Banning Our Country, Banning Our God
A Firefighter is ordered to remove his sticker of the US flag from the front of his locker because it violates policy and is suspended for it. (AP)
An Oregon apartment complex is banning its residents from flying American flags, not only from their dwellings but also their vehicles, KATU in Portland reported. The ban also applies to having one on your vehicle. (Fox News)
A WalMart in Las Vegas banned it's employees from wearing a sticker of an American Flag on their uniform because it was provided to the employees by a Union.
In Longmont, Colorado the principle of Skyline High School banned flags and t-shirts with flags. The actual reason for this was due to a protest demanding amnesty for illegal aliens. Thousands of kids, many of them illegal students benefitting from tax-payer-funded education, walked out of school and pulled any American flag displayed and replaced them with Mexican Flags. This started a big rush for the American-born students to show support for their native country by wearing flags on t-shirts and waving flags on school grounds. This was seen as "intimidation, harassment and blatant bigotry" by school officials so they banned the American flag! Similar bans were then enacted in other schools in Colorado and California. The outcry from the public was so intense in the Colorado legislation that the state threatened to cut off state funding to any school who upheld the ban. (Various articles from 2006-present)
One more personal observation about patriotic expressions. While working at the Elmore County Fair office, I got to roam the vendors booths one day. A man had a booth that gave away free copies of the papers with the words of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. He sold many patriotic items while playing patriotic music. His booth was red, white and blue as well as his canopy flag. While I browsed, the man was telling another customer that he wasn't going to be allowed to set up at another city festival (I won't name it) because they felt that his booth wouldn't go along with their theme and feared that it was offensive to people. The flag, ol' Glory offends people? Patriotic music? What the...
This practice of banning things is running amok through our legal system, slowly gaining victories that take away our freedoms. This is no longer a country of individual freedoms. No longer can you say, this is a free country so I can adorn myself, my car and my yard with anything that I want. Just this past week, I have heard of numerous cases of people being told to take down their Halloween decorations because someone was offended. Schools have to be very very careful about what decorations that they use. Christmas decorations are now banned from school classrooms. You will never see mangers, angels, the wise men, or a baby Jesus. Even Christmas trees are starting to be called religious expression. From there, it will move on to Christmas decorations being banned from your front lawn too.
Speaking of banning things, banning Christmas decorations in businesses is more prevalent now as fear of offending others due to political correctness prompted many business to pass on any decorations. In America, of course, we got bombarded with "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" while most stores banned decorations that could be connected to religion in favor of winter-related decorations. Employees working for Target and Walmart as well as many other department stores were warned not to utter any greetings that could be construed as religious. Christmas is dying and political correctness is alive and growing stronger by the day.
So this got me to thinking about how legal it is for employers to have that kind of power. So I did alittle searching on religious law. Since we are living in a "free" nation that was founded on freedom of religion, just how does that protect your right to view Christmas as a religious holiday and therefore your right to utter the words, "Merry Christmas"? According to the discrimination laws, an employer must honor the request of an employee who states that a policy goes against his beliefs. An employer is expected to make reasonal accommendations for that person, such as not making it mandatory to work on the day of worship, such as Sunday for Christians. I read about a case of a company who had a "no excuse" policy stating that all employee were required to work on a Sunday at least once a month. Well, many complained but when an employee told the company that this violated his religious freedom and made it known to the employee that he was a Christian and worshiped on Sunday, then by law it had be honored. That also goes for all religions. Jewish employees can't be forced to work on their Sabbath. The only way that a business is lawful not to accommodate the religion of an employee is if they can prove undue hardship.
So how would this apply to the case of an employer's mandate to greet customers with "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas"? I believe it collides with the law that states that an employer cannot discriminate against an employee based on their faith. And since many employees celebrate Christmas as the birth of Christ, and the fact that Christmas is recognized as a local, state and federal holiday, it would be unlawful to prevent employees from greeting Merry Christmas the customers using the very word that the country uses to name the holiday. So any employee who believes that Christmas is a celebration of Christ and that employee has informed the employer of that belief, is protected from being forced to not say, Merry Christmas". Also, it is completely contradictory for stores to ban the greeting using the word Christmas, when those very stores sell numerous items that use the word and even use that word to have "after Christmas" sales and specials. Christmas is Christmas and announcing a sale for after that holiday yet forbidding that word to be used in a greeting is preposterous. While working at Walmart during the Christmas holidays, we were told not to greet customers with Merry Christmas which I laughed at while joyeously greeting eveyone with those cherished words. I was in lower management and even encouraged others to greet as they wanted to while I was on shift. I didn't have any problems nor did any managers threaten me.
