# Resolved: Christmas should be rescinded as a national holiday in the U.S. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 1, 2005, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-christmas-should-be-rescinded-as-a-national-holiday-in-the-u-s/333553 "2005-12-01T14:31:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2005, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-christmas-should-be-rescinded-as-a-national-holiday-in-the-u-s/333553/121 "2005-12-02T19:07:19Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > That’s a good point. But my argument would be… I take that back. I don’t think I’d make that argument within the scope of this debate, because I do believe that both aspects exist under the aegis of “Christmas,” currently. I do think it can lead to confusion, but again, certainly not enough to matter to me. So, Daniel, I think your last point was a good one. I don’t entirely agree, but I don’t want to carry the debate off into another direction–where I think it would have to go to frame my argument. Thanks for the viewpoint. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2005, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-christmas-should-be-rescinded-as-a-national-holiday-in-the-u-s/333553/122 "2005-12-02T19:11:01Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > So, Daniel, I think your last point was a good one. I don’t entirely agree, but I don’t want to carry the debate off into another direction–where I think it would have to go to frame my argument. Thanks for the viewpoint. Sure, and likewise thanks! As I mentioned, I’m definitely a secular leftist: I’d like to see “In God We Trust” removed from money, for example. But this is a case that I think doesn’t constitute any government establishment of religion: I’m also a grammatical descriptivist, which figures into things :). Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2005, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-christmas-should-be-rescinded-as-a-national-holiday-in-the-u-s/333553/123 "2005-12-02T19:15:47Z")
> [@Psycho Pirate](#): > > Well, I’m not **Shodan** , but perhaps he is referring to the 3rd bullet in "Other Concerns"I personally fail to see how a person having voluntary sessions of prayer and Bible study blurs the line between separation of church and state. Granted, this doesn’t really fit your definition of the ACLU abridging Ashcroft’s right to carry out these activities, but the fact that they find such mundane activities as a “concern” is a little troubling to me. Why? The DOJ is not Ashcroft’s personal church. It’s a state building intended to do state business. The taxpayers were not paying for Ashcroft to lead Bible study lessons. Ashcroft was free to practice his religion however and whenever he wanted to privately, but when he was acting in an official capacity as AG he needed to put a lid on it. The fact that this is the best anyone can do to try to cite an example of the ACLU being “anti-religious” only makes my point for me. Being a watchdog on Establishment issues does not equal being “anti-religious.” ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2005, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-christmas-should-be-rescinded-as-a-national-holiday-in-the-u-s/333553/124 "2005-12-02T19:56:04Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > :sigh: > > We’ve already gone over this. > > It’s a lot easier to type “Christmas should be banned” than it is to type “Christmas should be banned in official state language”. It’s clear that we both know this. Why cover this ground again? Because it’s emotionally charged rhetoric that is completely inaccurate to boot. I know the Right Wingers love to change the definitions of words to suit their own needs, but nothing is being “banned” by this proposal. Was the holiday known as Washington’s Birthday “banned” when the name was changed to President’s day? ---
**Author:** ![Psycho\_Pirate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Psycho\_Pirate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Psycho_Pirate)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2005, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-christmas-should-be-rescinded-as-a-national-holiday-in-the-u-s/333553/125 "2005-12-02T20:23:32Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Why? The DOJ is not Ashcroft’s personal church. It’s a state building intended to do state business. The taxpayers were not paying for Ashcroft to lead Bible study lessons. Ashcroft was free to practice his religion however and whenever he wanted to privately, but when he was acting in an official capacity as AG he needed to put a lid on it. Well, nobody claimed (especially Ashcroft) that the DOJ was his personal church. But if, on his own time, Ashcroft wants to lead voluntary Bible studies, that is none of my, your, or anyone else’s business. He is freely exercising his religion, a right he is guaranteed by the consititution. It is also guaranteed by [guidance](http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/New/html/19970819-3275.html) from the Clinton White House on religious exercise and expression in the federal