It doesn't make America any more tolerant or better, and knowing what Christmas is about and how it arose (etc etc etc) isn't dangerous to anyone. This is obvious. These cases you cite are saddening. They're the result of people being jerks, being biased, being hysterical and illogical.

These cases are, however, rare, as far as I know. These stories occasionally make the news because they are rightly seen as ridiculous. This stuff isn't happening all over the place. The people who [want to] ban all references to "God" or "Christmas" aren't the norm, and I wouldn't call them the true opposition. (You said "all over the country there are movements to ban the word "Christmas" or any reference to the actual reason why there are wreaths and holly berries adorning every shopping mall in the US" -- it may be true, but I doubt it. At any rate, I'd like to see evidence of this happening 'all over the country,' a phrase which, to me, implies it is not only widespread but occurring in high numbers.)

Many non-Christians and many Christians who are not so deeply religious as, for example, you are, Emily, are the "opposition" exactly because of cases like this, only in reverse. Many Christians are extremely eager to thrust their religion onto others, and feel that their way of life is the only way of life. Thus they do things as ridiculous as the things you talked about in your post. The stances are different, but the level of ridiculousness is the same.

For the record, I'm Catholic (by name, at least), but not deeply religious. I personally believe in a higher power, but I do not regularly go to church or participate in structured religion, so to speak. But I do believe in God. That doesn't stop me, however, from being just as disgusted by Christians who feel they must act as missionaries and convert all people to Christianity as I am by people who try to snuff out freedom of speech, expression, and religion by banning the use of the words "God" and "Christmas" and anything related to those things.

By what definition is 3 percent a landslide?

Ooh, yeah, that is a good question. One I should've asked. Specifically, I think it was 2.8%, or "the smallest margin of victory for a sitting president in U.S. history in terms of the percentage of the popular vote... In terms of absolute number of popular votes, his victory margin (just under 3.4 million votes) was the smallest of any sitting President since Harry S. Truman in 1948... Aside from the 2000 election (which Bush won by just 5 votes in the Electoral College), it was the smallest margin of victory won in the Electoral College since 1916, when Woodrow Wilson beat Charles Evans Hughes by 23 votes, 277 to 254." (Wikipedia)

That's a landslide?

I don't know... it's just that using the term 'landslide' in this case seems, to me, to be a gross factual and linguistic error.

Way to be guys!! I had a feeling I wouldn't get a straight answer. Henry, if you look it up, this is a widespread occurrence. Businesses all over the country won't have a "Christmas" party for fear of offending some non-Christmas employee. People are so afraid of offending everyone BUT the people who celebrate Christmas. We, apparently, can be offended countless times and it doesn't count to them. Teachers are getting fired or censored like crazy. The ACLU has been trigger happy in suing schools to prevent nativity scenes and Christmas carols. Look it up; do some research and you'll find I'm right.

And as far as the landslide comment, I've got another linguistic gem for both of you: deflection. Ziggy, I'm glad you feel free to comment, but you never answered my question. Don't live up to liberal stereotypes...answer questions directly. Then we'll talk.

Ciao boys!

How in Hades did I not give you a straight answer?

And: ah, yes, deflection. All you did there was deflect the fact that 'landslide' is a gross factual and linguistic error. Is that all that my righty friends are going to do here? Deflect? Watch out, or you might soon start having to dispel some nasty stereotypes yourself.

Adios!

If you're really curious about the reasons for separation of church and state and its specific application to schools, I don't think you need to ask the left for recommended readings. This has been a centrist position for a long time.

Emily, I don't see how one could really belive there is some sort of "mass movement" to ban Christmas, Christian belief is one of the definining aspects of this country. However, i personally see all major forms of religion as a threat to democracy and progressive politicol change. Most of the horrible things that have been done by this country and others is in the name of religion, that's just a fact. Religion does away with the ability to have a real dialogue about anything. In this last election, which was anything but a landslide, we see that this administration successfuly exploited religion to gain support (example all the anti gay marriage ammendments) for its policies. Americans have clearly swallowed this so called war on terrorism as a religious war and that we are fighting evil. This is propaganda and a very immoral tool in gaining support for a war which purpose is control of oil wells and a strategic position in the middle east. See Wolfowitz' text for evidence of this. I believe religion is one of the barriers to global peace equal treatment, ultimately the biggest weaknesses of human civilization as a whole.

Okay, regarding the landslide comment. You on the left are into relativism, so in my reality, it was a landslide. Can't argue with that one...because it's all relative. :) There.

Zach, there is much you have to learn about the Christian religion. It's really only in this religion that people will be treated equally. In fact, favoritism is clearly not allowed (I can give you specific scriptures if you want) and it's a paradigm where the least (the poor, destitute, etc) are held as the greatest. I can understand your gripe with religion as a whole, as I've told you. But again, your problem is more with the people who abuse the religion than with the religion itself. It would be like me dismissing the entire practice of medicine because of people like Jack Kevorkian or other doctors I think have abused it. But thanks for answering my question.

Henry, I apologize. I didn't see your post in its entirety (weird computer problems). You did answer my question in your first paragraph quite clearly. I was really only talking to Ziggy on that one. I didn't make that clear enough.

Ziggy, your separation of church and state argument is so ridiculous. First, look that up and then we'll talk. Secondly, they don't disallow Islamic and some Judaic teaching. They allow those religion's symbols into schools. But they will not allow anything remotely related to Christianity. It's yet another prime example of hypocrisy on the left. And you still haven't answered my question. You should be a spokesperson for the DNC. You'd be great.

[Okay, regarding the landslide comment. You on the left are into relativism, so in my reality, it was a landslide. Can't argue with that one...because it's all relative. :) There.]

1. It's nice of you to show off your omnipotence and love of sweeping generalizations once again. Yes, I suppose I'm "into" relativism, but the relativism I'm "into" doesn't involve bending the truth so one hasn't the need to say "I was wrong." So I don't think your premise holds up, to be honest.

2. An analogy: The left is to relativism as the right is to _____.

(Possible Answers: "enforced ignoranced of reality" , "the creation of twisted realities as a means of saying lies and not feeling guilty about them")

Perhaps that doesn't apply to all people on the right, but keep in mind this is only a sweeping generalization.

3. I'm thinking you meant to be cute when you wrote that paragraph, but you just come off snobby. You know this election was nothing close to a landslide (and that goes for realities of all shapes and forms), so why don't you just admit it?

Moving on...

[But again, your problem is more with the people who abuse the religion than with the religion itself. It would be like me dismissing the entire practice of medicine because of people like Jack Kevorkian or other doctors I think have abused it.]

That's the mirror image of your problem. Your problem is more with the (minority of) people who abuse the First Amendment (and, indeed, ridiculously snuff out basic rights in the name of something like the Separation of Church and State) than it is with liberals themselves. It is something akin to condemning all doctors just because Jack Kevorkian was a doctor.

I did a 20-minute or so search online for cases such as the ones you cited in your original post, Emily. While I did find more (i.e. different) cases similar to the ones you discussed, I most certainly didn't find MANY more. I don't know how else I can look up whether or not these things are happening in great numbers across the nation. I don't see any evidence that that's happening, so as for now, that's what I'm believing. If you have other evidence or sources you could point me to, or, better yet, provide more examples yourself for my and my fellow posters' benefit, maybe I would end up thinking differently.

Henry,

Everyone is into relativism. Period. What's being compared is the real question. Are you being relative to reality or fantasy?

About the widespread disease of anti-christianity:
You'll barely find anything on the internet. You usually need to be there first hand, or have it occur locally because the MSM doesn't care if Christians are being persecuted. After all, we did commit the Inquisition, and the Crusades, so why not snuff out our opinions and ideals from modern civilization? We think backwards (approx. 2000+ years backwards). We have no new ideas, so why listen to them? If you remember, the city of Redlands (or Redding, i can't quite remember) was in the news not too long ago because some civil liberties groups were against the image of the cross in the city's emblem. It went all the way from city council, to state supreme court, where it was ruled unconstitutional and the cross was verily removed from the image.

The inverse to this would be in Hamtrak (I believe, i'm quite tired right now, so don't quote me) Michigan. A Local mosque sent a bill through city council to increase the allowable decibel limit so they could broadcast their call to prayer five times a day, starting at 6 am. It was passed, and quite quickly too. What was their argument? "If churches can ring churchbells on sunday, why can't we broadcast our call to prayer in the same manner?"

You don't hear about it because the MSM doesn't care. They hate Christians, much the same way the islamo-facists do (they don't want to kill us, they just want us out of the picture). They want us gone. Don't even try to twist my words here. All i'm saying is that the MSM and the terrorists share a mutual hatred of us. I'm not saying the MSM are terrorists, nor am i saying they support terrorism. If you don't think that opinion is clear enough, ask me more questions about it.

