The War on Christmas

Before we get started I would like to remind you of a few things. If you are commenting, please either leave a first name or an alias I can call you (one I know or one I don’t know). Every time you post, please use that same ID so that I can figure out how to address all of you. Also, please do not comment about this site (if it is directed for my response) on another site: commenting to me about the entry doesn’t help when it is on another blog or site (unless that comment is directed towards somebody else or in another discussion). Lastly, please tell your friends and family about this, or anybody you know who is interested in politics: I would like to expand my readership and this would be a helpful way. Thank You

Today's blog entry features the hotly debated (mainly just by far-right bloggers and Bill O’Riley ) “War on Christmas”. I have decided that prior to telling you what my feelings are about this blood-less combat; I will first fill you in on certain truths that are directly relevant to this issue. Here goes:

Let us start with the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution (where all of this “controversy” stems from):

“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.”

Now, after reading that nice long sentence, you are probably wondering what it means, or, you assume you know what it means because you read blogs, the paper, or listen to talk radio. Probability is that you actually do not know what that statement means.

There are really two different manners in which this statement can be taken: that of the government’s interaction and that of a private entity. Let us start with the Governments…

The way the Amendment is written is that the government shall neither help nor harm a religion. It makes no reference as to mentioning a religion or not, nor does it make any statement about what counts as a religion. That has always been left up to the courts. Now, according to the courts, the government has certain areas that are no-nos for religious interaction and others that are allowed. For example, while Bush has every right to wish us a “Merry Christmas”, he does not have the right to force us to celebrate Christmas. The court case Lemon v. Kurtzman created what is known as the “Lemon test” which tells us in what manner the government and religion can interact:

"1) The governments action must have a legitimate secular purpose;

2) The government’s action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion

3) The government’s action must not result in excessive entanglement with religion”

Using this test, we see that certain things like concerts (provided they have multi-religious songs), teaching about a religion, and certain things like that are not in violation of the establishment clause. We also see that using Christmas Trees to collect donations (such as scarves or money) is not a violation. However, we see that having religious monuments set up (of only one religion) does violate this test provided that monument is set up in a manner that is not really for history.

The Establishment clause says nothing about private companies or persons. If you wish to wish somebody a “Merry Christmas”, be they Christian, Wiccan, Jewish, Muslim, or even an Atheist, that is your right as an American. However, you should not be offended when I wish you a “Fantastic Festivus” back. Congress is the only thing banned from doing certain things with religion. Some stores do not wish people “Merry Christmas” and instead use the phrase “Happy Holidays”: This is the stores choice, and in no manner is the store forced to do this.

Currently, some far-right bloggers and several talk show hosts (Bill O’Riley being the most obvious) have decided that the ACLU and we secularists are really leading a war against Christmas. I can not really understand there arguments.

The idea that stores using this phrase is an attack on Christmas by secularists surprises me. We do not support government and religion; frankly, we don’t give a damn about what a private entity does with religion. Neither the ACLU, nor any secular group that I know of attempts to force any group or person or company to be non-religious: In fact, we encourage each and every person to express their religious beliefs to the fullest. The use of “Happy Holidays” by stores is their decision which they believe stems from PC. PC is not our problem, so please stop saying we caused it.

Schools banned from setting up religious memorials

I did not write the Constitution, nor did any person now alive. We do not defend what we believe is right; we merely touch and defend what is in the Constitution of These United States. According to the Courts, the Lemon test does not allow the religious memorial if it is dedicated solely to the religion. Now, if you were setting up something dedicated to our history as persons, and includes the Ten Commandments as a reference to the morality of law that is ok. However, if you just had the Ten Commandments, and nothing else, that is a violation of the establishment clause.

I have read many different takes on this “War” and I have basically seen that there is not one. We do not want to ban Christmas, in fact, we wish for it to be spread to all persons who want to celebrate it, and that its message be spread to all humans. We simply have the desire to uphold the Constitution and what it stipulates in the establishment clause. All in all, we really just want you to be who you are, and to keep the government from making you something else

My last message to you is

Have a Merry Christmas this year,

Be kind to your fellow humans
Call your family and friends, even if for a few moments
And help those less fortunate then yourself

Read more ...

A Response To "Republicans: It’s time to hang it up"... About The Right Splitting

Before I start, I would like to show you a quotation from my entry endorsing Obama for President. In this quote, I show you exactly what I think of third parties. Keep this in mind when you start reading my response to The Ohio Republic:

" To start this off, I would like to first talk briefly about third party candidates. Both Ralph Nader and Bob Barr and the who string of other candidates have no overall chance of winning this election. At most, third parties will pull in 5% or so ALL TOGETHER. This means that a vote for a third party is not only a wasted vote, it is a vote AGAINST your favorite mainstream candidate. That said, lets chat briefly about what third parties actually do. Third parties usually are very similar to a mainstream party, just they have one big difference. When that difference (their campaign base) gets enough attention and support, it jumps to the mainstream parties. Basically, third parties are vetting parties for new and interesting ideas. They should be allowed to get local power, but never national."

Over on The Ohio Republic, Harold has a post about the potential split in the Republican party that he sees occurring soon. I am going to be quoting his entry, so that I can respond below, and per the terms on the bottom of his blog, I need to include this:

"Permission is granted to use contents of this blog (except feeds copyrighted by their originators), provided that this copyright notice appears with the item used, and the use is not for profit."

