Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!olivea!apple!sun-barr!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian
From: kriz@skat.usc.edu (Dennis Kriz)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Christmas (2nd annual call to the President to help "give it back")
Message-ID: <Dec.24.03.17.14.1990.15636@athos.rutgers.edu>
Date: 24 Dec 90 08:17:16 GMT
Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Lines: 56
Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu

Yesterday there was an article in the view section of the LA Times in which
a Jewish group was featured protesting a planned assembly at a public
school in which Santa Claus was supposed to hand out candy-canes to all
the school-children present.

The thrust of their argument was that the assembly made it impossible for
non-Christian children to discreetly not participate.  Apparently, Santa
Claus is still too closely associated with "Christian celebration."

I sympathize with the Jewish group in that it didn't want its kids to 
have to be forced to "come over to Santa"  I really do.

What I object to is the association that Santa has necessarily anything
to do anymore with "Christian celebration."

I don't want to defend Santa.  Indeed, I'd like to "dump him".  If after
a generation of court case after court case progressively stripping
Christmas of any religious root (that's why we have such a cult of Santa
to begin with), Santa Claus is *still* associated with "Christian 
celebration", it's time to admit that this 'experiment' (more akin to
a kidnapping and rape) of "secularizing" Christmas has failed ... and 
to do the honest thing:

	Remove Christmas from the list of official holidays.  And simply
	allow employees/school children to take a "personal day off" on
	that day if they desire.

	Simply ban all "Holiday displays" on public property during this
	time.  Seeing the Santa Claus/Christmas tree on public property,
	is as painful for many Christians as it is for many non-Christians.
	[Indeed, whereas Monterey, CA was required to put up a minorah
	and a Christmas tree next to a nativity scene this year, Beverly
	Hills CA was simply required to put up a Christmas tree next to
	its minorah display.  Both displays were on public property ...
	and the message at least to me is clear ... Whereas non-Christian
	identity is protected, Christian sensibilities can be walked on].

	Seeing displays of Santa Claus/Christmas trees on public land
	in absence of any religious root can and should begin to be
	looked at as representing a modern day persecution of Christians.

	The display on public property of a Santa Claus/Christmas tree
	in absense of any religious root is as much an ideological 
	statement as the display on public property of a swastika or a
	hammer and sickle.  Sure it's sugar coated, but it still 
	slams (Christian) sensitivities.

	The honest thing to do, if a nativity scene is deemed painful
	to non-Christians, is to ask that the Santa Clauses be taken
	down too.

So this is a "Second annual letter" to President Bush, to ask for help
in "returning Christmas to us"

dennis
kriz@skat.usc.edu