Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
I think this controversy over the atheist sign in the Washington capitol rotunda may lead to an overdose of feigned outrage. Bill O'Reilly, meet the equally and perpetually outraged Bill Donohue of the Catholic League. Like O'Reilly, he wrongly blames this all on Gov. Gregoire too:
"Gov. Gregoire is responsible for this mess. Having first acceded to the requests of atheists to attack Christmas, she is now confronted with the likes of the Westboro Baptist Church, a viciously anti-American, anti-Catholic and anti-gay group. There is a way to deal with this situation in a manner that is legally acceptable and morally defensible, but neither the Washington governor, nor her lawyers, have figured it out.
Also like O'Reilly, Donohue is utterly clueless about what the law requires:
"The First Amendment right to freedom of speech has always been conditioned on time, place and manner. That is why gays who sought to march in the St. Patrick's Day Parade in Boston and New York--for the purpose of countering the message of the parade--lost in the courts in the 1990s. In the Boston case, Justice David Souter, writing for a unanimous court, said, 'The speaker has the right to tailor the speech' and the law 'is not free to interfere with speech for no better reason than promoting an approved message or discouraging a disfavored one.'"In other words, hate groups have a First Amendment right to freedom of speech, but they have no right to set the time and place. Moreover, freedom of speech is meaningless unless it can prevail unobstructed by attempts to stifle it. To put it differently, Gov. Gregoire should have allowed the atheist group to display its sign in a different location, or at a different time, but not directly next to the nativity scene at Christmastime. Had she done so, she would be able to treat the Westboro Baptist bigots the same way.
"We have moved from censoring nativity scenes to neutering them. That the government was operative in both is particularly appalling."
What is appalling, but hardly surprising, is Donohue's rank ignorance of the law. If he made that statement in a con law paper, even at the law schools at Regent or Liberty, he would almost certainly receive an F on the paper. Time, place and manner restrictions must be content neutral; they simply do not apply here.
And his analogy to the St. Patrick's Day parade is laughable. That parade is a private event held on public property and the court ruled that the private group that organizes it, gets the permit and registers the participants can decide who gets to participate and who does not. That is not the case in Washington, where the capitol rotunda is a legally declared and mandatory open public forum.
And this statement that "freedom of speech is meaningless unless it can prevail unobstructed by attempts to stifle it" is absolute nonsense. He's actually claiming that putting the atheist sign up is an attempt to stifle the free speech of the person who put up the nativity. But that's absurd. The fact that the two messages disagree does not violate anyone's freedom of speech. Allowing one person to say one thing and another person to say the opposite does not stifle free speech, it IS free speech. Ignorant dolts like Donohue and O'Reilly don't understand that because, to be blunt, they simply don't believe in free speech.
Politics
Comments
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if they do understand it, but don't care. Demagogues are more interested in winning the argument than in being honest. I don't see any reason to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume ignorance, seeing as they've shown again and again what venal human beings they are. They'll do anything to get more attention.
Posted by: Wes | December 15, 2008 10:11 AM
Gov. Gregoire *IS* responsible for this mess. Having first acceded to the requests of mainstream religious groups, she is now confronted with other groups demanding equal treatment. Far better to keep core government buildings free of religious memes altogether, that we may act as one nation indivisible, rather than dividing ourselves over questions of metaphysics which have rather little to do with sound public policy.
Posted by: Damion | December 15, 2008 10:27 AM
I know it shouldn't surprise me anymore, but I was actually astonished Donohue would be so stupid as to act like this had any kind of relationship whatsoever to a St Patrick's Day parade. He clearly knows even less than Bill O'Reilly does about the relevant laws.
Posted by: nicole | December 15, 2008 10:29 AM
Gregoire *IS* responsible for this mess. Having first acceded to the requests Jews and Christians, she is now confronted with various other religious and ideological groups demanding their right to equal access to a limited public forum. A far better approach would have been to build a wall of separation between core government buidings and all the sundry religious expressions which the citizenry hope to showcase on state property.
Posted by: Damion | December 15, 2008 10:30 AM
Huh. Donahue actually used the phrase "anti-gay" as an epithet of reprove.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 15, 2008 10:43 AM
"We have moved from censoring nativity scenes to neutering them."
