I'm still on my crazy finals-week sleep schedule, which is further compounded by the hour time change between DC and Mpls, so I'm awake and active before the sun rises. Early enough to sneak some quality internetting, and what better time to respond to a tag from my old pal Incertus?

Seven Things To Do Before I Die
1. Build the world's tallest sky scraper
2. Have a breakfast cereal cartoon mascot based on me
3. Finish learning to juggle fire
4. Change my last name to "The Conqueror"
5. Jump out of a plane (may need to be moved to bottom of list, depending on availability of parachutes)
6. Lose a race around the world to Henry Rollins
7. Own a pet octopus

Seven Things I Cannot Do
1. A back handspring
2. Eat mandarin oranges
3. Avoid buying a PS3
4. Respect Jessica Simpson
5. Stay mad at Joss Whedon
6. Compose smooth jazz
7. Yodel

Seven Things That Attract Me to...Blogging
None, really. I was attracted to internet journaling because I wanted to share my greatest passion: me. I've never found blogging terribly attractive, though I spend a reasonable amount of time doing it anyhow.

Seven Things I Say Most Often
Gotta do this one count-down style, of course
7. "Sucks to your asmar!"
6. "Jackarse."
5. "Will you marry me, John Stewart?"
4. "RED 40?!?"
3. "Medial vestibular nucleus." (I am a professional nerd)
2. "It seemed like a good idea at the time."
1. "No."

Seven Books I Love
1. Demian
2. The Cat Who Walked Through Walls
3. The Battle of Zormla
4. The Unexpected Mrs. Pollifax
5. My bound collection of Philip K Dick short stories
6. The Hollow Chocolate Bunnies of the Apocalypse
7. America (by Jon Stewart)

Seven Movies I Watch Over and Over Again
1. Batman (starring Adam West and Burt Ward)
2. We're No Angels
3. The Long Kiss Goodnight
4. Sneakers
5. The Philadelphia Story
6. The animated short about the baby on the Incredibles DVD
7. Wallace and Gromit, "The Wrong Trousers"

Seven People I Want to Join In
1. Aerosaucer
2. Liebeslied Engel
3. Slushpupie
4. Bistromath
5. Playahatasball
6. Mike the blogless wonder
7. *Seventh spot available on a first-come, first-served basis*

UPDATE: My own special seven...
Seven Best Handmade X-mas Cookies, as made at the ZDK household
1. A hedgehog
2. A monkey covered with jellybeans
3. A raptor covered with hippie flowers
4. A nude gnome
5. Lady Godiva and her consort
6. An anti-Bush elephant cookie
7. A unicorn with wheels

One last thing before I go, via the Boston Globe:

PICTURE THIS: A folksy, self-consciously plainspoken Southern politician rises to power during a period of profound unrest in America. The nation is facing one of the half-dozen or so of its worst existential crises to date, and the people, once sunny, confident, and striving, are now scared, angry, and disillusioned.

This politician, a ''Professional Common Man,'' executes his rise by relentlessly attacking the liberal media, fancy-talking intellectuals, shiftless progressives, pinkos, promiscuity, and welfare hangers-on, all the while clamoring for a return to traditional values, to love of country, to the pie-scented days of old when things made sense and Americans were indisputably American. He speaks almost entirely in ''noble but slippery abstractions''-Liberty, Freedom, Equality-and people love him, even if they can't fully articulate why without resorting to abstractions themselves.


Through a combination of factors-his easy bearing chief among them (along with massive cash donations from Big Business; disorganization in the liberal opposition; a stuffy, aloof opponent; and support from religious fanatics who feel they've been unfairly marginalized)-he wins the presidential election.

Once in, he appoints his friends and political advisers to high-level positions, stocks the Supreme Court with ''surprisingly unknown lawyers who called [him] by his first name,'' declaws Congress, allows Big Business to dictate policy, consolidates the media, and fills newspapers with ''syndicated gossip from Hollywood.'' Carping newspapermen worry that America is moving backward to a time when anti-German politicians renamed sauerkraut ''Liberty Cabbage'' and ''hick legislators...set up shop as scientific experts and made the world laugh itself sick by forbidding the teaching of evolution,'' but newspaper readers, wary of excessive negativity, pay no mind.

Given the nature of ''powerful and secret enemies'' of America-who are ''planning their last charge'' to take away our freedom-an indefinite state of crisis is declared, and that freedom is stowed away for safekeeping. When the threat passes, we can have it back, but in the meantime, citizens are asked to ''bear with'' the president.

