AU replies to the "War on Christmas"

[USIncognito]

I'm not sure if this is the correct subforum to place this in, but it seems right since the culture warriors strum und drang smells of political motivation. I'm on the Americans United for Seperation of Church and State mailing list and this open letter from Barry Lynn to Jerry Falwell was in my inbox today. I thought I'd share it, and see if there are any comments.

Dear Jerry:

Heres some news: There is no "war on Christmas!"

Ive seen you on various television news shows claiming that there is but, in fact, there simply isnt. Even as I write this, millions of Americans are erecting Christmas trees and nativity scenes at their homes, and thousands of churches are planning special Christmas services.

And, if I might say so, most of them are planning their lives without getting permission or encouragement from you.

I am deeply disappointed that you have chosen a time that Christians observe as a season of peace and good will and turned it into a time of religious divisiveness and community conflict. Your "Friend or Foe" campaign may be great for fund-raising and publicity, but it has sown discord unnecessarily.

Contrary to your wild allegations, Jerry, neither Americans United, nor any other civil liberties organization that I know of, is waging any kind of war on Christmas. The First Amendment of our Constitution ensures every Americans right to observe religious holidays or to refrain from doing so. We can wish each other a "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Holidays," and its really none of your business which term we choose. We can call our decorated tree a "Christmas tree" or a "holiday tree," and thats our right. (We can observe the holidays of other traditions as well.)

I think we all know whats really going on with your campaign. You want an America where there is no separation of church and state and where your rather narrow interpretation of Christianity is forced on everyone. If you can convince Americans that their cherished Christmas traditions are under fire, you think maybe they will join your nefarious crusade to tear down the protective church-state wall that guarantees our freedoms.

Well, it wont work, Jerry. Americans are, by and large, a tolerant lot, and they are quite unlikely to join forces with someone like you who is so far out on the political and religious fringes. Many people remember the outrageous comments you made after the 9/11 terrorist assaults, suggesting that America had it coming because of our (in your opinion) sinful ways. They also remember your dire warning that Tinky Winky, a kids TV character, was brainwashing our children into homosexuality! You cant rehabilitate an image like that by trying to depict yourself as Father Christmas.

I am particularly outraged that you are attacking our public schools as part of your misguided project. Our public schools serve children from 2,000 different faith traditions and some who follow no spiritual path at all. They generally do a tremendous job of helping each of these students without imposing any particular religious viewpoint. They steer a careful course, broadly allowing student religious _expression while trying to avoid school endorsement of specific faiths. That means there are sometimes disagreements about what songs should be sung in the winter concert or what decorations should go in the hall. We can work through those decisions by applying common sense, the Constitution and plain old civility.

Thanks to the crusade by you and your allies, however, some of these schools are being targeted for venomous attacks. After the Alliance Defense Fund unfairly maligned a public school in New York for its holiday observance policies, education officials there received hateful mail of all sorts. One e-mail said "You are either bigoted Jews who hate Christians or mindless secularists."

Since I debated you about the Christmas issue on Fox News Channels "OReilly Factor," I have received 66 nasty e-mails, including two death threats. Observed one of my correspondents, "Hope you die soon. Merry Christmas."

Jerry, this is the kind of interfaith and community hostility that you are stirring up, and I implore you to stop it now. You are polluting the public square with animosity and anger. And at Christmas, of all times!! Have you no decency?

Youve dubbed your latest round of antics a "Friend or Foe" campaign. Well, Jerry, I am a friend of the Constitution and a foe of intolerance. You should be too.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays,

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn
Executive Director

PS: I saw on a couple of the news shows that you are again questioning my ministerial credentials. I believe the _expression that you used on Fox News Channels "The Big Story with John Gibson" is that I am "about as reverend as an oak tree" and that I never "preached in" a church. Drop me a line, Jerry, and Ill send you (again) a copy of my ministerial credentials from the United Church of Christ. And by the way, Id be happy to come to Thomas Road Baptist Church and deliver the sermon on the Sunday of your choice. Your congregation might like a change of perspective every now and then.

