The Not So Subtle War on Christmas

Ahhhh, September. The time of the year when the leaves begin to fall, the sun hangs lower in the sky, the days become shorter, and the “Holiday Season” begins. Yeah, as I look at my watch, the “Holiday Season” begins …. right about ……. now.

We’re still a month out from Halloween, but go to your local , or Costco, and you’ll start seeing the “holiday“ decorations slowly creeping into the “Seasonal Section” of the store. Like weeds, these holiday decorations will begin to multiply until the day after Halloween, when they seem to explode exponentially and engulf a large part of the store. After about a month of non-stop “Holiday” commercialism, I’m about done with the holidays; poor old Thanksgiving never stood a chance. I think the only thing that irritates me more than the non-stop commercialism is the constant reference to “The Holidays,” as if to utter the word (come closer now, I’m about to whisper) “Christmas” is somehow inappropriate; a nasty, forbidden word that George Orwell’s thought police would have likely banned in a non-religious, totalitarian state.

My wonderful wife loves Christmas. If Julie had her way, we would be celebrating Christmas every day of the year. I’m not exaggerating. In a world controlled by my lovely wife, every day would be full of Christmas carols, eggnog, Christmas movies, and the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ. Oops! I said it! The JC word! Wash my mouth out with soap and stand me in the corner for a three hour timeout; the battle lines of political correctness have been breached once again! I suppose if I were using the JC word as a form of swearing, that would be socially acceptable to some. You know, like after I stub my toe? But for my 12-year-old to refer in a school essay to, oh I don’t know, “Christmas celebrates the birth of Jesus Christ, my Lord and Savior,” well, that paper would probably be burned faster than a Britney Spears divorce.

Make no mistake about it. In the last 60 years or so, a war has been waged by some regarding the right to celebrate one’s faith in public, particularly Christianity. The weapon of choice? The mythical “separation of church and state” as allegedly guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

Well, this may come as a surprise to some, but there isn’t a word about the separation of church and state in the supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution. Not a word. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Zip. However, notwithstanding this omission, those who find themselves offended by the free exercise of religious faith have continued to assert a Constitutional prohibition against even a hint of governmental support of any religion. I think their interpretation of the law is wrong; but you can’t blame them. After all, they’re winning.

Regarding religious freedom, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1791, reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

For the next 150 years or so, things seemed to be going along swimmingly, that is until a New Jersey taxpayer, Arch R. Everson, objected to a school district providing financial reimbursement to parents of both public and private school children who used the public transportation system to get to school. Simply put, Mr. Everson felt that by providing reimbursement to children who attended private religious schools (i.e., Catholic), the government was in effect providing state support of religion. Never mind the fact that Congress was not establishing any law establishing religion, Mr. Everson was of the mind that the New Jersey policy was unconstitutional.

The U.S. Supreme Court eventually heard the Everson case (Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)) and ruled that despite the clear, unambiguous language of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applied the First Amendment to the individual states, and mandated a “wall of separation between church and state.” This decision effectively ruled that the Constitution required a sharp separation between government and religion, and paved the way to a series of later court decisions that, taken together, brought about profound changes in legislation, public education, and other policies involving matters of religion.

Although the phrase “separation of church and state” was familiar as Thomas Jefferson referred to this principle in a January 1, 1802 letter addressed to the Danbury, Connecticut Baptist Association, Jefferson clearly did not intend that his personal letter would result in an impenetrable wall preventing individuals from religious expression. After all, in 1776 Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence which relied on the "Laws of Nature and Nature's God," "unalienable rights endowed by the Creator" and "the Supreme Judge of the World."

Though some historians refer to him as a Deist, in private letters, Jefferson refers to himself as "Christian":

"To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence…”  (April 21, 1803 letter to Benjamin Rush in Bergh, ed., Writings of Thomas Jefferson)

Also note that Jefferson prayed at both of his inaugurations, and he approved several measures appropriating federal funds to pay for missionaries to the Indians.  

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders' political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government's hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

Rep. Ron Paul, 12/30/03 

So what has been the result of this ongoing judicial torturing of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution? Consider the following:

• In December 1999, during his first Christmas season in office, Governor Gray Davis changed the name of the capitol Christmas tree to the California Capitol Holiday Tree. In fact, the Capitol Christmas Tree in Washington D.C. was renamed the Capitol Holiday Tree in the late 1990’s, that is until 2005 when Rep. Dennis Hastert, the 59th Speaker of the House, requested that the name to be changed back to “Capitol Christmas Tree."

• In 2002, The state of New York was sued for alleged discrimination against Christian students by allowing Islamic and Jewish holiday symbols to be displayed in public schools while banning Nativity crèches.  

• In 2005, the Seattle-Tacoma Airport removed all of its Christmas trees in the middle of the night rather than allow a rabbi to put up a menorah near the largest tree display. Officials feared that one display would open the door for other religious displays, and, in 2006, they opted to display a grove of birches in polyethylene terephthalate snow rather than religious symbols or Christmas trees.

• In 2005, the city of Boston renamed the spruce tree used to decorate the Boston Common a "Holiday Tree" rather than a "Christmas Tree.” The president of the Harvard Secular Society, Matthew R. George, indicated that he was “all for keeping religious displays off of public property.”

• In 2008, a Delaware elementary school banned Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer from a school performance because one parent decided the word Santa was an endorsement of Christianity.

The list goes on an on; courts have banned the display of the Ten Commandments on or in public buildings, prayer (even silent prayer) in schools, any references to “God” at graduation ceremonies, Christmas pageants in public schools, prayer by coaches in locker rooms, etc., etc., etc. I won’t even begin to list some of the countless instances where retailers succumbed to the pressures of political correctness by refusing to refer to “Christmas” in advertising. According to a study by the American Family Association, the worst offenders included Gap Stores, Barnes & Noble, Office Depot, Foot Locker, L.L. Bean, among many others. Although retailers are certainly entitled not to refer to Christmas in advertising if they so choose, it seems a reasonable inference that these retailers would not feel so enslaved by the epidemic of political correctness if not for the ongoing onslaught of judicial rulings regarding public displays of religious faith.

Currently, regarding the public display of religious holiday symbols, the courts apply what is now affectionately known as the “Three Reindeer Rule.” In essence, the various courts have held that manger and menorah displays, done properly, are entirely legal if such symbols are placed alongside secular symbols of the holidays. Government sponsored displays may include religious symbols, as long as the religious symbols do not predominate. In other words, a nativity scene is fine, but you better incorporate a talking Santa, his reindeer, maybe a Grinch or two, some tasty candy canes, a couple of elves, lots of trees …. you get the point. The level of absurdity cannot be overstated.

In 1870, President Ulysses S. Grant signed into law a bill declaring Christmas to be a national holiday. And that law is still on the books--section 6103(a) of Title V of the United States Code, in case you were wondering. Nonetheless, many courts across the land, in their infinite wisdom (oh yes, I’m being facetious) have twisted and tortured the First Amendment into something that the founding fathers would find to be unrecognizable. All reason has gone out the window and, instead, common sense has been replaced with a blind, illogical devotion to the ever pervasive social tyranny known as political correctness.

My views on this issue have slowly evolved over the years. I’m older than I used to be … to be politically correct, I’m more experientially enhanced. I’m hardly what some would call a “Bible thumper”; in fact, I strenuously recoil against those who feel compelled to push their religious beliefs upon others. I’m a Christian with an admitted fascination with all things Buddhist, particularly the writings of the Dalai Lama. Notwithstanding my admitted lack of religious fervor, I strongly believe that the founding fathers of our country never intended that a wall of separation be established between our representative government and religious faith. Yet, to hear some who would disagree with my premise regarding the mythical “separation of church and state,” one would think that the only alternative to this arrangement would be a form of theocracy. Not so. I merely believe that experience has shown that a return to the true intent of the First Amendment, that Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion, nor prohibit the free exercise thereof, is the prudent course to take.

I married into a family chock-full of pastors. Seriously, there are more pastors in my family than socks in my sock drawer. My late father-in-law, Rev. Larry Bjorklund, was a pastor at the Little Church in the Pines in Bass Lake, California. I remember fondly the many religious and political discussions we would have at his kitchen table whenever Julie and I would visit. We could not be further apart when it came to the issue of school prayer, public displays of faith, etc. My knee-jerk reaction had always been anti-religious, and, unfortunately at times, very lawyer like. I didn’t understand his positions. Not at all. I’m not sure if it was just the unavoidable, gradual onset of chronological advancement, or the result of trying to raise three children and to infuse them with a moral and spiritual foundation that will serve them throughout their lives, but I think I get it now. As much as I grow and change, as often as I question my faith and the faith of others, I think I get it now. In my mind, to display one’s faith, even on public property, in most instances is not an affront, nor is it intended to offend. There undeniably are innumerable examples of sin in the world, and an appropriate and thoughtful public display of faith doesn’t come close to making this dubious list.

All major religious traditions carry basically the same message, that is love, compassion and forgiveness … the important thing is they should be part of our daily lives.

Dalai Lama

Ahhhh, September. The time of the year when the leaves begin to fall, the sun hangs lower in the sky, the days become shorter, and the “Holiday Season” begins. Let me take this opportunity on this warm September day to wish you all a very, very Merry Christmas!