Howard Dean slowly rubbed his fingers against the leather of his chair. He d coveted this position of power for so long, it had consumed his mind, and now he had it. As chairman of the Democratic party he controlled the levers of power over an entire nation, the ability to do whatever it takes to control America& and the world. Thanksgiving had passed, and now Plan A was ready for full implementation. The War on Christmas was nigh.
Dean swiveled around in his chair to face an array of gigantic video screens. He sipped from his cup of cocoa, then pressed a button on the silver console.
Is everyone here?
The ACLU is here, my lord.
Hollywood, reporting in, oh beloved one.
The liberal media is here, Governor.
And I, George Soros, stand ready to finance this glorious campaign.
Dean rubbed his hands in glee. Great, just great. The stars are aligned. We may be in the minority, under-financed, and shut out of the mainstream media& but we shall have our war on Christmas&
He began cackling, and the others joined in. The liberals had declared war on Christmas, and it was good.
>> How the secular humanist grinch didn’t steal Christmas
>> Media Matters on the “War on Christmas”
For the love of God, please Oliver, don’t get Frank started!
Let’s keep the sacred nature of December 25th where it belongs; the Holy roman feast of the Sun ‘Sol Invictus’.
In his efforts to keep the pagan masses consoled after he converted to Christianity, The Emperor Constantine melded Christianity with paganism.
Although the exact declaration of Dec 25th as the birth of Christ cannot be directly linked to Constantine, it is fairly logical to give him some credit for the deed.
It has been fairly well deduced that Jesus was born in the early part of October since shepherds were still grazing their flocks. It was far too cold in December.
Attach that bit of corruption with the tasteless commercialization that has evolved since merchants discovered the blessed event, and you have the modern day Christian high holy day.
And listen carefully as the ‘plausible denialists’ attack the facts of this case with the same rabid determination and pathological delusion with which they attack the other sacred cows they so cherish. Their egg nogs have been spiked with a little too much liquid fantasy to swallow the truth whole.
Terrorists are about to bomb us with nucular weapons. Gay people want to get married so they can rape your children. The UN wants to move in and take away your guns. Christianity is about to be declared illegal. YOU AREN’T SCARED ENOUGH.
The more Christians bitch about being oppressed (despite being in the privileged majority in this country), the more I actually wish I could oppress them.
I always felt sorry for Jesus having his birthday on Christmas Day; I bet he never had 2 presents…..
The ACLU is here, my lord.
Hollywood, reporting in, oh beloved one.
The liberal media is here, Governor.
And I, George Soros, stand ready to finance this glorious campaign.
Praise Jebus, the only one in that scenario that is not Jewish is Dean himself!
(I’m Jewish, out and proud!)
By the way, if there is no War on Christmas, then why is this a story?
Because the right needs the rubes to feel under siege. It’s a brilliant strategy, just morally bankrupt.
“Surely none of you are suggesting that Christ wasn t born? … By the way, if there is no War on Christmas, then why is this a story?”
Oh mercy, let the hilarity begin!
Let us not forget comrades that is was the wiley and crafty Frank who first uncovered our sinister “War on Thanksgiving”!
Surely none of you are suggesting that Christ wasn’t born?
http://www.holidays.net/christmas/story.htm
Some legends claim that the Christian “Christmas” celebration was invented to compete against the pagan celebrations of December. The 25th was not only sacred to the Romans but also the Persians whose religion Mithraism was one of Christianity’s main rivals at that time. The Church eventually was successful in taking the merriment, lights, and gifts from the Saturanilia festival and bringing them to the celebration of Christmas.
The exact day of the Christ child’s birth has never been pinpointed. Traditions say that it has been celebrated since the year 98 AD. In 137 AD the Bishop of Rome ordered the birthday of the Christ Child celebrated as a solemn feast. In 350 AD another Bishop of Rome, Julius I, choose December 25th as the observance of Christmas.
You may have noticed that it fits with Feast of the Annunciation on March 25.
By the way, if there is no “War on Christmas,” then why is this a story?
I would venture to say that there appears to be a “War on Christmas” because, while the war on Christianity (prayer, Jesus, the Ten Commandments, and of course, crosses) continues apace the year ’round, and has for at least a decade, it does seem like the ACLU, like Macy’s and Bloomingdale’s, hires extra help for the Christmas season, to do battle against Creches, Christmas stories and the like.
By the way, frame, “wily” contains no ‘e’.
Not allowing Christians to get their way in every single thing is not persecution or a “War on Christianity”, Frank.
