Wilson: Christians Forced Not to Celebrate Christmas!


Buster Wilson of the American Family Association got on quite a righteous roll on his radio show on Monday, railing incoherently about how not allowing nativity scenes on public property will lead to a ban on Christians celebrating Christmas at all. Seriously.

There are people who can put nativity scenes on their front lawns, it’s their private property and if they want to do that, they can do that, why do you have to have the public square as well? Here’s the reason why that’s a problem. The reason why we rebel against that is that the First Amendment of the Constitution gives every individual American the freedom of worship without any possibility of interference from the government. We don’t want the government saying you can do it here. The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, we declare that these rights are God-given; they are our unalienable rights from our Creator. They are not privileges granted by our government. If they are a privilege granted by the government then the government can number one, regulate it, or number two, take it away, we have unalienable rights…

I don’t understand, ‘you’re not the majority anymore, this is not a Christian nation and you’ve guys have got to quit trying to cram everything down people’s throats,’ nobody’s trying to cram—look, it is the folks who don’t want us celebrating Christmas that are cramming that view down our throats and using the courts to do it. So if we don’t want to start cramming things down people’s throats, then why don’t the folks who are opposed to us celebrating Christmas, why don’t they be quiet for a while because they are the ones that are using the court system of this country to force Christians to not be able to celebrate Christmas at Christmastime.

Yeah, let me know when that actually happens. If it does, I’ll fight right next to you against it.

Comments

  1. raven says

    It will never happen.

    Xmas is an important secular and shopping holiday.

    Many groups have fought rampant capitalism and lost. Just look at what happened to the old Soviet Union.

  2. raven says

    BTW, this nativity scence on public land is just tribal territorial marking.

    My old male cat did that. When we went for walks, he would pee on important shrubs. This tells other cats that this is his territory.

    The cats also do a lot of chin rubbing for the same reason and use key trees as scratching posts.

    Dogs do similar things as do a wide variety of species, birds etc..

    So the difference between xians, dogs, and cats is what? Nothing much. Xians have access to lots of high powered weaponry and do not make good pets.

  3. dingojack says

    “The reason why we rebel against that is that the First Amendment of the Constitution gives every individual American the freedom of worship without any possibility of interference from the government.”

    Not even close, not even a half-smoked, well-chewed, stepped-on stogie.

    The First Amendment states the government will not establish a government-sponsored religion, nor will it prevent people from practicing whatever kind of religious* beliefs they want (within reason**).

    Thus the first amendment prevents the public-square, which administered by the government, from promoting one set of religious practices more than any other, either it is open to all or none.

    Dingo
    —–
    * Or non-belief even
    ** For example if I founded a religion that required the sacrifice of all non-believers in a pyre – that would not be allowed, even on private property.

  4. matty1 says

    I’m glad to hear the AFA supporting the right to have an Eid display in the public square. That is where this is going right?

  5. davidhart says

    Dingo@4: “whatever kind of religious* beliefs they want (within reason**).”

    Might I recommend that a useful razor is: Could the religious freedom demanded be coherently subsumed under an existing recognised secular freedom?
    For instance: Freedom to believe in gods – freedom of conscience.
    Freedom to proselytise – freedom of expression
    Freedom to pray in one’s own property – respect for privacy
    Freedom to meet up and pray together – freedom of association.
    Freedom to burn non-believers? Bzzzt! No secular freedom to immolate those you disagree with exists (unless, perhaps, you are the President).

    Summary – any apparent demand for religious freedom that could not plausibly be subsumed under the heading of a secular freedom that we generally recognise is likely to in fact be a demand for religious privilege.

  6. tbp1 says

    I’ve grown tired of trying to explain to certain people why not being allowed to use the power of government and force of law to make everyone else participate in your religious rituals (or at least defer to them) doesn’t actually mean you’re being persecuted.

  7. says

    The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, we declare that these rights are God-given; they are our unalienable rights from our Creator

    If I’m Mexican and want to come to the US, I’ll tell them I’m asserting my inalienable, God-given right to set up Nativity scenes on American public property.

  8. eric says

    If they are a privilege granted by the government then the government can number one, regulate it, or number two, take it away, we have unalienable rights…

    Hate to burst your bubble, but the government has regulated religious conduct for nigh on 300+ years now. Including in some cases outright banning it. Just ask the mormons. Ask the native americans (and rastafarians).

  9. bcmystery says

    Does this mean I have to take my lights down? I like my pretty lights. And presents. I like presents!

  10. brucegee1962 says

    I think he’s saying the government should have any right to restrict religious displays on public property AT ALL. So anybody with a piece of wood and a few cans of spray paint gets to put up their Flying Spaghetti Monster mural! Sounds great, let’s go!

