Postal Service phases out Christmas [Archive] - HP Deals, Computer Coupons And Bargains

Itsme

11-01-2005, 06:54 PM

Postal Service phases out Christmas

Each year since 1962, the Postal Service has created a commemorative stamp for the Christmas season. That first 4-cent stamp depicted a green wreath with a red bow and the words "Christmas 1962" on the lower half of the stamp.

In 1966, the first of a recurring series of Christmas stamps showing various artists' renditions of the Madonna and Child began. This series would run until 2004.

In 1972, a double Christmas issue began. The "traditional" stamp continued with its Madonna and Child depiction. The new "contemporary" stamp showed secular symbols - Santa Claus, among others. Although different in subject, they all had the word "Christmas" on the face of the stamp.

In 1980, the contemporary stamp began to change. The words "Christmas" or "Merry Christmas" were replaced with "Season's Greetings." In 1986, "Season's" was stricken from the contemporary in favor of the one word "Greetings." In 1995, the contemporary changed again when "Greetings" was dropped in favor of no wording.

This brings us to 2005, when you no longer will find traditional Madonna and Child Christmas stamps or the word "Christmas" on any stamps at your post office. For the first time in 43 years, the Postal Service has not issued a traditional Christmas stamp.

However, you will find the brand new "holiday issue" - four 37-cent stamps of holiday cookies. The first shows a cookie Santa. The second shows cookie snowpersons, one masculine and one feminine. Another shows a cookie angel. The last shows cookie elves, one a light sugar cookie the other a dark gingerbread.

The Citizens Stamp Advisory Committee, appointed by the U.S. postmaster general to delegate subject matter on postage, should be duly recognized in approving this "holiday" series. The U.S. Postal Service Web site lists a few members: Jean Firstenberg, director American Film Institute; Dr. Henry Gates Jr., Afro-American Studies chair, Harvard University; Michael Heyman, chancellor emeritus, University of California at Berkeley; and Karl Malden, actor.

These distinguished Americans are certainly very inclusive in regards to race and gender, and thoughtful enough to add mythical persons, Santa Claus and spirit persons -angels. At the same time, they bravely shield us from the offensive by avoiding any reference to "Christmas."

My only question of the committee is this: Explain to me, please, exactly what "holiday" do these new stamps celebrate?

This year, maybe I'll just send a Christmas e-mail instead.

Barry Navarre

Rayne

Originally published October 29, 2005

http://www.theadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051029/OPINION03/510290310/1014/OPINION

Burzhui

11-01-2005, 07:10 PM

good, religion has no place in any public or govermental branch. The sooner religion is removed from our lives the better we will all be

MikeD

11-01-2005, 07:12 PM

good, religion has no place in any public or govermental branch. The sooner religion is removed from our lives the better we will all be

I'm assuming you don't celebrate Christmas then. No gifts for/from you? :)

Burzhui

11-01-2005, 09:27 PM

I'm assuming you don't celebrate Christmas then. No gifts for/from you? :)

i don't do religion period, i celebrate new year's however that's when i get my presents

nickel

11-02-2005, 04:27 AM

i don't do religion period, i celebrate new year's however that's when i get my presents
yeh, cause you just want to hit up all the after Christmas sales before your gift giving. :P

were you annoyed in Italy with the religious references all around?

LegendKiller

11-02-2005, 05:12 AM

good, religion has no place in any public or govermental branch. The sooner religion is removed from our lives the better we will all be

Technically the USPS isn't a governmental branch. They are a self-supporting entity, they have revenue and net-income figures like any normal company. The workers aren't even considered full governmental workers, but quasi-governmental in many ways, much akin to Federal Reserve workers, except even more distant from the government.

The only reason why the government keeps control of the USPS is for their own shipments, full control of the distribution of the mail (all citizens have the right to mail, mail on saturdays...etc), and they love the 1.5 billion + in net income the USPS throws off.

A stamp is a comercial good that comes in many different styles/categories and you are not forced to choose among one good.

That being said, they had many Holiday stamps, including Jewish and Islamic stamps. You were/are not forced or unduly influenced to buy that stamp or forced to see it. I find nothing wrong with keeping Christmas or other religious stamps.

adjaw

11-02-2005, 05:19 AM

i don't do religion period, i celebrate new year's however that's when i get my presents

:ptlaugh: Sounds like a Festivus kinda person.

Lolita

11-02-2005, 06:18 AM

:ptlaugh: Sounds like a Festivus kinda person.

He left out the fact that he's Russian and Russians celebrate New Year's with the tree and gift-giving and Father Winter, etc...but religion does not play a role in that holiday.

Btw, Festivus is alright in my book :thumbup:

jstreet

11-02-2005, 06:30 AM

I celebrate Christmas. I think it's been coopted enough by various entities (Hallmark, retail, the government) that it's not a Christian thing any more. I celebrate Santa and co., not Jesus and co.

So new stamps seem good to me! I do like my holiday cookies.

Burzhui

11-02-2005, 08:33 AM

Burzhui

11-02-2005, 08:37 AM

:ptlaugh: Sounds like a Festivus kinda person.

heh

"Many Christmases ago, I went to buy a doll for my son. I reached for the last one they had, but so did another man. As I rained blows upon him, I realized there had to be another way.
"

DarkFury

11-02-2005, 09:03 AM

heh

"Many Christmases ago, I went to buy a doll for my son. I reached for the last one they had, but so did another man. As I rained blows upon him, I realized there had to be another way.
"
:eek: You have a son...

:eek: He likes dolls... :eek:

We never knew...

attgig

11-02-2005, 10:15 AM

well said LK. nobody's forcing you to buy those particular stamps...

Showtime

11-02-2005, 10:25 AM

"Festivus for the rest of us."

:wavey:

kgsilvas

11-02-2005, 10:28 AM

Sad to see this tradition phased out in a nod to PC. Wonder if the Postal Service will give up Christmas as a holiday then????

LPMiller

11-02-2005, 11:25 AM

yes, because that would be a logical assumption based on reasoned thought.

ufcrusher

11-02-2005, 12:01 PM

For all of you people who are offended by the removal of the "traditional christmas" stamps, I really wonder if you ever stop and look at it from other religions persepectives?