Just a guess, but Peter Jennings, Dan Rather, and Tom Brokaw (and their colleagues) don't hate Christians at all, let alone with a burning passion. Just a guess. And I'm assuming you're not including Fox News in the category "MSM."

[You'll barely find anything on the internet. You usually need to be there first hand, or have it occur locally because the MSM doesn't care if Christians are being persecuted.]

If that's the case -- and it makes sense, what you said -- how do you know there's a "widespread disease" of anti-christianity? How have you successfully determined that?

I said (in essence) "it's hard to find", not "it's barely there". Just because something isn't on the surface, doesn't mean you won't find anything once you dig really, really deep. You'll hardly find anything on "anti-christianity" on the internet because that term is very harsh. Instead, look up "progressiveism + christianity", or some other term that deals with foreward thinking and the conflict between it and the "backward thinking doctrines of christianity".

And Yes, the anchors most likely hate christians as much as the Media they work for. Who knows, maybe even someone inside Fox is Anti-Christian...O'Reiley seems to not like christians that much, but then again, i'm not an expert on the subject, i just call it as i see it.

I should recommend something about separation of church and state, although I really don't know much about it beyond one relevant Supreme Court case and a little history. The decision I understand to be operative is Lemon v. Kurtzman in 1971. This decision says that in order to be constitutional under the establishment clause of the First Amendment, legislation must have a legitimate secular pupose, must not have as its primary effect either promiting or inhibiting religion, and must not result in the excessive entanglement of government and religion. Using the public schools to discuss Christmas--unless it was part of an appropriate class about religion or Christianity--would not pass this test.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman

In terms of history you might look at chapter 12 of Rhys Isaac's The Transformation of Virginia. This describes the end of the establishment of the Church of England in Virginia and the passage of the first law providing for the separation of church and state in the Atlantic World, Thomas Jefferson's Act for Establishing Religious Freedom of 1786. Jefferson drafted three additional bills to accompany this one to promote a secular alternative to the church by financing a public library, reorganizing the curriculum of William and Mary, and providing for the general diffusion of knowledge, but these were not passed. Thus the link between public schools and facilities and secularism was there from the foundation of the republic, as far as Jefferson intended.

The text of the law is here: http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/vaact.html

There is another important error in your posting, at least according to the Fox News Story you linked. The teacher wasn't fired. He was required to submit his lesson plans to the principal, and a lesson plan that included the Declaration of Independence was not approved.

Henry, I would love to agree with you on your comments about my dismissing all liberals, etc, however it's not the same. Liberalism, as an ideology, is completely opposed to my way of life and my freedom to exercise my religious rights. The fact that you may not agree with liberalism doesn't mean I'm not right, it just means you're not as liberal as you thought, or hoped, or whatever.

It is a much greater problem than your research would have you believe, and I know I don't need to tell you that the internet isn't the end-all-be-all of research engines. You'd have to do a very thorough search of various national and regional papers. It would take you months, most likely. Just believe me. I've been a Christian most of my life, so consequently I'm pretty involved and knowledgeable about the things concerning my faith and community. I've even written articles published in national papers about the attempted oppression of Christian history, symbols, you name it.

As far as the landslide comment, I'm not taking it back (mostly because I've gotten such a huge reaction from it) but also because it was a landslide compared to the last election and tremendous gains were got by the Republican party. It was a landslide in the very way that it showed the blue areas in the country that conservative America, the red states, isn't going to sit back and take their propoganda and constant attempts to undermine our administration. I'm not taking it back.

And as far as you talking about me ignoring reality, etc, I could say the same about you and your beliefs, which I find far more dangerous and unfounded as my simple and completely benign comment.

Ziggy, this post is getting to long too deal with your comments. The separation of church and state has been set up as a means of keeping the United States government from endorsing or prohibiting any particular religion or religious practice. Singing Christmas carols is hardly an endorsement, by the US gov't at that. (Though I would say that prohibiting them from being sung is a violation of that statute, so maybe you are right, just not in the way you'd like to be.) It's participation in a tradition that this country has been a part of for centuries. And they have no problem singing about Jewish or fake African holidays, but Christmas is not allowed. Again, hypocrisy.

Okay, enough for now. I'll let you all comment.

For those who believe there is no wave of anti-Christian sentiment, go to aclj.org and thomasmore.org; these are two conservative legal organizations (counter to the ACLU) who spend 24/7 defending the rights of Christians.

Garrison Keillor in his radio address just after the election, said, "I am now the chairman of the movement to pass a constitutional amendment to take away the right of born-again Christians to vote." His reasoning: since Christians believe their citizenship to be in heaven, they have no more right to vote here than a Canadian. His comments may have been intended to be funny, but nonetheless, one does not make comments (funny or not)about taking someone else's rights away.

Did Zach really point out to you the error in your posting yesterday morning? It seems like a strange coincidence that your erratum posting followed your reply to me by 27 minutes, yet bore no relation to my posting. Perhaps you knew about it but did not choose to print the erratum until I observed the error? Your corrected version is still erroneous, as Williams was not prohibited from using the Declaration of Independence altogether, but from using a particular lesson plan that included the Declaration of Independence.

Yes, Ziggy, Zach beat you to it. I go to school with him, and promptly after our 10 a.m. class, he informed me of my mistake. I think that's got your 6:25 p.m. post by just a few hours. Maybe I should remind you too, not everything is inspired by you. :) I'm sorry to disappoint you.

And, I don't see why your last sentence even matters. Either way, he was prohibited from using the Declaration of Independence, and that's absurd. I don't care if it was situational or across the board. That should never happen.

Oh, and one more thing, I have seen Fahrenheit 9/11, and I firmly stand behind all of my previous statements, perhaps to a greater extent now. Having seen it, I can undoubtedly say that I think it was anti-troops. It was anti-everything-conservative and had absolutely no real thesis to it other than "I'm a morbidly obese, ugly, bitter, super wealthy man who hates President George W. Bush." A conservative friend of mine asked me what the main point of the movie was, and I realized that it didn't have one other than to say he hated Bush and everything he stood for and has decided. And that's just a little sliver of what I really think.

Okay, so two more things really. I find it funny that you decided to pick out my use of the word "landslide" as an inadequate description of what occured on Nov 2. However, on your site, you describe me as "benighted" which could not be further from the truth, and you use "hyper-nationalist" as though it's a bad thing. :) So much for semantic integrity. One word is inaccurate, the other confused.

I'm glad to hear you saw the movie. You don't have to like it, but you should watch it if you are going to write about it. And as for the error about the teacher, I'm persuaded that Zach pointed it out to you in the morning.

[Henry, I would love to agree with you on your comments about my dismissing all liberals, etc, however it's not the same. Liberalism, as an ideology, is completely opposed to my way of life and my freedom to exercise my religious rights. The fact that you may not agree with liberalism doesn't mean I'm not right, it just means you're not as liberal as you thought, or hoped, or whatever.]

Or whatever, or not. My comments didn't involve anything about you dismissing all liberals. My comments involved you condemning all left-leaning Americans as radicals who would be stupid enough to suffocate free speech by trying to get words like "God" and "Christmas" banned from schools. You don't seem to get that the people who are stupid enough to try to ban the use of the words "God" or "Christmas" from schools aren't the average liberal, blue-state Americans. The average blue-state, Democratic American isn't as radical as you make him/her out to be. Many of these stories may have been documented over time, but that doesn't mean it's a widespread disease. They're controversial stories, so of course they're going to be reported. It may be that these cases are occurring more often, I won't deny or doubt that; that does not mean that these cases are occurring in large numbers, however. All across the country, perhaps. But not in overwhelming numbers. Not all Democrats in this country are that stupid, as much as you seem to like to pretend that's the case.

[You don't hear about it because the MSM doesn't care.]

I guess ABC News isn't part of the "MSM," then? I saw this story on World News Tonight with Peter Jennings last night. Check it out.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Vote2004/story?id=308996&page=1

[As far as the landslide comment, I'm not taking it back (mostly because I've gotten such a huge reaction from it)]

Of course! That IS the intelligent thing to do. People cry out against a gross misuse of language... so naturally you will not show grace or humility by admitting your error. But wait, what's that? That's not your only reason? Fair enough...

[but also because it was a landslide compared to the last election and tremendous gains were got by the Republican party. It was a landslide in the very way that it showed the blue areas in the country that conservative America, the red states, isn't going to sit back and take their propoganda and constant attempts to undermine our administration. I'm not taking it back.

The definition of landslide isn't "showing the blue areas in the country that conservative America, the red states, isn't going to sit back and take their propaganda and constant attempts to undermine our administration." If it was, though, you'd be covered.

And this election wasn't a landslide compared to the last election. President Bush went from losing the popular vote by .51% to winning it by 2.4%. That's a net change of 2.91% In other words, the difference between these two elections was less than 3 percent. Last I checked, that wasn't a landslide. Also, keep in mind the fact that approximately 16.6 million more people voted in this election. In other words, 8.4 million more people voted for John Kerry in this election than voted for President Bush in the last election. That's a lot more people than the 2.91% net change that President Bush experienced in his favor.