  11. says

    … they are the ones that are using the court system of this country to force Christians to not be able to celebrate Christmas at Christmastime.

    Because they can’t celebrate Christmas in the traditional way unless they can make everyone else celebrate it or at least pay for the celebration with their tax money.

  12. scienceavenger says

    So the only way to have freedom of worship without any possibility of interference from the government is to have the government participate in the worship? I supose next you’ll be teling us that having more people get married will destroy marriage…

  13. jaranath says

    WOW. He’s taken the legal ideal behind separation and turned it completely on its head.

    He’s trying to claim that the government has asserted the power to grant you only those specific religious rights it deems fit. That’s what he means by “we don’t want the government saying you can do this here”. I’m not a legal wonk, but I know there’s some Latin term for this…the dual ideas of whether government must specifically identify all your rights, or whether you have the right to do anything by default and government delineates specific exceptions to those rights. Separation is clearly the latter, yet he’s treating it as the former.

  14. busterggi says

    “So the difference between xians, dogs, and cats is what? Nothing much. Xians have access to lots of high powered weaponry and do not make good pets.”

    What’s worse raven, is you can’t even have them put down when they turn around bite you.

  15. Sastra says

    There are people who can put nativity scenes on their front lawns, it’s their private property and if they want to do that, they can do that, why do you have to have the public square as well? Here’s the reason why that’s a problem. The reason why we rebel against that is that the First Amendment of the Constitution gives every individual American the freedom of worship without any possibility of interference from the government. We don’t want the government saying you can do it here.

    I’ve read this several times and can’t see how he thinks he has answered the question. Why can’t you just put up nativity scenes on private property? Because individuals have the right to put nativity scenes up on private property without government interference. That’s why.

    What? That can’t be what he means, but it seems to me that this is what he actually technically says. What’s missing of course is all the illegitimate slides he’s making, such as that between “out in public” and “supported with public funds — and that between “we the people” and the majority. He’s also slipping in an insinuation that the concept of “rights” is a religious belief derived from Christianity.

    I think raven’s right about this being like pissing on your territory.

  16. matty1 says

    I supose next you’ll be teling us that having more people get married will destroy marriage…

    Given the obsession with ramming things down peoples throats you can put money on that.

  17. jnorris says

    Raven wrote:

    So the difference between xians, dogs, and cats is what?

    Cats think they are gods. Dogs know we are gods. Xians are nutz.

  18. says

    …they are the ones that are using the court system of this country to force Christians to not be able to celebrate Christmas at Christmastime.

    “C’mon kids! Time to go celebrate Christmas at City Hall!”
    “But Daddy, why can’t we celebrate it at home like normal people?”
    “Resentment, son. Resentment.”

  19. Ichthyic says

    are cramming that view down our throats and using the courts to do it. So if we don’t want to start cramming things down people’s throats,

    what IS it with these people always talking about cramming things down people’s throats?

    one might almost conclude they have an obsession with it…

  20. Ichthyic says

    What? That can’t be what he means,

    no, it’s not. look at the last sentence again:

    We don’t want the government saying you can do it here.

    What he’s clearly saying, IMO, is that he doesn’t want the government telling him he can’t put up his religion in any place, public or private, any time he wants.

    he views the first amendment as simplistically saying: “no restrictions, anytime, anywhere.”

    which of course it does not.

  21. says

    “The reason why we rebel against that is that the First Amendment of the Constitution gives every individual American the freedom of worship without any possibility of interference from the government.”

    Cool, so who wants to join my religion that requires members to kill and consume a human baby? What’s that officer? Why are you interfering with my freedom of worship by arresting me?

  22. says

    Since Jeebus wrote the DoI and the Constitution we almost have to put up nativity scenes in public places, ‘cuz he’s a jealous god and doesn’t put up with shit like menorahs, spaghetti monsters, flying or otherwise, or anything else not xian.

    Ichtyic: When we’re not shoving things down their throats we’re cramming it up their asses. Sounds pretty gay, and fun, to me.

  23. Crudely Wrott says

    Dammit, Buster! That’s a lot of cramming, innit? Stings, donnit, when you get a taste of your own tactics, a taste of your own comfortable assumptions? Good. You earned it.

    Dammit,boy! Feeling left out, are you? Perhaps you are now feeling how others have felt for centuries under the relentless cramming of the church down the throats of the guiltless and the resultant resentment of them that you cowed and enslaved by the bogus privileges that you have cloaked yourself in.

    You earned that too. Just as Marley earned his chains. See you on Christmas Eve. I’ll be the one draped in keys.

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply