Get PJ Media on your Apple

PJM Lifestyle

The Real War on Christmas Is a War on Rights

It's your conscience they want to seize, not your holiday.

Walter Hudson


December 19, 2013 - 10:00 am
Page 1 of 3  Next ->   View as Single Page


Proclamations of an ongoing War on Christmas have become an integral yuletide tradition. Typically evoked by socially conservative culture warriors, the “War” has found a new home as a rhetorical device on the political left. Take a look at this Smithsonian blog post, “Six Ways Climate Change Is Waging a War On Christmas.” Daily Kos joins others in characterizing Republican opposition to extending unemployment benefits as the “real war on Christmas.” One thing seems assured. Regardless of how pundits characterize it, the War on Christmas wages on.

As a rhetorical device, the War on Christmas proves interchangeable between political competitors because Christmas itself overlaps political boundaries. It’s not as though Christmas serves as the exclusive domain of social conservatives. When lodged by the Right, complaints about a War on Christmas thus miss their intended point.

Crafting “A Short History of the War on Christmas,” Politico recalls one of Bill O’Reilly’s first characterizations of the conflict:

“Secular progressives realize,” O’Reilly continued, “that America as it is now will never approve of gay marriage, partial birth abortion, euthanasia, legalized drugs, income redistribution through taxation and many other progressive visions because of religious opposition. But if the secularists can destroy religion in the public arena, the brave new progressive world is a possibility. That’s what happened in Canada.”

That was nearly ten years ago, and much traction has been made on most of those issues by the Left. The question for conservatives is whether the rapid change we have witnessed in society is truly due to a persistent campaign against religion, or whether something else may be at work.

The answer lies in an examination of the controversial separation of church and state. Travel in conservative circles for long enough and you will eventually hear someone claim no such separation exists. The phrase cannot be found in the Constitution, folks point out. Therefore, the notion of such a separation proves to be a wholly made up leftist lie.

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (17)
All Comments   (17)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
The fight that is going on against Christianity and God's law is really a fight against the protection of life, liberty, and property, and the raising of tyranny by the loss of due process of law. The common law which protects your rights were developed by English Christian jurists who incorporated precepts of the Bible into the common law, and this laid the foundation of every American's  protection of life, liberty, and property.

Right of Search Warrant by a Judge (Dt19:18)
Right to a public trial (Dt.17:5),
Right to an appeal (Dt.17:8-9),
Right to a impartial judge (Lev.19:15),
Right to present evidence (Ex.22:13),
Right to a fair trial (Ex.20:16),
Right to require two witnesses for the death penalty (Dt.17:6),
Right to put up a defense (Ex.32:9-14).
Right to public trial (Dt. 21:19)
A right to a thorough investigation (Dt:19:18)

Join in the fight to protect your rights; Article VIII makes God's law American law. Read it:

