I_Remember_Emporia (anonymous) says...

I participated in the Christmas Program in Emporia as a student from 1949 through 1962. It was a lovely thing, and I'm sorry to read that it has been embroiled in controversy.
It brought people together and embodied the spirit of the Christmas season, which is, and always has been, about the birth of Jesus Christ. It spoke of peace and goodwill to men. I will always remember the darkened auditorium and the lights of hundreds of small candles held by the elementary school children as they quietly streamed out of the openings in the balconies to their seats. There was beautiful orchestral and choral music, and rich and colorful tableaux on the stage, ending with the finale of Beautiful Savior. How could something so sweet be the source of such conflict? For myself, my participation in the Christmas program was a wonderful time, and has given me many fond memories. I hope that it can be restored to its former place in the community.

November 13, 2007 at 1:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

tmac (anonymous) says...

If it is not just a Christian celebration, but a celebration of several cultures, then why would we name it for a single faith? Why not call it what it is, a celebration of the season?

November 13, 2007 at 1:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

admireed (anonymous) says...

Christmas is Christian. What is confusing about that?

November 13, 2007 at 2:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

emporialifer (anonymous) says...

If December 25th is a celebration of a season, as tmac says, then why is "Christmas" a nationally recognized holiday? The government doesn't call it a "seasonal celebration" - it is CHRISTMAS! So should we stop saying "Merry Christmas" and instead say "Merry Winter"? C'mon people - it's not about cramming a specific religion down people's throats, it's about recognizing a National Holiday. Funny I don't remember hearing anything about Santa Claus in the Bible version, so apparently Christmas is not just a Christian celebration. For Christians it obviously means more than just the secular Santa Claus holiday, but for non-Christians - they celebrate the Santa Claus version.

November 13, 2007 at 2:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

tmac (anonymous) says...

Have the churches ever considered joining together to host the Christmas Celebration? The school district could then host a nonsecular Winter Celebration, and all would be happy.

November 13, 2007 at 2:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

tosie (anonymous) says...

No- we'd all be happy if you, tmac, would butt out and have your own "seasonal or winter celebration", whatever you want to call it, and let us have our CHRISTMAS program!!! December 25=CHRISTMAS, the program is the CHRISTMAS program. Don't attend if you don't like it. Thank you.

November 13, 2007 at 2:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

tmac (anonymous) says...

So I can pay taxes, but shouldn't have a voice just because you don't agree with my opinion? Personally, I welcome civil discussion and debate as a means to a solution rather than closed mindedness and anger.

November 13, 2007 at 2:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

tmac, where in the world did you get the idea that Christmas is not a Christian celebration, but a celebration of several cultures? Rosie O'Donnell?
Christmas celebrates the birth Jesus Christ. Period.

Celebrate it however you want, but don't try to change the underlying fact. If you want to shoot off firecrackers on Christmas, and put up winter decorations on July 4th, that's your business, but don't try to deny what the holiday is meant for.

It's not an opinion. So in your opinion is Martin Luther King Day a day to celebrate his birthday, or is it something else?

November 13, 2007 at 2:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

tmac (anonymous) says...

Sixth paragraph...

"The content of the program now includes a variety of music, including traditional Christmas numbers and songs representing other cultures."

If it is a Christian program, than call it a Christmas Celebration, but let the churches of Emporia join together to put it on. However, if it is not a Christian program, then maybe we should call it something other than a Christmas program. Personally, I like the idea of our school children celebrating diversity. It better prepares them for life in the real world.

November 13, 2007 at 3 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

tosie (anonymous) says...

tmac- I pay taxes too and the above is my opinion. Once again, if you don't like it, it's ok. My opinion is that the solution would be for you to not attend the CHRISTMAS program if you don't like it.

November 13, 2007 at 3:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I hope that the school board rereads this article that was reposted in the gazette recently before their meeting....

http://www.emporiagazette.com/news/20...

November 13, 2007 at 3:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

tmac (anonymous) says...

And I respect your opinion and your right to speak it. Thank God the Gazette hosts a forum such as this that allows us to speak out. So what is the issue regarding the churches taking over the celebration?

November 13, 2007 at 3:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

So......... you are right, there are lots of things out there that "better prepares children for life in the real world."

What's that got to do with this? Maybe every holiday should just be changed to something that better prepares children for life in the real world. I don't see where Halloween does much of that, except to give the kids a headstart on their next cavity, maybe we should rename it "Seasonal Dental Awareness Day", and instead of trick-or-treating, the kids could all visit a dentist office, and take classes on brushing and dental hygiene.

I've got lots of great ideas for other holidays, too. By the time I'm done with them you won't recognize a single one of them! LOL

November 13, 2007 at 3:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

tmac (anonymous) says...

Again, why can't the churches take over the celebration? That seems like an easy answer to me.

November 13, 2007 at 3:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

tosie (anonymous) says...

Because you are the only one that is suggesting/supporting idea. This time the majority is speaking and we want CHRISTMAS to be CHRISTMAS.....that seems the answer to me. But thanks for your opinion tmac.

November 13, 2007 at 3:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

tmac, the link the the earlier article I posted answers that question as well or better than I can. What's wrong with leaving it the way it had been for over half a century? Especially when the majority of the people in this (so-called) democracy prefer it that way, and, according to the article, it does NOT violate separation of church and state? I'm not the least bit offended if the program includes other cultures and diversity, but I AM offended if it is completely changed into something else, and renamed. Or should MLK Day be renamed to "John Doe Day", because somebody decides one day they find it offensive?

November 13, 2007 at 3:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

LilJHawkFan (anonymous) says...

Does it really matter what it is called?

November 13, 2007 at 3:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

LilJHawkFan (anonymous) says...

I also agree with emporialifer.

November 13, 2007 at 3:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I agree with emporialifer as well. As for the name, it does matter to alot of people. Ask a Jewish person if they would mind if Hanukkah were renamed to something that did not reflect the heritage and nature/intent of the holiday. Ask a Muslim person if the Hajj should be renamed to "Seasonal Mecca Trip" or something to include "diversity".

Celebrate it however you want, just don't try to call it something it is not. My 2 cents.

November 13, 2007 at 3:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

citizenx (anonymous) says...

If public tax dollars are used to fund a Christmas pagent, it is violating the 1st Amendment about the separation of church and state. It is giving endorsment to the Christian Christmas over the holidays of other religions. The only way around this legally, is to include other religions and change the name, which the city has done, or keep tax dollars out of it and let the private sector fund it. These are the only two solutions, if you want it to be a Christmas program, allow the churches to take it over. Tosie, I know this is a passionate issue, but you can't have it both ways. All tmac is suggesting is the latter solution. And open_eyes, I would take every thing Ashley Walker writes with a grain of salt. I wouldn't consider her an expert on constitutional law.

November 13, 2007 at 3:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

tmac (anonymous) says...

The name does matter, as is evident by this discussion. Why should a Muslim, Jew, Budhist or any other non-Christian have to participate in a Christian celebration? Should their tax dollars be used to fund it? Should their children have to perform in it?

November 13, 2007 at 4:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

tosie (anonymous) says...

I am not asking for things to work both ways, I'm just saying that for all those years we had a Christmas program, then someone decided all of the sudden it was offensive to them and violated their 1st Amendment rights. The majority of us feel that all we're doing is celebrating Christmas with beautiful music and traditions and what makes us angry is that one person can come along and change all of that because they don't like what it's called or what it represents. My suggestion was very simple- don't particpate or attend.

If it's a money issue then think of this....NONE of us got to choose if we had to spend our tax dollars on the Somalians moving into Emporia, but people want to complain about spending a few bucks on a Christmas program.....doesn't really make sense to me.

November 13, 2007 at 4:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

citizenx, what I'm referring to in the link is not what Ashley says (any more than I should take whatever you or anyone else says with a grain of salt?) - nor was I considering her an expert on constitutional law. I was referring to the findings by the American Center for Law and Justice, a Washington , D.C. based not-for-profit public interest law educational group - which she posted. Some people may consider them to be experts on constitutional law. Others may take it with a grain of salt.

November 13, 2007 at 4:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

smith_ron (anonymous) says...

I've been following this discussion for some time. Finally, someone (tmac) makes sense. If the issue is the use of tax money to support a Christian program, then take the dollars out of it. Let the Christian churches put on the program.

November 13, 2007 at 4:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

smith_ron (anonymous) says...

Wasn't the ACLJ founded by Pat Robertson? Doesn't that make its opinion a little biased?

November 13, 2007 at 4:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

eiggohp (anonymous) says...

Why not charge a fee to attend?..we have to pay for athletic events, etc....I don't think anyone would mind paying a couple bucks to see this beautiful Christmas Program...and the money could be used for the cost of the production...and that way no tax money would be involved....so those offended wouldn't have a reason to be dissatisfied.

November 13, 2007 at 4:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

proverbs18_21 (anonymous) says...

smith_ron:

AND we all know how UN-biased the ACLU is, right?

November 13, 2007 at 4:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

proverbs18_21 (anonymous) says...

eiggohp:

I believe they do charge two dollars now for admittance.

November 13, 2007 at 4:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

smith_ron (anonymous) says...

I'd pay to go see it.

November 13, 2007 at 4:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

tmac (anonymous) says...

I don't think the ACLU has a religious affiliation. However, I believe its mission is to defend the Constitution.

November 13, 2007 at 4:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

proverbs18_21 (anonymous) says...

I would say the ACLU has made it quite clear it has NOT an anti-religious view, but rather more specifically an anti-Christian view. I believe it lost sight of its mission to defend the Constitution years ago - if indeed that ever truly was its mission.

November 13, 2007 at 5 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Bjnemp (anonymous) says...

This entire discussion is so sad. America was founded on Christian principles by Christian people who had been persecuted for their beliefs. Therefore, they championed freedom of religion for all faiths, or belief in none. Now it appears the only religion consistently and relentlessly being attacked or restricted is Christianity. 85% of Americans are Christians who celebrate Christmas. Christmas is an official government holiday. Our money is imprinted with the words "In God We Trust". In court we must swear on the Bible and say "So help me God". So do government officials when sworn into office. I support all seasonal religious celebrations (Hannukah, Kwanza, etc) and enjoy attending them. All my Jewish friends feel the same. Let America's 260,000,000 Christians celebrate Christmas and call it what it is. In a Republic, like ours, shouldn't the overwhelming majority have some say or rights? Let Jews celebrate Hannukah. Same with other religious holidays. We, as Americans, support and defend with our lives your right to do so. Please return the favor. (P.S. I am not a Christian. More like a cross between an agnostic and a heathen, but I know right from wrong and preventing America's predominately Christian population from celebrating Christmas is wrong.)

