Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
The battle starts this year in Kentucky:
A spokeswoman for Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear says he’s calling the tree on the Capitol’s front lawn a “Christmas” tree this holiday season.
A statement from the administration last week sparked Christmas consternation by referring to the yet-to-be-chosen evergreen as a “holiday” tree. Some Christians were perturbed by the terminology.
Spokeswoman Kerri Richardson says the administration received a steady stream of e-mails and phone calls about the “holiday” tree. She says it’s always been a Christmas tree to the governor, and it will be this year, too.
The governor is inviting critics of the “Christmas” tree to a lighting ceremony Nov. 30.
Many comments underneath, both pro- and anti-calling it a “Christmas Tree.” With very few exceptions, everyone on one side of the divide believes everyone on the other side of the divide to be a complete drooling idiot who knows nothing about anything, including the history behind the First Amendment and the history behind Christmas trees.
And the ACLU. That noble organization of dedicated lawyers fighting for Christians.
Yeah, suck one. The First Amendment, if you take the time to actually read it, prohibits in the very same breath 1) establishment of a state religion and 2) free exercise thereof. That means if you single out a single creed to be particularly deplored beneath all others, you run into precisely the same problems you run into if you single out a particular creed to become the official state religion. And this is precisely what’s happened.
We’re bickering, back and forth, endlessly. In a sane world what would we be doing? “Governor put up a Christmas tree. Whatever.” And we’d go on about our business. Separation of church-and-state issues? Nope. It’s a Christmas tree. You don’t like it, don’t look at it.
Why is it the other way? Because of organizations like the ACLU, and these phantom-pretend people who are oh-so-shocked to scan the horizon with their oh-so-sensitive eyes and suffer the offense of seeing a state-funded Christian sapling.
It’s got to do with the U.S. Code, Title 42, Sec. 1988. You’ve heard the ACLU is supported “entirely with private funds.” That needs a re-think. The ACLU has been motivating us — motivating us — to get all vexed about state-sponsored religious symbols every twelve months, so they can suckle at the teat of the treasury:
(b) Attorney’s fees: In any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of sections 1981, 1981a, 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1986 of this title…the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity such officer shall not be held liable for any costs, including attorney’s fees, unless such action was clearly in excess of such officer’s jurisdiction.
(c) Expert fees: In awarding an attorney’s fee under subsection (b) of this section in any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of section 1981 or 1981a of this title, the court, in its discretion, may include expert fees as part of the attorney’s fee.
Much more info about the ACLU at the “Top Ten Myths” page at Stop The ACLU.
So litigious groups like this, with more manpower than work to do, get to go fishing this time every year. To them, it’s just seasonal revenue. Just like hopping on a trawler. The rest of us pitch out the rotting pumpkins and throw the costumes in the back of the closet, the ACLU starts looking at state capitals and courthouses, and writing its letters.
Well — regardless of what the court decisions may say, you don’t have a right not to be offended. Especially if simply being reminded of other religions is all it takes to offend you.
Oh and before anybody asks: Yes, if there are lots of Jews or Muslims or Hindus in a certain county, and the elders put up festive symbols of those religions at certain times of the year — hey, I’m good. I’m certainly not in any hurry to get anyone sued. So don’t go there.
Pretending that someone’s religion is a dirty thing, that we need to enjoy some “right” not to see any evidence of it, is a great way to get the fighting started. So knock it off already. It’s a Christmas tree, and that’s just fine.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Because it’s fun.I’m not a christian and I do christmas with tree
- kermitt | 11/11/2009 @ 07:16and santa and decorations and presants,because it’s fun.
I’m an Atheist and I find no offense. I may actually start putting up a tree since it seems to offend so many of the people I like to offend.
The ACLU dos not speak for me and can kiss my ass.
- tim | 11/11/2009 @ 12:22Oh and before anybody asks: Yes, if there are lots of Jews or Muslims or Hindus in a certain county, and the elders put up festive symbols of those religions at certain times of the year — hey, I’m good. I’m certainly not in any hurry to get anyone sued. So don’t go there.
I’ll do you one better, Morgan.
Are you aware of the Sikh population in Yuba City, Morgan? Not terribly far from Folsom. It’s one of the largest enclaves of them in the entire country.
Anyway, the Sikh Temple up there actually puts Christmas lights on the outside. I worked with someone who worships there, and asked him about this oddity. He answered, “We like to blend in with the rest of the community.”
I was stunned. If only all immigrants from other cultures felt this way.
- cylarz | 11/12/2009 @ 02:37We’re bickering, back and forth, endlessly. In a sane world what would we be doing? “Governor put up a Christmas tree. Whatever.” And we’d go on about our business. Separation of church-and-state issues? Nope. It’s a Christmas tree. You don’t like it, don’t look at it. Why is it the other way? Because of organizations like the ACLU…
Here’s a question I have had for some years now, which nobody has been able to answer.
Why is it that until about, oh, thirty or so years ago, it WAS “the other way?” If having overt Christian symbols on public property really is this abhorrent to the soul of the First Amendment, why is the judicial branch (and those who are the plaintiff in these suits) just now suddenly figuring it out? Why wasn’t this an issue back in 1934 or 1911 or 1878 or 1826 or 1798?
Thomas Jefferson’s famous letter to the Danbury Baptists, from which we get the infamous phrase “wall of separation between church and state” was written, what, 200 years ago? It’s taken people this long to suddenly realize that’s a directive to purge all traces of religion (specifically, anything based on a Judeo-Christian tradition) from our culture? (Naturally, nobody’s interested in putting the kibosh on Kwaanza or discouraging anything related to Islam.)
Why, indeed. Because back then, such a suit would have been laughed out of court, and the plaintiff probably slapped with some kind of penalty for wasting everyone’s time to boot.
What I want to know is, “What’s changed?”
I think I know the answer, but the atheists here aren’t going to like it. What’s YOUR answer, Morgan? Philmon? KC? Anyone?
- cylarz | 11/12/2009 @ 03:01