For almost half my life I’ve been in the Marines, spending nearly every holiday season far from home. But the hardships of being away from friends and family have taught me to appreciate the continuity of traditions that are shared across America. I learned to appreciate Christmas lights hung hastily along roof ledges; grade school pageants; watching “It’s a Wonderful Life” on TV; the nativity scene on the courthouse lawn; the ACLU filing to have it taken down.
While this last tradition is the newest, it's already firmly established across the nation. Indeed, my generation has never heard a “Season’s Greetings” that wasn’t followed by a season of protest. Yet every year I’m baffled by the animosity toward Christmas symbolism. The same secularists who think that playing Grand Theft Auto:Vice City while listening to gansta rap has no affect on children act as if hearing “Merry Christmas” will turn little Johnny into a Pat Robertson clone.
As hard as I try, I can't comprehend what could causes such a reaction. What is it about seeing a plastic baby Jesus laying in a manger on the public square that inspires such passionate outrage? Are they afraid it will lead to intolerance, religious bigotry, or – even worse – voting Republican?
Almost as peculiar is the counter-reaction of my fellow Christians. Tales of religious persecution told by returning missionaries lead to earnest prayers and the passing of the offering plate for a “religious freedom” fund. But an announcement by a senior deacon that the ACLU has caused the cancellation of the Christmas pageant will have the senior ladies auxiliary ready to march on Washington.
Naturally, we have an obligation to defend important cultural traditions. But could we be taking it too seriously? We act as if the struggle over holiday symbols will inevitably lead to intolerance of religion (First they came for the magi, and I did not speak out…) or that the slightest retreat will lead to the cancellation of Christmas. While we must always be on guard to protect our most cherished freedoms, we could use a little more discernment in choosing our battles. We must prayerfully choose both ours campaigns and the rhetoric we employ. (The way we invoke the “slippery slope” you’d think we evangelicals lived on the north face of Everest.) After all, not everything worth fighting for is necessarily worth the fight.
Perhaps we should let the forces of secularism have this one, let them win this skirmish. After all, wasn’t it Jesus who said, “and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well.” When the ACLU sues to remove the Christmas tree let’s give them the nativity scene as well. When the secularists fight to stop the Christmas pageant let’s let them have the caroling too. Let’s let them have X-mas. Because maybe then we can finally show them Christ.
1
The real issue is the Public Square. Let the ACLU have it -- and reduce it. Increase the private squares. Increase the ability of MALL owners to decide, on private property grounds, what they will allow and what not.
Let the gov't buildings be unlit on X-mas, and let the malls be full of Christmas, and Xmas, and Hanukah, and Season of Lights, and Dedo Mraz (Grandfather Frost in Slovak).
And let homes celebrate the birth of Christ as they choose.
Unfortunately, the still current Slovak custom of Baby Jesus bringing presents for children on Dec. 24 is unlikely to survive for my children's children. Santa and Rudolf are just too commercially compelling -- and fill the Slovak malls.
posted on 12.14.2004 6:10 AM2
I dunno why people get offended so easily. In the case of Manger Scenes for example, or in the case of the Ten C's in the courthouse, it doesn't bother me at all. I thought the Ten C's monument was some pretty cool art. It didn't bother me, and it wouldn't bother me if a courthouse had the "Scales of Isis/Justice' painted as a mural. When I'm in a court for any reason I usually just want to get the hell out of court and I don't care that much about the artwork anyway!
In the case of Macy's going from "Merry Christmas" to "Season's Greetings" as the official employee greeting to customers, they probably did some kind of marketing study or poll and found that that greeting was more appealing to their customer base which likely includes all kinds of races and creeds from all over the world. They're a private business, unlike government agencies, so they're not subject to any Constitutional restraints on Church and State or Free Eexpreesion. And if it doesn't work they pay the price; literally.
The ACLU defends the Bill of Rights, mostly Free Expression and Separation of Church and State. That means at times, and more often than not, they're going to have to take on cases and defend the unpopular position which inevitably rubs people the wrong way. They might have to defend the right of the Ku Klux Klan to march in a protest because of Free Expression. They might have to defend a tiny minority who don't want their kids led in pray in school by the faculty. And then they might turn around and sue on behalf of a Christian Youth Group who's been denied the right to use school resources that other, secular student clubs, have been granted access to. Naturally, acting as counsel on such cases, defending unpopular causes, and suing over popular practices, is going to tweak people out and as a result they get a lot of bad reviews making them a nice fat juicy target for any media or politician looking to widen their 'custome'r base.
But it's difficult to imagine a document more germane to our liberties than The Bill of Rights, and defending those core American values even when it inconveniences you (or endangers you) is a big part in any definition of patriotism. They're just doing legally what every politician swears before God and the people he will do politically, and what every service member in the armed forces swears he will do militarily.
posted on 12.14.2004 6:13 AM3
Yet every year I’m baffled by the animosity toward Christmas symbolism....What is it about seeing a plastic baby Jesus laying in a manger on the public square that inspires such passionate outrage? Are they afraid it will lead to intolerance, religious bigotry, or – even worse – voting Republican?...Naturally, we have an obligation to defend important cultural traditions. But could we be taking it too seriously?
I understand you've been in Japan, Joe. Did you ever see those red and gold paper- mache heads that go by the name "Daruma?"
If you ask the average Japanese what a "Daruma" is, they'll tell you it's a good luck object, or an object for encouragement. Very few of them will realize that it commemorates a historical person, the person who founded Shao-lin temple in Henan province in China, Bohdidharma.
Ah-so. The point emerges...you're probably saying. Is all this symbolism about Christmas trivializing the object of Christianity? Heck, the Puritans thought so, and banned Christmas celebrations altogehter. Of course, as an ex-Christian I don't have that problem.
But, yeah, at least some of your co-religionists are throwing out the baby with the bathwater, so to speak.
posted on 12.14.2004 6:29 AM4
BTW, I don't mind (and use) "merry Christmas," "happy solstice," "happy saturnalia," "happy Hanukah," etc. depeending on the audience.