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Every State Constitution has the word GOD in its preamble, lead in for each sentence or Subject of each amendment. No, GOD IS We The People and We The People are directly connected to GOD. This is the First Amendment and is exactly how and why Our Founding Fathers designed the Constitution. Nothing, absolutely nothing MAN does can destroy this union of MAN and his GOD...its a direct connection, unfettered by any government intervention nor individual government operative (or government department or agency). THIS IS the master stroke of We The People's USA Constitution. And Government can't change iota. Supreme Court is trying its level best to "pretzel twist" this connection...but is meeting with concerted pushback from Judicial Watch. ACLU is also on this Progressive New Left Activist no avail.
Watch as Progressives, then, seek to destroy America's Excellence in: 1)religion, 2)education, 3) capitalism and financial systems, lastly 4) Americas system of governance (checks and balances). This they're doing with Van Jones's "top down/bottom-up and inside out" mantra from this "STORM manifesto." Aptly, if all else fails by the Progressive New Left Activists, Cloward-Piven and Saul Alinsky are their fall back position. Pray. Amen. God Bless America. Join a Tea Party, urgently. America is on life support.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
This may interest you. Bingham, author of the 14th Amendment, tied the principles of the Declaration of the Independence (which says we receive inalienable right from a Creator, and a moral rectitude from a Supreme Judge) to the privileges and immunities clause of Article IV.s.2 to the US Constitution, and He states these God given rights were fulfilled in the Bill of Rights, and Bingham's 14th amendment "privileges and immunities" clause not only recognized these God given fundamental rights as rights of the citizen of the United States but would allow Congress to enforce these rights if the states failed to do so. In other words, the "American system" Bingham's made reference to was that God given rights of the Declaration of 1776 were implemented in the US Constitution. This means God, Creator and Supreme Judge of the Bible is incorporated into the US Constitution. The Court's attempt to secularize the US Constitution is a deadly insurrection, a war, against the American system. For more visit: CHCAFE.WORDPRESS (see blog on 14th Amendment for an abridged version of Bingham's speech)
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I’m probably too late with this comment, Walter, but I think it is worthwhile to respond to you and joelmessinger and The Root 83. Maybe someone will see it.
We were all taught that the First Amendment protected religion from state interference, that (originally this applied only to the federal gov) the government couldn’t involve itself in religious belief, etc., and that it protected religious believers in general.
This is why, we were told, that the U.S. was the most religious country on earth.
However, I’ve come to see it from a different angle. What the First Amendment actually did was to free the government FROM religious interference. In the process of doing so, it totally marginalized religion, removing it from any official recognition, thus making it no more (or less) significant than any privately held philosophy, indeed, no more relevant than one’s indigestion or luck at poker. No matter how good or bad a particular set of religious beliefs held by U.S. citizens actually are, they’re pointless, really. Dead ends. That’s certainly true from the view of the U.S. Federal Government, and it now has absolutely carte blanche to do whatever it wants, and no moral authority of ANY kind could tell it ANY thing at all.
THAT’s what the First Amendment re: religion was all about.
The government wanted this because the Protestant Churches of the time had some real authority. There wasn’t too many of them, just a handful, and they had clout – note that the fractionalizing of the Churches hadn’t begun yet, but it was about to precisely because the new Constitution marginalized them all into irrelevance – and although from the time of the Reformation on, all Christian churches in Europe, whether Protestant or Catholic, had become merely state departments, still, religious leaders could act as a brake on civil leaders. Religious opinion still had some clout. Now it has no clout anywhere because the American model has been adopted across the globe.
In the U.S., the federal government was looking to expand westward and remove the Indians, one way or another. It didn’t want the Churches harassing it about what today we call “ethnic cleansing”. Perhaps more importantly at the time, perhaps a bigger issue in the minds of government leaders who owned slaves, was slavery. In England, Christians of various sorts were beginning to pressure the civil authorities against it, and besides that, being in the New World, the American slave owners knew that in Brazil, for instance, slaves had various rights and that these came from the Church. The Catholic Church baptized slaves and married slaves couldn’t be sold apart, and so on and so forth.
In the new United States, however, slaves had no rights whatever. And the slave owners who wrote the Constitution weren’t about to give the Churches any opportunity to try to make the argument that they should. Remember that the Southerners got written into the Constitution the ridiculous Three-Fifths Compromise, wherein their slaves counted as 3/5s of a white person for apportioning Congressional representation and electoral votes, and that there was a fugitive slave law enshrined as well. In other words, from the very beginning, the Southerners were infringing on the rights of Northern states, asking for special privileges that the Northerners didn’t have, and thus giving the Southerners far more national influence than their actual numbers warranted.
Of course, Madison and Jefferson and the others would be appalled at what is happening now – but not because they cared about religion (the most important of the Founders were Deists, and I’ve always said a Deist was an atheist waiting on Darwin). Walter writes, “As advocates of individual rights, our task is to repair that wall, to affirm the right of each person to govern their own relationship with God. Beyond that, we must advocate for a state focused upon its sole legitimate role of protecting individual rights. Such government will never encroach upon our celebration of Christmas or any other religious expression. “
But the wall, or the separation of Church and State in the U.S. (and this system is now modelled throughout the “Free World”) is not there to protect individual rights. It never was. It is there to A, free the government from any unwanted “moral” interference, and B, to marginalize the Churches into irrelevance. Therefore, when very nasty people (VNPs) take over the government, a situation as we have now, they do what they damn well please, and the atomized individuals (or hopeless factionalized Churches) can either get out of the way or get crushed.
That’s the bad news. The good news is that we’re all armed (as of now, at least) to the teeth, so we can at least die free. Living free is preferable, but it is fast becoming a non-option.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"What the First Amendment actually did was to free the government FROM religious interference."
You need to re-read the first amendment. There is nothing about freeing the government from religious interference.
In fact read the whole constitution. There is nothing about "freeing the government" anywhere in the document.
The Constitution is about binding government, not freeing government.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Hi gray man,

Believe it or not, I actually HAVE read the First Amendment. How can you make the comment that "There is nothing about freeing the government from religious interference"? There's nothing there about the grotesque, bloated 'Leviathan' we have today, either. Nothing about abortion, gay rights or anything else, but we're getting all that heaped on us anyway.

