This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
As is always the case when people criticize legal decisions, I would suggest that when smart people with access to all the facts who have thought at great length about the issues involved, and who have had their arguments and conclusions scrutinized by other smart people with access to all the facts who have thought at great length about the issues involved, reach a conclusion, you might be a tad less sure of yourself when you think they are obviously wrong.
I would also suggest that the fact that you use Prager's claim re the historical significance of the battle that Hannukah celebrates as evidence of the religious significance of the holiday, you aren't thinking very rigorous about the claim you are making. Ditto if you think that my observation that "a creche is far more of a sacred religious symbol than is a menorah" is a claim that a menorah is not a sacred religious symbol at all. Obviously, both a creche and a menorah have [edit: I meant "can have" -- see my initial post re the Court talking about the particular menorah in question, not menorahs in general] both secular and religious meaning, as courts have repeatedly recognized.
Finally, the claim that menorahs in public places have no secular purpose is inane; they have the obvious purpose of reinforcing the idea that people of all faiths are members of the polity, which is clear to anyone who is familiar with the history of such displays, religious and otherwise.
Anyhow, as I said, I know I'm wasting my time.
It's a rationalization, but probably not the one you think it is. The courts don't want to ban Christmas trees because it would make them very unpopular, so they came up with this rationalization that they've become secularized. Then to paper over this and look like they were favoring Christianity, they accepted the menorah too, on the dubious but not groundless idea that Haunakkah has become secularized as a Jewish substitute for secularized Christmas.
More options
Context Copy link
What I said was this:
That's the standard. And please don't embarrass yourself by saying "how do we know that Hanukkah is trivial?" -- businesses don't close in Israel for Hanukkah, the National Library stays open, and it is not mentioned in the Bible.
Those are, of course, two different questions. As noted above several times, a particular creche is often legally permitted, despite a creche, in general, being quite high on the sacredness scale.
As for determining the scale, the mere fact that differences cannot be measured precisely does not mean that they do not exist. One can say that Ronald Reagan was a greater President than Millard Fillmore without having to assign points. That being said, as noted, one element, but not the only element, is the nature of the holiday in question. A symbol associated with a holiday which is central to the religion in question (eg, Passover) is obviously going to carry more sacredness than a symbol associated with a holiday that is more peripheral (eg, Hanukkah, Purim). And, one way to assess the centrality of the holiday is, as noted, how they are treated by adherents: Are stores closed? Are govt services closed? What do adherents do on the holiday: Do they skip work and school, if schools are open (Passover) or do they go to work/school (Hannukah). Do those who rarely attend religious service go to religious services on that day (Passover) or do they not do so (Hanukkah)? Etc, etc. I am sure that you can think of other ways to operationalize that particular variable. And, of course, since all of the holidays in question have both secular and religious components, the particular symbol is important. Some are more religious than secular (a creche); others are more secular than religious (a Christmas tree).
I would also add that you, and the OP, seem to assume that a display of a menorah is a celebration of Judaism, rather than a celebration of the Hanukkah holiday, and that the display of a creche is a celebration of Christianity, rather than a celebration of the Christmas holiday. Neither of those assumption is necessarily true; they might be true sometimes, but they are not **necessarily **true. And that is why, as I have said many times, courts, when determining whether any particular display violates the First Amendment, be that a creche or a menorah or whatever, look at the particular context surrounding the particular display, in order to determine whether they constitute an endorsement of religion, which is the legal standard (or was, when the cases OP is complaining about were decided).
Finally, where is your standard? If my organization wants to rent a public park display areas to put up the world's largest Easter Bunny, is that OK? What about the world's largest Christmas tree? What about the world's biggest sign saying, "Jesus says, "on earth peace, goodwill toward men!"? What about "Accept Jesus or Go to Hell?" Now, maybe you want to say that all symbols with any religious content should be banned from public spaces. Or that none should. Great! But that is not current law, and since the issue at hand is the legitimacy of OP's claim that current law favors Jewish people over Christians, that doesn't address the issue.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
They also made the Roe vs. Wade debacle and upheld it for a number of decades, and how is it faring now huh?. Taking whatever the courts says as a description of reality is insane in my opinion, no less a dereliction of your duty as a thinking and reasoning individual as those that take activist words as gospel.
