Maybe if Target just put up signs saying "Hey, we picked you Christians over the sluts! Where ya' goin' now?"
In case you missed it, Falwell is policing the schools and shopping centers across the country to flush out the anti-Christmas campaign he just knows is going on to deprive him of the warm feeling he gets thinking about schoolchildren singing "Hark! The Herald Angels Sing."
Falwell has put the power of his 24,000-member congregation behind the "Friend or Foe Christmas Campaign," an effort led by the conservative legal organization Liberty Counsel. The group promises to file suit against anyone who spreads what it sees as misinformation about how Christmas can be celebrated in schools and public spaces.
The 8,000 members of the Christian Educators Association International will be the campaign's "eyes and ears" in the nation's public schools. They'll be reporting to 750 Liberty Counsel lawyers who are ready to pounce if, for example, a teacher is muzzled from leading the third-graders in "Hark! The Herald Angels Sing."
One thing that I wonder about. How much ministering of your flock can you do when there are twenty four thousand of them? And surely, the ministry does not include anything that could possibly be twisted into looking like political exhortations, does it? I'm sure there are people who would love to know.
And if you're a teacher, you better get singing hymns in the classroom otherwise the C.C. (Christianically Correct) Police are going to tattle and let the world know you hate Jesus. Being tone deaf is no excuse. As such, "Make a joyful noise unto the Lord" has been revised to "Make a noise. And make sure the CCP hear when you do it. Otherwise..."
Friends, according to "Friend or Foe" campaign sponsor Liberty Counsel, "do not discriminate against Christmas." Foes are going to get a letter from one of the pro bono lawyers reminding them that "Christmas is constitutional," not to mention a federal holiday.
A little something in the stocking, so you know we're paying attention to who is naughty or nice.
Or boycott. The American Family Association called Thursday for a Thanksgiving weekend shunning of Target stores, saying the chain was refusing to allow the phrase "Merry Christmas" on in-store promotions and advertising.
"I don't know where they're coming from," Target spokeswoman Carolyn Brookter replied. "We have no such policy on Christmas. You can see it in our stores."
At one local Target, in Colma, most of the in-store advertising offers a generic "Gatherround." One of the few advertising mentions of the C-word is above a Christmas card rack that says, "Celebrate Christmas."
That's not good enough for American Family Association President Tim Wildmon, who wants to see "Merry Christmas" signs displayed prominently "if they expect Christians to come in and buy products during this so-called season."
Wait a cotton pickin' minute here, just a second ago it was Christian persecution that Target was only groveling in abject obeisance to the Christian right's stance on Plan B and not allowing the use of "Merry Christmas" on the premises. Now it's Christian persecution not to have prominant signs welcoming Christians to celebrate Christmas in the Target of their choice?
And nice sneering threat, by the way. The snark icing on "so-called season" makes the protection racket cake taste even better going down.
And he isn't worried if they offend people who aren't Christian.
"They can walk right by the sign," Wildmon said. "It's a federal holiday. If someone is upset by that, well, they should know that they are living in a predominantly Christian nation."
Um, so, then, wouldn't these Christians be able to walk right on by some ofensive signs just like they expect all the heathens to do? I mean, it is a "predominantly Christian nation" and all that. Oh wait, sorry, sorry, there I go using logic again.
The ACLU and its supporters believe they're being drawn into a make-believe war. They say they've fielded fewer holiday-season conflicts in recent years and that everybody seems to know the rules, except those trying to make a political point.
"People are free to worship in their homes and their houses of worship and if they rent out a hall," said the ACLU's Jeremy Gunn, national director of the group's Freedom of Religion and Belief program. "You have to ask, why do they want to worship in the public schools?
Because they think everyone should be just like them? Or that they're insecure about their own religion that they can't tolerate any dissent? You'd think this guy would be down with the friends of Jesus:
Sam Minturn, who heads the California Christmas Tree Association, said his group hadn't taken a position on the issue. In fact, he doesn't mind the term "holiday tree" -- a phrase that angers some "Friend or Foe" campaigners.
"I don't care what people call them, as long as they buy them," said Minturn, who lives in Merced County. "Go ahead and call them a weed."
Uh-oh. He's on the CCP bad list for sure. And he's from California too. Probably he's teh gay, and wants the kids on drugs (he said "weed" after all).
In signing on to "Friend or Foe" this month, Falwell urged the 500,000 recipients of his weekly "Falwell Confidential" e-mail to "draw a line in the sand and resist bullying tactics of the ACLU and others who intimidate school and government officials by spreading misinformation about Christmas."
Let's see, monitoring teachers, misrepresenting the policies of businesses and threatening boycotts because businesses aren't Christian enough, open disregard for the consequences and perceptions of people of other faiths... and it's the ACLU engaging in bullying tactics?
Standing on the other side of that sand line are religious, liberal and secular organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League, whose national director, Abe Foxman, recently bemoaned the religious right's efforts to "Christianize" America.
"This amped-up effort shows how these groups want to push into the classrooms more," said Tami Holzman, assistant director of the Anti-Defamation League's San Francisco office.
"There is no war against Christmas," said Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. "There is no jihad against Christians. There is nothing going on around Christmas except these groups' incessant fundraising."
Ah yes, the "season of giving." Nothing like a little invented drama about war on Christmas to send the change clinking in the collection plate. Oh, my bad, I guess that dates the last time I was in church. The soft rustle of bills in the collection plate might be more accurate?
