Part-Time Pundit

Columns and Commentary by John Bambenek

ACLU Brings War on Christmas to Fort Collins, Comes Up Short

Much like the Christmas shopping season, the ACLU's War on Christmas begins earlier and earlier every year. This year in Fort Collins, Colorado, the city council decided to revise their policies to honor appropriately the holiday that almost ninety percent of America celebrates as Christmas. A task force was drawn up, given their task, and put to work.

Like most task forces set up by governing bodies, the result is only as good as the people you put in charge. In this case, the head of the ACLU in Fort Collins was tasked with running the committee. The result was obviously predictable.

The task force recommended no Christmas lights, no recognition of Christmas, no use of the colors red and green, no Christmas trees, and to otherwise squelch anything even remotely connected to Christmas. Instead, they suggested decorations of icicles and prominent use of the color brown. In short, they suggested returning Christmas to its millennia old pagan roots.

At the city council meeting to vote on the proposal, hundreds of people showed up to voice their concern (instead of the 10-15 people who usually show up) and the proposal was shot down 6-1. The lone dissenting voice protested saying that residents would feel left out and alienated by the city recognizing that the overwhelming majority of citizens are celebrating Christmas.

It's an interesting argument. Tolerance requires that people practice their faith in such a way that never leaves anyone out. Even if you took this argument at face value; that would effectively mean that no one could practice religion because the moment you identify with a group, you tacitly isolate those who are not part of that group. The idea that the First Amendment, designed to protect citizens from government, requires a destruction of all uniqueness is odd indeed.

However, it isn't a matter of simply suppressing religion from public life. These calls simply do not exist (even in the Fort Collins matter) when the religion in question is Judaism or Islam. The ACLU's goal, based on their track record, appears to be to prevent the public proclamation of Christianity in the name of the First Amendment. The bastardization of the Establishment Clause far beyond its intended meaning to require the government to enforce secular humanism on the people is to get the entire Bill of Rights backwards.

Horace Cooper, senior fellow with the American Civil Rights Union stated that it is inappropriate for "the government to pick and choose with faiths it will support and denigrate." The Establishment Clause, followed immediately by the Free Expression Clause, does not allow the suppression of a religion in the name of "diversity." In this case, the champions of diversity aren't really interested in what they preach; they simply want to redirect hate and intolerance to their desired targets. It's using the government to play the game of power politics. However, in this case — because of the efforts of the ACRU — the effort failed.

The ACLU generally uses intimidation to achieve victories that even the courts won't provide. By intimidating local officials with the threat of the ACLU, many simply cave and give the ACLU what they want. It is telling indeed that the Fort Collins ACLU head was in charge of this task force. In this case, it was the vigorous opposition of the local people combined with the ACRU that prevented the suppression of free speech and expression of an overwhelming majority of the community.

This intimidation has led to groups being formed to counteract the far-reaching agenda of the ACLU to build and impose a societal view outside the framework of the democratic process. Examples include the ACRU, which also has a courtwatch project to monitor Bush's judicial nominations, and other groups like the Thomas More Law Center and the American Center for Law and Justice.

One fact that should give everyone pause is that these debates about society now take place in courtrooms, argued by lawyers and decided by unelected judges. While there is a degree of balance with these groups, the wholesale removal of large social questions from the people has done much to not only undermine the notion of American self-government, but also call into question whether this country is really a republic anymore.

While this latest battle in the War on Christmas has subsided, the removal of the battle from the people to lawyers and courtrooms, and the fact that free expression of Christianity is under fire by the largest "civil rights" group in the country, should make us all think. This year, we can at least be thankful those who celebrate Christmas can still do so publicly as those who celebrate Ramadan or Hanukkah can do. Time will tell if the ACLU will succeed in telling us which religions and holidays we're allowed to recognize.

