The proposal to build Park51, an Islamic cultural center, prompted a rush of protests. Thousands took to the streets carrying signs with messages ranging from “It’s not about religious freedom, it’s about common decency” to the inflammatory “Islam Kills.” Some political pundits hopped on a chance to stir up support and anger through fiery rhetoric. Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin sent out her notoriously misspelled Tweet “Peaceful Muslims, please refudiate,” either misspelling “repudiate” or just making up a new word.

Even one of New York’s candidates for governor, Carl Paladino, pledged to remove the mosque “by any legal means necessary.” That rings a bell. In 1957, Arkansas Gov. Orval Faubus used the National Guard to block nine African-American students from attending a segregated school. What he believed was a legal defense of segregation defied the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education decision. Just like Faubus, Paladino is proposing misuse of a “legal” process to deny the rights of a minority.

No national or state law prevents the construction of the building. If anything, the Constitution protects the right to build independent religious institutions. The First Amendment guards the Muslim community’s freedom of religion, just as it allows the right to protest the building’s construction.

Forces opposed to the cultural center fear it would be used to spread Sharia law and anti-American sentiment. Yet Park51 isn’t that different from any religious-based community center. It will offer a swimming pool, gym, library, culinary school, prayer space and child care services, not to mention a memorial to September 11, which will be open to the public. For some perspective, look at the building’s neighbors: a strip club and liquor store. Is a strip club really less offensive than a prayer center?

Yet one of the most logical defenses of the right to build the center is largely ignored. When the 9/11 bombers destroyed the World Trade Center, they took with them a Muslim prayer room on the south tower’s seventeenth floor. Several dozen Muslims also perished alongside their fellow Americans in the attack, which Muslim leaders swiftly condemned. The Muslim community of lower Manhattan lost a place of worship in 9/11 and for years used an old Burlington Coat Factory for prayer. It’s only natural that Feisal Abdul Rauf (the organization’s imam and coordinator) would want to provide a legitimate space for his constituents. Yet still many fear the mosque would be a “victory” for Islam. 

The “mosque-phobia” goes well beyond New York. Just last month, the construction site of an Islamic center in a Nashville, Tenn., suburb was lit aflame by opponents who feared it would be used as a terrorist training ground. According to a TIME magazine poll, 34 percent of Americans would oppose a mosque in their neighborhood. That pales in comparison to the 61 percent who oppose one near Ground Zero.

The discord between religions reared its head in a more ugly fashion: book burning. As the ninth anniversary of the September 11 attacks drew closer, a Florida pastor vowed to burn Korans to protest Islam. In a nation where people burned Harry Potter for supporting “witchcraft,” such a display is hardly shocking. What was more alarming was how the media and the public responded. For weeks the spectacle held the country’s attention hostage. The media devoted hours to the story, and the top American general in Afghanistan even pleaded with the church to cancel the burnings, saying they would “fuel anti-U.S. hatred.”

Some are shocked by these outbursts of anger, but looking at history, fear and suspicion of minorities in wartime is nothing new. Not even a century ago, the U.S. government ripped 120,000 of its own citizens from their homes and placed them in internment camps for no reason other than being of Japanese descent. Today, discrimination is not much subtler and no less divisive to our nation’s moral fiber.

Yet those who say an Islamic center would be offensive to those who lost loved ones in 9/11 have a legitimate concern. Having a building that hosts the same religion that drove extremists to commit murder close to what many call “sacred ground” will offend many Americans. For all Feisal Abdul Rauf’s rhetoric on interfaith tolerance and understanding, the project does not appear to generate the desired good feelings. Even President Obama – who recently supported the group’s right to build – didn’t take a clear stance on the sensitivity of the organization’s decision. Very few in the U.S. deny the center overlooks hallowed ground at Ground Zero. 

Asking Feisal Abdul Rauf and the Park51 leadership to move their building elsewhere out of respect for those who lost loved ones in 9/11 is one thing. Calling for the federal government to force a place of worship to move is entirely different. A clear line separates the two. It’s up to our generation to decide: We can uphold the Constitution and allow fellow Americans to practice their faith, or let fear divide us once again.

As a faithful Christian who was confirmed two years ago and goes to church every Sunday, I look upon Christmas as a time to celebrate the birthday of Jesus Christ, my Lord and savior. However, Christmas, as the name implies, is a strictly Christian holiday.

I’ve heard many people over my years at public school complain that our society is straying too far from the religious principals of our forefathers. While that may be true, our Judeo-Christian forefathers also drafted the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which among other things protects citizens from possible government infringement on an establishment of religion. Since public schools are run by the government, the rights given to citizens of the United States (which include students) in the Bill of Rights apply within the halls of public schools.

In other words, I strongly believe that Christmas should not be recognized in public schools.

“Christmas” break should always be referred to as “winter” break. Christmas concerts should be holiday concerts – although playing Christmas themed music for its musical quality shouldn’t be banned. And while Secret Santa gift exchanges should technically be called Secret Holiday Gift-Giver, this is not necessarily necessary because Santa has become a more integrated part of our society and is not necessarily associated strictly with the Christian faith.

Evergreen trees with lights on them that are displayed in schools should be allowed, but things specifically saying Christmas should not be. Likewise Christmas plays that are clearly Christian based, commonly produced by many schools, may be fun to do but quite truthfully also violate the separation of church and state, a fundamental aspect of our democracy.

If you’re Christian, Christmas is a time to celebrate. But as we look around us at Fairmont High School, we’re not all Christian. Some of us are Jewish. Some are Muslim. Some are atheists. And some don’t fit into any of those four categories.

Our society is not composed of one religious group; Fairmont High School certainly isn’t, and because of this we shouldn’t infringe on people’s rights to freedom of religion.

The Board of Education should respect the First Amendment and go to the greatest pains to separate their school district from the religious events. That’s what’s right and needed. That’s what makes America, America.

Matt’s view

I’m kind of a lousy Christian, but I’m a Christian nonetheless, and Christmas is my favorite time of the year.  I’m one of those people who are ready to start blasting Christmas music the day after Halloween, so I guess it’s no surprise that I support letting the celebration of Christmas seep into my school life.  Let me explain.

While Christmas isn’t solely celebrated in the United States, it’s hard to deny that Christmas has become a very Americanized holiday, at least in our country’s celebration of it.  It’s one of only 11 federal holidays throughout the year, sharing this classification with the likes of Independence Day, Thanksgiving and Memorial Day.

And while Christmas is, strictly speaking, a Christian holiday, that certainly doesn’t mean that only Christians celebrate it.  After all, there are plenty of ways to celebrate Christmas.  You don’t have to be commemorating the birth of Christ to celebrate Christmas.  You can celebrate Christmas by exchanging gifts with friends and family, or decorating a tree, or having dinner with the family at Grandma’s, or watching the 24-hour marathon of A Christmas Story.  Our country’s First Amendment doesn’t tell you how to celebrate holidays any more than it tells you which holidays to celebrate – it’s up to you.

That being said, students and teachers should be allowed to celebrate or abstain from celebrating Christmas in whichever manner they choose.  If a school wants to put on a Christmas play, and they find enough volunteers to produce it, then why shouldn’t they be allowed to?  A play is a play.  Just because some people celebrate Hanukkah doesn’t mean that they couldn’t enjoy a play about Christmas – and if they couldn’t enjoy it, no one should be forcing them to participate or attend in the first place.

And if teachers want to put Christmas trees in their classrooms, or offer their students the opportunity to partake in a Secret Santa gift exchange, then I think they should be able to do so, without feeling pressured to change the name of what they’re doing in order to be “politically correct.”  I find it very hard to believe that a cheerfully decorated tree or a classwide gift exchange could truly and deeply offend anyone, regardless of their religious beliefs.

Furthermore, I fail to comprehend how doing any of these things in school infringes upon the First Amendment’s freedom of religion.  If you’re a devout follower of your religion, surely you wouldn’t let the people around you distract you from following your own beliefs.  I don’t think we celebrators of Christmas should let those who don’t celebrate Christmas prevent us from making the most of the holiday, and by that same token, I don’t think those who don’t celebrate Christmas should take offense to the fact that the majority of Americans celebrate Christmas – which is just that, a fact.

You can choose to say “Happy Holidays,” and I can choose to say “Merry Christmas.”  I don’t prevent you from celebrating the season your way, and you don’t prevent me from celebrating it my way.

That’s freedom, isn’t it?  Isn’t that what America is all about?

We’ve all been in this situation: You see someone near you who is clearly sick, and you desperately hope he keeps his germs to himself.

Why did that student come to school? To some, a large motivation for coming to school is the prospect of exam exemptions. Some people try to come to school just because they don’t want to take an exam or two during exam week.

Students love exam exemptions, of course, but maybe the attendance exemption isn’t the best idea, given the current circumstances. Students clearly earn exemptions when they get all As and Bs. This rewards students for applying themselves.

But should students be rewarded for merely showing up for school? We realize that this may motivate some perfectly healthy but unmotivated students to come to school.

However, if students are sick, then they shouldn’t be at school. If attendance exam exemptions are in place, the flu and other sicknesses are likely to spread, especially since students share desks, computers and even things like water bottles. 

We recognize that it’s not really fair to change the exemption rule now that school is well under way. But perhaps Fairmont administrators will take a cue from several other districts around the nation that took an early look at the H1N1 problem and eliminated attendance exemptions before the school year started.

The bottom line is this: If you are sick, don’t come to school. We don’t want to catch what you have – whether it’s H1N1 or anything else. Besides, you’ll get healthier faster if you give yourself the proper amount of rest.

And if you’re worried about having to take an extra exam, then maybe you should be studying a little harder. Your health and the health of others around you should be your first priority.