How would you feel if everywhere you go in December, everyone said, Happy Hannukah or even Happy Kwanza? Every store....every worker. They all say the same thing. No one mentions Christmas. Would you feel fine or would you be annoyed? You would wonder why none of these places could just say, Happy Holidays, which would include everything. But no, most of them say Happy Hannukah or Happy Kwanza. They ask you if you have your menorah out yet, have dreidels and gelt. (Sorry dont know what is put up for Kwanza)

I am sure most of you think that you would just shrug it off, but in reality over time you would get more and more annoyed by it. Why force your beliefs on others? Why should you assume that everyone is like you?

Back to the stamps, yes they offer stamps of the multiple religions and it is up to the individual to purchase what they want. However, have you ever noticed that many of your envelopes will have the stamps stamped with Merry Christmas? I think I can recall seeing Happy Holidays every once in a while, but I clearly recall seeing the Merry Christmas one a lot. (In fairness, I am slightly annoyed by that one so I would remember it more than one that is harmless in my mind.)

Burzhui

11-02-2005, 10:01 PM

....(Sorry dont know what is put up for Kwanza)
...

no one does :)

BigJon

11-02-2005, 10:03 PM

Why force your beliefs on others? Why should you assume that everyone is like you?
The belief of separation of church and state is forced upon those who do not wish it... How is that any different? Why should the we assume that everyone is atheist? :shrug:

cheapchinese

11-03-2005, 02:58 AM

PC people should really take a step back sometimes and lay off issues like these. I thought Democracy was MAJORITY RULES. Since Bush got elected, I can assume, the Majority of AMERICAN wouldn't mind having christmas on their stamps.
The only people that would have problems would be people that believes in different religions. Hello, ever heard of embracing, or adapting to your environment.
Whats next, smoking is allowed back in resturants again, as they feel offended, that they are being discrimminated against. (humour)

Another example, Prostitution, should we crimminalize the act? Some may argue by doing that we're forcing unemployment on them. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051102/wl_asia_afp/afplifestyletaiwansexrights Do they harm anyone?

********
sorry just finish a freaken paper......I HATE HUMANITY (AS A CLASS)

POLITICAL FORUM?

LPMiller

11-03-2005, 04:51 AM

The belief of separation of church and state is forced upon those who do not wish it... How is that any different? Why should the we assume that everyone is atheist? :shrug:

it's not a belief, it's established law. And it's 'forced' on goverment. Not people.

nickel

11-03-2005, 05:16 AM

it's not a belief, it's established law. And it's 'forced' on goverment. Not people.
and by being 'forced' on government it is effectively forced on people.

11-03-2005, 05:25 AM

The USPS is missing a great PR opportunity here. They should hold a design contest for a limited edition (numbered even) book of 20 stamps that celebrates the world's religions. Each stamp would also be available as a book of just that stamp. Have contests at elementary, middle, and high schools, as well as from college art students from around the country.

Just a thought.

InfiniteNothing

11-03-2005, 06:22 AM

and by being 'forced' on government it is effectively forced on people.

I wasn't aware there was an opposing constitutional right to have pretty envelopes. Your not having anything forced on you.

On a side note, there's a website that lets you put a picture of your choosing on stamps.

InfiniteNothing

11-03-2005, 06:24 AM

The belief of separation of church and state is forced upon those who do not wish it... How is that any different? Why should the we assume that everyone is atheist? :shrug:

How is SOCAS forced upon you? :rolleyes: Government can't just pick and chose which religions to support. The whole point is so that everyone's treated equally and fairly. Lastly, what happened to all of you "private corporations can do as they like" folk? This isn't coming from SOCAS this is coming from a private decision.

nickel

11-03-2005, 06:44 AM

I wasn't aware there was an opposing constitutional right to have pretty envelopes. Your not having anything forced on you.

On a side note, there's a website that lets you put a picture of your choosing on stamps.
sure we are. we are having this change forced upon us.
and no amount of fancy words or fancy rationalizations will change that fact.

on a side note, i am not paying extra to have customized stamps made.
it's not worth that much to me.

nickel

11-03-2005, 06:45 AM

jstreet

11-03-2005, 07:14 AM

sure we are. we are having this change forced upon us.
and no amount of fancy words or fancy rationalizations will change that fact.Who's forcing anyone to do anything? The Postal Service opted to make a choice they're entitled to make.

zenbooty

11-03-2005, 07:18 AM

Jeez guys, it ain't even Thansgiving yet, and already all the annual "boo hoo hoo they're banning Christmas" gobbledegook is pouring forth. Can't you at least wait till shopping season starts?

nickel

11-03-2005, 07:36 AM

Jeez guys, it ain't even Thansgiving yet, and already all the annual "boo hoo hoo they're banning Christmas" gobbledegook is pouring forth. Can't you at least wait till shopping season starts?
Jeez zen, it ain't even Thanksgiving yet, and already you are doing your Scrooge bit. :P

InfiniteNothing

11-03-2005, 09:38 AM

I believe Scrooge had financial objections to Christmas.

InfiniteNothing

11-03-2005, 09:40 AM

sure we are. we are having this change forced upon us.
and no amount of fancy words or fancy rationalizations will change that fact.

on a side note, i am not paying extra to have customized stamps made.
it's not worth that much to me.

Having a change forced on you? That's like saying I'm forcing my avatar on you.

nickel

11-03-2005, 09:55 AM

Having a change forced on you? That's like saying I'm forcing my avatar on you.
not the same, but if you allowed me to use your avatar and then took it away and said i wasn't allowed to use it anymore - then you forced me to stop using it.

nickel

11-03-2005, 09:56 AM

I believe Scrooge had financial objections to Christmas.
he had more objections than that. although his greed tops the list.

jstreet

11-03-2005, 10:13 AM

not the same, but if you allowed me to use your avatar and then took it away and said i wasn't allowed to use it anymore - then you forced me to stop using it.Again, who's forcing anything?

If you've got a pile of left over 4-cent Virgin Mary stamps, they're not going to return the mail to you if you use them and say "NO MARY, NO VIRGINS". Just make sure you put on enough to add to whatever they hell they're charging for stamps today.

