Secular Extremists Still Lying About Their War on Christmas
By Michael J. Gaynor
MichNews.com
Dec 10, 2005
Secular extremists say that there is no War on Christmas and ridicule Fox News' John Gibson for writing The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought. See: John Gibson Is Right About The War on Christmas Christmas
They are lying, of course. Secular extremists have been working to restrict the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment since the First Amendment was adopted and to rewrite American history to suit themselves. Without significant success until 1947, when the United States Supreme Court outrageously opined that the First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religious and irreligion (or nonreligion) and bans governmental support for religion generally.
America’s greatest chief justice, John Marshall, proclaimed in 1833: “[W]ith with us Christianity and Religion are identified. It would be strange indeed, if with such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer to it, and exhibit relations to it.”
The secular extremists tried to end the military chaplaincy during the nineteenth century. But both houses of Congress studied the matter carefully and rejected the secular extremist position in the clearest possible terms.
The Senate Judiciary Committee issued a report explaining the establishment clause:
"The clause speaks of 'an establishment of religion.' What is meant by that expression? It referred, without doubt, to the establishment which existed in the mother country, its meaning is to be ascertained by ascertaining what that establishment was. It was the connection with the state of a particular religious society, by its endowment, at public expense, in exclusion of, or in preference to, any other, by giving to its member’s exclusive political rights, and by compelling the attendance of those who rejected its communion upon its worship, or religious observances. These three particulars constituted that union of church and state of which our ancestors were so justly jealous, and against which they so wisely and carefully provided...."
The report further stated that the Founders were "utterly opposed to any constraint upon the rights of conscience" and therefore they opposed the establishment of a religion in the same manner that the Church of England was established.
But, the Founders "had no fear or jealousy of religion itself, nor did they wish to see us an irreligious people....They did not intend to spread over all the public authorities and the whole public action of the nation the dead and revolting spectacle of 'atheistic apathy.' Not so had the battles of the revolution been fought, and the deliberations of the revolutionary Congress conducted."
A similar House Judiciary Committee report explained that "an establishment of religion" was a term of art with a specific meaning:
"What is an establishment of religion? It must have a creed, defining what a man must believe; it must have rights and ordinances, which believers must observe; it must have ministers of defined qualifications, to teach the doctrines and administer the rites; it must have tests for the submissive, and penalties for the nonconformist. There never was an establishment of religion without all these."
But the sly secular extremists persevered and eventually prevailed upon the United States Supreme Court to declare neutrality between religion and irreligion as constitutionally mandated and governmental support for all religions to be constitutionally prohibited.
Now "under God" in "The Pledge of Allegiance" and "In God We Trust" on America's currency and coins are under attack and, unless their original religious significance is stripped from them, Thanksgiving (when we thank God, not nothingness) and Christmas (when we celebrate the birth of Christ, not Santa Claus) eventually will have to go too.
The so-called non-existent war just reached my town. The Christmas tree lighting ceremony in the Town of Huntington, on Long Island, New York, was targeted by a young attorney who got his name in Newsday, Long Island's notorious secular extremist newspaper, and hopefully will be boycotted by all persons who are friendly to the free exercise of religion and patronized by people like himself, since people should spend their money to support their ideas instead of contrary ones.
Newsday reported: "Huntington officials worked all night readying staff for the coming snow, but instead they woke up to a different storm Friday: a local lawyer sued to remove a nativity scene from the town's public lawn and stop Friday's Christmas tree-lighting ceremony."
His position: the nativity scene, Christmas tree and two signs on the Village Green that read "Peace on Earth" violated his constitutional rights because of their religious overtones.
The display included a menorah, which be claimed was "dwarfed in significance and stature" and "appears as nothing more than a token attempt to be inclusive to the Jewish population."
He apparently did not sue to remove the menorah.
Judge Leonard Wexler negotiated a compromise between the complainer and the town that allowed the tree ceremony to take place. Good for him!
The compromise: the town will put up large signs stating the nativity scene was donated by Huntington's Knights of Columbus and that the menorah came from the Chabad-Lubavitch in Melville, and that that the nativity scene and the menorah are not town property.
That's fine with me. The town should give due credit to the donors. Apparently the complainer's petty grip is that Huntington's Knights of Columbus provided a bigger display than the Chabad-Lubavitch in Melville. Frankly, if the complainer wants a bigger menorah, he should donate one. I think the town, the Knights and the Chabad-Lubavitch all acted reasonably.
