Friday, December 23, 2005

Not just Christmas, all holidays!

Catholic League Denounces Cal State Dept. Head's Holiday Décor Ban
The Catholic League is criticizing an administrator at California State University - Sacramento who informed her department that decorations for holidays such as Christmas and the Fourth of July are now banned from the office because they "represent discrimination" and "ethnic insensitivity."

...the memo informing Sonntag's staff of the policy change did not stop at one or two popular holiday observances, but declared that "in order to avoid offending others, they would not display any sort of decorations for Christmas, Thanksgiving, Halloween, Valentines, the Fourth of July, St. Patrick's Day, and Easter."

Liberal tolerance n. To avoid offending one or two people with pysochological disorders we must offend everyone else.

20 comments:

Kaelri said...

Restricting freedom of speech that poses no tangible threat is highly conservative philosophy.

Daniel said...

Yeah, UC Sacramento is a bastion of conservatism.

How about the (since ruled unconstitutional) campus speech codes?

How about banning the pledge of allegiance?

Can you give me some examples of conservatives restricting harmless speech?

MAX Redline said...

I think your definition of "Liberal tolerance" pretty well sums up the situation, Daniel.

MAX Redline said...

Sorry for the double post, but I was just reminded of a Bob Rivers Christmas song: The What's It To Ya Chorus.

What's it to ya?
What's it to ya?
What difference does it make?

...And we shall complain for ever and ever
And we shall complain for ever and ever
And we shall complain for ever and ever

For ever and ever, what's it to ya, what's it to ya

I dunno, it just seemed like a perfect Liberal carol.

http://humor.about.com/library/ds/blds121800.htm

Sailor Republica said...

Actually, Kaelri, it is not.

My evidence: ACLU lawsuits, Campus Speech Codes (Commentator v. ASUO; Occidental College), Texas v. Johnson.

Liberal philosophy at work.

Kaelri said...

The wording of the Pledge of Allegiance is so meaninglessly symbolic that it hardly deserves the attention of any serious political mind (though, for sport, I'd encourage anyone who believes "under God" should be included to make a prediction of how the "conservative" base would react if the equally-valid clause "under Allah" was considered).

As for your question, though, yes: how about those ones? Conservatism is defined as "the inclination to maintain the existing or traditional order." Given that, I can't think of a better way to maintain status quo than to oppose the saying of anything with which anyone might disagree.

Yes, by the way, I know what you meant. This is simply one of the fronts I have drawn in my War on Labeling (in which I believe I should be given emergency executive powers enabling me to tap the phones of Ann Coulter, Michael Savage and any other persons whose interpretations of the world around them threaten to confuse people).

But if you'd like a few examples of what you think of as conservatives restricting "harmless" speech, well, I'm happy to oblige. (Once again, these events are far from arcane - the latter two were culled from the depths of the first page of a Google search: +"bush"+"censorship".)

thomas said...

kaelri -
I see the "red-herring" [I hope I haven't offended a communist salmon somewhere] "under allah" is not an issue; this is a Christian nation. The phrase "under God" was added in the 1950s to establish/distinguish ourselves as a Christian country as opposed to the God-less communist government of the USSR.

If I am offended by what YOU say, do I have the right to make you stop saying it? No, I'm only one man, but if 6 million other people also agreed with me, then I might have a case.

If/when you recite the Pledge, feel free to excise that phrase if it offends you.

Would you mind if I wished you a Merry Christmas?

thomas said...

Daniel,

I hope you and yours enjoy this Great American Holiday that we call Christmas!

Merry Christmas to you and yours!

thomas said...

jayh8 -

The next time you post something like that, please include a spew alert! Now I've got coffee all over my monitor!

Merry Christmas!

Kaelri said...

"under allah" is not an issue; this is a Christian nation. The phrase "under God" was added in the 1950s to establish/distinguish ourselves as a Christian country as opposed to the God-less communist government of the USSR."

It remains a violation of the first Amendment. Technically. It's really quite pointless to argue over, especially in comparison to the requisite "God bless America!" at the end of every speech these days and that all 546 constitutional officials attend a taxpayer-funded Red Mass at St. Matthew's Cathedral.

