.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
Lobo's Links

Sunday, November 27, 2005

Have a Happy...non-Christ Related in Anyway, Vacation—or . . . Whatever . . .

Nov 27, 2005
by Doug Giles

What the heck is up with all the Merry Christmasphobia? Especially within our Public School system where during this season they outlaw certain flowers, ban particular colors, prohibit the display of Santa’s image, bar Christmas trees and tie their tongues in knots trying to rename Christmas?

Isn’t it odd that the Public School Admin wizards get their support hose wedgied regarding Christmas, all the while they seem to be extremely zealous about teaching our 1st -12th graders everything and more than what they need to know about sex?

Yeah, they’re cool with adding a fourth “R,” namely raunch, to the three basic “R’s” of education. It appears to be no problemo to teach our young’uns how to masturbate, and school officials seem to be pretty breezy about hosting gay and lesbian clubs; but darn iit, you’d better not wear red and green, bring a poinsettia to your teacher, have a baby Jesus lying in a manger, whistle “Silent Night” or have a Santa Claus sticker on your notebook because that . . . that . . . is beyond the pale. At least it is ever since the ACLU began contorting the Constitution like a mad Mike Tyson twisting his Gumby doll.

The Christmasphobia seems to have seeped outside of the Pubic Fool System and has also hit the streets. It’s gotten to the point where I’ve got to think for 30 to 40 seconds about how I am to wish one well during the Christmas season for fear that the ACLU will send some soulless lawyer to my house to sue me because of an insensitive greeting.

Before, I just used to say, “Merry Christmas.” Now, I have to do CIA-like profiling trying to figure out what religion said person is before I launch a holiday howdy. Are they Christian? Muslim? Satanist? Atheist? Do they look like they have enough money to take legal action against me if I get the greeting wrong and they become deeply wounded by my well wish? It’s madness. To remedy the situation, now I just blow off saying anything aside from, “Wassup?”

Not only has this new found phobia regarding the Yuletide infected our dysfunctional schools and hamstrung our greetings in the streets, it’s also crept into retail where stores like Target put a moratorium on everything to do with Christmas, including giving the Salvation Army the boot. Hey, Grinch-like Targetmeisters, the multiple millions of us here in Hooville are going to be buying our cheap stuff somewhere else this Christmas season. So, Happy Festivus, Target, and I hope your profits and stock don’t tumble too dramatically as we take our business elsewhere.

I wonder how long it’s going to be before the anti-war morons move to prohibit Veteran’s Day and Memorial Day because they are offended at the thought of honoring those who fought for and those who died for our country.

With all the PC stuff swirling around in the secular toilet bowl of our school systems, one can be paralyzed as to what he can and can’t do, what he can and can’t say. Herewith, my brethren, is a simple guide regarding what you’re allowed to say and do without going to jail, or being fined millions of dollars, or getting expelled or fired, or being executed in the public square. The following bullet points were ripped out of Alan Sears and Craig Osten’s book, The ACLU vs. America, with some obvious ad lib from me.

1 It is still okay to sing Christmas carols in public schools by individuals or groups. So queue up a few of them for your holiday extravaganza, because this doesn’t violate the Constitution. [Someone help me here: When did the Constitution become so fragile and so easily offended? When did it go from being a rough and tumble framing document to being a delicate thesis written on single ply?] Hey Christmas lover, don’t worry if Mr., Mrs. or Ms. Stupid says they’re going to sue if you don’t cease and desist from singing “Hark, the Herald Angles Sing,” as public schools have been very successful at keeping the ACLU at bay when they seek to silence the Christmas songs in the school system.

2 It’s okay for schools to call Christmas “Christmas.” You can actually call the break during December the “Christmas Holiday.” You don’t have to call it “Sparkle Day,” “Solstice Holidays,” or “Reindeer Weekend.” Calling Christmas “Christmas” doesn’t offend the newly tenderized Constitution. The Supreme Court has acknowledged that the government has long recognized holidays with religious significance such as Christmas.

3 School districts can’t ban individuals or teachers from saying “Merry Christmas.” The Supreme Court has stated that students and teachers do not have to “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” In order to flout the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, teachers would have to use their authority to promote religion to their students.

4 Schools can teach about the religious origins of Christmas. The religious and cultural origins and history of Christmas can be studied without wounding the Constitution. Even when limiting public Christmas displays, the Supreme Court has said that “the Bible may constitutionally be used in an appropriate study of history, civilization, ethics, comparative religion and the like.”

5 Schools may display religious symbols, such as Nativity scenes. The Supreme Court has held that a nativity scene is constitutional if it is displayed for legitimate secular purposes, such as to celebrate a holiday or depict the origins of a holiday, such as Christmas.