Sure, some say these methods are extreme, but the plain folks are tired of wishy-washy leaders, and feel the president's decisiveness is its own excuse. Besides, as one man says, a fascist dictatorship ''couldn't happen here in America...we're a country of freemen!''

. . .

While more paranoid readers might be tempted to draw parallels between this scenario and sundry predicaments we may or may not be in right now, the story line is actually that of Sinclair Lewis's 1935 novel ''It Can't Happen Here,'' a hastily written cautionary note about America's potential descent into fascism, recently reissued by New American Library in a handsome trade edition with a blood-spattered cover design.

The first serious research paper I ever composed (during my junior year of high school) was inspired in part by "It Can't Happen Here." In years past I have recommended it to others as worth a read, but now it seems kind of silly...why tell people they should read about Dorothy's adventures in Oz, when we've long since gone over the rainbow?

I'm heading to Mpls on Tuesday, then spending the New Year with some college buds at somebody's ski shack, so you may wish to begin mentally preparing yourselves. I'll be back around January 3rd or 4th.

To my Park homies: put the kettle on! I'll be bringing my cell phone, naturally, but you can get to me via my parents' house, too.

Merriam-Webster has reported that the world that was most often looked up on its website in 2005 was "integrity."

Insert your snark here.

ACLU Post Series, Part 4: World Net Daily and the Alliance Defense Fund

When I asked for cases demonstrating anti-Christian ACLU activities, most of the links people came up with led to World Net Daily. As far as I am concerned, your credibility goes right out the window whenever you try to support your claims with a WND link because WND has an outrageously blatant history of misinformation in its reporting of supposed infringements on the rights of Christians.

A recent (and very, very funny) example is found in WND's piece, "Silent Night gets repreive." Here's what WND has to say:

A Wisconsin school that had secularized the lyrics of the beloved Christmas carol "Silent Night" has now agreed to change the words back to the original after receiving countless phone calls and e-mails about the issue.

Liberty Counsel, the law firm working on behalf of parents upset about the secularization of the carol, says it was both public pressure and two letters attorneys sent to the school that prompted the change.

Wow, sounds pretty awful, doesn't it? (Okay, no, it really doesn't, but let's pretend to care for the moment.) However, WND used only one source when writing up this "news" item, that being the Liberty Counsel. The lawyers for the prosecution. Maybe we should check another source, just to be on the safe side. How about ABC?

Dodgeville School District officials say traditional, unaltered carols will also be sung, and that "Cold in the Night" [the secularized version of "Silent Night"] is part of a decades-old Christmas play that students have performed in years past, and is not an attack on the religious nature of the holiday.
...
Students at the school will present "The Little Tree's Christmas Gift," a musical production that tells the story of a family going out to buy a Christmas tree. Other melodies include "Jingle Bells," "We Three Kings," "O Little Town of Bethlehem" and "Chanukah."
...
Messer said parents and students have enjoyed past performances of "The Little Tree's Christmas Gift," and no one has complained before. Traditional carols will be sung by students as well during the program.

So let's take stock, shall we? The song was not changed this year, nor were the lyrics altered by teachers or school officials (as World Net Daily falsely reported). The song was part of a decades-old play that is intended to help young children learn the melodies of traditional Christmas carols. The production in question is about a family buying a CHRISTMAS tree. Which all kind of makes you wonder what kind of dingbat would try to use this as an example of secularized schools trying to censor Christmas, since the story is actually about a Christian parent who is leading the charge to stop his kids' school from putting on a play about Christmas.

World Net Daily probably could have avoided making these "mistakes" if they had actually bothered contacting the school for their story (as ABC did), but I'm sure they saved a lot of time by simply printing a press release for the Liberty Councel.

Okay, on to the Alliance Defense Fund!

The Alliance Defense Fund is a law firm founded to represent an anti-ACLU, pro-Christian agenda. Like World Net Daily, the ADF has a history of tweaking the truth just a teeny tiny bit. A recent example was when, in November 2004, the ADF put out a press release with the headline, “Declaration of Independence banned from classroom.” Over a period of several weeks, the ADF waged a campaign against Stevens Creek Elementary for supposedly banning the teaching of the Declaration of Independence after a teacher read the portion of the Declaration that includes the word "God."

This story was a complete fabrication. Stevens Creek Elementary never banned the Declaration; indeed, it was hanging on the library wall, written in the 5^th grade textbook, and taught to every 5^th grade class.

On 1/27/05, the ADF issued another press release, in which they rescinded the claim that the Declaration was banned in the school, but maintained that “Mr. Williams [the teacher in question] was prohibited from using the Declaration in his classroom despite having sound academic reasons to do so.”