When corporations realize that they are alienating a large percentage of their customers by saying “Merry Christmas,” it’s not religious persecution for them to switch to “Happy Holidays,” it’s just good business – something you right wingers should understand. When a big corporation cuts thousands of jobs in order to maximize share prices, or dumps poison into the water table and kills people, it’s just the invisible hand of the marketplace, but when a big corporation decides to say “Happy Holidays” in order to keep their non-Christian customers, man, the knives come out, it’s PERSECUTION.
Tell you what, when someone passes a law that prohibits Christians from marrying each other, you can call it a “War on Christianity” without me laughing in your face. Until then, it’s disingenuous whining from a privileged majority that isn’t getting its way this one time. Please, stop shaking your tiny fists and crying about it. Go out and over-consume like everybody else.
“By the way, frame, wily contains no e .”
Wow, Frank. That’s the first time you’ve ever been right about anything. Take a bow.
The complaint is when a small town can t put a Creche on the lawn of City Hall, because the town s half dozen atheists might be offended. Or songs like O, Come All Ye Faithful can t be sung in school plays.
I can see where that would be a bit irritating when you’re used to getting your way all this time, but, fortunately or unfortunately, times change. And the fact is, just because you can’t see a Creche at City Hall anymore doesn’t make you suddenly stop being Christian, or stop you from worshipping as you please, or deprive you of anything important. Whereas when I, a non-Christian, have to go to City Hall or the courthouse and conduct business there, I have to put up with your Christian symbols, whether it’s a nativity scene at Christmas time, or the 10 Commandments year round, or whatever. It’s not just a matter of whether I like creches, (personally, they don’t bother me); it’s a matter of having to pay lip service to a religion I don’t share. It’s not as if it’s a free market, where I can go across the street to another City Hall or courthouse if I don’t like the one with Baby Jesus in front of it. I don’t like having to pay lip service to your religion anymore than you would like it if you had to go to City Hall and they put up only excerpts from the Koran, or if you had to go to the courthouse and swear on the Wiccan Rede instead of the bible.
Following on what Ryland said the so-called “War on Christmas” is a backdoor way for the Christian right to work up animosity toward the ACLU by attempting to collapse the difference private expressions of religious sentiment and the separation of church and state. Case in point, can anyone who believes that there is a war Christmas find one instance of the ACLU suing a private business, invidual or organization over any Christmas related matter?
At the same time, could they please explain why the ACLU filed filed a brief in support of two women who were fired for refusing to work at a Greyhound racetrack on Christmas Day?
Or would someone like to explain why the ACLU, in 2002 filed a First Amendment lawsuit against the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) for removing subway advertisements promoting the views of a local church and refusing to sell additional advertising space to the church?
From the ACLU website: “One of the controversial ads, paid for by The Church of the Good News, said that early Christians did not celebrate Christmas or “believe in lies about Santa Claus, flying reindeer, elves and drunken parties.” A second ad, which was rejected by the transit authority and never posted, said, “There is only one true religion. All the rest are false.”‘
Go ahead and search the ACLU website for “Christmas.” You will find that the ACLU maintains a consistent position fighting for the free speech rights of Christians while at the same time fighting to defend the separation of church and state.
http://www.aclu.org/index.html
“The complaint is when a small town can t put a Creche on the lawn of City Hall, because the town s half dozen atheists might be offended. Or songs like O, Come All Ye Faithful can t be sung in school plays.”
Frank, could you just for once cite the actual cases? Could you please direct us to the news articles or press releases describing these cases rather than just reminiscing about your boyhood days?
The issue is also not a matter of offending someone. It doesn’t matter if aetheists or anyone else are offended. It’s a matter of the Constitution and what the Constitution allows. When a City Hall or a school places a manger on its front lawn it can be taken a government endorsement of a particular religion. The ACLU does not sue cities or schools that present multi-religious displays or pageants or feature secular Christmas imagery — Santa Claus, Reindeer, Candy Canes — along with Christian symbols. Or did you not bother to read the Salon article that Oliver linked to:
“Indeed, one case that ACLU president Nadine Strossen loves to talk about is that of Rita Warren, a retired woman who calls herself the “Lone Ranger of the manger” and whose life mission is to put nativity scenes in public places. When she placed a plastic crèche on the lawn in front of the government building in Fairfax, Va., the government ordered her to remove it. Warren called the ACLU, and they discovered that the city of Fairfax had allowed others to erect displays on the property. “Once the government allows displays of any kind to be placed on public property, it can’t then discriminate against some display because of the viewpoint,” says Kent Willis, executive director of the ACLU of Virginia. “The government could not discriminate against her religious display any more than it could take specific action to promote her religious display. It has to treat us the same.”
Please Frank, feel free to spout off on this issue as much as you like but just bring us some facts. Facts, man, that’s all we ask.
