Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The Freedom From Religion Foundation has sent a letter of protest -- often the first step leading to a lawsuit -- to the Petoskey Public Schools here in Michigan over the school board's decision to rename their "winter holiday break" as "Christmas break" on the school calendar. The Grand Rapids Examiner has the details:
On Aug. 18 during a closed session, the school board voted unanimously to change the wording of the school calendar from "Winter holiday break" to "Christmas break." That was eight days after the board treasurer, Jack Waldvogel, sent an inflammatory e-mail to district staff and board members. Either make the change voluntarily, Waldvogel said, "or I will make a motion to change it at the NEXT Board meeting, and raise such a stink, and bring out every redneck Christian Conservative north of Clare, to compel the District to do so." The e-mail also said: "Our children need to know we are a Christian nation and taking all reference to a higher being out of our educational vocabulary is wrong."..."Changing the wording to Christmas break so that Petoskey school children know that 'we are a Christian nation' violates the most basic and fundamental principles of Establishment Clause jurisprudence," said Rebecca Kratz, FFRF staff attorney, in a letter to the district.
The change also violates the principle set down in Lemon v. Kurtzman that requires government action to have a secular purpose, Kratz said. "Mr. Waldvogel's intent and purpose for recommending the change was based wholly on religion. There is no secular purpose for the change when the school district's top administrators and elected officials clearly indicate to the public that they want children to know of Christianity and of the existence of a higher being."
Waldvogel now says that his email was meant "tongue-in-cheek" despite the fact that the email ends with the statement, "Don't assume this is a joke. I'm being as serious as I possibly can here" (see the full text of the FFRF's letter and the Waldvogel email here). Waldvogel is also the chairman of the Emmet County Republican Party.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a group that has often filed lawsuits that they have little chance of winning, but this is one they could certainly win. Waldvogel's email will be a big problem for the district should a suit be filed in federal court. As the FFRF's attorney noted in her letter, the Lemon test requires that government policies have a "clear secular purpose" and evidence of an explicitly religious purpose for passing a policy has led to the overturning of many state and local actions over last 35 years.
Politics
Comments
More evidence for the GOP as the party of god, noted elsewhere as hezbollah.
Hat tip to someone else on sb who made a similar comment about a similarly stupid fundie activity.
Posted by: MikeMa | August 30, 2009 9:15 AM
An individual in Petoskey also contacted the ACLU; the ACLU has not taken any formal actions on the matter but instead are monitoring the situation. Petoskey's local newspaper is covering the ACLU angle here.
I posted a long comment in the above-linked article thread hoping to provide some perspective to interested locals on the framework that's used to consider such acts along with fisking the reporter's inference that a change due to Waldvogel's pressure and motivation was benign. I used the pseudonym "Con-Law-Lover". I also emailed the reporter a link to Ed's story at the Michigan Messenger and suggested he get a daily does of Ed in this forum so future reports provided a more accurate framework of the issue. I'll also be emailing him a link to this thread.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 30, 2009 9:24 AM
Boy team 'Mike' is really on the case this morning!
Thanks for that Michael H & MikeMA. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | August 30, 2009 10:05 AM
Mykel HeLth:
Keep it uP, komie boy! You're goin' get labuLLed as a ouTSDie agimatater. Wut the SoVRen ton of Petoeski duz AINT' nun of yur DaMNED BiZneSS, itz batween US end GOD!
Posted by: democommie's inner reichtard | August 30, 2009 10:09 AM
Christians are aware that they simply appropriated* the mid-winter festival already existent in many different cultures and belief systems, right? - DJ
______________________
*Well OK, yes, "stole" is a far more accurate a description
Posted by: DingoJack | August 30, 2009 11:06 AM
At first I was going to roll my eyes and say, "Bah, this is not big deal, not worth our time." But then I actually read the article. While I don't think it's a big deal at all to call it "Christmas Vacation" (and I'm an atheist), I DO think that changiing it TO "Christmas Vacation" is an obvious political/religious move. There's no reason to STOP calling it "Winter Vacation," other than that.