"The paleoconservatives, of which I consider myself one, have consistently advocated limited government, particularly at the Federal level, balanced budgets, a strong national defense but avoidance of foreign wars; and social and economic freedom. Examples of paleoconservative Presidents are Herbert Hoover and Dwight Eisenhower (with the qualification that President Eisenhower was unable to balance his budgets – partly due to World War II debt and partly due to a Democratic Congress through most of his administration)."

Claiming Hoover as an example of your party, or your own position, is probably not a good thing to do. That said, I agree that the old-school republicans, of which I do respect and enjoy, are more socially liberal and fiscally conservative. The main point of a paleoconservative is mostly laze-fare in both social and business aspects. Furthermore, they should only care about the countries well being, making sure that we do not run into debt and that we are ready to defend ourselves. A true paleoconservative will only wish to go to war when either our country is attacked or if there is clear evidence that we NEED to go to war to protect ourselves. This is the position a lot of our founding fathers were, and this is a decent/good position.

"Neoconservatives have consistently advocated the use of the military to expand American interests throughout the world, economic freedom, and a more proactive approach to the regulation of business. Since 1980, neoconservatives have advanced a social agenda reflected in the preferences of the Religious Right, They have been outspoken for Second Amendment rights, and have tended to expand Federal powers affecting secrecy and individual rights. Early examples of neoconservatives (before the term came into use) are Theodore Roosevelt and Richard Nixon. More recent examples of neoconservative Presidents are Ronald Reagan, and our current incumbent. "

While I would not place Roosevelt, or even Nixon, with Reagan or Bush, I agree that the same fiscal sense as the paleoconservatives, while an invasion into the personal sphere, is the trademark of this group. To me, neoconservativisim is not a good position to be in, as it forces your believes (usually religious) upon the country. Additionally, the odds of being able to get our message around the world without going into debt (the fiscal republican part) is very unlikely. How can we have a war without a huge waste of money? Basically, I contend that their secondary goal, makes the neoconservatives lose their primary goal.

"The bipolar shifts have confused Republicans to the point where many wonder whether the Party has a philosophy at all; and it has alienated the general public to the extent that a recovery in four years may not even be possible. "

The Republicans have weathered worse storms then this. When Lincoln left the party, they still were able to reform shortly there-after. I can not see that the party will fall due to only this issue. Frankly, at the start of the election season, I agreed that they would, but at the end, I thought the Democrats would.

"Therefore, I would like to offer a not-so-modest proposal. For now, America would be best served by a vibrant three-party system.
The Democrats would remain as is, less a few conservatives who would be more attracted to one of the other parties, since neither now would be called “Republican”. The Democrats would continue to represent the liberal tradition of governmental activism both at home and abroad. "

The Democratic party is splitting more than the Republicans are. Frankly, I see both extremes breaking off, and a new 'moderate' party forming with 20% from both camps. The old-school democrats are getting more and more alienated from their party as the far-left (huffpo, moveon, etc.) become the mainstay of the party. That said, as the Democrat party is the oldest party in US politics, I see this party as being stable and continuous.

"A Populist Party would represent the paleoconservative tradition, best represented today by Ron Paul. It would seek a return to Constitutional limitations on Federal power, would emphasize both social and economic freedom, and support a strong national defense – but for defense only. "

I sure as hell hope that Ron Paul will never get his own party. While I like the idea of this populist party, it is clear that this is simple old school republicans. Frankly, this is how the party was before Reagan, and this is what I think it should return to. Due to its previous existence for decades (right after the fall of the Whigs, until Reagan), this party would probably still be very stable. Hell, I would be a republican if it went back to this system.

That said, Rob Paul would not be the leader of this; Paul is in no way a supporter of social freedoms. Additionally, he is not for a strong national defense, nor does he have good economic plans. For more on Ron Paul, refer to my entry regarding him.

"The neoconservative home might be called the “Christian Conservative” Party, because it would represent the desires of the Religious Right regarding homosexuality and abortion, favor military interventions abroad, and be less committed to decentralism than the Populists. Sarah Palin might be a good example of a Christian Conservative. "

To me, this party would be one of the worst things that we could have in the American political system. After all, why would we want a party that specifically aims to violate the Constitution. Don't we already have the Constitution Party for that? My biggest question to this party would be how they could justify a pro-life social policy, but an anti-life foreign policy, policy? Unlike the previous two parties, I can not see the neoconservatives as being a stable party. After all, any small party that is targeting only one specific area, will become redundant and thus loose votes. By doing this, the CC would regulate themselves to tiny-party status.

...

"I do not expect such a system to be permanent – American history teaches that sooner or later the parties will again become only two – but while it lasts, it would give the American people an opportunity to see issues more clearly and to decide for themselves just what this nation is about. "

The reason that more than two parties do not last is the way that our system is set up. With a winner take all system, it is best to try and keep your party stable, and thus not on the fringes. Any third party is on the fringes, and when it becomes mainstream, it gets taken by one of the two players. This works very well as it allows vetting, and socializing, of the more "extreme" ideas before they come to the center.

Overall, I do agree that the religious right (neoconservatives) will be splitting from the Republican party sooner or later. I do not think that they will form their own group, but that they will promptly align themselves with already existing groups. The Constitution Party, and other third parties, would be a good fit for these former Republicans.

Read more ...