I was raised to be polite about that... or at least follow Mencken? ("We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.")
posted on 12.14.2004 6:31 AM5
Some of these skirmishes may seem silly, but on the other hand, in the medical field seemingly insignificant signs and symptoms point to the more insidious with regularity. The underlying cause is indeed the most important, but treating symptoms is necessary, too.
posted on 12.14.2004 6:32 AM6
joe finally gets to his point at the end of his introduction where he reveals his underlying mission. that is, he proposes that perhaps one should be willing to lose the battle over plastic cast babies jesus because that might somehow produce the result that evangelicals will finally be able to 'bring us christ'.
it's not clear to me how that result might be expected to occur. and in anycase i agree that it's interesting and perhaps bizzare that people become so frenzied over this point.
what i do not find amazing is that people are frenzied by the essentialist position joe extolls: namely that he should be bringing us christ.
this is the fundamental objection of the secularist. namely, we don't really have an acceptable way to mentally package proseltyism.
so, we're guilty (hate admitting it) of calling it Orwellian mind control, which while somewhat compelling to many of us, doesn't really capture (for this secularist at least) the fundamental objection.
but i do believe, for my part, that you'd see many fewer tipped battles over the public square if you wanted to see the nativity there, just for you, rather than because you see it as a vehicle by which to 'control the minds' of others.
did it somehow not occur to anyone that principled secularists ought have no objection to your celebration of your beliefs provided that they tread on no one? why must your religion be conceived as requiring assault on the belief system of others? why is it not ok for others to exist in their own value space? how is it that you endorse a god who demands that you try to subjugate the liberties of others?
i'd think that such a god would look more like the christian conception of satan (functions by subjugating choice).
honestly, just not getting it. can you explain?
c
7
joe finally gets to his point at the end of his introduction where he reveals his underlying mission. that is, he proposes that perhaps one should be willing to lose the battle over plastic cast babies jesus because that might somehow produce the result that evangelicals will finally be able to 'bring us christ'.
it's not clear to me how that result might be expected to occur. and in anycase i agree that it's interesting and perhaps bizzare that people become so frenzied over this point.
If I understand Joe correctly, he is saying that allowing the secularists to win doesn't just create an opportunity to show the world Christ. It is showing Christ. It is a small but concrete way to follow Christ's instruction in Matthew 5:40, and in the final analysis, the most effective evangelization is likely to be the example of Christians being Christ-like, not a nativity scene in the county courthouse.
And, it has the added advantage of letting Christians concentrate on the Christ in Christmas without getting embroiled in conflicts with secularists.
When I was a kid, I had some Dutch friends who received their presents from Sinterklaas early in December. That allowed them to keep the 24th and 25th as a religious celebration without the glaze of commercialism. Perhaps that's not a bad compromise.
posted on 12.14.2004 8:19 AM8
Increase the ability of MALL owners to decide, on private property grounds, what they will allow and what not.
That's creepy. Haven't you seen Robocop? Privatization of public spaces and forces only leads to the erosion of democracy and an eventual post-apocalyptic nightmare scenario. (see also: Mike Davis).
I'm only half-kidding.
posted on 12.14.2004 8:55 AM9
CT: I think that one of the most common misconceptions that athiests/secularists have is that, somehow, brining someone to Christ is akin to those old zombie movies of the 1950's. However, it's not like that. When Joe says (or any other evangelical for that matter) that they want to bring someone to Christ, what they mean more specifically, is that they want to "lead" someone to Christ. To put it in an old saying "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink" - nobody, I think you'll agree, can "make" anyone do anything. The way that this normally happens is to appeal to someone's intellect, to make the case, and to sit back and let the person decide for himself - not to brow beat them into submission! I, myself, was an atheist not long ago. Through a process of being introduced to God's word, and having been given time to consider it, I decided for myself to give my life to Christ. No one "made" me do it.
I hope this helps, and I'd like to continue this dialog if you have any further questions! I think this is such a fundamentally misunderstood concept, and has such vitriol and angst attached to it. Once you come to realize that it's no different than what a concerned friend would do for you if you were having trouble (it's really no different) - coming along side you to walk with you, to listen, and to help you through a tough time - I think you'll see that there's no voodoo, spell casting, or zombie-making involved. Just concerned friends, caring for you, and helping you when you need help.
posted on 12.14.2004 9:15 AM10
It's a Wonderful Life is my favorite movie--if they come for that, there will be trouble.
posted on 12.14.2004 9:18 AM11
CT:
I don't want to put words in Joe's mouth, but I believe what he is saying has been said more succinctly (apologies, Joe): "Blessed are the peacemakers..."
jpe:
Sorry. I automatically discount anyone's position who supports that position using a movie as a citation.
12
They're just doing legally what every politician swears before God and the people he will do politically, and what every service member in the armed forces swears he will do militarily.
I get the sense that the above is right, and that people that sue to get religious stuff removed do it from a sense of duty and fairness, rather than from a fear of harm. So when people ask 'what's the harm?', it seems that the bulk of the issue is bracketed. If I were to cut in front of Mr. X at the grocery store with my one can of soup, what's the harm? So Mr. X buys his groceries 15 seconds later. Big deal! But if I were to argue like that, I'd be missing the point: his anger isn't derived from some harm that I'm inflicting, it's coming from a violation of the rules of fairness.
Perhaps the rules of fairness to which Mr. X impliedly appeals when he yells at me are stupid rules, and ought to be changed. Could be. It could be that this talk of fairness is a way to disguise the harm that he thinks I'm doing. Could be. If the former, we talk about the rules and their fairness. If the latter, we talk about how the 'rights talk' masks an unspoken fear of harm. Either way, though, bracketing the question of fairness doesn't seem to do justice to the debate.
posted on 12.14.2004 9:25 AM13
Sorry. I automatically discount anyone's position who supports that position using a movie as a citation.
Does the privatization of public space come up so often in your conversations that you have rules of citation?
Cool.
14
I think C above has nailed it on the head: "how is it that you endorse a god who demands that you try to subjugate the liberties of others? i'd think that such a god would look more like the christian conception of satan (functions by subjugating choice)."
C.S. Lewis wrote of a ruler who would rather people didn't believe he existed than think of him as a bloodthirsty tyrant. This is the beauty and essential quality of the separation of church and state--it keeps the church from being corrupted by the opportunists of government, and the government from distorting the image of a God who values freedom of choice. After all, if God didn't value our individual freedom, He could have made us all robots.
Fortunately America's freedom of speech allows churches and individuals to display what they please, even if they're right across the street from a government entity. All I know is, driving around America, I see a lot more churches than government property, so where's the issue?