workplace. I’ll quote the relevant portions for you. > [@](#): > > C. Accommodation of Religious Exercise. Federal law requires an agency to accommodate employees’ exercise of their religion unless such accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the conduct of the agency’s operations. Though an agency need not make an accommodation that will result in more than a de minimis cost to the agency, that cost or hardship nevertheless must be real rather than speculative or hypothetical: the accommodation should be made unless it would cause an actual cost to the agency or to other employees or an actual disruption of work, or unless it is otherwise barred by law. > [@](#): > > (d) During lunch, certain employees gather on their own time for prayer and Bible study in an empty conference room that employees are generally free to use on a first-come, first-served basis. Such a gathering may not be subject to discriminatory restrictions because of its religious content. Thus, he most certainly does not need to “put a lid on it”. That would abridge his free exercise right. Also, why do you say he was acting in an official capacity when he led these meetings? Do you have some kind of evidence to this effect? > [@](#): > > The fact that this is the best anyone can do to try to cite an example of the ACLU being “anti-religious” only makes my point for me. Being a watchdog on Establishment issues does not equal being “anti-religious.” Hold on. Nobody said that this is the best anyone can do to try to cite an example of the ACLU being “anti-religious”. My view is that the ACLU consistently has a bizarre and narrow view of the establishment clause. A student praying during a graduation ceremony is _not_ an establishment of religion: it is free speech. A prayer preceding a high school football game is _not_ an establishment of religion: it is free speech. If that makes some in the crowd uncomfortable, that is unfortunate, but the rights of the uncomfortable do not trump the rights of the comfortable. In both of these cases, nobody is being forced to pray. But the ACLU is against such free exercise of religion, instead characterizing it as a"school-sponsored religious event". I think they are wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2005, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-christmas-should-be-rescinded-as-a-national-holiday-in-the-u-s/333553/126 "2005-12-02T20:38:41Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > Because it’s emotionally charged rhetoric that is completely inaccurate to boot. No. It’s not. Read **DtC** ’s posts. It’s clear that he wants to **ban** the word Christmas from use by the government. As long as everybody understands the topic and the concept at hand, I don’t think it’s disingenuous at all to say that he wants the word “Christmas” banned. > [@](#): > > I know the Right Wingers love to change the definitions of words to suit their own needs, but nothing is being “banned” by this proposal. Well, I know that left wingers love to make up bullshit generalized accusations to at right wingers, but Diogenes is proposing to ban a word from use by the government. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2005, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-christmas-should-be-rescinded-as-a-national-holiday-in-the-u-s/333553/127 "2005-12-02T20:40:36Z")
> [@Psycho Pirate](#): > > Hold on. Nobody said that this is the best anyone can do to try to cite an example of the ACLU being “anti-religious”. My view is that the ACLU consistently has a bizarre and narrow view of the establishment clause. A student praying during a graduation ceremony is _not_ an establishment of religion: it is free speech. A prayer preceding a high school football game is _not_ an establishment of religion: it is free speech. If that makes some in the crowd uncomfortable, that is unfortunate, but the rights of the uncomfortable do not trump the rights of the comfortable. In both of these cases, nobody is being forced to pray. But the ACLU is against such free exercise of religion, instead characterizing it as a"school-sponsored religious event". I think they are wrong. Well said. I’d add one more sentance, though. In addition to being wrong, I think this makes them anti-religious. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2005, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-christmas-should-be-rescinded-as-a-national-holiday-in-the-u-s/333553/128 "2005-12-02T20:43:20Z")
