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.
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
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.”
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?
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 from the Clinton White House on religious exercise and expression in the federal workplace. I’ll quote the relevant portions for you.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Well said. I’d add one more sentance, though. In addition to being wrong, I think this makes them anti-religious.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 and that’s the end of it. Your issue is with SCOTUS, not with the ACLU.
Who’s stopping you from remaining silent? Be silent all you want. But you don’t have a right to make ME be silent.
Even in this seriously imperfect world, you will not use this sort of imagery in Great Debates.
Cool it.
[ /Modertor Mode ]
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.
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 
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”:
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):
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.)
Ummm OK, the guy is a fucking lunatic. Nothing more needs to be said.
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.
The legality is not questionable, no matter how many times you insist it is.
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.
Sorry. You are wrong on the law (at least in my state, see Brown v. Gilmore). 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.
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.
Trust me. Yes they are.
The point of the prayer is legally irrelevant. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this. You’re wrong.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Name one.
You said 'lobbying". Now you are attempting to move the goal posts.
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
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 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.