Subscription Lists
Point of Reference
by Fred Price
It seems to happen every year, an incident where the politically correct – in their zeal to protect unbelievers – deprive believers of certain expressions of faith through public displays of “religious” Christmas symbols. Knightstown being the flashpoint for Christmas 2016.
But wait, does Ken Falk, who filed the most recent lawsuit against Knightstown’s display of a cross atop a tree on public property for a disgruntled local citizen have a point? After all, no one is being deprived of the opportunity to observe and celebrate Christmas however they choose on their own property, home or church. In fact, Mr. Falk is quick to point out that the Constitution does indeed protect public celebrations of Christmas – or any other holiday – and the religious displays that accompany them. His argument, however, is that the Constitution doesn’t allow for the federal or state government to be used to promote – and thus potentially establish – specific religious beliefs.
This is merely a restating of an old argument concerning the separation of church and state. Which honestly I believe in, though not in the way some people today would enforce it. The church – as an institution – has no business telling politicians how to run the country; even though our faith should and must inform our own personal politics and thus our public policy. Likewise, our government – as an institution – should never be allowed to dictate faith and its expression. (As long as that expression isn’t personally and collectively harmful.) The question then becoming: How much interaction between the two is appropriate? Which is a difficult question to answer.
Mr. Falk believes that a cross positioned on top of a town Christmas tree on town property by a town worker using the town’s bucket truck endorses Christianity; thus violating the Constitution. Which to some may not sound totally unreasonable. But Peter Heck, a columnist for the Indy Star newspaper begs to differ, claiming this is nothing but a misapplication of the concept of separation and ignorance of the Constitution and its intent.1
To be specific, he disparages the umbrage some take at being accused of “waging a war” on Christmas – or Christians who want to celebrate the season openly in their homes, churches and community, writing “If you don’t want to be accused of warring against Christmas, you should stop attacking people’s public celebration of it. Stop attempting to deprive the community you live in of its collective expression and the significance of the holiday just because you don’t share their conviction.”
And to be fair, what is not addressed here is the possibility of a community equally divided between conflicting ethnic and religious beliefs. Do we allow for equal time on public ground for other religious symbols or share the stage in an effort at ecumenicalism, which many on both sides of the issue would find equally offensive? The counter-point in this incident being that Christmas is uniquely Christian, so no sharing should be necessary.
Mr. Heck levels his harshest comments at Mr. Falk’s legal brief which claims that, “The cross is the best known symbol of Christianity and Knightstown’s prominent display of this symbol represents an establishment of religion in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.” (Emphasis mine) And therein lies the problem. Do we establish a religion by observing its celebratory customs? (Even as we supposedly show a preference for it by doing so?) And unless we totally secularize the observance of Christmas – which I believe is exactly the point – how else is Christmas to be celebrated? Jesus is in reality the reason for the season – as He is for Easter.
Mr. Heck believes the legal complaint is flawed because even as Knightstown seeks to celebrate Christmas in the traditional way; it has no ordinance compelling anyone to attend church – or a synagogue or mosque – thus establishing nothing. In fact, it appears to many that the politically correct, overly-zealous separationists are the ones violating the founders’ real intent regarding the church/state issue; doing so by mis-interpreting or mis-applying the Establishment Clause that was enacted to protect U.S citizen’s from the British policy of establishing a state church mandating the who, what, where and when of church attendance, worship style, ritual etc. etc. Many Founding Fathers finding common cause with Benjamin Huntington of Connecticut who demanded that the writing of the First Amendment would, “…be made in a way as to secure the rights of religion, but not patronize those who profess no religion at all.” (The point being freedom of religion, not freedom from it.) None of us would argue with the safeguards put in place to protect us from an over-bearing state, yet the ACLU’s arguments often seem to overstep those protections wisely enacted for our benefit by doing what our founders had no intent of doing – patronizing those who profess no religion at all.
Mr. Heck pointing out that, “What Knightstown had was (admittedly) a public expression of its community values and religious beliefs. And that’s ok! If you don’t’ share those beliefs, that’s ok too. You don’t have to, because the Constitution forbids the government from writing a law that forces you to.” (Or discriminating against you because or your different beliefs or unbelief.) “…in America your rights are protected from majority coercion to violate your unique conscience. But you don’t have the right to deprive the majority of their public expressions just because you take offense.” (A hard concept to grasp for those who don’t want to be “confronted” today with anything they disagree with.)
And even though we struggle at times to genuinely exercise majority rule while at the same time guaranteeing the rights of the minority – a crucial principle of a free society – we must ensure that government is allowed to, “…reflect the values of their people.” Conversely, “If you don’t share those values, there is nothing in the Constitution that allows you to harness the power of government to silence them.”
All of this is more complex and nuanced than many on both sides of the issue are willing to admit, and we have every right to ensure our “side” is heard and understood. But we need to make absolutely sure that we don’t allow the cross of Christ to merely become a symbol of our discontent and use its defense as a rallying point for our politics. The real issue is that people don’t agree with us, won’t listen to scripture, don’t respect the cross, the church or anything they stand for. (The risk of our becoming a minority in our own country being a legitimate concern, which should goad us to work harder and longer, not so much in politics, which can only do so much to alter behavior, but in salvation ministry that will change people’s minds and hearts from the inside out.) The real shame being we don’t always express ourselves well or in the way scripture instructs to. Not in frustration, certainly not in anger, never in competition with others beliefs. The Bible warning us to be on guard, to stand firm, to be courageous and strong; but to do everything in love. (1 Corinthians 16:14) Words spoken and deeds done outside the parameters of this most important Christian principle having little impact, being comparable to the mindless banging of a gong or the clanging of a cymbal. (1 Corinthians 13:1-3) Christ’s love of us compelling us to be involved in ministry to those who don’t believe, reconciling them to Christ – not necessarily to us. (2 Corinthians 5:14-20) Jesus describing love as the characteristic most readily identifying us as His followers. (John 13:35) Not only loving our neighbors, friends and families, but commanding us to love even our enemies; only then becoming sons of the Most High God (Luke 6:27-36), the very being we claim to worship and celebrate not only at Christmas but the whole year through.
1Besides being a periodic columnist in the Indy Star paper, Mr. Heck is a teacher, speaker and author as well as an uncompromising Christian. He can be visited @peterheck.com or followed on twitter@peterheck
Rate it:
Fred Price - married (50 years), father of two grown children, grandfather of six.
Fred retired earlier this year after 42 years as a factory worker. He has always had a heart for young people and the challenges they face today. Over the years Fred has taught Discipleship Groups for High School and college students.
Receive the newest devotional each week in your inbox by joining the "Point of Reference" subscription list. Enter your email address below, click "Go!" and we will send you a confirmation email. Follow the instructions in the email to confirm your addition to this list.