It's Beginning to Look a lot Like...pc holidays

[goalerjones]

Tis the season to break out the ACLU-sponsored frivolous lawsuits...

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS RUN AMOK -

It's that time of year again, next week we celebrate Thanksgiving and the start of the holiday season. It's a busy time of year for everyone, especially for organizations like the ACLU, which seem to have made it their mission to ensure that everyone has a happy and PC winter season. Each year, as the Christmas season commences, there is a flurry of lawsuits and squabbles over our constitutional right to the "free exercise" of religion. This year has been no exception:

Last week the citizens of Berkley, MI voted against a charter amendment that would have allowed for the display of a nativity scene on city property. The hotly-debated and highly publicized battle began last year when the American Civil Liberties Union threatened a lawsuit. The ACLU claimed that putting the nativity on city land (where it had been for 20 years) was a violation of the First Amendment, so the display was moved to a local church.

In Chattanooga, TN the live nativity scene that has traditionally been a part of the annual "Grand Illumination" celebration will be relocated to private property. The nativity was moved after several people complained.

Controversy is brewing in Olean, NY over a nativity scene on city land. According to press reports, a committee will decide whether religious displays should be allowed on public property.

Last year government officials at the state capitol in Olympia, WA denied a request to put up a nativity scene on public property because, according to the Associated Press, "state lawyers said there wasn't enough time to determine whether it would constitute government endorsement of a religion." The request was rejected despite the presence of a menorah and a "holiday" tree. A federal lawsuit was filed by the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal advocacy group, challenging the decision. The lawsuit was recently settled and the nativity display will be allowed provided the state "doesn't promote one religion over another."

How It All Started

Over the course of the last forty years there has been a radical shift in the role of the American judicial system, as a result of which our religious freedoms are being stripped away. Those who were appointed to interpret the law and secure justice for the American people have abused their power in order to manipulate public policy. That shift in principle directly hangs on one phrase: separation of church and state. A concept blatantly invented by the United States Supreme Court in order to justify their personal political and social agendas. This concept has eroded the foundation laid by the founding fathers of this nation, a foundation built on the existence an almighty and loving Creator.

First it is important to point out that the words "separation of church and state" are not found anywhere in the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or even the Declaration of Independence. That phrase comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association. The "wall of separation between church and state" that Jefferson referred to in his letter was clearly meant to protect religious freedom and prevent government from attempting to take away our God-given unalienable rights.

So how did the phrase "separation of church and state" become a part of our vocabulary? On June 25, 1962 in Engel v. Vitale the US Supreme Court used the "separation of church and state" argument as its basis for banning prayer in public schools. Their decision marked the turning point in the interpretation of the First Amendment. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The amendment was intended to prevent a repeat of the Church of England. But in 1962 the US Supreme Court ignored 170 years of history, legal precedent, and the clear intent of First Amendment, by interpreting that amendment to prohibit religious activities in public settings. The 1962 ruling was the first case in Supreme Court history that did not cite any previous precedents or legal cases in making its decision.

To learn more about the origins of Thanksgiving, our nation's unique religious heritage, and the challenges we now face, check out the briefing pack titled Thanksgiving: America's Challenge.

Related Links:

• Thanksgiving: America's Challenge - MP3 Download - MP3 Download - K-House Online Store
• CONTROVERSY IN BERKLEY: Nativity proposal defeated
• Jackson Sun - www.jacksonsun.com - Jackson, TN
• WIVB TV: News, Weather, Sports for Buffalo, Niagara Falls, and all of Western New York | Controversy Over Nativity Scene in Olean
• Nativity display OK for Washington state Capitol rotunda- Columbian.com

[Foxton]

It's beginning to look a lot like everyone spend their retirement fund on material junk for their kids time. Perhaps more time should be spent doing good in the world rather than worrying where your decorations can hang out.

[elite]

Originally Posted by goalerjones

Over the course of the last forty years there has been a radical shift in the role of the American judicial system, as a result of which our religious freedoms are being stripped away.

I almost pissed all over myself after reading that sentence. Not being able to put a nativity scene in front of a judicial building/state-owned property is having your religious freedom stripped away? Wow.