Now, I know this is a "new" way of looking at what so many of us thought we knew. It takes time and reflection to see how this works--like looking at a picture or video scene you thought you knew and suddenly seeing something there you didn't notice before.

As for me, I've thought about this for some time, and found an author or two who writes about it. It certainly isn't "mainstream". And I've also read detailed histories (many and various) of Jefferson and Madison and Washington and so on. They were not Christians and didn't want the Christian churches (few at the time, and therefore carrying more weight) from interfering with THEM.

Read up on Alien and Sedition Acts passed in 1798, under John Adams, and then Jefferson's Embargo Act of 1807, with which Tom pretty much turned us into (an 1807 form of) a police state. The “Father of Independence/Liberty” filled the country with agents to rustle up “smugglers”.

Read up also on the Whiskey Rebellion and Shay's Rebellion, both extremely important "signs of the times" as to how things had changed for the "common folks". They are examples of "the little guy", otherwise known as free citizens, where lost money, homes, jobs, due to the brand new Federal government's interference in their lives (an early form of the insane regulatory abuse we now face).

But more importantly, review what happened to the Indians, and also how slavery in the U.S. differed than that in Brazil. Doing all of that will show what was the true intent behind the wording of the First Amendment. Ever hear of the "Southern Jeremiahs"? No? Well, they existed and spoke out against slavery and were ignored in toto. No one had any legal obligation to pay them any mind.

There was also the no religious test clause in the Constitution (Article VI, para 3). That was essential to the whole idea: men of no religion or anti-religion had as much power/clout/stature as anyone else.

An Corvinus Dubh
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
When John Kennedy ran for President one thing he wanted to make perfectly clear was that though his personal beliefs would guide him while in office the Catholic Church would have no say in how he governed. This to me is the separation of church and state. No one religion will ever hold sway over how the government is run though a persons personal beliefs cannot be taken from him.

The Founding Fathers were not worried about religion per se. What they were worried about was an all powerful church dictating terms to the government much like the Church of England at the time held sway over England to the exclusion of any other form of religion. Their fathers and grandfathers came here to get away from just that, they didn't want it to take hold here.

Nothing in the First Amendment or anywhere else in the Constitution says you can't have a Christmas themed display at Christmas time or an Easter display or anything else like that. All they were saying is any one religion cannot force it's beliefs on anyone. At the same time, the Founding Fathers would never believe we are using the 1st Amendment to stifle religion. Yes, most of them were religious men but not all of them. They were a very diverse lot.

Now, about a couple of things that have been brought up. Yes, without the Declaration Of Independence we would not have had the Constitution but I really don't think it could be considered a preamble to the Constitution. I mean we did have the Confederation, (not to be confused with the Confederate States of America) between the two. It was just that the Confederation gave too much power to the States and not nearly enough to the Federal Government. Even with only 13 States they could barely get along. Something much stronger was needed, hence the Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson was out of the country during most of the time the Constitution was being formed. Had he been involved it is very likely it would be very different. Thomas Jefferson was very close to what we would consider a liberal today. He disagreed with many of the things in the Constitution.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Walter, your analysis is correct, which seems to fit a pattern.

Even before the Bill of Rights, the framers were establishing a non-religious government. Article II, Sec. 1 of the Constitution prescribes the presidential oath of office, which contains no "so help me God" or other reference to a deity.

Article VI, Section 3, provides: "“…no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

No one can deny that this country is and has always been a predominately Christian (or Judeo-Christian) nation, but our Constitution recognizes that religion is not the province of the government.

This does not mean that the Constitution prohibits public displays like Christmas trees, nativity scenes, or the posting of the Ten Commandments, nor having "In God We Trust" as the national motto printed on our money nor employing chaplains in Congress and the armed forces. Those radicals who propose to outlaw such things are unreasonable absolutists.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Spot-on analysis, Walter.