The argument that it encourages children from an early age toward a specific religion rather than letting them choose for themselves is valid. But in the end it's two words that most of them don't think about until they've already begun to do so. So I don't really care that much.

"If I am offended by what YOU say, do I have the right to make you stop saying it? No, I'm only one man, but if 6 million other people also agreed with me, then I might have a case."

A case, maybe. But freedom of speech is not and has never been conditional on how many people like the speech. Resist the belligerent idiots on FOX the same way you resist the schoolyard bully - the only thing either wants is a reaction. Ignore them and they go away.

"If/when you recite the Pledge, feel free to excise that phrase if it offends you."

Exactly.

"Would you mind if I wished you a Merry Christmas?"

Not at all. And in fact I wish you the same.

Dave M. said...

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm........

Daniel said...

We are a Christian nation, not a Muslim nation, therefor "under Allah" is not "equally valid."

The phrase "under God" does not violate the establishment clause of the first amendment because it does not "establish a religion."

You're examples of censorship are laughable. Most of the books listed are banned in communist countries, the ones from the USA were banned by liberals because they used the word "nigger" or were offensive towards women. (NOW got involved) So this was done by liberals.

A google search for Bush + Hilter brings up a lot of hits as well but I wouldn't suggest that our president is shoving Jews into ovens.

And the secret service keeping anarchists and protestors 50 feet away from the commander in chief is hardly censorship. I have been told to stay away from certain places when protesting as well. It's a safety issue regardless of how the San FranFreako press spins it.

Tony said...

1. "Under God" does not establish a religion. Correct, Daniel.

2. "Under Allah" would not be unconstitutional but the Supreme Court would rule it so based on case law because it discusses a particular religion. "Under God" does not specify which God, so it is therefore not a violation. If it said "Under Yaweh" or "Under Jesus", it would be ruled unconstitutional. Sorry Kaelri, but your analogy does not hold water.

3. I would like to see what would happen if she banned putting up pictures of the REVEREND Dr. Martin Luther King for another federal holiday on Jan 15.

4. There were other definitions in the dictionary you chose to leave out. Like "a political or theological orientation advocating the preservation of the best in society and opposing radical changes". As opposed to the ACLU and radical liberals, who believe in the progressive and aggressive promotion of the worst in society.

Not to mention that the word "conservative" is a misnomer. Only in certain things do conservatives want to maintain the "status quo." In fact, it is a very, well, progressive ideology in the literal sense. It is the liberals who consistently want to, through the defense of the indefensible, bring us down to hte lowest common denominator and advocate policies that will unravel our society. Why? To force the US to be part of a global society instead of leading the world, among other things.

5. The war on "labeling" is a great idea. That way, our words can become meaningless and that is a key part of the agenda (see Orwell, George, at doublespeak). Don't fall for it. I am actually a fighter in the same war, but oin the other side, so I call it the "war on euphemisms", which is designed to counter the liberal doublespeak that occurs when you stop labeling things for what they are.

It isn't progressive, its socialism. It isnt choice, its abortion. It isnt always free speech, sometimes its treason. It isnt multiculturalism, it is dangerous divisiveness. It isnt affirmative action, it is racial discrimination. Etc.

Tony said...

And it isn't Happy Holidays, its

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas all.

Gunslinger said...

Uber Pwned. Tony is L33t!

MERRY CHRISTMAS!
Jesus is the reason for the season.

Once more time...

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Scott said...

Ok I normaly try to stay on topic but I "think" everybody should see this.http://www.clermontyellow.accountsupport.com/flash/UntilThen.swf

Scott said...

http://www.nicedoggie.net/2005/index.php/?p=1348#comments
Ok click on the "untill then " link

Scott said...

bleep how do I make links show up in blogger?

Kaelri said...

"We are a Christian nation, not a Muslim nation, therefor "under Allah" is not "equally valid."

We are, in theory, neither - we are a secular nation. It doesn't matter what the majority of us are - we have civil rights to ensure that it does not matter.

"The phrase "under God" does not violate the establishment clause of the first amendment because it does not "establish a religion."

Ahem.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

I think that's fairly unambiguous.

"You're examples of censorship are laughable. Most of the books listed are banned in communist countries, the ones from the USA were banned by liberals because they used the word "nigger" or were offensive towards women. (NOW got involved) So this was done by liberals."

Oh, for heaven's sake, the people-you-call-liberals are not the ones trying to ban Harry Potter and The Giver. They're not the ones having nightmares about witchcraft and Satanism and the "homosexualization of America." Huckleberry Finn's just a drop in the ocean.

"A google search for Bush + Hilter brings up a lot of hits as well but I wouldn't suggest that our president is shoving Jews into ovens."

Good.

"And the secret service keeping anarchists and protestors 50 feet away from the commander in chief is hardly censorship."

Well, consider that there used to be an Open House at the White House after inauguration. Yes, it's become a safety issue, I don't deny that. But they quarantine protestors, not fifty feet, but a third of a mile away from the site, away not only from the President. Because, you know, those picket signs can be pretty nasty.

They weren't only being kept away from the President, though. That, perhaps, I could understand. But:

"No one could see them from the street. In addition, the media were not allowed to talk to them. The police would not allow any media inside the protest area and wouldn't allow any of the protesters out of the protest zone to talk to the media."

If that isn't repression of free speech I'm really not sure what is.

Worthwhile to actually read the article, too, it gives some other examples later on.

""Under Allah" would not be unconstitutional but the Supreme Court would rule it so based on case law because it discusses a particular religion. "Under God" does not specify which God, so it is therefore not a violation. If it said "Under Yaweh" or "Under Jesus", it would be ruled unconstitutional. Sorry Kaelri, but your analogy does not hold water."

Of course it discusses a particular religion. Monotheism. 'S like saying "under Jesus" isn't specific 'cause there are hundreds of denominatiions. It'd still be an afactual belief being favored by the federal government. But, as I've mentioned, there are worse examples than two bloody words in the Pledge of Allegiance.

- - - - - - -

I'm quite familiar with Nineteen Eighty-Four, Tony. I think it's why I am liberal - again, not *a* liberal, just take the word for what it means: I simply believe that individuals should have as much freedom as they can possibly have without being allowed to violate the same freedom of others. You have a penchant for comparing "liberals" to Orwellian authoritarians, but the Bush administration scares the hell out of me on the same grounds.

When I refer to liberals - and I think this has rendered some confusion between us in the past - I am referring to others like me. It sounds like you've had more experience with those who I frankly think are extremists - or, more accurately, absolutists. The ones who want an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, for example - don't pretend they speak for the rest of us on the other side of the aisle. I'll be honest, I don't know much about institutions like the ACLU, but my impression is that they do have liberal beliefs but they take them a bit too far. I don't agree with diversity, I don't agree with affirmative action - both have a childish definition of 'equality' that breaks down below the surface.

My request, basically, is this: stop referring to those people as liberals. They are liberals but that's not why they do what they do. The Ku Klux Klan is a highly conservative group, but when they kidnapped blacks and pitched burning crucifixes in the front yard, that's not what the newspapers called them.

And I think there's one last bit of confusion. Liberals do not believe that people should have abortions. They do not believe that neo-Nazis should have a parade in Skokie, Illinois. They simply acknowledge their right to do so.

By enforcing these rights we protect even the people who wish to destroy us. That is a legacy worth having. We've come up with some odd, policies, I'll admit - constitutional democracy, women's suffrage, the abolition of slavery, end of segregation - but I rather like those legacies as well.

Ric said...

I saw a couple of posts in these comments stating we are a Christian nation. I wish we were, but we are not.

If nearly everyone even practiced the foundational teachings, we'd be better off as a society.


One of my most frequent phrases is Tolerance is Intolerant. So I want to say I really like the inital post - how true it is.

Over the years, we must also realize that conservatives have restricted speach, and expresssion too.

Should the government tell a private employer they cannot be open on Christmas day, or Sundays? Yet there are/were blue laws throughout this country.

Have you stopped to ponder those carefree spirits who in 1968 +/- were anti-government and now today are pro-big government?
Or why a classic liberal and a Reagan conservative are so close together in views on way government should be ?


As we wish each other a Merry Christmas, remember it is because the Lord God, the creator of the universe, of all that is seen and unseen, thru a miracle of virgin birth, gave up all he had and came into our world as a baby, took upon himself all of our transgressions to die a horrible death and then conquered death, all because he loves us.

Merry Christmas!