Home / Culture and Society / Spirituality / ACLU Brings War on Christmas to Fort Collins, Comes Up Short

ACLU Brings War on Christmas to Fort Collins, Comes Up Short

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Much like the Christmas shopping season, the ACLU's War on Christmas begins earlier and earlier every year. This year in Fort Collins, Colorado, the city council decided to revise their policies to honor appropriately the holiday that almost ninety percent of America celebrates as Christmas. A task force was drawn up, given their task, and put to work.

Like most task forces set up by governing bodies, the result is only as good as the people you put in charge. In this case, the head of the ACLU in Fort Collins was tasked with running the committee. The result was obviously predictable.

The task force recommended no Christmas lights, no recognition of Christmas, no use of the colors red and green, no Christmas trees, and to otherwise squelch anything even remotely connected to Christmas. Instead, they suggested decorations of icicles and prominent use of the color brown. In short, they suggested returning Christmas to its millennia old pagan roots.

At the city council meeting to vote on the proposal, hundreds of people showed up to voice their concern (instead of the 10-15 people who usually show up) and the proposal was shot down 6-1. The lone dissenting voice protested saying that residents would feel left out and alienated by the city recognizing that the overwhelming majority of citizens are celebrating Christmas.

It's an interesting argument. Tolerance requires that people practice their faith in such a way that never leaves anyone out. Even if you took this argument at face value; that would effectively mean that no one could practice religion because the moment you identify with a group, you tacitly isolate those who are not part of that group. The idea that the First Amendment, designed to protect citizens from government, requires a destruction of all uniqueness is odd indeed.

However, it isn't a matter of simply suppressing religion from public life. These calls simply do not exist (even in the Fort Collins matter) when the religion in question is Judaism or Islam. The ACLU's goal, based on their track record, appears to be to prevent the public proclamation of Christianity in the name of the First Amendment. The bastardization of the Establishment Clause far beyond its intended meaning to require the government to enforce secular humanism on the people is to get the entire Bill of Rights backwards.

Horace Cooper, senior fellow with the American Civil Rights Union stated that it is inappropriate for "the government to pick and choose with faiths it will support and denigrate." The Establishment Clause, followed immediately by the Free Expression Clause, does not allow the suppression of a religion in the name of "diversity." In this case, the champions of diversity aren't really interested in what they preach; they simply want to redirect hate and intolerance to their desired targets. It's using the government to play the game of power politics. However, in this case — because of the efforts of the ACRU — the effort failed.

The ACLU generally uses intimidation to achieve victories that even the courts won't provide. By intimidating local officials with the threat of the ACLU, many simply cave and give the ACLU what they want. It is telling indeed that the Fort Collins ACLU head was in charge of this task force. In this case, it was the vigorous opposition of the local people combined with the ACRU that prevented the suppression of free speech and expression of an overwhelming majority of the community.

This intimidation has led to groups being formed to counteract the far-reaching agenda of the ACLU to build and impose a societal view outside the framework of the democratic process. Examples include the ACRU, which also has a courtwatch project to monitor Bush's judicial nominations, and other groups like the Thomas More Law Center and the American Center for Law and Justice.

One fact that should give everyone pause is that these debates about society now take place in courtrooms, argued by lawyers and decided by unelected judges. While there is a degree of balance with these groups, the wholesale removal of large social questions from the people has done much to not only undermine the notion of American self-government, but also call into question whether this country is really a republic anymore.

While this latest battle in the War on Christmas has subsided, the removal of the battle from the people to lawyers and courtrooms, and the fact that free expression of Christianity is under fire by the largest "civil rights" group in the country, should make us all think. This year, we can at least be thankful those who celebrate Christmas can still do so publicly as those who celebrate Ramadan or Hanukkah can do. Time will tell if the ACLU will succeed in telling us which religions and holidays we're allowed to recognize.

Powered by

About John Doe

A political activist and security expert.
  • REMF

    “Most of the complaints the left makes about Limbaugh are pretty baseless.”
    – Lumpy

    So you support his draft dodging during Vietnam?