The town board is scheduled to vote to approve the settlement Tuesday. Judge Wexler will hold a hearing that evening in case the board does not approve the deal.
Of course, the complainer insists that he is not "anti-religion or against Christmas." "This is not an attack on Jesus or Christians," he said, while declining to disclose his faith, saying it has nothing to do with his position. "I just don't want the town endorsing one religion. Lots of people out there don't celebrate Christmas."
This nuisance lawsuit followed the recent uproar over North Hempstead Supervisor John Kaiman's handling of the town's tree-lighting ceremony in Manhasset, New York. Believe it or not, during the dedication, the Rev. Nick Zientarski invoked the name of Jesus Christ when he blessed the tree! Imagine that! A Christian cleric invoking the name of Christ while blessing a Christmas tree! The stupid supervisor immediately told the crowd, "I just want to make it clear that this is in no way a religious ceremony." He has since apologized.
Instead of correcting its egregious error, the United States Supreme Court has tried to set broad guidelines for local officials in such cases. If religious symbols are displayed on public property, there need to be enough diverse symbols so a "reasonable observer" would think it was a holiday display.
Outgoing Brookhaven Supervisor John Jay LaValle commented: "I don't know what's wrong with people today. This is an ideological situation where liberal America is trying to destroy a Christian holiday."
He's right.
The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, the executive director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, argues that there is something wrong with the battle over religious symbols and assures that "[p]eople who have a spiritual interest in the holiday are going to get the experience from their church, not the town."
But George Washington was right: "it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor...."
Reverence for God was not supposed to be restricted to churches and synagogues (and mosques), and a small, but insidiously growing, secular extremist minority was not supposed to have a veto power over the right of the overwhelming majority to have their governments--federal, state and local--acknowledge God and support religion generally without establishing an official religion or violating the private right of conscience of nonbelievers.
NOTICE TO SMART SHOPPERS:
These companies have banned "Christmas" from their retail ads, in-store promotions or television commercials.
Please take time to let them know you are offended by their anti-Christian and anti-Christmas bias. Their contact information is below.
We cannot stress to strongly how important it is for you to be firm, yet very kind in your correspondence with these companies. Please be respectful and choose your words wisely.
In addition, companies marked with an asterisk* have gone so far as to substitute the phrase "Holiday or Dream trees" instead of "Christmas trees" in their promotions.
* Target (612) 304-6073 Guest.Relations@target.com
Target refuses to use the word "Christmas" in any of their corporate advertising. Their latest 36-page ad insert did use the phrase "holiday" 31 times. In addition, Target has banned the Salvation Army bell ringers from their stores, but opted to sell items online for customers to donate to the Salvation Army. Ironically, Target doesn't give a single cent to them, but profits from your purchase. They also charge you to ship the item to the Salvation Army.
Nordstrom (206) 628-2111 President Blake W. Nordstrom contact@nordstrom.com
On their "holiday shipping" section of the website, they only refer to "December 25." Their catalogs do not mention the word "Christmas." Mr. Nordstrom says he welcomes your comments.
* Sears (847) 286-2500 nationalcustomerservice@sears.com
Sears, owned by Kmart, is advertising "Holiday" trees on page seven of their circular. It also was noticeably absent of the word "Christmas." UPDATE: Sears has confirmed that it now displays a sign reading "Merry Christmas" at the entrance to its stores nationwide.
Lowe's (800) 445-6937
We are pleased to update you about Lowe's sale of Christmas trees. Lowe's informed the AFA that it is removing banners referring to "holiday trees" from its stores (the actual product signs inside Lowe's stores did say Christmas trees, but the outside banner did not). Lowe's says it has proudly sold Christmas trees in its stores for decades, and continues to do so this year in all of its stores nationwide. All 49 varieties of live and artificial trees at Lowe's and on Lowes.com are labeled as Christmas trees.
Lowe's assures AFA that the language on the banner was a mistake, and was not in any way an attempt to remove Christmas from the season.
We applaud Lowe's for listening to its customers and responding to their concerns. Just as we alerted Lowe's to our concerns, now let's show them our support by sending thank you emails and shopping in their stores.
Office Max (877) 484-3629 williambonner@officemax.com
Office Max offers no "Christmas" in their advertising.
Kmart (800) 635-6278 kmartccn@kmart.com
Kmart promotes a "Holiday Sale" on their website. Links to the trees webpage asks if you "Need it by Christmas," but refers you to its "Holiday Shipping Dates" section.