I think they can win this hands down.
Posted by: Chris | August 30, 2009 11:22 AM
Chris, I agree with you. I had the same initial impression. Like, really? This is our biggest fish to fry? This is the kind of thing that just makes it look like the big bag atheists are swooping in to cause trouble. But after reading that email, I say take it to them and take it to them hard.
Posted by: Steve | August 30, 2009 11:29 AM
DJ, You are correct. Christmas was appropriated. The Romans had a celebration for a god Saturnalia or some such and when the xians started to take over Roman gov't (200-300ad?), they wanted the regular folks to give up Saturnalia worship in favor of Jesus. The resistance to this change caused the Roman xians to make their holiday coincide with Saturnalia and viola, Christmas. Stupid xians.
Posted by: MikeMa | August 30, 2009 12:14 PM
The reason for the break from school is Christmas. Christmas is celebrated as both a secular and a religious holiday. It seems to me that there is a valid secular reason for calling the time off "Christmas break".
Having said that, though, this ain't a valid secular reason, and Waldvogel deserves the education he's going to get (and ignore while claiming persecution).
Posted by: chancelikely | August 30, 2009 12:31 PM
Some minor corrections: The Roman worshipped Saturn (which is the name they gave to the Greek god Chronos when they conquered Greece and brought their Gods back as plunder), and had a huge celebration in his honor around the Winter Solstice called Saturnalia, which included the rich giving gifts to the poor. The Christians pegged the birthday of their Savior to the Winter Solstice, probably for the same reason nearly every tribe and religion celebrated the Winter Solstice: it represented the first signs of the return/rebirth of summer -- and life in general -- at the time when nights were longest and coldest. Which pretty neatly dovetails with the message the Christians write into their Nativity story: the first sign of hope for a new era in the midst of the old tyranny.
Posted by: Raging Bee | August 30, 2009 12:36 PM
Some minor corrections to Raging Bee's post:
The Romans worshipped Saturn long before they conquered Greece. Saturn is a native god for the peoples of Latium. Being Indo-Europeans they had gods who were similar to other Indo-European cultures. We have Bullfinch and his sloppy 19th century scholarship to thank for this canard. The Romans (with only a few exceptions - see Apollo) didn't borrow Greek gods. Since they were religiously syncretic, they associated their native god Saturn with the Greek god Kronos. It wasn't Greek gods the Romans adopted, but Greek myths. The Greek myth cycle was extremely rich and full, while the Roman's had few myths of their own.
In general the Romans did not believe in stories of gods coming down and interacting with mortals in the same way the Greeks did. Even the story of Mars fathering the twins Romulus and Remus has no drawn out seduction tale. Mars fathered the children and that's that. The myth is about the two boys and their heroic deeds. I should point out that even in the ancient world, there was a difference between mythology and religion. Plato said that poets would be banned in the ideal Republic because they portray the gods "as they are not."
Saturnalia was one of the most important festivals in ancient Rome. Like other winter festivals (or other cultures), it celebrated the return of the sun (since the days started becoming longer after the solstice). It was a celebration of joy and hope amid winter privation. People could inventory their pantries, see that winter was going to end and lay out one more feast before the spring harvest (mainly winter wheat) and lambing season. Romans exchanged gifts, "exchanged places" with their slaves (like the Boxing Day tradition in England) and held extravagant parties (if they could afford it) or more modest family get-togethers. With the adoption of the worship of the Syrian sun god (under the Latin name Sol Invictus) in the imperial period, his birthday (the 25th of December naturally) became incorporated into the celebrations of Saturnalia.