InfiniteNothing

11-03-2005, 10:20 AM

not the same, but if you allowed me to use your avatar and then took it away and said i wasn't allowed to use it anymore - then you forced me to stop using it.

All right, I'll meet you half way, it's more like if I started charging you more to use it.

InfiniteNothing

11-03-2005, 10:28 AM

Again, who's forcing anything?

If you've got a pile of left over 4-cent Virgin Mary stamps, they're not going to return the mail to you if you use them and say "NO MARY, NO VIRGINS". Just make sure you put on enough to add to whatever they hell they're charging for stamps today.

That's a good point too. There's a difference between discontinuing something and banning something. If P&G discontinued selling your favorite shampoo they're not forcing you to use another shampoo. You can still use what you have left. Or you can even stop washing your hair.

LPMiller

11-03-2005, 11:12 AM

and by being 'forced' on government it is effectively forced on people.

Uh, no, it's protecting the people from goverment enforced religion. The people can worship how they see fit. They are not being forced to not worship, only the government is being forced to not enforce worship or religion. There is no 'ergo' here.

Grimm

11-03-2005, 11:19 AM

The post office is in effect a heavily regulated business. They can put whatever they want on their stamps. So long as people have a secular option as one of the things they can choose it's acceptable. If they want to print stams featuring thumb tacks, that's their business. So long as the letter gets where it is going.

How about we ask for a new Rosa Parks stamp and call it all good?

nickel

11-03-2005, 12:37 PM

Uh, no, it's protecting the people from goverment enforced religion. The people can worship how they see fit. They are not being forced to not worship, only the government is being forced to not enforce worship or religion. There is no 'ergo' here.
yeh, i am all about worshipping stamps. you should see the shrine i have - every Christmas stamp since 1962 is on it. :gle:

nickel

11-03-2005, 12:38 PM

Airencracken

11-03-2005, 12:39 PM

yeh, i am all about worshipping stamps. you should see the shrine i have - every Christmas stamp since 1962 is on it.

:rolleyes:

Semantics woman strikes again!

nickel

11-03-2005, 12:40 PM

:rolleyes:

Semantics woman strikes again!
aww, but you love me and you know it.

and LP expects it off me. i wouldn't want to disappoint him :D

Airencracken

11-03-2005, 12:44 PM

aww, but you love me and you know it.

and LP expects it off me. i wouldn't want to disappoint him :D

Aww, but you love me and you know it.

jstreet

11-03-2005, 12:47 PM

:rolleyes:

Semantics woman strikes again!:heh:

cheapchinese

11-03-2005, 01:37 PM

then why are we making oaths on the bible?

whats next taking the wording "under god" from the Pledge of Allegience

zenbooty

11-03-2005, 01:56 PM

then why are we making oaths on the bible?So politicians can lie under oath with clear conscience :shrug:?

whats next taking the wording "under god" from the Pledge of Allegience
We can only hope.

jstreet

11-03-2005, 02:04 PM

So politicians can lie under oath with clear conscience :shrug:?HAH!

ialsohaveadream

11-03-2005, 03:36 PM

PC people should really take a step back sometimes and lay off issues like these. I thought Democracy was MAJORITY RULES. Since Bush got elected, I can assume, the Majority of AMERICAN wouldn't mind having christmas on their stamps.
Bush (and any president of the past generation, was elected by about 20% of the population. 20% < 50%. Elections only reflect majorities of voters, not the entire population.

Anyway, I don't get why USPS would do this. It can't be possible the the stamps are selling poorly, because nearly ever piece of mail I get Nov-January has a Christmas stamp on it. This is kinda like Cadbury no longer selling their creme eggs at Easter...which would (justifiably, if I may say so) cause a riot.

jstreet

11-03-2005, 03:51 PM

Bush (and any president of the past generation, was elected by about 20% of the population. 20% < 50%. Elections only reflect majorities of voters, not the entire population.And in addition, the Bill of Rights is decidedly anti-majoritarian. It's important to allow the minority not to be oppressed.

Anyway, I don't get why USPS would do this. It can't be possible the the stamps are selling poorly, because nearly ever piece of mail I get Nov-January has a Christmas stamp on it. This is kinda like Cadbury no longer selling their creme eggs at Easter...which would (justifiably, if I may say so) cause a riot.Well, maybe they took a cue from our commander and chief: "[We must] ask not only what is legal but what is right, not what the lawyers allow but what the public deserves".

The majority can put forth symbols of Christianity and maybe even get away for whatever reason without SCOTUS knocking them down, but even though it's not an ILLEGAL endorsement of religion, the Post Office might have considered that it just ain't right.

It's a great quote by Bush. Probably one of the two things he's said that would actually get me to cheer. Too bad he forgot it! :hehehmm:

InfiniteNothing

11-03-2005, 04:21 PM

This is kinda like Cadbury no longer selling their creme eggs at Easter...which would (justifiably, if I may say so) cause a riot.

Cadbury eggs are secular enough already.

ialsohaveadream

11-03-2005, 04:30 PM

Cadbury eggs are secular enough already.
So is a Christmas tree. Or a wreath. Or bells and ribbons. A crucifix, not so much.

cheapie

11-03-2005, 04:50 PM

zenbooty

11-03-2005, 05:00 PM

hmmm...good points. then i guess you wouldn't mind if businesses and people didn't say happy Hannukah in israel then would you? you know....so as not to offend the christian minority there. :rolleyes:That's Israel's business, and not really something I'm concerned with. I'm not there, I'm here.

And no one's arguing that you can't say Merry Christmas. To paraphrase someone who's enamored with all things Republican on this board, the sky is not falling.

MikeD

11-03-2005, 05:00 PM

Bush (and any president of the past generation, was elected by about 20% of the population. 20% < 50%. Elections only reflect majorities of voters, not the entire population.

It would stand to reason, though, that the election was like one huge Gallup/ABC/CNN poll. The same percentage of people who voted for Bush (out of the total number of voters) would stand to be found amongst non-voters. Therefore, he would still carry the majority. :hihi:

Unless you feel, however, that an overwhelming percentage of non-voters would have backed Kerry/Edwards. :eek3: But that, my friend, is not a logical assumption.

