Conservatives Are Trying to Put Religion Back Into the Christmas Season

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gilliam

Guest
**By Allen G. Breed
Associated Press Writer

Emboldened by their Election Day successes, some Christian conservatives around the country are trying to put more Christ into Christmas this season. **

In Terrebonne Parish, La., an organization is petitioning to add “Merry Christmas” to the red-lighted “Seasons Greetings” sign on the main government building and is selling yard signs that read, “We believe in God. Merry Christmas.” And a Raleigh, N.C., church recently paid $7,600 for a full-page newspaper ad urging Christians to spend their money only with merchants who include the greeting “Merry Christmas” in ads and displays.

“There is a revival taking place in our nation that is causing Christian and right-minded people to say, ‘Wait a minute. We’ve gone too far,’” says the Rev. Patrick Wooden Sr., pastor of the Raleigh church. “We’re not going to allow the country to continue this downward spiral to the left.”

In California, a group called the Committee to Save Merry Christmas is boycotting Macy’s and its corporate parent, Federated Department Stores, accusing them of replacing “Merry Christmas” signs with ones wishing shoppers “Seasons Greetings” or “Happy Holidays.” The organization cites “the recent presidential election showing political correctness is offending millions of Americans.”

(Federated, for its part, says that is has no ban on such greetings and that its store divisions can advertise as they see fit and store clerks are free to wish any customer “Merry Christmas.” Macy’s says its ads commonly use the phrase.)

The push from the religious right troubles Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

“This mixing of secular and religious symbols ought to be seen as a bad thing, not a good thing, for Christian believers,” he says. “Unfortunately, some of the Christian pressure groups seem to have it backwards.” He adds: “I think it’s fair to say it’s a mistaken notion that they have a mandate to put more nativity scenes up because George Bush was elected.”

The battle over the manger on the city hall lawn is nothing new. People expect the annual tussle over the separation of church and state.

But the “keep the Christ in Christmas” contingent is particularly agitated this year over what its members see as a troubling trend on Main Street: Target stores banning Salvation Army bell ringers; UPS drivers complaining to a free-speech group that they have been told not to wish people a “Merry Christmas” (an accusation UPS denies as “silly on its face and just not true”); and major corporations barring religious music from cubicles and renaming the office Christmas bash the “end of the year” party.

“I think it is part of a growing movement of people with more traditional values, which make up the majority of people in this country, saying enough is enough,” says Greg Scott, a spokesman for the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund. “Ninety-six percent of us here in America celebrate Christmas.”

Amid stories of schools banning the singing of carols on buses, Scott’s group has distributed to more than 5,000 schools a seven-point legal primer citing 40 years of case law that says it is OK to mention Christmas in public places. And the group has about 800 lawyers waiting in the wings in case that notion needs to be reinforced.

To that same end, the Virginia-based Rutherford Institute, which says it received the UPS driver complaints, has reissued its “12 Rules of Christmas” guide to celebrating the birth of Jesus.

“I think the businesses and the schools have just gone too far; this is the final straw,” says Institute president John W. Whitehead. “It’s supposed to be a time of, what, peace and freedom and fun. And they’ve kind of made it into a secular … kind of gray day.”

Conservative radio and TV talk show hosts have chortled over some recent incidents of what they consider political correctness run amok.

In Kansas, The Wichita Eagle ran a correction for a notice that mistakenly referred to the Community Tree at the Winterfest celebration as a “Christmas Tree.” And the mayor of Somerville, Mass., apologized after a news release mistakenly referred to the Dec. 21 City Holiday Party as a “Christmas Party.”

But to many, the threats and demands that stores put up “Merry Christmas” signs are no laughing matter.

“Why not simply require stores owned by Jews to put a gold star in their ads and on their storefronts?” the Rev. Jim Melnyk, associate rector of St. Mark’s Episcopal Church in Raleigh, wrote in a letter to the editor.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Allen G. Breed is the AP’s Southeast regional writer, based in Raleigh, N.C. AP writer Janet McConnaughey in New Orleans contributed to this report. AP-ES-12-14-04 1435EST

This story can be found at: ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBJHI8HQ2E.html
 
Good for them. Why is it that Christians are asked to be tolerant of other religions, but other religions are not tolerant of Christianity? There was a post on here earlier about Muslims in Italy being offended by a Christmas play. What if Christians were to say to them not to celebrate Ramadaan because it’s offensive toward us? I don’t get it. I think it has to do with people be insecure. For example, I am not offended when I see a star of David because I am comfortable being a Catholic. It’s good to see that we are not remaining silent anymore. Thanks for the article.
 
Thank God for our brother and sister Protestants. Where are the Catholics standing up?
 
