Anti-Christian Persecution / Perseguição Anti-Cristã (2)
por noticias • Sunday, Jan. 08, 2006 at 5:54 PM

MOSTRUÁRIO DE NOTÍCIAS JAMAIS PUBLICADAS NO BRASIL, AMÉRICA LATINA, PORTUGAL E ESPANHA.[em inglês (English)]

PERSEGUIÇÃO ANTI-CRISTÃ NOS EUA E NO MUNDO

Arquivo completo compactado [dossie.zip]: http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/textos/dossie.zip [em inglês (English)]

Arquivo completo (RTF) download: 1.7 M. http://argentina.indymedia.org/uploads/2006/01/dossie-perseguicao-anti-crista.rtf


Continuação:


Christmas censors
John Leo (archive)
December 13, 2004 |
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/johnleo/jl20041213.shtml
The annual assault on Christmas comes in many forms. First, there is the barrage of litigation by the American Civil Liberties Union, which is reliably offended by almost any representation of Christianity in the public square. Small towns, facing the prospect of expensive litigation over religious displays on public property, often cave in simply out of fear. Part of the intimidation is that if the towns lose, they must pay the legal fees of the ACLU. But now religious-liberties legal groups provide attorneys to stand up to the ACLU. The Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund won in federal court last month in a suit filed by the ACLU against the city of Cranston, R.I. Cranston allows religious and secular displays of all kinds on the front lawn of City Hall.The ACLU argued that this was a church-state violation, but U.S. District Judge William Smith ruled that nothing in the evidence “reveals or even remotely supports an inference that a religious purpose was behind the creation of the limited public forum.”
Another standard anti-Christmas maneuver is to argue that all references to Christmas in public schools are suspect, while references to Hanukkah or Kwanzaa, for whatever reason, are not. The policy of the 1,200 New York City public schools is that no purely religious symbols are allowed, only ones that have a “secular dimension,” such as Christmas trees, menorahs, and the star and crescent. But the star and crescent is hardly secular. It is the symbol of Islam. And the menorah, though now losing some of its religious significance, is the symbol of an intervention by God to save the Jewish people. The Thomas More Law Center filed suit on behalf of a Roman Catholic mother of two public-school students, saying, in effect, that if the city’s public schools are allowing brief and educational use of religious symbols for Muslims and Jews, then the Christian crèche should be permitted, too. Last February, U.S. District Judge Charles Sifton ruled for the school system. The case is under appeal. The crèche, for now, remains banned.
Like New York’s schools, Bay Harbor Islands in Florida refuses to allow a Nativity scene on public property but has menorahs and the Star of David on lampposts and permitted a local synagogue to erect a 14-foot-high menorah on public land.
A fairly new tactic in the Christmas wars can be called the sensitive person’s veto. In 2000, the city of Eugene, Ore., banned Christmas trees on public property, then allowed firefighters to put up a tree on Christmas Eve and Christmas, with the provision that if one person objected, the tree had to come down. The next year, Kensington, Md., banned Santa Claus from a tree-lighting ceremony because of two complaints. So the city’s most sensitive person was, in effect, allowed to make policy.
The sensitivity argument - that any reference to Christmas at all might make someone feel bad - is responsible for the spread of the anti-Christmas campaign from religious symbols to the purely secular and harmless trappings of the season, including red poinsettias, red-and-green cookies, holiday lights, and Rudolph the reindeer. Santa Claus, originally based on a Christian saint but no more religious than Kermit the Frog, is considered much too divisive and hurtful to non-Christian students in many schools. The principal of Braden Middle School in Florida said, “You won’t see any Christmas trees around here. We keep it generic.” Some principals and teachers around the country even ban the word Christmas. In Rochester, Minn., two girls were reprimanded for saying “Merry Christmas” in a school skit. And though Christmas trees are considered secular when they are useful in warding off Nativity scenes, the word Christmas is often removed by panicky officials, thus producing multicultural trees, holiday trees, community trees, care trees, and giving trees. The White House still has a Christmas tree, but Congress has a Capitol Holiday Tree. Accommodating all traditions is a worthy goal. But a broad movement to erase the word Christmas is an extraordinary development in a culture that is more than 80 percent Christian. How much more of this is the public willing to tolerate? William Donohue, head of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, points out that an elementary school in New Hampshire declared that December is a gift-giving month but couldn’t explain why or how it got to be a giving time of year, since it refused to use the word Christmas.
The South Orange/Maplewood, N.J., school district banned religious Christmas songs, even in instrumental versions. In Florida, an elementary school concert included songs about Hanukkah and Kwanzaa but offered not a single note of Christmas music. A recent winter parade in Denver looked very much like a Christmas event, except for one small thing: Every reference to Christmas was banned. Unless believers and religious-liberties groups begin to push back, the anti-Christmas trend will prevail in the public square.