InfiniteNothing

11-03-2005, 05:02 PM

It would stand to reason, though, that the election was like one huge Gallup/ABC/CNN poll. The same percentage of people who voted for Bush (out of the total number of voters) would stand to be found amongst non-voters. Therefore, he would still carry the majority. :hihi:

Unless you feel, however, that an overwhelming percentage of non-voters would have backed Kerry/Edwards. :eek3: But that, my friend, is not a logical assumption.

I think there's a random sampling error in your logic. Not to mention the Bush-Christianity connection and that whole antimajority republic issue that makes it all moot.

MikeD

11-03-2005, 05:03 PM

I think there's a random sampling error in your logic.

20% of ~300,000,000 people is 60,000,000.

You're counting on a large enough random sampling error with those numbers? ;)

LPMiller

11-03-2005, 05:06 PM

yeh, i am all about worshipping stamps. you should see the shrine i have - every Christmas stamp since 1962 is on it. :gle:

that's both irrelevent and stupid. No one is making an claims to worshiping stamps.

and LP expects it off me. i wouldn't want to disappoint him

Actually, I expect better of you.

I don't get it when people of faith don't understand the one basic protection that allows them to have their faith. People really need to read their history. Our ancestors came here because they had no where else to go. Religion in England was based on the faith of whomever was in charge at the time. Being a anything other than catholic during Queen Marys time was hell. Being Catholic during Henry's time was the same.

Our founding fathers didn't want that here. While a few of them tried to institute faith into the constitution, the majority, lead by people like Thomas Jefferson (diest) and John Adams (quaker) knew that doing so would do worse then make us another England, it would destroy the country before it began. No one was more religious than John Adams, and no one fought for freedom of religion harder. Without those protections, you'd be whatever faith the congress or the president wanted you to be, and you'd damn well like it.

Everytime some idiot wants prayer in school or whatever, they are working at pissing away the very protections that allow them to even pray.

I got into this because bigjon proclaimed the seperation of church and state a belief - it is not, it is a tenent of the constition equaled in importance to Freedom of speech, or the right to bear arms. Without it, freedom of speech becomes irrelevent. With out it, goverment controls your faith. Every person of faith should, intelligently, fight against any encrouchment of religion into government, ESPECIALLY their own. Believing otherwise shows a lack of historical knowledge in the very creation of this country. Dismissing it is both foolish and frankly, unpatriotic.

Yeah, people take offense too easily. And raise a call to arms when it isn't needed. On the other hand, I'd rather be over cautious in protecting my freedoms.

To dismiss the seperation of church and state as a 'belief', or to classify it as somehow forcing the people to do something against their will is inane. You wouldn't be allowed your belief without it.

jstreet

11-03-2005, 05:07 PM

MikeD

11-03-2005, 05:09 PM

Mike, Democrats have to work for a living and might not have been able to make it to the polls as successfully as the Republicans with their personal drivers. Clearly election turnouts aren't like a big Gallup poll.

(Joking, all ;))

Hah! And all this time I thought it was us good 'ol Republicans, working to pay for all the liberal Dems' programs!

Ben, since you're working so hard (and I'm obviously not), I'll buy the first few rounds of drinks on the 1st. We got a deal? :)

InfiniteNothing

11-03-2005, 05:14 PM

Hah! And all this time I thought it was us good 'ol Republicans, working to pay for all the liberal Dems programs!

Ben, since you're working so hard (and I'm obviously not), I'll buy the first few rounds of drinks on the 1st. We got a deal? :)

Perhaps if by "working" you mean doing no work but taking credit for the work of others.

InfiniteNothing

11-03-2005, 05:16 PM

20% of ~300,000,000 people is 60,000,000.

You're counting on a large enough random sampling error with those numbers? ;)Well, the error would be that it's not random at all.

MikeD

11-03-2005, 05:17 PM

Ben, since you're working so hard (and I'm obviously not), I'll buy the first few rounds of drinks on the 1st. We got a deal? :)

Perhaps if by "working" you mean doing no work but taking credit for the work of others.

Ben, you gonna let him talk about you like that? :hihi:

IN, you may think/know of Dems who work harder than Republicans. I can assure you that it's the other way around over here...:shrug:

MikeD

11-03-2005, 05:18 PM

Well, the error would be that it's not random at all.

Is there a smilie/icon for "reaching"? :eyebrow:

InfiniteNothing

11-03-2005, 05:19 PM

Is there a smilie/icon for "reaching"? :eyebrow:Try this one: :bow:

MikeD

11-03-2005, 05:20 PM

Try this one: :bow:

Heh, good one. But try again.

I only use that one when quoting TruckStuff, ShawnLee, Nickel, etc. :hihi:

jstreet

11-03-2005, 07:41 PM

Hah! And all this time I thought it was us good 'ol Republicans, working to pay for all the liberal Dems' programs!

Ben, since you're working so hard (and I'm obviously not), I'll buy the first few rounds of drinks on the 1st. We got a deal? :)No roofie coladas!!! :bonk:

ialsohaveadream

11-03-2005, 07:47 PM

No roofie coladas!!! :bonk:
You mean you'll give it up anyway? Damn, you're easy!

Bires

11-03-2005, 07:51 PM

it's(separation of church and state) not a belief, it's established law. And it's 'forced' on goverment. Not people.

Oh? What law? Did Congress make this law? Or is it based on judicial precedence, which is a violation of separation of powers?

Bires

11-03-2005, 07:57 PM

BTW: Being a public employee that gets brow beaten with every PC fad to come down the pike, I can tell you that I would LOVE to socially celebrate Kwanza, Chanuka, etc as we should. Most of us wacko Christians would.

Instead of sanitizing the world and removing anything that might offend, as the PC nazis do, what harm is there in learning about other cultures? You might offend the occational compulsive whiner, but the world would be a lot more fun and we would get to that utopic "tolerance" everyone keeps talking about a lot faster.

