It’s called parody, Frank, though I don’t know why I bother. You do a pretty good job of parodying yourself.

“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.

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.

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?

But Americans are catching on to the ACLU’s malign influence and fighting back, says Johnson. Johnson’s boss, ADF president Alan Sears, has just co-written a book with Craig Osten titled “The ALCU vs. America.” The ACLU and its allies, they write, “terrorize local communities on an almost daily basis with letters, e-mails and telephone calls to silence Christmas and other religious activity.” But the terrorists can be beaten: “It will take sacrifice, perseverance, and a concerted effort by millions of Americans to defeat the ACLU, its many allies, and their agenda. But with God’s grace, we are confident it can and will be done.”
As Johnson notes, O’Reilly invited Sears onto his show to talk about his book, catapulting it to No. 20 on Amazon. “You can only push the American people so far, and then there’s a backlash,” Johnson says. “The ACLU in recent years has just pushed Christian America to the limit. From its earliest stage, the ACLU has deliberately chipped away at the legal and moral and religious foundations of our republic.”
The war on Christmas trope lets the right pretend to be playing defense when it’s really on the offensive — against the ACLU, separation of church and state, and pluralism, to name just a few targets. “The revolution against Christianity has been under way for a few years,” writes Gibson, “and now the counterrevolution is gearing up.”

Funny you got the parallel, but not its significance. The argument can not hold water in one case only.

Put it (a Nativity scene) 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.

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

“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state

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.

Quaker s reminiscence serves as a reminder, once again, that what religious people and social conservatives are involved in, is clearly defense.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

+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

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.

Here s how it goes. Dipshits like O Reilly and Gibson get on national television and say again and again and again 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.

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