November 13, 2007 at 6:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

karmadog (anonymous) says...

Actually, Bjnemp, the majority of our founding fathers were Deists. And, In God We Trust was added to the money in 1948 as a reaction to the Communist scare. Tmac, I completely agree with you. I would support the school board turning this whole pageantry business over to the community. The churches are in a much better position to put forth the Christmas message. Then, Heim and Co. could spend the extra money on teaching something besides NCLB. I don't understand why the churchs and the supporters want the program but don't want to do the work of the program?

November 13, 2007 at 7 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

smith_ron (anonymous) says...

I guess I'll ask the same thing tmac asked: Why doesn't the church take over the celebration?

November 13, 2007 at 7:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

LilJHawkFan (anonymous) says...

I guess I consider the holidays a personal thing. Call it what you want. Celebrate how you want. As a teacher in the public schools, I will tell you that no child HAS to participate in the program.

Also, Karmadog: I am not sure what the NCLB comment means. Are you implying that teachers WANT NCLB? Please clarify.

November 13, 2007 at 8:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

TPK (anonymous) says...

What about the children that are performing in this celebration. When I was in school in was the seasonal celebration and all six graders were required to be in the thing I don't think it's fair for them to have to only sing about Christmas when not all of them are Christians.

November 13, 2007 at 8:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

Amen on the NCLB LilJhawkfan.

smith_ron, I think the church doesn't take over the program because it would be close to impossible to corral that many children for the many rehearsals it would take to put on such a program. Can you imagine the chaos? Already, chorus and orchestra and band must be rehearsing numbers. Younger ones must already be rehearsing theirs. All this is done in school where children partake in music education. This is where some of the argument about church/state lies.

November 13, 2007 at 8:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

hogan77 (anonymous) says...

tmac: None of the kids are forced to participate in the program. They are given the option to opt out, if they do not participate in the Holidays. It isn't a graded activity, and they cannot be flunked out of class for not attending.

As I had stated before, I am all for other religions having their holidays celebrated, just as the Christians celebrate Christmas. However, when was the last time that the Jewish religion came forward and asked for a Hanuka Program, hosted in the auditorium? Same for every other religion that is available in Emporia. Were you afraid that you would be told no?

I also feel that the Christian churches of Emporia, feeling as strongly about this situation as they do, should step up and agree to host the program. Charging admission is fine as well, make it a low fee though; it IS the holidays and not everyone has extra cash laying around. Three dollars for adults, two dollars for seniors, and free for students, sounds fair to me. I am all for making it fair for everyone in the community. However, if the churches do take over, I feel that they should be allowed to return the program back to it's original state, rather than what it has been made into now. And yes, the children should be allowed to participate in the program, as they have for over 50 years. Just make practice time during NON school hours, so no one can complain.

As for others who do not like the program, either in it's old state or the new, I will repeat as I have said before. No one is twisting your arm to attend, no one is forcing your children to participate, and no one is shoving their religion down your throat. So give it up already, please. Consider the program a blessing, a gift, from the children of your community. Most all religions can appreciate that.

Personally, if it were back to the way it used to be, I would drive the 3+ hours to see it again. However, I feel that the school board had destroyed what it once was all about, and no longer wish to attend. If it DOES happen to return to the way it once was, you can count me in, I will pack up my family just to sit for over an hour and watch. Simple as that.

November 13, 2007 at 8:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

madmom (anonymous) says...

Its terrible they need to bring back the name because the kids don't just sing certain songs there is a variety to include just about everyone. I think who ever chose to change it must be a very unhappy person, who probably needs to go crawl back in the whole they came out of. Whats next the Easterbunny???? What about the kids this is a very big acomplishment for them and they work so hard on it. They deserve to let it go back to the Christmas Program. Who ever wanted it changed just needs to stay home those two nights and rent a movie or something.

November 13, 2007 at 8:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

proverbs18_21 (anonymous) says...

karmadog:

You say- "Actually, Bjnemp, the majority of our founding fathers were Deists."

You might find some interesting (and factual) reading at the website below that says otherwise.

http://members.aol.com/TestOath/deism...

Bjnemp is right. This nation WAS founded on Christian principles by God-fearing men.

November 13, 2007 at 8:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

kdouglas42 (anonymous) says...

Christmas is a tradition that this country had for hundreds of years. It more than just a religious activity. If you feel threatened by this tradition DON'T ATTEND!!!!!

November 13, 2007 at 9:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Dr_Mac (anonymous) says...

Jesus Christ is the ONLY reason for the season. I believe it should be changed back to reflect the truth, Christmas is what it was and should be in no uncertain terms. The ACLU should not have anything to say about people being able to express their gratitude and share love for one another. There is nothing in the constitution which says anything about the seperation of church and state, that information is false. It has no bearing on a Christmas performance, decorations, or any signs regardless of where they are. What is the big deal about spending tax money for something as fundamental as Christmas. We seem to have enough to pour down the black holes for illegal aliens and other immigrants in this town that have arrived here without a vote of the taxpaying residents. If there are those who don't like the idea of celebrating Christmas, I invite you to take a vacation to Cuba, Aruba, or some nice place like that until after the first of the year, or longer.