Thanks for bringing the beatitudes into this discussion. Their Spirit-driven applications are too often forgotten in the clamor over the commandments.
posted on 12.14.2004 9:33 AM15
Just from my own point of view I wish that people would stop using X-mas and put Christ back into CHRISTmas. That is just a personal pet peeve of mine. This article has alot to say to us about the battle of showing Christianity publically while offending others or as the author of article says,
When the ACLU sues to remove the Christmas tree let’s give them the nativity scene as well. When the secularists fight to stop the Christmas pageant let’s let them have the caroling too. Let’s let them have X-mas. Because maybe then we can finally show them Christ.
Now, I don't know about everyone else's opinion on the matter, but i'm tired of giving in to the ACLU, non-Christians, and the government for that matter when it comes to my Christian faith, heritage, and right of free speech. We live in a society that now taunts and condemns anything that remotely condemns Christianity. We live in a country that has the motto of "don't offend anyone." All the while it is alright to bring up Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, the Lunar New Year, or whatever other non-Christian religion wants to celebrate but no...not CHRISTmas...make it X-mas or something so it doesn't offend.
The point that i'm making is not that we should force our Christianity onto others, but we also cannot condone other religions as Christians either. The Gospel is a double edged sword and offends on its own. The question I have to the author of "Let 'Em Have X-mas" is where do we stop. Where to we make a stand if we give up Christmas trees, nativity scenes, and carols? When the Gospel offends others do we give in to them? When the Gospel says that we are saved by Christ do we add the words "or any other name you would like to call him?"
It sickens me to see how much Christians are willing to give up. I do not believe that by giving up on these "less important" things will help us to show them Christ. If they do not accept Christ from the Word of God and the Spirit working in their hearts they will never accept Him. Maybe we should just try to do miracles so that these non-Christians, atheists, and others would believe. But then again, Scripture tells us in Luke 16:
29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. 30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. 31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
As Paul proclaimed "We preach Christ and Him crucified." We must continue to show the world Christ in any way we can and that does include Nativity scenes, the ten commandments, and the like. We must not give up marks of the Church. If we continue to give up these marks we will have much more then Gay Marriage and Civil Unions, we will have much more then Kwanzaa and Muslim holidays. In the end Christianity will be pushed away and blend into the New Age. Maybe the author is right..."Let 'Em Have X-mas" but let me have CHRISTmas. This has also been posted on my weblog: http://www.sinnerandsaint.typepad.com/
16
FWIW, I think Joe's point is right on the money. In my first year of law school, my property professor would regularly remind us that the litigants in many of the cases we were reading were completely out of their minds. Two people would spend thousands and thousands of dollars and go up to the state supreme court to battle over concrete steps that cut three inches into the neighboring property.
The moral is that it's all too easy to get a little crazy, and to fight battles for no other reason than there's a battle to be fought. Given that, a little perspective, or a strategic timeout, is always a good thing and always welcome. In the instant case, it seems from out here in the heart of blue-state-land that Christians save Christmas displays at the expense of the Christmas message. Many of my non-Christian friends really do think that Christians, like the litigant suing over three inches of concrete, are completely insane, and these annual skirmishes are no small part of that. At least with something like abortion, it's easy to come up with a reasonable and defensible explanation of why pro-life christians aren't insane; with this stuff, it's much more difficult.
There are times when political muscle and evangelical interests work at cross-purposes, and this may be one of those times.
posted on 12.14.2004 9:53 AM17
All the while it is alright to bring up Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, the Lunar New Year, or whatever other non-Christian religion wants to celebrate but no...not CHRISTmas..
I know. Can you believe my Thanksgiving leftovers are barely done with and they're already putting up Kwanzaa decorations everywhere and promoting Lunar New Year sales at the malls? With all the commercialization of Kwanzaa, it's like the third principle of Kwanzaa doesn't even mean anything anymore.
Seriously, though: the above is why Christians get a lot of scorn heaped on them this time of year. Christmas is stinkin' everywhere. If there's a lack of Christ in it, maybe you shouldn't be looking to a nativity scene on the capitol lawn to be an insta-answer.
posted on 12.14.2004 10:01 AM18
I have less of a problem with banning Nativity scenes from the courthouse lawn than with banning "Christmas concerts," Christmas carols, and Christian symbols from public schools. A battle I do think worth fighting is over living a faith-integrated life. When public schools were organized, they were for the most part a Protestant invention -- they ante-dated Thomas Mann in the U.S. In Canada, the constitution recognized the public system as Protestant and a "separate" system as Roman Catholic, except in jurisdictions like Quebec and elsewhere that were majority Catholic in which case the public system was RC and the separate was Protestant.
Secularism doesn't want Christians living a faith-integrated life -- that's clear. But why should a minority of religion hostile parents prevent children other than their own enjoying Christmas symbols and celebration in school?
19
Joel Dietrich:
The point that i'm making is not that we should force our Christianity onto others, but we also cannot condone other religions as Christians either.
Looking up the meaning of "condone," I see:
To overlook, forgive, or disregard (an offense) without protest or censure.
Now, why should you protest or censure other religions?
Is that what Jesus did with Samaritans?
And, why should you get to decide how I celebrate Christmas? Because, uh, you can try to perform miracles?
If you look at my comment above on this, you'll see that I link to a) how my family celebrates Christmas as Buddhists, and b) how fundamentalist Christians rudely abused a cashier, simply because the cashier said, "Happy holidays."
It seems to me rather than thinking about non-Christians being offended by the Christian message, it seems like you are offended by the very presence of non-Christians. With all due respect, we're here, and I'd suggest you try to live with us in peace and compassion. It's hard work, maybe even a miracle for some, but it's a lot more rewarding than the alternative.
20
Er, that should be "Horace Mann," not "Thomas Mann."
posted on 12.14.2004 10:31 AM21
Joel,
The question I have to the author of "Let 'Em Have X-mas" is where do we stop. Where to we make a stand if we give up Christmas trees, nativity scenes, and carols? When the Gospel offends others do we give in to them?
I would recommend that we make a stand on issues that are actually relevant to the Gospel. While Christmas trees and carols are an important part of our tradition and heritage they really don’t have much to do with our faith. Our focus should be on protecting true religious freedom, not just the ability to display holiday symbols.
In my opinion, our focus should on becoming an incarnational witness where we are the living symbols of Christianity rather than relying on nativity scenes on courthouse lawns to do our job for us.
22
Speaking of which here's an interesting take on this subject from today's Guardian...
