The Associated Press is reporting that the City of Chicago has threatened the organizers of an annual German festival, Christkindlmarket, over one of their sponsors. This sponsor, according to the City of Chicago, would be "insensitive to the many people of different faiths… [and] contrary to acceptable advertising standards…"
Was this sponsor the KKK? The World Church of the Creator? No. The sponsor was a movie studio, New Line Cinema. New Line Cinema sponsored the event (until their money was turned down because of the threats of the City of Chicago) with advertisements of the movie, The Nativity Story.
Predictably, the City tried to hide behind the "separation of church and state" doctrine. Skipping past the fact that the First Amendment requires institutional separation, not the purging of all things religious, the characterization of New Line Cinema as a religious institution is somewhat contrived.
Some of the movies New Line has put out include such religious classics as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Snakes on a Plane, the Austin Powers series, and Blow. New Line is a thoroughly secular company that produces movies that range from the pornographic, to flippant gore, to children's movies. They've decided to make a movie about the Nativity, an event that is indisputably consequential in the history of mankind no matter what you believe.
The City of Chicago could have had a problem sponsoring a festival called "Christkindlmarket" (Christ Child Market) but they don't. They could have a problem with the nativity scenes that take place in this festival, but they don't because they include celebrations of other faiths. They had a problem that the brochureincluded a small ad from New Line, who paid for it to advertiese the movie The Nativity Story.
There is no outright religious imagery at all in that ad. No crosses, no mention of religion, only the name of a film the references the same event celebrated by Christkindlmarket.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Nancy
If Chicago wants to eradicate one religion, it should eradicate all religion(s); however the business with the pharmacists is another matter entirely, in that there the situation is one of an individual imposing their personal religious beliefs on others in violation of medical licensing & medical practices. Total disconnect.
2 - John Bambenek
There is no imposition. There is a pharmacist practicing his profession, like any other nurse, doctor, or for that matter businessmen, as he sees fit.
If Walmart doesn't stock Plan B, you can go to Walgreen's, CVS, or hell, get Plan B online from most Planned Parenthoods.
Imposing would be taking the script and tearing it up (which is what the pharmacists did that spawned the case) which is undeniably wrong.
Our free market is designed so buyers AND sellers can decide how the choose to operate. If one seller doesn't work for you, go to another.
There is absolutely nothing imposed by a pharmacists saying "I don't dispense this" because they remain free to go somewhere else. They remain free to live their lives as they see fit.
As far as "eradicating all religions" goes.... the separation clause is very closely followed by the exercise clause... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
It's not either or, it's not no religion. It's viewpoint neutrality, which is exactly what the Supreme Court has said is required. If the city offers ad space, it has to do so on a viewpoint neutral basis. Saying anything BUT [Christian] religion, is hardly viewpoint neutral, is unconstitutional, and is censorship.
3 - Michael J. West
A great deal of hyperbole in this article, but its essential point is mostly correct. The city of Chicago's actions and statments are ludicrous and unwarranted.
4 - Clavos
What I don't get about the ACLU's Jihad against Christianity (and it IS against Christianity, not all religions), is why the courts seem to support the ACLU.
Their suits are directed against prayer in schools, and display of the Ten Commandments and Nativities on public property (among others), and yet the Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."
In none of the situations I've cited, has Congress even been involved, much less "mak(ing) laws respecting the establishment of religion..."
It seems to me that the courts are definitely "prohibiting the free exercise thereof", and are overstepping their bounds.
For the record, I am not a believer in any religion.
5 - Dave Nalle
Clavos, the reason the ACLU goes after Christianity, which I agree it does, is that Christianity is the big target and the one which is easiest to find and most available to fight. The courts go along because by banning Chritianity they effectively ban all other religions as well.
I don't have a problem with this at all. Having had a kid in a government school where she was constantly bombarded by covert attempts from Christian groups to sneak their proselytizing into the school I wish the ACLU would do MORE to fight the insidious bastards.
Dave
6 - John Bambenek
I disagree... a key component of regressive (or so-called progressive) politics is the underdog syndrome.