Again, this was a fabrication. Mr. Williams was expected to use the Declaration in class, and the Declaration was prominently included in the textbook he was required to use. A parent group from the school characterized the ADF’s claims as “ridiculous.”

The real story was that Mr. Williams was using heavily edited and corrupted material to promote an inaccurate version of the history of the United States. He had even used bogus documents, including the so-called “Washington Prayer Journal” that experts have rejected as fraudulent. When this nonsense suit got to the courts, the judge threw out three of four counts in the lawsuit as having ‘no merit,’ and the ADF ended up dropping the suit.

And honestly, folks, these were just the two most recent cases that jumped out at me. Feel free to share your own favorite examples of their wacky antics...there are plenty to go around.

ACLU Post Series, Part 3: Don't Hate The Players, Hate How They Play You In Order To Up Their Ratings And Pad Their Wallets

In this issue, we will meet a few of the holiday-loving fellows who have helped perpetuate the myth of the anti-Christian ACLU. Please keep in mind that this is the shortest of short lists, and I didn't even bother including Daddy Dobson's bio because we all know he's got his fingers in everybody's pie.


Jerry Falwell

The Rev. Jerry Falwell has ever been one of the most vocal opponents of the ACLU, even going so far as to blame the ACLU for September 11, 2001. What you won't hear from Falwell is how the ACLU joined a lawsuit filed by Falwell, which successfully attacked a provision of the Virginia Constitution that banned religious organizations from incorporating.

You also won’t hear how the ACLU of America’s Godless Fag Capital (Massachusetts) defended students who were suspended for distributing candy canes with religious messages. World Net Daily (a Christian news source favored by our own Citizen F) featured an article about this case that was written by Falwell, in which he wrote, "students have just as much right to speak on religious topics as they do on secular topics – no matter what the ACLU might propagate.” Falwell must have somehow missed the fact that the ACLU filed a brief in support of the students, as well as the fact that the students' suspensions were lifted because of a call from the Massachusetts ACLU.


Pat Robertson

When Pat Robertson's American Center For Law and Justice won the Supreme Court case of Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District, Robertson celebrated the Court's decision by going on his national TV show (The 700 Club) and proclaiming it a victory over the ACLU. Kind of a funny thing to do, considering that the ACLU was on Robertson's side, and had filed a 15-page brief on behalf of Lamb's Chapel.

But Robertson wasn't alone in his error, since the Alliance Defense Fund (we'll learn more about them in the next issue) printed virtually the same lie about a case in which another Christian club sought to hold meetings in an LA public elementary school; the ADF gloated that their victory would doubtless cause "gnashing of teeth at the ACLU," despite the fact that the ACLU has always strongly opposed viewpoint discrimination (a stance which the ACLU conspicuously demonstrated in the Lamb’s Chapel case). Yes, there sure must have been a lot of teeth-gnashing when those Satanists at the ACLU heard that a court ruled in favor of a long-held ACLU position…


Bill O’Reilly

I don’t think it’s worth my time to list the number of lies and insults thrown at the ACLU by Bill O’Reilly. Media Matters has a tidy list of O'Reilly's lies for anybody with the stomach for that kind of reading. O’Reilly’s fabricated War On Christmas is just another example of the dishonest, divisive, and laughable smut peddled by a pitiful, malingering sexual predator. The only reason I list O’Reilly’s name here is to emphasize that this is the level at which the ACLU-haters operate. The Falwells, the Robertsons, the O'Reillys of America. These are your proud soldiers of Christ, standing strong against the heinous forces of American civil liberties.

I'll give just one example of this insanity, and it will also give me a chance to do something I seldom get to do: give props to the Catholic Church. I give credit where credit is due, and the Catholic Church has, thus far, shown the good sense to leave this stupidity to the crazy evangelicals. But Bill O'Reilly ain't having none of that, and he's now comparing the Catholic leaders' indifference to his invented "war" on Christmas to their silence on the pedophilia scandals within the Church. I'm serious. O'Reilly thinks his personal publicity stunt is as important as little children being raped, and he's pissed that the Catholics aren't playing along.


Up next: a special issue on the Alliance Defense Fund and World Net Daily!

Attention American Jews:

It has come to our attention that some of you may not be aware that the celebration of Hanukah was moved due to a scheduling conflict. To better accomodate the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ, your holiday was rescheduled to December 6th. We apologize for any inconvenience this may pose to Jews who were unaware of the change.

WASHINGTON [Tue Dec 6] - Hanukkah does not start until Dec. 25 this year but it was observed early at the White House on Tuesday evening.