And more widely, it is a common complaint, even among atheists, that consumerism in general has corrupted the quiddity of Christmas. This is absolutely true - if there's a message at all in the original story, it's manifestly not that you have to buy loads and loads of pointless tat and eat too much in order to express a selfless and important bond of care with your fellow man.posted on 12.14.2004 11:00 AMBut this is commerce all over. It appropriates everything, every icon, every emotional resonance that's ever touched the collective psyche, every stirring phrase that might usefully bypass the rational mind and induce us to buy stuff we don't need. It has pinched every atom of the visual and verbal experience of love in order to flog skincare products. It has taken the language and imagery of political revolution, time and again, to sell rubbish songs by Madonna and persuade us to change our computer interfacing systems, should we happen to have a small business.
Only by the most monumental effort of parataxis can any scheme of thought or creativity defend itself against some day being used to make a daft product sound cool. Capitalism is a born thief. So, really, given that Christmas is a relatively trivial event, pagan to begin with anyway, scarcely representing the sine qua non of faith to any serious Christian, embraced by everyone, regardless of faith, as a good excuse to get really drunk, we should be pleased that it's been turned into this orgy of consumption (that's as in purchasing, not tuberculosis - that would be a very risky and unpleasant orgy). So much has been swiped that was more important. Jingle bells is the least of our worries.
23
Do I lose sleep because a nativity scene isn't on city property? No.
Do I need public land to contain Christian iconography? Nope.
However, the ACLU has declared war on Christianity. The ACLU has nothing to do with fairness and rights and everything to do with a radical left-wing agenda. That is why I will fight until my last breath to undo what they have done, to do what they refuse to do, and to one day erase them. They are the enemies of religious freedom and free speech.
If the citizens of a town write their city council to remove a nativity scene, that's fantastic, that's democracy. But when some lefty from the ACLU roams the countryside looking for elements of Christianity to burn and pillage in towns he doesn't live in, when he subverts the will of citizens so that he can get rid of that ghastly Christian religion, that is not democracy and that is not what this country is about.
The First Amendment is about Congress and National Religion. It has nothing to do with states and municipalities. Most states had a state religion until the late 1800's. The ACLU has nothing to do with the constitution and everything to do with a war on Christianity and conservatism. That's why I fight.
posted on 12.14.2004 11:35 AM24
" our focus should on becoming an incarnational witness where we are the living symbols of Christianity rather than relying on nativity scenes on courthouse lawns to do our job for us."
Right on, Linus.
I'm a big fan of the Schultzian take on contemporary Christmas rituals, and I also think Capra's "Wonderful Life" is a fantastic movie.
I'd also add to the list two other movies which I watch every year about this time: Renoir's "Grand Illusion" and Powell's "Black Narcissus."
The best Christmas traditions are those that involve alcohol. The days are too damn short, the weather's too damn cold, and the goal is to make it go by as quickly and painlessly as possible. Above all, avoid setting foot in a shopping mall or department store. That is where Satan likes to hang this time of year. You can smell his green inky hide even from the parking lot.
posted on 12.14.2004 11:37 AM25
The First Amendment is about Congress and National Religion. It has nothing to do with states and municipalities.
Good luck on that amendment to repeal the 14th amendment, then, cuz that's what it'd take to enshrine the anti-incorporation ideology into law.
posted on 12.14.2004 11:42 AM26
However, the ACLU has declared war on Christianity. The ACLU has nothing to do with fairness and rights and everything to do with a radical left-wing agenda.
Really? That's why they defended Oliver North?
That's why they supported the rights of Christian students to express themselves in their yearbooks?
The ACLU only has one agenda, really, which is making sure that the civil liberties as guaranteed by the constitution are protected.
That's what has historically made the USA the envy of the world.
The First Amendment is about Congress and National Religion. It has nothing to do with states and municipalities.
This has been the law of the land for quite a while- that the first ammendment applies to states as well as the executive and judiciar branches.
Most states had a state religion until the late 1800's.
Moreover,
I'm sure you don't really want this, do you really?
For example, in 1854 the State supreme court of Maine declared that the local school board had the right to expel a fifteen-year old girl for refusing to read aloud a portion of the King James translation of the Bible to her class; her family's religion required her to read only the Douay Catholic translation of the Bible. [1] (http://www.nd.edu/~rbarger/www7/catholic.html)
They continue:
The constitutional situation changed drastically with the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was interpreted as having extended the limitations of the Bill of Rights to limit the power of state governments.
27
Larry Lord:
My favorite Christmas movie is The Lion in Winter.
The ultimate in dysfunctional family Christmas celebrations!
posted on 12.14.2004 11:52 AM28
Mumon -- ha! An excellent choice.
Phil A. writes
"However, the ACLU has declared war on Christianity."
That is amusing. Of course, that is consistent with their recent defense of Mr. Limbaugh, one of the most despicable and un-Christian celebrities alive.
posted on 12.14.2004 11:59 AM29
I'm a Catholic and I like Christmas, the REAL Christ-mas, very much. But I hate the consumerism of it all, and I don't like the attempt to appropriate the holiday (holy-day) and transform it into a secular holiday. Doing that destroys the meaning of Christmas, which is to celebrate the birth of Jesus. I think that attempts by the wider secular populace to appropriate Christmas, strip it of any overtly religious material, and make it into a holiday where it's all about presents for everyone (like a collective birthday party) frankly is very angering.
"Season's Greetings," "Happy Holidays" (plural), "Winter Holiday," or "Festival of lights"... And even Santa Claus, to some degree.... All of it is another salvo in the War Against the true Christmas.
With respect to the ACLU, I think it's been demonstrated by David Limbaugh and others that they're an overtly anti-Christian organization with an extremist secular agenda. To the extent they defend Christians, it's with a greater goal of subverting Christianity. Saying that they have a focus on defending the bill of rights is ridiculous: it'd be more accurate to say that they're pushing an extremist interpretation of the bill of rights that is inconsistent with American traditions and governance as understood for nearly 150 years since the ratification of the Constitution.
I think surrendering Christmas to them and their secular allies will do great damage to religion in general and to Christianity specifically. For once people abandon this fight, the secular interpretation of Christmas will RULE, and anyone who exhibits the faintest hint of religion will be a social outcast. Don't hum "silent night" at work lest you get brought up on discrimination charges. Saying "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays" might get you fired. Will your kids understand that there is a greater meaning to the holiday, or will they treat it as another massive birthday party?
Christmas is really the last of the once very public displays of religious sentiment. We should be fighting to make it MORE religious, not abandoning it to the secularists. It's a teaching element that we should not lose. And it's worth saving.
30
However, the ACLU has declared war on Christianity. The ACLU has nothing to do with fairness and rights and everything to do with a radical left-wing agenda.