> [@Psycho Pirate](#): > > Well, nobody claimed (especially Ashcroft) that the DOJ was his personal church. But if, on his own time, Ashcroft wants to lead voluntary Bible studies, that is none of my, your, or anyone else’s business. It’s questionable whether he had a right to commandeer DOJ conference rooms to lead Bible studies and many employees said they felt they were being subtly pressured into going along with it. In any case, the ACLU made no attempt to stop it. They only complained that Ashcroft was “blurring the line” between church and state. So even if Ashcroft wasn’t doing anything wrong (questionable), it still wouldn’t represent an example of the ACLU trying to abridge anyone’s religious freedom since they didn’t try to prevent it from happening. > [@](#): > > Hold on. Nobody said that this is the best anyone can do to try to cite an example of the ACLU being “anti-religious”. My view is that the ACLU consistently has a bizarre and narrow view of the establishment clause. A student praying during a graduation ceremony is _not_ an establishment of religion: it is free speech. A prayer preceding a high school football game is _not_ an establishment of religion: it is free speech. If that makes some in the crowd uncomfortable, that is unfortunate, but the rights of the uncomfortable do not trump the rights of the comfortable. In both of these cases, nobody is being forced to pray. But the ACLU is against such free exercise of religion, instead characterizing it as a"school-sponsored religious event". I think they are wrong. In both cases, state equipment is being commandeered to preach a proselytizing message at a hostage audience during a public event. You are simply wrong about the meaning of the Establishment Clause. You can pray at football games all you want, but you don’t have a right for me to pay for your microphone and you don’t have a right to make me listen to it. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2005, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-christmas-should-be-rescinded-as-a-national-holiday-in-the-u-s/333553/129 "2005-12-02T20:44:24Z")
Ack! Well, I know that left wingers love to make up bullshit generalized accusations to **sling** at right wingers, but Diogenes is proposing to ban a word from use by the government. The word sling was definitely in there when I hit submit. I even previewed! The hampsters are eating specific words now! :eek: ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2005, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-christmas-should-be-rescinded-as-a-national-holiday-in-the-u-s/333553/130 "2005-12-02T20:50:43Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > No. It’s not. Read **DtC** ’s posts. It’s clear that he wants to **ban** the word Christmas from use by the government. As long as everybody understands the topic and the concept at hand, I don’t think it’s disingenuous at all to say that he wants the word “Christmas” banned. Correction. The US Constitution prevents the government from endorsing Christianity. I just want the government to observe the law that already exists. I’m not arguing that we should create a new on. And it’s disingenuous to pretend that most people would not read the word “ban” as applying to the public rather than the government. ---
**Author:** ![Psycho\_Pirate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Psycho\_Pirate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Psycho_Pirate)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2005, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-christmas-should-be-rescinded-as-a-national-holiday-in-the-u-s/333553/131 "2005-12-02T21:07:47Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > It’s questionable whether he had a right to commandeer DOJ conference rooms to lead Bible studies and many employees said they felt they were being subtly pressured into going along with it. No, it isn’t questionable; that is his right as a federal employee. He wasn’t “commandeering” the conference rooms, he was using them (really, he was only using his office or the adjacent conference room). And frankly, I could care less if some of the employees felt subtly pressured into going along with it. That’s assigning a motive that isn’t readily apparent. If Ashcroft was _forcing_ them to participate, then he would obviously be in the wrong. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > In any case, the ACLU made no attempt to stop it. They only complained that Ashcroft was “blurring the line” between church and state. So even if Ashcroft wasn’t doing anything wrong (questionable), it still wouldn’t represent an example of the ACLU trying to abridge anyone’s religious freedom since they didn’t try to prevent it from happening. Except for the fact that the ACLU finds it a matter of concern that a **legal** activity “blurs the line” between church and state. The ACLU is wrong. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > In both cases, state equipment is being commandeered to preach a proselytizing message at a hostage audience during a public event. You are simply wrong about the meaning of the Establishment Clause. You can pray at football games all you want, but you don’t have a right for me to pay for your microphone and you don’t have a right to make me listen to it. No, I am not wrong about the meaing of the Establishment Clause. I just have a different interpretation than you, the ACLU, and others. Nor am I alone in this interpretation. I fail to see how using a microphone to broadcast a prayer is “commandeering” state equipment. It’s _using_ the equipment. And I fail to see how a prayer for the safety of the players is “preach[ing] a proselytizing message”. I could understand, _almost_, if the ACLU stopped their argument at broadcasting prayers over the school’s PA system, but they are also against completely innocuous moments of silence. I think that is ludicrous. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2005, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-christmas-should-be-rescinded-as-a-national-holiday-in-the-u-s/333553/132 "2005-12-02T21:21:12Z")
> [@Psycho Pirate](#): > > No, it isn’t questionable; that is his right as a federal employee. He wasn’t “commandeering” the conference rooms, he was using them (really, he was only using his office or the adjacent conference room). And frankly, I could care less if some of the employees felt subtly pressured into going along with it. That’s assigning a motive that isn’t readily apparent. If Ashcroft was _forcing_ them to participate, then he would obviously be in the wrong.Except for the fact that the ACLU finds it a matter of concern that a **legal** activity “blurs the line” between church and state. The ACLU is wrong. The legality is questionable but the ACLU didn’t try to prevent it so it still does not count as an example of the ACLU trying to abridge religious freedoms, which is what I asked for. > [@](#): > > No, I am not wrong about the meaing of the Establishment Clause. I just have a different interpretation than you, the ACLU, and others. Nor am I alone in this interpretation. I fail to see how using a microphone to broadcast a prayer is “commandeering” state equipment. It’s _using_ the equipment. And I fail to see how a prayer for the safety of the players is “preach[ing] a proselytizing message”. Sorry. You are wrong on the law. You don’t have a right to hijack a publicly owned PA system to pray at me during a public event and state institutions cannot sponsor such hijacks. [So saith the Supreme Court](http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=12727) and that’s the end of it. Your issue is with SCOTUS, not with the ACLU. > [@](#): > > I could understand, _almost_ if the ACLU stopped their argument at broadcasting prayers over the school’s PA system, but they are also against completely innocuous moments of silence. I think that is ludicrous. Who’s stopping you from remaining silent? Be silent all you want. But you don’t have a right to make ME be silent. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2005, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-christmas-should-be-rescinded-as-a-national-holiday-in-the-u-s/333553/133 "2005-12-02T23:31:41Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > In an ideal world, you would get your head out of your ass. That doesn’t mean that you’re hurting anyone, except maybe yourself, by having your head in your ass. Even in this seriously imperfect world, you will not use this sort of imagery in **Great Debates**. Cool it. [/Modertor Mode] ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2005, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-christmas-should-be-rescinded-as-a-national-holiday-in-the-u-s/333553/134 "2005-12-03T01:00:50Z")
I really doubt anyone would or could, or even wants to abolish Christmas. It is religious enough now to satisfy REASONABLE christians, and secular enough to not offend REASONABLE atheists, agnostics, Wiccans, Buddhists and Hindus (and anyone I missed). If we look at it as a tradition, then cool. If we look at it as just “something that’s always been done”, cool. Why sould it matter if someone says “merry Christmas”, or “happy holidays”, or “glorious day when I get presents”? It’s a fake issue. It’s a non-issue. It is being pushed as a “war on Christmas” by the usual suspects/troublemakers such as Falwell, Roberston, and O’Reilly. There is no “war on Christmas” at all. It is just another attempt to push the “oppression of christians” fallacy, aggravate those who prefer to leave it be as it is, and stir up shit. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2005, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-christmas-should-be-rescinded-as-a-national-holiday-in-the-u-s/333553/135 "2005-12-03T01:32:52Z")
> [@SFGate](#): > > [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/11/20/MNGVDFRH081.DTL](http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/11/20/MNGVDFRH081.DTL) > > Falwell fighting for holy holiday > He’ll sue, boycott groups he sees as muzzling Christmas > > Sunday, November 20, 2005 > > Evangelical Christian pastor Jerry Falwell has a message for Americans when it comes to celebrating Christmas this year: You’re either with us, or you’re against us. > Falwell has put the power of his 24,000-member congregation behind the “Friend or Foe Christmas Campaign,” an effort led by the conservative legal organization Liberty Counsel. The group promises to file suit against anyone who spreads what it sees as misinformation about how Christmas can be celebrated in schools and public spaces. … > On his show last week, Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly offered a list of other retailers that he says refuse to use “Merry Christmas” in their store advertising. … > “This amped-up effort shows how these groups want to push into the classrooms more,” said Tami Holzman, assistant director of the Anti-Defamation League’s San Francisco office. > > “There