Why so scared of Christmas?

[Michael Tee]

<<I suppose you might be reprimanded for decorating a cubicle with photos of Hitler and swastikas, or perhaps satanic images.
But Santa or Jesus?>>

I think the point is that if I can put Santa or Jesus in my cubicle, there's no legal reason in the world why the guy in the next cubicle can't put Hitler and swastikas in his. 

You're in the cubicle to work, not to pray and not to publicize your own brand of relgion or make others feel uncomfortable about their brand or lack thereof.  Just a simple question of basic consideration for the rights and feelings of others.  A little recognition that others beside yourself share the workspace and have to be there sharing it with you, like it or not.  To the "workers" who want to convert their cubicle into a manger scene, I'd say:  Spend 100% of your off-work hours on your knees in the house of worship of your choice, if that's what turns you on, and quit trying to piss off your co-workers by brandishing signs of a religion that they don't give a shit about in their faces.  They don't come to work to be confronted by pictures of the Tiny Infant Jesus, they come because they've got jobs to perform.

[sirs]

<<I suppose you might be reprimanded for decorating a cubicle with photos of Hitler and swastikas, or perhaps satanic images.
But Santa or Jesus?>>

I think the point is that if I can put Santa or Jesus in my cubicle, there's no legal reason in the world why the guy in the next cubicle can't put Hitler and swastikas in his. 

Care to cite us this practiced religion of Hitler?  I'm not aware of any currently, so not sure how the 1st amendment in Government not infringing on religion, applies.  Please, share with us this practice, its congregation, and church locations, of you don't mind.  and no, some nebulous hyperbolic reference to neo-cons & conservatives, with amerikka being the church isn't going to suffice I'm afraid.

And what the hell business is yours to be offended by someone's christ child in their cubicle.  Be offended if you want, but as long as they're being productive in doing their job, and has no effect on there doing their job, that should be it, and what business of yours is it how they decorate their own cubicle.  Don't look at it

Yea, the party of "tolerance".     

[Xavier_Onassis]

I refuse to recognize this as any sort of valid issue.

People can pray in any playground, in any classroom, in any cubicle. It they do so silently, no one even knows what they are up to, and why should anyone care?

In the university where I work, people have all sorts of stuff in their offices, and no onre has ever complained about any of it.

This is as close to an utterly bogus issue as any that every existed.

[BT]

I think half the issue boils down to whetrher people have an inalienable right to not be offended.

I don't think they do.

But if they do, what is the remedy?

Chill expression?

[Michael Tee]

<<Care to cite us this practiced religion of Hitler?  I'm not aware of any currently, so not sure how the 1st amendment in Government not infringing on religion, applies.>>

BFD, so it's not Hitler.  The guy could post symbols from the Church of the Creator or the Church of Jesus Christ Christian, both of which are white-supremacist churches that preach anti-Semitism and that blacks are "mud people."  Who needs to put up with that shit in their workplace?  But if it's his religion, who's to say that YOU can put up the symbols of your religion but he can't put up the symbols of his?  That would be EXACTLY what the Constitution forbids, putting the government into the business of establishing your religion and undermining his religion.  Religion is a divisive force in the workplace and does not belong there.  No sane, normal, rational individual comes to work to pray or promote his or her religion.  My boss has no right to display offensive symbols to me at work or to permit co-workers to do so.  I am entitled to a workplace in which I do not have to be offended, and at the same time I have a duty not to offend others.


<<And what the hell business is yours to be offended by someone's christ child in their cubicle.  Be offended if you want, but as long as they're being productive in doing their job, and has no effect on there doing their job, that should be it, and what business of yours is it how they decorate their own cubicle.  Don't look at it>>

Same advice for the posters of The Church of Jesus Christ Christian?  Because frankly some posters don't affect me and others do.  I couldn't give a fuck about Tiny Baby Jesus pictures in anyone's cubicle, but any right that would permit them would also have to permit the white racist skinheads to put up their symbols of faith.  Some Protestant fundamentalists would be majorly rankled by public displays of the Pope's picture in their workplace.  Sure, I could live with that shit.  I could live with a fucking swastika for that matter.  But the issue is, in a publicly-funded workplace such as a government office, should I HAVE to put up with it?  Show me one fucking religion that preaches, "Display evidence of thy faith in thy workplace whether it pisses off thy co-workers or not?"  There is no such religion.  NOBODY'S religion is restricted when the display of images in a secular workplace is banned, because nobody's religion says they have to be displayed there in the first place.   That concern is totally bogus.