What utter nonsense Phil. The ACLU defends the Bill of Rights, our most cherished freedoms and uniquely American values. If you don't like the Bill of Rights then you do not like America. If yu don't like America, no one is making you stay here.
posted on 12.14.2004 1:41 PM31
Sydney you are welcome to make Christmas as religious as you see fit. You are welcome to persuade others to make Christmas as religious as you see fit. You are welcome to appeal to departments stores and malls to make Christmas as religious as you see fit. In fact the government cannot stop you from doing so as long as you do so purely as a private citizen or employed by a privatve business.
What you are not allowed to do is enforce your personal religious opinion on how religious anything should be to everyone else, no matter how devoutly you believe it, using threat of government sanctioned fines, imprisonment, or violence, because the government itself is prevented from either taking your side, or opposing.
Enforcing your personal whims on the rest of society with threat of government reprisal is authoritarianism and last I checked that's something we in America oppose and brag about ending in other nations. The Bill of Rights may not be important to you, but it so important to the founding fathers that they included as the very first ammendment in 1789 and ratified it in 1791. Thus, it is a traditional American value. America, love it or at least leave it the hell alone.
32
"The ACLU defends the Bill of Rights, our most cherished freedoms and uniquely American values. If you don't like the Bill of Rights then you do not like America. If yu don't like America, no one is making you stay here."
Oh please. Give me thou a break.
Premised in your defense of the ACLU is that they take consistent positions on defending the bill of rights no matter who the plaintiff is. Of course, that is nonsensical, since the ACLU will argue for the most extremist interpretation of freedom of speech when it comes to expressing anything other than what might reek as faith. But once it comes to faith, they fervently attack it. Search the internet for numerous examples of their inconsistency. The ACLU is also a lobbying organization, and they consistently lobby against things that the Supreme Court has already said are constitutional (like the Boy Scouts).
Quite frankly, your hypoberlic defense of the ACLU is laffable, because everyone knows that it is a left-wing secular organization. I wouldn't express such high-minded offense at the suggestion that the ACLU is a radical secular organization, since it's been labeled that way for years in public.
posted on 12.14.2004 2:07 PM33
Sydney writes
"Season's Greetings," "Happy Holidays" (plural), "Winter Holiday," or "Festival of lights"... And even Santa Claus, to some degree.... All of it is another salvo in the War Against the true Christmas."
Another script-reciter falls off the ledge. The most hilarious part about this rant is that Santa Claus is somehow deemed less offensive than "Season's Greetings." Curious, that.
Sydney appears to have forgotten that Christians don't own the calendar in the United States. In fact, there are other holidays celebrated this time of year which are quite ancient. Moreover, the Winter Solstice of December 21 coincidentally (heh) marks the time of year when days start getting longer again -- a great reason for a party if you ask me.
posted on 12.14.2004 2:11 PM34
DS,
I'm curious where it was implied in my post that fines, sanction, or violence would be used against anyone who doesn't practice Chistmas as I do. I'm also curious where you get the asinine idea that the Bill of Rights means little to me. Perhaps you assume that since your hysterical defense of the ACLU presumes that its opponents don't like the bill of rights. In effect, you're calling anyone who disagrees with the ACLU anti-American. Good luck with that idiotic tactic. It'll get you nowhere.
I might note that you keep referencing the Founding Fathers. In 1791, many states had official sanctioned religions, and if you did not go to Church on Sunday you were punished with fines or sentenced to the stockade. Massachusetts was particularly noted for that. The 14th Amendment wasn't ratified until the late 1860s, and thus up until then it was perfectly constitutional for a state to create its own little religion, set up penalties for failing to adhere to it, and throw people in jail if they violated it. Your sense of history is sorely lacking.
Let me clue you in on something: those who disagree with the ACLU's radical interpretation of the 1st Amendment aren't anti-American nor do they dislike the bill of rights. Gosh, do you think that they might just not be as lacking in perspective as extremist secularists, who take offense that a town might have a Christmas tree without any PLASTIC REINDEERS?!?!?!?! Where's the balance!?!?!?!??!!? The Constitution is being BURNED, I SAY, BURNED!!!!!!!!
Ahem... What I mean to say is this: many think that "separation of church and state" has become so extreme that the phrase has lost all meaning and is only a club used to bash religious people. The First Amendment was devised with the idea that the President or any other Federal Officer would not become the head of any religion like the King was the head of the Church of England. States, at that time, were left untouched. Since the 14th Amendment, states can no longer create their own religions. I think most people agree that such a policy is good and reasonable and consistent with American liberty. But from that, to going and saying that it's illegal for a town to mention the Puritans in a classroom discussion of Thanksgiving, or that spontaneous prayer by individuals on school property is illegal because it might offend secularists - well, that's inconsistent with American liberty becuse it's an attack on freedom of expression: religious expression.
But if you're still aghast that people might not venerate the ACLU, perhaps this is all a bunch of mumbo-jumbo to you.
35
Larry,
I'm all for everyone having their holidays. I've gladly wished my friends happy Hannukah and such. And they wish me a Merry Christmas. The idea that it all has to be blended and stripped of meaning makes no sense to me. I think that some of it is deliberately done to mask the overt religious nature of Christmas.
36
ROFL ... Sydney opposing the Bill of Rights is ugly, and pretending you're not doing so while ragging the ACLU is pretty damn funny. Basically you don't like the decisions the ACLU has produced in a few cases and like any Theocrat wanna be you're accusing them of [gasp] 'liberalism' and a [gasp] 'secular' agenda.
Newsflash Syd: America is not a religious theocracy and the founding fathers were radically liberal compared to the paradigm of the day back in their European homeland. We're founded on religious freedom and LIBerty as in LIBeral, not your narrow personal whims about how we mighta shoulda act to keep Sydney happy. If you don't like it, no one is making you stay. You can start6 your own country, or join a commune where everyone voluntarily follows the rules you agree with, or you can start your own such commune. America ideals are liberty for all, not just liberties Christians approve of, at least that's what we advertise when we're 'liberating' other nations.
37
The First Amendment was devised with the idea that the President or any other Federal Officer would not become the head of any religion like the King was the head of the Church of England.