Related Posts:

  • ACLU Against Free Speech if the Speech is Religious
  • Satire: ACLU Files Suit to End Federal Recognition of Christmas
  • Stop The ACLU Blogburst
  • Where There’s Smoke: What is the ACLU Hiding?
  • Still Think the ACLU is All Goodness and Light, Glenn?
  • November 27th, 2007 Posted by John Bambenek | Around the US, Columns, Freedom of Speech, Law / Legal Issues, Politics, Religion, StoptheACLU | no comments

    Satire: ACLU Files Suit to End Federal Recognition of Christmas

    Today, in the United States District Court in San Francisco, California, the ACLU has filed suit against the United States over the holidays that are designated as federal holidays where the federal government is closed. They argue that Christmas is the only religious holiday on the list and that it does not recognize religious holidays of other religions and it leaves out atheists.

    The suit, filed by the ACLU on behalf of several San Francisco plaintiffs, states that those individuals were unfairly discriminated against because they either would not get their religious holiday off or that as atheists, they were given second billing.

    Federal holidays are set by 5 U.S.C. 6103 and for 2007 there were ten designated holidays. Many are rather neutral such as Independence Day, New Year's Day, and Thanksgiving. However, Christmas is the only religious holiday where the federal government is closed and its employees get a paid day off. The effect of the lawsuit would be to strike Christmas as a federal holiday and to force the government to stay open on that day.

    The suit was originally the idea of Charles Rust-Tierney, the former head of the Virginia chapter of the ACLU and the filing of the suit was the culmination of years of work. Tierney was unavailable for comment because he is currently serving seven years for possession of child pornography. The plaintiffs, who include Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, released a statement saying, "Christianity is the source of most if not all of the suffering in the world. The federal government recognizing this holiday is akin to celebrating holidays lauding the Holocaust. Prefabricated man-made religions have no place in a civil society."

    The suit will likely spark outrage from Christian and other conservative groups who will see this as another chapter in the left's "War on Christmas". Previous years have seen organizations targeting schools for Christmas plays and targeting cities for having nativity displays. The suit to end federal recognition of Christmas marks an escalation in the culture wars. Bill O'Reilly is said to be planning to devote ten minutes of his nightly news show every day until New Year's to air his grievances on the culture wars.

    O'Reilly wasn't the only one to get in on the criticism. Pat Buchanan, a staple of Christian Conservatism was quick to blame the "radical left" and Hollywood: "Who is in your face here? Who started this? Who is on the offensive? Who is pushing the envelope? The answer is obvious. A radical Left aided by a cultural elite that detests Christianity and finds Christian moral tenets reactionary and repressive is hell-bent on pushing its amoral values and imposing its ideology on our nation. The unwisdom of what the Hollywood and the Left are about should be transparent to all."

    Critics were quick to point out that one of the plaintiffs, Paul Addis, was recently arrested trying to burn down a church. This only fanned the argument that this suit was truly about censoring religion and not about pluralism.

    It is unclear exactly how the courts will rule in this case; however, both judges in San Francisco and the appellate judges in the Ninth Circuit would likely favor the view that recognizing Christmas as a federal holiday and closing the government is a tacit endorsement of Christianity which is prohibited by the "Separation of Church and State Doctrine".

    Most legal scholars believe that the ACLU's argument has merit and if the same standard is used that has been used in previous church-state cases that Christmas will have to be removed from the list of federal holidays. Time will tell if the ACLU will become known as the law firm "that stole Christmas".

    Related Posts:

  • ACLU Against Free Speech if the Speech is Religious
  • DI is back!
  • ACLU Brings War on Christmas to Fort Collins, Comes Up Short
  • Weak attempt at an Anti-ACLU Post
  • Expose state corruption… get sued…
  • November 17th, 2007 Posted by John Bambenek | Columns, Culture, Freedom of Speech, Humor, Law / Legal Issues, Politics | no comments

    Article up at MercatorNet: Attack of the Google Phone

    I have an article up over at MercatorNet called My big brother, my cell phone on the latest on Google Phone in particular, but the use of cell phone advertising in specific. Go take a look!

    Related Posts:

  • Mercator Column Up: Google, YouTube, and Web 2.0
  • MercatorNet article up: Unsuitable for Children
  • Some more Weekend Reading
  • Book Review: Google: The Missing Manual by Milstein, Biersdorfer, and MacDonald
  • Google worth more than GM and Disney Combined
  • November 12th, 2007 Posted by John Bambenek | Columns, Economics, InfoSec | no comments