  • Lumpy,

    The only reason you think Limbaugh is “reasonable” is that you obviously agree with him. I noted that Michael Moore can be put under the same umbrella as Limbaugh and Coulter as regards his modus operandi. In point of fact, though, I tend to agree with most of Moore’s positions, but I don’t endorse his methods.


  • Lumpy, quite honestly you could take your comment, switch the names of the two radio personalities you mention, and it would read quite reasonably to someone on the opposite end of the political spectrum from yourself.

    I used to listen to Randi on the way home from work, so I know what you mean. I’ve not heard Limbaugh’s radio show much but I have seen video of him doing some of his public speaking gigs and he really is a jerk, no two ways about it.

    Personally, before our local Air America carrier switched to ESPN, I liked listening to Rachel Maddow.

  • Lumpy

    Most of the complaints the left makes about Limbaugh are pretty baseless. His show is not really charactrrized by extremism or attack rhetoric. All In all he’s pretty reasonable. Those who think otherwise have probably not listened to him.

    You want offensiveness on the radio try Randi Rhoades.

  • Dave,

    I’m fully aware of Dobson. He’s a piece of work. A true hypocrite.

    While it’s easy to dismiss assholes like Coulter and Limbaugh, the problem is, they still retain a large, and avid audience. They have considerable influence, if not in the upper echelons of government, then certainly with the Joe Six Packs, the evangelicals and their off-spring around the country.

    What I find particularly odious about Limbaugh is how, in the past at least, he claimed that his schtick was just that, schtick. That his shows were meant to be entertainment, not to be taken seriously from a political perspective. He would say this while sporting a shit eating grin, knowing full well that the majority of his audience hung on his every word and considered it gospel.

    Both he, Coulter, and I must admit, Michael Moore among others tend to make broad claims and accusations which at most are no more than half truths and often are just blatant lies. They know that they can do this with impunity because their devoted audience will assume that anyone who points out the discrepancies and lies are the very ones against whom the lies are aimed. Once people take their seat on board a train and it starts moving, they are loathe to jump off unless its clear that its plunging into the abyss is imminent, and sometimes, not even then. People have been jumping off the Bush train, but there are those who steadfastly remain on board choosing to ignore that the locomotive has no rails upon which to run.


  • REMF

    “Baritone, if you can’t find anyone better to hate than Limbaugh or even Coulter you need to get out more.”

    Always nice to be judged on who to hate and advised to get out more by someone who lives in a fortified compound, ehe…?

  • Baritone, if you can’t find anyone better to hate than Limbaugh or even Coulter you need to get out more. They’re just opportunistic media whores. If you want to hate someone on the right take a gander at James Dobson sometime.


  • Franco

    #41 —Baritone

    Your god can kiss my ass!

    He already has, that’s the point!

  • REMF

    “I come closest to hating opportunistic evangelists and perhaps someone of Ann Coulter’s or Rush Limbaugh’s ilk.”

    Two of RJ’s sacred cow(ard)s ….

  • No, RJ, I’m not. Am I angry? Yes. Do I hate? For the most part, no. All of us can point to something or someone we truly “hate.” But hate, like most other superlatives is over used. I “hate” to go to the mall. I “hate” the Patriots, or the Yankees. I don’t hate christians, nor do I hate conservatives. If I “hate” anything, it’s religion in general and stupidity in particular. I come closest to hating opportunistic evangelists and perhaps someone of Ann Coulter’s or Rush Limbaugh’s ilk. I come very close to hating islamic leaders who actively recruit their young men and women – often more like boys and girls – to become suicide bombers. There are now segments amongst the youth of many muslim populations who eagerly aspire to being martyrs with visions of those 72 virgins dancing in their heads. I don’t know what they promise the women who strap on the suicide vests – 72 swingin’ dicks?


  • Oh, I do hope RJ gets his Wii. It might distract him from posting his pointless drivel on here.

  • RJ

    You’re making my point, B-tone…thx.