ACLU Post Series, Interlude

Do a search for "ACLU and Christmas," and you'll get page after page of histrionics from Christians who insist that the ACLU is trying to retroactively abort Baby Jeebus. They deserve bonus points for enthusiasm, to be sure, but the evidence they offer up to support their claims is somewhat less than convincing.

One week after extending the “ACLU Christmas Challenge,” I have received a grand total of three cases proposed as examples of ACLU infringement on the rights of Christians. Of these, one can be dismissed outright because it clearly does not involve anti-Christian bias, and another must be dismissed due to the lack of anything approaching solid evidence. The remaining case does at least involve specific targeting of a Christian religious symbol, but did not violate any rights held by Christian citizens (or any other citizens for that matter).

Urban myths about the ACLU are as numerous as they are fictional. The ACLU has never brought suit against a little boy who sang “Silent Night” in a school pageant. There is no ACLU case against “Merry Christmas.” There is no ACLU case against owning Christmas trees. The ACLU has never filed suit private citizens who wish to pray in public places, though they did successfully free a New Mexico street preacher from jail after he was arrested while "preaching the word of God" at passing cars.

On the contrary, the ACLU has a history of defending the rights of Christian citizens. Just a few months ago, the New Jersey ACLU took the side of a second-grader who was barred from singing "Awesome God" in a talent show. The ACLU intervened on the side of a Christian student when a Michigan high school censored religious yearbook entries, and supported the rights of students in Iowa who wanted to distribute Christian literature at school. In December of 2004, the State Supreme Court cited ACLU arguments from a friend-of-the-court brief in its ruling that a prosecutor violated the New Jersey Constitution when he removed jurors from a jury pool for their religious beliefs (one of whom was blocked for having engaged in missionary activity). The ACLU defended a Presbyterian church in August, 2004, when the city of Lincoln unfairly imposed "safety" standards on the church but not on surrounding businesses. In June, 2004, the ACLU of Virginia helped convince officials not to prohibit baptisms in a public park.

As far as I can tell, the closest we’ve got to an "anti-Christmas" ACLU case is the case where the ACLU filed a First Amendment lawsuit against the MBTA for removing anti-Santa subway advertisements. I guess you could interpret that as the ACLU being anti-Santa, and therefore anti-Christmas and anti-Christian, right? Well, maybe not, since the ads in question were being run by a local Christian church, and the ACLU was defending their right to religious liberty.

So whence cometh this myth of the Christian-hating ACLU? In the next installment of the ACLU Post Series, we will get to know some of the major players behind much of the anti-ACLU propaganda.

ACLU Post Series, Part 2: Two Cases To Mull Over

Case #1 The ACLU vs "Jingle Bells"

The ACLU, along with the Anti-Defamation League, sent a letter to a Rhode Island school board threatening to bring a lawsuit if the school did not remove religious musical selections from a holiday concert. The letter was sent after the parents of two Jewish students said that the religious content of the musical program causes Jewish students to "no longer feel safe or welcome there." Some sources reported that the ACLU/ADL letter demanded removal of all Christmas-related music, including secular songs such as "Jingle Bells."

Point
Contributed by Citizen F

The ACLU said that the school should remove all references to Christmas, religious or secular, including songs such as "Jingle Bells". The ADL also contributed to the threat. When asked for comment, Rabbi Daniel Lapin is reported to have said, “The ACLU is already notorious for its rabid hostility toward America's Judeo-Christian tradition, but the Anti-Defamation League, originally founded to defend Jews, should know better.” I agree.

Counterpoint
Zombiedeathkoala

The first problem with this case is that there isn't a case. This article does not discuss any legal action filed by the ACLU, nor was I able to find a case number or name in the database of ACLU cases. Instead, the story describes a letter that was aparently sent to the school board by the Anti-Defamation League and the ACLU after two Jewish students complained about the religious content of a holiday pagent. The ACLU didn't sue, nor did the ADL as far as I can tell, so we've got no court records or official documentation to refer to on this one.

The second problem is that World Net Daily (along with many other Christian publications) reported that the ACLU/ADL letter threatened the school unless they removed all mention of Christmas from the program, including secular songs like "Jingle Bells," but the Washington Times reported that the letter from the ADF and ACLU only requested removal of the "religious songs" from the holiday concert. Since the text of the letter is nowhere to be found, I'm inclined to trust the source that doesn't feature regular columns by Jerry Falwell. This leads me to believe that the ACLU and ADL were rightfully telling the school to knock it off with the religious music.