Well...except the French...

j/k about the French...

sort of.

ialsohaveadream

11-03-2005, 08:10 PM

BTW: Being a public employee that gets brow beaten with every PC fad to come down the pike, I can tell you that I would LOVE to socially celebrate Kwanza, Chanuka, etc as we should. Most of us wacko Christians would.
:stupid: (on all counts, including employment ;))Why is it we stress that education about all other things brings tolerance (race, sexuality, etc), but when it comes to religion, it's "if you ignore it, that'll make people more tolerant".

LPMiller

11-03-2005, 08:40 PM

Oh? What law? Did Congress make this law? Or is it based on judicial precedence, which is a violation of separation of powers?

It's called the first amendment, specifically, the Establishment Clause, which states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

This was directly in response the existence of the church of england.

It has also been upheld for over 200 years of judical review. Now, you can bitch about judicial precedence all you want, but judicial precedence is what insures the constitution actually remains in force. here are a few of those cases for you to review. (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/libraryreligion.aspx?topic=establishment_clause_supreme_court_cases_topic). Many of those cases are in fact a practice of judicial restraint, something the conservatives are supposed to be fond of. Going by the words, and then the intent. All judical precedence is is going back to similiars to show that hey, this isn't the first time the court felt this way. It's still based on the interpretation of the law. Frankly, judical precedence is what keeps the 2nd amendment up and running just as much as judicial restraint, so I dunno that I'd bitch too much about it.

Seperation of powers is a concept, nothing more. While each branch has defined powers, there is overlap and it's not like a great big wall is set up to seperate each branch. The design of the system is to create those checks and balances, but it isn't actually a law creating checks and balances - in fact, you can't find those actual words in it.

What is mentioned is the judicial branch has the sole power to interpret the law and apply it to particular instances. For the 5,000th time, that is what they do. Your liking of the interpretation is not relevent; should you not like it, your job is to change the law. Congress has the greater power here; that's what amendments are for.

LPMiller

11-03-2005, 08:42 PM

:stupid: (on all counts, including employment ;))Why is it we stress that education about all other things brings tolerance (race, sexuality, etc), but when it comes to religion, it's "if you ignore it, that'll make people more tolerant".

I can agree with this too; I think we have gotten waaaaay to easy to offend. But then, when we all think we are victims - and christens have been reall big on this of late - this is what happens. We overreact.

Bires

11-03-2005, 09:01 PM

It's called the first amendment, specifically, the Establishment Clause, which states:...

*Die SNIPen*

Thanks for the lecture. I'll pass it on to the rest of the drones at my workplace...or I won't since the constitution is an important part of obtaining one's teaching credentials, I may have also heard something about it while picking up my masters in education. But...I digress...

The point I was attempting to make is that separation of church and state is not a law. It is too fluid and volitile to be addressed in a law. Laws are specific. SoCaS is not. In fact, there has been a number of instances when the government has taken action that, were it a law, would have been illegal.

20 years ago the government shut down radical Muslim clerics operating in Oregon.

School prayer is still constitutionally allowed (irregardless of the rules made by the specific districts)

Anyway,

I cringe whenever someone says it's a law, because as an educator, I itch when someone passes on false information. Especially someone held in such high regards around here. I mean, hey, who else around here thinks the rest of us care about his dreams and drunken dellusions?

cheapchinese

11-04-2005, 03:26 AM

I thought Segregation was THE darkest Era in American History, why are we doing it to Religion?

nickel

11-04-2005, 04:57 AM

that's both irrelevent and stupid. No one is making an claims to worshiping stamps.

Actually, I expect better of you.

I don't get it when people of faith don't understand the one basic protection that allows them to have their faith. People really need to read their history. Our ancestors came here because they had no where else to go. Religion in England was based on the faith of whomever was in charge at the time. Being a anything other than catholic during Queen Marys time was hell. Being Catholic during Henry's time was the same.

Our founding fathers didn't want that here. While a few of them tried to institute faith into the constitution, the majority, lead by people like Thomas Jefferson (diest) and John Adams (quaker) knew that doing so would do worse then make us another England, it would destroy the country before it began. No one was more religious than John Adams, and no one fought for freedom of religion harder. Without those protections, you'd be whatever faith the congress or the president wanted you to be, and you'd damn well like it.

Everytime some idiot wants prayer in school or whatever, they are working at pissing away the very protections that allow them to even pray.

I got into this because bigjon proclaimed the seperation of church and state a belief - it is not, it is a tenent of the constition equaled in importance to Freedom of speech, or the right to bear arms. Without it, freedom of speech becomes irrelevent. With out it, goverment controls your faith. Every person of faith should, intelligently, fight against any encrouchment of religion into government, ESPECIALLY their own. Believing otherwise shows a lack of historical knowledge in the very creation of this country. Dismissing it is both foolish and frankly, unpatriotic.

Yeah, people take offense too easily. And raise a call to arms when it isn't needed. On the other hand, I'd rather be over cautious in protecting my freedoms.

To dismiss the seperation of church and state as a 'belief', or to classify it as somehow forcing the people to do something against their will is inane. You wouldn't be allowed your belief without it.
*applause*
i already am aware of history there Professor Obvious.

what i said was not irrelevant nor stupid. you likening stamps to the level of worshipping them. you used the word first, not i.

i love how people always fall back on "our founding fathers" came here to escape this. our founding fathers would have religious references on their Christmas stamps. so where's your point?

this isn't forcing religion on anyone. buy different stamps if you are offended.
but this is changing what has been on Christmas stamps for the past 43 years, even though like it or not they are Christmas stamps and that word has an undeniable meaning.

LPMiller

11-04-2005, 05:04 AM

Thanks for the lecture. I'll pass it on to the rest of the drones at my workplace...or I won't since the constitution is an important part of obtaining one's teaching credentials, I may have also heard something about it while picking up my masters in education. But...I digress...

The point I was attempting to make is that separation of church and state is not a law. It is too fluid and volitile to be addressed in a law. Laws are specific. SoCaS is not. In fact, there has been a number of instances when the government has taken action that, were it a law, would have been illegal.

20 years ago the government shut down radical Muslim clerics operating in Oregon.

School prayer is still constitutionally allowed (irregardless of the rules made by the specific districts)

Anyway,

I cringe whenever someone says it's a law, because as an educator, I itch when someone passes on false information. Especially someone held in such high regards around here. I mean, hey, who else around here thinks the rest of us care about his dreams and drunken dellusions?

That's funny, because I cringe when an educater says "irregardless."

I also cringe when and educator just sorta throws out things like "20 years ago" but offers me no context as to why.

And I disagree. While the words 'seperation of church and state' are not law, the establishment clause as defined by 200 years of court rulings in fact, makes it law. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" legally means seperation of church and state, as has been interpreted by members of both politcal parties in the courts.

And sure, because it's interpretation and not written down in so many words, you get times where the courts can also turn a blind eye. It's flexability, but it's also why people like you and bigjon and nickel and anyone here of faith ought to be defending the concept 100 percent of the time.

nickel

11-04-2005, 05:09 AM

BTW: Being a public employee that gets brow beaten with every PC fad to come down the pike, I can tell you that I would LOVE to socially celebrate Kwanza, Chanuka, etc as we should. Most of us wacko Christians would.

Instead of sanitizing the world and removing anything that might offend, as the PC nazis do, what harm is there in learning about other cultures? You might offend the occational compulsive whiner, but the world would be a lot more fun and we would get to that utopic "tolerance" everyone keeps talking about a lot faster.

USPS has recognized Kwanza, and Hanukkah, etc.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7b/Kwanzaastamp.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/75/HanukkahStamp.png

i agree Bires, recognize them, don't remove them.

jstreet

11-04-2005, 06:11 AM

Instead of sanitizing the world and removing anything that might offend, as the PC nazis do, what harm is there in learning about other cultures?Let me ask you this: Does the United States Postal Service stamp design team exist to teach people about other cultures?

This "sanitizing" word and the implications that are being thrown around is that if we don't have religious symbolism in our faces courtesy the government, we'll somehow "forget" about it or the government will then be making an effort to squash religion.

The absence of religious symbolism in government products does not equal religious persecution, nor will it cause mass ignorance of religion. I still know there's a church down the street, I still know what they're selling. Having a cookie on a stamp instead of the Virgin Mary is just as respectful to different religions as incorporating all religious symbols from all religions into stamps. Except one would actually be possible to do and one wouldn't, and one would be dually respectful of those who didn't want to participate in religion at all, and one wouldn't.

School prayer is still constitutionally allowed (irregardless of the rules made by the specific districts)Um, what? Students can personally and voluntarily pray, but that's pretty much it. Teachers or school administrators can't lead students in prayer nor can they participate in prayer with students. Even student-led, student-initiated prayer at a school-wide student event such as a football game, for example, is not permissible.

this isn't forcing religion on anyone.You've twice opted to not respond to my questions on who is being forced by whom, but as I've said, I agree no one is being forced to do anything whether or not they offer the stamps or not; but I think they Post Office may have realized that, while legal, their policy may have offended some.

ialsohaveadream

11-04-2005, 07:30 AM

And I disagree. While the words 'seperation of church and state' are not law, the establishment clause as defined by 200 years of court rulings in fact, makes it law.
The phrase you're looking for is "established precedent". Church and state isn't law, but it's clearly established precedent.

LPMiller

11-04-2005, 11:18 AM

which legally, amounts to the same thing. Hence the whole Roe v Wade issue.

Grimm

11-04-2005, 01:09 PM

It all boils down to one question:
Is the USPS placing of religious images a government endorsement of religion?

I would say no. As the USPS places a variety of images on stamps reflecting varrious religions. Furthermore, as the USPS operates independant of the government restrictiong religious stamps could be construed as prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

jstreet

11-04-2005, 01:23 PM

It all boils down to one question:
Is the USPS placing of religious images a government endorsement of religion?

I would say no. As the USPS places a variety of images on stamps reflecting varrious religions.It's tricky, but that does seem to be the key.

Rhode Island got to have a nativity scene because there was other Christmas "stuff" around the scene and it was during Christmas. Pennsylvania had to lose its nativity scene at the courthouse because there wasn't anything else Christmas-y around. But then the PA town got to keep its Christmas tree and menorah over at the town hall because it was an "overall holiday setting".

Perhaps the USPS just wanted to ensure they were doing the overall holiday setting.

Bires

11-04-2005, 02:44 PM

Um, what? Students can personally and voluntarily pray, but that's pretty much it. Teachers or school administrators can't lead students in prayer nor can they participate in prayer with students. Even student-led, student-initiated prayer at a school-wide student event such as a football game, for example, is not permissible.
Your source?

Bires

11-04-2005, 02:46 PM

Let me ask you this: Does the United States Postal Service stamp design team exist to teach people about other cultures?

Is their job specifically to not offend, or is their job to choose objects, ideas, and people that are iconic representations of America?

(just kinda wondering)

ialsohaveadream

11-04-2005, 02:48 PM

Your source?
I believe his source was several Supreme Court rulings. ;)

Bires

11-04-2005, 03:51 PM

I believe his source was several Supreme Court rulings. ;)

Again...specific source? (I have a point here)

ialsohaveadream

11-04-2005, 04:08 PM

Again...specific source? (I have a point here)
Eh, I'll help Ben out, even though I'm on your side in this one. Here's one about the student-led prayer at football games:
From CNN.com (http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/06/19/scotus.schoolprayer.01/)

jstreet

11-04-2005, 04:09 PM

Your source?

I believe his source was several Supreme Court rulings. ;)

Yes, IAHAD is right.

Relevant cases:

Engel v. Vitale (1962) - challenged a New York requirement that teachers each morning lead public school children in reciting a prayer written by the state's board of regents: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country".

School District of Abington Township v. Schempp (1963) - challenged readings from the Bible and recitation of the Lord's Prayer at the beginning of each day.

Wallace v. Jaffree (1985) - challenged the expansion of an Alabama law authorizing, among other things, a daily period of silence in all public schools "for mediation or voluntary prayer".

Lee v. Weisman (1992) - challenged the invitation of a rabbi to speak at a high school graduation

Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000) - challenging public prayer at high school football games

Unlike a lot of other areas, the Supreme Court has been very stable in this area. From the first case to the last, prayer in public schools is unconstitutional.

Is their job specifically to not offend, or is their job to choose objects, ideas, and people that are iconic representations of America?

(just kinda wondering)Answering my question with another? Tsk tsk ;p Mine to you, then: are you suggesting it can't be both? --- that iconic representations of America are offensive?

InfiniteNothing

11-04-2005, 04:11 PM

Aren't angel stamps religious enough for you?

ialsohaveadream

11-04-2005, 04:12 PM

Unlike a lot of other areas, the Supreme Court has been very stable in this area. From the first case to the last, prayer in public schools is unconstitutional.
Not necessarily. Student-led prayer is given some leeway, with the exception of the prayer at the football game, which was broadcast over the PA system.

jstreet

11-04-2005, 04:14 PM

Not necessarily. Student-led prayer is given some leeway, with the exception of the prayer at the football game, which was broadcast over the PA system.Well, like I said in the original post: Students can personally and voluntarily pray. Around the flag pole, in a student group, etc. Not in public, not over the PA, not with teachers (in their official capacity as teachers), etc

Bires

11-04-2005, 05:12 PM

Answering my question with another? Tsk tsk ;p Mine to you, then: are you suggesting it can't be both? --- that iconic representations of America are offensive?

You're assuming my question was loaded. Tsk tsk ;P

I want to know what their charter is.

Bires

11-04-2005, 05:16 PM

Well, like I said in the original post: Students can personally and voluntarily pray. Around the flag pole, in a student group, etc. Not in public, not over the PA, not with teachers (in their official capacity as teachers), etc

And this is where you are wrong. If a student asks me to pray with them, even in my classroom, during my duty hours, I can, even in official capacity as a teacher.

And, as far as the student-led prayer thing at public events. This is still cool too. It still happens. As long as the event is voluntary for the students, prayer in school is still ok.

ialsohaveadream

11-04-2005, 05:24 PM

And this is where you are wrong. If a student asks me to pray with them, even in my classroom, during my duty hours, I can, even in official capacity as a teacher.
Ben already clarified that he meant teacher-initiated.

jstreet

11-04-2005, 05:42 PM

And this is where you are wrong. If a student asks me to pray with them, even in my classroom, during my duty hours, I can, even in official capacity as a teacher.Not unless you want to be in violation of federal law :shrug:

Teachers can pray before school, after school, in the faculty lounge, but certainly not with their students in their official capacity in their classrooms.

And, as far as the student-led prayer thing at public events. This is still cool too. It still happens. As long as the event is voluntary for the students, prayer in school is still ok.Lots of things still happen that are unconstitutional. The legislative veto happens daily in Congress and is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has no power of enforcement.

Bires

11-04-2005, 09:03 PM

Not unless you want to be in violation of federal law :shrug:

Teachers can pray before school, after school, in the faculty lounge, but certainly not with their students in their official capacity in their classrooms.

You do realize that I am a public school science teacher, right?

jstreet

11-05-2005, 06:33 AM

You do realize that I am a public school science teacher, right?I understand that, but with all due respect, I'm going to need something more from you than an appeal to authority argument. I would think you would understand that, having asked for sources on several occasion?

Praying with your students in your classroom in an official capacity is unconstitutional. It's an official of the government in a position of influence endorsing a religion.

From the ACLU - "Joint Statement of Current Law" (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=9007&c=139) - the Department of Education worked with the Attorney General of the United States to formulate a document based on this (http://www.ed.gov/Speeches/08-1995/religion.html) (including the part about teachers not praying with students) and sent it to all public schools, and now does biennially, I believe.

Teachers and school administrators, when acting in those capacities, are representatives of the state, and, in those capacities, are themselves prohibited from encouraging or soliciting student religious or anti-religious activity. Similarly, when acting in their official capacities, teachers may not engage in religious activities with their students. However, teachers may engage in private religious activity in faculty lounges.

If the ACLU is too liberal, than from the ACLJ, a bastion of all things mixing Christianity and the Constitution: "Guidance on Constitutionally Protected Prayer in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools" (http://www.aclj.org/Issues/Resources/Document.aspx?ID=282)

When acting in their official capacities as representatives of the state, teachers, school administrators, and other school employees are prohibited by the Establishment Clause from encouraging or discouraging prayer, and from actively participating in such activity with students. Teachers may, however, take part in religious activities where the overall context makes clear that they are not participating in their official capacities. Before school or during lunch, for example, teachers may meet with other teachers for prayer or Bible study to the same extent that they may engage in other conversation or nonreligious activities. Similarly, teachers may participate in their personal capacities in privately sponsored baccalaureate ceremonies.

And a more current document (http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/religionandschools/prayer_guidance.html), from the Department of Ed:

Section 9524 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act ("ESEA") of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, requires the Secretary to issue guidance on constitutionally protected prayer in public elementary and secondary schools....

The purpose of this guidance is to provide SEAs, LEAs, and the public with information on the current state of the law concerning constitutionally protected prayer in the public schools, and thus to clarify the extent to which prayer in public schools is legally protected....

OVERVIEW OF GOVERNING CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the First Amendment requires public school officials to be neutral in their treatment of religion, showing neither favoritism toward nor hostility against religious expression such as prayer. (2)

...

As the Court has explained in several cases, "there is a crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion, which the Establishment Clause forbids, and private speech endorsing religion, which the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses protect." (3)

...

Teachers, Administrators, and other School Employees
When acting in their official capacities as representatives of the state, teachers, school administrators, and other school employees are prohibited by the Establishment Clause from encouraging or discouraging prayer, and from actively participating in such activity with students. Teachers may, however, take part in religious activities where the overall context makes clear that they are not participating in their official capacities. Before school or during lunch, for example, teachers may meet with other teachers for prayer or Bible study to the same extent that they may engage in other conversation or nonreligious activities. Similarly, teachers may participate in their personal capacities in privately sponsored baccalaureate ceremonies.

[ 2 ] See, e.g., Everson, 330 U.S. at 18 (the First Amendment "requires the state to be a neutral in its relations with groups of religious believers and non-believers; it does not require the state to be their adversary. State power is no more to be used so as to handicap religions than it is to favor them"); Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch., 533 U.S. 98 (2001).