  • Yes, the loving god of abraham, the father of jesus christ, the lord and saviour of all true believers wants all others to die a long, painful death and then eternally burn in hell for the transgression of not acknowledging his fucking supremacy. Your god can kiss my ass!


  • RJ

    “Does God tell you to wish disease and death on others for his holiday, or is it your own idea?”

    A little of both, really.

  • alessandro

    i don’t know anything about the ACLU firsthand – only what i read since i’m a lowly Canadian. However, there IS some kind of righteous battle out there to remove all symbols that refer to something we call christmas.

    every year it seems someone somewhere wants to teach christians some sort of “lesson.”

    to suggest this is a paranoid “plot” is plain off based. Right here in my town wal-mart employees were specifically instructed to not say “merry christmas” or “joyeux noel” by some idjit pygmy manager.

    there are loonie a-holes out there and i could care less about what stripes they wear.

    now can someone please explain to me this ‘ho,ho,ho’ thing in australia? some psychologist hack says kids are less threatened by ‘ha,ha,ha?’

    man, i must have suffered some trauma growing up. i was circumcised AND santa told me i was a ‘ho,ho,ho!’

  • Lumpy

    Not ‘hateful’ ‘hate filled’. I can see how u might confuse the two.

  • Seems like I’m always hearing about how “hateful” we liberals are. Then I read the kind of crap spit out above from the “loving” right wing gestapo dogs. Makes me all warm and runny inside.


  • REMF

    Re #31;
    “…leftist atheist communist lawyer…”

    Sounds like Roy Black, the bleeding-heart liberal who helped Rush Limbaugh beat the doctor-shopping charges…

  • RJ,

    Your wishes are truly in keeping with the holiday spirit. And may the same come to you and yours.

    Merry XMas!

    B-tone – A leftist, athiest – non communist, non-lawyer and not an active participant with the ACLU, but one who shares their concerns and supports many (not all) of their actions.

  • #31: Typical of RJ. He probably actually thinks it’s witty, too.

    Here’s a [hopeless, I know] suggestion for him:
    He should try [a] learning the truth about the ACLU and [b] admitting he doesn’t know anything about them when he writes #31 and other ignorant comments.

    The ACLU’s [very non-partisan, non-communist, non-atheistic] web site lists all the cases they’re currently involved in, and states their principles quite clearly. Clearly enough so that even RJ and Bambenek can understand. If they are genuinely fond of freedom and democracy, they may be shocked to learn how many of the cases they agree with the ACLU on.

    Will RJ do this? No, of course not, because, like the much-despised writer of this article, he is more interested in insulting people for alleged comic effect, and in spreading lies, than he is in learning or discussing the truth.

  • #31:

    Does God tell you to wish disease and death on others for his holiday, or is it your own idea?


    There’s so much flawed reasoning here, I leave it to others to comment on it all. I’ll just ask:Where does the nonsense about religion may not be spoken in public come from?

  • To all those that think the government celebrating and recognizing the culture of its people is somehow crafting a theocracy…

    You’re planning on working 8 hours on Christmas, right? If religion is merely some private thing that may not be spoken in public, you’re going to your jobs to be productive citizens I presume? Because I’d hate for my tax dollars to go to you sitting around all day.

  • RJ

    On my Christmas list this year, item #2 is that every leftist atheist communist lawyer in the ACLU contracts SARS and dies. (Item #1 is a Wii.)

  • BTW, great Chic-fil-A reference, Diana. Most people aren’t aware of the creepy Christian policies of that restaurant chain. Most of them just stay away because the chicken tastes like cigarette ashes.


  • Ah, but isn’t a so-called ‘secular’ display of ‘Satan Claws’ actually a secret recognition of the pagan gods the jolly round figure is derived from?