Maybe some Christians just aren't thinking about this hard enough. The original Menorah display (as a Jewish religious symbol) implies that the Jews are the unique chosen people of God, still awaiting their long foretold Messiah. The Nativity, by contrast, implies that the Messiah has already come and that devout Jews have missed the proverbial salvific boat. The FFRF sign implies that both of the previous displays are naught but myth, just as every religious display contravenes the FFRF message. Every major display logically precludes the alleged deep truths of the others. Until the UU's or the Ba'hai get their signs up, mutual incompatibility will be the norm. Why, then, take special umbrage at any particular group, when all are against all?
Posted by: Damion | December 15, 2008 10:46 AM
Understand: For Donohue, an analogy is valid to the extent that it reinforces his prejudices, and nothing more. That's it. To him, the St. Patrick's Day Parade is perfectly relevant -- it was an outcome he agreed with, just like disallowing the atheist display (and allowing a nativity display) on public property is an outcome he would agree with.
You need to realize, people like Donohue do not reason TO conclusions. They don't know how to do that, and thier religion actively dissuades them from trying. They have no concept of what it means to start from evidence and logical rules, and derive an outcome you didn't start with; Rationalization FROM a pre-established conclusion is all they know, and they think that's also what everyone else does.
Posted by: JRQ | December 15, 2008 10:51 AM
"If he made that statement in a con law paper, even at the law schools at Regent or Liberty, , he would almost certainly receive an F on the paper."
I'm sure he would receive an F, but not because of his writing, but because his Christianity is not the correct flavor for those institutions. Blind religious dogma trumps everything else.
Posted by: dean | December 15, 2008 10:59 AM
If this is what Gov. Gregoire allowed then it can be said to be one of two things. That he is either not very clever or he deliberately participated in generating a religious controversy, neither of which stands him in good stead. He could have allowed the placement of the anti-religious sign at some equally prominent position away from the Nativity scene. That way the Christians in our society can reflect the season in the way they want and the atheists can gather round their sign and "tut-tut" some. To put the two together is trouble and so unecessary.
Posted by: Peter Zim | December 15, 2008 11:20 AM
As JRQ points out, Donohue and others like him reach their conclusion before deciding what reasoning to use. They first write their conclusion at the bottom of a piece of paper, and then fill in the middle with whatever argument they think will get them there.
Posted by: Eric | December 15, 2008 11:29 AM
"To put the two together is trouble and so unecessary."
should have read
"To have a government agency involved with putting either of them up is unnecessary."
Posted by: dean | December 15, 2008 11:34 AM
Peter Zim, you appear to have missed the point as badly as the Bill Brothers. There really isn't an "equally prominent position" to the Capitol rotunda, as far as gaining the appearance of government favoritism. That's why the fundies wanted the Nativity there, and that's why the atheists wanted the sign next to it. Gov. Gregoire's error was allowing a government building to be used for an ideological display in the first place - but frankly, she had no realistic choice when faced with the original demands of the fundies.
Posted by: BobApril | December 15, 2008 11:48 AM
BobApril, you miss my point. Rather than the religious aspect, I was questioning Gov. Gregoire's judgement and by that her strength of character which both are sorely lacking. Politicians are meant to represent the people they serve (including the Christians amongst us) and not play "deer in the headlights" when hit with something controversial as such. You could go with dean's opinion and not have anything at all displayed during this Christmas season (and Christmas is both the historical and main reason for this holiday season in this country). Or the Governor could have used Solomonic reasoning and moved both signs away from the contoversial point equidistant and opposite from each other. I just want our politicians to use their grey matter when in power.
Posted by: Peter Zim | December 15, 2008 12:04 PM
Neutering a nativity scene! I love the mental image of a distressed St. Joe and Baby Jesus clutching their groins, now bereft of their balls. Of course, if you believe the Catholic version of history, neither one really used their balls during their lifetimes. Maybe Gov Gregoire (who is a woman IIRC) can make Donohue feel better by hanging some ballsack ornaments on the rotunda Christmas tree to help offset the "neutered" nativity.
Posted by: Adrienne | December 15, 2008 12:16 PM
errr wasn't there are lawsuit by the fundies which forced the government to allow the displays?
so its not the governer's error at all....
Posted by: kevin | December 15, 2008 12:45 PM
I'm not sure about the parade restrictions -- at least in the 5th circuit.
This issue came up 15-20 years ago in New Orleans where the city refused to issue permits to krewes (parading organizations) that had racial restrictions on their membership. This was upheld.
Posted by: Dan R. | December 15, 2008 1:12 PM
Peter Zim said:
Followed later by:
Why should I believe you know anything about her character when an hour ago you didn't even know her gender? Is your opinion based on anything more than the placement of the two displays?
Have you seen how the rotunda? In case you haven't here's a photo gallery. The nativity scene is the last image. I haven't been able to locate a photo that includes both the sign and the nativity to show their relative placement. But you can see by the photo that at the very least they are separated in to different areas by a column.
You seem to think that it's the governor's job to try an arrange the rotunda in such a way as to minimize disputes, like an engaged couple planning the seating arrangements for their reception. My feeling is that she has more important things to do, like running the state. If she did anything more than glance a floor plan some aid stuck under her nose I'd call that a colossal waste of time. From where I'm sitting, that she didn't waste trying to figure out "Solomonic" solution to this total non-issue speaks well to her character.
Posted by: Abby Normal | December 15, 2008 1:23 PM
Peter Zim,
I believe the rotunda was opened as public forum as a result of a lawsuit, not the Goveners whim. She really didn't have much choice in the matter.
Posted by: Drekab | December 15, 2008 1:24 PM
* The obvious mythical nature of the whole story aside, can't you imagine Joseph having a reaction like that one? Your new wife suddenly becomes pregnant, and you have very good reason to believe the baby's not yours; in her own defense, she says to you, "Joe--seriously, dude, it was God who knocked me up...." And people actually believe her. Guh.
Posted by: Rieux | December 15, 2008 1:41 PM
Peter Zim: If this is what Gov. Gregoire allowed then it can be said to be one of two things. That he is either not very clever or he...
Governor Gregoire is a she.
Posted by: Q | December 15, 2008 2:33 PM
Rieux: oh, if only! That would be too good.
Posted by: nicole | December 15, 2008 3:07 PM
Rieux, I've often wondered about Joseph.
...and Mary said to Joseph "It's the son of God" and Joseph said "He better be the son of god, I'll tell you that. And he better be the ONLY son of god, you know what I'm saying honey? I've got enough problems without raising a whole house full of god's kids. [grumbles] That's the last time I take a job out of town."
People being people, can you imagine what he went through at work, the wisped rumors, folks looking at him sidelong and laughing, and the dicks cracking jokes? "Hey Joe, how's the son god? [snicker]" I bet Joseph didn't even bother showing up for company picnics. Some folks say Job had a rough gig. But I say Joseph had him beat, hands down.
(All due credit to Sam Kinison for most of that.)
Posted by: Abby Normal | December 15, 2008 3:21 PM
Abby, pace Kinison:
Actually, the frustration I have in mind for Joseph is sort of the other way around. (He is standing in a Nativity scene, after all; the shepherds and Magi and company don't seem to be snickering about the kid's origin.)A Joseph holding the FFRF sign, it seems to me, is flabbergasted that everyone is buying Mary's story. "Has everyone taken leave of their senses?" Thus "enslaves minds," etc.
Posted by: Rieux | December 15, 2008 4:17 PM
Oh joy, Chuck Norris has officially entered the fray too, writing yet another beyond-ridiculous WorldNutDaily column on just this issue. Time to fisk, Ed!
Posted by: Adrienne | December 15, 2008 5:18 PM
Of course they all bought Mary's story. Just look at all the pictures of Jesus. It's obvious his father wasn't Jewish.
Posted by: Taz | December 15, 2008 5:19 PM
Norris's column is here: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83623
We atheists aren't just "igmos" and "fools", we're getting away with "First Amendment murder"! Someone call 911!
Oh, and did you know that Wikipedia is out to destroy American democracy and promote a government takeover of the United States? This thesis has been put forth on today's WND in both commentary and letters, and no, I'm not making that up!
Posted by: Adrienne | December 15, 2008 5:26 PM
As amusing as your thought is, I think it would have been asking a tad much of Joseph to voice his suspicions of non-Divine paternity publicly. He would basically have been saying, "Yes, I'm a first-class cuckold! I'm stuck raising someone else's kid! And my wife here, she shoulda been stoned to death for adultery!"
