AU replies to the "War on Christmas"

[USIncognito]

I'm not sure if this is the correct subforum to place this in, but it seems right since the culture warriors strum und drang smells of political motivation. I'm on the Americans United for Seperation of Church and State mailing list and this open letter from Barry Lynn to Jerry Falwell was in my inbox today. I thought I'd share it, and see if there are any comments.

Dear Jerry:

Heres some news: There is no "war on Christmas!"

Ive seen you on various television news shows claiming that there is but, in fact, there simply isnt. Even as I write this, millions of Americans are erecting Christmas trees and nativity scenes at their homes, and thousands of churches are planning special Christmas services.

And, if I might say so, most of them are planning their lives without getting permission or encouragement from you.

I am deeply disappointed that you have chosen a time that Christians observe as a season of peace and good will and turned it into a time of religious divisiveness and community conflict. Your "Friend or Foe" campaign may be great for fund-raising and publicity, but it has sown discord unnecessarily.

Contrary to your wild allegations, Jerry, neither Americans United, nor any other civil liberties organization that I know of, is waging any kind of war on Christmas. The First Amendment of our Constitution ensures every Americans right to observe religious holidays or to refrain from doing so. We can wish each other a "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Holidays," and its really none of your business which term we choose. We can call our decorated tree a "Christmas tree" or a "holiday tree," and thats our right. (We can observe the holidays of other traditions as well.)

I think we all know whats really going on with your campaign. You want an America where there is no separation of church and state and where your rather narrow interpretation of Christianity is forced on everyone. If you can convince Americans that their cherished Christmas traditions are under fire, you think maybe they will join your nefarious crusade to tear down the protective church-state wall that guarantees our freedoms.

Well, it wont work, Jerry. Americans are, by and large, a tolerant lot, and they are quite unlikely to join forces with someone like you who is so far out on the political and religious fringes. Many people remember the outrageous comments you made after the 9/11 terrorist assaults, suggesting that America had it coming because of our (in your opinion) sinful ways. They also remember your dire warning that Tinky Winky, a kids TV character, was brainwashing our children into homosexuality! You cant rehabilitate an image like that by trying to depict yourself as Father Christmas.

I am particularly outraged that you are attacking our public schools as part of your misguided project. Our public schools serve children from 2,000 different faith traditions and some who follow no spiritual path at all. They generally do a tremendous job of helping each of these students without imposing any particular religious viewpoint. They steer a careful course, broadly allowing student religious _expression while trying to avoid school endorsement of specific faiths. That means there are sometimes disagreements about what songs should be sung in the winter concert or what decorations should go in the hall. We can work through those decisions by applying common sense, the Constitution and plain old civility.

Thanks to the crusade by you and your allies, however, some of these schools are being targeted for venomous attacks. After the Alliance Defense Fund unfairly maligned a public school in New York for its holiday observance policies, education officials there received hateful mail of all sorts. One e-mail said "You are either bigoted Jews who hate Christians or mindless secularists."

Since I debated you about the Christmas issue on Fox News Channels "OReilly Factor," I have received 66 nasty e-mails, including two death threats. Observed one of my correspondents, "Hope you die soon. Merry Christmas."

Jerry, this is the kind of interfaith and community hostility that you are stirring up, and I implore you to stop it now. You are polluting the public square with animosity and anger. And at Christmas, of all times!! Have you no decency?

Youve dubbed your latest round of antics a "Friend or Foe" campaign. Well, Jerry, I am a friend of the Constitution and a foe of intolerance. You should be too.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays,

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn
Executive Director

PS: I saw on a couple of the news shows that you are again questioning my ministerial credentials. I believe the _expression that you used on Fox News Channels "The Big Story with John Gibson" is that I am "about as reverend as an oak tree" and that I never "preached in" a church. Drop me a line, Jerry, and Ill send you (again) a copy of my ministerial credentials from the United Church of Christ. And by the way, Id be happy to come to Thomas Road Baptist Church and deliver the sermon on the Sunday of your choice. Your congregation might like a change of perspective every now and then.

[micatala]

Technically speaking, since there is no question(s) for debate offered here, this should be in the discussion forum.

If you are amenable, I will offer the following suggested questions.

