It is Christmas time again, Wall Street’s favorite time of the year. A retail and wholesale business owner’s dream, Christmas can save the businesses struggling the most from economic disaster. Nevertheless, we continually refuse to mention its name in a cold-hearted attempt “not to offend.”
Some of this stems from an honest attempt at acceptance and diversity. But most of it is either economic interest or a general attack on Christianity itself. The religious symbols of the holiday are banned from the eyes of the public because a few eyes were offended. It has gotten to the point that for some teachers and public officials, the thought of mentioning the word Christmas brings images of lawsuits.
Jewish Rabbi Daniel Lapin writes:
Secular fundamentalism has successfully injected into American culture the notion that the word “Christmas” is deeply offensive. I think we Jews may be making a grievous mistake in allowing them to banish Christmas without challenge.
To be fair, the tides are beginning to turn. But only in the slightest. In a victory for common sense, Target now says “Merry Christmas” in its advertising campaigns.
But it is not necessarily correct to fault the retailers for this problem. While they do not like to offend for purely economic reasons, activist groups, namely the American Civil Liberties Union, take this political correctness to further their agenda. Ironically, it is impossible to figure out just what exact “civil liberty” they are protecting, proving that they are not there for the common good but to promote the liberal agenda. Fine by me—if you don’t make yourself out to be a gallant defender of American rights.
However, I’ll save that topic for another time. The ACLU has, on numerous occasions, attacked Christmas at its core. These activist lawyers will drive by a Menorah, then see a Nativity scene and immediately prepare a lawsuit. Discarding the thought of public discourse, they use the legal system to get their way.
Recently they took up charges against a school district of a small town in Tennessee. Ironically, they plan to censure the school’s Christmas songs and acts. That’s ironic in the sense that censuring a holiday that 96% of the American public celebrates hardly seems like a defense of our civil liberties.
Jay Sekulow, of the American Center for Law and Justice, writes:
Let me ask you—when did a children’s Christmas program become “an illegal activity”? When did the nativity story and Christmas songs become unconstitutional? This is the outrageous and dangerous charge the ACLU has leveled against a school district in Tennessee. A children’s Christmas program has been deemed to be an “illegal act” because of the ACLU.
Apparently these students have “suffered irreparable damage” from the Christmas carols. You know what is funny? I have heard and seen many songs and acts about Hanukkah and I have yet to suffer “irreparable damage.” But maybe I am just thick skinned.
All of this, of course, puts Jews in bad light. Recently a rabbi threatened to sue over the lack of a menorah in the Seattle-Tacoma Airport. In a clever political tactic, rather than add a menorah, the airport managers removed the Christmas trees. The rabbi, Elazar Bogomilsky, is now the Grinch who stole Christmas.
Eventually his senses got the better of him and said he would not sue. The trees were brought back to the airport. However, it is a said day when airport administrators should have to use political tactics to protect themselves from being a tool of a minority religion, or any religion in that matter. My point here is not that the menorah should not have been displayed. Rather, he never asked politely. He never thought of going to the airport and asking, “Hey, can I put this menorah up?”
The sad part is, he would have won. Liberals have an advantage in the courts system in that liberal justices find no problem with judicial activism while conservative justices tend to prefer judicial restraint. The combination of activist lawyers and activist judges is deadly and a true threat to democracy.