The third problem is that the school in question has a history of inappropriate religious proselytizing. For example, in 2002 a teacher at the school showed a creationism video that warned students, "the only way to be saved from the next flood is to accept Jesus Christ as your savior." While not directly applicable to the trouble over the 2003 musical pagent, this does lend credibility to the side of the Jewish students who said they were made to feel unwelcome.

On the whole, I do not think this incident constitutes evidence of ACLU actions that would violate the rights of Christian citizens or Christmas-celebrating citizens, though I must admit that the limited information makes it difficult to say for certain. Call it a draw?


Case #2: The ACLU vs The Festive Lawn of City Hall

On December 22, 2003, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of a resident of Cranston, RI, who wished to challenge the life-sized nativity scene and menorah erected in front of Cranston City Hall. Mayor Stephen Laffey had personally approved the displays, and then subsequently declared the City Hall lawn a "limited public forum open for the purpose of appropriate seasonal and holiday displays" from December 5 to January 1.

Point
Citizen F

The ACLU argued that it was unconstitutional for the city government to allow private citizens to construct Christmas displays on public property. The citizens could construct any display they chose. Some chose religious displays, some chose secular displays. This is ridiculous. Is it unconstitutional for the city to grant permission for a religious organization to hold a party in a public park where they set up temporary decorations praising Allah? This is clearly free speech. How can one possibly conclude that this is a religious endorsement?

Counterpoint
Zombiedeathkoala

Well, right off the bat it seems pretty clear to me that a mayor shouldn't be in the business of approving religious decorations for the lawn of City Hall. I do approve of the way the mayor tried to cover his ass by declaring the "limited public forum" during the time period that just happens to coincide with the Christian holiday season (Hanukah sometimes begins in November, so I guess even the Jews would be out of luck in those years). I especially like how, after receiving complaints about the religious content of the displays, the mayor then approved the erection of a display that included 15 flamingos in Santa Claus hats representing the "Church of the Flamingos." Now there's some quality backpedaling.

Of course, this is very clearly not a case of the ACLU targetting Christmas or Christianity, since the suit was filed after the mayor had erected a nativity scene and a menorah. As far as I am concerned, this seems to be yet another situation in which the ACLU should have stood aside and allowed the government to trivialize religion.

"There's a thin line between to laugh with and to laugh at."

Richard Pryor
December 1, 1940 - December 10, 2005

Welcome to the ACLU Post Series. This originally began as a throw-down between blog author Zombiedeathkoala and frequent commenter Citizen F, but the challenge has since been expanded to include anybody who wishes to contribute cases, action items, or other relevant pieces of evidence.

The topic is, "Has the ACLU infringed upon the rights of Christian citizens, and/or citizens who celebrate Christmas?" The topic is NOT, "Is the ACLU anti-Christian." I did not clarify that point until after Citizen F had already submitted his argument for this section, so don't anybody hold that against him, but from here on out if you're looking for discussion about how much the ACLU hates Christians then you can go lurk around the World Net Daily message boards.

And awaaaay we go...

ACLU Post Series, Part 1: The Case Of The Dinky Cross

In 2004, the ACLU said that they would sue Los Angeles county unless the LA County Supervisors removed a small cross depicted in the background of the County's official seal.

Point
Contributed by Citizen F

The question is whether this is an example of how the ACLU is anti-Christian, not whether the ACLU infringed on any rights. The ACLU did not oppose religious symbols in county seals, they opposed Christian religious symbols in county seals. Further, the cross on the seal did not indicate an endorsement of Christianity, only an acknowledgement of the role of Christianity and in the development of the county. That Christian symbol held no more religious conotation than the statue of Pomona, which is the prominent figure in the seal, and the presence of that statue was not challenged.

Now to the question of whether the ACLU infringed on Christian rights. I would say that they did argue that the courts should infringe upon Christian rights and, in addition, the rights of the citizens of the county (be they Christian or otherwise). It should be the right of a county to display any historically significant symbol on their seal that they see fit. The recognition of the Confederate flag in the Florida state flag is certainly controversial, and to many offensive, but the courts should not infringe upon the free speech rights of the legislative body of that state. That body feels the Confederacy is an important piece of Floridian history and that it should be recognized. Similarly, a county should be able to exihibit any symbol on a seal that they feel to be historically significant, even if that symbol is offensive to some. The fact that the ACLU asked the courts to deny the free speech rights of the county simply because the symbol represented a religion is even more reprehensible. It infringes upon our religious freedom if we selectively eliminate the historical significance of only certian religions from our lessons. If we are allowed to deny a county the right to display a cross in a seal for historical reasons, we are allowed to deny a teacher the right to mention Christianity in history class. Free speech regarding religious history and religious persecution is vital to our understanding of the value of religious freedom.

