America may not be hellbent on option#2 but blue-staters sure seem to be. It's one of the key differences between red states and blue.

I'm one of the dreaded religious right that the blue state people seem to hate so much. I think that this disdain for anything religious is due to two things:

1. Fear of God. The hedonistic lifestyle of those who are attacking religion is truly threatened by the presence of God. They do not want to observe anything that might prick their conscience. It's just that simple.
2. Extremist Fundementalism. Yep, we've had it in the Protestant circles too. Especially in the evangelistic movements of the 70's and 80's. This extremism drove people away from God and the church in droves. Only now are these churches realizing the error of their ways and focusing more on the love of God and the individual versus fire and brimstone hell talk.

Sometime soon I see this country coming to a crossroads on this issue. It's going to be up to those who love God, and even those who aren't necessarily religious but see the importance of religion and morals in our country, to stand up for what is right.

Funny, when I was a kid (this was many moons ago, in the early 70s) we solved this problem by doing Christmas stuff and Hanukkah stuff. This mostly consisted of cutting out red and green construction paper rings to make chains for the class tree (every class had a tree) and learning the "Dreidl Song," but there was no shrieking of horror at the idea that someone mentioned Baby Jesus in the classroom. And this was _public_ school. True, we didn't do anything for Muslims or Buddhists or Wiccans because Christians and Jews were pretty much the dominant religious groups in Miami. I'd hate to have a kid in school nowadays.

Well, this sort of story comes around every year (like Christmas), and infuriates me. It also angers me because no-one ever seems to really DO anything about it. Oh, there's a lot of sound and fury, but no real discussion of the mythical "separation" of church and state, public property rights, religious expression in the marketplace and so on. We just throw up our hands in a "can you believe this?" attitude and go on. This is why this sort of thing happens every year. The Professionally Indignant who bring lawsuits against schools and towns are fueled by hate, and as we've seen, hate is an intoxicatingly powerful thing. Those of us who would favour Ace's option #1 tend to think that some things are so self-evidently absurd (removing "under God" from the Pledge) that they could never gain traction among right-thinking poeple. The next thing you know - because the field has been left to the haters - we're fighting a rearguard action. It's happened with the "secondhand smoke" fallacy and it's happending with any mention of a Christian God.

It's small, but I do my bit by vocally expressing my displeasure and denying an organisation my patronage. If the school district turns Christmas caroling into "winter solstice," they get no support from me during their fund-raising. If a store bans the Salvation Army, I tell the manager I will no longer shop there. If you're going to publicly denigrate my religion (which, in its 2000+ years, has been the inspiration for some of the greatest works of art in history) and one of the holiest days of its calendar, you do not deserve and will not receive my support in any way.

Let's name the demon(s). It's the ACLU and it's minion, the MSM. Working in concert, these seem the self-appointed censors of all things Christian in this nation. Working with a warped court-driven view of what separation of church and state means, these two powerful agents are doing their damnedest to rid our nation of any mention of God or Jesus Christ. Funny thing was, that didn't seem to be an issue with the Founders of same said nation. Could what we are beset with today be some kind of embedded residual Marxism, sort of a Cold War atheistic lagniappe that just keeps on giving? I wonder about these things.

Why is removing "under God" self-evidently absurd? The words weren't added to the pledge until 1954, more than 60 years after it was written.

Lileks had a great screed on this, which he has since taken down (so I apologize if I get the quote wrong):

"When the nice Jewish gentlemen I meet in the office tells me "Happy Hannukah, what am I supposed to do? Shove that greeting right back down his throat and then sue him for having the nerve to wish me well? Apparently so."

Something like that. Like Prager, I find myself amazed at how easily we find ourselves willing and able to offend the non-suing majority in order to please the litigious minority.

I find myself amazed and depressed that some little bastard actually could successfully sue to keep a school from performing any sacred music at all.

[sarcasm]Thanks, ACLU, for making this possible.[/sarcasm]

Jamie R.,

It's absurd when all you have to do to obviate it is to not say it. Why should the overwhelming majority of Americans, and I'll assume you are one, be forced to give up their beliefs when opposing views are so easily handled. Why after 200 years is this an issue? Islam. Breed dissent from within. Our schools still use God in the pledge, still sing Christmas carols and still have Christmas plays. We will not be cowered into rule of the one.

The social contract is how we have typically run our culture and activities. What we do is forged in consensus and subject to limits. Even in informal settings it prevails.

The ACLU, People for the American Way, the ADL, People United for the Separation of Church and State throw it for a loop by insisting the social contract can't prevail. Even in kid's activities. That sets up some jarring disruptions to how we go about our lives - and helps explain why those groups associated with the Democratic Party are pushing Americans into the Red Camp.

Play a game? "OK, everybody but Timmy wants to play baseball. Timmy wants to play hackey-sack. Timmy's Dad will sue us if we punish Timmy. I guess we will play hopscotch instead."

"Christmas carols?" "No, we have one aetheist who is uncomfortable with that, as well as 2 out of 5 Jewish kids asked, one of whose Mom is a lawyer." How about if we give equal time to the Jews, even though 97 of the 104 kids are Christians? "No, that is agreeable to 4 of the 5 Jewish families, but the aetheist family still objects, the Jewish lawyer Mom wants to pay Christians back for past pogroms but she will accept going with all Jewish songs instead, and the Muslim kid says he hates Jewish songs as persecution and his Imam won't stand for it. So we will sanitize Christmas by only singing Frosty, Rudolf, Jinglebell Rock, Happy Holidays, Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer - that way we are legally safe."

It sounds crude, but the best societal solution is to say fuck Timmy's dad and the horse he rode in on, we're playing baseball. And to have the legal freedom to say "fuck you" to religious minorities trying to dictate what songs are sung and break the social contract - after efforts at reasonable or even above reasonable accomodation fail.

Yeah, every year it's the same thing- I think the "holidays" bring the issue to a head. For some reason that is inexplicable to me, the ACLU et al seems to fixate on the idea that the 1st Amendment only guarantees freedom FROM religion- not freedom OF religion. I thought the idea was that we were free to celebrate as we choose, and if that means singing RamaHanaKwanzMas songs- then so be it. But Nooo. Cedarford addresses that quite well.

As to everyone not doing anything about it, I'd say the trend toward the center-right this last election was a start. I'd really like to see the Supreme Court slap down one of these stupid cases and reinforce the idea that free expression is not Congress declaring a state religion... but I'm not holding my breath.

The separation of Church and state was intended to protect Churches from the tyranny of the Government, not the other way around.

Christian, Jew, Traditionalist, American - these Holiday songs are part of our national heritage, and they cannot be stomped out. Not by some minority of one or two. This is a democracy, where the basic rule of law is....wait for it...majority rules.

This crap shouldn't be in a court, this is the kind of stuff the PEOPLE should decide. Courts have WAY too much power and they seem to be deciding in the favor of the few, not the many.

So. F 'em if they can't take a joke; I'll bet (very safely) that the overwhelming majority of Americans would want the school concerts at Christmas time to be all about the joys of Christmas, the beautiful songs written in the past couple hundred years to be sung, and the inclusion of the great works of art of the other religions in this country to be included in the program, as well.

We are, after all, a tolerant and all-inclusive society. Well, at least, the center-to-right side of the country seems to be. The self-proclaimed "arbiters of equality" seem to be on a totally different page from the mainstream American I know and love.

The founding fathers are doubtless spinning in their coffins. No sane person can make the case that the current DIVORCE of Church and State is in any way something they would have envisioned or approved of. A quick look at the records of the Continental Congress will disclose that our founders PRAYED TOGETHER right smack dab in the middle of the proceedings. Nobody there ever raised an objection to such a practice, for some reason. If you research the history of the term "Separation of Church and State", you will find that it was first used in a letter by Thomas Jefferson, the context of which leaves no doubt but that he was referring to a government recognition or endorsement OF A SPECIFIC CHRISTIAN DENOMINATION as being "official" or in some way - any way - more legitimate than others. The first amendment was simply a prohibition on Congress to keep them from such an endorsement. The specific example the founding fathers wanted to avoid was the Church of England situation: No "Church of the United States", IOW. Correctly interpreted, the first amendment would allow any Christian to hang a cross in their classrooms or courtrooms as a constitutionally protected part of their FREE EXERCISE of their religious beliefs. Likewise, a Jew could post the Ten Commandments or a Star of David. Muslims could post Allah akhbar, or whatever. The extra-constitutional construct parading under the euphemism "separation of Church and State" is simply a thinly veiled anti-Judo-Christian campaign by the irreligious left, as evidenced by the open acceptance of and concessions to Islam in our public schools (Which sometimes borders on open endorsements). A religion that some of us believe, BTW, is nothing less than a cleverly disguised satanic death cult.

As one who is old enough (but not TOO old, mind you) to remember the days when religious-themed music was freely used in school band and choir concerts, I can tell you that this decision is ridiculous. Music like Handel's "Messiah" are wonderous pieces of priceless art and they should not be relegated to obscurity by being removed from schools because of their religious content. If students aren't exposed to and taught about these things in school, they likely will never know about them. This is like excising material on the Sistine Chapel ceiling and "the Last Supper" from art classes. This sickening separation of religion and society will only hurt our children in the long run.

Bloghorn, as an athiest conservative, I can tell you that I would rather have ALL the different religious sects be able to express themselves publicly, WHEREVER, then to have this endless shit-canning of cultural/religious belief.

I am quite hardy against the scorn of religious folks if they think I am going to Hell, as long as it does not take the form of subjugation or persecution.

All this, of course, rests upon the protections of the Constitution, which is being treated like a rag by our elected officials.

To those who think the Constitution is not being treated as a rag, 1.) read the Constitution, then please explain McCain/Feingold, and all forms of gun registration or licensing.

Rules are only as good as the people who implement them.

A minor point about the South Orange-Maplewood, New Jersey, music ruling: this wasn't in response to a law suit. What I've seen is that the school board (or whoever it was who decided this), decided it on their own. Maybe there was a threat of court action, but I haven't seen anything indicating there was.

Heh. Jinx: As one who is old enough to remember when we read a psalm before classes began in New Jersey grade schools, and who lived in the next town over from South Orange, this doesn't surprise me in the least. I am a little surprised about Kuby's comment.

Two anecdotes about the red state where I moved this summer.

I was in a YMCA and saw a sign prominently displayed in the lobby. It said 'Pray for President Bush and our troops.' I chuckled, thinking, what a novelty, you go to the Y and see a call to prayer.

The second happened when I was handing out cards with the names of the Republican endorsed judicial candidates. (The races are non-partisan, so if you want a Republican elected, you need to know before you go into the booth, since there's no party affiliation on the ballot.)

I handed one to a couple, and they asked 'are these the pro-life judges?' For a moment, I was stunned. If I lived to be 100, I would never hear that question in New Jersey.

It's in the courts because the people won't put up with their shit.

Great stuff. Keep up the good work. Great conyent and ideas. Ron of Best online casinos