  • from the perspective of someone who sees the whole thing as mythological and fun instead of as some literal translation of yet more religious drudgery, i see no difference between christmas trees, santas, elves, lights, wreaths and nativity scenes…to me they’re all the same: representative of good will and cheer…

    it doesn’t matter to me whether it’s private citizens or the government doing it because it’s all part of the decor o’ the holiday season…

    i rather dislike the idea of a government building going dark over the holidays (read: without decor) because it’s so – you know, dark…

    the only exception i could possibly take with government decor is if they were to erect a nativity scene to the exclusion of all other forms of decor…that would definitely send a clear cut message, and that message is exclusatory (?) to anyone who celebrates a secular christmas…to that end, if christ’s christmas is really all about joy and good will, then no good christian should have an issue with candy canes and lots of colorful ribbon…

    it’s not like christmas decorations stay up all year, like that judge who wanted to keep the 10 commandments up all year round…that’s religious text, not decor, with direct reference to a particular dogma – a big constitutional no-no…

    i like the way germany does it…every imaginable kind of christmas decor literally drapes cities and villages throughout the season as one christmas market after another graces a city or village’s market place…they’ve got the perfect combination and tolerance for both religious and secular celebration…i loved it…i wish the united states would get a grip on itself and do the same…

    a nativity never hurt anyone anymore than a string of candy canes hurt anyone…it’s the one time of year when religious folk can actually redeem themselves by chilling the hell out and having a good time, feeding their neighbors and singing good tidings to each other…

    jesus gift-wrapping christ, decorate to your heart’s content and someone please leave a bmw under the tree for me…

  • Diana,

    Again, as has been commented above, the so-called war on christmas is limited to government involvement – using tax payer dollars, using public facilities and equipment to promote or “celebrate” if you will, a religious observance.

    Virtually every city and town across the country has some kind of decorations and events connected with christmas and other religious holidays. Most have gone to limiting decorations to the secular side of christmas – emphasizing Santa Claus, wintery scenes, multi colored lights, snowmen and so forth. Some get close to or even cross the line into the religious side of the observance. Most such transgressions are let slide. Some not.

    There are no legal limitations – as regards religious content – for private individuals, all manner of groups, clubs, etc., and commercial enterprizes. Hell, the malls and other stores start playing christmas music and selling ornaments and trees and wrapping paper in October for christ’s sake. But, do even the most devout christians really need a nativity scene on the courthouse lawn or at city hall? Will the absence of such really make someone feel more lonely and forlorn? The lights will be lit, the bells will be jingling and the Ho, Hos a Hoing. Believers can easily turn to their church, their fellow believers, their homes or their local Chic Fil-A for religious sustenance and succor.


  • A number of the faithful in America–who want to be noticed–seem to have joined together to form the Church of Christian Politics, and their doctrines include prayer in school, posting commandments on public buildings, nativity scenes on courthouse lawns, winning elective office, etc.

    They love their “war on Christmas”; it gives them publicity and status as fighters for freedom of religion, crusaders against infidels, and defenders of the faith. They are the only enlightened and elect ones among us;surely we can see their holiness and righteousness.

    We can’t? Then to hell with us (as their Bible says.)

    Christmas, for some, is a celebration of the birth of an ideal that many people want to embrace and live up to. (it’s also a secular holiday for many others.) It is sacriligious and coldly calculating by the members of the Church of Christian Politics to use that ideal to push their theocratic agenda, and to equate its meaning with displays of trees, lights, and mangers on public property.

  • i thought the issue was an incident of trying to stamp out christmas…that is the issue, yes?

    if so, anyone who doesn’t like christmas can pound snow…anyone who doesn’t like hanukah or kwanzaa or any winter festival can also pound snow…no one celebrant has the right nor is it their place to dictate how a particular event is celebrated…this is where the aclu needs to back the hell off – from anything that doesn’t deal with a direct violation of basic human rights…

    if christmas, or any holiday celebration, has in any way, shape or form, somehow violated someone’s human right, then what a great world we live in that that’s our biggest worry…unfortunately, that kind of concern doesn’t even make the top 500 list of major human concerns…doing anything to block scientific research that could possibly result in a cure for any disease – now there’s a violation…denying children healthcare – there’s an issue worth all this time and attention…

    christmas is no different than any other holiday, festival or fun-filled organization…who among us (who among the aclu, for that matter) is going to tell jews to take blue and silver out of their festive color wheel? are we ready for the day when non-germans living in germany take issue with oktoberfest? when will the aclu take issue with the red hat society’s minimal age requirement?

    have we nothing better to distract ourselves from how lonely we might feel during this holiday season, how little money we might have, and how helpless we might feel about all those less fortunate?

    if one is not lonely, poor or helpless, then what the hell is one doing trying to make sure others feel so bad about something that feels so good?

    those who protest christmas protest too much…

  • The King James Bible is without question one of the greatest works of English literature. Its language is beautiful, and the phrases and quotations from it that are still in everyday usage are uncounted.