Counterpoint
Zombiedeathkoala

I read about this case when it first came around, and I found it stupid from the get-go. Mainly because the goddess Pomona was figured prominently in the foreground, with the Christian cross being just a dinky little wisp by her elbow, and I don't especially mind seeing Christianity portrayed as a trivial accessory of ancient mythology. But, setting aside my own preferences, I still don't see how anybody's rights were infringed upon by the ACLU's efforts to get the cross removed.

In the older version of the LA County Supervisor’s seal, there were some oil derricks in the background to represent the oil fields that were discovered on Signal Hill. The oil derricks were removed from the seal at the same time the cross was removed. Is this an example of oppression of the oil industry, or a violation of the free speech of oil derrick workers? Pomona herself was replaced by the image of a Native American woman, and Pomona was a much larger and more significant figure in the earlier version of the seal, so shouldn't our concern be for the poor Pagans? They haven't even got a federal holiday to comfort themselves with.

Some Christians argued that this wasn't a matter of religion, it was a matter of "history," yet none of them were pushing to have the original seal restored. Christian columnists wept over how the cross had been a part of the seal "for nearly half a century," but that seal (adopted in 1957) replaced one that had been used for 70 years (since 1887). The original seal featured a bunch of grapes, yet nobody was weeping for the grape-lovers and viticulturists whose icon was so cruelly stripped away after seven decades.

To the best of my knowledge, counties within the US are empowered to design and redesign their own seals, and citizens are perfectly within their rights to contribute to the process by submitting and campaigning for alternative designs. The Christians who pushed to have Pomona removed from the seal were totally within their rights to do so. If an anti-woman club wanted to push for removal of the Native American woman currently in the foreground, then they would not be violating women's rights by doing so. If a vegitarian group doesn't like the cow featured in the LA County seal (which is there to represent the cow-eating industries), they should feel free to push for a redesign of the seal. If I moved to LA County and lobbied to have the stars removed from the seal because my invisible friend Harvey told me that the film industry is evil, I wouldn't be violating the rights of movie stars or film aficionados. There is no "right" to have your preferred icons displayed in an official government seal, and freedom of speech certainly doesn't extend to a guarantee that your particular speech will be enshrined in public displays.

Long story short? I think the ACLU gave stupid reasons for wanting the cross gone, and I think they really showed their arse in the way they went about it, but their actions did not infringe on the rights of Christian citizens. If Christianity could be drawn in to the "history" of the LA County seal in 1957, I see no reason why it couldn't be drawn right out again in 2004.

An open invitation:

I am planning to write up an entry about the ACLU and its purported anti-Christmas, anti-Christian activities. I welcome contributions from anybody who has cases, action items, and specific references detailing ACLU efforts to violate the rights of Christians or Christmas-celebrators.

UPDATE: Just a clarification...I can Google "ACLU hates Christians" for myself, so I would prefer if reader submissions on this thread include at least a hint of why YOU feel the case in question shows the ACLU's anti-Christian or anti-Christmas actions. I'm not asking this to be a pain, but rather to make sure that I correctly represent the "con" position on this topic.

ANOTHER UPDATE: This is going to be a fairly large undertaking (as blog entries go), and I have a comprehensive Neuroanatomy exam on Wednesday, so don't nobody get your knickers in a twist if it takes me a while to get this thing done. It may even end up coming in installments, since it's already looking to be one seriously huge biatch of an entry.

AND THERE SHALL BE NO END OF UPDATES: If anybody wants to email me directly, rather than mucking about in the comments with submissions for this topic, you can drop a line to noniffer@hotmail.com.

I was reared by a Unitarian (since lapsed) and a lapsed Presbyterian (so thoroughly lapsed that I thought he was a lapsed Jew until he read this post and corrected me). I have observed a range of winter holidays, from the Winter Solstice to Christmas to Hanukah to Pancha Ganapati, and more. However, Christmas is definitely the holiday my family has observed most consistently.

As a child, I thought this was because Christmas was "normal" and we were being "normal" by doing what everybody else was doing. As I got older, I realized two things: first of all, that our celebration of Christmas was not really "normal" by many standards. Secondly, my mother (the organizer and instigator of most major family events) had a very clear reason for liking Christmas.

I think you will understand both of these revelations of mine if I share with you the Christmas story as I learned it.*


"Mommy, what does Christmas mean?"

