HEY FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION GOVERNOR WALKER SAYS: IT’S A CHRISTMAS TREE!

Written by Keven Card on 11 November 2011

Scott Walker, Governor of Wisconsin is making political waves again by referring to the changed holiday tree as a “Christmas tree”. In a letter to teachers, parent and youth of Wisconsin as reported by Wisbusiness.com it said:

“As the holiday season comes, I am excited to announce that the Christmas tree displayed in our State Capitol will have homemade ornaments created by Wisconsin’s youth,” said Governor Walker. “I am hopeful we receive ornaments from all across Wisconsin so that we are able to showcase the diversity that makes up our great state. I invite all Wisconsin residents to stop by the Capitol and view our state’s holiday display.”

Of course not everyone is thrilled of the renewed label referring to Christ as part of the “Christmas” holiday. Annie Laurie Gaylor, the co-president of the Freedom from Religion Foundation had some choice words for the Governor telling Billy Hallowell caught from The Blaze caught up with her; he reported:

During our exchange, she dismissed Walker as “…a Teabagger governor wearing religion on his sleeves“ and claimed that his recent decision is rooted in an effort to appeal to ”religious right” voters. Furthermore, she made it clear that she believes the governor is trampling on the rights of non-believing citizens.

When I asked the famed atheist leader why she opposes calling the decorated tree what many claim it is — a Christmas tree — she said, “Because it’s not inclusive.”


Yahoo! Small BusinessCommentary: I’m not at all shocked that the co-president of the largest atheist organization would use sexually explicit language to describe someone with which she disagrees as many of those who cry from the far left fringes of society haven’t a moral compass by which they are guided and in that we should pray for them.

However, she states that calling a Christmas tree just that, that it’s somehow not inclusive but I would say that not calling it a Christmas tree is what isn’t inclusive. A Gallup poll consistently shows that more than 51% of Americans view Christmas as a strongly religious holiday. Add to that an additional 31% who view it as somewhat religious and you can easily conclude that 82% of Americans celebrate Christ in Christmas.

The idea that on any issue on any subject you could reach 100% inclusion is a fundamentally flawed ideal. The closest we could ever get to achieving 100% inclusion is what our country’s governance is founded on…. A Republic form of governance in which not just a barely majority rules but a super majority is what it takes to enforce laws on the people.

This is also true for societal issues that aren’t expressly written into law; we attempt to include the highest percentage of citizens in a given issue but never force the minority to submit to the will of the majority, we simply allow them non-participation.

However, the Freedom from Religious Foundation’s cause is to prevent entirely the majority of Americans who espouse faith and in particularly the Christian faith from being able to participate in the expression of that faith in public under the pretext that society is infringing on their Constitutional right of being without religion when in fact no one is forcing faith on them and there are no Constitutional protections from being exposed to the faith of other citizens; only that the government will not create a religion and force its citizens to participation of one faith.

It will take citizens who are as bold as Governor Walker and others that we’ve reported on to take the heat of the super minority of the FFRF, a member organization of just 17,000 (a percentage of Americans to infantile to put in this article), to take the cause all the way back to the Supreme Court so they can clarify a decision the Court made in 1947 regarding the First Amendment.

How does an organization that doesn’t represent even 1% of Americans get the power to dictate local policy? They must have members with deep pockets to be able to withstand such expenses as costly litigation….think about it.

They can only dictate to us if we do what they ask; otherwise they would fade away never to be heard from again.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Faith | 5 Comments »

Previous Topic
Next Topic

  • Pingback: HEY FREEDOM FROM RELIGION … – The Christian Republic - christianfamiliesnetwork.com - christian families network

  • Joekingx

    “How does an organization that doesn’t represent even 1% of Americans get the power to dictate local policy?”

    Well I think they believe that religion is a personal thing, and that the state and its paid officials (when acting as paid officials, rather than in their spare time as private citizens) shouldn’t endorse or support any specific religion in any way.  It makes sense — suppose in 50 or 100 years time the population of the US became largely Muslim, would it be appropriate for passages from the Qur’an to be posted in government buildings, and schools?  So in the long run it’s in religion’s best interest to insist government employees keep their religious practice to their personal time.

    That said, quibbling over the name of a Christmas tree is a bit petty.  We don’t insist on renaming Wednesday or Thursday because they are named in honor of Norse gods, or the months of the years because many are named to celebrate the various Roman gods.  And the Christmas tree is, in all but name, a Pagan symbol of the winter solstice anyway. Christianity ‘borrowed’ the holiday and its evergreen decorations (representing the fertility of nature) as a way of winning over pagans (Jesus was likely born in the Spring, in fact!)