    But the Undiluted Word of God? No.

  • Dr. D. The King James isn’t an actual translation, it’s a complete second revelation of the word of god. Surely you knew that.


  • I know the King James bible is Hunter S Thompson’s fave – he loved the language. But surely down the centuries it’s been through so many translations and is now so far distant from those people who originally put it together (by committee? Isn’t that right, they had a big meeting and said, right, this is in, but that’s out… hence the apocrypha – sorry, I am not very religiously learned, or anything learned for that matter,) that to say it is ‘accurate’ is just simply impossible?

  • Of course you were, Clav. The King James is filthy Protestant propaganda!

  • Clavos

    When I was a kid, growing up with a Catholic mother and being subjected to Catechism classes, I was taught that the Douay version (1568) was the most accurate.

  • Howard,

    How do you know the King James is the most accurate Bible translation? Do you speak ancient Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek?

    It’s actually well-known that there are numerous errors in the King James translation, some of them very misleading. Theologians often advise that it should be regarded with extreme caution by scripture students.

    It’s also important to remember that English usage changes over time, so some of the words and phrases used in the King James have a quite different meaning to the modern reader than they did in the 17th century.

    Thirdly, a major difficulty with any attempt to render a translation of the Bible is the sources available to us, many of which are themselves unreliable transcriptions, translations or fragments.

  • Howard,

    How do you know the King James is the most accurate Bible translation? Do you speak ancient Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek?

    It’s actually well-known that there are numerous errors in the King James translation, some of them very misleading. Theologians often advise that it should be regarded with extreme caution by scripture students.

    It’s also important to remember that English usage changes over time, so some of the words and phrases used in the King James have a quite different meaning to the modern reader than they did in the 17th century.

    Thirdly, a major difficulty with any attempt to render a translation of the Bible is the sources available to us, many of which are themselves unreliable transcriptions, translations or fragments.

  • I’m a bit late for the party, but this is hardly the stuff of “journalism,” as Bambenek pretends. His comment #5 bears that out:

    “In fact, I actually interviewed people for this and got someone on the phone. You know, the kinda think journalists do.

    Only poseurs and wannabe internet heroes think Google is the end all be all of journalistic research.

    So while you’re all patting each other on the back for verifying the same facts I put in my article, realize you are supporting my story, not contradicting it.”

    Getting one person on the phone, whose credentials are never mentioned, is not exactly investigative journalism.

    I think your opposition wins, John.

  • Howard,

    Here is another instance wherein a commenter makes broad charges against liberals and the so called liberal media. You say:

    “The truths contained in the Gospels are continually convoluted and maligned in the public press.”

    Give us some specific examples. I watch a good deal of the media – read the papers and news magazines, watch a good deal of news on most of the major networks – and I must say I can’t recall a single instance when a commentator or pundit made any spurious claims about the bible.

    Now of course, any number of televangelists whip the bible about with abandon, claiming all kinds of things about what it says and what it means, picking and choosing what works for them, ignoring the rest. Many of the various interpretations of scripture seem to me to be contradictory. If one person says “white” another says, “No, that’s not true christianity. True christianity says beige and taup, bordered with cerise and steel. The whitesters are mis-guided.”

    There is, indeed a war, if you will, between believers on one side and doubters and non-believers on the other. Atheists and agnostics generally believe that religion is a source of great evil in this world. True believers of mainly the three major monotheistic religions in the world are gleefully steaming down the road to Armageddon. Whooptedo! Hooray for our side! We gotchyer back god.

    On a less dramatic level, non-believers simply find a belief in any god or any so called “higher power,” is simply wrong. There is absolutely no proof whatsoever of any such entity’s existence. Nor is there any evidence of any kind of afterlife. It is irrational to believe something without any supporting evidence.

    Atheists and agnostics are not, by and large, an evil or hateful bunch. We simply don’t find blind faith in the existence of a mythical god to be a virtue. Facing day to day reality, in my estimation, takes far more guts than handing off the baton to some supposed divinity.


  • Exactly, Deano. The regular ‘christian’ version of the holiday is so loaded with pagan symbolism that it’s laughable that christians complain about it. But all we have to do is look at Howard’s comment above to understand how completely out of touch with reality they are.


  • Howard Bowen

    The liberal “war” against the Holy Bible rages in secular America. The consistency of misinformation surrounding scripture that is propelled through the media is grueling to the faithful. The truths contained in the Gospels are continually convoluted and maligned in the public press. Of the many new “versions” of the Bible, The King James version is the most accurate translation from the Greek/Hebrew of 1611. The newer translations, indeed, promote a disingenuous language that deters from, and sometimes alters, the truths of the Holy Bible. Negative reports of people connected with the Holy Bible are ubiquitous in the media. The Holy Bible is not about how to attain heaven on earth, or perfection in this world. The Holy Bible has one magnificent aspect that differs from all other religions. The correct Holy Bible of 1611 contains the message, written through the hands of people chosen by the supreme God Almighty, that God sought his own creation as the man, Jesus. God sought his creation in a manner that provides people with the way in which to find Jesus. Jesus is the Way the Truth and the Life. The grace and mercy of Jesus brings the salvation of the soul. Many wars, great and small, have been waged for the love of Almighty God. The smallest war is the personal war between good and evil. God gives us life, God can take it away, permanently. The message that was delivered to humanity, through God in the flesh, contains all the truths of life, and precedes the most celebrated death of any man through-out all of history. People who do not achieve contentment with their human condition by seeking redemption of Sin through the atonement of Jesus are missing the reason to persevere with life. The strongest, fiercest, wisest, and most magnificent man who ever lived is the Lord Jesus. If you don’t know this, then you are not seeking him. Jesus never lied. Seek and you will find.

  • Ivy, Holly, christmas trees, offerings of food and drink & feasting, celebratory lights (in the form of a fire kept burning all night), gift-giving etc. are all rooted in pagan celebrations.

    The color brown and icicles have no connection I’m aware of.

  • CoComment seems to have eaten my earlier comment on this subject. Let me reiterate.

    Yes, the ACLU absolutely IS making war on Christmas. There’s no question about it. As far as that goes, John is entirely correct. The ACLU doesn’t want a single taxpayer dollar or government resource used to promote Christmas.

    However, they have never made any effort to interfere in any way with any private display or promotion of Christmas, so their ‘war’ has strictly prescribed limits. Appropriate limits.

    The real crux of the flawed thinking in this article is this statement:

    “the fact that free expression of Christianity is under fire”

    Because it’s fundamentally not true in this case. Rather than “free” expression, what’s under attack here is expression of Christianity at taxpayer expense, and that’s a fair target for the ACLU.

    Also, I’m pretty sure that icicles and the color brown have no special relationship with any known version of paganism.


  • So, what’s wrong with what the ACLU is pushing? They speak for me and others, and in their view support the U.S. Constitution. Again, it’s not a matter of hate. There are obviously members of the Ft. Collins citizenry who believe that the city should not involve itself in a religious holiday. That they sought the local leader of the ACLU is no surprise. They apparently felt that he would best and most ably represent their concerns. These people are entitled to a voice. Obviously, they represent a significant minority. They took their shot. They lost. Make way for the nativity scenes. And so it goes.


  • John, your vicious, ludicrous, repetitive stories about a fictional ‘war on Christmas’ should just be laughed off the page. It’s shameful that you are allowed to be an editor on here while writing such low-life garbage.

