‘Keep Christ in Christmas’ Banner is Next Target in The ‘War on Christmas’

One end connected to a pole I get it but I think this one might be trying to fight something pointless well it should just be on the building so hopefully they will just do it

I wonder if a ‘private’ banner proclaiming “Jesus is a Zombie” would make the finger push that last inch.

As I wind up saying every year, we’ll keep Christ in Christmas as long as they keep the Germanic pagan goddess Eostre in Easter. Argument from etymology must be applied consistently.

Hello all. I am a Christian and I would like respond to some of your concerns and comments. The first amendment was mentioned here which protects not only speech but religion. So if you would like to raise a banner that honors a Germanic pagan goddess, that’s fine. But why is it necessary for censor a Christian banner. My right to believe and speak about my belief should not be censored just as your right to express your beliefs should not be censored. You don’t have to agree with me. Let’s all just respect each other.  

As a “law student in Chicago” one thing should be painfully
obvious to you about the concept of constitutionality and the progress of law
in general—you can’t just read the first amendment and know what it means. The
only legally significant meaning behind the text of the first amendment is that
which the Supreme Court gives it. For better, or worse, this is the nature of
law in this country.

Interestingly, the Supreme Court cases on this subject have
not held that all displays of sectarian values on public land are
impermissible. Some displays have been approved, and each time the Supreme
Court references the same theme—however you feel about the religious history of
this country, it has clearly left sectarian messages in the public arena and
those messages do not inherently violated the first amendment.

Religious messages and symbolism exist in public displays
and even in the interior of the Supreme Court itself. That much is not likely
to change. How can this duality be, someone may ask—law has always been the
process of balancing conflicting desires between peoples, and in that balancing
act, “mental gymnastics”, as you put it, has a strong role. As you may have
learned in your torts class, hovering an index finger an inch from a face is
not the same as touching a face. You may think such an approach to resolving
legal questions smacks too much of formalism, but whether that is the legal
approach by which the constitutionality of religious displays has been
determined is not in dispute.

Through your half policy and half high-school debate essay you
have contributed nothing in the greater societal discussion on the
permissibility of religious displays. All you’ve done is express your outrage
and over your incredibly over-simplified stance with the blind confidence that partisanship combined ignorance
often gives.

My right to believe and speak about my belief should not be censored just as your right to express your beliefs should not be censored. 

Very true.  But we’re talking about the city, not you or me.  Best the city stay out of expressing beliefs, and if it must, then express all beliefs.  Unfortunately, some people get offended when other people express differing beliefs, or lack of beliefs.

You say that like there’s something wrong with expressing outrage or opinion.  My opinion is that that banner crosses the line from ‘ceremonial deism’ into ‘religion’.  Not that my opinion counts, but I’d love to see a Judge’s opinion.  And my opinion is that although the ends might be mounted on private property, its position over the public road is something the town has a legal interest in.  You can’t tell me that any other banner (I intentionally pushed the envelope with “Jesus was a Zombie”, feel free to push it further) would not be regulated.  Add to that that city employees put it up, and in my opinion you actually have a gloved hand slapping a face.  And you know as well as I do that the glove doesn’t matter.

If you really want to add to the discussion, as a student of law, why don’t you give us your argument as to why this is ceremonial deism, or why the city has no legal authority to regulate the sign.  Or anything else that would make a judge rule in favor of the defense.

desperately grasping for a chance at immortality

I think immortality is a selfish concept.  I plan to die to make room for my descendants.

edit: Comment meant for Christian guest.

Wilson, how can you use the term “selfish”  if there is no higher power, and therefore, no moral absolutes? Furthermore, why do you care about your descendants?  If there is nothing, then ultimately, you are nothing and they are nothing.  

I will give you props for sounding altruistic and self-righteous.  I’m sure a lot of silly people will be impressed.  

Also, I don’t think you value your own intellect very much.  Maybe your only and greatest potential really is to just become a compost pile. I guess I never thought about it that way. So, if that’s the case, your plan is best: Just fade away and make way for the stronger minds, the ones who will usher in the next phase of human evolution.  

Please feel free to use Google to discover all the ways in which the “Atheists believe in nothing” and “Atheists have no morals” arguments have been debunked since well before you were born.

The arrogance, contempt and shallow thinking that you’re displaying yet projecting onto others is astounding.

questioner, your first paragraph is nothing but an ad hominem blanket dismissal of the argument for separation of church and state, based only on your uninformed characterization of the motives of atheists in general. 

However, your second paragraph holds an information-seeking question that merits a response, despite it being encrusted with more uninformed assumptions.

You live in a time when your life expectancy is double what it was just a few decades ago, and that is thanks to science, not religion. The food in your belly, the medicine in your veins, the home in which you live, the technology you’re using right now to express your opinion were all made possible and made better by science, not religion. Many of the scientists who have devoted their lives to doing this for you are guess what, …atheists.

Arguing about banners over streets and other improper incursions of religion into government is not a waste of time. It’s part of a constant struggle to keep religion from turning us backward into the time before science did all those nice things for you.

I’m sorry, there is no room for christ in December 25, Saturnalia is already full of Saturn.

Christian guest, I can understand your hesitation to comment on an atheist site, but you are welcome to do so, especially in the positive and constructive spirit that you show. In my opinion, the best purpose of this kind of dialogue is not to reach agreement, but to reach mutual and respectful understanding. 

We have one of those up in our town from the Knights of Columbus, but I’m in Canada so no formal separation of C/S, and it’s private buildings.

Thank you, Richard, for subbing-in for Wilson.  From your words I can tell that your mind is sharper than his, and I appreciate that.  First, I don’t think I mischaracterized atheistic agenda at all.  From what I’ve seen, you and most of your atheist pals find just about any excuse to inject so-called reason into any situation that you deem fit. In your last paragraph, you admit as much: “It’s part of a constant struggle to keep religion from turning us backward into the time before science did all those nice things for you [Questioner].”  A constant struggle?  Sounds a lot like what I was talking about in my first paragraph.

So now that we’ve made it clear that you are definitely mission-oriented, let’s talk about the strange way you paint me as ignorant, anti-science, and religious in your wildly assumptive second paragraph.  I embrace science, and I am fully aware that many scientists are atheists.  I am also aware that many are Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Agnostic, etc.  I am also very happy and amazed that science has progressed this far, and I look forward to seeing and, possibly, contributing to scientific advances in the future.  

As for my second paragraph and my characterization of atheists, I did not mean “all atheists everywhere all the time”; I know there is a difference between those who do pursue immortality through science and those who think that quest is a selfish pursuit (Wilson’s breed).  I, of course, was describing and attacking the latter.  If you had followed more closely, you would have grasped that nuance and not purposefully misinterpreted my statements just so could launch into your own tangent tirade about science and the food in my belly.  

If you are an atheist and you believe science can save you and you are actively taking part in that quest, I applaud you.  It’s the most logical thing you can do with an illogical worldview.  

Like others have stated, it’s a matter of government in effect endorsing a given belief, or belief over nonbelief, that’s the problem. You should be absolutely free to express your religious beliefs (as long as no criminal activity is involved) as a private citizen, or as a part of a privately funded group.

Forgive me if I am pushing onto you a belief or assumption you may not hold, but I find that in these matters the religious often have a misunderstanding about our intentions. When we ask for an absence of religious displays on public land or with public funds, we do not mean by this that the official stance of the government should be nonbelief. The lack of religious symbols in, say, City Hall is no more a promotion of atheism as the lack of religious symbols in McDonalds makes that chain an atheist enterprise. It’s really a matter of being practical.

There are two ways for governments to obey the Constitution in this regard. Either they lack any religious (or explicitly atheist) displays, or they must try to include all of them. The second option, though it can lead to very diverse displays, tends to be more costly, is rife with conflict over who gets representation and who doesn’t, and generally is a huge headache for all involved. It’s much simpler if governments just stay out of the religion business altogether and let the faithful deal with faith. Cheers, and thanks for stopping by! 🙂

Though the history is rather peculiar, the law is well settled that the first amendment does apply to the state and local governments.

For example:

  Everson v. Board of Education, where the high court ruled that the Establishment Clause applied not only to the federal government but also to state and local governments. The court also declared that the Establishment Clause erected a “wall of separation between church and state,” 

Your using a disingenuous compliment to me in order to insult Rich Wilson, and your general snide tone makes it clear that your “agenda” here is that of any common troll, to degrade the dialogue, to distract it from the original topic, and to turn it to revolve around you.  I’ll not feed your need. Please go make yourself a nuisance at some other blog.

Well that was a patronizing response!  The banner is an in your face pronouncement about Christ and clearly is a message that Christmas belongs to Christians.  What is and is not allowed in Christmas displays endorsed by government is open to debate, but in general the rule is that the display should not give the impression that government is endorsing a particular religion.  This sign is an endorsement of Christianity to the exclusion of other beliefs or non-belief.   It is not a message of tolerance and diversity, as is allowed by the Supreme Court, but one of exclusion and intolerance.   

I suggest reading the discussion of the jurisprudence on the issue at: http://pewforum.org/Church-State-Law/The-Christmas-Wars-Holiday-Displays-and-the-Federal-Courts.aspx

I’ve made a terrible mistake. I was wrong in my first assessment: Wilson is the brighter of the two.   At least he continues his arguments, unlike Richard, who simply gives up, attacks my character and tone, and refuses to participate in an argument in which he has clearly been bested.  I’ll take your resignation with smile, and a smug sense of self-satisfaction that I made an old man cry in the corner.
One parting thought, though, Richard the Cowardly LionHeart: If I’m just a “common troll”, why did you interact with me in the first place?  

P.S. My compliment to you was not disingenuous.  I earnestly enjoyed your diction and assumed that you had good arguments to back it up.  But now I see that you were all style (sort of) and no substance.  A pity.

I’d say Richard is has the sharper mind since he came to the obvious conclusion sooner.  I’ll chalk it up to having a cold, and Richard and I can have a sharp-mind rematch another day.

Enjoy your smile and smug sense of self-satisfaction.  I’m going to make a cup of tea and read my son a book.

Have a nice day!

I like how you threw in that bit about your son.  It really makes people see you as caring.  But, instead of reading him a  book, you should tell him that life is pointless and that he will join his daddy in the compost pile.  Tell him your views.  Be a good dad and pass down your wisdom.  

Oh, and give Richard a kiss for me.  Cheers!  

Two atheists down.  Who’s next?  The alleged troll is hungry for . . . hmmm, what’s that?  Oh yes, a worthy opponent. 

I agree, let’s keep christ in christmas. Let’s also keep Thor in Thursday, Saturn in Saturday,  Woden in Wednesday,  the Moon in Monday etc.

If I could somehow hover over the ground, I could hover in someone’s backyard or over their house and they couldn’t kick me out, ’cause I’m not on their private property! Since hovering is not possible, perhaps I will find a very bendy tree to lean into their yard and smile in their angry faces telling them, ‘Well, I’m not on your private property!’ Oh? It doesn’t work in reverse?

I do think there’s a basic failure to communicate.  I can’t count how many times I’ve met people online and in person who firmly believe that the AU/ACLU/Seculars all want to banish any publicly visible display of religion.

Not so.
You can have a “Keep Christ in Christmas” on your front lawn.
You can pray before you snack and lunch in school.
You can wish your customers “Merry Christmas!” (unless your employer says otherwise, in which case take it up with your employer, AU/ACLU has nothing to do with it)
You ‘Tebow’ on the sidewalk (as long as you don’t obstruct other pedestrians).I think many Christian displays on private property would be fantastic, as it might highlight that that’s NOT the issue.

Don’t know much about helicopters; how close could you get?

“jewish zombie on a stick” made me spit coffee on my monitor. heh. 

I apologize for my comment before i couldnt see the picture on my phone. that is out of place. and illegal.

Jebus…who opened the troll gate tonight and let in a bunch of nasty little trolls! 

One year some enterprising Christian group put similar signs up on my university campus.

So several of us godless types responded with “Let’s put the X back in Xmas” signs.

It was fun.

The “it’s a tradition” argument for these sorts of sectarian banners is one of the dumbest ones I’ve seen. It always makes me think of this image- http://www.despair.com/tradition.html

Rich, I saw this comment and it intrigued me. This particular post string probably isn’t the appropriate place for a topic shift, but some time I would be interested in having a discussion about this. I can see from a mathematical/logical perspective support for an absolutist or nihilist viewpoint, I can’t see that relativism is mathematically supportable. But that discussion is for another time.

My account here is linked to facebook.  Feel free to send me a message if you want.  Or there’s the Friendly Atheist forums.  I don’t go there much, but plenty of others do.  Or I’m sure the topic will come up on a post of its own 🙂

If the materials were truly on private property, and were sponsored by a private organization, then any government activity with regards to the signs being hung was incedental, and I have a hard time going all the way to first amendment violation on the part of the city.  I question, having read the facts you presented, whether the city’s actions rise all the way to excessive government entanglement.  Would you really feel better if the KofC had gotten a permit from the city?  I don’t know that the city could have reasonably denied the permit simply because the word “christ” appears on the sign.

There are many other banners that are placed in that same spot.  They are all non-profit organizations that provide their own banner.  The all-volunteer fire companies use their ladder trucks to erect and remove each one of them.  Chicken barbecues, Crop walk …  No one is forced to buy barbecued chicken or walk to help prevent hunger, etc. 
Placing a banner in town that reads “Keep Christ in Christmas” does not force anyone to celebrate Christmas or attend church.  Nor does it force you to buy Christmas gifts. 
Until recently, many people did not even know that this banner was there.  Personally, I hope that it continues to be placed in the center of town every year.  As for me, I’ve got eternal reservations in the non-smoking section.
Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion.  It means that each of us is free to worship as we choose. 
FYI: Our mayor and council members are also non-paid volunteers.   

Pitman’s firefighters are all non-paid volunteers.  Each of the banners that are hung in that same place are erected and removed by these volunteers gratis.  Our community financially donates to these fire companies to purchase and maintain their trucks and equiptment.  
There wasn’t any borough funding involved. 

Zero tax dollars go the fire company? Only funded by donations? That sounds unique. 

while i am an athiest i agree with joe.  if there was no public funding and the has not rejected other displays to be put up in the same manner the city has done nothing wrong and it is perfectly fine for this group to place their banner in that way.

i think think it implies anything.  if the pole is private and the bank is private, more power to them.  they should be able to try and get their message out just like us.

well said

You’re absolutely right.  One of the big advantages that theocracies have over constitutional democracies is that they have a lot less ‘wineing’.

Remember Christmas’ pagan routes and above all keep Eoster in Easter.