Once upon a time, there were Christians but no Christmas. Before there was Christmas, there was the feast of Epiphany. It was a celebration of how the Christian God 'shone forth' to mankind in human form, as the baby Jesus. It was held on January 6th. However, in the 4th century CE--

("Were you born then, Daddy?" "Coal in your stocking, kid.")

--in the 4th century, some Christian leaders decided to celebrate Jesus' birthday on December 25th.

("Why, Mommy?" "Be quiet and I'll tell you.")

Alongside the Christians, there lived a people called the Pagans, and the Pagans celebrated the holiday of the winter solstice on December 25th. The Mass of Christ was assigned to December 25th so that the Pagans and the Christians could have a holiday together. Over time, the Christians to the West came to celebrate Christmas, while those in the East continued to celebrate Epiphany, and this gave some people the idea of having a 12-day festival connecting the two. This is why we sing, "The 12 Days Of Christmas."

("Why don't we have Christmas for 12 days?" "Because Mommy doesn't want to have to bake that many cookies.")


"Why do we have a tree for Christmas?"

In the deep of Scandanavian winter, the sun disappears for many days in a row. After it had been dark for over a month, the people would send scounts into the mountains see if they could catch a peek of the sun rising again. When the scounts brought back word of the sun's return there would be a great festival called the Yuletide. This special feast would be held around a fire burning with the Yule log, and other fires would be lit to represent the return of the sun. People would tie apples to the branches of the trees to remind themselves that spring was coming. This is why we decorate our trees with round bulbs, and why some people still decorate their trees with fruit, strings of popcorn, and other real foods.

The Romans also celebrated a winter festival, and theirs was called Saturnalia for their god Saturn. They would have parties in the streets, big meals with lots of friends, and they would exchange presents for good luck. They also decorated their halls with laurel garlands--

("Is that like Laurel and Hardy?" "No, darling, that's like the green stuff Daddy put on the mantlepiece.")

--and they would put up green trees lit with candles. That's why we put garlands around the house and put lights on our trees.


"Why does Uncle Karl always warn me about standing under the mistletoe?"

The Norse people had a goddess named Frigga, who was the Goddess of love, marriage, and fertility. Frigga had a son named Balder who was shot and killed by an arrow made of mistletoe. When Balder was restored to life, Frigga was so happy that she blessed the mistletoe and gave a kiss to anybody who passed under it. Some people believe that each time you kiss under the mistletoe you should pluck one berry from it, and when there are no more berries then there are no more kisses.


"Mommy, is Santa Claus the same thing as Jesus?"**

No, dear. Our Santa Claus is actually a lot of different people rolled up into one. His name comes from the story of Saint Nicholas, a bishop in Turkey who gave presents to the poor, who inspired the Dutch story of Sinterklaas. However, lots of other people have had their own Santas. The Russians have Ded Moroz ("Grandfather Frost"), who delivers presents to children and wears red boots, a fur coat, and a long white beard. A Teutonic god named Odin rode through the air on his eight-legged flying horse, Slepnir, to deliver presents to children. The children would leave a piece of straw out in the field for Slepnir, much like how we leave out milk and cookies for Santa.

("You mean for Daddy." "The kid is onto us, dear.")

Thor, a Germanic god, was also an elderly, plump man in red. He would fly through the air in a chariot drawn by his two white goats, Cracker and Gnasher. He had a palace in "the northland" and would come down the chimney because he was a god of fire.


"Why do we celebrate Christmas, when we aren't Christian?"

Christmas is a holiday that is made up of many different cultures and beliefs. The Christians gave us the name of the holiday. The Romans, the Pagans, and the Scandanavians gave us the decorations and the parties. The Dutch and the Russians and the Norse brought us Santa. Many ancient peoples helped us pick the date for the holiday, as they followed the Sun and the seasons to chart the solstices. When we celebrate Christmas, we are carrying on the traditions of many cultures and many people who have come before us.

We celebrate Christmas because winter can be dark and cold, and we need to remember warmth and brightness and joy. Christmas reminds us that life is still strong even in the dead of winter. Christmas also gives us a chance to celebrate with our loved ones, and a chance to give gifts and thanks to the people who have made our lives brighter.



*Please keep in mind that this is the kiddy version, and does not include the economic and political forces that have so thoroughly hijacked the American holiday season. We all know that the real meaning of Christmas is to support the economy by buying things you neither need nor can afford, and that anybody who doesn't do so is a godless Communist.

**I actually did ask this question, as I suspect many American children do, and I was secretly confused as to why Christians worshipped Jesus when Santa was the one who brought the presents.

Via Pound: Time for Plan Brat!

