|
The following article originally appeared in the
The Memo that Saved Christmas
By Mathew D. Staver
There is a war on Christmas, but the good news is this war can be won. Taking on the ACLU again this year, Liberty Counsel announced its fourth annual “Friend or Foe Christmas Campaign.” Last December, ABC’s Good Morning America assessed the Friend or Foe Christmas Campaign during an interview with Dr. Jerry Falwell. The host observed that the campaign had ignited a “movement.” Indeed, it did.
The Friend or Foe Christmas Campaign was felt by retailers and government officials alike. Groups like the ACLU were on the run. No longer did they debate whether celebrating Christmas was legal. They conceded that point. Instead, the ACLU tried to argue that there was no war on Christmas. While the ACLU clearly lost the war on Christmas, there is nevertheless an ongoing war against Christmas. The difference between last year and most prior years is that most Americans said they had had enough of the ACLU’s silly attempts to transform Christmas into a secular holiday. America spoke up, and the retailers and public officials listened.
Last year, the war against Christmas began with the Boston Christmas tree. Donated by Nova Scotia to Boston in honor of the 1917 Halifax explosion, the 46-foot tall white spruce was loaded on the back of a flatbed tractor-trailer, sporting a sign on the side of the cab that read, “Merry Christmas.” But when the tree arrived at Boston, a city official with the Parks Department issued a statement saying that on December 1, the city would light, not a Christmas tree, but a “Holiday tree.” The next day I appeared on Hannity & Colmes, where I highlighted the absurd notion of renaming green, pointed, prickly trees that we decorate in December to “Holiday trees.” I told the Boston Herald that it was absurd and offensive to rename a Christmas tree a “Holiday tree.” It is just as ridiculous to rename Christmas trees as it would be to call a Jewish Menorah a candlestick. Dr. Jerry Falwell also appeared on many national media regarding the Friend or Foe Christmas Campaign, including the Boston Christmas tree. Boston’s mayor immediately stated that he would light a Christmas tree rather than a “Holiday tree,” and that’s what he did on December 1.
News of the story spread. The Speaker of the House learned that the Capitol Christmas tree had been renamed a “Holiday tree” back in the late nineties. He immediately issued an order renaming the tree a Christmas tree. A resident of Newport News, Virginia, alerted Liberty Counsel that the city intended to light its “Tree of Celebration.” That is, until I went to the national airwaves again, this time on MSNBC. Liberty Counsel issued the city a legal memo, and scores of people contacted city officials. The city reversed its position, abandoned the “Tree of Celebration,” and instead lit a Christmas tree.
A staffer in the state of Georgia issued a press release about the annual lighting of the state “Holiday tree.” Within 30 minutes, Governor Sonny Perdue issued another press release, stating that the tree is not a “Holiday tree” but, in fact, a Christmas tree. The Governor stated that the staffer who issued the press release had apparently experienced politically correct brain freeze and that further contact with the staffer may be obtained at his new address in Anchorage, Alaska!
Retailers heard the message loud and clear. Lowe’s started the season by selling “Holiday trees,” but quickly renamed the trees when consumers protested. Wal-Mart began the season by telling its employees they could not say “Merry Christmas.” Liberty Counsel sent legal memos to some of these retailers. Public pressure eventually made Wal-Mart back down. When Sears realized that people were going to shop according to their convictions and were tired of Christmas being censored, they immediately shipped out “Merry Christmas” signs to all of their retail stores. Eventually Target backed down from its anti-Christmas marketing. Walgreens promised that in the future it would have more Christmas advertising. We should make sure Walgreens keeps its word this year.
Even senior centers were caught in the crossfire, but this time the seniors fired back. In Winter Park, Florida, one center told its residents they could not sing Christmas carols. Bethany Towers in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, and the Milano Senior Center in Massachusetts told their residents they could not display any religious symbols, including nativity scenes or angels. Liberty Counsel sent its legal memo to all of these centers, and they backed down.
The war against Christmas raged in the public schools. In Birmingham, Alabama, students at an elementary school were asked to create “holiday bags” for their classmates, but they were told the bags could not contain anything religious – no angels, crosses, or words like “Noel.” Candy canes were prohibited because they resemble the canes used by the shepherds in the nativity. Red and green colors and Christmas trees were forbidden, but Hanukkah dreidels were permitted. In Lewistown, Pennsylvania, the Lewistown Elementary School prohibited a kindergarten student from passing out balloons that contained depictions of biblical scenes, such as Noah’s Ark or the battle between David and Goliath, along with a Bible verse below the picture. The school spokesman stated the school was attempting to “separate church and state.”
In Medway, Massachusetts, a middle school banned students from wearing red and green elf hats during its “Winter” pageant. Christmas trees were called “Magical trees.” In Fort Lauderdale, Florida, teachers and children at Boulevard Heights Elementary School were told that they may not say “Merry Christmas” and were instructed to say “Happy Holidays.” Liberty Counsel encountered scores of Christmas-related issues in the public schools, most of which were resolved after sending officials a detailed legal memo.