To summarize, the Romans did not borrow their gods from the Greeks. They borrowed their myth cycles. They did sometimes borrow specific gods who had no Roman equivalent such as Apollo (from the Greeks who'd possibly incorporated him from the Hittites of Anatolia), Sol Invictus from Syria (and known as El Gabal in the original), Cybele from the Syrians, Isis from the Egyptians, Mithra (in a very unique form) from the Persians, Bacchus from the Greeks (although his cult was outlawed for many of the same reasons Christianity would later be outlawed) and both Judaism and Christianity from the Jews.
Posted by: Ken in Tucson | August 30, 2009 1:16 PM
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | August 30, 2009 1:23 PM
Hence the popularity of 'stolen' bread at NoelTide, as a commemorative. ;D
Ken in Tucson - great post!
Posted by: gingerbaker | August 30, 2009 1:30 PM
GOP = God's Own Peckerheads
Posted by: WTFWJD | August 30, 2009 1:51 PM
Christmas is no longer celebrated in this household. Instead we've reverted to the Pagan custom and call it Saturnalia.
Posted by: Tony P | August 30, 2009 2:10 PM
Is it just me, or does the War against the Winter Holiday Break begin earlier every year?
Posted by: kehrsam | August 30, 2009 2:42 PM
Those damn Christians -- always trying to steal our Christmas holiday from us non-believers and keep it for themselves!
I know only one atheist who makes a point of not celebrating Christmas, but even he's finding it tough to do now that he has kids.
But in view of the letter, the FFRF is right to sue.
Posted by: tacitus | August 30, 2009 3:28 PM
Dammit, I get two weeks off for Saturnalia/Solstice this year, and these assholes are going to screw it up.
Next thing you know, we'll just have to go to school every friggin' day.
Posted by: BaldApe | August 30, 2009 3:41 PM
We prefer the term "co-opted," thanks.
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | August 30, 2009 3:50 PM
I think it's worthy to bring some energy to this issue given it provides the opportunity to generate some teachable moments regarding civil rights to both Petoskey citizens and others that follow this story in the news. Especially since Waldvogel is a Christianist also advocating their schools teach a revisionist history of America.
I think the Right has been incredibly successful in the public square creating a false history of our nation's founding and character, one embraced not just by the Right, but also considered a legitimate reporting of our history by those that are either apolitical or not well-informed (which is a substantial portion of the population).
I wouldn't be surprised if O'Reilly reports on this story where he fails to note the motivation is religious while noting what the local reporter I linked to @ 2 did, which is note that all the nearby schools refer to their break as a Christmas Holiday (which is avoids confronting the central point). O'Reilly previously claimed a local township prohibited their offices and employees from decorating their office or wearing green and red during the Holidays; a local TV station followed-up that very day and found that the office was rife with decorations including a decorated tree, and the Supervisor was wearing a green shirt with a Christmas-themed tie.
By the way, Petoskey is a great town. It sits on its own bay of Lake Michigan, with hills as steep as San Fransisco (though with snow and ice on them in the winter-time). The town has a gaslight district and lots of tourists flock here for the natural beauty. While it's a small town of 6000 surrounded by red state America, its actually got a disproportionately large contingency of educated liberals. I live 45 miles away, visit frequently (my excuse is to recyle), and depend on their great little book store whose inventory is the antipathy of Fox News' required reading material (lots of science and history, not much space for books by Glenn Beck stealing Thomas Paine's good name).
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 30, 2009 4:22 PM
Ken: thanks for the correction/clarification.
Posted by: Raging Bee | August 30, 2009 4:49 PM
Ken and Bee
Thanks for filling in the gaping holes in my historical recollections. I was astounded to have remembered Saturnalia and spelled it correctly. I'd forgotten about the slaves and masters changing places. In any case, it is rightly a solstice celebration as that has been a reason to party since well before the xians had any reason to celebrate.
Posted by: MikeMa | August 30, 2009 5:42 PM
Everybody said they were a figment of Bill O'Reilly's imagination, but the Grinches are back!
The whole thing's silly either way, but the Freedom From Religion Foundation's Rebecca Kratz needs an education in "the most basic and fundamental principles of Establishment Clause jurisprudence."
Obviously, she seems to think Establishment Clause jurisprudence started in 1971 with Lemon vs. Kreutzman, because that's the case she cites.
Hah. Lemon is still steered around by many or most courts, and has picked up many dents in its fenders. Let's do it again. Stare decisis is for suckas.
"Freedom from religion" might win again in the Supreme Court [and I expect that it would], but it's a 20th century concept, not "fundamental" atall to the Establishment Clause.
The Establishment Clause left religion to the states, and if the states saw fit, the localities.
That's "federalism" in a nutshell, as conceived in the Constitution and ratified with that understanding.
Posted by: tom van dyke | August 30, 2009 8:00 PM
tom van dyke, #23: Everybody said they were a figment of Bill O'Reilly's imagination, but the Grinches are back!
Tom, read this very carefully. You can read it as slowly as you need to. Trace the words with your finger if it will help you. These points are very, very important to really understand what is happening.
No one is trying to outlaw Christmas. This is very important, so I will say it again: no one is trying to outlaw Christmas.
No one really cares whether the holiday is called Christmas. As a previous poster noted, several nearby school districts call their winter holiday "Christmas" and no one cares. There are no law suits in those communities to change the name of their winter holiday.
The Petoskey Public School District currently calls its winter holiday break "the Winter Holiday Break." This is its current name. There was a suggestion to change the name to "Christmas Break."
There is a paper trail that clearly shows that the reason for the change in name is to promote Christianity. No one would have objected if they wanted to do this to make the name standard with the rest of the state and the country. But rather their intentions are blatantly to promote their particular religion.
So the current holiday is called the Winter Holiday. They want to change the name to Christmas. They want to do this because they want to promote the Christian religion. This is illegal under the 1st and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution.
Does this make it clearer?
Posted by: Chiroptera | August 30, 2009 8:29 PM
tom van dyke seems perfectly ignorant himself on not only the Establishment Clause as the courts understand it, its original meaning, its attendant clause (the religious freedom clause which he seems to consistently ignore I suppose in order to buttress his point), but also the arguments and understanding made at the founding regarding state established churches. Some arguments made even prior to and after the Constitutional Convention and prior to and immediately after the Bill of Rights were ratified.
I tried to gently (well, for me suffering fools) guide him there there the other day, even providing some reading material to help mitigate his ignorance, but he appears more bent on quote-mining the Constitution to argue for states violating our freedom of conscience rights rather than considering the Constitution in its totality and historical perspective. That sort of dishonest quote-mining we saw the other day gets into sacred territory for me, so don't expect any respect out of me unless you come to the table with honest, cogent arguments.
Also, it's Lemon v. Kurtzman, not Kreutzman. And there are arguments to be made beyond Lemon, it just happens to be current precedent which the lower courts who've ruled recently have no good professional choice but to follow.
I also see he continues to attempt to discredit a general position he appears to abhor without having the balls to directly rebut that position himself. Instead focusing on criticizing the judge in the KY case and now a MRFF person without taking on the meat of the issue he appears to abhor but does effect actual people, i.e. protection of our religious freedom rights from state/local government encroachments. Patently dishonest van dyke and disingenuous I suppose if you're a sophomore.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 30, 2009 8:29 PM
Chiroptera, yes, I agree. Chris made the same point and it's a good one, trying to add Christmas to a neutral term! Provocative. I'd make the same argument against those who want to subtract it elsewhere---if the shoe were on the other foot, it would be a suppression of the free exercise of religion, yes? I'm good with possession being 9/10 of the law, and have no time for quarrelsome people either way.
[I originally wrote an agreement with your and Chris' point along these lines, but my cmptr messed up. Mea culpa, or cmptr culpa, whatever.]
To return to my point, I'd like to see Lemon vs. Kurtzman relitigated [thx for the mental-typo correction, Mr. Heath, but I'm sure I got it right on several other occasions].
Hey, I don't give a damn what they officially call Christmas Break in Michigan. It's stupid either way. But Lemon is interesting, and I'll return to my key point that the Freedom From Religion Foundation's Rebecca Kratz needs an education in "the most basic and fundamental principles of Establishment Clause jurisprudence." She's wrong:
The ratifiers of the Bill of Rights [or the 14th Amendment] would have had no godamm problem atall with calling it "Christmas Break," Mr. Heath. Surely we might agree on that.
This 21st century is complicated enough without persons of good will trying to find a common ground. Mr. Heath, I don't wanna butt heads with you unnecessarily. And Lord knows I have little common ground with that guy up in Michigan who wants to start a fight. So let's see if we can work it out, at least to work toward a fair battlefield/marketplace of ideas thing. Cheers.
Posted by: tom van dyke | August 30, 2009 10:47 PM
Michael,
That's Van Dyke's general approach. He does hit and run commentary, making ill conceived statements without really addressing the issues. When challenged, he either ignores the challenge or complains he's being purposely misinterpreted. The truly sad thing is that he's quite convinced he's exceptionally smart and well educated. Yet as you note, he got the name of the Lemon v. Kurtzman case wrong. He also seems to think that that the religion clauses of the 1st Amendment haven't been incorporated to apply to the states, and that federalism still is supreme in religion clause jurisprudence. Frankly, while I respect your gentleness and courtesy in dealing with him, I have learned that he's simply not worth the effort, as he's not not interested in having a real intellectual discussion. He's not someone who could conceivably say, "OK, you've persuaded me I was wrong about that."
Posted by: James Hanley | August 30, 2009 10:49 PM
@16-- best comment yet!
Posted by: TOP | August 30, 2009 11:06 PM
Kehrsam ruefully wondered (#16):
"Is it just me, or does the War against the Winter Holiday Break begin earlier every year?"
Come on people, focus! Let's not muck around here.
To hell with beginning the season, let's make it permanent, institute a 'Christmas Alert Scale' (with lots of pretty colours), appoint a Czar (plus an extensive staff), write some really scary ads to get everyone peeing their pants, pass draconian and unworkable laws to end-run the Constitution and undermine freedoms, lock up and torture some Ay-rab 'terrorists' (just for fun) and then needlessly invade the North Pole* without any kind of long-term plan on what the hell to do next.
Isn't that one normally handles "The War on [insert distraction here]" ? - DJ
___________________
*"This isn't a war on Santa or Santaists, it's a
crusadejihadstruggle against evul Santaism. What's that you say? The North Polar region has oil and gas supplies? Shucks I didn't know that, honest injun mister! Nah, we was invading toforce, err, promote freedom, liberty, democracy and that kinda stuff. Huge oil and gas reserves, you say? Totally coincidental.Posted by: DingoJack | August 31, 2009 12:18 AM
Ugh, this is so idiotic I don't know why I'm responding to it. No, it would not be a suppression of free exercise. The government never had a right to free exercise of religion. That right is reserved to the people. Besides which, the anti-religion converse of adding 'Christmas' to the neutral term is not removing Christmas (which would result in a neutral term again) but adding an anti-religion slogan to the neutral term. If "Winter Holiday" is, as even you seem to admit, the 'neutral term', then there can be no religious preference expressed or private religious exercise denied by reverting to it, by definiton.
I'm continually shocked by how many people fail to grasp this idea.
Posted by: DaveL | August 31, 2009 5:50 AM
Posted by: James Hanley | August 31, 2009 9:47 AM
My reaction exactly. I have no real objection to referring to Christmas break as, uh, Christmas break. I mean, that's why it's there, and while it sometimes coincides with Channukah and other celebrations, it is specifically scheduled around Christmas. No problem with calling a spade a spade.
But then I saw what was actually going on here, and this is a problem. The change was made with the intention of promoting a particular religious belief. Motive does matter, and in this case the blatantly despicable motive pushes it into the realm of Establishment issues.
Posted by: James Sweet | August 31, 2009 10:47 AM
For a guy who's supposedly trying to encourage Christianity for its moral effects, it's really impressive how quickly he backpedals (from the Examiner link):
Waldvogel told the newspaper he thought his e-mail was only going to the board and administrators and not districtwide. "Unfortunately, it got back to the free world... I certainly would have tempered it if I knew it was being sent to everyone." He said the e-mail was meant to be "tongue-in-cheek." (His e-mail ended with: "Don't assume this is a joke. I'm being as serious as I possibly can here.")
Posted by: Ray Ingles | August 31, 2009 10:52 AM
Kehrsam & DJ,
September is comming up along with the first day of school and the traditional 'printing of the calendar.' Fighting this out in December would be a little pointless.
Posted by: Drekab | August 31, 2009 2:34 PM
Very well done, Mr. Hanley, in misrepresenting my remarks. But if you're ever to top me in a discussion [unlikely], you'll have to do it fair and square.
DaveL writes: "The government never had a right to free exercise of religion. That right is reserved to the people," that's the common misperception. Under [or rather, despite] the Establishment Clause, the states were indeed free to create and maintain state religions, such as Massachusetts' through the 1830s, or impose religious tests for statewide office, unmolested by the First Amendment.
This blog insists on historical accuracy, which is a very good thing, and writes on the topic frequently. However, there is certain "common knowledge" that is flawed on all sides of the issue.
As for Lemon vs. Kurtzman and its triumph so far [trumpeted by FFRF's Ms. Kratz], better to read up on its actual substance than take the red pen to misspellings of its title if you're ever going to "win" one of these things.
For as one justice wrote in 1993 in Ctr. Moriches Union Free Sch. Dist:
Lemon stalks our Establishment Clause jurisprudence once again, frightening the little children and school attorneys of Center Moriches Union Free School District. Its most recent burial, only last Term, was, to be sure, not fully six feet under: our decision in Lee v. Weisman, 505 U. S. ----, ---- (1992) (slip op., at 7), conspicuously avoided using the supposed "test" but also declined the invitation to repudiate it. Over the years, however, no fewer than five of the currently sitting Justices have, in their own opinions, personally driven pencils through the creature's heart (the author of today's opinion repeatedly), and a sixth has joined an opinion doing so.
We look for the return of the Lemon test to the courts, and see just how "basic" the creature is to EC jurisprudence. Regardless, it's a rather recent innovation [1971], and it must be noted for historical accuracy that the EC had a much different meaning until it.
Posted by: tom van dyke | August 31, 2009 3:44 PM
Even if that's true (and I'll leave any argument on that point to others), the 14th amendment marked the end of the Great American Experiment of Leaving-It-Up-to-the-States Whether-Or-Not-They-Were-Going-to-Accord-Their-Citizens Certain-Fundamental-Rights. Slavery illustrated in iconic fashion why that turned out to be a bad idea.
I didn't say "was reserved to the people", I said "Is reserved to the people". The constitution as it stands now reserves the right to religious expression to the people, not
Posted by: DaveL | August 31, 2009 3:55 PM
err, not the state governments.
Posted by: DaveL | August 31, 2009 3:56 PM
The constitution as it stands now reserves the right to religious expression to the people, not the state governments.
You mean via the 14th. I don't disagree, and stipulated it from the first I wrote. How far that extends to "Freedom From Religion" I don't think is settled yet. And according to one SC justice, they've been driving pencils through Lemon's heart for awhile now, so we'll see about that, too. I'm really not arguing anything controversial here, just setting the historical record straight.
Posted by: tom van dyke | August 31, 2009 4:08 PM
If you mean there are still grey areas, then of course you're right. If you mean that the present case falls into one of these grey areas, you couldn't be more wrong. How many decades of jurisprudence would you say it take to make something 'settled'?
The whole "Freedom from religion" trope is a red herring. There is no difference between it and freedom of religion. Sure, if you cast an ecumenical net you may be able to garner the support of enough Americans (and SC justices) to nullify constitutional protections for nonbelievers, but if you do don't forget that majorities have a way of shifting.
Posted by: DaveL | August 31, 2009 4:21 PM
tom, tell me if you would be making all the same arguments if the school had a floating holiday where the district closed down for Ramadan and Eid? What about Passover, Chanukah, or any number of other specifically non-xian holidays?
Wouldn't a truly neutral government be required to at least acknowledge one or two days/year from all of the major religions?
As for Lemon being old news, I think the prongs of the Lemon test are entirely reasonable, even if some current Justices think otherwise, many past and current SC judges still think it completely valid. The prongs, as written in Lemon, seem both reasonable and pertinent as some of the tests by which to view first amendment violations.
Posted by: FastLane | August 31, 2009 4:41 PM
Freedom from religion is freedom of religion. They are the same thing. This doesn't just apply to nonbelievers -- every person has freedom from the religions of everyone else, nonbelievers just have freedom from one additional one.
Posted by: Sean Micheal | August 31, 2009 4:46 PM
I think it's pretty clear by now that a government neutral towards religion, as adjudicated using reasonable criteria, is the last thing Tom wants.
Posted by: DaveL | August 31, 2009 4:50 PM
I'm not sure I agree with your definition of neutrality, which seems to be "freedom from religion."
tom, tell me if you would be making all the same arguments if the school had a floating holiday where the district closed down for Ramadan and Eid? What about Passover, Chanukah, or any number of other specifically non-xian holidays?
Well, I'm not making arguments as much as setting the record straight for the folks who obviously believe "freedom from religion" is a Founding principle. It certainly was not.
Yes, Mr. FastLane, that's definitely a "what's good for the goose/gander" scenario. Even the most pluralistic [as opposed to "neutral" as used here] view of religion in the public square has no argument against that. [Although you can't exactly wish someone Happy Yom Kippur, though, or Happy Good Friday.]
Posted by: tom van dyke | August 31, 2009 5:36 PM
The problem is that you haven't actually indicated a substantive difference between "freedom from religion" and "freedom of religion", or shown where in first amendment jurisprudence such a difference has been articulated.
Posted by: Sean Micheal | August 31, 2009 6:38 PM
It isn't even September yet and the far left is already trying to wage war on Christmas! What a shame. Who says there is no war on Christmas?
For one thing I will use the word Christmas until my last dying breath and dare any socilaist God hater to do anything about it. Bring on your hony lawyers and your fraud politics and your hattred for Christmas. Scrooges and God haters fear me.
Merry Christmas!
Posted by: Santa Clause | August 31, 2009 7:30 PM
Well fellow conservatives, donn't worry so much about it. People like this (FFRF)will get their due punishment on Judgement Day! Let them have their fun for now. We win in the end anyway! Once they feel the eternal flames of molten lava flowing over them in aplace filled with darkness, smoke, fire, fear, demonic beings, benevolent creature and sheer torure for all eternity, they will be begging for a Christmas vacation! They can have their fun now, we'll have ours later - only ours will last forever.
Posted by: Sphinctoral Apparition | August 31, 2009 8:22 PM
Santa Clause,
Are you a public school teacher? Or even any kind of public employee or official? If not, please enjoy your freedom of vocabulary.
Posted by: Drekab | August 31, 2009 8:46 PM
Oh, please, do tell: what sort of government could possibly be neutral towards religion, if not a secular one?
Freedom of religion certainly was, and freedom from religion is a logically necessary part of that. Even if not enforced on the states, it most certainly was a founding principle, just as much as an individual right to liberty, and the derivation of government authority from the consent of the governed. I can find plenty of examples of law from the Founding era up almost until the present day that violate these latter two, but few would deny they are founding principles, however unevenly applied.
Posted by: DaveL | August 31, 2009 8:54 PM
For the reading-comprehension-impaired, in the present case it's the Christianists who fired the opening salvo, and are the aggressors here. If this is a war, it was launched by Christians against the constitution.
Posted by: DaveL | August 31, 2009 8:57 PM
And where, pray tell, is the theological basis for this?
I beg indulgences from all, but I had to...
Posted by: Josh | August 31, 2009 9:35 PM
"For the reading-comprehension-impaired, in the present case it's the Christianists who fired the opening salvo, and are the aggressors here. If this is a war, it was launched by Christians against the constitution."
-------
You idiot. The far left fascists started this anti-Christmas campaign with help from the Atheist Communist Lapdog Ushers (ACLU) several years ago. Even in the 1980s it was commonplace to have "Christams break" on the school calender and nobody said a word. It was the left who fired the first shot of this was, but needless to say we have called out our special forces into this battle and we will show no mercy. Victory will be ours, surrender or get run over. No surrender, no mercy, fight till death, win at all costs! A great motto in a time of war. Sorry, but you are fighting a losing battle.
Posted by: Santa Clause | September 1, 2009 8:20 PM
Santa Clause, #51: ...needless to say we have called out our special forces into this battle and we will show no mercy. Victory will be ours, surrender or get run over. No surrender, no mercy, fight till death, win at all costs!
All this over what to name a holiday break? Man, you people are nuts!
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 1, 2009 8:24 PM
Apparently it's over what NOT to name it. Call it Christmas break as it has been called for decades now. Stop changing things and you'll stop taking crap from people. You have been naughty and have discriminated against me. Just for that's I'll send you a lump of coal for CHRISTMAS!
Posted by: Santa Clause | September 1, 2009 9:14 PM
Oh wait I forgot this happened in a socialist state and not a free state. nevermind. I bet this type of God hatred would nver happen in a free state like Mississippi or Alabama or Tennessee, or other free states. Socialist states should secede. Or we should secede. Either way, it will solve problems for both of us. You stay on your side, I'll stay on mine. Problem solved. You celebrate happy sodomite fake marriage day and we'll celebrate real days like Christmas. That will work out better for both of us.
Posted by: Santa Clause | September 1, 2009 9:17 PM
Santa Clause, #53: Call it Christmas break as it has been called for decades now. Stop changing things and you'll stop taking crap from people.
Actually, it has been called "December Break" in Petoskey for a some time now, and it's the Christian extremists who are trying to change things.
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 1, 2009 9:34 PM
Well in all reality CHRISTMAS would not even be if it wasn't for Christians.....Now they want to change it....After all the hype with the nativity scene being taken down in goverenment buildings I went into a court house last year during October.....I saw lots of witches and halloween things all over......My biggest question is all Christians know that halloween is a witches holiday, they get there own and people even govt. decorate for it....Schools are public and if they want to take out Christmas we need to fight and take out Halloween....We need to start fighting the way they fight because we are letting them win over our children with all their stupid and childish arguments.....Take Halloween off the calender and call it fall vacation.....I can not believe America can not see what they are doing to our children and grandchildren.....Wake up and open your mouths and start fighting for a real purpose.....Merry Christmas to all!!!!!
Posted by: wendy | September 23, 2009 11:28 PM
Actually Halloween comes from the Catholic day of the dead.
But Catholics are not real chistians to kooks like you, eh?
What is it this week with the zelots posting on old threads?
Finals week?
Posted by: theroachman | September 23, 2009 11:54 PM
wendy et al. see comment #11 posted by Ken in Tucson.
Any other questions/ comments? - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | September 24, 2009 1:18 AM