Rev. Mark H. Creech
Public schools: Are they missing the baby Jesus?
By Rev. Mark H. Creech
(AgapePress) — There are few issues more fraught with misunderstanding today than the relationship between the U.S. Constitution and religion. Nowhere is this better demonstrated than in what often transpires in the public school system during this season of the year.
In the forward of Matthew Staver's book Faith and Freedom, Dr. Charles Rice of Notre Dame Law School quotes a New York Times article: "Pity the public school principal in December between Hanukkah, Christmas and Kwanzaa (a Black-American holiday that celebrates family and community and is based on African harvest festivals). This long, last month lays a minefield of grand proportions for educators trying to acknowledge the holidays without bridging the separation of church and state."
It's a common argument in our time that there must be a "wall of separation between church and state." Some say, "It's in the First Amendment of the Constitution." But the phrase "wall of separation of church and state" is not actually in the Constitution. It's in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptist in Connecticut and was never meant to convey what some have perverted it to mean. Jefferson wasn't even involved in the drafting of the First Amendment; he was in France at the time. Furthermore, he didn't take the extreme view that expressions of faith are not allowed in the public square or through public policy.
The First Amendment simply says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ... " The subject of the First Amendment isn't the church, the school, the clergy, or religious people. Its focus is on what Congress is allowed to do. Congress is not allowed to establish a national church, neither can it require sectarian policy be imposed upon the individual states. It was written so the God-given right to free and unrestricted worship would be protected for all. Nevertheless, some have misconstrued it to say its purpose is to separate government, public facilities and education from God, specifically the Christian religion.
Total separation between "church and state" is impossible. As Staver points out in his book, even the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledges this in Lemon v. Kurtzman, saying "[t]otal separation is not possible in the absolute sense. Some relationship between government and religious organizations is inevitable." And in Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, the high court stated it "has never been thought either possible or desirable to enforce a regime of total separation ...." Total "separation of church and state" would actually show hostility toward religion.
Yet public school authorities across the country are often advocating "total separation" by instructing that only secular expressions of Christmas be allowed in the public school's holiday celebrations. According to an article by AgapePress, "Many Arizona public elementary schools' winter concerts do not have children singing about angels, Bethlehem, or the little Lord Jesus this year. Instead, it's 'Frosty the Snowman,' 'Winter Wonderland,' and 'Jolly Old St. Nicholas.'" In Chicago public schools, the words "Merry Christmas" have been excised from a popular Christmas song. Even in my own home state, Johnston County, North Carolina, a memorandum was sent by school officials to all school principals that read: "Please remember that Christmas is commemorated in our schools as a secular holiday — not sacred or religious. Please stay with Santa Claus, reindeer, elves, snowmen, trees, stockings, mistletoe, etc." The memo prohibited nativity scenes and angels — essentially religious expressions of the Christmas holiday.
The law in this matter, however, is abundantly clear. If secular expressions of Christmas are allowed, school officials may not deny religious expressions of the same. For example, if a secular display of a Christmas tree, snowman, or Santa Claus is placed in the school's hallway, a Nativity scene with Mary and Joseph looking into the manger at baby Jesus cannot be denied from the same parameter of view. A public display of a religious scene standing alone would be improper. But if the secular is allowed, the religious cannot be denied. If the religious is allowed, the secular must be added. Therefore, it is not a violation of the First Amendment for public school employees or students to erect religious displays of Christmas, sing Christmas carols, etc., as long as the secular is included within the same context.
Of course, one might argue, "Yes, but to include the religious often causes an offense for some." Indeed it does. But there is no constitutional protection from offenses and neither should there be. To intimidate, threaten, deny or stifle the religious rights of one is to jeopardize the rights of all. A school official, principal, teacher or student's constitutional right to religious expression during Christmas (or any other time for that matter) doesn't end at the school house door.
Recently, I came across a children's book by Jean Gietzen titled: If You're Missing Baby Jesus. The book is a true story about Geitzen's mother purchasing a Nativity set during a bitterly cold Christmas, only to discover it had two baby Jesus figurines. The mother was deeply concerned that perhaps someone else who had bought a Nativity set from the same store might be missing a baby Jesus. So she contacted the store manager via her children and the manager posted a sign in the store that read, "If You're Missing Baby Jesus, Call 7162." Someone did call, but it wasn't about the baby Jesus. Instead it was a poor woman, with a destitute and needy family, who called the number, hoping to find some compassion and help. Geitzen's family sprung into action to provide all the trappings of Christmas, as well as warmth and food, for a family that had nothing. They even gave their extra baby Jesus figurine for a Christmas decoration. Geitzen concluded the book, writing, "Without saying anything we knew Christmas could never be the same after this. The extra Jesus in our home hadn't been ours to keep after all. He was for someone else ... for a desperate family."
This is how every Christian feels during Christmas. Jesus is not someone we can keep to ourselves. The purest meaning of Christmas comes in sharing Christ with a desperate and needy world. To deny Christians in public schools the opportunity to worship God in this manner is to deny them their constitutional right to religious expression. Worse still, it means the public schools will be missing the baby Jesus!