Posted by: Adrienne | December 15, 2008 5:29 PM
Regarding Joseph and paternity, in the original script for Monty Python's Life of Brian, there was a scene with a young girl who was trying to explain to her boyfriend that the Holy Ghost had made her pregnant. As she gives her explanation it becomes very clear that this very substantial "Holy Ghost" merely had a very clever pickup line.
Posted by: Tulse | December 15, 2008 6:36 PM
Here is a photo that includes the nativity scene and the "atheism sign."
Posted by: Dr X | December 15, 2008 7:38 PM
And, after the sign was stolen and replaced, an armed guard stands watch. Just to the left are two "anti-atheism signs."
Posted by: Dr X | December 15, 2008 7:45 PM
As you have pointed out Mr. Brayton, this whole kettle of worms would never have been opened if the public square had not been turned into a platform to preach religion. It merely gave everyone else the excuse to say "me too" and for publicity-seeking demagogues to inflame public opinion. Let's go back to that old "seperation of church and state" thing. I suspect we won't have any more of these problems!
Posted by: Raymond Minton | December 15, 2008 8:00 PM
I don't know about moral decency, but I bet the atheists know how to spell "disdain".
And ya gotta love Chuck's "reasoning" on the issue of atheists and prayer:
Christians believe that all other religions are false and blasphemous. Their god is the only god and not one--not one!--of all the other gods humanity has worshiped (many of them long before Christianity) is real. Since the vast, vast majority of humanity's prayers have been to gods other than the Christian god, Christians must maintain that all these billions miracles of false gods were either delusions, coincidences or something else. Is that rational? If even one--just one!--of these prayers to "false" gods was really answered, then the Christian belief is "preposterous and foolish".
Posted by: Wes | December 15, 2008 8:24 PM
The decision to permit displays at the Capitol was NOT the governor's, but rather, the result of a suit. The people in this thread blaming the governor aren't making any sense.
Posted by: AL | December 15, 2008 8:58 PM
"Igmos?" Is that a variation of the great '60s-era label "conformo?" In any case, "igmos" fails. It looks too much like "igloo."
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 15, 2008 9:40 PM
Properly this belongs on an earlier thread.
However to re-cap and update, I send a polite email to the artist whose work was pilfered for the Westboro Baptist Church's Anti-Santa billboard, informing him of the possible infringement of his copyright. He send me an email back which I produce verbatim below:
So how about it? Any pro bono Intellectual Property Lawyers out there, willing to give Westboro a really good scare? Oh go on! I won't ask for anything else for Xmas! -DJ
"Be afraid, be very, very afraid Phelps, down here Dingos eat Santas for brekkie." :)
Posted by: DingoJack | December 15, 2008 9:54 PM
If I was govenor, I'd let this play out in the courts, resulting in the rotunda being stuffed full to overflowing with religious crackpottery of various kinds, and hand out leaflets outlining the timelines of the various lawsuits, and which courts and judges were responsible for which decisions.
Posted by: Paul Murray | December 15, 2008 10:06 PM
Since this all started with criticism of Bill Donaghue, see
him discuss the War on Christmas on
"The Morning Show with Mike and Juliet.", Tuesday, December 16, 2008 at 9:00 am ET
In the spirit of the season I wish you all a Happy Christmas.
Posted by: Peter Zim | December 15, 2008 10:20 PM
AtheistsScientists must conclude that billions and billions and billions of so-called allegedanswered prayersastrological predictions throughout history were not real - but wishful thinking, coincidences or something else...Is that reasonable? Rational? That premise alone rulesatheismscience preposterous and foolish.Chuck logic
Posted by: Taz | December 15, 2008 10:30 PM
So many people have such strong opinions without having a clue as to what they are talking about. There is a designated area of the Capitol building that private individuals can apply to put up holiday displays for a few weeks in December. For many years a tree has been put up, then a few years ago a Menorah was put up by a private group, then an application for a Nativity scene was denied. The state was sued, on free speech and free exercise grounds, and had to agree to a
Settlement Agreement which said no display could be denied because of viewpoint. The governor had nothing to do with allowing any particular display. These wackos like Donohue and O'Reilly who blame the governor, as usual, have no idea what they are talking about.
Posted by: tomh | December 15, 2008 10:40 PM
Thanks for the link to the actual agreement -- that gives everyone a clearer picture of the actual constraints.
That said, I am not a lawyer, but reading the agreement it looks to me like religious displays could have been banned. The Settlement Agreement says (Terms and Conditions 7):
Any application for a Nativity Scene display that Mr. Wesselius submits in subsequent years will be treated in a nondiscriminatory manner based on the CCF [Capitol Campus Facilities] Policy(s) then in place. [emphasis added]
As I read that, the State and/or governor would have been within their legal rights to change the policy after the original 2007 complaint and settlement, as long as in future years, under future policies, the Wesselius nativity display was considered in a non-discriminatory fashion. In other words, the State and/or governor could have altered the policy to prohibit any overtly religious displays, as long as all overtly religious displays were prohibited.
Does anyone who knows the law better have a different interpretation of this?
Posted by: Tulse | December 15, 2008 11:17 PM
Tulse wrote: ... the State and/or governor could have altered the policy to prohibit any overtly religious displays, as long as all overtly religious displays were prohibited.
Besides being difficult to draw the line between religious and non-religious, ('holiday' trees are debatable, for instance), you can't single out religious displays, even all of them. If they allow a secular display but not a religious one they will just end up back in court and they would lose again. They could ban all displays, trees, snowmen, whatever, after all, they are under no obligation to allow any displays at all. Personally, I don't know why Capitol buildings need any decorations, but if they allow one in they have to allow just about all.
Posted by: tomh | December 16, 2008 12:48 AM
I think the basis of the problem can be laid at the door of these "War on Christmas" and "Jesus is the Reason for the Season" idiots who have given people the idea that Christmas is an exclusively religious holiday. A Christmas tree thus becomes perceived as a Christian religious display. That led to the Jewish group wanting to put up a menorah, which led to the Wesselius lawsuit to allow a Nativity Scene, which...well, you see now where it led.
And the two Bills and the rest of the whackaloons are shocked, "Shocked, I tell you!" that it's come to this. They caused it, and I didn't think they were smart enough to have planned it this way, but who knows?
Governor Gregoire's moratorium on further displays comes right before she would have had to allow Fred Phelps' cheery exhibit, which in logical terms is the right place, but I think she should have allowed it, just to show what kind of nutjobs you have to allow to poison the well of public discourse when your hands are tied by frivolous lawsuits.
Why isn't the right-wing blogosphere exploding over the fact that the Westboro Baptist Church's display wasn't allowed? You'd think their soul brothers being shut out would have them frothing at the mout!
Posted by: Lurkbot | December 16, 2008 12:58 AM
Last word should be "mouth." My fingers are cold!
Posted by: Lurkbot | December 16, 2008 1:00 AM
As John Adams wrote on 10/11/1798..."Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other" So if the the founding fathers (who wrote a pretty good document) thought so much about a country with a basis in religion, why is there any doubt that the athiests point of view would have such a negative effect on a Christian holliday? www.eadshome.com/quotesofthefathers.htm
Posted by: rubbertail54 | December 16, 2008 1:07 AM
Perhaps -- my understanding of the original complaint was that it was a menorah that set off the controversy. But ultimately you're right, this could have been avoided if they forbade all decorations (perhaps just allowing seasonal stuff like snowflakes).
And in that Constitution the Founding Fathers wrote "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", and "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States", and those are the only two mentions of the concept of religion or worship or god in the whole of the document. If all of the founders thought religion was so important, it's funny they worked so awfully hard to exclude it from the Constitution.
Posted by: Tulse | December 16, 2008 2:00 AM
my understanding of the original complaint was that it was a menorah that set off the controversy.
True enough. This is the original complaint.
The state government, in its heavy-handed way, was trying to avoid entangling itself with religion. Wesselius was told that he couldn't display the Nativity scene because it was a religious display, and when he asked about the menorah he was told, "...a menorah that used an oil and wick for light was a religious menorah and that because the menorah on display in the rotunda used electric lights, it was a secular symbol." That's when he filed suit and that argument didn't get much support from the judge.
The government itself could indeed decorate with snowflakes or something similar, but once they open the area to the public for publicly sponsored displays, then it's open season. They can't pick and choose who they allow to display based on the viewpoint of the display, religious or not. At that point religion doesn't really factor in, it's a free speech issue.