Bye the bye, you may want to cool it with the consensus building there, as it's not obvious that those symbols have secular meanings.
ah yes, all correct thinking people, of course. Because when you see a menorah, you inmediatelly think about your non-jewish family and friends united in a common goal.
I had a typo; I meant that both "can have" both meanings. See my original post, where I said, " The argument was not so much that a menorah per se is a secular symbol, but rather only that that particular menorah was." Similarly, Xmas symbols can be used as purely religious symbols, or as symbols of more secular values ("Peace on Earth and goodwill to Men"), or as both.
The point is not whether the decisions are correct. It is that they happened. OP claimed that the courts have treated creches and menorahs differently. That certainly appears to be incorrect, at least according to Justice Gorsuch's interpretation of the case law, cited above. When I said "as courts have repeatedly recognized" I did not mean that that made it true, but rather that, when applying the law to these issues, the courts have treated both symbols as sometimes having both meanings.
Please read more carefully.
First, I said that, historically, the PURPOSE of govt putting up the symbols or permitting the symbols to be displayed on public grounds was to communicate the idea that people of all faiths are members of the polity. I did NOT say that anyone should, or even does, interpret it that way, so your reference to "correct thinking people" and to how people respond when seeing such menorah is irrelevant.
Second, you seem to think that I meant that it symbolizes that everyone is part of the Jewish community, but I didn't: These are symbols placed in public space, and I said that placing such symbols in public places symbolizes that all groups are members of the polity -- I said that it is a message by the govt to non-Christians. It is not a message from Jewish people to non-Jewish people.
Finally, I don't know where you get "united in a common goal." In Dred Scott, the Court answered "no" to the question, "can a negro whose ancestors were imported into this country and sold as slaves become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States[?]" The Fourteenth Amendment's citizenship clause was intended to reject that conclusion, but it certainly says noting about "uniting in a common goal." They are too different things; obviously, members of a community often work on their own independent, frequently opposing goals, particularly in a liberal democracy, given that the right of each person to determine their own "conception of the good" is a foundation of liberalism.* Yet they are all members of the community nonetheless.
*I hope I don't have to explain which meaning of "liberalism" I refer to here
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The legal decision should be criticized for regarding a sacred Jewish symbol as secular when it is not secular. Jews themselves, the ones who sponsor the menorahs, do not regard them as secular. The decision relied on that logic which is clearly wrong.
What matters, at the end of the day, is that there are giant menorahs in front of the White House and many other public spaces where elected officials pay respect and promise support to Jews, and in those spaces there is no similar regard for Christianity. It's the largest menorah in the world at Central Park, not the largest Nativity scene in the world at Central Park. Allegheny helps explain the development status quo, but I am talking about the meaning of the status quo rather than simply criticizing the legal decision. So your hairsplitting really does not change the fact of the matter.
All religion has historical significance. The birth of Jesus, whether you regard it as history or myth, is itself a historically important story.
Prager regards the menorah as a symbol of Jewish victory, like many of the Jews I read who weighed in on their interpretation of why it's important to light the menorah in public spaces. "It's a symbol of Jewish victory, and it's historically important" does not make it secular any more than saying "The Cross is a symbol of Christianity, and it's a historically important symbol" makes it secular.
If the menorah were replaced with a Cross (relates to historically important developments, so it's secular!), and Joe Biden attended ceremonies for its dedication, and promised support to the Christian people and federal handouts to Churches and Christian community centers, and created a task force in the National Security apparatus to "counter anti-Christianity", would you regard that as the establishment of religion?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link