© Rev. Mark H. Creech
(AgapePress) — There are few issues more fraught with misunderstanding today than the relationship between the U.S. Constitution and religion. Nowhere is this better demonstrated than in what often transpires in the public school system during this season of the year.
In the forward of Matthew Staver's book Faith and Freedom, Dr. Charles Rice of Notre Dame Law School quotes a New York Times article: "Pity the public school principal in December between Hanukkah, Christmas and Kwanzaa (a Black-American holiday that celebrates family and community and is based on African harvest festivals). This long, last month lays a minefield of grand proportions for educators trying to acknowledge the holidays without bridging the separation of church and state."
It's a common argument in our time that there must be a "wall of separation between church and state." Some say, "It's in the First Amendment of the Constitution." But the phrase "wall of separation of church and state" is not actually in the Constitution. It's in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptist in Connecticut and was never meant to convey what some have perverted it to mean. Jefferson wasn't even involved in the drafting of the First Amendment; he was in France at the time. Furthermore, he didn't take the extreme view that expressions of faith are not allowed in the public square or through public policy.
The First Amendment simply says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ... " The subject of the First Amendment isn't the church, the school, the clergy, or religious people. Its focus is on what Congress is allowed to do. Congress is not allowed to establish a national church, neither can it require sectarian policy be imposed upon the individual states. It was written so the God-given right to free and unrestricted worship would be protected for all. Nevertheless, some have misconstrued it to say its purpose is to separate government, public facilities and education from God, specifically the Christian religion.
Total separation between "church and state" is impossible. As Staver points out in his book, even the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledges this in Lemon v. Kurtzman, saying "[t]otal separation is not possible in the absolute sense. Some relationship between government and religious organizations is inevitable." And in Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, the high court stated it "has never been thought either possible or desirable to enforce a regime of total separation ...." Total "separation of church and state" would actually show hostility toward religion.
Yet public school authorities across the country are often advocating "total separation" by instructing that only secular expressions of Christmas be allowed in the public school's holiday celebrations. According to an article by AgapePress, "Many Arizona public elementary schools' winter concerts do not have children singing about angels, Bethlehem, or the little Lord Jesus this year. Instead, it's 'Frosty the Snowman,' 'Winter Wonderland,' and 'Jolly Old St. Nicholas.'" In Chicago public schools, the words "Merry Christmas" have been excised from a popular Christmas song. Even in my own home state, Johnston County, North Carolina, a memorandum was sent by school officials to all school principals that read: "Please remember that Christmas is commemorated in our schools as a secular holiday — not sacred or religious. Please stay with Santa Claus, reindeer, elves, snowmen, trees, stockings, mistletoe, etc." The memo prohibited nativity scenes and angels — essentially religious expressions of the Christmas holiday.
The law in this matter, however, is abundantly clear. If secular expressions of Christmas are allowed, school officials may not deny religious expressions of the same. For example, if a secular display of a Christmas tree, snowman, or Santa Claus is placed in the school's hallway, a Nativity scene with Mary and Joseph looking into the manger at baby Jesus cannot be denied from the same parameter of view. A public display of a religious scene standing alone would be improper. But if the secular is allowed, the religious cannot be denied. If the religious is allowed, the secular must be added. Therefore, it is not a violation of the First Amendment for public school employees or students to erect religious displays of Christmas, sing Christmas carols, etc., as long as the secular is included within the same context.
Of course, one might argue, "Yes, but to include the religious often causes an offense for some." Indeed it does. But there is no constitutional protection from offenses and neither should there be. To intimidate, threaten, deny or stifle the religious rights of one is to jeopardize the rights of all. A school official, principal, teacher or student's constitutional right to religious expression during Christmas (or any other time for that matter) doesn't end at the school house door.
Recently, I came across a children's book by Jean Gietzen titled: If You're Missing Baby Jesus. The book is a true story about Geitzen's mother purchasing a Nativity set during a bitterly cold Christmas, only to discover it had two baby Jesus figurines. The mother was deeply concerned that perhaps someone else who had bought a Nativity set from the same store might be missing a baby Jesus. So she contacted the store manager via her children and the manager posted a sign in the store that read, "If You're Missing Baby Jesus, Call 7162." Someone did call, but it wasn't about the baby Jesus. Instead it was a poor woman, with a destitute and needy family, who called the number, hoping to find some compassion and help. Geitzen's family sprung into action to provide all the trappings of Christmas, as well as warmth and food, for a family that had nothing. They even gave their extra baby Jesus figurine for a Christmas decoration. Geitzen concluded the book, writing, "Without saying anything we knew Christmas could never be the same after this. The extra Jesus in our home hadn't been ours to keep after all. He was for someone else ... for a desperate family."
This is how every Christian feels during Christmas. Jesus is not someone we can keep to ourselves. The purest meaning of Christmas comes in sharing Christ with a desperate and needy world. To deny Christians in public schools the opportunity to worship God in this manner is to deny them their constitutional right to religious expression. Worse still, it means the public schools will be missing the baby Jesus!
© Rev. Mark H. Creech
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