November 13, 2007 at 9:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

slipandslide (anonymous) says...

kids are not required to attend the program,if their religious beliefs dont agree, they are excused from practices, i know since i grew up here and have known kids who did not participate and were not punished or treated as outsiders for not going. as far as not wanting your tax dollars spent on it, there are tax dollars going on things that not everyone agrees with but i am willing to bet the majority of emporia citizens still want the christmas program and we should not be deprived of our traditions because a few whine about the SMALL amount of money the program costs

November 13, 2007 at 10:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

huntergirl (anonymous) says...

Why don't we just call it Seasonal Celebration? I mean, most of the music is Christmas music, so it has the Christian beliefs. Then there are other songs that are from various other religions. Seasonal Celebration makes sense to me because it is not all Christmas music.

November 13, 2007 at 10:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

karmadog (anonymous) says...

First, LilJHawkFan, no I'm not implying that anyone wants NCLB. I think it's taking a lot of resources and this is perhaps one place to find some resources (if the churches could pick up the program). I personally support this idea so that the program could be presented in a spiritual way. There are enough families who would find the time for their children (and perhaps parents too!) to participate. Dr. Mac, your comments aren't very Christian for someone who wants Christmas back..."black hole for illegal aliens" I doubt that's the attitude that Jesus would take...he'd throw out the money changers (Tyson) but support those affected. Take the Somalians, for example...do you really think they woke up one day and said "let's descend upon Emporia, KS?" But here they are and as Christians we have an obligation to give a hand up when needed.

November 13, 2007 at 10:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

slipandslide (anonymous) says...

i think the point mac is trying to make is a comparasion between money being spent on new citizens without taxpayers votes, but look at the complaining about a smaller amount of money spent on a christmas program

November 13, 2007 at 10:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I just posted this over on the other thread. While it doesn't exactly have to do with this particular thread, in a way, it does. Another example of political correctness gone wild, and another example of Christmas tradition being stepped on and destroyed to cater to the whims of the few, rather than the majority (just what the heck is a democracy, anyway????)

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story...

Here are the first few paragraphs...

"A WA hospital has scrubbed baked ham from its Christmas menu, fearing Muslim patients could be offended.

It has also overhauled its entire menu so that all meals are now halal – containing only meat and other food prepared according to Muslim customs.
But Port Hedland Regional Hospital staff and many non-Muslim patients are outraged, saying it is a case of political correctness gone mad.

Kitchen staff are so angry that they have organised a petition demanding ham be put back on the Christmas menu."

What's wrong with just adding halal meals to the menu that Muslims can choose from if they want?

So what's next? Rename Easter "National Egg Appreciation Day", and ban all references to Christ's resurrection? The Easter Bunny doesn't offend me....

November 13, 2007 at 11:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

undivided (anonymous) says...

Tax Payers of Emporia: A two-way street

Solution 1
If it is the tax money used to fund the "Christmas Program" then why all the fuss? A tax payer can be religous or not. If it is tax payers money used to fund this program then both religous and non-religous believers should have the same option of having a program whether it says "Christmas or Seasonal". How? If tax money is used then two programs can be enjoyed by both parties using taxpayers money and no laws will be violated.
1) for religous (taxpayer) believers- continue with the previous name "Christmas" and those who wish to attend may do so 2) for non religous (taxpayer) believers- continue with "Seasonal" program and those who wish to attend may do so
Sounds simple! It may cost a tad more having 2 programs but look at the bright side at least both parties could be satisified.

Solution 2
Have "NO Christmas or Seasonal" programs funded with taxpayers money and those who wish to have one can join together and have one or two for that matter.

Solution 3
For religous programs: Emporians can start a fund to host a Christmas program every year by renting the auditorium and charge a fee.
For non religous programs: Emporians can start a fund to host a Seasonal program every year by renting the aduitorium and charging a fee.

In respecting the viewpoints of Emporians, Christmas whether is is viewed as religous or not it doesn't mean that Churches should be obligated to host the program. Honestly, how many of us go to church? So who should help fund such programs- everyone and anyone who wants a "Christmas or Seasonal" program.

Or maybe Emporians can have "Program Funding Day to start a collection?

November 14, 2007 at 2:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

slipandslide (anonymous) says...

why would non religious people want to celebrate a religious holiday to begin with? if emporia school kids have to choose which christmas program to participate in, the religious or non religious one which one would have the most participants?

November 14, 2007 at 7:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

emporialifer (anonymous) says...

Well I guess if "Christmas" (heaven forbid I actually call it that because someone might get offended) is just a Christian Holiday that offends so many people, then I want all of you Non-Christians to work on Christmas. All of you state and federal employees that MY tax dollars are going to pay for you to have a PAID day off should be working since apparently you think this is an offensive Christian holiday. Well don't be offended - go to work! Sorry kiddos - can't have your cake and eat it too.

November 14, 2007 at 8:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

karmadog (anonymous) says...

Undivided, the churches should be obligated to put on this program because they are the ones who can do it the best and who want the changes made. Honestly, what good will it do if the school board simply changes the name and not the content? We will have a Christmas program that is nothing more than a polytheistic music lesson. I think JC would ask us to do the work, take on the program and do it right. Also, I don't think he would tell non-Christians to go to work on Christmas. He would show them love and kindness and begin where they are in their beliefs. You can't affect change from the outside or by devise measures.