is no war against Christmas,” said Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. “There is no jihad against Christians. There is nothing going on around Christmas except these groups’ incessant fundraising.” … > > “I don’t know where they’re coming from,” Target spokeswoman Carolyn Brookter replied. “We have no such policy on Christmas. You can see it in our stores.” > > At one local Target, in Colma, most of the in-store advertising offers a generic “Gatherround.” One of the few advertising mentions of the C-word is above a Christmas card rack that says, “Celebrate Christmas.” > > That’s not good enough for American Family Association President Tim Wildmon, who wants to see “Merry Christmas” signs displayed prominently “if they expect Christians to come in and buy products during this so-called season.” > > And he isn’t worried if they offend people who aren’t Christian. … > The ACLU and its supporters believe they’re being drawn into a make-believe war. They say they’ve fielded fewer holiday-season conflicts in recent years and that everybody seems to know the rules, except those trying to make a political point. In other words, this may be just a way to stir the shit pot and collect more money from the gullible faithful - Jesus shepherded his lambs, these guys shear them 😃 > [@Salon](#): > > [http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/11/21/christmas/index\_np.html](http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/11/21/christmas/index_np.html) > > How the secular humanist grinch didn’t steal Christmas > > The right-wing crusade against the liberal “war on Christmas” is great for rallying the troops. Too bad the war doesn’t exist. > > In 1959, the recently formed John Birch Society issued an urgent alert: Christmas was under attack. In a JBS pamphlet titled “THERE GOES CHRISTMAS?!,” a writer named Hubert Kregeloh warned, “One of the techniques now being applied by the Reds to weaken the pillar of religion in our country is the drive to take Christ out of Christmas – to denude the event of its religious meaning.” The central front in this perfidious assault was American department stores, where the “Godless UN” was scheming to replace religious decorations with internationalist celebrations of universal brotherhood. … > The John Birch Society was generally regarded as a crank, far-right outfit whose paranoid conspiracy theories (it believed fluoridated water was part of an evil Communist plot to poison America’s brains) put it outside the pale of reasonable discourse. Staffers on the ultra-right 1964 Barry Goldwater campaign tried to prevent Birchers from volunteering because they carried the taint of extremism. The John Birch Society didn’t have access to a major television network. But a lot has changed since then. So, this “death to Christmas” glurge isn’t even original. Now, on to the Prime Mover of this year’s effort. Take note how he himself says he decided to declare this “war”: > [@Jerry Falwell](#): > > When we began the Christmas season this year, we were all very much aware that a war was being waged by the Christmas grinches – the American Civil Liberties Union [ACLU], Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and other secularists, to steal Christmas from America. To not only take Christ out of Christmas, but to remove Christmas totally from the American scene. I am happy to announce today that we are winning the Christmas war. […] > > We have declared war on the left, and we’re going to sue the hide off of everybody, everybody, who tries to inhibit the liberties of our children and our families from worshipping and honoring the Lord, as we in America are constitutionally allowed to do. Sure, the constitution allows them to worship. It also says everyone else is allowed to worship their own way or not at all (nonestablishment and all that). On to the next rabble rouser, note his lie about the Christian country - it isn’t one and I have enough documentation to prove it. (Available upon request): > [@Pat Robertson](#): > > You know it’s an amazing thing – this is a Christian country, it’s founded by Christians, Christmas is one of our great celebrations. It’s been a time of joy for our people for many years, and not only us, but now they’re picking up Christmas in Japan, picking it up in China. It’s something that has blessed the world. And if people don’t like America and the traditions that made America great, let them go to Saudi Arabia, let them go to Pakistan. Yeah, they can go to the Sudan and find a wonderful Muslim holiday. Here’s a clue Pat. If you don’t like it, YOU can get out. Now to the NAZIs who are in the mix. (Hell no, I will NOT apologize fir using that word.) > [@William Donahue](#): > > Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It’s not a secret, OK? […] Hollywood likes anal sex. They like to see the public square without nativity scenes. Ummm OK, the guy is a fucking lunatic. Nothing more needs to be said. > [@David Duke](#): > > I recently picked up a newspaper and saw George Bush lighting a Jewish Menorah erected in the White House. I stopped for a moment and said to myself, "Somethings wrong with this