    The ACLU is a fine organization, and making war on Christmas is the farthest thing from their agenda. And you know it! You have no interest in the truth, just traffic to your damn web site.

    You should be ashamed.

  • my yearly aclu membership fee…aside from sending cash & things to the local food bank, best money spent all year.

  • You mean to suggest that the local head of the ACLU chapter was choosen to head this task force for reasons other than he was the head of the local ACLU?

    Do you really mean to suggest that the professional work of the local head of the ACLU is unconnected to the work of the ACLU itself?

    You’re making it sound like this guy just came out of thin air and his connection is tenuous to them… he’s the local chapter head who was found because he was the local chapter head of the ACLU. And remarkably, the policy he tried to push is almost identical to what the ACLU pushes nationwide.

    Give me a break, you’re trying too hard to find reasons to discredit this article and you’re coming up real far short.

  • I’m not disputing the facts of the case, John, just that you, like Fox News and all those blogs I mentioned, are spinning the story to make it seem as if the evil ole ACLU is at it again.

    If you’re going to claim that as good journalism, you’re going to have to explain why the work of someone like… oh, let me see… Michael Moore? – isn’t.

  • bliffle

    Bambenik is never worth reading. One can only hope that his customary tantrums draw out interesting arguments as his fallacious theory is denounced and refuted by his betters. But if the original Bambi article is hollow then little of interest can be expected.

  • You mean the story was exactly what I said, that the local head of the ACLU was in charge of the task force? Good detective work verifying my details.

    In fact, I actually interviewed people for this and got someone on the phone. You know, the kinda think journalists do.

    Only poseurs and wannabe internet heroes think Google is the end all be all of journalistic research.

    So while you’re all patting each other on the back for verifying the same facts I put in my article, realize you are supporting my story, not contradicting it.

    Thanks for playing, press on e-thugs.

  • Good work, Doc.

  • Hmm.

    The first hint of fishy perfume that reached my nostrils when I read this was that John had not linked to any news or other articles about the actual incident. At first glance this is understandable because when you Google ‘ACLU Fort Collins’ the first couple of pages of results are a slew of hysterical anti-ACLU posts from various right-wing blogs. However, a little persistence brings you to the website of an actual newspaper, the Rocky Mountain News, which not surprisingly lays the issue out in somewhat more reasoned terms.

    The News piece makes it clear that this was not an ACLU joint. The head of the taskforce happened to be a member of the local ACLU, but was not acting in that capacity. The ACLU of Colorado’s website, not surprisingly, carries no mention of the issue.

    There was no legal case and the city council quite reasonably deferred to the wishes of the citizens by turning down the taskforce’s proposal. The council did in fact agree a compromise which will allow a display in the local museum examining how various religions and traditions celebrate their winter festivals.

    Compromise being the operative word. Sounds to me as if local democracy is alive and working as it should in Fort Collins.

  • Ah, ’tis the season to pretend there’s a War on Christmas.

  • John,

    The ACLU is always characterized by its oppostion as being this heinous organization of anti-religious zealots out to destroy all the good christians.

    If taken together, the ACLU and all atheists and agnostics don’t hold a candle to the number of christians in this country. For such a distinct minority, it is always an uphill battle.

    Strictly speaking, the ACLU is NOT an anti-religious organization. But it does give voice to the minority of people who rightly object to government involvement with religious matters. The Bushies have brazenly ignored all strictures regarding the separation of church and state in providing support in the form of our tax dollars to openly christian affiliated groups.

    There is no hate involved. It is rather a proper concern that our government – at whatever level -should not become involved with or beholden to any religious sect. That our country is peopled by an overwhelming majority of christians should not affect that. It was no accident that our founding fathers left god out of the constitution.

    Personally, I have no particular issue with christmas displays on public property and so forth, but the problem is just where to draw the line.

    There are those who would like nothing more than to establish a christian theocracy in this country in place of our current system. If that should come to pass, so be it. But it will do so without me, and I would bet a significant number of others, even a great number of believers, who nevertheless accept and understand the wisdom of a secular government.