There is such a focus on the right of minorities, that they go after a majority as ipso facto the problem. In this country, Christians are "a majority" so they are the enemy. Muslims, Jews (well kinda but that's a special case), and alternative religions are minorities and deserving of protection. Majorities, white males, Christians, etc, are deserving of attack.
7 - Nancy
Maybe as a member of multiple 'majorities', John (white male, christian) you don't realize or feel the pressure of the incessant covert or even overt proselytizing & bullying that the christian majorities subject non-members to. Most of us shrug it off, but it is annoying & if we don't draw a line - and enforce it - it becomes more than annoying. Christians wouldn't get kicked in the chops if they'd leave off hustling everyone else & mind their own business for a change - but they don't & won't, hence the "targeting". Would YOU, as a christian, appreciate being constantly bombarded & targeted for conversion or otherwise by, say, Muslims or Jews? Would you appreciate a Jewish majority outlawing bacon, ham, & pork because THEY regard it as polluting, therefore it "should" be polluting for everyone - including YOU, even if you're not Jewish? I doubt it. But christians behave with an arrogant presumption that they have not only the right but the mandate to do so. Well, until they learn to stop trying to foist their beliefs on non-christians, they're going to continue to get "targeted" (more accurately, issued restraining orders) regarding any sort of public action.
Regarding the Christkindlmarket, however, that would seem to be overstepping, since it could conceivably fall into the realm of "traditional" area festivals, just as Swedes celebrate St. Lucia's Day...but perhaps in the long run it would be best to relegate such quasi-religious celebrations to be run under private auspices instead of governments of any level. That wasn't made clear in the article: is this a government-sponsored festival, or is it privately run? If private, then I agree, I don't see that the government at any level has a right to suppress it, if tax funds are not being used or public property taken over. As for any sponsors being suppressed, I don't see how the city could legally bar anyone from being a sponsor, be they individuals or organizations, as long as they aren't illegal ipso facto.
8 - Baronius
Why do the courts tend to agree with the ACLU? Because the judges and activist lawyers are educated in the same law schools. Judges often make decisions on their own that go further than the ACLU would've hoped for.
Something happened in the law schools in the mid-1960's that I don't really understand. The emphasis shifted, from consistent rules and tests, to doing what's right. The result is a society forced to do what the judge thinks is right.
9 - handyguy
I think Chicago made a mistake, although if you read the actual AP story John links to you will see the extent to which he exaggerated and distorted what actually happened. There was no need....the simple facts would have sufficed.
The ACLU has nothing to do with this specific event. Many commenters seem to believe otherwise. The continuing caricatures of the ACLU as 'anti-Christian' are false and serve no purpose, except to mislead others and start arguments.
The ACLU spends a lot of time and money on other things, and is not nearly as obsessed with Nativity scenes as certain posters on this site. Of course, I doubt John B or those who loudly second his non-fact-based opinions would ever lower themselves to actually look at it, but in case anyone is interested, here is the ACLU's Freedom of Religion and Belief page , which is most certainly not anti-Christian.
10 - Clavos
Baronius writes:
Something happened in the law schools in the mid-1960's that I don't really understand. The emphasis shifted, from consistent rules and tests, to doing what's right. The result is a society forced to do what the judge thinks is right.
The problem, of course, is defining "right."
11 - John Bambenek
Nancy-
Strictly speaking, these groups you are talking about that go off and engage in "overt proselytizing & bullying" have a bigger problem with me than you. See, yeah, they think you need to accept Christ in their particular formula to be saved. They regard you as lost. Me, being Catholic, I'm considered in league with the anti-Christ. We're on the same level as gays in their minds. Mind you the KKK not only targeting blacks, but Catholics as well.
That said, there are lots of aggressive tactics that try to shove ideas down my throat on a daily basis. Why is religion any different? People are harassed by all sorts of things, at what point did it become ok to outlaw free speech because something bothers you?
Free speech helps identify the idiots... they're usually the ones with the megaphones.
Ignore them and move on. I do... so can you.