Now I come to the law HR 2679, The Public Expression of Religion of 2005. Though it never passed, the reason that I bring it up in connection to the banning of patriotic and religious expression is the fact that it helped me focus on a key issue pertaining to the "small victories" that the ACLU and other anti-anything people gain from frivolous lawsuits. Many people, even judges, have stated that these lawsuits are boring and meaningless; therefore why waste the courts time and taxpayer money? I thought that these little cases that turn into bigger cases, such as the Mojave Desert War Memorial Cross, were meaningful to the ACLU because it will set a precedent that is wide-reaching. Although I may not agree with the ACLU and most of their cases, at least, they were motivated by a mis-guided noble idea of protecting people from something so I could respect that. Instead, what it really boils down to is money. The ACLU takes on the "underdog" fanatic like a hero defining civil liberties when in fact all of these cases bring in a lot of money.
Most people do not even know that we, taxpayers have given the ACLU millions of dollars in "attorney fee awards" annually in Establishment Clause lawsuits. These lawsuits are ones that ban religious symbols such as the Ten Commandments or crosses at veteran memorials, like the cross in the Mojave Desert. WE taxpayer's who don't support these cases are in fact funding thse who want to ban it or have it torn down. My money has paid the ACLU to cause a harmless white pipe cross to be boxed up. What happens is that the ACLU looks for cases that they can take to court which may be an argument of the separation of church and state. The judges will then give the ACLU "attorney fee awards" to compensate them. The bill HR 2678 would have stopped that practice. Unfortunately, HR 2679 never passed Senate and died. Today, it has been reborn as HR 1300 which was introduced Mar. 4, 2009.
Congressman Forbes cosponsored H.R. 1300, the Public Expression of Religion Act (PERA).The bill would prohibit activist groups like the ACLU from recovering legal fees when they successfully sue localities for violation of the Establishment Clause. Currently, many cities and towns are being coerced into settling claims, which are oftentimes unconstitutional, out of fear of huge monetary losses. PERA would modify the law so each side pays its attorney fees.
If this bill passes, then the ACLU will no longer receive millions for these "little" cases" of the Establishment clause and therefore, may think twice about even bringing it to court. Others will no longer just settle out of court for fear of having to pay the ACLU's fees. It equals the playing field. If the ACLU strongly thinks that someone has violated that separation of church and state, then they will enter the courtroom based on the principle of the matter and not for the money.
Time: 7:06am)
- -- Posted by FNG0312 on Mon, Oct 19, 2009, at 10:22 AM
- -- Posted by twilcox1978 on Mon, Oct 19, 2009, at 10:46 AM
- -- Posted by censored on Mon, Oct 19, 2009, at 4:33 PM
- -- Posted by kimkovac on Mon, Oct 19, 2009, at 9:45 PM
- -- Posted by tolkien on Mon, Oct 19, 2009, at 9:48 PM
- -- Posted by kimkovac on Tue, Oct 20, 2009, at 6:30 AM
- -- Posted by censored on Tue, Oct 20, 2009, at 6:56 AM
- -- Posted by censored on Tue, Oct 20, 2009, at 7:41 AM
- -- Posted by twilcox1978 on Tue, Oct 20, 2009, at 8:24 AM
- -- Posted by mhbouncer on Tue, Oct 20, 2009, at 10:20 AM
- -- Posted by DaveThompson on Tue, Oct 20, 2009, at 8:27 PM
- -- Posted by DaveThompson on Tue, Oct 20, 2009, at 8:48 PM
- -- Posted by censored on Wed, Oct 21, 2009, at 10:01 AM
- -- Posted by mhbouncer on Wed, Oct 21, 2009, at 12:35 PM
- -- Posted by mhbouncer on Wed, Oct 21, 2009, at 12:46 PM
- -- Posted by twilcox1978 on Wed, Oct 21, 2009, at 12:48 PM
- -- Posted by censored on Wed, Oct 21, 2009, at 4:02 PM
- -- Posted by censored on Wed, Oct 21, 2009, at 4:34 PM
- -- Posted by mhbouncer on Wed, Oct 21, 2009, at 10:56 PM
- -- Posted by censored on Thu, Oct 22, 2009, at 12:10 AM
- -- Posted by censored on Thu, Oct 22, 2009, at 12:20 AM
- -- Posted by censored on Thu, Oct 22, 2009, at 4:55 PM
- -- Posted by DaveThompson on Thu, Oct 22, 2009, at 6:10 PM
- -- Posted by mhbouncer on Thu, Oct 22, 2009, at 11:43 PM
- -- Posted by mhbouncer on Thu, Oct 22, 2009, at 11:54 PM
- -- Posted by censored on Fri, Oct 23, 2009, at 12:41 AM
- -- Posted by censored on Fri, Oct 23, 2009, at 7:41 AM
- -- Posted by censored on Fri, Oct 23, 2009, at 9:08 AM
- -- Posted by MsMarylin on Fri, Oct 23, 2009, at 10:43 AM
Posting a comment requires free registration:
- If you already have an account, follow this link to login
- Otherwise, follow this link to register