As you see everyone has the freedom either alone or in community with others and in PUBLIC or private

I don’t dispute that. My assertion is based on a different definition of “public“. You’re referring to “8. open to the view of all; existing or conducted in public.” and you are absolutely, unquestionably correct that this manner of public religious expression is protected by the free exercise clause.

However, I am referring to “public” as in “4. of, pertaining to, or being in the service of a community or nation, esp. as a government officer” and this manner of public religious expression, according to the prevailing opinion of the courts, prohibited by the establishment clause with only a few exceptions.

It is not my interpretation as it is what the U.S. Constitution states as clear as day unless you can explain to me how you can restrict freedom of religious expression without restricting freedom of expression.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

As you see everyone has the freedom either alone or in community with others and in PUBLIC or private, to manifest his religion in teaching, practice, worship, and observance.

You just happen to be backing a tyrannical teaching. You are certainly not the first person to do so.

But which of YOUR civil liberties were violated?

None. I don’t live in Berkley. My town and its agents respect the prevailing interpretation of the establishment clause.

But which of YOUR civil liberties were violated?

The courts have misinterpreted the Constitution on many occasions, so I’m sorry, but this is hardly a compelling argument.

You’re free to challenge and disagree with the courts’ interpretation, of course, but their authority on the matter makes the ACLU’s position quite compelling.

Name one of your civil liberties that is being imposed upon by our singular view of Christmas.

The ACLU, the courts, and many of us believe that a singular view of Christmas, sponsored or endorse by governments or their agents, is a violation of the establishment clause.

I realize you disagree with this interpretation, but that is the answer to your question. There really isn’t a conspiracy.

Since it is generally accepted by most in the historian/scholar communtity that the historical figure of Jesus did in fact exist, the burden of proof is on you to disprove them if you claim otherwise.

Indeed. Sailnsouth made numerous unsupported (some even irrelevant) allegations.

The courts have misinterpreted the Constitution on many occasions, so I’m sorry, but this is hardly a compelling argument.

“The ACLU is just protecting America from a singular view of Christmas.”

Which is not the ACLUs place. The ACLU supposedly protects civil liberties. Name one of your civil liberties that is being imposed upon by our singular view of Christmas. Which, by the way, Christmas (keyword: Christ) isn’t suppose to be all inclusive. It celebrates Christ.

“just don’t require the government to favor one religion over others, it’s quite simple.”

Unfortunately the government always has endorsed Christianity over other religions, the same Framers who wrote the establishment clause. They also did it without violating anyone’s civil liberties, or forcing Christianity (the worship of Christ) on anyone whatsover. And you’ll have to live with it I’m afraid, because its still a FEDERAL holiday.

“As far as what Christmas really stands for…it stands for a rich tradition of beliefs that are largely pagan.”

No it doesn’t. It stands for the birth of Christ. It may have been hyjacked but it is still representative of the birth of Christ. The fact that December 25 is not really His birthday is irrelevant. I don’t always celebrate my birthday on the exact date I was born, but its a celebration nonetheless.

“There is no good evidence at all that Christ ever existed as a true person.”

The overwhelming majority of the scholar/historian community both secular and non disagree with you:

“Most scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion.”

Since it is generally accepted by most in the historian/scholar communtity that the historical figure of Jesus did in fact exist, the burden of proof is on you to disprove them if you claim otherwise.

[]

It in fact was the birthday of the Persian/Roman god Mithra and was taken over by Christians as they came to power in Rome. Christ’s life story is amazingly similar to Mithra who existed for 800 years before the first Christians.

Please provide a citation.

You can worship or carol to your hearts content, just don’t require the government to favor one religion over others, it’s quite simple.

As far as what Christmas really stands for…it stands for a rich tradition of beliefs that are largely pagan. One thing it is not is the birthday of Christ. It in fact was the birthday of the Persian/Roman god Mithra and was taken over by Christians as they came to power in Rome. Christ’s life story is amazingly similar to Mithra who existed for 800 years before the first Christians.

There is no good evidence at all that Christ ever existed as a true person. That period of world history was full of gods and other legenday figures created out of the imaginations of the people of that time.

The real reason for the season is the yearly coming of the Winter Solstice, where the darkness and cold of winter finally gives way to the light and warmth of a new year.

It merely prevents the goverment from forcing religion on anyone.

The courts have stated that religious messages placed on public grounds (where secular messages are otherwise prohibited) violates the establishment clause unless the benefit to religion is “indirect, remote, and incidental.”

In Lynch v. Donnelly, a nativity scene was allowed because it was merely part of a larger, secular display. In Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU and in Berkley, MI, that was not the case.

Otherwise the Constitution contradicts itself, since it also states “the free exercise thereof”. If it is limited, then its not free.

“the free exercise thereof” has been interpreted as being applicable to individuals, not governments entities or their agents. A mayor has every right to decorate his private property however he sees fit, but it is a violation of the establishment clause for him to exercise his private rights when acting in a public capacity.

Endorse: Not written in the constitution.

Understood. I was just using Jay’s word in response to his assertion. I didn’t mean to imply that the word held special legal significance.

What’s wrong with celebrating Christmas on public grounds? What is wrong with the federal endorsement of Christmas? Are you forced to celebrate the birth of Jesus as a result? No. Which is why the Framers who wrote the establishment clause saw nothing wrong with endorsing Christmas or Christianity in general.

“The establishment clause bars governments and their agents from creating, supporting, or condoning any expression of a particular religion.”

No it doesn’t. It merely prevents the goverment from forcing religion on anyone. Otherwise the Constitution contradicts itself, since it also states “the free exercise thereof”. If it is limited, then its not free.

“Endorse: To give approval of or support to, especially by public statement; sanction”

Endorse: Not written in the constitution.