Why didn't they just make that the first amendment, then? Why did they enshrine that principle at a higher level of generality to ensure that its meaning wasn't contained to that?
posted on 12.14.2004 2:41 PM38
DS,
You have no idea, I guess, that John Adams was a member of the Anglican Church and thus paid taxes to Massachusetts to support its state-sponsored religion. Too bad. And apparrently, you think that appealing to etymology is a persuasive tactic, since "liberal" and "liberty" have their language roots in a similar source. Wow, such overpowering logic is crushing. Oh, spare me.
By the way, I'm not "accusing" the ACLU of being liberal. Frankly, they wear it as a badge of honor. They ARE liberal, and are proud of it. Only you, who somehow claims that their policies are consistent with the Bill of Rights and that anyone who disagrees with them is filthy unamerican scum, somehow takes offense at the proper labling of their agenda. Odd.
A question for you, though: The ACLU, since losing to the Boy Scouts in the Supreme Court, has still continued to attack it. But by doing this, they're going against what the Supreme Court said was the proper interpretation of the 1st Amendment! Thus, by your logic, you must agree that the ACLU is against the bill of rights and so is un-american and blah blah blah... Right?
posted on 12.14.2004 2:48 PM39
jpe: "Why did they enshrine that principle at a higher level of generality to ensure that its meaning wasn't contained to that?"
I'm not certain what you mean. "the Establishment of Religion" is pretty clear-cut to me. The Federal government cannot ESTABLISH a religion. In England, the King was the head of the established Church, and taxes funded it and laws supported it and people went to church and there were laws against blasphemy, etc. Parliment occaisonally passed "religious toleration" laws, so that certain protestant sects were free from these obligations. Catholics and others like the Puritans were not, however.
Moreover, since what the Founders did was the first example in the history of the world in creating a written constitution, I don't think you can fault them for perfecting the language for our modern sensibilities when it was understood in general at that time that a Constitution is not a legal code and only sets up the boundaries by which government operates. The varities of what can exist within those boundaries is left to the People.
40
Sydney Carton:
I don't think you can fault them for perfecting the language for our modern sensibilities when it was understood in general at that time that a Constitution is not a legal code and only sets up the boundaries by which government operates.
No, the Constitution is a legal code- it is the supreme law of the United States in fact (along with treaties, btw).
posted on 12.14.2004 2:59 PM41
The ACLU, since losing to the Boy Scouts in the Supreme Court, has still continued to attack it. But by doing this, they're going against what the Supreme Court said was the proper interpretation of the 1st Amendment!
No they're not. The issue is state funding for an organization that supports (dubiously constructed) "theists only" position, which any sensible person would oppose.
posted on 12.14.2004 3:02 PM42
mumon,
Chief Justice Marshall, in the famous Marbury v. Madison case, which set forth the proposition of "judicial review," said this in reference to the Constitution: "A constitution...requires, that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves.... [W]e must never forget, that it is a constitution that we are expounding."
You need a new lawyer, mumon. But not the ACLU, as they're anti-American for attacking the Boy Scouts. Heh. :)
posted on 12.14.2004 3:15 PM43
Sydney Carton wrote, "Christmas is really the last of the once very public displays of religious sentiment. We should be fighting to make it MORE religious, not abandoning it to the secularists."
Indeed. Which is exactly why its religious symbols should be kept out of the hands of secular authorities. Leave it to the churches and individuals--there are millions of us, all freely allowed to publicly express ourselves, so it's all good. Thank God for separation of church and state!
posted on 12.14.2004 3:45 PM44
Quartho,
By "secular authorities", do you mean to suggest that any authority in the United States cannot be a religious person? That it would be illegal, for example, for a Mayor to pray? Or that it would be illegal for a Mayor to recognize history and a specific community's accomplishments?
As I said earlier, "separation of church and state" has become a blunt instrument to bash religious people because the phrase has been taken to an extremist interpretation. Maybe you favor such extremities, but in any event you should clarify what you mean when we're in a discussion about the very nature of public religious expression.
45
Sydney Carton:
Uh, so what? What's an out-take from Marbury v Madison have to do with what I wrote?
That the cases the ACLU has fostered haven't been ruled on before they took up the case had to do with the enforcement of laws in the US, not some "liberal" "unAmerican" judges, conspiracies or other things.
...they're anti-American for attacking the Boy Scouts...
But they originally were founded by a Socialist!
And now for something completely different...
Let's make good ACLU life for you! Let's freedom America life!
posted on 12.14.2004 3:54 PM46
Sorry folks, that last thing probably made no sense unless a) you've been in Japan or China, or b) you know about this site.
posted on 12.14.2004 3:56 PM47
mumon,
You argued that the Constitution is akin to a legal code. Marbury v. Madison says it is not.
posted on 12.14.2004 4:00 PM48
Sydney, you are on crack.
Fyi, the Puritans who founded our country had laws banning the celebration of Christmas in their li'l colonies for a lengthy period in the 17th century.
And our own government didn't consider Christmas a Federal holiday until late in the 19th century. In the first year of the Constitution, Congress was in session on December 25th.
Please, Sydney, take your script and flush it down the toilet. It's full of crap.
posted on 12.14.2004 4:27 PM49
Larry,
My later comments really had nothing to do with Christmas, per se. I was responding to some hysterical comments regarding the ACLU.
But apparrently, "I'm on crack" and I should "take my script and flush it down the toilet." Such rapier wit! Oh, that logic defeats me! Sir, your intellect is too overpowering!
Hmmm... But then again, there is the ultimate defense: I'm rubber and you're glue...
Heh. Merry Christmas to you too.
50
Sydney Carton:
You argued that the Constitution is akin to a legal code. Marbury v. Madison says it is not.
Dude, Read Article VI, Clause 2.
Your selective quoting of the decision doesn't change, uh, the plain meaning of "supreme law of the land."
The questions in Marbury v. Madison were:
1. Whether the supreme court can award the writ of mandamus in any case. 2. Whether it will lie to a secretary of state, in any case whatever. 3. Whether in the present case the court may award a mandamus to James Madison, secretary of state.
And indeed, the actual text of the decision proves my point:
The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it. If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable. Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void
Geez, what else don't conservatives know?
51
mumon,
Um, where did I ever say the Constitution was not the supreme law of the land? The issue was one of detail: whether a Constitution must address minute details (such as traffic laws) or the basic framework of governance (such as dividing the legislative power among 2 houses of congress).
Why you think that this discussion about the amount of detail in a constitution means that I suddenly think it's not the supreme law of the land, I cannot say. Oh, and by the way, your quote further reinforces my original point that constitutions deal with the main outlines and not fine detail: "Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation...." Fundamental. Paramount. Those words deal with "big" things, not with stupid insignificant details. Ie, they do not deal with small details like traffic regulations. Sheesh.