    • http://kevencard.com Keven Card

      I appreciate your opinion but I must fervently disagree. A hypothetical notion of America turning from a majority Christian nation to a Muslim nation in 100 years isn’t cause to abandon the Constitution.
      The First Amendment’s protection of free expression of faith is clear and unhindered by position or status. The ONLY restriction indicated is on Congress and their only restricted from writing a law which respects an establishment of religion.
      To my knowledge no laws have been written to that effect. However, the First Amendment goes on to say very plainly “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. I’ve stated before and what I will continue to remind our readers of, is government employees are also citizens of this country and are entitled to the rights and protections granted them in the Constitution of which there are no specified restrictions that say their freedom of expression is limited to their private life only.
      Lastly, we are documenting the relentless nature of atheists and progressives in eliminated Christianity in America. Taken collectively it is easy to conclude that some minority groups in America have made it their cause to rewrite history and the influence that Faith has had on this nation for over 200 years.
      If you want to change the Constitution then take the measures necessary to change it but until that happens I will hold to my oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States as it’s written not as I wish it were written.

      • Joekingx

        If you truly wanted to respect the constitution and its amendments, you should be in favor of a separation of church and state, as separation is how the founding fathers intended America to be and how the constitution/amendments have been interpreted by scholars and judges when such issues have arisen.

        I know many Americans swallow the lie that the country was founded as a Christian nation — heaven knows there’s more than enough politicians peddling that myth, but whether you and I like it or not the founding fathers were influenced by Enlightenment principles.  Yes, the American people have always had a very strong tradition of Christianity, but their actual government and state institutions were always intended to be secular — SPECIFICALLY TO PROTECT THE FREEDOM OF THE PEOPLE.

        You’re totally wrong to suggest there aren’t restrictions on what state employees can do and say when acting as state employees.  A teacher may be an active member of a neo-Nazi group in her free time, and her rights to those political beliefs are fully protected, but she cannot preach fascism to school children as part of her day job. A police officer may believe women are worse drivers than men, but he cannot carry that personal conviction over into the way he deals with traffic offenders.  A judge may feel passionately about environmental issues, but he cannot sentence offenders more sternly if they drive a gas guzzling car.

        Groups like the FFRF go way over the top, complaining about every slight infraction like true pedants, but in the broadest sense what they’re doing is useful.  One day YOU might be in the minority, and you’ll be glad of the protection the neutrality they’re fighting for affords.

        And one word of warning: you may think you’re doing The Lord’s work by seeking to entangle Christianity with government, but far from protecting Christianity from the rising tide of Atheism, you will surely accelerate its demise.  EVERY SINGLE country around the world with an established church (where government aligns itself openly with religion) has whithered into secularism.  EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY!!  THE ONLY countries withstanding the tide of Atheism are those with clear separations of religion and state — a secular state guarantees a religious populous, it seems (and visa versa).

        So next time you lobby to put the Ten Commandments in your kid’s school, just stop of think — history tells us you’re just hastening Christianity’s demise into yet another state institution, on route to European style secularism.  (If you really want state endorsed religion, move to Europe and see how you like it!)  ;)

        • http://kevencard.com Keven Card

          Never have I advocated for the Congress to endorse any version of Christianity or any other religion and I never will; that would violate the Constitution.
          However, the Constitution as it was written and is written now, doesn’t restrict state, county or city governments from such displays. It is a restriction on Congress alone.
          The other mistake that is often made is to think that the First Amendment was written to protect popular speech but in fact was written for the opposite. If a public employee is a member of the neo-nazis or any other offensive group and wants to express those views they have the protection of the Constitution to do so and the employer has every right to fire that person if they so desire. But if every Christian public employee espoused their faith and the government fired them all…they would be left with only skeleton crews to run the government. 

          A Republic (which is what we are) is a society where the super majority makes decisions through the creation of laws which are LITERALLY interpreted. When we start to create these gray areas in those interpretations; that’s when society begins to war against itself and everyone fights to gain power. When the minority opinions start to rule over the super majority it will lead to pure chaos just like we’re seeing now.

          Although I respect that people see things differently my investigations into the founding of America prove to me that though we aren’t a Christian nation like Israel is a Jewish nation (and the reason for that is we actually allow people to follow their own faith); a clear majority of the men who wrote our founding documents were principally driven by their own Christian faith and the “Enlightenment” that they sought was from divine Providence (God).

          Look, if it was the intent of the Founding Fathers to keep any references of Christianity out of government, then why was the capital building once used as a church for Christians? Why does the President of the United States to this day get sworn in with his hand on the Christian Bible? Why does nearly every President say God Bless America? Why did the Supreme Court decide that “In God We Trust” should remain on the Capital Visitors Center?

          You can continue to use anecdotal “evidence” and the usual separation
          of church and state platitudes to make arguments as to why we aren’t and
          never were founded on Christian principles but actual history tells the
          real story and the reality is that until you research the subject for
          yourself you’ll continue to believe what you already do.

          Also we aren’t a Christian nation because the government told us we must be but because the majority of our citizens were and are still Christians.
          My advocacy is for the free expression of faith or the lack of it (individual choice) without restriction, as it is currently written in the Constitution; what is happening now is clear and purposeful attacks against the free expression from Christians. But just as we must tolerate people who enter public parks and spew anti-Semitic hatred such as we see in the OWS movement; or are forced to tolerate the racism of the KKK and the Black panthers. There are plenty of people I’d like to hear less from but I must let them say what they want because I respect the Constitution.

          Atheists, the ACLU and others who want to keep promoting this notion of complete severance of faith from every public institution need to understand and respect the Constitution as it is written and be tolerant of people of faith and the symbols that go with it.