Liberals are the purveyors of political correctness and political correctness is the method by which liberals promote the trashing of American values.
This, to liberals, will be scorned and I will be ridiculed by them for stating it but that changes nothing as it is indeed fact. For liberals to promote their socialist agenda and ideology, traditional American values must be torn down and the way to accomplish that is to attempt to shame those who hold such values in high esteem into shying away from them.
While political correctness weasels its way into society’s daily lexicon, it is rarely more on display than at this particular time of the year.
Christmas.
The reason political correctness is so invasive during the Christmas season is because religion is the most deeply rooted of all traditional American values and Christianity has been, whether liberals like it or not, the leading religion in our nation since its founding.
This is not to dismiss other religions but the fact is, Judeo-Christian values are the bedrock upon which this great nation was built and while all religions are welcome here, and there can be no official state sponsored religion there is one thing that liberals have for decades tried to falsely convince Americans to be true.
That there is a constitutional separation of church and state.
There is not. Those words never appear in our constitution and to suggest they do is perhaps the biggest falsehood perpetrated by political correctness.
It is the 1st Amendment which contains the “Establishment Clause” but it is ONLY the first part of that clause to which liberals adhere.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
In the politically correct mindset of liberals, this is where the “Establishment Clause” ends and where they contend the separation of church and state begins.
What liberals, and political correctness ignores, and must ignore to propagate the tearing down of our personal values in order to further the socialist agenda, is the second part of the “Establishment Clause” which clearly states:
Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Put those two parts together, the second part being every bit as important as the first and it reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
What we have in this great nation, the bedrock upon which our nation’s foundation was built much to the chagrin of today’s liberals is this:
We have, in this nation, a freedom OF religion rather than a freedom FROM religion.
Aside from the “Establishment Clause” the 1st Amendment goes on to state, “…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.”
Here again, liberals are disappointed and must therefore attempt to employ political correctness, to shame those who hold traditional American values in high regard, into the false belief that we, as Americans, do not have the right to offend those who may not hold certain beliefs.
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.
There is nothing in those words which bestows upon anyone, the right to not be offended and, taking this back to the celebration of Christmas, there is nothing within those words found in our constitution, which precludes one from either celebrating Christmas OR being offended by the celebration of Christmas.
Our founders and framers took important steps to ensure that government would not interfere with religious practices just as they made sure that no religion would be seen as the rule of law in our nation.
While there have been those, who CLAIM to be offended by Christmas, they are in the minutest portion of the minority of Americans. Should their views, even if based in reality, dictate to the overwhelming majority, what can or cannot be displayed or said?
No. Not according to the constitution.
In Rhode Island, at the capitol, is a tree. Rhode Island Governor, Lincoln Chaffee, has decided, in the name of political correctness, to call that tree, a HOLIDAY tree.
That tree was donated to the state of Rhode Island by Big John Leyden’s CHRISTMAS Tree Farm. Every year, a CHRISTMAS tree is displayed at the Rhode Island Capitol. It is displayed there during the CHRISTMAS season and when the CHRISTMAS season is over, the CHRISTMAS tree is removed.
The tree currently in the capitol rotunda in Rhode Island is decorated with ornaments as CHRISTMAS trees have been since the 1600’s and is surrounded by smaller trees, lighted as CHRISTMAS trees have been since the tradition of CHRISTMAS trees began.
In the liberal mindset, calling such a tree, a CHRISTMAS tree, might offend those who don’t celebrate CHRISTMAS but, I contend, that is but a cover story for the real reason Chaffee is calling it a HOLIDAY tree.
IF one is actually offended by calling it a CHRISTMAS tree, would one not ALSO be offended by the mere presence of a tree at all, regardless of what it is called, since it is only displayed there during the CHRISTMAS season?
Of course.
Therefore, calling it a HOLIDAY is specifically meant to remove the word CHRIST from the season and is little more than another step in the process of removing CHRIST, or the Christian religion, from the lexicon and eventually from the values of Americans.
The politically correct will say, “Happy Holidays” during the CHRISTMAS season claiming it is less offensive to those who don’t celebrate CHRISTMAS but, as we know, those people have no constitutional right to not be offended even if they truly are, which I submit, they most likely, are truly not.
When my Jewish friends wish me a Happy Chanukah, I am not offended in the least, rather, I am comforted by the fact that they feel they can share their cultural tradition with me and I reply with Merry Christmas which has always been accepted warmly for the same reason. In turn, I have often wished a Happy Chanukah to Jewish friends and been met with a Merry Christmas in return.
That, my friends, is INCLUSION.
Happy HOLIDAYS is an EXCLUSION.
Those who don’t celebrate CHRISTMAS can, no doubt, see and appreciate the beauty of a decorated CHRISTMAS tree and understand the tradition behind it just as CHRISTIANS can appreciate the Menorah displayed as a part of traditional JEWISH celebrations.