Sigh. I'm off to bake some heathen pies that I am absolutely not going to consume with friends and family (of which a large proportion might be religious) at a traditional values supporting America loving kinda meal where prayers might be said and blessings might be asked for and/or recognized with thanks that might be offered. Oh no! Because I hate all that stuff, and want to see it exterminated everywhere, not just Target.
Via IntoxiNation.
Posted by binky at November 23, 2005 10:15 AM | TrackBack | Posted to ReligionDo you think he misread where Proverbs said "Whoever is not against you is with you" to be "Whoever is not with you is against you"? Seriously, I don't think there's anything wrong with students praying to God, Jesus, or Allah, or to the Great Spirit, and if they can talk to each other during lunch what's the harm in letting the Christians sing a few verses of Christmas songs, or letting Jewish students sing the dradel song, or letting Wiccan students cast spells as long as the words of any of them don't cast aspersions at other people or religions. There is a distinction between the actions of the founders of this land who wanted to find a place they could worship whatever divine force they chose in the way they saw fit, and the current idea that someone voluntarily saying Jesus or Allah infringes on their neighbor. Does it infringe on a person's right to be a Democrat if another person says they're a Republican or talks about the great things Republicans have done? Wouldn't that be the logical extension in the sphere of political speech of a Supreme Court ruling in the sphere of religious speech (prayer) that for me to speak about my belief (to pray in my way) infringes on another's right to believe in their way. Yet despite saying in the FIRST ammendment of our Bill of Rights that no law should prohibit the free exercise of religion, that's what many liberals often advocate(of course, why should the FIRST ammendment mean anything to our Supreme Court when it comes to interpreting the Constitution). I certainly disagree with these zealots when it comes to government institutions essentially establishing a religion and punishing students for not participating in singing a few hymns to a God that may not be theirs. But as far as stores go, that's more in the free market realm and whatever the owners want to do, so if Target bugs these Christians, then let them stay out of Target, and there will be shorter lines for me.
Posted by: Morris at November 23, 2005 02:48 PM | PERMALINKMorris you do realize that the Bill of Rights applies differently 1) to minors and 2) in schools - right? There are loads and loads and loads of Supreme Court decisions that I could cite here, stuff like the Tinker decision notwithstanding. I'm not saying it's right or it's wrong, but the US legal/political system has decided that's appropriate.
Though hey, I'm totally with you on being happy about people getting out of my (and your) way during Christmas shopping.
Posted by: Armand at November 23, 2005 03:33 PM | PERMALINKAnd my apologies Binky if my brother takes what I just posted and runs with it. It's not on the topic, and I shouldn't let myself get drawn into these kinds of comments that aren't relevant to the original post. Sorry.
Posted by: Armand at November 23, 2005 03:35 PM | PERMALINKBro,
My question is why is it okay for people in schools to express one kind of speech/opinion (favoring a particular political party) but not another kind of speech/opinion (praying to a particular kind of divinity)?
I understand that schools may be well served in prohibiting behaviors offensive to specific people, but why prohibit speech in a religious and not a political sphere, especially when the Bill of Rights is so specific about this particular blessing of liberty being protected? I understand the Constitution has been interpreted in this way by previous justices on the Supreme Court, but where's the sense in these interpretations when they so obviously contradict what our founders deliberately wrote into our most sacred rights.
Morris - Not-on-topic. Let's keep it on topic, ok?
As long as it's not disruptive to the schooling experience, students can pray. They pray before and after school all the time in this country, and my guess is that it happens, silently, before math tests on a daily basis too. But if you want to discuss prayer in schools let's do that on some other thread - one where it is more relevant to the topic at hand
Posted by: Armand at November 25, 2005 10:15 AM | PERMALINKThese people are slick.
According to the "Christian Communication Network®," which identifies itself as "The nation's leading distributor of religious press releases," is beating its drums about the current martyr for persecution of Christians in America, J. Matt Barber. (here's a different take at Pam's House Blend)
What is happening? This critter's take is that it's the combination of the long-time co-opting of the language of the civil rights movement for oppressive causes (a lot of people are doing it these days), and just how close the RR (that's Ressurection Rangers to you, pal) are to a complete hold on this country. They can feel their momentum ebbing (not to the point of failure being a foregone conclusion, however), and are fighting ever-harder, on every front, to not only "win," but make it as complete a victory as they can.
Being low to the ground and prone to chase things that get too close to my home, I have to wonder about how they are considering their goal, especially since saying "Christian" is like saying "Slurpee:" there are a Whole Lot of different kinds. So I have to ask, have they fallen victim to the dilemma of the remarkably fast dog: "well, now that I've caught the car, what the hell do I do with it??
Somehow, I think achieving their dream of absolute control will be (and has been) their undoing, whether it's completed or not. I can't say I have or will enjoy living with it, though.
Posted by: StealthBadger at November 25, 2005 04:07 PM | PERMALINKBadger,
I disagree with Barber's position and even his definition of homosexuality, but to fire him for expressing his views on his own time may be exactly creating a martyr for his cause, without due cause. I looked at the article he wrote and I honsestly don't find it to be terribly threatening. I could confidently rebut some of his assumptions. This was probably one of those situations that could have gone down as a lesson learned by Allstate given their political position, a practice they could prohibit within future employment contracts and policies if they did truly find this behavior so odious that it's worth prohibiting. But if this wasn't in his employment contact, it does sound to me like they overstepped their bounds by firing him. How hard is it to write an employment contract that includes a code of ethics for employees embracing diversity (and specifically diveresity of sexual preference) which employees would have to follow at all times?