Y’know, there’s probably just a very few people who are popping a blood vein in their foreheads and spouting this anti-Christmas rhetoric. More than likely they aren’t the constitutionalists they’ve propped themselves up to be, but rather, failed actors who couldn’t get extra work on B-flicks who have found a way to get in front of a TV camera by being a jerk. What’s the matter? Did mommy not pay enough attention to you when you were little? Did she miss your 3rd grade Christmas play when you starred as Blitzen, and so now you hate Christmas and you want to get her back while making us all pay in the process?

Furthermore, if some citizens want to Ichabod Crane themselves away from our holiday cheer, I say let ‘em. Yes, we could even create a city for them where they can go and live their secularized dream life, perhaps somewhere in the San Francisco Bay area or somewhere around Boston. We could call this religiously-scrubbed, Lysol-disinfected place, “I’mapaininthebuttville,” and there they could have their sterile, religion-free environment and celebrate . . . nothing.

And lastly, secularists, please . . . don’t flatter yourselves by thinking that our celebrating Christ’s birthday is an effort to convert you. Relax. We’re not trying to evangelize anyone. This, like so many other things, is not about you. We simply want to pause and recognize the birth of the most powerful figure in our world’s history, namely, Jesus Christ. It’s all about Him.

Doug Giles is the creator and host of "The Clash" radio shows and a contributing columnist on Townhall.com.

Linked at Stop the ACLU


Blogger Bing said...

I never said Washington was the source of the quote, please re read Amendment XIV of the Constitution. My upstate New York education was a public one funded by collecting taxes, and "Supreme Being" is not "Christian God." It's purposely vague to not exclude. Socialism really is dead, no really, I get the literature. We're all property owning, capitalists. Well a lot of us are anyway. Thanks though for the Treaty of Tripoli history lesson. That I did enjoy. It explained very well the reasons for the infamous line. However, I think there is also that it wasn't a big deal to claim we weren't a Christian Nation whether we did it to appease muslims or not. Also I'd like to confirm that there is not a war on Christmas by the secular left. There may be over zealous political correctness but no one is trying to exclude Christians by including everyone in a harmless holiday greeting.

Peace out anyway

12/09/2005 5:10 PM  
Blogger loboinok said...

"However, I think there is also that it wasn't a big deal to claim we weren't a Christian Nation whether we did it to appease muslims or not."

Let me offer this little exchange between Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine and you tell me, again, that it was "no big deal"...

[Date uncertain.]

I have read your manuscript with some attention. By the argument it contains against a particular Providence, though you allow a general Providence, you strike at the foundations of all religion. For without the belief of a Providence, that takes cognizance of, guards, and guides, and may favor particular persons, there is no motive to worship a Deity, to fear his displeasure, or to pray for his protection. I will not enter into any discussion of your principles, though you seem to desire it. At present I shall only give you my opinion, that, though your reasonings are subtile and may prevail with some readers, you will not succeed so as to change the general sentiments of mankind on that subject, and the consequence of printing this piece will be, a great deal of odium drawn upon yourself, mischief to you, and no benefit to others. He that spits against the wind, spits in his own face.
But, were you to succeed, do you imagine any good would be done by it? You yourself may find it easy to live a virtuous life, without the assistance afforded by religion; you having a clear perception of the advantages of virtue, and the disadvantages of vice, and possessing a strength of resolution sufficient to enable you to resist common temptations. But think how great a portion of mankind consists of weak and ignorant men and women, and of inexperienced, inconsiderate youth of both sexes, who have need of the motives of religion to restrain them from vice, to support their virtue, and retain them in the practice of it till it becomes habitual, which is the great point for its security. And perhaps you are indebted to her originally, that is, to your religious education, for the habits of virtue upon which you now justly value yourself. You might easily display your excellent talents of reasoning upon a less hazardous subject, and thereby obtain a rank with our most distinguished authors. For among us it is not necessary, as among the Hottentots, that a youth, to be raised into the company of men, should prove his manhood by beating his mother.
I would advise you, therefore, not to attempt unchaining the tiger, but to burn this piece before it is seen by any other person; whereby you will save yourself a great deal of mortification by the enemies it may raise against you, and perhaps a good deal of regret and repentance. If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it. I intend this letter itself as a proof of my friendship, and therefore add no professions to it; but subscribe simply yours,
B. Franklin

Paine later published his Age of Reason, which infuriated many of the Founding Fathers. John Adams wrote, “The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity, let the Blackguard [scoundrel, rogue] Paine say what he will.” 2 Samuel Adams wrote Paine a stiff rebuke, telling him, “[W]hen I heard you had turned your mind to a defence of infidelity, I felt myself much astonished and more grieved that you had attempted a measure so injurious to the feelings and so repugnant to the true interest of so great a part of the citizens of the United States.” 3

Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration, wrote to his friend and signer of the Constitution John Dickinson that Paine's Age of Reason was “absurd and impious”; 4 Charles Carroll, a signer of the Declaration, described Paine's work as “blasphemous writings against the Christian religion”; 5 John Witherspoon said that Paine was “ignorant of human nature as well as an enemy to the Christian faith”; 6 John Quincy Adams declared that “Mr. Paine has departed altogether from the principles of the Revolution"”; 7 and Elias Boudinot, President of Congress, even published the Age of Revelation—a full-length rebuttal to Paine's work. 8 Patrick Henry, too, wrote a refutation of Paine's work which he described as “the puny efforts of Paine.” 9

When William Paterson, signer of the Constitution and a Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court, learned that some Americans seemed to agree with Paine's work, he thundered, “Infatuated Americans, why renounce your country, your religion, and your God?” 10 Zephaniah Swift, author of America's first law book, noted, “He has the impudence and effrontery [shameless boldness] to address to the citizens of the United States of America a paltry performance which is intended to shake their faith in the religion of their fathers.” 11 John Jay, an author of the Federalist Papers and the original Chief-Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court, was comforted by the fact that Christianity would prevail despite Paine's attack,“I have long been of the opinion that the evidence of the truth of Christianity requires only to be carefully examined to produce conviction in candid minds.” 12 In fact, Paine's views caused such vehement public opposition that he spent his last years in New York as “an outcast” in “social ostracism” and was buried in a farm field because no American cemetery would accept his remains. 13

1. Jared Sparks, The Works of Benjamin Franklin, (Boston: Tappan, Whittemore, and Mason, 1840), Vol.X, pp. 281-2.(Return)
2. John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Charles Little and James Brown, 1841), Vol. III, p. 421, diary entry for July 26, 1796.(Return)
3. William V. Wells, The Life and Public Services of Samuel Adams (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1865), Vol. III, pp. 372-373, to Thomas Paine on November 30, 1802.(Return)
4. Benjamin Rush, Letters of Benjamin Rush, L. H. Butterfield, editor (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1951), Vol. II, p. 770, to John Dickinson on February 16, 1796. (Return)
5. Joseph Gurn, Charles Carroll of Carrollton (New York: P. J. Kennedy & Sons, 1932), p. 203.(Return)
6. John Witherspoon, The Works of the Reverend John Witherspoon (Philadelphia: William W. Woodward, 1802), Vol. III, p. 24, n. 2, from “The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men,” delivered at Princeton on May 17, 1776.(Return)
7. John Quincy Adams, An Answer to Pain’s [sic] “Rights of Man” (London: John Stockdale, 1793), p. 13.(Return)
8. Elias Boudinot, The Age of Revelation (Philadelphia: Asbury Dickins, 1801), pp. xii-xiv, from the prefatory remarks to his daughter, Mrs. Susan V. Bradford.(Return)
9. S. G. Arnold, The Life of Patrick Henry of Virginia (Auburn and Buffalo: Miller, Orton and Mulligan, 1854), p. 250, to his daughter Betsy on August 20, 1796; see also, George Morgan, Patrick Henry (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1929), p. 366 n; and Bishop William Meade, Old Churches, Ministers, and Families of Virginia (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1857), Vol. II, p. 12.(Return)
10. John E. O’Conner, William Paterson: Lawyer and Statesman (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1979), p. 244, from a Fourth of July Oration in 1798.(Return)
11. Zephaniah Swift, A System of Laws of the State of Connecticut (Windham: John Byrne, 1796), Vol. II, pp. 323-324.(Return)
12. William Jay, The Life of John Jay (New York: J. & J. Harper, 1833) Vol. II, p. 266, to the Rev. Uzal Ogden on February 14, 1796.(Return)
13. Dictionary of American Biography, s.v. “Thomas Paine.” (Return)

You may not like cut and paste, but it is much quicker and far easier in these cases.

12/10/2005 6:59 PM  
Blogger loboinok said...

"There may be over zealous political correctness but no one is trying to exclude Christians by including everyone in a harmless holiday greeting."

Undoubtedly over zealous but certainly much more than that!
Your statement may have washed ten years ago, today it is Disingenuous.

Anything Christian is being systematically countered with secular and humanistic ideas.

You do not notice because it is of no interest or consequence to you.

Much the same as buying a new car and suddenly noticing how many of the same type vehicle is on the road.

Hundreds of people did not just buy the same type vehicle as you did... you are just more aware of it because you identify with those like-minded owners.

12/10/2005 7:37 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home