I use Jewish and Christian traditions as comparative examples but know there are others as well celebrating various traditions at approximately the same time such as the Hindu celebration of Diwali or certain Gurpurab celebrations as part of Sikh culture.
Most of those who celebrate traditions at this particular time of the year, gladly join into CHRISTMAS festivities, doing so without tribute to the birth of Christ, but to share the friendship of those who are Christians.
Most of those who CLAIM offense also CLAIM to be atheists but there is also nothing contained in the constitution which states their LACK of faith must be the controlling factor for those who DO have faith.
Calling a CHRISTMAS tree a HOLIDAY TREE or wishing someone Happy HOLIDAYS rather than Merry CHRISTMAS is the same thing as having a POLITICALLY CORRECT tree or wishing one Happy POLITICAL CORRECTNESS and is specifically designed as a step to the elimination of religion from our culture so as to advance socialism as an agenda.
Oh yes, liberals, one IS directly relateable to the other.
Since Christianity is the most widely held religion in our nation, it becomes the primary target of the liberal/socialist agenda. Christianity and thusly, CHRISTMAS, is built upon the foundation of the deity of Jesus Christ. Socialism is built upon the foundation of the Communist Manifesto.
Those who ascribe to socialism try to use Christianity as a foot in the door to advance their agenda.
“Nothing is easier than to give Christian asceticism a Socialist tinge. Has not Christianity declaimed against private property, against marriage, against the State? Has it not preached, in the place of these, charity and poverty, celibacy and mortification of the flesh, monastic life and Mother Church.”
Those words are directly from the Communist Manifesto and were written by Karl Marx.
In a socialist state, it is the state itself which is the supreme authority and not religion. The Communist Manifesto calls for eliminating family, marriage, countries, and religion and private property.
As liberals continue to eliminate all reference to religion, specifically Christian religion from schools and public places under the guise of political correctness or through falsely claiming such things to be unconstitutional, they are, in fact, eliminating the basis for a good deal of American culture and tradition from generations of Americans.
Case in point…How many schools across this country have, over the years, been replacing CHRISTMAS programs with HOLIDAY or…WINTER programs? Nativity scenes in parks or in town squares have increasingly become the exception rather than the rule.
CHRISTMAS trees in state capitols under the control of liberals? HOLIDAY trees.
Last week, in a Rockland County New York school, a teacher, during a lesson on the north pole, told a second grade class full of 7 and 8 year olds that there w
as no Santa.
That teacher took the opportunity, during what essentially was a GEOGRAPHY lesson…to tell the class there was no Santa. Santa’s relevance to Religion? St. Nicholas was the Patron Saint of Children who has become known not through advertising as Santa but because of a book in 1821 showing Sante Clause, yes, with an “E” and again in 1843 with the story, “A Visit from St. Nick” which you might know as, “The Night Before Christmas.”
A teacher, in Rockland County New York last week, furthered the socialist agenda in a room full of 8 year olds.
It boils down to this…
When liberals tell you that CHRISTMAS trees aren’t CHRISTMAS trees, that there is no Santa, that nativity scenes aren’t allowed in public places or Happy Holidays, it has not one thing whatsoever to do with “inclusion” or “political correctness.”
It has EVERYTHING to do with Exclusion and the removal of religion from society at every level, so as to further the liberal/socialist agenda. It is traditional American values, Judeo-Christian values and those who hold such values above government which are standing in the way of liberals completing the shift to socialism.
There is no time of the year when this aspect of the liberal/socialist agenda is more noticeable than at CHRISTMAS time and we, as conservatives, must let them know that we ARE onto them and their agenda.
I have a CHRISTMAS tree, send cards that say Merry CHRISTMAS, wish people a Merry CHRISTMAS and yes, Rockland County…
There IS a Santa Claus.
So this is Christmas……and I am once again receiving silly emails and silly rants about the “war on Christmas.” It’s not bad enough we’re still fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanastan, let’s CREATE an imaginary war to get even more people riled up and more polarized. You go Fox News!
Strolling through Chicago stores and suburban malls in the last week most stores I passed had a “Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays’ sign. You got your trees with tinsel, you got your Santas, you got your nativity scenes. You got your 2 years same as cash financing.
Nobody is saying “Don’t Ask Don’t Sell.”
So where in the name of Dasher and Dancer is the war on Christmas occurring? According to the conservative voices you hear on radio and TV this war is all over the place and yet I can only find a few instances of it. Do a Google search and you’ll find stories about it going back years. But no more or no less in any given year. Scrooges trying to spoil the Christmas spirit goes back to…..well….Scrooge. The only people they scare the Dickens out of is, um……..Dickens.
And of course according to those who believe in this “war” the mainstream networks are complicit in trying to “kill” Christmas. But, if it’s the networks..aka the “liberal media” that is helping in this battle, why in the name of Jingle Bell Hell are they reporting on it?
It’s not a war. It’s not a battle. It’s Bill O’Reilly trying to amp up ratings and book sales. It’s great marketing. But it’s not a war.
Sure, there are your fair share of idiots out there who feel like spoiling the holidays for the rest of us. Let them stand underneath Nancy Pelosi’s mistletoe til they get in the spirit. That’ll teach ‘em.
There are special Christmas episodes all over TV. Not HOLIDAY episodes but CHRISTMAS episodes. Says so right there in the TV guide in big red and green letters. But again, aren’t these the liberal networks/media who want to KILL Christmas? They sure have a funny way of showing it by promoting and televising all those Christmas episodes and movies.
Every year I hear about how Christmas “traditions” are falling by the wayside. But weren’t a lot of of our Christmas traditions essentially co-opted by Christians long ago? Lots of Pagan stuff originally as I recall. Call me crazy but I also don’t think there were many Christmas trees in the desert anywhere near oh ye little town of Bethlehem.
And while I’m certainly not a biblical expert…I also don’t believe there is anything in the gospels about giant displays of reindeer.
Personally, I love the Christmas season even thought I am not a Christian. I love the spirit, the music, the gifts I get to return. (But I didn’t return YOUR gift..no really…..um..I didn’t….)
This imaginary war on Christmas simply doesn’t exist. Santa is more real. Although I believe there is a group pressing to see his birth certificate.
So, to paraphrase Tom Leher:
Let those Christmas sleigh bells jingle. Hail our dear old friend Kris Kringle
Driving his reindeer across the sky….
I hope Bill O’Reilly is standing underneath when they fly by.
Merry Christmas and God Bless Us Everyone!
Leaving aside issues of what to call trees and holidays, I’ll address the larger subject of separation of church and state. That separation is not mere “political correctness,” but rather a bedrock principle of our Constitution much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of the people (not a deity), (2) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (3) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (4), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. Given the norms of the day, the founders’ avoidance of any expression in the Constitution suggesting that the government is somehow based on any religious belief was quite a remarkable and plainly intentional choice. They later buttressed this separation of government and religion with the First Amendment, which constrains the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions. The basic principle, thus, rests on much more than just the First Amendment.
Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to “[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government.” Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that even as new principles are proclaimed, old habits die hard and citizens and politicians could tend to entangle government and religion (e.g., “the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress” and “for the army and navy” and “[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts”), he considered the question whether these actions were “consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom” and responded: “In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.”
It is important to distinguish between the “public square” and “government” and between “individual” and “government” speech about religion. The constitutional principle of separation of church and state does not purge religion from the public square–far from it. Indeed, the First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views–publicly as well as privately. The Amendment constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion. As government can only act through the individuals comprising its ranks, when those individuals are performing their official duties (e.g., public school teachers instructing students in class), they effectively are the government and thus should conduct themselves in accordance with the First Amendment’s constraints on government. When acting in their individual capacities, they are free to exercise their religions as they please. If their right to free exercise of religion extended even to their discharge of their official responsibilities, however, the First Amendment constraints on government establishment of religion would be eviscerated. While figuring out whether someone is speaking for the government in any particular circumstance may sometimes be difficult, making the distinction is critical.
A word should be added about the commonly heard idea that this somehow is all about people easily offended. We’re not talking about the freedom of individuals to say or do something others find offensive. We’re talking about the government weighing in to promote religion. Under our Constitution, our government has no business doing that–regardless of whether anyone is offended. While this is primarily a constitutional point, it is one that conservatives–small government conservatives–should appreciate from a political standpoint as well. While the First Amendment thus constrains government from promoting (or opposing) religion without regard to whether anyone is offended, a court may address the issue only in a suit by someone with “standing” (sufficient personal stake in a matter) to bring suit; in order to show such standing, a litigant may allege he is offended or otherwise harmed by the government’s failure to follow the law; the question whether someone has standing to sue is entirely separate from the question whether the government has violated the Constitution.
The Constitution, including particularly the First Amendment, embodies the simple, just idea that each of us should be free to exercise his or her religious views without expecting that the government will endorse or promote those views and without fearing that the government will endorse or promote the religious views of others. By keeping government and religion separate, the establishment clause serves to protect the freedom of all to exercise their religion. Reasonable people may differ, of course, on how these principles should be applied in particular situations, but the principles are hardly to be doubted. Moreover, they are good, sound principles that should be nurtured and defended, not attacked. Efforts to undercut our secular government by somehow merging or infusing it with religion should be resisted by every patriot.
Wake Forest University recently published a short, objective Q&A primer on the current law of separation of church and state–as applied by the courts rather than as caricatured in the blogosphere. I commend it to you. http://tiny.cc/6nnnx