November 14, 2007 at 9:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jebenja (anonymous) says...

Wow! I think that we are forgetting the whole meaning of the season. Is it going to matter in the long run what the program is called? Will you as a believing Christian not have a good holiday if the seasonal celebration is named the same as it is? Or will you have a better holiday season if it is changed. We I have a better Hannukah celebration if the seasonal celebration is the same? If you Christmas is based on what this musical celebration is called then maybe you should figure out your priorities. I know that as Believer's we want to have God in the fore front of things but your true witness is not based on this seasonal celebration but on your lives and also on the way you relate to others and I have seen many professing Christians on this forum that have not had Godly comments--how are you showing the love of Christ here? Goodness Gracious if Jesus came to Emproria Kansas do you think that He would be concerned on the name of this musical celebration?

November 14, 2007 at 9:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

karmadog (anonymous) says...

Awesome point, jebenja! Good for you.

November 14, 2007 at 9:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Penny (anonymous) says...

I am a Christian who thinks the program is absolutely beautiful just as it is. Each time I see it I am so proud of the children and teachers who put in so much time and talent. I thank God for the gifts this program brings to our community. Whatever you call it, I experience it as a blessing and I pray you will too.

November 14, 2007 at 9:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

LilJHawkFan (anonymous) says...

I guess I just feel like it is my job to go by NCLB. It is NOT my CHOICE, and you better believe that in the upcoming election, my vote will go to the candidate that will scratch or reform NCLB. Also, it really has nothing to do with the Seasonal Celebration. As others have said on here before, students are not REQUIRED to be in the Seasonal Celebration. They most certainly can opt out, and students have BEFORE. It's not a big deal and from my experience, the parents who have children who opt out are kind about it, and simply say that they will not have their child participate in it because of their personal religious beliefs.

I LOVE the Seasonal Celebration and I think that people who attend it should appreciate it for what it is. We welcome all religions and sing about all religions. There is an African song, songs about snow, songs about PEACE ON EARTH. Take it for what it is, let's stop picking apart every little thing and look at it like this:

Did the kids learn something?
Do they feel proud about accomplishing something?
Are they having fun?
Are they succeeding at something?

If the answer is yes to all of these after the Seasonal Celebration, then we have succeeded as educators. If the answer starts to be no, then we need to re-evaluate. After all, this is not about the ADULTS, it is about the KIDS. Please remember that the kids are the most important component in this whole big ordeal.

November 14, 2007 at 10:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I would venture a guess that the answer was yes to all of these BEFORE it got renamed. So what's the point.

jebenja, alot of us feel like it is just another milestone on the slippery slope. Where will it end? Will ham be banned at Christmas (oops, multi-cultural celebration) next? Did you see the article on the recommendations by the Fort Collins, CO board about ONLY allowing icicles and snowflake decorations at Christmas, and NO colored lights - only white lights? I ask, what's next?

November 14, 2007 at 11:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

tosie (anonymous) says...

all I can say is THANK GOD I don't live in Emporia anymore....what a stressful town! So much drama! Somalians, high taxes, a Christmas program that can't be called a Christmas Program, no jobs, Tyson and their stinkiness, rapes, disease.....wow....it's sad that such a nice little town can turn into such a crap hole. I am going to have to stop reading these blogs because they just anger and sadden me to see what my hometown has become....

November 14, 2007 at 11:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

LilJHawkFan (anonymous) says...

I still like living here, I have lived other places and there was just as much drama and controversy. It is everywhere.

November 14, 2007 at 12:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

tosie (anonymous) says...

well for a small town it's too much.......

November 14, 2007 at 12:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

tmac (anonymous) says...

You know, I have lived in Emporia for almost three years. I just don't see Emporia as being the "crap hole" that others call it. I, too, have lived in other towns and other states. Emporia, by far, is my favorite. It has some great LOCAL shopping, decent Mexican restaurants, nice diversity and culture and a community that is passionate about issues (such as the Christmas celebration). I like that on those rare occasions when I am bored, I can be in Wichita, Topeka, Manhattan, Lawrence or Kansas City in no more than two hours.
My complaints: no Italian restaurant and the few people who have nothing better to do than complain about Emporia.

November 14, 2007 at 12:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

smith_ron (anonymous) says...

I can't believe I am going to say this, but I agree with tmac. Emporia is not Utopia, but no city is. Emporia is a damn fine town, though.

November 14, 2007 at 12:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jbbrinkman (anonymous) says...

I've seen it referred to several times here, so I'd like to remind everyone of a basic civics principle:

Our laws, our constitution and our system of checks and balances in government aren't in place to ensure the rule of the majority. They are in place to protect the rights of the minority.

Because the "mob" (majority) isn't able to trample the rights of those in society's margins, America is a great country - and still the reason why so many who aren't here want to be here. Ours is not a democracy, but a democratic republic. This is a subtle, but important difference (for all it's shortcomings).

Maybe we need to stop - take a breath - and think about this for a while. We live in a pluralistic society, and I think we're the better for it. We're able to practice religion in a way that is most comfortable for us because we're free from the "majority" trying to bend our society to it's world-view.