Ladies! Are you sick of getting the stink-eye whenever you bring your small children to froofy coffeehouses? Tired of having to take them to some sticky McDonaldLand to turn them loose? Or maybe you keep reading about those snotty parents who seem to feel no compunction about letting their spawn run amok in grown-up places and find yourself wishing that you could act that entitled and self-righteous. Looks fun, doesn’t it?

But where can you take your kids, relax a little, and impose your own values on strangers? Forget those twee little bakeries with their overpriced scones and tin ceilings: Why not take your kids to the pharmacy at Target instead? Or Rite Aid? Or Walgreen’s? Any pharmacy, in fact, with a policy of employing pharmacists who believe children are so special, they think it’s a shame when you try to not conceive them. These nice people in white coats will be thrilled to host your rambunctious toddlers for a couple hours while you shop. Sure, they make it hard for you to get Plan B, but you can always count on them for a big dose of Plan Wheeeee!

Who says a pharmacy isn’t a kid-friendly place? Some of these pharmacists like children so much, they want you to have the ones you didn’t even mean to have! And when you think about it, pharmacies are awesome places for young children to run and play, especially behind that door marked PRIVATE (Go on in! These folks don’t care about privacy!) which leads to a wonderful land of bottles and jars to shake shake shake. Plus plenty of childproof caps to challenge them, hundreds of colorful little beadies to count, lots of new words to learn (Say it: “Meth-o-trex-ate.”) and no shortage of arthritic elderly friends to trip up. Really, it’s like a Montessori school with Muzak.

Some folks think the kind of pharmacists who refuse to fill emergency contraception prescriptions are judgmental and stodgy, but that's just not true at all. They're actually spontaneous and fun, always encouraging you to embrace the unknown! Hey, take a chance on that broken condom!, they'll say, or aw, what's another baby? or just because he's a date rapist doesn't mean he can't be a good daddy! This whimsical approach to life means they won't mind at all if your 3-year old wants to repeatedly kick the glass case where the razor blades are kept, stick Nicorette patches on Mrs. DeSimone's leg while she waits to pick up her heart medication, or see what's inside Mr. Thermometer. In the meantime, especially if you're at Target, you can shop for thongs, or liquor, or wholesome toys, content in the knowledge that someone with moral values is looking out for your children, even the children that don't exist yet. Try getting service like that at some dismal Chuck E. Cheese with stained carpet.

Of course, if something happens to your child, you can always sue. Which is more than you can do in the event your pharmacist decides he doesn't want to commit a "pharma-sin" by filling your emergency contraception prescription, but I digress. While I'm not a mother myself (as long as my birth control works, ha ha!), it heartens me to know that should I ever choose to have children (or NOT choose and still have 'em, ha ha!), they are some places where they'll always be welcome.

I think it is safe to call the United States a backwards nation when South Africa surpasses us on civil rights.

JOHANNESBURG, South Africa - South Africa's highest court ruled Thursday it is unconstitutional to bar gay marriage, paving the way for this country to become the first in Africa to legalize homosexual unions.

South Africa. South freaking Africa. The country that maintained apartheid into the 1990s.

At this point it's not even hard to imagine South Africa slapping us with sanctions for human rights violations.

Today is World AIDS Day.

8,000 people die of AIDS each day. That's 5 per minute. Over 3 million people acquired AIDS in 2005, bringing the total number of humans living with AIDS to over 40 million.

We know exactly how to stop the spread of AIDS. We know exactly how to prevent 99.99% of new AIDS cases. We know that access to reproductive health care and education could stop this pandemic in its tracks. And we know for goddam sure that some of the most powerful organizations in the world are deliberately working to ensure that AIDS will continue to spread.

If you are citizen of the United States of America, be aware that our government is deliberately blocking efforts to fight AIDS. If you are a Catholic, be aware that your Church is repeating lies that they know will lead to the spread of AIDS. If you support global anti-choice gag laws, be aware that you are supporting the spread of AIDS.

Be aware, and be involved in making change. Let the right-wing lobby know that it is not American to fund extremist agendas that cost human lives. Let your religious leaders know that it is not Christian to lie and to murder the poor. Let your ideological communities know that it is not "pro-life" to block access to health care and AIDS prevention resources.

Any epidemic is frightening, but there's a whole new level of horror when you realize that there are world leaders who are consciously helping to ensure that more people suffer and die from a preventable plague. That kind of crap is simply unacceptable. If you want to know more about what you can do about it, don't hesitate to leave a comment...even if it takes me a little while to personally get back to you, there are also plenty of intelligent and well-informed folks lurking around my comments section who are bound to be able to point you in the right directions.