[ 3 ] Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 302 (2000) (quoting Board of Educ. v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226, 250 (1990) (plurality opinion)); accord Rosenberger v. Rector of Univ. of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819, 841 (1995).If you pray with your students in an official capacity and someone tips off the government, it looks like your school will lose federal funding.

And if one of your other students or their parents takes you to court, I don't see anything in the law that would even partially suggest you would win.

I am not a teacher at a public school, but both my parents were teachers. I am not aware of any provision in Supreme Court decisions or other federal law that would allow you to pray with your students in your classroom as a teacher in an official capacity. If you know of the law or of the decision and I screwed up, please let me know.

Houdini

11-05-2005, 09:50 PM

Technically the USPS isn't a governmental branch. They are a self-supporting entity, they have revenue and net-income figures like any normal company. The workers aren't even considered full governmental workers, but quasi-governmental in many ways, much akin to Federal Reserve workers, except even more distant from the government.

The only reason why the government keeps control of the USPS is for their own shipments, full control of the distribution of the mail (all citizens have the right to mail, mail on saturdays...etc), and they love the 1.5 billion + in net income the USPS throws off.

A stamp is a comercial good that comes in many different styles/categories and you are not forced to choose among one good.

That being said, they had many Holiday stamps, including Jewish and Islamic stamps. You were/are not forced or unduly influenced to buy that stamp or forced to see it. I find nothing wrong with keeping Christmas or other religious stamps.

:stupid:
This is rather stupid. Just because a Madonna and Child image MIGHT offend someone (though I can't imagine why such an image would increase someone's blood pressure), that's not a valid reason to remove it from the selection. Christmas, Ramadan, and other, newer "holidays" like Kwanzaa are fine with me. I guess I just don't take offense as easily as some. But I would like to have an appropriate Christmas stamp for my Christmas cards. :shrug:

Also, I've always read it as Congress shall make no law _respecting the establishment of a religion._

Meaning, Congress stays out of religion. Congress can't create a national religion. But if a state, or non-government entity (whatever that means...dunno...>50% income from taxes?) wants to establish a religion, Congress can't stop it. Not that I expect any states to establish one, but I digress.

I'd love to have the option of buying and using religious-themed stamps for such holidays people consider holy/important. Stopping them because a few might whine doesn't seem very useful to me. You can always buy flag stamps or dead-celebrity-of-the-week stamps or whatever doesn't offend you. But if one is sending Christmas cards, he or she is likely NOT offended by a Christian depiction. And if, as a recipient of such a card, if you're concerned about the STAMP on it, why even open it? I wouldn't be surprised if they bring such images back.

And about the school thing. If a teacher/administrator were to make students pray to God, Christ, Buddah, Osama, green martians, or whatever, I'd have a big problem with it. But if like-minded teachers and students want to pray together, even on school grounds, what's the problem?

ialsohaveadream

11-06-2005, 05:26 AM

jstreet

11-06-2005, 07:29 AM

Meaning, Congress stays out of religion. Congress can't create a national religion. But if a state, or non-government entity (whatever that means...dunno...>50% income from taxes?) wants to establish a religion, Congress can't stop it. Not that I expect any states to establish one, but I digress. States can't do it either, because the Court has ruled that the protections of the 1st Amendment apply to state governments as well.Reading Justice Thomas's dissents, are you Houdini? ;)

IAHAD is right. The Court's ruled that the whole of the First Amendment is incorporated by the Fourteenth. That view you state is only Thomas's.

Here is an interesting piece on it that I read some time ago: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20050211.html

nickel

11-06-2005, 10:29 AM

:stupid:
This is rather stupid. Just because a Madonna and Child image MIGHT offend someone (though I can't imagine why such an image would increase someone's blood pressure), that's not a valid reason to remove it from the selection. Christmas, Ramadan, and other, newer "holidays" like Kwanzaa are fine with me. I guess I just don't take offense as easily as some. But I would like to have an appropriate Christmas stamp for my Christmas cards. :shrug:

Also, I've always read it as Congress shall make no law _respecting the establishment of a religion._

Meaning, Congress stays out of religion. Congress can't create a national religion. But if a state, or non-government entity (whatever that means...dunno...>50% income from taxes?) wants to establish a religion, Congress can't stop it. Not that I expect any states to establish one, but I digress.

I'd love to have the option of buying and using religious-themed stamps for such holidays people consider holy/important. Stopping them because a few might whine doesn't seem very useful to me. You can always buy flag stamps or dead-celebrity-of-the-week stamps or whatever doesn't offend you. But if one is sending Christmas cards, he or she is likely NOT offended by a Christian depiction. And if, as a recipient of such a card, if you're concerned about the STAMP on it, why even open it? I wouldn't be surprised if they bring such images back.

And about the school thing. If a teacher/administrator were to make students pray to God, Christ, Buddah, Osama, green martians, or whatever, I'd have a big problem with it. But if like-minded teachers and students want to pray together, even on school grounds, what's the problem?
:agree: with every single word you said.

jstreet

11-06-2005, 11:34 AM

And about the school thing. If a teacher/administrator were to make students pray to God, Christ, Buddah, Osama, green martians, or whatever, I'd have a big problem with it. But if like-minded teachers and students want to pray together, even on school grounds, what's the problem?I agree with the official capacity argument.

My parents were both teachers, so I was born into a world where many people who babysat for me, whose children I played with, and who I vacationed with were at the time or eventually my teachers. For me, and for them, it was important to draw a bright-line distinction between what behavior was OK when I was a student and they were a teacher and when we were both family friends.

For instance, saying "You really think this assignment is valuable and not busywork, Carol? That's not what you said last night at dinner" would've been unacceptable to say in the middle of class.

Religion is personal and private for teachers as well as students, and that's why I think that in public and in the classroom, religious neutrality is ethically a must and should be legally.

At the same time, the relationships I was lucky enough to have with my teachers outside of the classrooms I see as extremely valuable. I learned as much outside of the classroom/unofficially from them as I did inside/officially. If I belonged to an organized religion and so did one of my teachers, praying with them outside of the classroom would be a natural component of my life.

But, like I wouldn't ever call them by their first name in class (or comment on how they looked in a bathing suit), I similarly would never see it as appropriate to pray with them in their classroom.