|
| ||
|
|
GUEST COLUMN
04/19/2006
God Bless the
Retro By Carrie Hutchens I was reviewing arguments for and against prayer in public schools, when I read, "... offends the consciences of those who would not choose to participate in the prayers." I find this argument rather amusing and definitely quite an irony in thought. A term comes to mind -- reverse discrimination. A few years back, a school (I know of) stopped decorating for Christmas and announced that there would be no holiday programs though that had been tradition. And why did they do this? Because a minority that doesn't believe in celebrating holidays (including birthdays) had raised objections. Decorations, caroling and holiday programs would be offensive to the students from their group. I thought -- you got to be kidding. They weren't. Christmas wasn't alone in being wiped out of existence on the school campuses. All holidays had to go. After all -- a holiday is a holiday, is it not? Well, not necessarily so. The school officials didn't agree to banning Labor Day, Veteran's Day, Memorial Day, Columbus Day, President's Day, New Years Day and the like. Only the holidays somehow considered related to religious beliefs got the boot and that included Halloween. I thought this was totally wrong then and I haven't changed my mind. If anything, my conviction has become stronger. This is absolutely wrong with a capital "W"! In my opinion, banning holidays offends the consciences of those who WOULD choose to participate. So why is the other side's offense considered more intense and more worthy of addressing? Without question, it offends me to see an upside down crucifix. Yet, isn't that considered to be Freedom of Expression? Yet, I can't go to a public school and, within its walls, sing Silent Night (or perhaps even Jingle Bells) because that might offend? Where did that Freedom of Expression run off to so quickly? Seems like "selective" freedom allowance to me. Let's talk some fairness... The students in question were not being forced to participate in the "celebration" of the holidays. They didn't have to be in any of the plays, or sing any of the songs, or dress up in any of the costumes, or even acknowledge that anyone else was either. And it wasn't as though they excluded themselves from working at, or shopping at, stores that did participate in decorating and acknowledging the very holidays they demanded the school system to put an end to. So what was the point? To prove that their freedom trumps another's freedom and someone will raise five freedoms? And only brain teasers seem to count for consideration within the realm of the court system that addresses the Constitution and stuff like that? By the way, what made me think of all these things... was to read how Missouri is striving for an amendment that is "intended to ensure students can pray privately and voluntarily at public schools." That has to be "ensured"? Maybe it is time to go "retro"? God Bless us all!... and the Constitution, too!!! Carrie Hutchens is a former law enforcement officer and a freelance writer who is active in fighting against the death culture movement and the injustices within the judicial and law enforcement systems.
Other work by Carrie Hutchens: Media Contradicts Media Contradicting Media
| |
|
| ||
