Path: utzoo!hoptoad!amdcad!decwrl!ucbvax!ernie.Berkeley.EDU!jwl
From: jwl@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (James Wilbur Lewis)
Newsgroups: alt.flame
Subject: Re: Christmas Celebrations and the Tyrrany of the Majority
Keywords: Religious intolerance
Message-ID: <22313@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 24 Dec 87 22:02:04 GMT
References: <3445@ihlpl.ATT.COM> <7706@eddie.MIT.EDU> <5409@sol.ARPA> <7709@eddie.MIT.EDU> <22254@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <2681@gryphon.CTS.COM>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: jwl@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (James Wilbur Lewis)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 44

In article <2681@gryphon.CTS.COM> mhnadel@gryphon.CTS.COM (Miriam Nadel) writes:
>The difference is that a Christmas party is a way of telling non-Christians
>that "you don't belong" (as if it isn't bad enough seeing the visible symbols
>of that everywhere in our cities - and paid for by our tax dollars - and
                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>hearing nothing but Christmas carols on the radio for 6 weeks before) while
>a women's lunch, for example, is a way of reducing isolation.
>
>Miriam Nadel

First point:  there seems to be some inconsistency among the people who
object to Christmas parties.  If we *invite* non-Christians, we're accused
of prosyletizing; if we don't, we're accused of telling them "you don't
belong".  Damned if we do, damned if we don't!

Second point: I have been very specific in addressing my comments to the
scenario of a party being sponsored by a private corporation.  Where do
you get the idea that tax money is being used to put up religious symbols?
Not in any town I know of; the churches pay for the religious decorations.
In fact, one poster pointed out that Chicago (I think) required a $100,000
bond from any church wishing to put up religious decorations on public
property, to defray expenses should the city be sued! (If you are referring 
to secular decorations, this is no more immoral than the government building 
nuclear weapons, which a substantial minority opposes, or sending military aid
to other countries, which other substantial minorities are opposed to.)

Surely you're not suggesting we trash democracy in favor of "government
by consensus", in which any action that offends anybody is forbidden?

Now we come to the phrase you used in the title: "tyranny of the majority".
This concept only comes into play when the minority's *rights* are being
deprived by the majority.  I eagerly await citations of Supreme Court
cases or references to the Constitution which establish a legal right to be
insulated from other people's religious practices.  The anti-establishment
clause doesn't cut it;  we're talking about private (corporate) celebrations,
not a government-sponsored or government-mandated religion.

You have my full support in fighting any infringement of "freedom to"
practice your religion.  The only way you can have "freedom from" mine
is by depriving someone else of their Constitutional rights, and I 
*won't stand for it*.

-- Jim Lewis
   U.C. Berkeley