1. Yes or no: Is Christmas under attack?

2. If yes, who exactly is doing the attacking and of what do these attacks consist?

3. Are the attacks such that anyone, Christian or otherwise, should be concerned about them? Why or why not?


I did find the letter very interesting. I will simply offer a couple of observations based on experiences in my area.

Last night, I attended our local public high school's Christmas concert, which included both instrumental and choral groups. Instrumental selections included Lo, How a Rose E'er Blooming, Silent Night, Beautiful Savior, and band versions of Carol of the Bells and Pachelbel's Canon. Choral selections included both what might be termed 'secular' Christmas songs (e.g. Let It Snow) and sacred.

The encore was a rousing rendition by the combined choirs, with solo by the choir director, of a South African Hymn Freedom is Coming which I believe was popular within the anti-Apartheid movement. Some fo the words are:

Oh, Freedom. Freedom is coming. Oh, yes I know.
Oh, Jesus. Jesus is coming. Oh, yes I know.

Actually, that is about all the words as I recall, done in a repetitive call and response style. The crowd loved it and gave it a standing o. Were the some people who didn't like it? Perhaps.

Was it wrong for the high school to program these numbers?

So much for the anti-Christmas bunk here. About the only thing I have heard is that the Target in the nearest big city to us has decided to use 'Happy HOlidays' instead of 'Merry Christmas.'

[Chimp]

Christmas is under attack...by people who want to turn Christmas into
a battleground for their moronic agenda.

Didn't Bing sing "Happy Holidays" <-- I think he was referring to xmas
and new years, hence the plural, but I think it is also a time to wish
anyone who might be celebrating something...anything...

Happy Holidays

[ShieldAxe]

People appear to get motivated when confronted with an enemy. So more converts are probably generated when Fallwell paints the holidays in this light rather than a time of embracing everyone. More converts increase his power base. It behooves him to exploit the fact that religion separates rather than brings people together.

[1John2_26]

Does Jerry Falwell have the first Amendment too? It seems that AU doesn't like to be trumped that's all. It would be interesting to hear Lynn preach at a sound church. Shouldn't Lynn's first friendship be to the Gospel?

[micatala]

Hi 1John 2:26, welcome to the forum!

Does Jerry Falwell have the first Amendment too?

Absolutely. I don't read Lynn's letter as saying Jerry doesn't have the right to speak his mind, only that he is taking issue with the validity and motivation of what Falwell is saying. Is Falwell correctly characterizing what is happening, or is he taking a few intances and blowing them all out of proportion to make it seem like there is some kind of 'all out war' on Christmas? We should be able to determine this at least somewhat objectively.

Shouldn't Lynn's first friendship be to the Gospel?

I wouldn't assume that it is not, and even if it is, it doesn't automatically mean that Christians should side with Falwell over Lynn. Maybe it would be better not to take sides at all? My view is this is much ado about very little. What do we really have to fear as Christians from a few stores changing their slogans?

[1John2_26]

Fair enough, but there seems to be disdain for all things Christmas. If it is OK to say "happy holidays" then they should take away the national holiday and people that do not observe Christmas should work on that day.

Lynn on TV, never seems to be presenting his brand of Christianity as anything special. Falwell always seems to be very happy. I haven't heard Falwell misuse scripture as well. He always seems to use scripture accurately.

[MagusYanam]

Hey, as long as we get to sing Christmas carols in our neighbourhood and spread a little of the joy around, I'm fine. No 'all-out war' on Christmas here, or even any 'disdain' - people are usually pretty happy that we come and sing to them. But then again, I do live in a largely Catholic state.

Personally, I think there is more danger to Christmas coming from the capitalist corner (this has been a constant struggle since the '50's or longer, in truth) than from the secularist. Christmas shouldn't be about consumers getting the best gifts, it should be about hope for a brighter future and the gathering of the community in prayer and wakeful expectation.

As to the second bit, I've never seen Lynn on TV (I make a point of not watching 'The O'Reilly Factor'), though I do know that Falwell doesn't seem to use Scripture accurately at all. Christ makes demands on us as his followers that I don't see Falwell encouraging or promoting - demands to be gracious, open-minded and compassionate people, concerned with social justice and economic egalitarianism. Also, Christianity should not be sectarian. Attacking nonbelievers is certainly not admirable, but Falwell has a bad (and to my mind inexcusable) habit of making attacks on his fellow Christians on the left and in the middle for practising their religion the best way they know how.

The Anglican Communion has survived five hundred years of this bickering between factions - the High-Church Tractarians, the Low-Church Evangelicals and Dissenters, the Broad-Church Latitudinarians - and now we're seeing further bickering over ordination of homosexuals which (I hope) will not splinter us into pieces as has happened with all the other Protestant churches. The great theologian and preacher Frederick Denison Maurice came to this same conclusion 170 years ago - petty squabbling over doctrine is not going to strengthen anyone's faith; it's not going to help usher in the Kingdom of God; it's not going to lead us into a better understanding of God. The only thing it's managed to accomplish in five or six hundred years is the breaking of fellowship and endless strife.

[1John2_26]

Personally, I think there is more danger to Christmas coming from the capitalist corner (this has been a constant struggle since the '50's or longer, in truth) than from the secularist. Christmas shouldn't be about consumers getting the best gifts, it should be about hope for a brighter future and the gathering of the community in prayer and wakeful expectation.

Christians should certainly shun commercialism of Christ. I don't see why all the fuss over what non-believers want to do.

As to the second bit, I've never seen Lynn on TV (I make a point of not watching 'The O'Reilly Factor'), though I do know that Falwell doesn't seem to use Scripture accurately at all. Christ makes demands on us as his followers that I don't see Falwell encouraging or promoting - demands to be gracious, open-minded and compassionate people, concerned with social justice and economic egalitarianism. Also, Christianity should not be sectarian. Attacking nonbelievers is certainly not admirable, but Falwell has a bad (and to my mind inexcusable) habit of making attacks on his fellow Christians on the left and in the middle for practising their religion the best way they know how.

I try to watch as many people as I can. MSNBC has some great hosts. O'Reilly seems OK to me overall. Christianity has to be sectarian because there are a lot of people that will not follow sound doctrine and change scripture like it was a city ordinance. No one should attack non-believers for any reason, but I certainly have seen Falwell for decades, always use scripture in context. He seems a good pastor to his flock. Christians "on the left" have much to be challenged.

The Anglican Communion has survived five hundred years of this bickering between factions - the High-Church Tractarians, the Low-Church Evangelicals and Dissenters, the Broad-Church Latitudinarians - and now we're seeing further bickering over ordination of homosexuals which (I hope) will not splinter us into pieces as has happened with all the other Protestant churches. The great theologian and preacher Frederick Denison Maurice came to this same conclusion 170 years ago - petty squabbling over doctrine is not going to strengthen anyone's faith; it's not going to help usher in the Kingdom of God; it's not going to lead us into a better understanding of God. The only thing it's managed to accomplish in five or six hundred years is the breaking of fellowship and endless strife.

Surviving bickering and tolerating heresy is a fine line. Many things shouldn't be tolerated. I would hope that factions stick up for Biblical truth over secular politics. It is certainly not petty squabbling over homosexuals in the clergy. Pope Benedict and the Vatican have written on this in almost perfect description. Ushering in the kingdom of God is nothing the churches can do anyway. That is exclusively the domain of God the Father. I would hope that when that day comes, churches are preaching the Gospel they way Jesus spoke it.

Americans United for Seperation of Church and State, do more talking about the US Constitution than about the Risen Christ. That is a problem.

[bernee51]

questions.

1. Yes or no: Is Christmas under attack?

If it is it has been for a long time:

Henry Ford was sounding the alarm about the war on Christmas in his notorious 1921 tract "The International Jew." "The whole record of the Jewish opposition to Christmas, Easter and other Christian festivals, and their opposition to certain patriotic songs, shows the venom and directness of [their] attack," Ford wrote.

And then there was in 1959, the (then) 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."

2. If yes, who exactly is doing the attacking and of what do these attacks consist?

In the first case above, Jews, in the second, the United nations. Today - secularists and liberals of course.

3. Are the attacks such that anyone, Christian or otherwise, should be concerned about them? Why or why not?

Where would we be without a good conspiracy theory?