[snappyanswer]

Here I stand. I can do nothing else. Out of their own mouths and by their own actions I judge heretics.

This has gotten too far off topic. You seem to be able to deal with your heretical clergy rather well. I have shown you that the Anglican Communion has strong and noble believers opposing Spong and Williams.

I'm through with this off topic debate.

Start another thread if you want to debate good pastors Like Dobson and Falwell versus Clergy that promnote heretical views of Christ Jesus being a myth to promote progressive political movment based on evolutionary "science" at the expense of men's souls.

[MagusYanam]

I'm through with this off topic debate.

Start another thread if you want to debate good pastors Like Dobson and Falwell versus Clergy that promnote heretical views of Christ Jesus being a myth to promote progressive political movment based on evolutionary "science" at the expense of men's souls.

Apparently, someone beat me to it (at least in Falwell's case). The pertinent thread can be found here.

http://www.debatex.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2640

[1John2_26]

I thought that it would allow for a stimulating debate topic. I see little wrong with Falwell's presentation and you have spirited and passionate voice.

[melikio]

Bigots like Dobson and Falwell do not fine men or good pastors make. These are people whose churches and congregations supported segregation in its heyday and condemned people like King for 'moving too fast'. What credibility they ever had with me is long gone.

You know, it is not possible to know everything. But I think that paying reasonable attention to reality, represents a decent and helpful modicum of common sense.

Now I'm begining to realize why my parents, and many other African Americans in their age group, don't find certain famous pastors to be trustworthy. Although my parents have never ben specific or particularly nasty toward Robertson, Falwell and Dobson, I believe their aversion to those particular "teachers" and their religious/social views goes beyond what many my age do understand. Of course many problems aren't colored necessarily in black/white, but one is able to understand more as they pay attention over a period of time. It is very east sell a particular "brand" of Christianity, to someone who has been encouraged to only paid attention to the brand that's being "sold" (promoted).

From what I've seen in this society, it is fairly clear that "Christianity" has power and tremendous influence (not always positive either). I've noticed that a certain "brand" or flavor (not denomination) of Christianity is particularly powerful in the political arena. IF the power/influence of that brand was left unchecked or challenged, it would represent a MASSIVE opportunity for a very oppressive "Christian" form of LAW and GOVERNMENT to overtake the society.

I personally believe that although the AU may be radical in the eyes of many, I tend to agree with their overall goals; which are clearly against the type of religiously based thinking which believes IT should be IN CONTROL of those who are either secular or do not ascribe to the often strict and oppressive doctrines of certain overly-influential (oppressive/compulsory) "Christian" doctrines.

From what I've understood so far in this life, "Christianity" couldn't mean that which some tend to believe it does. By the same token, I understand the reasonable limitations of minorities to communicate that which is also important to them. I believe organizations like the AU are there for good reason, even if there are aspects or view related to them which may appear to be anti-"Christian".

If I hadn't been a gay person, I don't believe I would have questioned much. So, after over 35 years (most of my life) trying not to be gay, I finally realized that I and no other person could just turn homosexuality off like a switch. And I didn't think it was too much of a stretch to be treated as a human being, after all I had been through for over 3 decades. I've seen the toxic effects of religion upon those who cling to it, despite how unhealthy it can become to themselves and others. If such religion were to have some absolute political, legal or social hold upon America, there would likely be little peace; to argue about Chrsitanity, would often be interpreted as aguing against THE GOVERNMENT. If people weren't SHUT DOWN immediately for questioning some "doctrine", it would likely be strongly discouraged (at the very least). Historically, we understand that such oppressive societies fair no better (and certainly worse) than America and nations like it have (where people are generally free to think/believe as they find fit).

We don't have to agree with one another, to be at peace with one another. I doubt that "Christianity" was meant to amass and impose the kinds of power that it has, which very often has ZIP to do with "love" (it's more like LAW, labeled as LOVE). IF true Jesus-like LOVE were the practiced standard, I believe there woud be much less for people to argue over where it concerns any "brand" of Christianity. And that's an opinion based upon more than just my "feelings"; a lifetime of experience and education backs it.

-Mel-

[melikio]

Separation of church and state is the only principle that can ensure religious and philosophical freedom for all Americans. Church-state separation does not mean hostility toward religion. Rather, it means that the government will remain neutral on religious questions, leaving decisions about God, faith and house of worship attendance in the hands of its citizens.

If this isn't correct (or reasonable), then why isn't it?
http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issues

-Mel-

[1John2_26]

Here is a better view of the anti-Christian AU motivation. Maybe a place for a whole new thread as well.

From the AU website something that shouldn't come as a shock to any Christian:

Vouchers / Religious School Funding

Americans must be free to contribute only to the religious groups of their choosing. Voucher programs violate this principle by forcing all taxpayers to underwrite religious education. Often, religious schools promote sectarian dogma and take controversial stands on issues such as gay rights, the role of women in society and reproductive freedom. Taxpayers should not be required to subsidize the spread of religious/moral opinions they may strongly disagree with. All religious projects including schooling should be funded with voluntary contributions from church members.

Note the devisive word "controversial." They know if poor people could afford it, they would put their children in religious schools. Christianity is clearly the last voice for morality on earth.

Vouchers should be allowed as a tax break to allow "moral opinions" the same right as any other personal behavior. But it always boils down to the same thing with the anti-Christs. Sex over God. It's always OK for schools to push an immoral sexual agenda that should be a private matter instead of attacking religious choices.

Interesting that AU thinks so highly of Thomas Jefferson, he was also a hater of Christians in a big way.

[melikio]

Christianity is clearly the last voice for morality on earth.

This certainly ISN'T absolutely true.

And depending upon what is meant by the term "Christianity", your statement could be debated (and rightly so) for all time.

In the name of God, so many "Christians" ARE doing immoral things. Hypocrisy is a major problem with many "Christians", and I'm clearly reminded that it was/is that very thing that Jesus spoke MOST HARSHLY against.

If "Christians" don't treat people with love, then they have NOTHING worth sharing with anyone (see 1Cor13). To heck with your "morality"; you likely aren't above reproach yourself.

-Mel-

[1John2_26]

Mel,

Look at the time. Get some sleep. You deserve it.

I'm heading off to slumberville as we speak.

[melikio]

I'm awake; quite awake.

"Christians" are the only ones who are moral, or care about morality?

Is there an absolute morality; or do the perceptions of standards and/or individuals also define certain aspects of right and wrong?

Those questions (and others) do matter. Today's conservative and/or fundamentalist "Christians" do express "a" morality, but many are far from adhering to an "absolute" form of morality. There are often good intentions, but nothing as perfect and loving as Jesus Christ himself. People need to realize and remember that period. "Christians" do not hold the "patent" on "morality".

-Mel-

[1John2_26]

"Christians" are the only ones who are moral, or care about morality?

Is there an absolute morality; or do the perceptions of standards and/or individuals also define certain aspects of right and wrong?

Those questions (and others) do matter. Today's conservative and/or fundamentalist "Christians" do express "a" morality, but many are far from adhering to an "absolute" form of morality. There are often good intentions, but nothing as perfect and loving as Jesus Christ himself. People need to realize and remember that period. "Christians" do not hold the "patent" on "morality".

-Mel-

But Mel,

It appears quite clearly that it is everything and everybody else versus "one" Christian voice (made up of a certain large number of Evangelicals). Interesting don't you think? Especially people that claim to be "a" Christian siding and indeed members of anti-Christian forces allied against that "one" Christian moral voice. It's interesting but not really unexpected or scary (there is a great comfort in Biblical truth). Look at "Reverend" Barry Lynn, he is certainly allied against Christ, every chance he gets.