Why so scared of Christmas?

[Amianthus]

That's not the point.  You were citing the acts of Congress and the Chief Executive as though they would invariably reflect the correct interpretation of the Constitution.

Well, in the cases that BT cited, they were actions by the writers of the Constitution. Surely the writers knew they meant when they wrote it?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Surely the writers knew they meant when they wrote it?

=======================================
They certainly did not have any position on 10th Commandment monuments, prayers before football games, and Nativity scenes on the Village Green, no.

They had no position on prayers at the start of each day in PS 123.

[BT]

That is because they left those details up to the states.

[Brassmask]

What people do with their free time is up to them.

If they want to participate in a day of prayer so be it.

You ever wonder why the Governor of Georgia is mocked for praying for rain yet when Native Americans do a rain dance they are celebrated for their culture.


What's the difference? What's the harm?

The harm is the waste of energy.  I wouldn't be supportive of a rain dance either.

The harm is they are hoping that some unseen force will take a hand in the situation when that unseen force hasn't done a god damned thing yet.

It is simply hoping things will get better as a opposed to making things get better by educating people.

[Brassmask]

I think half the issue boils down to whetrher people have an inalienable right to not be offended.

Well, you are wrong.  It is about abuse of power.  Apparently, you can't or refuse to see a difference between children praying on their own time (wherever, even in classrooms without disrupting the class) and have the class stand en mass and have a prayer led by the teacher or whoever.

The latter is an abuse of power.  Obviously, a child can sit out but that deliniates that child as "not like the others" and that is unfair under the law/government.  Each citizen has the inalienable right to equality under the law.  Whether you like it or not, the teacher's job, the classroom, the school are tools of government and law and must be applied equally and used equally under the law.

Hence, you cannot allow even the MAJORITY to utilize those tools in a manner for religious practice for there can be no enforcement of religion by the government.  Organized prayer is using public/government property to indoctrinate.

[Brassmask]

No Brass, it has nothing to do with hate, it has everything to do with Freedom.

Exactly.  That's why NO ONE is "afraid of Christmas".  No one is stopping you from saying "Merry Christmas" and, in fact, I said it many times over the holiday.

Sorry Brass, that's not flying.  What "galls me" is that the ACLU and like minds continue to press for the near, if not complete, abolishment of Christmas, and anything else remotely connected to Christianity from the public sector.  That flies directly counter to the 1st amendment, where Government is NOT to infringe upon another's religion.  So yes, they are absolutely afraid, which again goes to the core reason, control.  So much easier to control the masses if you can get everyone to think the same way, act the same way, no one is offended by what anyone else does, and Government will be your guide

You've yet to prove that the ACLY wants to destroy/abolish christmas.  The only proof of that I've seen is people like you and Bill O'Reilly simply saying it is so.  That's hardly proof of anything.

Could you cite some document from ACLU that says, "We must abolish christmas at all costs"?

Saying Happy Holidays is simply a way to make more money for capitalist pigs.  If you don't like it, take it up with Macy's.

There simply is no war on christmas and no one is afraid to say it.

[sirs]

No Brass, it has nothing to do with hate, it has everything to do with Freedom.

Exactly.  That's why NO ONE is "afraid of Christmas".  No one is stopping you from saying "Merry Christmas" and, in fact, I said it many times over the holiday.

Sorry Brass, that's not flying.  What "galls me" is that the ACLU and like minds continue to press for the near, if not complete, abolishment of Christmas, and anything else remotely connected to Christianity from the public sector.  That flies directly counter to the 1st amendment, where Government is NOT to infringe upon another's religion.  So yes, they are absolutely afraid, which again goes to the core reason, control.  So much easier to control the masses if you can get everyone to think the same way, act the same way, no one is offended by what anyone else does, and Government will be your guide

You've yet to prove that the ACLY wants to destroy/abolish christmas.  

As I've already prefaced, I don't expect anyone to fess up.  It's the actions we simply need to watch, as they validate pretty much the point being made.

Saying Happy Holidays is simply a way to make more money for capitalist pigs.  If you don't like it, take it up with Macy's.

I'll take it up with folks like yourself and the ACLU who via threat of litigation, have transitioned to the happy holidays PC bandwagon.  And if you hadn't noticed, its in no way limited to Dept stores, and much more pervasive all over the public workplace & school settings

There simply is no war on christmas and no one is afraid to say it.