In one case, Liberty Counsel wound up suing the cities of Neptune Beach and Atlantic Beach, located south of Jacksonville, Florida. The cities jointly control the Town Center that had a Christmas tree and a privately sponsored Menorah. The towns banned a privately sponsored nativity scene, claiming that it was religious and could not be displayed. Following Liberty Counsel’s suit, the cities backed down on the eve of the emergency hearing and agreed to allow the nativity. The nativity went on display December 12 and continued to be displayed until December 31.
In a matter of a few weeks, Liberty Counsel handled over 200 Christmas cases. The staff was busier than ever working to save Christmas. The Friend or Foe Christmas Campaign did indeed ignite a movement. Like last year, Dr. Falwell and I are urging people across this great land to stand up for Christmas. Most people are fed up with the ACLU’s bully tactics. The truth is, only a small group of people oppose Christmas, but that group has been vocal while the majority remained silent. While we might sing “Silent Night,” we should not remain silent when it comes to saving Christmas.
The truth about celebrating Christmas is simple. A publicly sponsored nativity scene or Christmas pageant is constitutional so long as, within the context, there are both secular and sacred symbols or messages. For example, a nativity scene sponsored by city hall on city hall property is constitutional so long as there is some secular symbol of the holiday such as Santa Claus, reindeer, or a Christmas tree within the context of the nativity scene. Teachers in public schools may decorate their classrooms with holiday displays that include a nativity scene so long as the decorations also include other secular symbols of the holiday. The Supreme Court considers a publicly sponsored nativity scene standing alone unconstitutional, but constitutional if a secular symbol is also displayed.
In contrast to a publicly sponsored nativity scene on public property, a privately sponsored nativity scene on public property does not need a secular symbol to be constitutional. For example, some towns allow private citizens to put up signs or displays on public property. In that case, if a church sponsors a nativity scene on public property, there is no requirement that a secular symbol be placed within the context. The requirement of the secular symbol only arises when a nativity scene is sponsored by the government. To avoid any confusion, the privately sponsored nativity scene should probably have a sign acknowledging the private sponsorship.
The same rule which applies to publicly sponsored nativity scenes holds true for publicly sponsored Christian songs, whether at Christmas or any other time. The high school chorus can sing “Silent Night, Holy Night” so long as the chorus also sings a secular song, such as “Rudolph, the Red-Nosed Reindeer.” Within a Christmas pageant, there is no need to worry about having an equal amount of secular or sacred songs. In a Salt Lake City case, the majority of the songs sung by students during a public high school-sponsored event were Christian or religious, and yet the court stated the Christmas pageant was constitutional because it contained some secular holiday songs. Thus, a pageant containing Christmas songs with religious content, presented as part of a publicly sponsored event, is constitutional so long as the pageant also includes some secular holiday songs. The school chorus may present a Christmas pageant on the school campus or off campus at private venues, including churches. More than one federal court has noted that sixty to seventy percent of all serious choral music is religious. Thus, it is natural to have an abundance of religious songs, and it is also natural to sing them in religious venues.
If the public school is hosting a talent show or some event where students are permitted to select their own songs, an individual student may sing a religious song. Since the song selection is the choice of the student, not school officials, there is no requirement to add secular songs.
In summary, a publicly sponsored nativity scene on public property is constitutional so long as there is a secular symbol of the holiday as part of the display. The same holds true for publicly sponsored Christmas pageants with religious music. Privately sponsored nativity scenes on public property are constitutional, even in the absence of a secular symbol. To avoid any confusion, it is probably best to have a sign nearby acknowledging the private sponsorship. Finally, if the school hosts an event where students are permitted to select the content of their songs, an individual student may sing a religious song.
Students in public schools have the right to engage in interpersonal communication with one another during noninstructional time, which is before or after school or between classes. Thus, students can distribute Christmas cards to their friends or pass out invitations to after-school Christmas programs. They can greet each other by saying, “Merry Christmas.” Believe it or not, some schools have told students they are forbidden to use the word “Christmas.” If the school does not require the students to dress in uniform, they can wear clothing with religious words or symbols, and they can wear religious jewelry.
The 8,000 school teachers and administrators of Christian Educators Association International are joining with Liberty Counsel and Liberty University to once again launch the Friend or Foe Christmas Campaign. In his Falwell Confidential, Dr. Falwell urged almost 200,000 pastors to sponsor Friend of Foe Christmas Campaign ads in local newspapers. Designed by Liberty Counsel, the ads set the record straight about the legal right to celebrate Christmas. Each ad has the toll free number of Liberty Counsel, which is prepared to offer pro bono legal help to anyone in America. The ads can be branded to the local church. The National Liberty Journal is making available these camera-ready ads free of charge to anyone who wants to place one in print media.
Liberty Counsel’s memo focuses not only on situations involving public officials, but also retailers and other private employers. This memo resolved countless Christmas wars last year. That’s why Liberty Counsel sometimes refers to this memo as “the memo that saved Christmas.”
Yes, there is a war on Christmas. But the good news is, this war can be won. It was won last year in unprecedented fashion. This year, the difference between a silent, censored Christmas and a joyous holiday in which we can celebrate the reason for the season is one person, one pastor, one church deciding to make a difference.
|