Ryland: There have not been, to the best of my knowledge, too many complaints from Christians about corporate decisions to switch from “Christmas” mode to “Holiday” mode, except perhaps to lament its departure.
Unlike you lefties, I don’t know everything, so I could be wrong.
But that is quite a conditional phrase you’re using there: “When corporations realize that they are alienating a large percentage of their customers by saying Merry Christmas, … it s just good business.
I don;t know if that’s happening, and I don’t think you do either.
The complaint is when a small town can’t put a Creche on the lawn of City Hall, because the town’s half dozen atheists might be offended. Or songs like “O, Come All Ye Faithful” can’t be sung in school plays.
I remember, as a child (about 1953 or 1954) coming home to my parents complaining that the school “Christmas Play” contained Protestant hymns and Jewish Hannukah songs. The solution? I got permission not to be in the play. No lawsuits, no cancellation of the play. I just stayed home.
Shooting fish in a barrel:
I didn’t read these, I simply googled ACLU and CRECHE
So, feel free to get out the magnifying glass, and show how these are legitimate suits, despite the fact that these Creches really do no one any harm.
http://www.aclu.org//religion/gen/16139prs19991221.html
http://www.becketfund.org/index.php/case/31.html
http://tinyurl.com/agjbd
http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/holydays/bldec_AlleghenyACLU.htm
http://www.jlaw.com/Briefs/alabama6.html
http://tinyurl.com/ab3qj
http://www.uexpress.com/printable/print.html?uc_full_date=19991220&uc_comic=jl
You say it has nothing to do with who’s offended, but that’s what these whining and moaning atheists always say on FOX every morning from Thanksgiving to Christmas. This, despite the fact that a Nativity scene doesn’t even “celebrate” the birth of Jesus, let alone endorse it.
Think about it: Statues of Joseph and Mary, “Wise men” and “shepherds”, sheep and cattle, maybe a burro, and a baby in what looks like a crib or a nest.
This has what to do with “Congress making a law with respect to an an establishment of religion”?
C’mon.
Some yerk recently wrote into the paper in my home town bragging that in the store he runs he insists that his employees wish customers “Merry Christmas” rather than “Happy holidays”. I bet that kind of crap goes on more often than the kind of crap Frank complains about.
Trouble is, when liberals act like thought-controlling assholes, it’s a man-bites-dog story so it gets lots of coverage. When right-wingers act like thought-controlling assholes it’s extremely dog-bites-man.
Oh by the way, everybody, remember to keep the X in Xmas.
I don’t give a flying fig who’s offended, what I find objectionable is city halls and courthouses using public funds to put up religious symbols. Sorry, Frank, but c’mon yourself. if you don’t think Joseph and Mary and the whole manger bit are religious symbols, you’re high. If you don’t think a public institution using public resources to display them consitutes an endoresement, you’re higher. I didn’t read all your links Frank, but the ones I did read had nothing to do with keeping little girls from wearing I heart jesus t-shirts in school. The were all about publicly financed religious displays on public properties.
Why can’t we all just agree that on our courthouses, our city halls, our public libraries and other state properties, we’re going to have NO religious symbols: no crosses, no ten commandments, no swastikas, no menorahs, no pictures of Elvis, no festivus trees, no nothing?
We’re going to have to get busy changing the names of some of our cities at this rate:
St. Petersburg
San Francisco
Los Angeles
Santa Maria
San Diego
I mean, why not? Don’t you have to do this in order to maintain a consistent position?
I mean, why not? Don t you have to do this in order to maintain a consistent position?
I think you would be hard pressed to find an atheist or other non-Christian that was so hardline that they would actually carry it that far, but thanks for that textbook example of argumentum ad absurdem.
“The ACLU sued the city of Redlands, California to remove a cross from its city seal, even though missions and churches are part of the historical heritage of the region.”
A while back on a similar thread I quoted a passage from Lawrence M. Friedman’s Crime and Punishment in American History. You’ll find it on page 32:
“A religious message leaps out of virtually every page of the early Puritan codes. Rules to buttress religious orthodoxy permeate the Laws and Liberties of Massachusetts (1648) … The community had the right to banish believers in ‘damnable heresies, tending to the subversion of the Christian Faith and destruction of the soules of men.’ There was no welcome mat for Jesuits who entered Masachusetts (unless by ’ship-wrack or other accident’), on the contrary, they were to be tossed out of the common wealth. If an exiled Jesuit dare to come a second time, he could be put to death. The laws against Quakers [even those in basements] were particularly virulent in this colony. In 1658 the Massachusetts General Court allowed the death penalty for Quakers who returend after banishment … Blasphemy was another colonial crime .. Under this statute, a court in its discretion could put the blasphemer in the pillory, whip him, bore his tongue ‘witha red hot iron’ or make him stand on the gallows with a rope around his neck.”