True to the former, since no one's making that claim, but obviously NOT to the latter

[Michael Tee]

<<Well, in the cases that BT cited, they were actions by the writers of the Constitution. Surely the writers knew they meant when they wrote it?>>

In the first place, I don't know with what degree of unanimity the framers of the Constitution supported either the Congressional chaplaincy or Jefferson's funding of the missionaries.

In the second place, the Constitution itself is bigger than the sum of its creators.  I don't think the creators themselves would have arrogated unto themselves any special powers or privileges as authors in interpreting the Constitution.  Once created, the document stands on its own.  It is put to a vote or ratified by the states.  I don't think in the ratification process, the state delegates who participate in the ratification process call upon the authors one by one to explain their innermost feelings about the meanings of each and every clause.  However formed or put together, the document is presented as a final draft, to stand or fall on its own, and as such it was ratified.  At that point, it became a document to be interpreted by the Courts, not by reference to the individual interpretations of the framers themselves or of any other individual outside the judiciary.

In Canada, as in Great Britain, the proceedings and debates of the Parliament are recorded in a document called (in both countries) "Hansard."  Although full records of the debates that precede the enactment of every piece of legislation are readily available, the courts are, as far as I know, not allowed to refer to Hansard to determine the meaning of any statute where the meaning is in dispute.  The theory being that the legislation stands on its own two feet, and must be interpreted as written, regardless of the intentions of the legislature that enacted it.  The same theory, IMHO, would make the opinions of the original draftsmen of the legislation even more irrelevant.

[Brassmask]

I'll take it up with folks like yourself and the ACLU who via threat of litigation, have transitioned to the happy holidays PC bandwagon.  And if you hadn't noticed, its in no way limited to Dept stores, and much more pervasive all over the public workplace & school settings

Soooooo, any chance of EVER seeing you cite a case where the ACLU tried to abolish xmas or force everyone to stop staying merry xmas?

[sirs]

I'll take it up with folks like yourself and the ACLU who via threat of litigation, have transitioned to the happy holidays PC bandwagon.  And if you hadn't noticed, its in no way limited to Dept stores, and much more pervasive all over the public workplace & school settings

Soooooo, any chance of EVER seeing you cite a case where the ACLU tried to abolish xmas or force everyone to stop staying merry xmas?

Considering I never made such a claim, the answer to that's gonna be "no".  It's always been under the guise of the so-called seperation of Church & State, and no one's gonna fess up to the real motives.  Why are you so scared, Brass?  Don't worry, I already know the answer.  Too bad we don't have any of those Government run re-education centers to correct my obvious psychopathic delusions of Christ

[Brassmask]

URL: http://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/33210res20071213.html
  
Christmas and the ACLU
 
The American Civil Liberties Union takes seriously its commitment to defending the First Amendment of the United States Constitution by not only working to ensure that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion" but, just as importantly, by helping to guarantee that there be no "prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The ACLU is often better known for its work preventing the government from promoting and funding selected religious activities, but that is only half our charge. By ensuring that the government refrains from promoting religion or any particular faith, the ACLU helps ensure that freedom of religion and belief remains an important principle of our democracy.

For some, however, misrepresenting the ACLU when it comes to religion has become a holiday tradition akin to making eggnog and decking the halls with holly. Invariably during the run-up to Christmas, the ACLU is annually and wrongfully disparaged for waging a mythical "War on Christmas." In fact, the ACLU zealously defends the right of both non-believers to practice no religion at all and religious believers, including Christians, to practice their religion freely. And the ACLU?s zeal certainly does not take a vacation during the holidays.

Christmas displays, for example ? things like nativity displays ? are perfectly acceptable at homes and churches. Religious expression ? during the holidays and throughout the year ? is a valued part of the First Amendment rights guaranteed all citizens. But government should never be in the business of endorsing things like religious displays. Religion is best served when the government plays no role in promoting any particular holiday or any individual religious tradition. That job is best suited for individuals, families and religious communities. For when that decision is left in their hands, and kept out of the hands of the government, those who decide to are truly free to celebrate the religious holiday of their choice.


How The ACLU Didn't Steal Christmas (12/7/2005)

By Fran Quigley

When the angry phone calls and emails started arriving at the office, I knew the holiday season was upon us. A typical message shouted that we at the American Civil Liberties Union are "horrible" and "we should be ashamed of ourselves," and then concluded with an incongruous and agitated "Merry Christmas."

We get this type of correspondence a lot, mostly in reaction to a well-organized attempt by extremist groups to demonize the ACLU, crush religious diversity, and make a few bucks in the process. Sadly, this self-interested effort is being promoted in the guise of defending Christmas.

For example, the Alliance Defense Fund celebrates the season with an "It's OK to say Merry Christmas" campaign, implying that the ACLU has challenged such holiday greetings. (As part of the effort, you can get a pamphlet and two Christmas pins for $29.)
The website WorldNetDaily touts a book claiming "a thorough and virulent anti-Christmas campaign is being waged today by liberal activists and ACLU fanatics." The site's magazine has suggested there will be ACLU efforts to remove "In God We Trust" from U.S. currency, fire military chaplains, and expunge all references to God in America's founding documents. (Learn more for just $19.95 . . . )

Of course, there is no "Merry Christmas" lawsuit, nor is there any ACLU litigation about U.S. currency, military chaplains, etc. But the facts are not important to these groups, because their real message is this: By protecting the freedom of Muslims, Jews, and other non-Christians through preventing government entanglement with religion, the ACLU is somehow infringing on the rights of those with majority religious beliefs.

In truth, it is these website Christians who are taking the Christ out of the season. Nowhere in the Sermon on the Mount did Jesus Christ ask that we celebrate His birth with narrow-mindedness and intolerance, especially for those who are already marginalized and persecuted. Instead, the New Testament?like the Torah and the Koran and countless other sacred texts?commands us to love our neighbor, and to comfort the sick and the imprisoned.

That's what the ACLU does. We live in a country filled with people who are sick and disabled, people who are imprisoned, and people who hunger and thirst for justice. Those people come to our Indiana offices for help, at a rate of several hundred a week, usually because they have nowhere else to turn. The least of our brothers and sisters sure aren't getting any help from the Alliance Defense Fund or WorldNet Daily. So, as often as we can, ACLU secures justice for those folks who Jesus worried for the most.

As part of our justice mission, we work hard to protect the rights of free religious expression for all people, including Christians. For example, we recently defended the First Amendment rights of a Baptist minister to preach his message on public streets in southern Indiana. The ACLU intervened on behalf of a Christian valedictorian in a Michigan high school, which agreed to stop censoring religious yearbook entries, and supported the rights of Iowa students to distribute Christian literature at their school.

There are many more examples, because the ACLU is committed to preserving the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom for all. We agree with the U.S. Supreme Court's firm rulings that this freedom means that children who grow up in non-Christian homes should not be made to feel like outsiders in their own community's courthouse, legislature or public schoolhouse.

To our "Merry Christmas" correspondents and all other Hoosiers, we wish you happy holidays.

Fran Quigley is executive director of the Indiana Civil Liberties Union, www.iclu.org. As of January 1, 2006, the organization is changing its name to ACLU of Indiana.


A fictional 'war on Christmas'
By T. Jeremy Gunn
Last December, a group called Public Advocate for the United States (which claims to defend America's traditional family values) sent some Christmas carolers over to sing in front of the ACLU offices in Washington.
Carrying signs reading "Merry Christmas" and "Please Don't Sue Us!" ? they also seem to have carried with them some rather strange imaginings about an assault on Christmas. (Related: Law doesn't mandate a secular Christmas | The year's dust-ups)

I don't know what the carolers thought might happen.

To tell the truth, the ACLU is not often serenaded by Christmas carolers. So it was with some excitement that the staff went outside and joined in the singing. They brought with them cookies and warm drinks to share. One staff member, who is an ordained Baptist minister, did a little witnessing about his faith to some astonished proponents of family values.

Fox News did broadcast the event (as a part of its "war against Christmas" campaign). Although the visiting singers were shown, the cameras failed to include any footage showing that everyone had participated in the caroling. Rather than reporting the facts, the anchor preferred the propaganda: "We believe the ACLU heard the message loud and clear, but they don't care."

The battle cries

This year, several groups are once again introducing the Christmas season with some heated and misleading military rhetoric. Some declare, "There is a war against Christmas!" One group launched a "Friend or Foe Christmas Campaign." One particularly bizarre charge is that there is "a thorough and virulent anti-Christmas campaign." Without a shred of evidence, they pretend that there is an effort afoot to remove "God" from the Declaration of Independence. Two groups even announced that they have assembled hundreds of lawyers to protect Christmas against this imaginary threat.

Make no mistake about it. These warrior-lawyers are not asking us to love our neighbors (and certainly not our enemies), nor to turn the other cheek, nor to be peacemakers, nor to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.

Nor is this a joyful effort to encourage the Christmas spirit in the millions of places where it can be promoted without any conflict: in people's hearts, in their homes, with families, in churches, or with friend and neighbors.

No, this is a campaign of military-infused rhetoric demanding that everyone accept one politically correct version of "Christmas."

For example, this year in Boston ? the same city where Puritans once prohibited the pagan-inspired "Christmas tree" ? the new Puritans now demand that the city call its evergreen spruce a "Christmas tree," and they threatened a lawsuit if the city didn't comply.

Another group charges that there is a "campaign of fear, intimidation, and disinformation" against seasonal symbols in Raleigh, N.C. ? and they offer to provide a defense for the city against any threatened lawsuit. Yet they give no evidence that anyone is threatening a lawsuit. Before accusing others of engaging in "disinformation," perhaps these Christmas warriors should first take a look in the mirror.

Why this desire to manufacture controversy ? about Christmas?

Guidelines already exist

Rather than engaging in propaganda about a "war on Christmas," all who want to promote the spirit of Christmas should remember a couple of simple guidelines.

First, Christmas displays ? including nativity scenes ? are perfectly acceptable at homes and churches. This religious expression is a valued and protected part of the First Amendment rights guaranteed to all citizens.

Second, governments should not be in the business of endorsing religious displays. Religion does best when government stays out of the business of deciding which holidays and religions to promote. Religion belongs where it prospers best: with individuals, families and religious communities.

And finally, as a seasonal greeting to all Christians: Merry Christmas from the ACLU! And for believers in all other traditions: Thank you for enriching our world!

T. Jeremy Gunn is director of the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief.
  
Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-12-18-gunn_x.htm  

[Brassmask]

Considering I never made such a claim, the answer to that's gonna be "no".  It's always been under the guise of the so-called seperation of Church & State, and no one's gonna fess up to the real motives.  Why are you so scared, Brass?  Don't worry, I already know the answer.  Too bad we don't have any of those Government run re-education centers to correct my obvious psychopathic delusions of Christ

Clearly, your thread's point (if it ever had one) has found no traction and so you're just resorting to silliness.

And what have I to fear?  I wish you would tell me what I've said that makes you think that I'm afraid of christmas.  Especially since I've said more than once that I say it all the time?

But I do agree that you are delusional in your beliefs about Jesus.  I'm glad we don't have government run re-education center though. 

[sirs]

URL: http://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/33210res20071213.html
  
Christmas and the ACLU
 
The American Civil Liberties Union takes seriously its commitment to defending the First Amendment of the United States Constitution...

Yea, by pushing litigation directly contrary to it.  Way to go ACLU     

[sirs]

Considering I never made such a claim, the answer to that's gonna be "no".  It's always been under the guise of the so-called seperation of Church & State, and no one's gonna fess up to the real motives.  Why are you so scared, Brass?  Don't worry, I already know the answer.  Too bad we don't have any of those Government run re-education centers to correct my obvious psychopathic delusions of Christ

Clearly, your thread's point has found no traction and so you're just resorting to silliness.

Naaa, just applying typical leftist hyperbole, since it's kinda ridiculous to repeat the point for the 127th time.  Though as has been noted before, you clearly believe such faith is completely delusional.  And my guess, if given the Governmental resources, you'd probably try to foster some form of "education" to help with those poor delusional folks

And what have I to fear?

Excellent question.  Somehow, people praying, decorating their workplaces with nativity scenes while not bothering anyone else, etc, offend the hell out of you and like minds.  So much so, you have no problem with folks like the ACLU running rough shot, with the mere threat of litigation, directly counter the clear intentions of the Founders, when they put toether the 1st amendment to the Constitution.  Though again, I pretty much have a grasp as to the fear.  Less able to control us delusional folks

[hnumpah]

Don't worry about it, Brass. They gotta make somebody the boogerman, or there wouldn't be anybody for their precious savior to save them from.