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
Message-ID: <22316@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 25 Dec 87 08:37:40 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> <22313@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <17986@bu-cs.BU.EDU>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: jwl@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (James Wilbur Lewis)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 55

In article <17986@bu-cs.BU.EDU> bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) writes:
>
>Jim,
>
>I think you jumped too fast for the Constitutional rights issues. I
>don't think (I might be wrong) that anyone was arguing that. I think
>they were just saying they thought it was wrong, on a personal level.

I don't know how long you've been following this, or in what newsgroups,
but over in soc.singles and soc.women Mikki Barry has repeatedly appealed 
to anti-discrimination laws.  Miriam didn't...but her use of the phrase 
"tyranny of the majority" suggests a political context.  Even if that's
not quite what she had in mind, hers was the posting that seemed most
worth following up for me to make that point.

>For someone who talks about libertarianism you seem to have jumped on
>the statist bandwagon for defense real fast (of course I know why,
>this time the state agreed with you!)

If Mikki's implied claim about office Christmas parties being actionable as
religious discrimination is true, then the state does not agree with me.
I'm a little confused about being called a statist, though;  does an appeal
to the Constitution automatically constitute "jumping on the statist
bandwagon"?  For the life of me, I don't see how... 

>Some things need to be dealt with w/o looking at them in some
>governmental way. [...]
>Symbolic gestures help blunt the obvious, at least the point has been
>acknowledged. No one forced the University (eg) by law, they just
>conceded the point based upon some consideration of what might be good
>taste or some such.

And there's the rub: I am in total agreement here!  A careful reading of
my postings on the topic will reveal that my only concern is to get
the government out of the act; I am only objecting to the idea that
an office Christmas party is, or should be, considered a legally actionable 
form of religious discrimination.  The fact that I approached this from
a Christian (and vegetarian :-) point of view may have thrown you off;
what I *said* might be different from what you *think* I was saying.

>Trying to imply that non-Xtians would like to see Xmas
>parties made illegal is emotion-baiting at best.

(So is using "Xtian" for "Christian"; it might reduce the hostility
level in these kinds of discussions if y'all would not *do* that...)

It's not baiting, though; I sincerely believe that Mikki, and a few of the 
others who agreed with her, would very much like to outlaw any form of 
religious display in the workplace.  If I'm wrong, I'm sure they will correct 
me.

Wishing you all a joyous and peaceful December 25th,

-- Jim Lewis
   U.C. Berkeley