKissick is sticking to a very literal interpretation to press his own views. I think that is clear.
At an absolute minimum, the Establishment Clause was intended to prohibit the federal government from declaring and financially supporting a national religion, such as existed in many other countries at the time of the nation's founding.
It is far less clear whether the Establishment Clause was also intended to prevent the federal government from supporting Christianity in general.
I think that this is probably the correct view of the first amendment (at least at the most basic level). Upon an initial reading, the first amendment doesn't either strictly make a separation, nor allow for the running wild of religion in the sector of the state.
However, I do think that there is one thing that all three of these views have in common. I think it is easy enough to say that all of these understandings glean that the government can't press one religion more than another. The state (obviously) cannot set up a religion for the people of the country.
So, how does this relate to the "In God We Trust" printed on all of our currency or asking students to say "one nation under God" while reciting the pledge? These are very tough questions.
I think that we first need to figure out what a "religion" is. It seems evident to me that a religion requires a supernatural or higher being of sorts. But the tricky part for me is that I don't believe that all religions have to believe in "God" and they certainly don't believe in the same sort of God. Jainists, for example, believe in an unknowable God. This differs greatly from what Jews and Christians believe. Further, I would argue that the views of Plato and his belief in the form of the Good could be thought to be a religion. The Form of the Good is the power that created all, and when we die we go to this power. Any time you put the word "God" on anything associated with the State, I would claim that you're certainly not establishing a religion, but you are certainly preferring one (or some) over others. Further, it is known that the God that is being referenced is not the "God of the Jains." It is the "Judeo-Christian" God. This is the type of preference that worries those who want the separation.
But there is a more pressing concern for my understanding of the first amendment.
As all of my followers know, on Christmas day the world shuts down. Most stores are closed. And for those that are open, the workers are getting paid time and a half. Every government office is closed save the police, fire departments, etc. The kiddies have a day off school.
As someone who isn't a Christian I was never terribly bothered by any of this. Sure it was kind of annoying not being able to do anything for a day, but we had the day off. And once I was older I made tons of money working for people on Christmas. (As a waiter, it never hurt letting my customers know that I wasn't around my family today, but that "was ok, because my coworkers have children.")
But my question is: is all of this Constitutional? I would say no. I will admit that by having Christmas off the government isn't requiring all its citizens to be Christian. However, by having these days off, and no other religious days off, I would argue that the state is giving such favor to one particular religion that it may be acting unconstitutionally. They are, in a very obvious way, making it easier to be a Christian over being a Jew, Muslim, or a Zoroastrian. For these believers, they have to take a day off work, miss a day of class and generally suffer the consequences of having faith in a religion. This is not true for Christians. They get the days off work and school. They don't feel the pinch of not having the day of work in their paycheck or the pressure of getting the notes for the missed day of class. This seems to me to almost be punishing those who are not Christian. Ok, that may be going a step too far (maybe), but it is certainly a practical benefit to be a Christian in this country.
This is why I think that having Christmas off is unconstitutional. Laws that force you to pay your worker time and a half, to close down governmental offices, and that generally force a state run mandate because of a religious doctrine do seem to be establishing a religion in this country. It isn't the sort of establishment that says "HEY! Go be a Christian." It is the sort that tells all of the citizens of the country implicitly which religion is the correct one.
I think that it is obvious that by returning Christmas to the status of a normal day for our nation would have vast consequences. Huge numbers of workers would have to work in all government offices. Millions of people would be asking for Christmas off. But I think that this is fine. Sometimes following the Constitution isn't necessarily the easiest, or most pragmatic thing to do. But it is oftentimes the right thing to do.
To add to this I think that all of what I am asking for goes along with the interpretations that we read earlier as well. It works well if the "separation of the church and state" view is correct, and it also works fine with the "freedom of religion not from it." By making Christmas a normal work day I am allowing for freedom of religion but I'm not saying that religion can't exist in the public land. I am simply asking that the state not prefer one over another (which would be "establishing" a religion as I mentioned earlier).
So, I hope that you end up working on Christmas, or at least have to take a personal day off. I hope that if you do end up working you don't get paid time and a half. I'm not a jerk. I just like my laws to be constitutionally consistent.
I know there are some of you who disagree with me. Tell me why. For those of you who agree whole-heartedly with me...tell me why. (I love when my followers love me.)
Assuming that I don't get distracted by something in the news, next time I will explain why the word "feminist" is not a bad word or insult and why "feminazi" just makes Rush Limbaugh and anyone else who uses it sound silly.
Read These
Whether you are a loyal reader of Fact or Fiction or not don't forget to read next weeks edition. Why? I will be taking on a 411 reader (who is probably one of my followers). I'm sure that my opponent is already scared.
If we stop using coal to power our world, then it'll be cheaper for me to use to do portraits on the street. Now, I just need to learn how to draw.
If Europe does conquer the United States I just hope that our new capital is Paris. It would make me so happy to see everyone who talks of "freedom fries" and "freedom toast" send their tax dollars to France. Bienvenue mes amis!
Much like Modest Mouse, Sigur Ros, and Cursive I totally knew about the NOKO bomb before you did!
Until next time…believe nothing unless you read it here.
STAY CURRENT