By whose measure should we stretch or trunicate others? Who's a "dunker" and who's a "sprinkler" and how should we decide who's right? THAT's the reason for the protections of our constitution, and what makes America the greatest country on earth.

November 14, 2007 at 1:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Actually jb, I would argue that the laws are in place for BOTH.
Our government is designed to express not only THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY (democracy), but ALSO to simultaneously protect the unalienable rights of minorities and the powerless.

I made the analogy awhile back about a democracy composed of 3 wolves and 1 sheep. In a pure democracy, the sheep's chances are pretty slim. But that does NOT mean that under our constitution, the sheep can force the 3 wolves to all eat grass. Our democracy is also to ensure that the majority are not subject to the will of a few or minority, like the King's power in England from whence they came. Protecting minority rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and basic human rights is different from allowing them to dictate to the majority.

So you're right, there's always going to be some give and take and points of contention. Problem that I see nowadays is, political correctness has gotten so out of hand it believes that it is the sheep who deserves all the power.

November 14, 2007 at 1:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jbbrinkman (anonymous) says...

Excellent point, open_eyes. I think, though, that the nugget of truth that lies at the heart of the issue becomes obscured.

Those on the "seasonal" side of the issue do not want to obscure in any way the rights of those on the "christmas" side to practice their christianity in their own way.

The krux is the fact that the program is publicly funded. The establishment clause is pretty clear in this issue. Take the Christmas Program out of the schools, out of the public dole, and there is no problem (what we have now by opening up the subject matter of the program to more than just the birth of Christ). Change the content back to a single religious view and we've crossed the line governed by the establishment clause. Change the name and not the content... whew, that's a tough one. Suffice it to say, I'm glad I'm not a school board member.

The sheep can't force the wolves to eat grass, but the sheep can force the wolves to eat something other than sheep.

November 14, 2007 at 1:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I totally agree, it is a very "thorny" issue, and you bring up an excellent view of it also. One one of the links on an earlier thread on this issue, there were some findings by the Courts that stated religious displays on public ground and with public funds WERE ok, as long as a non-religious symbol, such as Santa Clause or a Christmas tree, were also displayed in the same field of view. Which I believe Christmas programs have always had some "Jingle Bells" aspect to them. I guess my question is why was it ever changed in the first place? 100 wolves and 25 sheep - the wolves agreed no to eat any more sheep. So 24 of the sheep were ok with the wolves eating rabbits - 1 sheep complained..... now the wolves are eating tofu... :)
Ok, my humor is pretty weak. Anyway, back to that earlier thread on the findings, if I get some time here quick I'll try to look it up....

November 14, 2007 at 1:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Found it pretty quick. Posted by hogan77...

http://www.lc.org/resources/nativity.htm

These are findings of the Supreme Court. I won't cut/paste any here, but I would urge interested people to read it. Worth some discussion.

November 14, 2007 at 1:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

smith_ron (anonymous) says...

Liberty Counsel is affiliated with Liberty University, which was founded by the late (and disgraced) Rev. Jerry Falwell.

If you want to cite the Supreme Court, consider its Website:
www.oyez.org. It will have more credibility.

November 14, 2007 at 2:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jebenja (anonymous) says...

open-eyes, I understand that it is a milestone but I guess I am just thinking of the words of Jesus when He spoke to Peter in John 21:15 "do you love me more then these?" and when Peter said yes, Jesus said "Tend My lambs." NASB. He didn't say make a named celebration a priority. He didn't say honor my birthday He said Tend my Lambs. As Believer's shouldn't it be our milestone on the "slippery slope" to tend to people especially in our community and not so much on the importance of a program and what it is name? If we are devoted readers of the Word we will also see that this slippery slope is going to continue to get that way. I guess I am confused about what exactly needs to be proved by the changing of the name of this program. Maybe I will go to the board meeting to find out. By the way I have lived in Emporia all my life and I celebrate Hannukah and yes I believe in Jesus--but whether I go to this program or not and whether the name is changed of not will not effect what I do for the Kingdom of God.

November 14, 2007 at 2:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

You're absolutely right, jebenja, whether we are dragged down the slippery slope kicking and screaming, or whether it is done so subtley as to escape our notice, it should not change who we are, what we believe and how we should act.

So I went to the Supreme Court website, did some quick searching, and it pretty much confirmed what the Liberty Counsel said that the Supreme Court said. Here's a small snippet:

"The requirement of neutrality inherent in the Lemon formulation does not require a relentless extirpation of all contact between government and religion. Government policies of accommodation, acknowledgement, and support for religion are an accepted part of our political and cultural heritage, and the Establishment Clause permits government some latitude in recognizing the central role of religion in society. Any approach less sensitive to our heritage would border on latent hostility to religion, as it would require government in all its multifaceted roles to acknowledge only the secular, to the exclusion and so to the detriment of the religious. Thus, this Court's decisions disclose two principles limiting the government's ability to recognize and accommodate religion: It may not coerce anyone to support or participate in any religion or its exercise; and it may not, in the guise of avoiding hostility or callous indifference, give direct benefits to a religion in such a degree that it in fact establishes a state religion or tends to do so. In other words, the government may not place its weight behind an obvious effort to proselytize on behalf of a particular religion. On the other hand, where the government's act of recognition or accommodation is passive and symbolic, any intangible benefit to religion is unlikely to present a realistic risk of establishment. To determine whether there exists an establishment, or a tendency toward one, reference must be made to the other types of church-state contacts that have existed unchallenged throughout our history or that have been found permissible in our case law. For example, Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, upheld a city's holiday display of a creche, and Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, held that a State's practice of employing a legislative chaplain was permissible. Pp. 655-663."

