The Jewish Anti-Defamation League

Over the last twenty five years, due to the challenges concerning religion in public places, guidelines have been written into laws, mostly under President Clinton, that allow schools to sing Christmas carols and to teach about the religious aspects of holidays, providing no denominational preferences are shown and no clergy is present. Non of these things have ever been banned by the court. Teachers are actually prohibited from discouraging certain activities because they contain religious content. This is surprising considering the push to perpetuate notions about religion-free zoning. 

The Jewish Anti-Defamation League has a comprehensive list of guidelines they say should be followed in dealing with "The December Dilemma". It reads like the Holidayization Manifesto and is rich with contradictions and statements that simply aren't true to the law.Their web site states that if schools choose to recognize holidays through decorations they should respect the diversity of the season and avoid symbols with "patently religious meanings".It says it's permissible to show secular Christmas
images like snowflakes, holly, and evergreen trees, but not the nativity image because it is "an undeniably religious symbol". A menorah, the symbol and ceremonial object for Hanukkah, on the other hand, is permissible because it is regarded as a secular symbol.

This is their own misinterpretation of the law slanted against Christmas. There is no law prohibiting nativity images in schools, and the law states that menorahs are religious as well as secular symbols.The League's idea is that Hanukkah gets to display it's main religious symbol and Christmas doesn't. 
They also admit that it is constitutionally permissible to teach about religion in public schools (but not to practice religion or observe religious holidays) and the supreme court has said religion can be studied when it is presented objectively as part of a secular education program, including discussions of the origins and meanings of a holiday. But they go on to state, as an example, "it would be permissible to have a play performed with one scene showing a family opening gifts on Christmas morning, but not a play about the nativity because it presents a certain religious point of view". There is no ban of the nativity
because it presents "a certain religious point of view". The web site's recommendations don't list examples of how the nativity can be displayed on public property. It only lists ways that aren't permissible, as in "a Christmas creche standing alone is not permissible". They do, however, suggest several ways to erect menorahs, based on the secular as well as religious standing of that symbol.
They avoid relating the fact that displays featuring only Christmas decorations (including the nativity) are legal if sacred images are mixed with secular ones, like Santa. Images from different holidays need not appear with or nearby Christmas decorations, but the impression one gets reading the League's recommendations is that Christmas must be mixed with other religions. But they don't mention mixing menorahs with images from Christmas. Their slant is that the nativity, as exclusively religious or too religious, must be excluded from view on public property. This is not an idea expressed in a any law. The phrases "diversity" and "more than one" are used liberally throughout their recommendations. They love diversity, just as long as it doesn't include the nativity.It's strange to see such a double standard coming from an organization that grew out of concerns for protecting Jews, a community with religious freedom  issues so prominent in their history. I would expect they would want this freedom for everyone in the country, not just for themselves, because it's guaranteed by the law. If they think people are so easily hoodwinked into anti-Christmas sentiment, don't they wonder what observance or group could be picked on next, in a country with freedom of religious expression?

After World War Two, everyone was shocked by what anti-Semitism had done. There was understandable concern that Jews should feel safe. I think this extended into an idea that Jews should feel safe from Christmas, even though the holiday has always been associated with acts of charity and kindness and has nothing to do with the Holocaust. In 2001, in California, The Anti-Defamation League got involved in litigation with a junior high school when a Jewish parent became worried  for her child's safety because the child had heard a school official say  "Christmas". A no-Christmas policy was established. The president explained "The policy is designed to protect all students and make them feel safe in their environment. Not everyone is Christian. We're using public funds so we can't endorse Christmas". Rabbi Daniel Lapin, founder of "Toward Tradition", an Orthodox organization committed to combating anti- Jewish/anti-Christian bigotry and defending Christians unjustly accused of anti-Semitism, spoke out against the policy saying "The mere acknowledgement of religion doesn't amount to an endorsement of that religion and therefore doesn't violate the 1st Amendment's Establishment Clause. 


Hanukkah teaches that Jews must defend the purity of their faith rather than heed the call of the dominant culture. Rabbis have started to discourage the use of the blue and white lights as not being proper, and for years have cautioned against giving children extravagant Hanukkah gifts. Orthodox Jews are more

likely to know that the attempt to combat Christmas with Hanukkah is doomed to failure because the customs and ceremonies surrounding Hanukkah pale by comparison to those of Christmas. Inflated Hanukkah is therefore viewed as a less authentic adjunct of Christmas. I would think the fact Hanukkah isn't like Christmas would be an advantage for Hanukkah. Here is an intimate tradition centered around the household menorah without the commercial objectification and vulgarization that people have complained about for years in December as a result of Christmas.
The American Jewish Identity Survey of 2001 concluded that 1.3% of Americans adhere to Judaism as their faith.
NEXT