The War Against Christmas - Phase 2
Phil Brennan
Wednesday, Dec. 8, 2004
What began as a campaign to prevent any mention of the religious aspect of Christmas and moved forward to ban any mention of it, has now progressed into an all-out war against the very faith that observes this solemn remembrance of the birth of Jesus Christ.
Phase two of the war against Christmas is a war against Christianity itself.
Story Continues Below
As we begin the month that ends with this holiest of religious holidays, a barrage has been launched by two of the nation's leading news magazines, Time and Newsweek, against the legitimacy of Christianity itself.
In the Newsweek Cover Story, the magazine's editor Jon Meachem examines the biblical story about the birth of Jesus, and gives legitimacy to the views of dissenting scholars, raising doubts about the Virgin birth, even to suggesting that Jesus was the illegitimate spawn of a Roman soldier and his mother Mary who was tossed out by her husband Joseph because of her adulterous relationship.
Wrote Meachem: "In later years Christians had to contend with charges that their Lord was illegitimate, perhaps the illicit offspring of Mary and a Roman soldier. Now, at the beginning of the 21st century, some scholars treat the Christmas narratives as first-century inventions designed to strengthen the seemingly tenuous claim that Jesus was the Messiah."
Seemingly?
In other words many of the "scholars" including those members of the so-called "Jesus Seminar" Meachem relies upon for much of this lengthy article, are questioning the very validity of Christianity which, in their wisdom, they view as largely a myth concocted by the authors of the four gospels and foist upon us gullible believers for the last 2,000 years.
If this article were merely Meachem's first thinly-disguised attempt to pour cold water on the faith of tens of millions of Christians it could be looked upon as a tentative gesture of respect to the paganistic elites whose good opinions he, like the rest of his liberal journalistic colleagues, lust after.
But it's not. This is not Meachem's first flank attack on the religion he professes to be his own. On Friday, February 13, 2004 I wrote a NewsMax.com piece about his first foray into anti-Christian propaganda which I now repeat. It tells you a lot about Meachem, where he's coming from, and where he's headed, and suggests why he chose the beginning of the Christmas season to launch this misleading piece of Scrooge-like propaganda.
"Newsweek Peddling Gibson Foes' Revisionist Claims"
Newsweek magazine’s cover story about Mel Gibson’s "The Passion of the Christ," carries the byline of one Jon Meachem, but anybody the least bit familiar with the recent statements and articles by Boston college’s Paula Fredericksen, Sr. Mary Boys and the other dissident members of an ad-hoc committee of the U.S. Catholic Bishop’s Conference interfaith group will immediately recognize where Meachem got his material.
This group of Catholic and Jewish scholars has a very clear agenda to, in effect, rewrite the Gospels to conform to their opinions of what their study of history reveals about the life and times of Jesus Christ. What has been accepted for 2,000 years as the inspired word of God is, in their view, more myth than fact.
To put it bluntly, what Christians have accepted as unerrant, is in the scholars opinion, full of errors.
Here’s what Newsweek had to say:
"Though countless believers take it as the immutable word of God, Scripture is not always a faithful record of historical events; the Bible is the product of human authors who were writing in particular times and places with particular points to make and visions to advance."
In other words, the Bible is not the work of apostles guided by the Holy Spirit and therefor incapable of error. It’s simply the work of four fallible human beings with an ax to grind.
"Gibson set out to stick to the Gospels and has made virtually no nod to critical analysis or context."
In other words, Mel Gibson didn’t consult the self-styled "experts" or pay any attention to their "analysis."
"The writers of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John shaped their narratives several decades after Jesus' death to attract converts and make their young religion - understood by many Christians to be a faction of Judaism - attractive to as broad an audience as possible."
Matthew Mark, Luke and John, it seems were not evangelists inspired by the Holy Spirit, but merely four hucksters peddling their young religion.
"We can also see why the writers downplayed the role of the ruling Romans in Jesus' death. The advocates of Christianity - then a new, struggling faith - understandably chose to placate, not antagonize, the powers that were. Why remind the world that the earthly empire which still ran the Mediterranean had executed your hero as a revolutionary?"
The Gospel writers slanted their biblical accounts to curry favor with the Romans who persisted in killing them anyway.
"And many scholars believe that the author of Matthew, which is the only Gospel to include the 'His blood be on us' line, was writing after the destruction of the Temple in 70 and inserted the words to help explain why such misery had come upon the people of Jerusalem. According to this argument, blood had already fallen on them and on their children."
Just where did the "scholars" obtain that inside information?
"John's point in putting this line in Jesus' mouth is almost certainly to take a gibe at the Temple elite. But in the dramatic milieu of the movie, it can be taken to mean that the Jews, through Caiaphas, are more responsible for Jesus' death than the Romans are - an implication unsupported by history."
St. John put words in Jesus mouth? St. John, the " beloved apostle" lied?"
"Clear evidence of the political nature of the execution - that Pilate and the high priest were ridding themselves of a "messiah" who might disrupt society, not offer salvation - is the sign Pilate ordered affixed to Jesus' cross. The message is not from the knowing Romans to the evil Jews. It is, rather, a scornful signal to the crowds that this death awaits any man the pilgrims proclaim €˜the king of the Jews."
If that is true, why did the Temple authorities go to Pilate and demand that he change the wording to say that Jesus "claimed" to be King of the Jews. And how do they explain Pilate’s scornful rejection of their demand " Scripsi, Scripsi" (What I have written I have written). Or did the gospel authors make that up too?
"It was as the church's theology took shape, culminating in the Council of Nicaea in 325, that Jesus became the doctrinal Christ, the Son of God €˜who for us men and our salvation,' the council's original creed declared, 'descended, was incarnate, and was made man, suffered and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven and cometh to judge the living and the dead.’"
In other words Jesus was not believed to be who he said he was for about 300 years after his death. That would have come as a surprise to the tens of thousands of martyrs who died because of their belief in his divinity.
These "teachings" are the teachings of the so-called "scholars" which are at odds with official Catholic doctrine and the teachings of the majority of Protestant and evangelistic biblical scholars. And going to them and the likes of the Jesus Seminar for guidance about Christianity is like going to Saddam Hussein for guidance on how to prevent torture.
What's next Jon? Got a Christian or two you can feed to the lions?
Phil Brennan is a veteran journalist who writes for NewsMax.com. He is editor & publisher of Wednesday on the Web (http://www.pvbr.com) and was Washington columnist for National Review magazine in the 1960s. He also served as a staff aide for the House Republican Policy Committee and helped handle the Washington public relations operation for the Alaska Statehood Committee which won statehood for Alaska. He is also a trustee of the Lincoln Heritage Institute and a member of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers.
He can be reached at phil@newsmax.com

Killing Christmas
by Alan Caruba
December 14, 2004
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2004/caruba121404.htm
It’s a curious thing. Mel Gibson’s film, The Passion of the Christ, broke box office records this year, but as we move closer to Christmas, the date designated as the birth of Jesus, one can hardly look anywhere without reading or hearing about a politically correct retreat from the simple fact that it was, it is, and it will always be a religious holiday.
Indeed, the word “holiday” is a retraction of “holy day.”
For 61 years, I lived in a lovely northern New Jersey suburb that was so picture-perfect a Meryl Streep movie was once filmed there. It is Maplewood and, earlier this year, I sold my home and moved to the Gaslight Commons, one town over in South Orange. Imagine my surprise to discover that the combined Maplewood and South Orange school system was suddenly making national news because its official policy was to ban Christmas carols; even songs about Santa Claus are subject to the ban.
It is useful to know that, while attending school in Maplewood in the late 1940s and early 1950s, we kids all sang Christmas carols and other holiday songs. A lot of us were Jewish. The Jewish kids loved the Christmas carols and when references to Jesus or Christ came up, they would politely fudge a bit and keep on singing. I don’t recall any Hanukah songs, but I do recall visits to the homes of the Jewish kids where their parents would explain what the Festival of the Lights was about, along with its traditions. Suffice it to say, come Christmas morning, most of the Jewish kids were greeted with gifts by the fireplace. It never occurred to them not to expect them and it never occurred to them that this was some great act of assimilation. It was just Christmas!
Well, actually, it was the birth date of Mithras, an ancient Middle Eastern pagan god whose birthday continued to be celebrated during the early years of the Christian church. Church fathers simply took over the date, proclaiming it the birth of Jesus and, voila, Christmas! Like the cliché says, “It’s the thought that counts.”
And my thought is that no Jewish kid I know ever converted to Christianity because of a couple of Christmas carols and no Christian kid ever converted to Judaism because he learned to sing, “Dreidel, Dreidel, Dreidel.” Indeed, despite all the blandishments of Christmas holiday celebrations, the world is still home to millions of Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and others for whom Christmas has no religious meaning whatever, unless you check out the shopping centers in Tokyo, Bombay, and, who knows where else.
So why did the superintendent of schools conclude that Christmas carols were inappropriate to the Christmas season? He told a local daily newspaper that they had been banned since the early 1990s. Because a few Grinches had complained this year, he felt obligated to comply. “Rather than try to respond to all the various religions and try to balance them, it’s best to stay away from that and simply have a nonreligious tone to them and have a more seasonal tone.”
How to you have a “seasonal” tone during Christmas without Christmas carols and Christmas songs? The answer is, you don’t! How the heck do you get to be a superintendent of schools without understanding that? In fact, the New Jersey School Boards Association says its policy is that performance of songs from various ethnic or religious groups actually helps broaden student’s awareness, but that it allows districts to “impose tighter restrictions.”
The Maplewood-South Orange district policy was spelled out in an October 29 memo by Nicholas Santoro, the chairman of the district’s Fine Arts Department, who said that songs like “Winter Wonderland” or “Frosty the Snowman” are fine, but apparently those horrid songs about Jesus were not. Just in case no one got the message, he added that printed programs for “holiday concerts” (there’s that word again!) “must avoid graphics which refer to the holidays, such as Christmas trees and dreidels.”
So, in essence, the lesson the district wants to convey to the children in its care is that Christmas is NOT about a religious event of great importance to Christianity and, please, let’s have no reference either to Hanukah, a holiday possibly celebrated by the Jewish Jesus and his Jewish apostles.
This anti-religion craze has seized schools from coast to coast and shows up in heated debates over whether to publicly display a crèche or a menorah during the holidays. It is so viscerally un-American that it is profoundly offensive to anyone with a shred of knowledge about our nation’s history.
The phrase “America is a Christian nation” may offend some people, but historically and demographically it is accurate. The nation was founded by people seeking to freely express their religious beliefs concerning the practice of Christianity. Religion and its free practice were so important that America became the first nation not to institute an official state religion. When the Bill of Rights was written, freedom of religion was deemed so important it was incorporated into the First Amendment.
Playing it safe by avoiding anything “religious” as part of the educational process is just part of the on-going dumbing down of the students who pass through it. All that talk about “diversity” is a sham. The population of the world is diverse. Any street in any town in America is diverse.
Will someone be offended by a Christmas carol? You can bet on that. Christmas is about sharing a hope for “peace on Earth” and Hanukah celebrates the purification of a synagogue reclaimed from pagans. It doesn’t get more religious than that!
The effort to kill Christmas, to drive images of the Ten Commandments out of public buildings, and, in general, undermine any understanding or practice of religious faith of any kind is the real offense. Rise up, America! Sing those carols! Spin those dreidels! €˜Tis the season!
The National Anxiety Center maintains an Internet site at http://www.anxietycenter.com. Caruba writes a weekly column, "Warning Signs", posted on the site and excerpted widely on many others. In 2003, a collection of his columns was published by Merril Press.

The Impending Death of Christmas? Part I
Jerry Falwell
Wednesday, Dec. 8, 2004
Part One of a Two-Part Series
The spiritual Grinches in our nation are accelerating their war against Christmas as never before. And they are tragically convincing growing numbers of our fellow citizens - primarily those in our nation’s public schools and public administration - that Christmas should be publicly shunned, replaced by nebulous substitutes designed to avoid offending those who are all-so-easily outraged.
But adherents of this colossal effort to create a secular utopia have forgotten two significant realities:
1. Our Founders were men who explicitly embraced Judeo-Christian principles in the founding of this nation. Even those who were Deists openly recognized the need for the citizenry to fall to their collective knees and beseech God’s favor. They understood the need to recognize God in our Constitution, in our courts and in our schools.
2. Our fellow citizens do not want a spiritual sanitization effort to sweep out all vestiges of Christianity from the public square. One need look no further than an AOL poll this week. An astounding 89 percent of respondents (as of Wednesday afternoon) answered in the affirmative to the question, “Should religion be included in public holiday celebrations?”
The so-called mainstream media often portray radical secularists as reasonable individuals, but the people at the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, and other such groups are practitioners of an extremist movement that would completely outlaw God, Christianity and any remnant of such from the public arena.
And they are, in many cases, winning this war.
That’s why this week the student members of the Columbia High School brass ensemble in Maplewood, N.J., were told they could not play any Christmas-related songs - not even instrumental versions. (You wouldn’t want some student or parent to get offended by a wordless tune, would we?)
This is the milieu of outright censorship that many students face today. Their teachers and administrators have become convinced (primarily through fear campaigns by leftist groups) that even the most blurred mention of Christmas would be an outright constitutional offense. They are wrong. Disastrously wrong!
Other anti-Christmas strategies have gained headlines recently:
* TARGET will not allow the Salvation Army to collect funds at their stores, meaning that the Army will lost about $9 million this year;
* Macys and Bloomingdales have prohibited the phrase “Merry Christmas”;
* Denver’s “Parade of Lights,” which has outlawed religious expression, is now considering not even allowing a Christian group to participate in the event;
* New York Mayor David Bloomberg now refers to the giant Christmas tree in the city as a holiday tree.
Other examples abound as a few Americans attempt to oust Christmas from the public vernacular. Leaders of religious freedom-based legal groups around the country tell me that during this time of year they see a hefty incursion of anti-religious expression cases.
One of those organizations is the Orlando, Fla.-based Liberty Counsel (which now has a divisional office on the Liberty University campus), which is involved in hundreds of cases each year wherein attorneys protect the rights of Americans to express their faith.
Christmas Remains Legal
Mathew Staver, founder and general counsel at Liberty Counsel, says that publicly sponsored Nativity scenes on public property are, in fact, constitutional as long the display includes a secular symbol. The government may publicly exhibit depictions of Mary, Joseph and Jesus or a Menorah if such scenes incorporates the image of Santa Claus or Frosty the Snowman.
In addition, public school students may sing Christian Christmas carols such as “Silent Night” as long as they also sing secular songs, such as “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer.”
Furthermore, schools may not prohibit access to religious books, because to do so discriminates against the religious viewpoint of the message contained in the book. Public employers may not discriminate against staff by prohibiting Christmas celebrations.
Mr. Staver also says that privately sponsored nativity scenes erected and displayed by citizens or groups in a public area are constitutional and require no secular symbols to be included.
“This nation was founded by people who sought to freely exercise their religious liberties,” Mr. Staver said. “We have no intention of letting these liberties fall by the wayside or be chilled every holiday season by uninformed or hostile government officials.”
Mr. Staver tells me that all 600 of his attorneys are available to provide free legal aid to students or employees around the nation who face religious discrimination. Visit the organization’s Web site (http://www.lc.org) for more information on Liberty Counsel.
Other similar religious freedom legal groups are actively working to protect Americans’ rights to express their faith. The task is daunting because leftist organizations are aggressively attempting to redefine America in their own Godless image. They seek a national mandate.
While I celebrate the fact that men like Mat Staver and others are standing up for American values, it is imperative that parents and grandparents ensure that their children understand the Judeo-Christian ancestry that is undeniable.
We must also make certain that our children’s schools are not gagging their rights to live out their faith in the classroom.
The effort to preserve our religious heritage and future requires the diligence of us all. May we, through God’s grace, faithfully safeguard the wonderful Christian birthright of America.

The Impending Death of Christmas? Part II
Jerry Falwell
Friday, Dec. 10, 2004
Part Two of a Two-Part Series
I wrote yesterday of the hastening effort by secularist organizations to terminate Christmas from the American public square. I wish to look back now through the annals of history to substantiate the fact that this great nation has historically been involved in religious pursuits and that our government, under the guidance of Thomas Jefferson, even got involved in evangelization and church building.
Story Continues Below
When recognizing that Mr. Jefferson - who the Left wants only to remember for authoring the phrase “the separation of church and state” - was interested in advancing religion, it becomes readily apparent that our Founders never intended government to be hostile toward Christianity or menacingly unreceptive to religious expression.
Congressional Funds for Church Building
On December 3, 1803, the U.S. Congress, following the request of President Jefferson, ratified a treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians. This treaty was significant because Congress, recognizing that most members of the tribe had become Christians, deemed to give an annual subsidy of $100 for the support of a priest during a seven-year period.
That priest, as the Congress noted, was to perform “the duties of his office, and... instruct as many... children as possible.”
The treaty, signed by President Jefferson, stated: “The United States will further give the sum of three hundred dollars to assist ... in the erection of a church.”
You read that right. The U.S. Congress of 1803, at the request of President Thomas Jefferson, allocated federal funds for the salary of a minister and for the construction of a church.
The Congress of 1803 was not hostile to Christianity. The members understood the value of imparting Judeo-Christian values among the Indians. They also recognized the need for advancing biblical values among the citizenry of the young nation.
Congress Agrees to Print Bibles
In 1777, with war plaguing the land, the Rev. Patrick Allison, chaplain of the Continental Congress, petitioned that body for a specific need - the printing of the Holy Bible.
After America had declared its independence, the Revolutionary War had interrupted the supply of Bibles. Printed Bibles had previously come to America from England and Holland but at this time of war we were often cut off from the rest of the world. As a result, Bibles were in short supply.
The committee which received Rev. Allison’s petition then submitted it to Congress on September 11, 1777.
The report stated: “The use of the Bible is so universal and in importance so great, that your Committee refer the above to the consideration of Congress, and if Congress shall not think it expedient to order the importation of types and paper, the committee recommends that Congress will order the Committee of Congress to import 20,000 Bibles from Holland, Scotland, or else where, into the different parts of the States of the Union.”
That mandate for 20,000 Bibles never went into effect, though, because publisher Robert Aitken printed the New Testament in Philadelphia. After successful print runs of this Bible, in 1781, Mr. Aitken petitioned Congress to aid in the printing of the entire King James Bible.
The Congress responded with this resolution: “Resolved, That the United States in Congress assembled, highly approve the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken as subservient to the interest of religion as well as the progress of the arts in this country, and being satisfied from the above report, of his care and accuracy, in the execution of the work, they recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States, and hereby authorize him to publish this recommendation in the manner he shall think proper.”
Mr. Aitken then published the only Bible ever recommended by Congress and it is today a rare treasure.
The Lies of the Left
We rarely hear of men like Robert Aitken and Rev. Patrick Allison today because the left wants to sweep their stories under a rug.
Many liberals purposely disregard and disrespect our nation’s religious heritage so that they can bring about their own godless version of this nation. But their vision is deceitful and fraudulent.
Today, school children are barred from singing Christmas carols on the school bus (Lake County, Ill.), school bands are prevented from playing carols (Maplewood, N.J.) and school productions of Charles Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol” are halted (Kirkland, Wash.).
These are just the most recent examples of the growing hostility toward Christianity that is transpiring in schools across our nation because groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State have fallaciously convinced educators that even the most rudimentary mention of Christmas (or Christ) is illegal.
These organizations thumb their noses at our nation’s palpable heritage of respect and appreciation of Christianity.
Their agenda to purge God from America is a national crime!
The ACLU’s and AU’s Scrooge-like war on the public expression of faith is nothing but a deceptive and dangerous charade that has no historic merit. Through their lies, they are effectively spitting in the faces of Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and numerous other Founders who took great pains to ensure that religion had a prominent place in American life.
This Christmas, may the spirit of our Founders ring in our hearts as we accelerate our efforts to reclaim our religious freedoms. Merry Christmas to all (even the ACLU and AU)!

French Thought Police Ban 'Christian' Chocolate
Monday, Dec. 13, 2004 1:48 p.m. EST
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/12/13/135700.shtml
France's latest attack on freedom of religion: The thought police have outlawed Christmas chocolates in the government school monopolies.
"It's an unhealthy political affair. Absolutely regrettable," said Andre Delattre, mayor of Coudekerque-Branche, which has shipped traditional chocolates shaped like crosses and St. Nicholas to schools for 11 years.
"What's the point? It's the children who are being penalized for this difference of opinion," he said. "They've been deprived of a festive moment."
Bruno Frappat, editor of the Catholic daily La Croix, wrote: "In 1968, the slogan was, 'It's forbidden to forbid.' In 2004,it 's, 'Forbidding is a must.' And one of the phobias most in vogue is Catho-phobia."
This most recent assault on Christmas is part of "Jackass" Chirac's war on religious symbols, including Christian crucifixes, Muslim head scarves, Sikh turbans and Jewish skullcaps.

ACLU Scrooges Get an Earful of Christmas Carols
Wednesday, Dec. 8, 2004 4:07 p.m. EST
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/12/8/162709.shtml
It wasn't a silent night for the Scrooges, Grinches and Mr. Potters at ACLU, but for a nice change it was a holy night.
Christian Wire Service today reported glad tidings: The conservative group Public Advocate of the United States, "not dissuaded from 'bah, humbugs' to groups like the Boy Scouts of America and pro-family Americans in general," sang traditional religious Christmas carols in front of the Washington office of American Civil Liberties Union.
Story Continues Below
Some Grinchy hearts apparently grew three sizes that day, because even a few ACLU staffers chimed in.
For those who have a hard time conjuring up real Christmas songs, try to recall "O Holy Night" and "Hark! The Herald Angels Sing," not that awful "Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer" and "Jingle Bell Rock" junk.
Quoth CWS: "The event highlighted the ACLU's continuing disregard for the rights of their many pro-family targets, including the rights of young men in the Boy Scouts of America to maintain their morally straight principles. Recently they have even been putting pressure on the Pentagon to get Scout troops kicked off of military bases. By singing Christmas carols in front of the ACLU, Public Advocate brought attention to these serious issues in a light and festive manner true to the Christmas season."
'Obscure Liberal Minority'
The organization describes itself thusly on its Web site: "We live in a time when too many liberal politicians, lobbyists and activists are pushing legislation that represents the whims and fancies of an obscure liberal minority, often at the direct expense of timeless American traditions, values, beliefs - and taxpayer dollars. At Public Advocate, we provide a determined, united and uncompromising platform for the millions of American families eager to put a halt to these breaches and abuses of liberal political power."
Public Advocate President Eugene Delgaudio said at the festivities: "Public Advocate hopes that the spirit of the Christmas season will fill the members and employees of the ACLU and that they will embrace the morals and principles of groups like the Boy Scouts and renounce their efforts to destroy traditional values in America.
"It is exciting to see all these people singing Christmas carols, including the ACLU staff members that have joined us today. Regardless of our differences, we are all proud to be Americans this Christmas, and may God bless those that are currently in harm's way to bravely protect our freedoms. We must remember that the Boy Scout troops in danger of being kicked off these military bases are made up of the sons of those brave soldiers, sailors and Marines."

N.J. School Reverses 'Silent Night' Ban
Tuesday, Dec. 14, 2004 10:51 a.m. EST
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/12/14/105319.shtml
A New Jersey talk radio host has succeeded in forcing the Egg Harbor Township board of education to reverse its ban on the Christmas classic "Silent Night," which had been dropped from the school district's holiday program based a single parental complaint.
Last night's 7-0 vote by the panel means that "Silent Night" can now be included in this week's Holiday Singalong at the E.H. Slaybaugh Elementary School, where the controversy first erupted.
Story Continues Below
The complaining parent, an attorney who has not been publicly identified, asked that the holiday carol be dropped from the program, even though songs about other religious holidays, such as "The Dreidel Song" and "Kwanzaa's Here," were included.
The controversy erupted last Wednesday after WOND Atlantic City radio host Jeff Whitaker received a tip about the Christmas music ban.
"I had on the air the lawyer for the school district, Will Donio, who advised them to do away with 'Slient Night,'" Whitaker told NewsMax.
The Atlantic City talker said he was deluged with calls as the controversy percolated through the week, including requests for more information from local pastors.
As a result, "four of five pastors wrote to the local school board," Whitaker said, prompting district officials to rethink the ban.
After Egg Harbor educrats voted to reverse the ruling in a special session on Monday, Whitaker declared victory, posting a message to his Web site crediting his audience with the success.
"The credit in this turn of events goes to the listeners of our radio show, the outrage and stand taken by many of Egg Harbor Township parents and the prayers of people all across the region," he said.

'Emboldened' Christians Celebrate Christmas
NewsMax.com Wires
Tuesday, Dec. 14, 2004
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/12/14/160048.shtml
Emboldened by their Election Day successes, some Christian conservatives around the country are trying to put more Christ into Christmas this season.
In Terrebonne Parish, La., an organization is petitioning to add "Merry Christmas" to the red-lighted "Season's Greetings" sign on the main government building and is selling yard signs that read, "We believe in God. Merry Christmas." And a Raleigh, N.C., church recently paid $7,600 for a full-page newspaper ad urging Christians to spend their money only with merchants who include the greeting "Merry Christmas" in ads and displays.
'Revival'
"There is a revival taking place in our nation that is causing Christian and right-minded people to say: `Wait a minute. We've gone too far,'" says the Rev. Patrick Wooden Sr., pastor of the Raleigh church. "We're not going to allow the country to continue this downward spiral to the left."
In California, a group called Committee to Save Merry Christmas is boycotting Macy's and its corporate parent, Federated Department Stores, accusing them of replacing "Merry Christmas" signs with ones wishing shoppers "Season's Greetings" or "Happy Holidays." The organization cites "the recent presidential election showing political correctness is offending millions of Americans."
(Federated, for its part, says that it has no ban on such greetings and that its store divisions can advertise as they see fit and store clerks are free to wish any customer "Merry Christmas." Macy's says its ads commonly use the phrase.)
The push from the religious right troubles Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
"This mixing of secular and religious symbols ought to be seen as a bad thing, not a good thing, for Christian believers," he says. "Unfortunately, some of the Christian pressure groups seem to have it backwards." He adds: "I think it's fair to say it's a mistaken notion that they have a mandate to put more nativity scenes up because George Bush was elected."
The battle over the manger on the city hall lawn is nothing new. People expect the annual tussle.
'Agitated'
But the "keep the Christ in Christmas" contingent is particularly agitated this year over what its members see as a troubling trend on Main Street: Target stores banning Salvation Army bell ringers; UPS drivers complaining to a free-speech group that they have been told not to wish people a "Merry Christmas" (an accusation UPS denies as "silly on its face and just not true"); and major corporations barring religious music from cubicles and renaming the office Christmas bash the "end-of-the-year" party.
"I think it is part of a growing movement of people with more traditional values, which make up the majority of people in this country, saying enough is enough," says Greg Scott, a spokesman for the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund.
Amid stories of schools banning the singing of carols on buses, Scott's group has distributed to more than 5,000 schools a seven-point legal primer citing 40 years of case law that says it is OK to mention Christmas in public places. And the group has about 800 lawyers waiting in the wings in case that notion needs to be reinforced.
'Secular' Birth of Christ
To that same end, the Virginia-based Rutherford Institute, which says it received the complaints from UPS drivers, has reissued its "12 Rules of Christmas" guide to celebrating the birth of Jesus.
"I think the businesses and the schools have just gone too far; this is the final straw," says Institute president John W. Whitehead. "It's supposed to be a time of, what, peace and freedom and fun. And they've kind of made it into a secular ... kind of gray day."
Conservative radio and TV talk show hosts have chortled over some recent incidents of what they consider political correctness run amok.
Censor That 'Christmas Tree'
In Kansas, The Wichita Eagle ran a correction for a notice that mistakenly referred to the Community Tree at the Winterfest celebration as a "Christmas Tree." And the mayor of Somerville, Mass., apologized after a news release mistakenly referred to the Dec. 21 City Holiday Party as a "Christmas Party."
But to many, the threats and demands that stores put up "Merry Christmas" signs are no laughing matter.
"Why not simply require stores owned by Jews to put a gold star in their ads and on their storefronts?" the Rev. Jim Melnyk, associate rector of St. Mark's Episcopal Church in Raleigh, wrote in a letter to the editor.
© 2004 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Vatican presses the UN to recognise 'Christianophobia'
By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent
(Filed: 07/12/2004)
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/12/07/wphob07.xml
The Vatican is pressing the United Nations to recognise "Christianophobia" as an evil equal to that of anti-Semitism or "Islamophobia".
Archbishop Giovanni Lajolo, the Vatican's foreign minister, said anti-Christian feeling had increased, exacerbated by the war on terrorism.
He said Christianity was often mistakenly seen as being inextricably linked with Western political policy, and had suffered as a result in the backlash against the West.
His comments, at a conference in Rome, were primarily aimed at Middle Eastern countries such as Iraq, where insurgents have bombed a number of churches.
But he also echoed Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, a leading contender to be the next Pope, who said last month that parts of Europe were so now secular that Christianity was being pushed into the margins.
Archbishop Lajolo disclosed that Vatican diplomats were discreetly attempting to persuade the UN and other bodies to recognise the previously almost unheard of term "Christianophobia".
"It should be recognised that the war on terrorism, even though necessary, had as one of its side-effects the spread of 'Christianophobia' in vast areas of the globe," he told the conference. The UN General Assembly in New York is to debate the issue later this month.
Speaking to reporters after his speech, the archbishop said anti-Christian and anti-Catholic sentiments were not only to be found in Muslim countries. Hostility existed in states where Church-sponsored schools or charities were perceived as thinly-veiled attempts at proselytism.
The Vatican is pressing its case despite failing to persuade the European Union to include a reference to the continent's Christian heritage in its new constitution.
The Vatican campaign has provoked a mixed reaction, with some Christian human rights activists arguing that it could prove counter-productive.
Alexandra Aula of Franciscans International, a Catholic pressure group based in Geneva, said: "Obviously we have seen many countries where Christian minorities are in danger, but we don't think this is the appropriate way to really ensure protection.
"What we fear is that this is the way to start eroding universal human rights. You will then have Sikhs and Buddhists and all the others coming and claiming rights. Where does it end?"
But Vatican officials said privately that they could not stand aside while Judaism and Islam got special attention at the UN. The organisation demands regular reports from member countries on issues officially recognised as international concerns.

Secular forces 'pushing God to margins'
By Bruce Johnston in Milan and Jonathan Petre
(Filed: 20/11/2004)
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;sessionid=MDBMXYDS44HEVQFIQMFSM5OAVCBQ0JVC?xml=/news/2004/11/20/wchurch20.xml
A leading contender to become the next Pope launched a fierce attack on the forces of secularism yesterday, arguing that they were fostering intolerance in Europe and forcing Christianity underground.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, 77, one of the Vatican's most powerful figures, issued a rallying cry to the faithful, saying that the liberal consensus had now evolved into a "worrying and aggressive" ideology.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
As a result, "Catholic and Christian religion" had been pushed out of the public debate and was being "driven into the margins".
The warning, in a long interview in La Repubblica, Italy's Left-leaning newspaper, comes as the Bavarian-born cardinal, who is the Pope's doctrinal chief, is being viewed as an important late entry for the papacy.
Coming shortly after MEPs refused to approve the Italian politician Rocco Buttiglione as European justice commissioner because of his strong Catholic views on gays and women, his statements may be seen by some as something of a manifesto.
The cardinal was speaking against a backdrop of rapidly declining priestly vocations in Europe which is worrying Church leaders.
Describing the development of a "secular ideological aggression" across the continent as "cause for concern," the cardinal said: "In Sweden, a Protestant minister who preached about homosexuality on the basis of an excerpt from the scriptures was put in jail for a month.
"Secularism is no longer that element of neutrality, which opens up space for freedom for all. It is beginning to change into an ideology which, through politics, is being imposed.
"It concedes no public space to the Catholic and Christian vision, which as a result runs the risk of turning into a purely private matter, so that deep down it is no longer the same.
"In this sense a struggle exists and so we must defend religious freedom against an ideology which is held up as if it were the only voice of rationality, when instead it is only an expression of a 'certain' rationialism."
In contemporary society, said the cardinal, who is the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, God had been pushed "very much into the margins".
"In politics, it seems to be almost indecent to speak about God, almost as it were an attack on the freedom of someone who doesn't believe," he said.
The cardinal added: "A secularism which is just, is a freedom of religion. The state does not impose a religion, but rather provides free space to those religions with a responsibility to civil society."
The society in which we now lived was one where there was a great deal of transformation.
"Negative birth rates and immigration are changing Europe's ethnic make-up. Above all we've gone from being a Christian culture to one of aggressive secularism which at times is intolerant."
He said that even though "churches were emptying" and people were "no longer able to believe," Christian faith was "not dead".
He said he remained convinced of hope's inner strength, even if the future of the Church lay more in "other continents" than Europe.
Cardinal Ratzinger, once viewed as the likely papal "kingmaker", is now believed to stand a good chance himself precisely because of his advanced years.
Vatican watchers maintain that long-serving popes tend to be succeeded by short-lived "interim" papacies.
Despite his arch-conservative popular image, the cardinal often reveals a frankness and readiness to discuss even the most delicate subjects. .
He admitted that the gulf between the Church and its faithful over sexuality was a matter for "further reflection".
He said that the Pill had "separated sexuality from fertility and so has deeply changed the concept of life itself.
"The sexual act has lost its meaning and purpose. . . to the point that all kinds of sexuality have become the equivalents of each other. The main consequence is the placing of homosexuality and heterosexuality on equal terms."

Atkinson defends right to offend
By Toby Helm, Chief Political Correspondent
(Filed: 07/12/2004)
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/12/07/natkin07.xml
Rowan Atkinson defended the right of comedians to poke fun at other people's religion last night as he joined the campaign against Government plans to create a new offence of incitement to religious hatred.
The star of the BBC's Blackadder television series lined up with leading barristers, writers and politicians to oppose the proposed law.
'There should be no subject about which you cannot make jokes'
Ministers say the Bill will protect faith groups - particularly Muslims.
Under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill, which will have its second reading in the Commons today, anyone judged to have stirred up religious hatred through threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour, would be liable to a maximum of seven years in prison.
But opponents of the measure say that while it is well intentioned, stopping the right to criticise other religions would end centuries of tolerance and could stoke tensions between religious groups rather than ease them.
Speaking at a press conference in the House of Commons, Atkinson said the proposals would destroy one of society's fundamental freedoms - the right to cause offence.
It would also threaten the livelihoods of all those whose job it is "to question, to analyse and to satirise". These included authors, academics, writers, actors, politicians and comedians.
There was a "fundamental difference" between cracking a joke about someone's religion and being offensive about their race which was, rightly, already an offence, he said.
"To criticise a person for their race is manifestly irrational and ridiculous but to criticise their religion - that is a right. That is a freedom," he said.
"The freedom to criticise ideas - any ideas even if they are sincerely held beliefs - is one of the fundamental freedoms of society.
"And the law which attempts to say you can criticise or ridicule ideas as long as they are not religious ideas is a very peculiar law indeed.
"It all points to the promotion of the idea that there should be a right not to be offended. But in my view the right to offend is far more important than any right not to be offended.
"The right to ridicule is far more important to society than any right not to be ridiculed because one in my view represents openness - and the other represents oppression."
He was joined by the newspaper columnist Joan Smith, officials from Christian groups, the Barnabas Fund, the Lawyer's Christian Fellowship and politicians from the three main parties.
Paul Cook, the advocate manager of the Barnabas Fund, said: "There is a real danger that this law could be used by extremists to silence organisations like ourselves from highlighting the persecution of Christians and other human rights abuses which occur within some religious communities."
The law will be opposed by the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives. Several Labour MPs including Alice Mahon, the member for Halifax, are expected to vote against.
Dominic Grieve, the shadow attorney general and a Church of England church warden, said people in the United Kingdom had "thrived on" the ability to "ridicule and caricature other people's views".
The Liberal Democrat MP Dr Evan Harris, who chaired the meeting, said: "There is a great deal of concern about these proposals across political parties.
"There are already enough laws to deal with incitement to violence and to deal with disorderly behaviour based on religious grounds."
A Home Office spokesman defended the Bill, insisting that it would not interfere with the right to free speech. She said: "There is a clear difference between criticism of a religion and the act of inciting hatred against members of a religious group.
"The incitement offences have a high criminal threshold and prosecutions require the consent of the Attorney General."
Mr Atkinson said comedians should be able to make jokes about whatever they wanted. If they went over the top, people would not find their jokes funny. "There should be no subject about which you cannot make jokes."

School's Carol Rule for the Grinch?
Tuesday, November 30, 2004
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,140037,00.html
MAPLEWOOD, N.J. - There won't be any herald angels singing or little drummer boys drumming at schools in Maplewood this holiday season.
Last year, when students in the chorus sang Christmas (search) songs at holiday concerts, a few people complained that lyrics about the baby Jesus or angels made non-Christians feel left out. So, the music director for the New Jersey district issued an edict that all songs representing any religion (search) were to be avoided.
But at a school board meeting this month, many parents argued the ruling is more Grinch than goodwill. Those that read the actual school policy say it's being misinterpreted since the policy permits "the inclusion of religious literature, music, drama, (etc.) provided ... it neither inhibits nor advances any religious point of view."
"To ban music a month before a scheduled concert is hostile to all who have been preparing and probably would be inspired and supportive to our students," said parent Tom Reingold. "To think you can remove all references to the sacred and still present an experience of beauty in this season is to be intolerant."
But one parent is singing a different tune, arguing that songs like "Come all Ye Faithful" and "Silent Night" silence diversity.

Teacher takes 'Christmas' out of carol
2nd-graders will sing 'winter' instead at upcoming concert
Posted: December 6, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern
©2003WorldNetDaily.com
A parent of an elementary school student is upset with a teacher who replaced "Christmas" with "winter" in a carol to be performed during an upcoming concert.
Mark Denison, music teacher at Clover Creek Elementary in Tacoma, Wash., revised the lyrics of Dale Wood's "Carol from an Irish Cabin" to read: "The harsh wind blows down from the mountains, and blows a white winter to me," the Tacoma News Tribune reported.
Darla Dowell, the parent of a 7-year-old student, thinks the move is "absurd," especially since the children will sing a Hanukkah song referring to the "mighty miracle" of Israel's ancient days.
School officials will allow Denison to lead students in singing the song without "Christmas," although they acknowledge he might have pressed too hard in an attempt to not offend, the Tacoma paper said.
"In the past, there has been a lot of sensitivity to not giving preference to one religion over the other," Mark Wenzel, spokesman for the Bethel School District, told the News Tribune.
Mike Sandner, director of arts education for the district, says Bethel allows students to perform both sacred and secular songs during the holiday season.
As WorldNetDaily reported, a civil-liberties legal defense organization has launched a nationwide campaign to prevent blatant religious discrimination by bringing lawsuits against any governmental agency that eliminates public displays of religious songs or symbols.
Conversely, says the Florida-based Liberty Counsel, it will defend any governmental entity that abides by the Constitution and allows the equal expression of religious views.
"We are resolved to stop the Grinch from stealing Christmas," declared Mathew Staver, the group's president and general counsel.
Staver said public school students may sing Christian Christmas carols, such as "Silent Night, Holy Night" so long as they also sing secular songs, like "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer."
At Clover Creek Elementary, officials said they did not want to make it more difficult for the children after they had practiced the song a certain way for a month, the News Tribune reported. On Tuesday, Denison allowed the second-graders to vote on which word to use, and they chose "winter" by a 23-18 margin.
But Dowell still is upset.
"I've never made a stink about anything in my life," she told the Tacoma daily. "But I feel very strongly about this."