[Michael Tee]

I think half the issue boils down to whetrher people have an inalienable right to not be offended.

I don't think they do.

But if they do, what is the remedy?

Chill expression?

=========================================================

The remedy for me, were I to be so moved, would be to erect counter-posters of at least equal size and visibility in my own cubicle.  Now, being a nice guy, and in real life very tolerant of everybody's religion no matter how stupid it actually is, I probably wouldn't.  If my neighbour has the right to put up a crucifixion poster, I have the right to put one up with a prominent label underneath saying, "Fake!  Fraud!  Charlatan!"  Course, I'd have to be really pissed off before I went that far, and it doesn't particularly bother me that someone puts up a crucifixion poster, but the fact is that anyone who would be offended by the crucifixion picture has the option of (a) sulking in silence or (b) taking direct retaliatory action.  I don't think the workplace as a whole benefits from either scenario.  It makes sense, therefore, to simply keep the religion out of the workplace, except at special times like Christmas, when I always, for example, had an artificial Christmas tree (with aluminum foil leaves) with lights and ornaments set up in the reception area of my office.  Tell ya the truth, I always liked that tree.  Everyone liked it.  But still - - it's the principle that is at stake.

[BT]

You didn't answer the question.

In your opinion is there an inalienable right to not be offended.

If so why?

[Michael Tee]

I don't think there is an inalienable right not to be offended.  Offence being so subjective, there would be no practical way to enforce such a right.  What if I were to take offence at hearing Republican politicians speak, for example? 

The concept of offence crept into this thread in the context of significance - - was there any real significance to a breach of the anti-establishment clause, or was it something of no real consequence?  And as far as I can see, there are at least two arguments that would take the breach out of the "inconsequential" category - - the "slippery slope" argument and the "offence taken" argument.  And I think the "offence taken" argument was taken up by default without too much thought, because the "slippery slope" argument lacks any real immediacy and is so highly speculative.

But I'm not sure where you are going with this.  Because if I don't have a right not be offended, does that mean that you do have a right to offend me?  I think it's gotta go deeper than offence.  To that extent, you do have a point.

Why don't we go back to the basics - - what was the point of the anti-establishment clause in the first place?  The framers valued liberty, including liberty of conscience.  They didn't want a state church, which would be likely to shut down competing churches and thus force men to worship in a way or to a god they did not want, at the same time preventing them from worshiping in a way or to a god that they DID want.  This must have been highly obnoxious to the framers.  But WHY?  What's the big deal if I, for example, am required by law to go into a church, get down on my knees and pray to Jesus?  Where's the harm?  I would still believe in my heart of hearts that it's all a bunch of malarkey.  So what's the big deal?

The fact is, to a guy like me, there IS no big deal.  I'm not a believer in very much, I don't think God would give a shit one way or the other if I pretended to give in to a fake religion and worship their fake gods.  He'd understand all along that I really believed in him, even while I pretended to believe in the monkey or whatever the fuck they were worshiping.   Wasn't a big deal - - I'm small potatoes, a nobody in the cosmic scheme of things, I couldn't make God any bigger by worshiping him and I couldn't make him any smaller by worshiping the monkey.  So the anti-establishment clause couldn't have been intended for guys like me - - it had to have been for the benefit of the True Believers, the guys who give a shit, who'd put their lives on the line for the "honour" of their religion.  That being the case, the anti-establishment clause must have been made for the purpose of not giving offense to those who give a shit - - the religious ones, the True Believers.  Don't force them into somebody else's church, because for them it IS a big deal.  And don't turn their workplace into a shrine to somebody else's god or church.

[BT]

You seem to be be confused.

