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.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

There is no such thing as seperation of church and state.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof


The explicit DEFINITION of seperation of church and state, conspicuous enough for all to see (or completely ignore, if that's your thing).

Christians are seen as bigots

Can you not think of a reason as to why this is? Could the blatant attempt at completely overhauling one of our nations founding principles have something to do with it?


Sure Christians are being discriminated against. That is, if you submit to Falwell's or Robertsons definition of "discrimination": Declining to grant Christians special privilidges over other worldviews. "Freedom and justice for all?" What were those founding fathers thinking?

[1John2_26]

Quote:
There is no such thing as seperation of church and state.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

The explicit DEFINITION of seperation of church and state, conspicuous enough for all to see (or completely ignore, if that's your thing).

Please provide the meaning (definition) of "respecting" in eighteenth century England. It certainly does not mean the war on Christianity we see now effortlessly embraced by leftists. And, it certainly does not mean hate crimes legislation for gay rights meaning that Christians cannot preach and teach against sodomy, anti-Christian religions, secularist totalitarianism and those that embrace anti-Christian morality.

In fact the framers (whatever that menas of the quality of men) prayed for God's blessing over their new Union.

Quote:
Christians are seen as bigots

Can you not think of a reason as to why this is? Could the blatant attempt at completely overhauling one of our nations founding principles have something to do with it?

No. And you know it. Christians oppose the whosale sexual depravity that consumes our current society. That ruffles the feathers of pornographers, perverts and deviants that want access to children and the masses in general. I'd like to call it good versus evil. You know, the truth.

Sure Christians are being discriminated against. That is, if you submit to Falwell's or Robertsons definition of "discrimination": Declining to grant Christians special privilidges over other worldviews. "Freedom and justice for all?" What were those founding fathers thinking?

Freedom and justice to Christians is forcing them to be ciitzens of a foul a deviant orthodoxy of perpetuating perversion and calling it political correctness.

I don't need Larry Flynt's version of freedom. Nor do the poor women he entices to be whores. BUT, if I preach against Flynt I am seen as a bigot. Is that your idea of the First Amendment? What IS its first freedom granted TO?

[1John2_26]

AMENDMENT I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.[/b]

It is time for Christians to start exercising this right.

Anywhere.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Just for fun, I plugged "separation of church and state" into the online dictionary. It wielded this:

The separation of religion and government mandated under the establishment clause and the free exercise clause of the U.S. Constitution that forbids governmental establishment or preference of a religion and that preserves religious freedom from governmental intrusion.

The encyclopedia says the exact same. The only people who deny this generally accepted reality are those with an ulterior agenda.

In fact the framers (whatever that menas of the quality of men) prayed for God's blessing over their new Union.

Yes, God would bless a secular society (Jesus never coerced people into obedience, after all). I thought that you preferred a secular government as well. Why the change of attitude?

And, it certainly does not mean hate crimes legislation for gay rights meaning that Christians cannot preach and teach against sodomy, anti-Christian religions, secularist totalitarianism and those that embrace anti-Christian morality.

True, but occasional abidges of free speech rights are imposed on ALL sides of persuasion at some point or another.

Claiming that Christians are discriminated against (especially when our numbers account for 87% of the nation, not to mention a majority in the legislative branch) is still vastly exaggerated.

No. And you know it. Christians oppose the whosale sexual depravity that consumes our current society. That ruffles the feathers of pornographers, perverts and deviants that want access to children and the masses in general. I'd like to call it good versus evil. You know, the truth.

Where is the Christian voice against "pornographers, perverts, and deviants"? Seems to me most of their energy is being devoted to barring homosexuals from basic human rights.

[1John2_26]

Just for fun, I plugged "separation of church and state" into the online dictionary. It wielded this:

The separation of religion and government mandated under the establishment clause and the free exercise clause of the U.S. Constitution that forbids governmental establishment or preference of a religion and that preserves religious freedom from governmental intrusion.

I'll copy and paste this in an email to Illinois legislation. I also noticed you used a 21st century definition.

The encyclopedia says the exact same. The only people who deny this generally accepted reality are those with an ulterior agenda.

If you say that you are a homphobe bigot. Be careful. Better rephrase and be more specific.

Quote:
In fact the framers (whatever that menas of the quality of men) prayed for God's blessing over their new Union.

Yes, God would bless a secular society (Jesus never coerced people into obedience, after all). I thought that you preferred a secular government as well. Why the change of attitude?

I am 100% in favor of a secular government BECAUSE they have no right to exercise ANY control over Christianty. I can live in a secular world that cannot tell me what to do and what to believe. That IS the First Amendment. Then and now. Yet, legislation is being passed that can tell Christians they have to alter their religious beliefs to accept anti-Christians.

Quote:
And, it certainly does not mean hate crimes legislation for gay rights meaning that Christians cannot preach and teach against sodomy, anti-Christian religions, secularist totalitarianism and those that embrace anti-Christian morality.

True, but occasional abidges of free speech rights are imposed on ALL sides of persuasion at some point or another.

Ahhh, how anti-First Amendment when it serves the anti-Christ?

Claiming that Christians are discriminated against (especially when our numbers account for 87% of the nation, not to mention a majority in the legislative branch) is still vastly exaggerated.

Bunk, Christianity Today reported that 74% of Americans do not go to church. I believe James has much to say about doing and saying . . .. Though still that means there are millions in church. See why the silencing?

Quote:
No. And you know it. Christians oppose the whosale sexual depravity that consumes our current society. That ruffles the feathers of pornographers, perverts and deviants that want access to children and the masses in general. I'd like to call it good versus evil. You know, the truth.

Where is the Christian voice against "pornographers, perverts, and deviants"? Seems to me most of their energy is being devoted to barring homosexuals from basic human rights.

The ONLY voice against pornographers, perverts, and deviants (which the gay lifestyle would classify as being in) ARE Bible-believing Christians (morality) and those that follow that (moral) lead like Laura Schlessinger. And, always have been. The rise of acceptance of these abominations, I believe, was preached against by just about every conservative Preacher in America until the wave of perversion swept away the western mind and with it marriage and the family. Including infecting many people in the pews. The celebration of homosexuality came in like a virus to a sick body and was always expected to do so once some people used a Church pulpit to push its deviance as a civil right.

Now it seems that every issue has to be about homosexuality being forced on everyone, and, as can been seen, that means even in Christian Churches by law. How very Biblical. Sounds like all of those old time Preachers were dead right. Of course they were.

Americans United for Seperation of Church and State. Hmm, I wonder what their theology is? Just joking I don't. It's as clear as a shanker on a promiscuous pervert.

Here's a shocker aunt May! From the AU website:

Americans must be free to contribute only to the religious groups of their choosing. Voucher programs violate this principle by forcing all taxpayers to underwrite religious education. Often, religious schools promote sectarian dogma and take controversial stands on issues such as gay rights, the role of women in society and reproductive freedom. Taxpayers should not be required to subsidize the spread of religious/moral opinions they may strongly disagree with. All religious projects including schooling should be funded with voluntary contributions from church members.

"Controversial stands?" Note, homosexuality and abortion. That would be filed under things preached against in Bible-believing churches. The role of women in society? That would be not wanting them to be exploited by pornographers, sexual deviants or perverts.

From an organization headed by the "Reverend" Barry Lynn.

The anti-Christ needs an anti-religion.

[melikio]

Where is the Christian voice against "pornographers, perverts, and deviants"? Seems to me most of their energy is being devoted to barring homosexuals from basic human rights.

Good point.

I really didn't notice that much, until I paid more attention during the last presidential election.

To hear many Christians today, one would think that "homosexuality" is the one BAD thing, that all other badness is measured by.

And as I've implied hundreds of times before:

I can accept that people don't see homosexuality as good or right. What I cannot accept is that people (especially Christians) often disregard the spiritual fact that it's more important to LOVE someone, than to force some type of COMPLIANCE or BELIEF.

The "War on Christmas" to me, is non-existent. Also, the AU may not be the best or most correct organization, but the function of it is necessary in a society where liberties and freedoms are cherished (and that INCLUDES both religious and secular freedoms). It may not mean we can do just ANYTHING that we wish to do, but it does mean that a person's basic (human) rights are protected BY LAW.

-Mel-

[1John2_26]

Poor Christians, Jews, Hindus, Budhists, Muslims, Mormons, etc., pay taxes and contribute to society, until, they want to put their children in private schools to get away from the secular control that so many anti-religionists want to implement on society by force and by deception.

A secular world that is seen by many as destroying their children or dangerous, but yet they cannot be given government funds (which IS their own money) to put their children in a place they choose. Even though there is no way that those funds are being used to establish any one religion over any other, as can be clearly seen.

These same children leave these schools for jobs in the secular world, proving the hatred inherent in the anti-religious propaganda invented to force compliance of a secualr agenda, in a place where religious or private education cannot and should not be of any concern to anyone in a detremental way. In fact, private schools have shown conclusively to offer people a better future. You wonder why the opposition?

Then again, some no longer wonder.

To hear many Christians today, one would think that "homosexuality" is the one BAD thing, that all other badness is measured by.

That would be what WAS preached in the past, would be the result of accepting so many other bad things. We have arrived at that warning being reality. Biblical truth preached and Biblical truth observed.

[melikio]

Poor Christians, Jews, Hindus, Budhists, Muslims, Mormons, etc., pay taxes and contribute to society, until, they want to put their children in private schools to get away from the secular control that so many anti-religionists want to implement on society by force and by deception.

A secular world that is seen by many as destroying their children or dangerous, but yet they cannot be given government funds (which IS their own money) to put their children in a place they choose. Even though there is no way that those funds are being used to establish any one religion over any other, as can be clearly seen.

These same children leave these schools for jobs in the secular world, proving the hatred inherent in the anti-religious propaganda invented to force compliance of a secualr agenda, in a place where religious or private education cannot and should not be of any concern to anyone in a detremental way. In fact, private schools have shown conclusively to offer people a better future. You wonder why the opposition?

Then again, some no longer wonder.

To hear many Christians today, one would think that "homosexuality" is the one BAD thing, that all other badness is measured by.

That would be what WAS preached in the past, would be the result of accepting so many other bad things. We have arrived at that warning being reality. Biblical truth preached and Biblical truth observed.

1J226, I see your point/s. I don't agree with them overall. Some things are of great concern indeed. But I don't EXPECT all human beings or "Christians" to see all of this as you do; nor should you expect them to see it all biblically as YOU yourself do. Expecting that is what takes many religious people from faith to radicalism. And the real problem is that "radicalism" is usually not a "passive" thing. God can change hearts, but WE (no matter our moral, social, or political positions) cannot be the BOSS of anyone. Love and compassion are more effective devices for leading people to Jesus, than religion as a set of rules.

People will protect their freedoms and liberties period; not merely those who call themselves "Christian". But this is awesome really, because we ALL have the freedom (BY LAW) to argue things as we are doing right now. As far as CONTROLLING others under texts YOU or I may hold "sacred", I DO NOT AGREE that is good and righteous. PErsonally, I thinki it is more important to grant people the liberty God has infused into this reality, and let Him deal with whatever it is that YOU (and no one else) can FORCE others to do. Actually, I don't see the forcefulness used (justified) by modern "Christians" as being biblical.

I think many who want Christianity to be an extremely EXCLUSIVE thing, make a sport of playing spiritual-bullies, when they should really be meek (not weak), and known PRIMARILY for gentleness, compassion and unconditional love. The MESSAGE Jesus promoted via His demeanor, seems to me, to be FAR SUPERIOR to the things I'm hearing from today's contemporary "Christians".

I'm not necessarily PRO-AU, so that's where I am with them.
For that matter, I not a RAH-RAH, "Christians-only" type of person either. I can recognize and respect fellow Christians who exude LOVE above all else, but I have much less affection to offer those who are uncompassionate and controlling in their religion. I certainly don't seek to undermine Christianity, but I'm not going to put others on the back burners of humankind, just because they don't believe what I do. As a matter of FACT, I've seen so many people respond to LOVE (leading them to Jesus), that I am practically certain that I don't need to get into anyone's face, and compel/pressure them to believe anything. The change of heart and mind, is God's providence, not ours.

My part is to be compassionate and show the love Jesus has shown me, not to herd social, political and legal power into my corner... so that I can CONTROL others. "Religion" has done that before (MANY TIMES), and it has turned out as bad as anything we can observe (that man has had his hands in).

-Mel-

[1John2_26]

But secularists like Lynn and many others, pretend to be good guys when anyone with a brain that works can see they are not in this for the good of Christians. I like and respect people that outright attack my faith and beliefs and do not hide behind the lie that we are all in this for some kind of pluralistic good. History shows them for the liars they are. Christians that are hated, are hated for the truth that has been the same since Peter and Paul preached Christ raised. No deceit no lies.

AU and Barry Lynn are not representing themselves honestly because their actions are contrary to reality. There is no seperation of church and state. Allowing Christians a voice in education and politics is not "respecting and establishment of religion" but respecting Christian-Americans. Everyone gets that tolerance and respect except Christians.

The war against Christmas is just one battlefield where Christians find weapons (though political) aimed at them.

Though, it is a far cry from the martyrdom being suffered by Christians in many other countries (may God forgive the comparison here), one domino makes the whole chain fall.

[melikio]

AU and Barry Lynn are not representing themselves honestly because their actions are contrary to reality.

You know, if I hadn't seen this very thing in certain Christians (frequently), I probably wouldn't be here arguing anything.

Some Christians are: "Whilrling dervishes of egocentric obnoxion." (Many other Christians aren't.) And as long as some "jerks" happen to attach their difficult personalities to their religion, there will be points of contention... no matter who/what justifies their beliefs.

Only God can show someone their sins, to help them lean toward what is positive; and some "Christians" absolutely refuse to see how screwed up they are in the spiritual sense; yet, they believe themselves to be in "right-enough" standing with their God, that they are justified in being exclusive, strict and harsh. Really, I don't see anythng there but religious bullies and hypocrites. WHY SHOULD ANYONE LISTEN TO PEOPLE LIKE THAT??

-Mel-