40.png
Brad:
Thank God for our brother and sister Protestants. Where are the Catholics standing up?
Here
 
Marie said:

Oh certainly - Thomas Moore is a great organization, as is the Catholic League. What I mean though are grass roots, parish based groups of individuals that stand up and run with a protest. I’ve suggested several at my parish and many look at me like I came from Mars.
 
I think there are a number of issues being oversimplified here into the push to “put religion back into Christmas”…

It is perfectly reasonable that an individual or a private business say “Christmas” all they want - I support freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Paint the 10 commandments on your house, write Merry Christmas across your store, say Merry Christmas to everyone you meet, go for it!

I do not think it is reasonable that public money be used to support the holiday of a specific religion - no matter which religion it is. Since numerous religions have holidays at this time of year and there are non-religious holidays also (New Year’s) it is appropriate for the “state” to spend “everyone’s” money on general holiday items. But to think that Christ should be openly emphasized by the state is a dangerous path I don’t want to go down and one I don’t want my money going down. There was a time when Catholicism and the state were one - it was called the Dark Ages.

Pat
 
40.png
patg:
I think there are a number of issues being oversimplified here into the push to “put religion back into Christmas”…
Do I misunderstand your position - you wish the Federal Holiday to be removed from the roster? And you I think (from another thread) don’t believe the “story” of Christmas as biblically stated? Or have I failed to comprehend you correctly?
 
40.png
patg:
I think there are a number of issues being oversimplified here into the push to “put religion back into Christmas”…

It is perfectly reasonable that an individual or a private business say “Christmas” all they want - I support freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Paint the 10 commandments on your house, write Merry Christmas across your store, say Merry Christmas to everyone you meet, go for it!

I do not think it is reasonable that public money be used to support the holiday of a specific religion - no matter which religion it is. Since numerous religions have holidays at this time of year and there are non-religious holidays also (New Year’s) it is appropriate for the “state” to spend “everyone’s” money on general holiday items. But to think that Christ should be openly emphasized by the state is a dangerous path I don’t want to go down and one I don’t want my money going down. There was a time when Catholicism and the state were one - it was called the Dark Ages.

Pat
You can go to the ACLU thread if you want extensive discussion regarding this topic.

If you think thar promoting Christ is a dangerous path, you do not understand Christianity.

Your dark ages comment is full of poor historical scholarship regarding that time. Give me a specific problem and we can address it but don’t give me this “The Church was this Evil Monster back in the Middle Ages” garble. I hear enough of that from my favorite Jesus Seminar pastor who follows the strategy that if enough people vote that Jesus didn’t say something then He didn’t and if enough people say that the Church was a big evil monster in the Middle Ages, then it was. That, my friend, is oversimplistic.

You are going to have to come up with a better argument as to why our tax dollars cannot support government land nativity scenes considering our tax dollars support faith-based organizations of every faith, including academic scholarships, soup kitchens, and small business funding AND that our country was founded by Christians.
 
40.png
StratusRose:
Good for them. Why is it that Christians are asked to be tolerant of other religions, but other religions are not tolerant of Christianity? There was a post on here earlier about Muslims in Italy being offended by a Christmas play. What if Christians were to say to them not to celebrate Ramadaan because it’s offensive toward us? I don’t get it. I think it has to do with people be insecure. For example, I am not offended when I see a star of David because I am comfortable being a Catholic. It’s good to see that we are not remaining silent anymore. Thanks for the article.
I agree 100%. I am sick and tired of certain groups being “offended” by christian practices. We’re supposed to change everything just to keep offending a few. I am an older person, and I can remember when we had religious education in school, and prayed the Lord’s prayer every morning before classes. The area was mostly protestant, so we used the protestant version, but I wasn’t offended. If anybody tried this today, the ACLU would have a lawsuit pending faster than you could say Amen. Ahh, for the good old days when we had values. Merry Christmas!
 
gilliam said:
**
By Allen G. Breed
Associated Press Writer

<-----------
The push from the religious right troubles Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
----------->

**

Best news I have heard today. Lets quit pushing and start shoving!
 
40.png
Brad:
If you think thar promoting Christ is a dangerous path, you do not understand Christianity.
I think that the state promoting any religion is a dangerous path. If you don’t think so, you do not understand history, past or present.
Your dark ages comment is full of poor historical scholarship regarding that time.
Your “country was founded by Christians” comment is full of poor historical scholarship regarding that time.
I hear enough of that from my favorite Jesus Seminar pastor who follows the strategy that if enough people vote that Jesus didn’t say something then He didn’t and if enough people say that the Church was a big evil monster in the Middle Ages, then it was. That, my friend, is oversimplistic.
Obviously you have a naive, oversimplistic view of the Jesus Seminar.
You are going to have to come up with a better argument as to why our tax dollars cannot support government land nativity scenes considering our tax dollars support faith-based organizations of every faith, including academic scholarships, soup kitchens, and small business funding AND that our country was founded by Christians.
You are going to have to come up with a better argument than this as to why the state should sponsor specific religious activities. There is a big difference between helping organizations help people and helping an organization promote its religious symbols. I support the ACLU and the Church - they are both very important.
 