The anti-establishment clause simply means there will not be a Church of the United States no matter what denomination that was.

That's it.

It does not deal with the workplace. It does not deal with the states or cities. Some states still had official churches long after the constitution was ratified ( I think it was CT and i think the sect was the Congregationalists, but I'm not sure)

It simply means that there will not be an Official Church of the United States.

That is the constitution that was ratified. And the first has not been specifically amended.

Granted there are different interpretations of the constitution. A case in point would be the article RD posed about Privacy. That article stated that there is no constitutional right to privacy, yet Roe vs Wade says there is. I think people read the constitution the way they want it to read.

[Michael Tee]

<<The anti-establishment clause simply means there will not be a Church of the United States no matter what denomination that was.

<<That's it. >>

That is just not true.  "Establishment" has a much wider meaning than you would like it to have.

<<It does not deal with the workplace. It does not deal with the states or cities. Some states still had official churches long after the constitution was ratified ( I think it was CT and i think the sect was the Congregationalists, but I'm not sure)>>

That's  not true either.  There are so many ways in which the workplaces depend on Federal funding or other support, which would be withheld if the workplace subverts the anti-establishment clause because the Feds can't indirectly "establish" a religion by funding a workplace which "establishes" one.

<<Granted there are different interpretations of the constitution. >>

NOW you're beginning to make sense.

<<I think people read the constitution the way they want it to read.>>

Close.  There are two schools of though on how the Constitution was meant by the framers to be read - - narrowly or broadly.  And each school has its own theory to support it.  I think what happens when people who are not Constitutional lawyers get into the issues, they skip the complicated parts - - the Constitutional interpretation arguments - - and cut to the chase, i.e., they look at the end result.  They either favour it or they don't.  And they figure the judges used the same short-circuit that they, the public, did.  And you know what? with the new "conservative" Supreme Court judiciary, in the 2000 election, that's EXACTLY what happened.  Too bad.  They voted their political preferences and disgraced their robes.

[The_Professor]

I refuse to recognize this as any sort of valid issue.

People can pray in any playground, in any classroom, in any cubicle. It they do so silently, no one even knows what they are up to, and why should anyone care?

In the university where I work, people have all sorts of stuff in their offices, and no onre has ever complained about any of it.

This is as close to an utterly bogus issue as any that every existed.

Ah, but you teach at a private institution, correct?

[BT]

That is just not true.  "Establishment" has a much wider meaning than you would like it to have.

Sure it is. The first congress hired chaplains and paid them.

Jefferson financed missionaries to the west.

So federal funding hs zip to do with it.

[Michael Tee]

<<Sure it is. The first congress hired chaplains and paid them.

<<Jefferson financed missionaries to the west. >>

Wow, I'm really shocked.  Unconstitutional acts by Congress?  Unconstitutional acts by the Chief Executive?  Who ever heard of such things?

The day that the Constitution is interpreted or defined by its violators will be a cold day in Hell, BT.  The system was set up so that not even Congress or the Chief Executive could override it, and the sad fact that both have not only been able to defy or circumvent it, but have gotten away with it as well, is no valid indicator of what the Constitution actually says.  For that, you have lawyers.  And judges.

[BT]

Wow, I'm really shocked.  Unconstitutional acts by Congress?  Unconstitutional acts by the Chief Executive?  Who ever heard of such things?

Apparently they aren't. Judges and lawyers have ruled on that issue.

[Michael Tee]

<<Apparently they aren't. Judges and lawyers have ruled on that issue.>>

That's not the point.  You were citing the acts of Congress and the Chief Executive as though they would invariably reflect the correct interpretation of the Constitution.  The Constitution does not place such blind faith in the ability of the legislative and executive branches to follow it without deviation.  It actually foresees violations by both branches and provides the remedy for them as well.

In the particular cases to which you refer, if judges and lawyers have ruled that a Congressional chaplain is OK and that Jefferson could properly fund missionaries to the Indians, both rulings are ludicrous.  The Supreme Court has made its share of mistakes and in the fullness of time they were corrected.  So too will these mistakes be corrected over time, for IMHO, they are clearly wrong.