November 14, 2007 at 2:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jbbrinkman (anonymous) says...

This issue with the court decisions is . What is the intent of displaying a nativity? Cultural? OK. Religious? Not OK. Again, it's the establishment clause. Your citation is pretty clear that this is the main determination of the courts in finding the difference between religious and cultural display.

This is exactly what we have now with the "Seasonal Celebration". It is pretty clear that the courts support the cultural display. When those in the community who want to change the cultural display (Seasonal Celebration) to a religious one (Christmas Program), then we can expect the ACLU to come calling again and as you have referenced above - the court decisions are pretty clear.

As to why the program was changed in the first place. When I had to participate (I had to participate. 6th grade. Everyone had music. Everyone had to be in the Christmas Program. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise, there were no options) there was plenty of prayer and lots of Amens. I remember the quote from the guy from the ACLU who observed the program... "This was a worship service" (or something to that effect, it's been 15 years or so). It was at the time (for 50 or more years) a violation of the establishment clause.

November 14, 2007 at 2:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

tosie (anonymous) says...

MERRY CHRISTMAS!!! Boy isn't this column great for getting everyone in the Christmas spirit! LOL!!!!

Oops, sorry, for those ACLU people and those who don't believe in CHRISTMAS.....Merry Winter Season!!! WHATEVER!

November 14, 2007 at 2:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I agree with you that children should not have been required to participate. I'm surprised, I went to a small school and back in the 60's and 70's it was NOT required, because there was a student who did not participate for religious reasons, and he was not penalized whatsoever. Sorry to hear your school did not follow that, I am genuinely surprised given my experience. So apparently people can tell me otherwise, it seems it depended on the school. I agree, it was wrong to make it mandatory.
The court also states that addressing only the secular expresses hostility towards religion, and is not tolerated either.

Like I said, lots of gray area in the middle it seems, but its a good discussion. Good points by all.

November 14, 2007 at 2:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

tmac (anonymous) says...

This is great!! Who knew this topic could be so informative. Thanks for the tip about oyez. For another great First Amendment site, try www.firstamendmentcenter.org. I find their explanations to be a little more understandable.

November 14, 2007 at 2:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

tmac (anonymous) says...

And for what it is worth, I believe in the Constitution, and I believe in the mission of the ACLU (I don't always agree with their opinions, for what it is worth). And if you want to meet me in person, I am at the First United Methodist Church every Sunday.

November 14, 2007 at 2:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

eiggohp (anonymous) says...

Someone ask "What is next?"....I was told today that two men who had been "Santa Claus" for many years resigned because they were informed that they were no longer supposed to say "HO, HO, HO"....it is not "politically correct."....and I asked if this was a joke and was told that it was fact.

November 14, 2007 at 3:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MichellB (anonymous) says...

Wow, I thought maybe just a little, Emporia has progressed from being such a backwards thinking college town. Diversity is one thing that the college brings to the small quaint town of Emporia. With diversity brings culture. Emporia has come along way just by changing the name to a seasonal program. Why go backwards when you have progressed so far? December is a month of wonderful holidays that include many celebrations. Does it matter what an event is called? YES it does because as a community we should all be excepting of all cultures and not offend anyone. It would be very offensive to leave out Chanukkah as well as Kwanza or any other clebration,which is what you would do by calling a program"Christmas". Intercultural communication is so important whether it is spoken or written. We should be careful not to offend and accept instead. After reading that there are community members who want this changed I do not not feel accepted as my religion nor as my culture in Emporia. Education is important and by changing the name of the program"Christmas" I wouldn't say your view of education is embracing each other for who they are by any means. I guess those who want change, a change that is not accepting to other cultures is saying that you aren't wanting to include anyone but yourself. It would be much more enlightening to be able to celebrate the month of December with all our brothers and sisters no matter the religion or culture.

November 14, 2007 at 4:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

hogan77 (anonymous) says...

Personally, I am a little disturbed about this whole situation. I am offended that we Christians cannot have our traditions, that we have to have everything taken away from us; we have to accommodate everyone else. I am offended that we are told we can no longer display images of Jesus or sing about him, that it might trouble someone to see or hear of the image of a higher being. I am offended that all of this wonderful "culture" and "diversity" as so many call it, has brought disease, crime and hate to our homeland. I am offended that our politicians really DON'T have our best interest at heart, they are more concerned about appearances. I find all of this "political correctness" to be non-politically correct (insert giggle from others here).

Now my question is, will the ACLU come running to MY side to work this all out? Highly doubtful.

I am trying to be helpful, from a distance. I know it isn't much consolation to everyone in Emporia, but I am willing to offer suggestions.