Just be aware that while the stories aren't as popular, the ACLU does a lot FOR religion, as well. They recently won a case where they supported a boy's stupidly religious-induced haircut which the school said had to be cut.

I do wonder how the ACLU doesn't end up suing itself sometimes, though.

[spidergoalie]

What is the source of the article Goaler?

[sloth2946]

The Establishment Clause of the Constitution protects the freedom to practice religion. It also has been interpreted, and repeatedly so, to mean that there is indeed a necessary separation between religion and government as well as public areas.

However the caveat to the Establishment Clause is that not only does it protect religious freedoms, but it protects the people FROM religion should they not want it shoved down their throats.

[kevinsane]

Originally Posted by sloth2946

However the caveat to the Establishment Clause is that not only does it protect religious freedoms, but it protects the people FROM religion should they not want it shoved down their throats.

Offer open to the contiguous United States. Void in Utah and Florida.

[goalerjones]

Originally Posted by spidergoalie

What is the source of the article Goaler?

sorry...koinonia house (khouse.org) ministries, but the links are mostly non christian sources

[biguglygoalie]

take a look at australia
Santas warned 'ho ho ho' offensive to women - Yahoo! News

[Sprawl]

I abhore your christian ideals being forced upon myself during the Chanuka time.

expect this board to receive a class action lawsuit with the the charge of $10 / time the word "christmas" is said!. (this including)

[CKeelty]

Wow, what a terrible article, jones!

First off, the ACLU fights to protect freedom of religion by fighting against government-endorsed religion. elite is absolutely right, we file just as many cases protecting the religious expression of Christians as we do protecting other faiths. It's just that the cases where we're fighting a government-sponsored religious display always get the most press - and 99.9% of the time, that religious display is Christian.

(I also think it's because Christians somehow decide they're 'persecuted' when others don't share or bow to their faith, but that's my personal view, not the ACLU's.)

As to the example you provide, don't you see how a nativity scene (the birth of the baby Jesus) in front of a government establishment is crossing the line? It's not even a Christmas decoration you can argue has been "secularized" like Santa Claus or Christmas trees - it's freakin Jesus, for crying out loud! Try this: every time you see a case like this, replace all the Christian paraphernalia with roughly equivocal Muslim paraphernalia, and see if you wouldn't object to that. That usually clarifies the issue for people.

Also FYI, the ACLU's position is not that such displays can't be placed on government property; it's that nativity scenes and the like must be part of a secular "celebration of religious holidays," rather than an apparent endorsement of a specific faith. In other words, a nativity scene is hunky-dory if it's displayed alongside a menorah and a Kwanzaa display (forgive me, I don't know what you display for Kwanzaa) but it's NOT okay when it's displayed alone. Before anyone decries this for being "PC," it's not about discrimination at all - it's about government endorsement of religion.

Where does the "separation of Church and State" come from? Not the Supreme Court, jones. Try Thomas Jefferson.

I'm quoting from "The U.S. Constitution Online" here:

"Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them written in October 1801. A copy of the Danbury letter is available here. The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in Connecticut, and they complained that in their state, the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature - as "favors granted." Jefferson's reply did not address their concerns about problems with state establishment of religion - only of establishment on the national level. The letter contains the phrase "wall of separation between church and state," which led to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: "Separation of church and state."

The letter was the subject of intense scrutiny by Jefferson, and he consulted a couple of New England politicians to assure that his words would not offend while still conveying his message: it was not the place of the Congress or the Executive to do anything that might be misconstrued as the establishment of religion."

Now, some make the argument that a letter Jefferson wrote to some dudes in Connecticut has nothing to do with the Constitution, but that's hogwash. Strict constructionism has been rejected even by today's most conservative judges, and intent is a key consideration in statutory interpretation everywhere.

The legal implications of the Establishment Clause are REALLY COMPLICATED. Even for civil rights attorneys, even for Supreme Court Justices. As an attorney on our PA State Board put it, "In America, religious expression is both more protected, and less protected, than any other form of expression." Deciding religious cases frequently comes down to very subtle and minute details, which is why the summaries you see on the evening news (or worse yet, O'Reilly and the like) seem silly or arbitrary or contradictory. At the last PA state meeting I attended, the ACLU of PA considered a case of religious expression in a public school that pitted free expression of religion against the Wall of Separation in such a way that the board could not, in fact, determine which side to take.

However (and I'm proving elite's point here) there have been cases where the ACLU has filed amicus curiae on both sides. The first thing you learn when you get involved with the ACLU is that (1) NO ONE agrees with every single position we take, and (2) the Constitution raises complicated conundrums, and is sometimes in conflict with itself. As our sole mission is to defend the Constitution, we are sometimes in conflict with ourselves.

Also, let me get ahead of the curve here (if this post doesn't break 1,000 words I'll lose my reputation, after all) and point out that the ACLU deals ONLY with government establishments (schools, police, legislatures, etc) and has NEVER and will NEVER involve itself with private enterprise. That means that all the stores you hear saying "Happy Holidays" are doing so out of consideration, and not because of anything the ACLU has done. We've also never sued to have crosses eliminated from soldiers' headstones, nor told the marines that they can't engage in group prayers. Those are all total fabrications, but never question the power of the internet and an e-mail urban legend.

[RyJ Maduro]

Originally Posted by CKeelty

Also FYI, the ACLU's position is not that such displays can't be placed on government property; it's that nativity scenes and the like must be part of a secular "celebration of religious holidays," rather than an apparent endorsement of a specific faith. In other words, a nativity scene is hunky-dory if it's displayed alongside a menorah and a Kwanzaa display (forgive me, I don't know what you display for Kwanzaa) but it's NOT okay when it's displayed alone.

Negative...the ACLU does not support ANY religious deisplays, on the grounds it can offend athiests. Even Papa Bear Bill O' Reilly has said to just throw up some other holiday symbols so EVERYBODY can have their group represented (which makes sense), but the idea is to remove any reference to religion from the public square. There's a big difference between government establishing religion, and the government respecting our common Judeo-Christian heritage.

[RyJ Maduro]

Seattle schools warn staff about Thanksgiving 'mourning' | Local News | KING5.com | News for Seattle, Washington

So the idea of a "Happy Thanksgiving" is a myth?

The secular progressive types want to tear our most cherished and time honored traditions and institutions apart, bit by bit, by employing the old "white guilt" tactic.

I get it... I'll tow the party line. European Males are the cause of all the pain and suffering throughout history. Now can I please have some yams and cranberry sauce?

[CKeelty]

Originally Posted by RyJ Maduro

Seattle schools warn staff about Thanksgiving 'mourning' | Local News | KING5.com | News for Seattle, Washington

So the idea of a "Happy Thanksgiving" is a myth?

The secular progressive types want to tear our most cherished and time honored traditions and institutions apart, bit by bit, by employing the old "white guilt" tactic.

I get it... I'll tow the party line. European Males are the cause of all the pain and suffering throughout history. Now can I please have some yams and cranberry sauce?

The article clearly states that it was a letter sent to teachers to be informative (not to tell them to do anything differently) and that it referenced a Native American website that contained the "Myth: Thanksgiving is a happy time" line.

Labeling it a "myth" is definitely silly, but the point is that descendants of Native Americans don't view the arrival of Europeans in the New World as a good thing. Nor should they.

You can't weasel out of what our ancestors did to conquer this country, RyJ, no matter how you may try to minimize it. No, white Europeans are not responsible for all pain and suffering in history, but they are responsible for the willful genocide of the indigenous people of North America.

Should we feel guilty? I don't think so. History is what it is, and I'm sure the ancestors of those same Native Americans, at some point in their history, warred with another people over the land or the resources they wanted. It doesn't stain their lineage with blood, it's just human nature.

Now, I'm personally a believer in celebrating the spirit of holidays; but that doesn't end the discussion as to the nature of these celebrations. Christmas is to many people (myself included) a secular celebration of family and friends, a time of goodwill toward your fellow man (no thanks to Bill O'Reilly's efforts to turn it into a time of divisiveness) but at its heart it's still a celebration of the birth of Jesus, and not everyone can get past that. Just the same way, while many of us see Thanksgiving as a time to gather and be thankful for what we have in our lives, at its heart it remains a celebration of the mythical first meal, symbolic of the Native Americans helping the Pilgrims to survive in the New World - whereupon the Pilgrim's descendants systematically massacred the Native Americans and took their land. Certainly I can see how Native Americans today might have a hard time with the happy celebration.

Is it such a bad thing to be aware of how other cultures reflect on our holidays? Is it bad to inform teachers that their Native American students might look upon Thanksgiving? They're not being told to stop celebrating, after all, and no one is suing. They're just being informed. Leave it to the conservatives to view education as a bad thing.

[Goaliedad]

My favorite Christmas song:

I heard there is no Christmas
In the silly Middle East
No trees, no snow, no Santa Claus
They have different religious beliefs

They believe in Muhammad
And not in our holiday
And so every December
I go to the Middle East and say...

"Hey there Mr. Muslim
Merry ****ing Christmas
Put down that book the Koran
And hear some holiday wishes.

In case you haven't noticed
It's Jesus's birthday.
So get off your heathen Muslim ass
and ****ing celebrate.

There is no holiday season in India I've heard
They don't hang up their stockings
And that is just absurd!

They've never read a Christmas story.
They don't know what Rudolph is about
And that is why in December
I'll go to India and shout...

Hey there Mr. Hinduist
Merry ****ing Christmas
Drink eggnog and eat some beef
And pass it to the missus.

In case you haven't noticed
It's Jesus's birthday
So get off your heathen Hindu ass
and ****ing celebrate!

Now I heard that in Japan
Everyone just lives in sin
They pray to several gods
And put needles in their skin.

On December 25th
All they do is eat a cake
And that is why I go to Japan
And walk around and say...

Hey there Mr. Shintoist
Merry ****ing Christmas
God is going to kick your ass
You infidelic pagan scum.

In case you haven't noticed
There's festive things to do
So lets all rejoice for Jesus
And Merry ****ing Christmas to you.

On Christmas day I travel `round the world and say,
Taoists, Krishnas, Buddhists, and all you atheists too,
Merry ****ing Christmas, To You!



Thank you Mr. hat

[CKeelty]

Originally Posted by RyJ Maduro

Negative...the ACLU does not support ANY religious deisplays, on the grounds it can offend athiests. Even Papa Bear Bill O' Reilly has said to just throw up some other holiday symbols so EVERYBODY can have their group represented (which makes sense), but the idea is to remove any reference to religion from the public square. There's a big difference between government establishing religion, and the government respecting our common Judeo-Christian heritage.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Sorry.

First off, the statement's wrong. We DO support religious displays, on private property, church property - anywhere, in fact, except for government property.

Second, it has nothing to do with anyone being "offended." It's to do with government endorsement of religion. American Civil Liberties Union : Religion and Belief : The Public Square

You're right that there is a difference between establishing religion and 'respecting our heritage.' One of the differences is that 'respecting' does not involve mounting monuments.

Where monuments do feature religious iconography, ACLU defends those that serve a secular purpose - for instance, the bas reliefs set into the Supreme Court building, which features Moses the Ten Commandments not in a religious context, but in the context of legal history, alongside the Code of Hammurabi, Confucius, and other historical lawmakers.

Christmas displays are afforded the same benefit. Where they represent a celebration of holidays, they are protected, and ACLU does not file suit. Where they are an endorsement of the Christian holiday of Christmas, however, they are unconstitutional.

Bear in mind that, while Bill O'Reilly may think Bill O'Reilly is very smart, intent does play heavily into court decisions. If some municipality does as O'Reilly suggests, and includes a menorah or a Kwanzaa display merely as a pass to allow them to erect their Christian nativity scene, that intent may be used to rule the display unconstitutional.

Once again, it's not about "EVERYBODY being represented," or inclusiveness or whatever. It's about preventing the government from endorsing any religion as if it were official.

P.S. Goaliedad: Not sure about your intention posting the song... But it's a personal favorite of mine.