You know, just because you might disagree with me on things like Christmas, faith, or whatever, does not mean you have to invent fake arguments, like saying that I don't think the constitution is the supreme law of the land. Straw-men arguments are really dumb. If you're going to disagree with me, at least know what I'm saying first.
52
Geez, what else don't conservatives know?
Chief Justice Marshall, in the famous Marbury v. Madison case, which set forth the proposition of "judicial review," said this in reference to the Constitution: [W]e must never forget, that it is a constitution that we are expounding."
That's not Marshall v Madison, it's McCulloch v Madison.
And there's more that they don't know:
A question for you, though: The ACLU, since losing to the Boy Scouts in the Supreme Court, has still continued to attack it. But by doing this, they're going against what the Supreme Court said was the proper interpretation of the 1st Amendment!
Bzzt. You see, when people sue, they asking the court to resolve specific issues. The ACLU's suit in Boy Scouts v Dale wasn't about whether the Scouts were 'bad', to which the Supreme Court responded in the negative. If that were the case, then you'd be right that they were relitigating the same issue. But you see, Sydney, the ACLU's recent suits have been over different legal issues.
So even if the dubious principle you espouse (that relitigation over things ostensibly covered by what we call collateral estoppel is somehow unAmerican) is correct, it's totally inapplicable to the recent suits.
You see, when things are different.....oh, never mind.
posted on 12.14.2004 6:20 PM53
That's not Marshall v Madison, it's McCulloch v Madison.
Psyche! McCulloch v Maryland.
posted on 12.14.2004 6:20 PM54
I don't think you can fault them for perfecting the language for our modern sensibilities when it was understood in general at that time that a Constitution is not a legal code and only sets up the boundaries by which government operates.
Bingo. The Constitution is a living document with respect to hard cases. The language is incredibly general, which punts hard cases to future interpretation.
posted on 12.14.2004 6:23 PM55
As I said earlier, "separation of church and state" has become a blunt instrument to bash religious people because the phrase has been taken to an extremist interpretation.
Nah. It's used to keep religious people from special rights to which others aren't entitled.
posted on 12.14.2004 6:26 PM56
FWIW, the Constitution reminds me of GW Bush: great ideas, bad execution that muddles those ideas, and language that generally leaves you scratching your head.
If there were a criminal statute for negligent draftsmanship, and I were a prosecutor, I'd have already assembled the Grand Jury to bring charges against the founders.
posted on 12.14.2004 6:33 PM57
Sydney Carton :
Um, where did I ever say the Constitution was not the supreme law of the land?
When you claimed it wasn't a legal code. Look up the definition of "code."
Re-read- this time carefully- what I quoted. While the Constitution doesn't deal in specfics, when a law violates the Constitution, the Court has the power to declare that law null and void.
If you don't like it, try to argue with John Jay.
posted on 12.14.2004 6:34 PM58
Jpe writes
"If there were a criminal statute for negligent draftsmanship, and I were a prosecutor, I'd have already assembled the Grand Jury to bring charges against the founders."
Spoken like a true Nazi-apologizing religion-bashing commie-hugging freedom-hating baby-killing atheist.
posted on 12.14.2004 6:45 PM59
Sydney writes
"The 14th Amendment wasn't ratified until the late 1860s, and thus up until then it was perfectly constitutional for a state to create its own little religion, set up penalties for failing to adhere to it, and throw people in jail if they violated it."
Ah, the good old days, when black people weren't so damn uppity.
posted on 12.14.2004 6:47 PM60
Sydney,
I mean that government should neither encourage nor dissuade adherence to any religious belief or doctrine. As the history of Europe shows, church-state entanglement has a negative effect on spirituality, as people come to associate religion with their ill feelings toward government, and perceive God as a tyrant who violates our free will, rather than its very Architect. Separation of church and state protects spirituality. It's no coincidence that those we now call the Pilgrims called themselves Separatists.
James Madison, "the father of the constitution" and President of the United States, addressed the question you pose re religious pronouncements by elected figures. To quote his letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822, at length (please forgive me if it's too long by site rules, as it addresses several issues covered in this discussion) (see particularly the second paragraph re pronouncements):
"I observe with particular pleasure the view you have taken of the immunity of Religion from civil jurisdiction, in every case where it does not trespass on private rights or the public peace. This has always been a favorite principle with me; and it was not with my approbation, that the deviation from it took place in Congress, when they appointed Chaplains, to be paid from the National Treasury. It would have been a much better proof to their Constituents of their pious feeling if the members had contributed for the purpose, a pittance from their own pockets. As the precedent is not likely to be rescinded, the best that can now be done may be to apply to the constitution the maxim of the law, de minimis non curant.
"There has been another deviation from the strict principle in the Executive Proclamations of fasts & festivals, so far, at least, as they have spoken the language of injunction, or have lost sight of the equality of all religious sects in the eye of the Constitution. Whilst I was honored with the Executive Trust I found it necessary on more than one occasion to follow the example of predecessors. But I was always careful to make the Proclamations absolutely indiscriminate, and merely recommendatory; or rather mere designations of a day, on which all who thought proper might unite in consecrating it to religious purposes, according to their own faith & forms. . . .
"Notwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of liberty, & the full establishment of it, in some parts of our Country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Government & Religion neither can be duly supported. Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded agst. And in a Government of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together. It was the belief of all sects at one time that the establishment of Religion by law, was right & necessary; that the true religion ought to be established in exclusion of every other; And that the only question to be decided was which was the true religion. The example of Holland proved that a toleration of sects, dissenting from the established sect, was safe & even useful. The example of the Colonies, now States, which rejected religious establishments altogether, proved that all Sects might be safely & advantageously put on a footing of equal & entire freedom; and a continuance of their example since the declaration of Independence, has shewn that its success in Colonies was not to be ascribed to their connection with the parent Country. If a further confirmation of the truth could be wanted, it is to be found in the examples furnished by the States, which have abolished their religious establishments. I cannot speak particularly of any of the cases excepting that of Virga. where it is impossible to deny that Religion prevails with more zeal, and a more exemplary priesthood than it ever did when established and patronised by Public authority. We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts. do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Govt."