Staples (800) 378-2753 experts@orders.staples.com
In searching for "Christmas" on their website, results show only three matches. Staples ads avoid using "Christmas."
Home Depot (800) 430-3376 consumer-affairs@homedepot.com
Home Depot says "In order to avoid endorsing a particular set of beliefs and to encourage the diversity we desire, The Home Depot has chosen to refer to this time of year as the 'Holiday Season'." Although Home Depot says it has not banned Christmas, a search for "Christmas" on their website says, "Were you looking for Holiday Decorations?" You won't find "Christmas" in their circulars, in-store promotions, or television commercials.
Best Buy (888) 237-8289 dick.schulze@bestbuy.com
Best Buy offers no "Christmas" in their advertising.
Kohl's UPDATE: Kohl's has provided AFA with a corporate statement. They dispute the charge made on The O'Reilly Factor and provided a letter stating they "would use the word 'Christmas' in some of our advertising." AFA is pleased to let you know that this in, in fact, the case. Kohl's asks us to inform you of their plans to incorporate "Christmas" in future advertising. We appreciate Kohl's listening to their customers concerns and responding in kind.
It's all about "happy holidays" vs. "Merry Christmas"
It is much more than this to me. It just representative of the assault on Christians by the ACLU and organizations bowing to the ACLU. I've had it.
"strikes me as mostly well-meaning attempts by educators, politicians and average citizens to acknowledge our diversity"
Were the word "holiday" used to encompass all holidays at this time of year that argument could be valid. However, it is one particular holiday that has been targeted for replacement.
"by business owners to sell as much as possible to people of all faiths and none"
Why does a shopping season exist at this time of the year?
I have yet to find anyone in any of the stores I have been to, that did not say Merry Christmas back to me.
The War on Christmas probably has its roots in liberalism and the upsurge in Kwanzaa celebrations. As long as America was primarily populated by Christians and Jews, there was no problem discussing Christmas or wishing others to have a merry one.
However, America, a land once ruled by the majority, has become a land where the minority hold all the cards and get all the rights. As the profile of Muslims and Kwanzaa has raised substantially in recent years (one because of their aimless and random attacks on innocent people), Christmas, somehow, became an exclusive domain of whites (probably those EEeeeeeeeeevil heterosexual white males - the ONLY group that has not been protected through hate crime laws).
The War on Christmas is not simply one of perception, it is one of fact. The fact remains, however, that the majority of Americans consider this "happy holiday" season to be Christmas.
If a small group of lesbian vegetarians were able to get Nestle to say uncle over third world baby formula imagine what traditional valued people can do.
I don't think so. The card contains the the RSV text of Psalm 28:7, which should be sufficient to offend the politically correct.
Christmas is the second Holiest day of the year for Christians. They should get off it. If they want things to get ugly, keep messing with the Christian High Holy days. They respect other religions right to High Holy Days, let them respect ours. After all, there is plenty of Christmas Cheer to go around.
Renaming the "Holiday" to be inclusive? These people do absolutely nothing to "include" others other than play a little Orwellian mind game and expect Christians not to resent it? May they repent or burn in hell.
Anyone calling a Christmas tree a "sharing tree" not only sounds like an idiot but in my opinion is an idiot.
America is over 85% Christian, and many of those who are not Christian want to see the majority religion suppressed. Apparently, they are very concerned about making Christians "feel like outsiders" in their own (Christian) nation.
Amazing leap in logic.....
Here in Wisconsin, home of the Freedom FROM Religion Foundation, our "Holiday Tree" has a plaque in front of it designed by them. It's on the second level of the Capitol Rotunda and says "There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds." This isn't about "inclusion", this is an assault on religion PERIOD. And our state government sanctions it.
Actually it's "Peace on earth towards men of goodwill."
Let me take this opportunity to wish all FReepers joy and blessings on the rapidly approaching occasion of the Feast of the Nativity According to the Flesh of Our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ. (Whichever calendar you celebrate it on, or even if you don't.)
...on a side note anyone else notice today's Garfield?
Jim Davis has no problem with CHRISTMAS.
Doogle
Here's a town in Canada that has the right idea
http://www.cbc.ca/ns/story/ns-oxford-christmas20051130.html
I'm not sure we could get something quite like that going here, but I've heard a little talk about a "Christmas Preservation Act" that would shield employers and municipalities from ACLU lawsuits about Christmas displays, Christmas parties, and so on.
That sums it up nicely.
People whose only pleasure in life comes from drawing attention to themselves by bitching about how someone else chooses to act?
and why?
Lack of funds for booze?