As I said in the other post, this kind of injustice is part of the religious heritage of this country and it’s one of the things that our forefathers rebelled against and sought to abolish with the First Amendment. The Founding Fathers were certainly not waging a war on Christianity, they were waging a war in favor of human rights, human diginity and human freedom. We’ve come a long, long way from 1648 but the line between church and state needs to be defended in every generation against those who would blur it for whatever reason. Dare I say it, it is because of that line — not in spite of it — that there isn’t a single Christian of whatever denomination in this country who is not free to celebrate Christmas openly and publicly in whatever manner they choose. No one will brand me or arrest me for saying “Merry Christmas” or going to mass or going door-to-door singing Christmas Carols. Indeed, I’ve been to a midnight mass on Christmas Eve every year for the last five years with my fiance and her mother. I’ve never seen a police cordon out front to hall us off to jail, I’ve never seen a representative of the ACLU waiving a court order at the hundreds of people spilling out of the church at the end of the service. It’s simply nonsense to suggest that Christians are being oppressed or suppressed in this country. Nonsense.
No, place names established hundreds of years ago have nothing to do with the issue. We’re talking about decisions made and actions taken here and now, in the present day. Lots of us live in towns or counties or states with Native American names. Doesn’t make us Indians.
Now if the Atlanta city council passed a motion to change the name of the city to “Jesusburg”, THEN we’d have a problem on our hands.
Don’t laugh. The ACLU sued the city of Redlands, California to remove a cross from its city seal, even though missions and churches are part of the historical heritage of the region.
“I didn t read these”
Of course you didn’t Frank. Of course you didn’t. I didn’t say that the ACLU never brings these kinds of cases and it’s precisely the details of the cases that count. It’s easy to Google up a dozen cases in which the ACLU sued a town over a manger or a creche and then say it’s because the ACLU is waging a war on Christians and Christianity. But that simply isn’t the truth. The ACLU is concerned with the separation of church and state, plain and simple. If you want to argue the Constitutionality of it, fine, but don’t start throwing around inflammatory and ridiculous slogans like the ACLU is waging a war on Christmas and Christianity. It’s total bullshit.
The other challenge still stands unmet, by the way. Can anyone who believes there is a “War on Christmas” find one case in which the ACLU sued a private business, individual or organization for displaying Chrisitan symbols or discussing Christian doctrine or in any other way celebrating Christmas? Find me that case and we can talk. Otherwise, you’re just blowing smoke.
And please don’t patronize us with your disingenousness, Frank: “This, despite the fact that a Nativity scene doesn t even celebrate the birth of Jesus, let alone endorse it.” Come on, yourself.
How does a historical reference on a city seal–or, for that matter, naming a city for a Catholic saint–pierce the separation of the state from the church?
It doesn’t, in my opinion, but as I’ve said, I’m not so hardline that I would carry it that far. But you already know the logic, Tuco; surely you’ve read the Establishment Clause?
A) Wilbur says: Why can t we all just agree that on our courthouses, our city halls, our public libraries and other state properties, we re going to have NO religious symbols: no crosses, no ten commandments, no swastikas, no menorahs, no pictures of Elvis, no festivus trees, no nothing?
I say: Why? Who the hell do you think you are, Wilbur, that you should decide what belongs in all of our public buildings? Damn, that’s arrogant.
B) Frameone says: The ACLU is concerned with the separation of church and state, plain and simple.
Then why Christian symbols? Why not Jewish Stars of David? Or Islamic Crescents? How disingenous of you to pretend that the ACLU is concerned only with defending a razor thin line between Church and State. Do you know why I didn’t read those references? First, because they were all the same: Municipality wants a Creche, ACLU sues. Second, because I only looked under Creche. Shall I go back and look under prayer? Cross? Christian? Ten Commandments? What do you think I would find?
If you want to argue the constitutionality of putting a Nativity scene on the lawn of City Hall. that’s one thing. But if you want to argue that the ACLU pulls out all the stops preventing Christians from practicing their religion in “the public square”, that’s a whole other ball of wax (and quite unconstitutional).
Let’s return to the original issue.
Because the right needs the rubes to feel under siege. It s a brilliant strategy, just morally bankrupt.
This is meant to imply that a) There is no war on Christmas, and b) That it is a concoction of the right so that “rubes” will feel “under siege.”
Instead of using as a reference, one subscribed article, and a bunch of reference to O’Reilly, let’s do something simpler:
Let’s try “War on Christmas” and “John Gibson”
One of the first things I found was this:
Finally, I leave you with this food for thought:
Don t laugh. The ACLU sued the city of Redlands, California to remove a cross from its city seal, even though missions and churches are part of the historical heritage of the region.
That’s different: the cross as a visual symbol will not necessarily be understood in its historical context. Everybody knows that place names are usually just place names. When the ACLU supports a suit to change the name of San Francisco on church-and-state grounds, then you mighthave a point. But it aint gonna happen.
Frank_D Says:
November 27th, 2005 at 9:22 pm
Surely none of you are suggesting that Christ wasn t born?>>>
I’ll suggest that the so-called Christ was not risen from the dead and is no more the Son of God than you or I.
Frank: “This, despite the fact that a Nativity scene doesn t even celebrate the birth of Jesus, let alone endorse it.”
Me: Whiskey…Tango…Foxtrot?
And my comment is despite the fact that Frank’s comment doesn’t even “celebrate” insanity, let alone endorse it.
“How does a historical reference on a city seal or, for that matter, naming a city for a Catholic saint pierce the separation of the state from the church?”
Let’s not conflate two different issues here, Tuco. The name of a city is the name of a city. A city seal is quite another matter. The question turns on whether the cross in the seal can be construed as an endorsement of a particular religion or not.
“The law couldn’t be any clearer on this,” said Wizner. “Whether it’s an Islamic crescent, a star of David, or a crucifix makes no difference. The government cannot endorse religion. By putting a Latin cross on its official seal, Redlands was effectively telling people of other faiths, and people of no faith, that they were second class citizens.”
http://www.aclu-sc.org/News/OpenForum/100663/100668/
You should note Tuco that the citizens of Redlands defeated a ballot initiative to have the cross returned to the seal. Would you care to argue with the local electorate?
“Then why Christian symbols? Why not Jewish Stars of David? Or Islamic Crescents?”
Hilarious. First of all Frank, can you find me a single city in the United States that features or has ever featured a Star or David or an Islamic Crescent on its seal? Can you find a single instance in which an activist synagogue or mosque demanded that portions of the Torah or Koran be displayed in a court room? Second, why is it only government institutions that end up the targest of these suits? Neither you not anyone else here has produced evidence of a case in which the ACLU has sued a private citizen, organization or business for expressing their religious views as they see fit in public. Are there any actual cases in which a hardware store owen put a manger in his store window and got sued by the ACLU? Can you find one case like that, or any where near similar?
At the same time, the ACLU has taken plenty of cases to court in which Menorahs and other religious symbols were involved. One of the cases you linked to, but obviously didn’t read, involved the display of a Menorrah, a creche, and a holiday tree. Later, during the lawsuit, the city added other symbols including “a Santa with sleigh and a snowman near the creche, and putting several Kwanza symbols on the evergreen tree.” If you had read the article you would have found that the ACLU eventually lost the case in court because the court found: “Reasonably viewed, none of these displays conveyed a message of government endorsement of Christianity, Judaism, or of religion in general but instead “sent a message of pluralism and freedom to choose one’s own beliefs.” Wouldn’t you say this is an example of a balanced system working for the benefit of all citizens?
You see the devil’s in the details here Frank. Which is why you have to read what you link to if you don’t want to look like an idiot.
And if you had read the Salon article that Oliver linked to you would know why and how this is all a concocted issue. Here’s how it goes. Dipshits like O’Reilly and Gibson get on national television and say again and again and agin that the ACLU will sue a city automatically if any sign of Christianity or Christmas is displayed. So city managers and principles, acting on myth and fear without ever contacting the ACLU, get over defensive and ban everything that they think, in their ignorance, will bring a lawsuit. Which produces the anecdotal stories for the right wing press to blow all out of proportion. It’s a self contained feedback loop in which the ACLU is never actually involved. It’s all rumor and anecdote. In short, it’s all bullshit.
I’m so old, I remember when people of deep religious conviction complained that Christmas was becoming too commericialized. They didn’t like all the stores and advertisers making a buck off of what’s supposed to be the commemoration of a significant religious event.
Now we have the “deeply religious” Rev. Wildmon, Bill O’Reilly, et al, crying that the forces of commerce aren’t paying enough attention to Christmas.
I guess you could say they were against commericalizing Christmas before they were for it.
One more thing on this city seal deal. The City of Redlands was founded in 1881. The cross was put on the city seal in 1963. I bet if you took a minute to research the when and why of it, you will find that the Cold War and our battle against the godless communists had a lot to do with the decision to add the cross to the seal. Which means that, indeed, the cross was probably placed on the seal specifically as an endorsement of religion and Christianity in particular. Afterall, such Cold War propaganda is why “under God” was added the the pledge of allegiance in 1954.
I see you’ve all been busy. It looks like you had nothing to say to each other. Anyway, I like to respond to as many comments as possible, now that you’re all committed to black and white.
If you insulted me gratuitously, your comment will be ignored.
#
I say: Why? Who the hell do you think you are, Wilbur, that you should decide what belongs in all of our public buildings? Damn, that s arrogant
First, This is what the Constitution says about religion: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
It doesn’t say no Creches, no crosses, no prayers before football games. does it?
Who says the need to dedicate a site to any principle is neurotic? Is that your expert opinion? What would you say about a war memorial? Just neurotic crap?
Civics lesson, Wilbur: I remember when all this stuff wasn’t even a problem for anybody. So where did you get “two hundred years of jurisprudence”?
# mr.curmudgeon Says:
Frank: This, despite the fact that a Nativity scene doesn t even celebrate the birth of Jesus, let alone endorse it.
Me: Whiskey& Tango& Foxtrot?
I don’t knpw why you used the Army’s phonetic alphabet. Too bad you didn’t ask a question. It might have been answered
# mr.curmudgeon Says:
November 28th, 2005 at 10:52 am
ignored
Neither you nor anyone else here has produced evidence of a case in which the ACLU has sued a private citizen, organization or business for expressing their religious views as they see fit in public.
No one has said anything about private citizens or private institutions but you, that’s why!
One of the cases you linked to, but obviously didn t read …
You act like you made a great discovery. I said I didn’t read them, and I said why. I’m not going to repeat myself.
If you had read the article you would have found that the ACLU eventually lost the case
“Lost the case” doesn’t mean they didn’t sue, now does it?
The devil is indeed in the details, frame. As far as “looking like an idiot”, I could win the Nobel Peace Prize and the Pulitzer Prize in the same week, and you’d still think I was an idiot. Obviously (one of your favorite words), I don’t care what you think.
But let’s follow your scheme and see where it goes.
Think about this for a minute.
Does it sound familiar?
How about this: McCarthy is on television almost every day, telling people there are Communists all over the place. He says he’ll be investigating any instances of what he suspects is Communist infiltration. So movie and television executives, acting on myth and fear without ever contacting the government, get over defensive and ban everything that they think, in their ignorance, will bring an investigation.
Which produces the anecdotal stories for the left wing press to blow all out of proportion. It s all rumor and anecdote. In short, it s all bullshit.
The devil is indeed in the details, kid.
# Quaker in a Basement Says:
November 28th, 2005 at 11:38 am
I m so old, I remember when people of deep religious conviction complained that Christmas was becoming too commericialized.
Quaker’s reminiscence serves as a reminder, once again, that what religious people and social conservatives are involved in, is clearly defense.
Surely, one doesn’t defend one’s self if he is not under attack
Then why Christian symbols? Why not Jewish Stars of David? Or Islamic Crescents?
+ACLU “religious symbols”
http://tinyurl.com/c3mwx
47,700 hits
+ACLU “religious symbols” menorah
http://tinyurl.com/arl29
40,800 hits
+ACLU “religious symbols” -menorah -”Islamic crescent”
http://tinyurl.com/8xktc
40,600 hits
“It suggests neither worship, celebration or endorsement.”
But put it alone on the White House lawn and it suggest a tactic endorsement of one religion over the myriad in existence. That’s the whole point. Put it in front of the White House and it says the occupant of this house is Christian which, while it may be the case, is not supposed to matter when it comes the governance of the country because he is supposed to represent all people. Whatever moral character Bush may have gleaned from his born again experience it would be unconstitutional for him to so publicly priviledge the symbols of Christian faith on federal land. Aside from the Constitutional issues it is nor appropriate for him to use public lands for such a private, religious display. Now does any of this hold true for a proivate citizen who puts a manger on his or her private front lawn? No. Not at all. In that case it’s a straight up free speech issue and even the ACLU would defend that person’s right to do so.
curmudgeon, you jerk, “What The Fuck” is an exclamation, not a question
A nativity scene is just that — a scene.
It suggests neither worship, celebration or endorsement.
If I walk by a Salvation Army kettle, must I put money in it? Or ask “Santa” if I can sit on his lap and ask for gifts?
Go to this site:
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/bassano/adoration/adoration.jpg
Whatever religion you are, everything in the picture is probably familiar to you.
Do feel a need to genuflect, receive communion, or put money in a basket?
If you did, now that might be “borderline insane”. I’m not sure what that is, but I get the drift.
“It [the constitution] doesn t say no Creches, no crosses, no prayers before football games. does it?”
This is exactly the kind of dishonest sleight of hand at work in the war on Christmas charade. Frank starts out talking about the Constitution and the restriction on the government establishment of a religion but then quickly jumps to football games. He is confusing the two parts of the First Amendment, freedom of religion and freedom of speech. The display of religious symbols at a football game is a free speech issue and the ACLU would defend the right of the national football league to stage a Bibilical epic as a half time show because it is the NFLs free speech right to do so.
Which brings us to this:
“No one has said anything about private citizens or private institutions but you, that s why!”
Sorry Frank. When you brought up the football game example you did precisely that. You are collapsing free speech and the establishment clause to suggest that private citizens or groups are being kept from expressing themselves. That simply isn’t true. If you can’t show that private citizens are being prevented from celebrating Christmas then you haveno case for a war on Christmas. Because the ACLU isn;t waging war on Christmas, it’s defending the First Amendment.
‘ Lost the case doesn t mean they didn t sue, now does it?’
Ya Frank, but it also means that defenseless Christians are not being set upon by an activist judiciary bent on destroying all they hold dear.
And what of your analogy to the Hollywood Blacklist? Didn’t I already school you on this topic? Apparently you need another lesson. McCarthy had nothing to do with the HUAC investigations into Hollywood. But then the example of the Hollywood Blacklist only proves MY point. Hollywood ruined lives because it gave credence to fears based on rumors and innuendo. And Hollywood did indeed contact the government. Hollywood producers were responding directly to government threats that if the studios didn’t “clean house” the government would find a way to do it, indeed Hollywood got the names of the people it eventually blacklisted from the HUAC committee itself! Hollywood was also responding to the threat of boycotts brought by civic groups, such as the Kights of Columbus and the John Birch Society, who were themselves spreading rumor and innuendo about stars and other filmmakers. The bottom line is Communists were not trying to take over America by inserting propaganda into Hollywood films.
Just like the ACLU is not trying to prevent Christians from worshipping and celebrating Christmas as they see fit.
“Which produces the anecdotal stories for the left wing press to blow all out of proportion. It s all rumor and anecdote. In short, it s all bullshit.”
Let me ask you this Frank? Are once again asserting that no one blacklisted? Are youonce against going to claim that hundreds of people in Hollywood didn’t find their lives and careers ruined by the anti-Communist witchhunts of the 1950s?
Frank,
I used the Army s phonetic alphabet to spell out WTF? Which is a question, btw.
I don’t care to debate ANY of your other points when you go so far as to claim that the nativity neither “celebrates” or “endorses” the birth of Christ. That’s so completely disingenuous and borderline insane.
What next? You gunna’ tell me Jesus isn’t a Jew?
My, Frank has been busy.
It doesn t say no Creches, no crosses, no prayers before football games. does it?
No, the founding fathers could not possibly have anticipated and enumerated everything that would be unconstitutional. That’s why we have amendments, statues and jurisprudence.
Who says the need to dedicate a site to any principle is neurotic? Is that your expert opinion? What would you say about a war memorial? Just neurotic crap?
A war memorial is not a religious monument.
How about this: McCarthy is on television almost every day…
Nice analogy Frank. Get back to me when there are congressional hearings investigating whether people are now, or have ever been, a Christian, or hung a star on a tree, or wished anyone a “merry Christmas”.
Geez. Like I said on another thread: totally morally disabled.
If the form of speech could be considered an endorsement of a particular religion or religion in general to the exlcusion of other points of view
That’s it in a nutshell.
While we understand, for example, that if you don’t collect stamps, you wouldn’t join the High School Philatelists’ Club, you could, but why would you?
If you’re a Jewish kid on a football team, you’re not going to be made to sit on the bench because you won’t say the “Our Father” before a football game.
The Coach might say, “Just bow your head and pray we win, to whoever,” or he might say, “Don’t worry about it, we can win with 24 prayers, we don’t need 25.”
It doesn’t need to be a free speech issue, but the ACLU and people like Newdow and Americans United For Separation of Church and State insist it is.
As I said above, this is defense.
“It doesn t say no Creches, no crosses, no prayers before football games. does it? ”
Oh I get it, now. You were probably talking about high school football games. No difference. A public high school is a government institution and so the question of free speech is tied to the establishment clause. If the form of speech could be considered an endorsement of a particular religion or religion in general — to the exlcusion of other points of view — it’s a violation of the Constitution — but only because if it occurs with the sanction of the public institution on public property at a schoolwide event. As far as I understand it, students are free to organize Christian study and prayer groups on campus, they are able to hold religious events on campus in conjunction with graduations etc. Why? Because these are free speech rights. Think of it this way. There’s a difference between the free speech rights of the individual and the free speech rights of the government as an institution. The government cannot say or do certain things that could be construed as endorsing a religion. A private citizen can say and do whatever he or she wants — and on prublic ground too — because that’s what the first amendment is designed to protect.
You can also print it out and write your favorite dessert recipe on the back. But neither would represent my intent.
Please leave me out of your delusions.
No I am not. Neither did I say it then. I said they were not blacklisted by McCarthy, or any of his agents or associates.
Funny you got the parallel, but not its significance. The argument can not hold water in one case only.
A little editing gets us “Put a Nativity scene in front of the White House and it says the occupant of this house is Christian which … is not supposed to matter.”
So why does it? Because the ACLU has manufactured a “wall of separation” between Church and State which prevents any contact of the Church with the State, but doesn’t prevent contact of the State with the Church.
This is exactly the opposite of what the 1st Amendment means when it says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
The Framers of the Constitution knew the difference between “existence” and “establishment”, and would have used the word “existence”, if that is what they meant. They used the word “establishment” because they meant denomination or congregation, not religion in general.
Even Jefferson’s oft – cited “Letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802” makes the point that
That means to me that the wall of separation prevents Congress from passing a law which is biased towards an establishment of religion; and prevents Congress from passing a law which prohibits the free practice thereof. The image of a wall is not meant to represent a gate that only opens from the State side.
And, frame, you were right. I should have read the Salon article, because after 2 and three – quarter pages, the author writes:
And, Wilbur, aside from the fact that you pilfered the opening sentence of your comment from me, and the last sentence is a non sequitur, the rest of the comment is pretty much bullshit, too.
The ACLU is engaged in a nationwide campaign to investigate every form of religious expression for possible (in their view) “violation” of the so – called ‘principle of separation of Church and State’ in ways that McCarthy would have drooled over.
And you forgot these questions: Who says the need to dedicate a site to any principle is neurotic? Is that your expert opinion?
I say: Why? Who the hell do you think you are, Wilbur, that you should decide what belongs in all of our public buildings? Damn, that s arrogant.
I can’t speak for Wilbur, but I think I am a sovereign citizen of the United States of America, which means that, Christian or not, my right to decide what belongs in a public building means just as much as yours or anybody else’s in this country, last time I checked.
I and other citizens have a grievance with the government, and we’re petitioning for redress of that grievance. That’s as American as it gets, Frank, right there in the Bill of Rights, in black and white. You and your right wing nutball friends are the ones who seem to have forgotten that.
Maybe folks like you think that believing the rights of a citizen to decide what the state may or may not do, and not the other way around, is arrogant. If that’s arrogance, then democracy is the height of arrogance, and I’m proud to be as arrogant as I possibly can.
Frank you don’t even understand that the basic issues at stake here. All the evidence I need is this garbled bit of reasoning:
“Because the ACLU has manufactured a wall of separation between Church and State which prevents any contact of the Church with the State, but doesn t prevent contact of the State with the Church.”
You have it precisely backwards. If a church or a religious individual wanted to put a manger in front of his or her local city hall, they could, provided that the city hall is open to all such requests from anyone and everyone in the community — even athiests. So the church can approach the state and request representation and it can get it, provided that the state is willing to grant the same right to anyone who approaches it (barring certain forms of hate speech, I imagine)
From the Salon article:
Once the government allows displays of any kind to be placed on public property, it can t then discriminate against some display because of the viewpoint, says Kent Willis, executive director of the ACLU of Virginia.”
On the other hand, a mayor or a city council cannot decide themselves to put a manger on the steps of city hall because they are not making that decision as private citizens but as representatives of the State. The State cannot make an establishment of religion and deciding to place a manger or any other religious symbol is a violation of that restriction. These are the instances in which the ACLU brings a suit against a city, when the city government has taken it upon itself to promote a religion or religion generally. Again, if you bothered to read your own links you would have seen this. The ACLU does not sue private individuals, organizations or businesses that want to express their religious views. They only sue government institutions that take it upon themselves to promote religions or religion.
Can you possibly see the difference? Because the difference is crucial. The difference is why individuals are able to worship freely and publicly in this country. Like I said before, Christians are able to celebrate Christmas not inspite of the establishment clause but because of it.
Here’s a question I’d like to see answered: How many Chrisitions out there would like to see the Bill of Rights replaced with the Ten Commandments?
Wilbur nails it. Frank is the ultimate right wing nut self parody. He’s pure comedy gold.
And, Wilbur, aside from the fact that you pilfered the opening sentence of your comment from me…
It’s called parody, Frank, though I don’t know why I bother. You do a pretty good job of parodying yourself.