Posted by: tomh | December 16, 2008 3:26 AM
Notice that the quote you put up there (assuming it's not a made-up quote, as so many of the pro-religion "founding fathers" quotes are) says nothing at all regarding the *government*'s role in promoting Christianity or any other religion. It only addresses the character of the people being governed.
The "pretty good document" you mention does not privilege one religion over others, or even religion itself over non-religion. That's what counts.
And while Adams may have thought that it was better for the American people to be religious and moral, that was just his personal opinion. Adams probably thought it was okey-dokey to own black slaves, too, and to deny women the vote.
And by the way, the correct spellings of the words are "atheist" and "holiday".
Posted by: Adrienne | December 16, 2008 6:47 AM
Wes wrote:
And I just had my own run in with such a "demagogue." Someone who seems too stupid to educate and a conscious liar to boot:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/12/too-stupid-to-educate-and-conscious.html
Posted by: Norman Doering | December 16, 2008 8:31 AM
Posted by: Taz | December 16, 2008 9:05 AM
Actually, Taz, there isn't one, so don't bother looking.
a) The 'founding fathers' thought so much of religion they didn't want the personal (religion) to be sullied by the public (politics), they wrote the Establishment Clause to avoid this happening.
b) Many cultures have a mid-winter festival, Christians do not in any way OWN late December to early January. It IS NOT a CHRISTIAN FESTIVAL, any more than it is a Roman/Gothic Festival. Sorry to to tell you rubbertail54, but if people celbrate differently from you, tough luck, you just got to learn to share. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | December 16, 2008 9:30 AM
Adrienne,
1. Adams was not alone in the opinion that the United States was to be based upon a belief in God. "In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard and they were graciously answered...do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?" Ben Franklin 6/28/1787.
2. Adams thought slavery to be repugnant and in a letter to James Sullivan "Whence arises the right of the men to govern women, without thier consent?"
3. By your comments on slavery and womens right, you must be overjoyed by the freedoms that Bush has provided women in Iraq...
4. You are correct in your spellchecking...congratulations
Posted by: rubbertail54 | December 16, 2008 10:53 AM
rubbertail54 - There's a big difference between believing in god and basing a government on belief in god. If the founding fathers wanted to do the latter they would have put it in the constitution.
"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
"Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."
-- John Adams, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America"
Posted by: Taz | December 16, 2008 11:18 AM
Again, rubbertail54, if the Founders thought that the US was a Christian nation, why are the only mentions of religion in the Constitution prohibitions about the government using it?
Posted by: Tulse | December 16, 2008 11:20 AM
Adrienne,
You missed the point where you could have added "moral does not equal religious". Freddy Phelps is religious and as amoral a human as ever existed. rubbertail54 most likely doesn't see it that way but he stands on quicksand espousing religion = morality.
Posted by: Mike | December 16, 2008 11:41 AM
I guess rubbertail54 has never read the 1797 Treat of Tripoli that was passed *unaminously* by the US Senate and signed into law by John Adams:
Also as pointed out by Rev. Bird Wilson way back in 1831,
Adams may have been a Christian, but he believed that religion should not form basis of government. This sentiment is clear in one of his letters to Jefferson (June 20, 1815), "The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?"
Posted by: jj | December 16, 2008 12:58 PM
Normally I don't watch the "Mike and juliet" show because of work but I made an exception today.
It was disappointing because the debate was cut short by the hosts because of the two speakers were raising their voices and it is supposed to be a light morning show. The two speakers were Bill Donahue of the Catholic League and (I think) Julie Greenwald, a lawyer. They were asked about the NC elementary school that was asked by a Jewish parent to not have the song "Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer" sung at her child's school because it was allegedly a Christian song?? The school declined and allowed the little ones their holiday cheer.
The lawyer should have said that was a bad example but she went on to object to the song based on one line in it:
"Then one foggy Christmas Eve Santa came to say"
i.e. the mention of "Christmas Eve" and "Santa", the former a customary reference, with a long history in the West, to the date, Dec 24th, and the latter a very commercial invention.
Bill Donahue accused her of attempting censorship and I would agree. I think most reasonable people would find that there is nothing proselytizing about any religion or non-religion in that children's song. Then again, there may be some people who regard Rudolph's glowing red nose as something symbolic?
p.s. What comes after the songline above is :
"(Ho Ho Ho)"
Posted by: Peter Zim | December 17, 2008 2:57 AM