Christmas CD banned for mentioning Jesus
'It could cause offense to those who are not Christian'
Posted: December 22, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern
©2003WorldNetDaily.com
In a move that many might consider ironic at the least, a charity Christmas CD has been banned from distribution because it mentions the baby Jesus.
The decision by the Royal Hospital for Sick Children in Edinburgh, Scotland, was instituted because of fears it could offend people who belong to a faith other than Christianity.
"We could not just hand out the CD," a hospital spokeswoman told the Scotsman newspaper. "If it went to every child it could cause offense to those who are not Christian."
Royal Hospital for Sick Children in Edinburgh (The Scotsman)
Many see the measure as the latest attempt to "de-Christianize" Christmas, and at least one prominent Muslim leader in Scotland ridiculed the ban.
"If somebody doesn't want to listen to this, they don't have to. This is political correctness gone mad," Bashir Maan told the Scotsman. "It is going too far and it is going to be counterproductive.
"This is Christmastime and the overwhelming majority of the people in this country are Christians. If people want to celebrate then they should have the right, as should minority groups. But if the freedom is only one-sided, then the majority will be offended."
The artist who recorded the CD to raise money for the Marie Curie Cancer Care was equally shocked.
"To think that something as innocent as a Christmas CD could be considered offensive I just can't believe it," said singer Jane Butters. "Ironically, they said it would be OK to hand out these CDs at their carol concert on Monday."
A hospital spokeswoman told the paper: "We couldn't just hand out this CD to everyone, but if people chose to go to a carol service, they could pick one up there."
Just last month, the Scottish Parliament banned traditional Christmas cards due to similar fears of offending other religions. Officials said "Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year" could not appear on government cards, as the wording was not deemed to be "socially inclusive."
As WorldNetDaily has reported, controversy over Christmas traditions in America has been growing in recent years, even to the point where some Christians say Jesus should not be included in any part of the celebration, due to purported pagan origins of the holiday.

'No Christian symbols at Christmas'
Red Cross stores bar religious decor fearing it might be offensive
Posted: November 18, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern
©2003WorldNetDaily.com
Fearing they might offend someone, Red Cross stores in Britain have taken the Christian out of Christmas this year, banning any display of overtly religious decorations.
At a shop in Ipswich, England, for example, Christmas cards are on display but none of them depict the classic Christian images of the birth of Christ, Joseph and Mary, and Bethlehem, the Evening Star newspaper of Ipswich reported.
Instead, the store carries only cards with wintry, non-religious scenes.
Its window display shows snowmen and tinsel.
"We are a non-religious organization, but personally I think it has gone too far," a volunteer in the store told the newspaper. "I don't think Muslims are offended by Christmas."
The charity's official explanation, however, is that it must appear neutral because of international aid efforts.
A leaflet at the store reads: "Our neutrality is as important on the UK [main] street as it is in a conflict zone. We simply cannot put it at risk," the British paper said.
"This is why, during Christmas and any other religious festivals, our volunteers are welcome to display and sell seasonal decorations and goods, including Christmas trees and cards, but not anything overtly religious."
Impartiality, particularly in restricted-access countries, is vital for an international organization that treats people in areas of conflict, the British Red Cross says.
The Red Cross's full name actually accommodates Muslim nations, the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement.
The cross symbol comes from the flag of the group's country of origin, Switzerland.

School bans saying 'Christmas'
Veteran teacher dumbfounded by order precluding mention of holiday
Posted: December 13, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Joe Kovacs
©2002WorldNetDaily.com
At a time when Americans of many faiths and even no faith gear up to celebrate Christmas this year, a first-grade teacher in Sacramento Co., Calif., says she's been ordered by her principal not to utter the word "Christmas" at school.
The 24-year education veteran, who wishes to keep her name and the school anonymous at this time, claims she and two fellow instructors were told that use of the word "Christmas" in the classroom or in written materials was now prohibited.
"She was dumbfounded!" says Karen Holgate of the Capitol Resource Institute, a pro-family public-policy center based in Sacramento. "This is the first time you can't use the word."
The ban apparently only affects teachers, not students. The instructor contacted CRI, to find out if the school had the right to prohibit its mention.
According to Holgate, the second-year principal's "out of the blue" mandate was handed down Monday during the discussion with three first-grade teachers. One of them didn't agree with the policy, but agreed to go along with it. Another stated that Christmas should not be discussed in class anyway.
But the third teacher was stunned by the pronouncement, as she's been delivering a "Christmas around the world" program for more than two decades. The teacher also explains to children how Hanukkah and other holidays are celebrated in other nations.
"She's so discouraged now," says Holgate, "she doesn't know if she wants to keep on teaching. ... People need to stand up to all these wackos. It's nuts!"
The CRI says California standards not only allow for the Bible and religious topics to be mentioned in the classroom, but teachers are encouraged to discuss their social and cultural relevance.
As WorldNetDaily previously reported, other schools in the Golden State are having students pretend to be Muslims, simulating jihads with a dice game, while others pupils celebrate the "Day of the Dead" by creating altars to honor deceased loved ones or family pets.
The San Juan Unified District, which serves over 50,000 students in 85 schools, is where the alleged Christmas ban is centered. Its director of communications, Deidra Powell, tells WorldNetDaily she's heard nothing about the principal's purported action, but doesn't think the district's policy on religious matters would preclude the mentioning of holidays.
"You can say 'Christmas,' you can say 'Hanukkah,'" she stated. "It is nowhere written in any policy; I don't think our board of education or superintendent would prohibit that."
Powell says the policy is designed to protect all students and make them feel safe in their environment, adding "not everybody is a Christian. We're using public funds, [so] we can't endorse [Christmas]."
The United States Justice Foun

www.olavodecarvalho.org

agregue sus comentarios