I think the State should force everyone to attend Mass on Christmas day. How grand that would be! Imagine, 250 million plus people praising our God’s name on the same day! And if they don’t believe in our God, then surely making them attend our services would change their mind! Because our God is the one true God, and if people don’t want to believe in Him, then we need to make them! That would really put the “Christ” back in Christmas.
 
40.png
patg:
I think that the state promoting any religion is a dangerous path. If you don’t think so, you do not understand history, past or present.
Your “country was founded by Christians” comment is full of poor historical scholarship regarding that time.
Obviously you have a naive, oversimplistic view of the Jesus Seminar.

You are going to have to come up with a better argument than this as to why the state should sponsor specific religious activities. There is a big difference between helping organizations help people and helping an organization promote its religious symbols. I support the ACLU and the Church - they are both very important.
IMO supporting the ACLU and The Catholic Church is like supporting Communism and free enterprise, it can’t be done.
 
40.png
patg:
I think that the state promoting any religion is a dangerous path. If you don’t think so, you do not understand history, past or present.
Rather than make blind accusations, give me one single example where the proper mainfestation of Christianity by a government resulted in danger for anyone.
40.png
patg:
Your “country was founded by Christians” comment is full of poor historical scholarship regarding that time.
"a 1799 court declared: ’ By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed on the same equal footing.’

“the words ‘separation’, ‘church’, or ‘state’ are not found in the First Ammendment, nor in any other founding document.”

From a Congressional House report in 1854: “At time of the adoption of the Constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged but not any one sect (denomination)… In this age, there is no substitute for Christianity… That was the religion of the founders of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants.”

From the Senate Judiciary Committe in the same year: “The great, vital, and conservative elements in our system (the thing that holds the American system together) is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and divine truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”

The US Supreme Court building has a sculpture of Moses delivering the 10 commandments.

Thomas Jefferson used government funds to start churches.

Joseph Story, Supreme Courts Justice in the early 1800s said:
“The real object of the First Ammendments was not to cuntenance, much less to advance, Mahometanism or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects.”

More than half of the founding fathers had seminary degrees. All but three were verifiable Christians. The 3 that were not believed in a higher power and many of the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Go back to school.
40.png
patg:
Obviously you have a naive, oversimplistic view of the Jesus Seminar.
It’s much less naive than you probably wish. Voting on what Jesus really said? God doesn’t choose to act supernaturally in the natural? The Gospels are streams of tradition? Please. This is scholarship? About as much as my design of a paper airplane is scholarship regarding creating fighter jets. I’ve heard Dr. Crossan’s debates. If I’m naive then he didn’t do a very good job. He is convincing only to those that want to make up their own gospel but not to those that want to find truth.
40.png
patg:
You are going to have to come up with a better argument than this as to why the state should sponsor specific religious activities. There is a big difference between helping organizations help people and helping an organization promote its religious symbols.
Saying Merry Christmas, singing Christmas carols, praying, having a student Bible study are not activities that establish a national religion (prohibited by the 1st Ammendment) but the prohibition of such activities is prohibition of the free exercise of religion (violation the same 1st Ammendment). Your position (and the ACLU’s position) violates the 1st Ammendment. My position encourage the general welfare of our country. In other words, it helps people. I’m not ashamed to say Christianity helps people.
40.png
patg:
I support the ACLU and the Church - they are both very important.
They are both very important. The latter lifts up, strengthens and IS the Body of Christ. The former tries to destroy the Body of Christ. The former will fail.
 
but the prohibition of such activities is prohibition of the free exercise of religion (violation the same 1st Ammendment).
This type of statement is exactly what drives me to support the ACLU. No one and no organization prohibits or tries to prohibit YOU from freely exercising any religion you want any time you want - what don’t you understand about this? The ACLU fully supports and helps protect your right to do this!!!
Your position (and the ACLU’s position) violates the 1st Ammendment.
This makes no sense whatsoever - I must assume that you don’t want freedom of religion, you want the freedom to use the government and its tax money to promote your religion. You talk like you are interested in our tax money being used to help the poor and other charitable acts - as if these actions are only the concerns of Catholics. But then you just happen to tack on tax supported nativity displays, holidays, decorations, bible studies… I’m sure you agree that wiccans and moslems deserve the same amount of money and support.
They are both very important. The latter lifts up, strengthens and IS the Body of Christ. The former tries to destroy the Body of Christ. The former will fail.
If it does, we all fail because we will lose all out freedoms. Destroy the Body of Christ??? Talk about mindless propaganda! Fighting for everyone’s right to worship is not going to destroy anything worth having.
 
40.png
patg:
I think there are a number of issues being oversimplified here into the push to “put religion back into Christmas”…

It is perfectly reasonable that an individual or a private business say “Christmas” all they want - I support freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Paint the 10 commandments on your house, write Merry Christmas across your store, say Merry Christmas to everyone you meet, go for it!

I do not think it is reasonable that public money be used to support the holiday of a specific religion - no matter which religion it is. Since numerous religions have holidays at this time of year and there are non-religious holidays also (New Year’s) it is appropriate for the “state” to spend “everyone’s” money on general holiday items. But to think that Christ should be openly emphasized by the state is a dangerous path I don’t want to go down and one I don’t want my money going down. There was a time when Catholicism and the state were one - it was called the Dark Ages.

Pat
And there was a time after the Dark Ages which saw a reival of the arts and education; and amazingly, it was in a great part supported by and driven by the Catholic Church. Your veiled implication about the connection between the Church and the Dark Ages belies a myopic view of history. Check out the influence, in particular, of the Irish monks…
 
40.png
patg:
I think that the state promoting any religion is a dangerous path. If you don’t think so, you do not understand history, past or present.
Oh, I understand it all right. I just refuse to look at history through the warped glasses that the ACLU wears. There is a world of difference between the words “promoting” and “acknowledging”. This country was founded by Christians, on Christian principles. Acknowledging that is not “promoting”.
40.png
patg:
Your “country was founded by Christians” comment is full of poor historical scholarship regarding that time.{/QUOTE] No, yours is selective to the extreme.
40.png
patg:
Obviously you have a naive, oversimplistic view of the Jesus Seminar.
Anything but. They are a small - no, let me say it accurately - extremely small group of liberal to very liberal individuals who claim scholarship for their ideas; scholarship that is laughingly poor. Their backgrounds are almost exclusively from the old, mainline liberal Protestant traditions, with the exception of a couple of Catholics who are acknowledged within the Catholic Church to not represent Catholic thinking.
40.png
patg:
There is a big difference between helping organizations help people and helping an organization promote its religious symbols. I support the ACLU and the Church - they are both very important.
The Church doesn’t need the state’s “help” 'promoting" its religious symbols. There are precious few individuals around who don’t understand what the symbols mean; there is no promotion to be done. A monument of a hero doesn’t “promote” courage. It acknowledges it. A creche scene doesn’t “promote” Christianity; it acknowledges it (and by the way, at last count, Christianity was still the clear majority). The recent monument in Portland, Oregon to victims of the Holocaust doesn’t “promote” Judaism; it acknowledges it.

Next, you’ll want to say that the Church should have no say over issues of a political nature, as the Church is supposed to be a private issue. Private my backside; the majority of political issues discussed have a moral component. Why is it the Liberal Left had no complaints when churches joined in the Civil Rights Protests, but now cry aloud over any comments about abortion? It is very simple; they pick and choose what they want to hear from the Church.
 
The push from the religious right troubles Barry Lynn
👍 Yea!
Thank God for our brother and sister Protestants. Where are the Catholics standing up?
We’ve been doing it for years… kofc.org/officers/programs/materials/christmas.cfm
I do not think it is reasonable that public money be used to support the holiday of a specific religion - no matter which religion it is. Since numerous religions have holidays at this time of year and there are non-religious holidays also (New Year’s) it is appropriate for the “state” to spend “everyone’s” money on general holiday items.
  1. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.
  2. This shows a common misunderstanding of the 1st Amendment - it is to protect our religious practices from government interference and to prevent a Church-state. Having Christmas symbols or the Ten Commandments in a government building is not the establishment of a religion…it’s the expression of the religion of the majority in our country (that would be Christian). The “wall of seperation” is not in the Constitution.
  3. It’s our money. If the majority makes a big outcry against the use of the money for holidays, then we shouldn’t do it. Since it’s really a small, though loud, group of humbuggers, we can ignore it. If a minority group (I don’t mean race) in the community asks for a representation of their holiday as well, I think most people in the majority are fine with that, as long as it is a positive affirmation (spare us the athiest, anti-religious messages some have insisted on, they are just as wrong as KKK and skinhead slogans).
  4. Re-read Brad’s post…visit the Capitol and observe the biblical quotes. Take a look at your money!
God Bless and Merry Christmas,

Robert.
 
40.png
sbcoral:
I think the State should force everyone to attend Mass on Christmas day. How grand that would be! Imagine, 250 million plus people praising our God’s name on the same day! And if they don’t believe in our God, then surely making them attend our services would change their mind! Because our God is the one true God, and if people don’t want to believe in Him, then we need to make them! That would really put the “Christ” back in Christmas.
If you push any harder, your tongue is going to go right through your cheek…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top