Someone had mentioned that having the churches host the program is impossible, or near impossible. I find that a load of crap. Ever heard of a ministerial alliance? Perhaps the town of Emporia could look into this option. It is a group of non denominational priests, preachers, ministers, who come together FOR the community, to do projects to better the community, as a whole. They organize people of all different religions together, to complete these projects in unison. Even if you had 10 ministers, preachers, whatever, and they each brought 10 people with them, that is 100 adults, coming together. I am pretty sure that 100 adults could manage this many kids especially considering the amount of teachers we really have doing this now (we all know there is a shortage). And asking the teachers to volunteer their time is another option. I know everyone is incredibly busy in today's world, but wouldn't it be worth it to slow down for a month, to attempt something like this?

In my town, we have this. And, if it weren't for this ministerial alliance, who knows where we would stand. We all gather together to support the Catholic Church, we all gather together to support the Methodist, Baptist, Free Will churches as well. Also, because of this alliance, we have managed to have a decent CHRISTMAS festival, yes, with some religion attached. Perhaps it is time for Emporia schools, churches, politicians, and community to gather together, get themselves on the right track.

November 14, 2007 at 5:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

LilJHawkFan (anonymous) says...

Hogan- I see what you mean, but please take a look at what Christians have done to people throughout history. In a nutshell, we came to this land and told people that their religions were wrong, and forced them to change to Christianity. As a Christian, I am embarassed about what we have done to people throughout history.

November 14, 2007 at 6:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

LilJHawkFan (anonymous) says...

Jbbrinkman-the rules have changed-not all students have to participate.

November 14, 2007 at 6:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

hogan77 (anonymous) says...

Yes, JHawk, I understand that what you are saying. But, as decent humans, I would think that we could ask forgiveness for the things we have done wrong, and hope to move on. Plus, we are not the only religion guilty of wrong doing. But, that is a completely different subject, best saved for a different time and place. I swear, things just "suck" for everyone all around, don't they? We all take three steps forward, and one step back.

November 14, 2007 at 7:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MisterO (anonymous) says...

I'm not sure I should even respond to this, but I'm not sure why some people don't understand.

It's been said over and over in the previous comments that this whole issue is NOT about wanting to remove Christ from Christmas or prevent Christians from celebrating Christmas.

The whole issue is related to taxpayer dollars being used for the program. Let me see if I can try to explain. For those who think it should be the Christmas program, think about this statement (which is at the crux of this issue):

"I think it's perfectly acceptable for the schools to use taxpayer dollars to fund and promote the Christmas program, which is primarily a Christian holiday."

Do you agree with that statement?

Let's change two words and see if you still agree:

"I think it's perfectly acceptable for the schools to use taxpayer dollars to promote Ramadan, which is a primarily a Muslim holiday."

Now do you agree with the statement?

If not, then you probably now know how non-Christians might feel about using their tax dollars to support the Christmas program.

It's very likely true that the overwhelming majority of people in Emporia are Christians. But the funny thing about the Constitution is that it wasn't written to protect the rights of the majority. It was written to protect the rights of the minority.

Nobody is saying we can't practice Christian celebrations. Nobody is saying we can't display images of Jesus or sing about him. What's being said is that we can't use taxpayer dollars to fund one religion's holiday (whether that religion is Christian, pagan, Jewish, or Muslim).

Just my thoughts.

November 14, 2007 at 7:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

hogan77 (anonymous) says...

My answers to that, MisterO are, yes, yes and you are a little off base. I am getting from this that people are upset that the "Christmas Program" is not actually about Christmas anymore. I am seeing over and over on this that this discussion more about religion, and what we are allowed to practice. Only a few have mentioned tax payers dollars. Which, if this is the route you are wanting to take on the discussion, let me say again.

Hand this over to the churches. Have the church members and teachers DONATE (yes, that's a hard word to swallow for a few who wish not to give, or are foolish and don't understand the meaning of the word DONATE) their time, have the same churches collect monetary donations to pay for the cost of having the program, or charge an admission fee to the public. If you tried this, you might get a bigger response than you think. I have a feeling that there are quite a few people in Emporia willing to shell out 15 dollars a family to help pay the cost, if it was actually returned to a "Christmas" Program.

November 14, 2007 at 7:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MisterO (anonymous) says...

I agree completely, Hogan77. I think it would be great if the community (churches and citizens both) took over the production and brought back the Christmas program.

Though I'm not sure what I'm a little off base about, that's ok. I'm not always good at expressing my thoughts, but to me the issue is crystal clear why the program was changed. In my view, it wasn't about anyone trying to suppress anyone's religion - it was about upholding the Constitutional separation clause (and avoiding a law suit, of course).

November 14, 2007 at 8:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

smith_ron (anonymous) says...

Regarding the Establishment Clause and the separation of church and state, here is some interesting information, from the previously mentioned First Amendment Center:

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/r...

November 14, 2007 at 8:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

MisterO, if I were in a country where the majority were Muslims, and they had a long-standing tradition where their schools had a festival honoring Ramadan, I would have absolutely no problem with it. As long as no students were forced to participate. If the majority of the country decided that was what they liked, then that's fine. A democracy isn't ALL about protecting minority, SOMEWHERE in there is something about the majority........... maybe in the fine print somewhere.......???

November 14, 2007 at 10:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Oh, by the way, I heard tonight that Lowe's Home Improvement removed "Christmas" trees from their catalog and replaced them with "Family" trees. They're apologizing for the "oversight".........

November 14, 2007 at 10:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )