ACLU Targets Christmas Again
Tis the season for the yearly tradition of the ACLU and secular attacks on Christmas. Thankfully we have groups like the ACLJ out there defending us. Jay Sekulow, of the ACLJ, writes about the latest attack from the ACLU.
The ACLU is at it again. With an outrageous boldness that only they could muster, the ACLU has, once again, set their sights on Christmas celebrations. In their never-ending quest to completely eradicate all things religious from public life, the ACLU’s latest lawsuit is an all-out frontal attack on the freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion.
Let me ask you—when did a children’s Christmas program become “an illegal activity”? When did the nativity story and Christmas songs become unconstitutional? This is the outrageous and dangerous charge the ACLU has leveled against a school district in Tennessee. A children’s Christmas program has been deemed to be an “illegal act” because of the ACLU.
This week, our senior attorneys at the American Center for Law and Justice are working on this latest ACLU case. The ACLU is absolutely determined to censor Christmas. They have sued the Wilson County School System outside of Nashville, TN. We represent several school officials and teachers who have been charged with engaging in what the ACLU calls “illegal acts.” The ACLU claims that the plaintiffs have been harmed, injured and “suffered irreparable damage” through the Christmas program because of its “Christian themes and songs.” The ACLU will then ask for these actions be declared “unconstitutional and illegal.”
It gets even worse. The plaintiffs and the ACLU allege that several kindergarten students role-played a nativity scene of the birth of Jesus—and had the audacity to sing “Away in the Manger” and “Joy to the World.” According to the ACLU, these songs are exclusively Christian in nature because they celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ and are, therefore, inappropriate. School programs that include a live nativity scene and the singing of songs like “Away in a Manger” are common throughout the United States and, indeed, around the world. Thousands of school students will be participating in similar programs this year. The ACLU has, once again, shown its desire to engage in censorship.
Of course, if the ACLU wins this case, it would set a precedent from across the nation. This is precisely why we have engaged some of our most senior lawyers to defend school officials in this important case. Make no mistake about it—the ACLU will not stop with this lawsuit. They may come to your town and target your school. Their continued attempts to loosen the threads of our religious heritage and chip away at the foundation of our freedom is never-ending.
We, at the American Center for Law and Justice, will fight for religious freedom and freedom of speech this Christmas. We are standing with the school officials in Wilson County and with concerned students and parents. We will vigorously defend the rights of these students to engage in free speech on public school campuses. We are not going to sit back and let the ACLU, the Ghost of Christmas Past, remove the joy and significance of this holiday season.
Today the American Center for Law and Justice has launched a nationwide campaign entitled “Keep HIM in Christmas.” We want to make sure that Jesus is at the center of this holiday. We want to keep HIM in the nativity scenes, keep HIM in the music, keep HIM as the focal point—and not allow the ACLU to operate as our nationwide censor.
The ACLJ have prepared resource information that clearly spells out what is permissible when it comes to expressing the religious origins of the holiday season by erecting nativity scenes in your community. At the same time, the ACLJ has prepared legal guidelines outlining the proper way for students to express their religious beliefs in school during this holiday season.
Sign their petition and join the “Keep Him In Christmas” Coalition. Also consider supporting their efforts with a small monetary gift.
Email This
Posted by Jay on November 29, 2006 7:02 pm
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, ACLU, Christmas, Church And State, News
Trackback URL:
- Rightwing Guy: What Makes Me Rightwing
- Montana Netroots » Blog Archive » The wonders of walls of separation pinged this post.
- Woman Honor Thyself: No ChristmaS!.. ok?
- Pirate's Cove: It’s About The Nativity
- Random Thoughts Of Yet Another Military Member » Blog Archive » Stop The ACLU Blogburst pinged this post.
- American Daughter Media Center - Front Page » Blog Archive » Stop The ACLU Blogburst pinged this post.
- War on the War on Christmas: O’Reillys back!……Smites Crate and Barrel
Comments
15 Responses to “ACLU Targets Christmas Again”
-
-
-
Affiliations
The Giants
Advertise
-
-
Our Store
- Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
-
- More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
Thanks for the link to their resource info. It was definitely a good read.
I think Private Pigg’s earlier comment is appropriate.
The ACLJ’s position is based on several rulings from different circuits, so I don’t believe that they are officially precedents. It’s also debatable as to whether the cited rulings are valid analogies.
I’m not educated well enough to weigh the various aspects of this and make an intelligent prediction as to how it will turn out, but I think it’s fair to say that the ACLJ’s position is not unassailable.
It truly bothers me, that we have fallen to the point where we need legal guidence for kids to sing “non-ACLU approved” Christmas songs.
That’s not the case. No one is going to sue a kid for belting out “Away in a Manger”.
What we have is a situation where a public school needs legal guidance before instructing kids to sing “Away in a Manger”.
Is that really such a bad thing? Even if you’re in favor of it, surely you can see how such a thing should be handled properly and delicately.
“Is that really such a bad thing? Even if you’re in favor of it, surely you can see how such a thing should be handled properly and delicately.” -Jeff Molby
Yes it is such a bad thing.
Absolutely a bad thing. Its Christmas. Its a simple Christmas song. Why do we have to have lawyers involved in something so simple. Just so we don’t hurt some oversensitive intolerant’s feelings? Must we really have to walk on eggshells like that over simple traditional celebrations?
It’s a play devoted entirely to a religious story.
A governmental agent is leading the children in a religious play. It’s possible that it can be done without violating the establishment clause, but surely you can see the potential for abuse if it’s handled poorly.
Only if you insist on holding the celebration arm-in-arm with the government. There are countless places where you can hold such a celebration without even the slightest concern about what some intolerant libtard might think.
Go back to our discussion from earlier: Convince me that this play has anything to do with the curriculum.
Jeff, sometimes I feel talking to you about our side of things is futile. While you are by far one of the more polite liberals…it is still frustrating. Its freaking Christmas! Can’t you guys lay off once a year? The majority of folks are Christians that want to celebrate the true meaning of the season.
By the way I like your tone in the use of “intolerant libtard”.
Jeff–
Christmas is a freaking FEDERAL HOLIDAY. At what point on the descent into Leftolunacy did it become constitutionally confusing as to whether it was OK to acknowledge and even celebrate a FEDERAL HOLIDAY in school? This is absolutely ridiculous. When BTW did Christmas become unconstitutional? When the ACLU decided it was?
I agree with Jay — this is a simple matter in which NYU elitist lawyers need not be involved. Let the kids sing Christmas songs, let the schools have Christmas parties, let the kids decorate with the colors red and green, let there be the words “Christmas break” on the school calendar, let the kids write “Merry Christmas” on cards to deployed troops, let cities erect creches…
Only an extremist fool who has no regard for the intent and the foundational beliefs of our Founders and the great documents they authored would argue that ANY of these acts or observances by public entities run afoul of the US Constitution in any way.
The Three Reindeer Rule and the Lemon Test can suck it. The Founders would spit on these judicial Frankensteinian opinions.
Is that really such a bad thing? Even if you’re in favor of it, surely you can see how such a thing should be handled properly and delicately.
Yeah riiight. They should handle it as properly and delicately as the California schools’ instruction in the Islamic religion, and the courts allowing it at taxpayer expense.
Like Sekulow said…”We will vigorously defend the rights of these students to engage in free speech on public school campuses.”
Likewise.
These topics are difficult because the problem is so basic. Our viewpoints are diametrically opposed. You feel attacked because some of your traditions are being restricted. I feel disadvantaged, because I think some of your traditions should have never become tradition.
There’s not a whole lot of middle ground there. The best we can hope for is to understand the different viewpoints and respect that there’s a big gray area that needs to be sorted out.
Honestly, no one wants to burn your mangers. I just want to know I can send him to public school without him being preached at. If you can choreograph a play that doesn’t amount to an hour long bible study, go for it. If not, wait until Sunday to have your play.
Indeed. That’s why the schools are allowed to take a big long break at that time.
Indeed. Both situations need to be handled delicately. Any convergence between government and religion needs to be handled delicately. If it’s done properly, go ahead and converge. Just quit throwing the victim card out there every time someone questions whether or not it’s being done properly.
That’s a tired argument. It ceases to be a “free speech” issue when a government agent leads it. If the kids hop up on their lunch tables and act out the nativity, it’s perfectly legal. When the school is leading it, it needs to be done delicately to avoid raising establishment clause issues.
“It’s a play devoted entirely to a religious story.” Jeff M.
First you supported playacting Muslims even if the children were required to say Muslim prayers. Now you are against a project which basically does the same thing.
If the children played the story of Hercules which is heavily influenced by the classical Greek religion would that offend you?
Jesus was a philosopher as well as the Son of God. Atheist and other religious individuals can accept him for his philosophy if not his religion.
“That’s a tired argument. It ceases to be a “free speech” issue when a government agent leads it. ” Jeff M.
Your statement is in violation of the liberal idea of education freedom. I am sure some conservatives would willingly make the sacrifice as they could then stop those government agents from indoctrinating the children with liberal ideas.
No, I acknowledged that “playacting Muslims” would require the same level of delicacy. My understanding is that the “playacting Muslims” was upheld because it was part of a broader comparative religions lesson.
I’m not sure how a nativity play could possibly be construed as a comparative religions. Feel free to make the case if you think you can.
Excellent question. I’m not really sure. Probably not, though.
I think the main difference is the religion in question has basically been relegated to the realm of mythology. It would be pretty silly to claim that the government is attempting to establish a defunct religion. But I haven’t really given that much thought, so I would be interested to hear other opinions.
Definitely. A nativity play isn’t about his philosophies though. It’s about his “miraculous” birth.
I’m not even sure what that means, but you’re certainly right that I don’t agree with every liberal idea.
In the 4.5 years my daughter has attended public school, they have had a school Christmas program at a local church. During these programs they sang traditional Christmas carols (including those with “Christian themes”), traditional African spirituals, Hanukkah songs and Kwanzaa songs. I could have chosen to be offended by the Hanukkah and Kwanzaa songs, but I never considered filing a lawsuit.
It’s likely that any lawsuit would have been dismissed in short order because program celebrated all of the aspects of the holidy season. The fact that it was off school grounds would have been a factor as well.
At issue here is a play whose sole storyline was lifted straight from a single religious text.