As Madison noted, America's spiritual fervor is due in no small part to its strict separation of church and state. It is the goose that lays the golden egg, and today's Christians who want to break that wall are trying to kill that goose.
posted on 12.14.2004 8:01 PM61
DS, Mummon, etc,
Sorry but I'm with the other Phil and also Sydney. The ACLU fights for most everything opposite of what I believe in. They are the most leftest, destructive un-american organization in this country from a Christian point of view. They even came to my little state of Delaware and threatened a local school board with legal action simply because they offered a prayer before the school board meeting that *gasp* mentioned Jesus. There were so many locals that showed up opposing the ACLU at the next school board meeting that the entire grounds of the school was filled with cars.
The ACLU is fighting for the right of an adulterous husband to murder his comatose wife by starvation (Terri Shiavo case in FL).
The ACLU does not fight for the Bill of Rights. They fight for their extreme liberal interpretation of the Bill of Rights. There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the Bill of Rights. And the ACLU seems to forget the phrase in the First Ammendment that says "nor prohibit the free exercise thereof".
And since Humanism is an official religion, whenever the ACLU removes Christian symbols, the ten commandments, Christmas symbols, etc.. from any public school, or place, they, by default, are ESTABLISHING the religions of Secular Humanism or Atheism.
And please don't give me that crap about atheists/humanists not being religious. There is no such thing as a non-religios human being.
We Christians have had enough of the ACLU and are fighting back AND WINNING. The American Center for Law and Justice, and the Alliance Defense Fund are two organizations that are fighting for the SAME Bill of Rights that you mention only they are fighting for it's orginal meaning AND WINNING. If you want to see what Christian lawyers fight for, just check out their websites.
Contrary to what the ACLU believes, a christian does not lose his first amendment rights when he walks through the front door of a public school building.
And yes, a city may have a manger scene on public property.
Somewhere the ALCU came up with a new Right to be added to the original list:
THE RIGHT NOT TO BE OFFENDED.
I don't find this right anywhere in the constitution and, frankly, I'm offended often by the language, opinions, "art," music, and values of godless secularists. But I do not have the right not to be offended by someone else's free speech, Christian or otherwise.
62
Sorry for spouting off, but that touched a nerve. "ACLU" is a four letter word for me!
posted on 12.14.2004 9:01 PM63
Good post, Joe!
Too often Christians lament the tearing down of manger scenes from city hall and other such nonsense. In looking at the empty pews on Christmas morning, one must think it has something to do with the fact that these Christians are alleviating guilt for going to Christmas Eve service (maybe) and celebrating Santa on Christmas morning rather than Christ birth. We need remove the plank from our own eyes before looking at the speck in others.
posted on 12.14.2004 10:25 PM64
Hey, if you're really bored, click on "A True Patriot" so you can e-mail this risible racist and try to ask how he could have the nerve to post such horrid, intolerant....
Wait..."justfoolin'@itslarry.lord"
Larry, grow up.
posted on 12.15.2004 12:05 AM65
Phil Troyer:
I suspect that many things the ACLU does has to do with the fact that they fight hard for an even playing field for everyone. You may not like it, but Christians don't have and shouldn't have special rights.
Here's a thought experiment for you: take a statment that reflects an "us" versus "them" position ("They are the most leftest, destructive un-american organization in this country from a Christian point of view.")
Now re-word it to view it from the opposite perspective: "They are the most fascist, destructive, unamerican movement in this country from the viewpoint of most Americans."
That's how you are seen by everyone else. Really helps foster communication, doesn't it?
America may go down a road of theocratic fascism, but it will be to its detrmiment and to the detriment of all that is good in Christianity. If groups like the ACLJ have their way, Christianity will be further marginalized in America, simply because most folks can tell the difference between love and hate, given enough time.
posted on 12.15.2004 7:27 AM66
I said something similar, but not exactly the same, here in a post titled "Renaming Christmas" which is actually a misnomer on my part:
http://www.marlaswoffer.com/blog/2004/12/lets_rename_chr.html
posted on 12.15.2004 11:22 AM67
"That's why they supported the rights of Christian students to express themselves in their yearbooks?"
About once every 3 or 4 years, the ACLU will, as a token case, defend the rights of Christian free speech giving its defenders something to point at in contrast to the hundreds of anti-religious free speech suits they file yearly.
posted on 12.15.2004 1:38 PM68
Joel:
Just from my own point of view I wish that people would stop using X-mas and put Christ back into CHRISTmas.Nobody's picked this up, so I'll get it. The "X" is Xmas is not intended to somehow "remove" Christ from Christmas -- in fact it's there to enhance the meaning. "X" is representative of the Greek letter "chi," which is the first letter in the Greek spelling of Christ. Further, the X is intended to remind us of a cross, specifically the cross upon which Jesus allegedly died for our sins.
Thus, "Xmas" isn't intended to take Christ out of Christmas, but to help remind us why Christ's arrival is important -- his ultimate sacrifice later.
Of course, plenty of people (particularly advertisers) picked up on it as a cheap abbreviation and demeaned the value, as they tend to do with pretty much everything.
But in the grand scheme of things, "Xmas" is not even remotely anti-Christian.
posted on 12.15.2004 5:53 PM69
Here are a few articles about this "war" over Christmas.
DS, please explain the ACLU's position that the Nativity being displayed is unconstitional as is Christmas caroling and the Dickens play "the Christmas Carol" but menorra, a ceremonial Chinese dance which purpose was to "chase away evil spirits and Kwanzaa are okay? Of course I don't bigots to recognize thier bigotry but I thought point out a few facts about the ALCU's positions.
1. EVERY case the ALCU has even been in court about Religous freedom has violiated the constitution.
2. Almost every freedom of speech case that the ACLU has been involved with they have been on the wrong side constitutionally.
70
Sorry about the article links. Here you go. Let's take look at the future together.
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,11429952%255E421,00.html
http://www.leaderu.com/focus/xmastolerance04.html
http://www.spiked-online.com/articles/0000000CA826.htm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,139304,00.htm
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41623
http://www.nationalreview.com/gurdon/gurdon200411240700.asp
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41667
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,11540976%255E13762,00.html
http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?s=2587356
http://www.christianpost.com/dbase/society/1212/section/1.htm
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/religion/article/0,1299,DRMN_61_3365940,00.html
http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=\ForeignBureaus\archive\200412\FOR20041203b.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,140037,00.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1392907,00.html
71
Let's try trading the X in X-mas back to the CHRIST in Christmas!
posted on 12.21.2004 7:00 PM72
-really how many more letters would one have to type or write out to spell CHRIST.....i think for what he gave us we should be able to do this without a thought!
Merry CHRISTMAS!!!!