Yet again, statists have twisted a perfectly reasonable concept to suit their own ends.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I find myself a big fan of this column, typing as a libertarian and a Theist.
All of the Founders were supporters of freedom of conscience, the term most often used then where we use freedom of religion now. Jefferson's views in the Danbury letter are a good example of what pretty much all the Founders believed.
At the same time, nearly all of the Founders also were men of religion. Most were conventional Christians, Anglicans or Presbyterians. A few were hard to align with any denomination: George Washington attended Anglican churches but spoke fare less distinctly of God in public discourse.
I think the Founders would have stood against compelling prayer in a government school (government schools were almost unknown in the 18thC). I think they'd be appalled at trying to limit or conceal prayer in a government school as well. Similarly, they would be astounded and worried at shoving the Nativity off the courthouse lawn, I think. But they'd want it paid for with private funds.
Moldy - the Federalist papers were political discussions of political issues. They do not have any binding authority because they were never meant to have binding authority. Judges have been known to look to them for guidance into the thinking of the Constitution's writers.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"the Federalist papers were political discussions of political issues. They do not have any binding authority because they were never meant to have binding authority."
And neither does Thomas Jefferson's letter that everyone quotes.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
A reasonable and well articulated position Geoff. I agree wholeheartedly.
When viewed in this light, the whole brouhaha about Duck Dynasty Phil and his opinions is childish. Someone somewhere will always be offended. Probably to your comments above. And that means your not allowed to speak your opinion? Absurd.

Walter is right: it's a war on rights and we are at a tipping point. If people continue to accept this erosion of freedom of conscience, we won't have to read "1984" any longer; we'll be living it. (we may already be there)
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Thomas Jefferson had nothing at all to do with the drafting of the Constitution, the debates around it, the ratification of it, or the Constitutional Convention enacting the Bill of Rights.
He was, if you recall, our ambassador to France during that period.
He is not an authority on those subjects, and his writings matter a great deal less than the Federalist Papers (which the federal courts have ruled have no binding authority).
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"He is not an authority on those subjects, and his writings matter a great deal less than the Federalist Papers (which the federal courts have ruled have no binding authority)."

Wow, you don't know very much about history, the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution, do you?

Most Constitutional scholars agree that the Declaration is part of the Constitution. You could not get to the Constitution without the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration is the preamble to the Constitution.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Are you really asserting that the author of the Declaration of Independence spoke with no authority about the principles upon which the Constitution was drafted? Okay, let's accept that for the sake of argument.

Do you think the State should wield authority of matters of conscience?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
False argument, Walter.

First, Moldy is factually correct. Jefferson was out of the country in that time frame. He was not present to respond to question, offer commentary, or follow and influence the specifics of particular language/sentance structure that was so fluidly debated, live in "real time", among the participants.

Yes, he could corrospond (how many weeks/months for a letter?) and his "general personality" and political outlook was knows to his contempoaries, but without "being there" his influence and "authority" was greatly diminished, such that the PARTICULARS of The Constitution/Bill of rights are more the Birth Child of others, than him.

Second, those who argue the "separtion of church and state" rely on that loaded phrase to keep their political opponents off balance, forcing them into the untennable corner of defending The Chuch AS State, when no one who disagrees with Enforced Atheism via State Muscle has any such view.

The First Amendment says what it says, and Statist Athiest always over look the actual words. "congress shall pass no law" does not mean a nativity on the Public Square, or a cross in a Veterans Cemetary. In fact, the removal of such BY the "government" in the form of, say a school classroom, is a clear violation of the "or prevent the free excecise thereof" portion....

Third, when you (falsly) give authority to the "seperation" sentence of that letter, AND ACCEPT IT IN PLACE OF THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT, its easy to assume (again, falsly) that all signs of "religion" must be "separated" from all public display, when no shuch sentiment is expressed or implied by the ACTUAL First Amendment.

Thirdly, I expect "The State" to be made up of "The People", and all State Property thus belonging to The People..To do what they wish as far as religious display....The Stae IS the people, that is to say, my neighbors and cousins filling an office of public need. I expect their strongly held religious beliefs, the ones that guide their concience, to have an influence in their decision making.

I believe their "concience", or LACK thereof, and the personal motivating factors that guide their priorities and principals (or LACK thereof)are fair game for discussion when considering them FOR that office...

I will not vote FOR an Avowed Atheist, because I believe (and recent history proves me right) that they WILL use their office to ENFORCE an mandatory scrubbing of all Religious Sentiment from appearing anywhere in the public square, under the (false) authority of a Loaded Sentence from a Single Private Letter, that has no legal bearing on Christmas trees and bibles, and where they are "allowed" to appear.

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Well, how about James Madison? Would he be regarded as an authority on the Constitution and the interpretation of its component parts? ....Or of the Bill of Rights, amended to the Constitution shortly after its adoption?

(James Madison is often regarded as the "Father of the Constitution" and is the author of the Bill of Rights --including, quite obviously, the First Amendment.)

....And he used the "separation" phrase at least twice --once in correspondence with a Robert Walsh in 1819 and once in an essay he wrote, "Monopolies, Perpetuities, Corporations, Eccliesiastical Endowments".

Are his words "false authority" also?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
View All