Finally, President Bush won this election by just over 3 million votes (3,029,411, if my math is right), not 4, as one of your more recent posts says, and not 3.6, as one of your November posts says. I'm sure you were just rounding off, but in school I'm usually told to round to the closest number, not to some arbitrary number that, while being farther away, is more impressive and suits my needs more nicely.

Note: These numbers were taken/calculated from Wikipedia.

[And they have no problem singing about Jewish or fake African holidays, but Christmas is not allowed. Again, hypocrisy.]

I refer you to this story: http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/3975866/detail.html

Not about singing, but interesting nonetheless, I'm guessing you'll agree.

Henry,

I thank you for your first link. In response, here's a link of my own:
http://www.rightmarch.com/120204.htm

As for your second link, It proves our point to an extreme degree: Politicians would rather not celebrate any holidays, period.

I would love to see a compromise in that case. And, on the same token, i would love for them to put a christmas tree right next to the Minorah. But, if we don't see any Christmas related decorations next to the Minorah, then that's just another statistic of how the liberal politicians are trying to keep Christ and Christmas out of the holidays.

Peter, forgive me if this is just a case of me being dense, but how is that link related to anything we've been discussing?

[As for your second link, It proves our point to an extreme degree: Politicians would rather not celebrate any holidays, period.]

I don't know who "our" is when you refer to "our point," since Emily's original post asked her loyal lefties "how exactly does it make America any better. . . to cut out all references to the one holiday that makes this season what it is? Why is it dangerous for people to 1. know that the "holiday" in question is Christmas, and 2. to know the meaning behind the Christmas holiday?" Nowhere in her post did she try to prove an opinion that "politicians would rather not celebrate any holidays, period." Nowhere in your previous posts, Peter, did you discuss politicians. You discussed anti-christian sentiments, the mainstream media, and how you think the two relate. You didn't talk about politicians being anti-all types of religion, as far as I can see.

Frankly, this smells of position-switching to me. Or, to put it another way, flip-flopping.

[I would love to see a compromise in that case. And, on the same token, i would love for them to put a christmas tree right next to the Minorah.]

Considering that "[the rabbi] threatened to sue, citing a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the menorah had a secular element, much like a Christmas tree," I would imagine that a Christmas tree would be allowed if a Menorah was allowed. If the compromise goes through, and the Menorah is allowed for one night, perhaps a Christmas tree will also be allowed for one night.

Henry,

I must apologize for not clarifying: Anti-Christian and Anti-Christmas Sentiments go hand in hand. if you drop the "-ian" and the "-mas", what do you get? "Anti-Christ".

[I don't know who "our" is when you refer to "our point," since Emily's original post asked her loyal lefties "how exactly does it make America any better. . . to cut out all references to the one holiday that makes this season what it is? Why is it dangerous for people to 1. know that the "holiday" in question is Christmas, and 2. to know the meaning behind the Christmas holiday?" Nowhere in her post did she try to prove an opinion that "politicians would rather not celebrate any holidays, period." Nowhere in your previous posts, Peter, did you discuss politicians. You discussed anti-christian sentiments, the mainstream media, and how you think the two relate. You didn't talk about politicians being anti-all types of religion, as far as I can see.]

I never discussed polititians because i just didn't discuss them. In no way does that mean that they are not relevant to the argument. Again, just because something is not visible on the surface, doesn't mean it's not there. I admit the remark about politicians is a little vauge. It's meaning: In order to not offend any party, be they christian, jewish, muslim, atheist, or agnostic, the Politicians would rather not "endorse" any holiday that is supported by any religion. Better?

This thread is about Anti-Christian/Anti-God sentiments, and how such sentiments are being endorsed by the liberal left(politicians) and the ACLU....especially the ACLU. Disallowing any form of religious holiday activity is a part of that.

I hate to disappoint you, Henry, but i highly doubt that this local gov't will allow a christmas tree next to the Minorah. I doubt that this Rabbi would allow such displays, either. And if it outrages the Jews, it won't be allowed.

[Peter, forgive me if this is just a case of me being dense, but how is that link related to anything we've been discussing?]

Maybe the site changed their homepage, but that was a link to a site with more than just two examples of how the word Christmas, and any other words/traditions associated with it are being supressed by the ACLU and the liberal left. here is, hopefully, a working link to the information i tried to provide eariler: http://capwiz.com/sicminc/issues/alert/?alertid=6733761&type=CU

there we go