picture. … Jewish writers define the Hanukkah celebration as one to encourage resistance to assimilation among Gentiles, a battle as vital today as the one that went on 2000 years ago. The word Hellenization is just a substitute word for Americanization. You see, everyone else in the world that comes to America is supposed to be quote, “Americanized,” everyone of course except the Jews. For them we are supposed to say isn’t it great that they want to maintain their separateness and not merge into the great melting of races and creeds in America! Of course melting pots aren’t always what they are cracked up to be. Problem with melting pots is that the bottom often gets burned and the scum usually rises to the top. … In truth the double standards that we witness every day in our nation reveal the extent of Jewish power and influence over our media, government and culture. […] Unless that Jewish-supremacist power over America is broken our heritage and freedom will not survive. Gee. If the Jews are so scary and evil, we better scrap Christmas fast. Jesus was a Jew. So, to all those who want to keep the “war on Christmas” going, and want to scream about “christian persecution” and evil secularization, then you’d damn well better look at the “interesting” people you are siding up with. Crackpots, racists and Nazis. There’s that darn N word (nazi) again. ---
**Author:** ![Psycho\_Pirate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Psycho\_Pirate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Psycho_Pirate)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2005, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-christmas-should-be-rescinded-as-a-national-holiday-in-the-u-s/333553/136 "2005-12-03T04:14:54Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > The legality is questionable but the ACLU didn’t try to prevent it so it still does not count as an example of the ACLU trying to abridge religious freedoms, which is what I asked for. The legality is not questionable, no matter how many times you insist it is. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Sorry. You are wrong on the law. You don’t have a right to hijack a publicly owned PA system to pray at me during a public event and state institutions cannot sponsor such hijacks. [So saith the Supreme Court](http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=12727) and that’s the end of it. Your issue is with SCOTUS, not with the ACLU. Fine. That is what the law is…for now. I happen to agree with the dissent in that decision, that it “bristles with hostility to all things religious in public life.” Trust me…nobody is praying at you. You seem to be missing the point of prayer. And to call it a hijack is, well, not unexpected from you. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Who’s stopping you from remaining silent? Be silent all you want. But you don’t have a right to make ME be silent. Sorry. You are wrong on the law (at least in my state, see [Brown v. Gilmore](http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002132.P.pdf)). In Virginia, schools are required to start the day with one minute of silence, and compels all students to remain silent for one minute and not disrupt other students from their activities. This is NOT an endorsement of religion. The children don’t have to pray. They just have to remain silent for one minute. If some children want to pray, that is their consitutional right under the free exercise clause. The attempt by the ACLU to stop this moment of silence is, incontrivertibly, an assault by the ACLU to abridge religious freedoms. ---
**Author:** ![Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fish)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2005, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-christmas-should-be-rescinded-as-a-national-holiday-in-the-u-s/333553/137 "2005-12-03T04:56:22Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > The name of the holiday is unimportant to me. It can be called Shmooday for all I care. [Smooday is taken.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6446208&postcount=22) 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2005, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-christmas-should-be-rescinded-as-a-national-holiday-in-the-u-s/333553/138 "2005-12-03T05:28:09Z")
> [@Psycho Pirate](#): > > The legality is not questionable, no matter how many times you insist it is. I disagree, obviously, but the fact remains that the ACLU did not try to prevent it so the the citation fails to meet the criteria of my question. It is not an example of the ACLU trying to abridge anyone’s religious rights. > [@](#): > > FTrust me…nobody is praying at you. Trust me. Yes they are. > [@](#): > > You seem to be missing the point of prayer. And to call it a hijack is, well, not unexpected from you. The point of the prayer is legally irrelevant. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this. You’re wrong. > [@](#): > > Sorry. You are wrong on the law (at least in my state, see [Brown v. Gilmore](http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002132.P.pdf)). In Virginia, schools are required to start the day with one minute of silence, and compels all students to remain silent for one minute and not disrupt other students from their activities. This is NOT an endorsement of religion. The children don’t have to pray. They just have to remain silent for one minute. If some children want to pray, that is their consitutional right under the free exercise clause. The attempt by the ACLU to stop this moment of silence is, incontrivertibly, an assault by the ACLU to abridge religious freedoms. 1. No, I am not wrong on the law. I was right on both points. To wit: No one is preventing you from remaining silent and YOU don’t have a right to make ME remain silent. I’m not a Virginia public school student. 2. Children already have the right to pray at any time in any public school. Giving them a “moment of silence” to do so is reduntant. They are all permitted to take that moment any time they want as it is. What Virginia is attempting to do is to make other kids shut up while they do it. 3. The Supreme Court already ruled in 1985 that moments of silence are unconstitutional. The ACLU’s challenge to the law does not constute an attempt to abridge anyone’s religious freedoms. Sorry. The ACLU has not tried to prevent a single kid from praying. What they have challenged is whether the state has a right to make other kids shut up while they’re praying. Although SCOTUS has so far refused to hear any challenge to this law, the challenge itself is against the state, not against indvidual religious liberties. 1. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say on the one hand that the moment of silence is not religious and then say on the other hand that challenging it is a challenge to religious freedoms (which it isn’t). Is it religious or isn’t it? 2. Whose religious freedoms would have been taken away if the ACL had won its challenge? Removing the MoS would not abridge a single person’s free practice of religion. Every single kid would still be able to pray whenever he or she wanted. I know I’m repeating myself. I feel like I have to. I still have yet to see an example of the ACLU trying to abridge anyone’s religious liberties. That’s because there aren’t any. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2005, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-christmas-should-be-rescinded-as-a-national-holiday-in-the-u-s/333553/139 "2005-12-03T13:09:07Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > It’s questionable whether he had a right to commandeer DOJ conference rooms to lead Bible studies and many employees said they felt they were being subtly pressured into going along with it. Name one. > [@](#): > > In any case, the ACLU made no attempt to stop it. They only complained that Ashcroft was “blurring the line” between church and state. So even if Ashcroft wasn’t doing anything wrong (questionable), it still wouldn’t represent an example of the ACLU trying to abridge anyone’s religious freedom since they didn’t try to prevent it from happening. You said 'lobbying". Now you are attempting to move the goal posts. > [@](#): > > In both cases, state equipment is being commandeered to preach a proselytizing message at a hostage audience during a public event. Almost every single word of this is horseshit. Ashcroft did not commandeer anything, the audience was not hostage, no public event was occurring. And, as **Psycho Pirate** points out, that you repeatedly insist it is questionable is meaningless. It was entirely within Ashcroft’s rights to hold this meeting. Your statements to the contrary are mere blather. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2005, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-christmas-should-be-rescinded-as-a-national-holiday-in-the-u-s/333553/140 "2005-12-03T16:47:26Z")
> [@](#): > > Ashcroft did not commandeer anything, the audience was not hostage, no public event was occurring. And no one has yet presented evidence that the ACLU was “lobbying” to stop it. They included it as bullet point in a whole list of things that they found to be of concern. Where is the direct call from the ACLU for Ashcroft to desist? (I think this is overblown on both sides, but it made it to this thread because **DtC** asked for evidence that the ACLU ever attempted to interfere with the practice of a person’s religion and this is the best you have come up with.) [This Freeper page](http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3afff6dd394e.htm) quotes a Christian news service that alludes to a Washington Post article, claiming that several people **had** complained about the sessions, naming some while others chose to remain anonymous. On the other hand, there is testimony by several people that they did not feel pressure to join, and the ACLU was not involved. Lots of overblown hype on all sides, but no evidence that the ACLU has lobbied to prevent anyone from practicing their faith. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-christmas-should-be-rescinded-as-a-national-holiday-in-the-u-s/333553.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-christmas-should-be-rescinded-as-a-national-holiday-in-the-u-s/333553.md?page=8)