12 - Clavos
Thanks for the replies to my #4. And Dave, I understand your point about Christianity being the most ubiquitous and visible religious target.
What no one has addressed, however, is my point that the ACLU has gone far beyond the letter of the First Amendment, which merely prohibits the government from passing laws that respect the establishment of a religion.
Allowing Creches or Menorahs or Star and Crescent displays on public land falls far short of that standard, particularly when multiple symbols are displayed.
13 - zingzing
from reading your article, i am left with some questions. like, what is going on? did the city stop the festival? did they remove the brochure? how does attacking a movie studio equate to attacking christianity? where is the church and state issue? does the city have something to do with the festival? does new line have something to do with the christian church?
if this is really over the brochure ad placed by new line, then why did the city get so offended? i really don't see what's really going on.
mostly, i don't understand the city's reasoning. and i don't really understand yours. but somehow, i'd bet you've missed something huge. like the big gap in your story.
one point: the nativity is important as a scene in a book, not as a historical event.
also, stop frothing at the mouth for a minute, slow down and reread what you wrote. it's riddled with typos.
14 - Dave Nalle
What no one has addressed, however, is my point that the ACLU has gone far beyond the letter of the First Amendment, which merely prohibits the government from passing laws that respect the establishment of a religion.
Not too damned far beyond the letter, and clearly within the intent. Would you agree that the government shouldn't subsidize a particular church - which is what had been going on in some New England states and which the framers were reacting against?
When you put an advertisement for a religion on public property you are to however small a degree, spending public funds - MY tax dollars - to promote that religion. Even if you include all religions, you're still promoting them with my money and I don't want you to.
I don't want ANY kind of advertising done at my expense with tax dollars, be it religious in nature or for businesses. It's an inappropriate use of money which the government has other legitimate uses for.
Dave
15 - John Bambenek
No advertisements is one thing... allowing any advertisement but [Christian] religious ones is another.
And even in this case, it wasn't a religious institution, it was New Line Cinema. And the ad was far from evangelical... heck, it just had the name of the film and release date on it.
16 - Clavos
Dave asks:
Would you agree that the government shouldn't subsidize a particular church - which is what had been going on in some New England states and which the framers were reacting against?
Absolutely. And I agree with your point that the government has no business advertising any religion with our tax dollars.
I don't agree, however with this:
Not too damned far beyond the letter, and clearly within the intent.
Which is my original point; that such displays are not prohibited within the language of the First Amendment.
I do think they should be prohibited, and that laws should be enacted to do so, but in accordance (like porn) with the community standards of each community which wants to enact them.
To comply with your point about our tax dollars, such displays should never be on federal property, but if the town government of Podunk, Florida wants to display Christmas scenes on the Town Hall front lawn, and the taxpayers of that town are in agreement with that idea, they should be able to do so.
17 - Pete Blackwell
Interesting use of quotation in your headline. Did anyone actually say that? I think this kind of thing is stupid, but it's hardly a war on Christianity's "right to exist".
"Put down the megaphone and step away from the hyperbole."
Hey, fake quotes are fun!
18 - John Bambenek
If you can explain to me who an inanimate and abstract construct can speak, then we can talk about fake quotes.
19 - Bliffle
Did somebody actually say "Christianity is a Cancer on the Soul of the City and We Will Have it Out!"? If so, who? Or did you just make that quote up?
20 - SHARK
Dear Bambineck,
Thanks for speaking out for those poor persecuted Christians.
I know there's a "War on Christmas" going on because I can spit out my window and hit one of their fucking self-righteous Soldiers.
And while under attack from that dreaded ACLU -- so many of those cheesy nativity scenes have made a military retreat from IN FRONT OF CITY HALL and relocated to my neighborhood demilitarized zone. (Live goats and camels are such a nuisance!)
But, jeesuz h. christ, Major Bambi -- during a war, there's usually a mandatory "black-out" to avoid incoming bombardment. So why do the Christoids celebrate by lighting up their houses like a pinball machine in a prositute pad? Do they enjoy being targets? They got some obsession with persecution?
And wouldn't a nice camo outfit be preferable to those high-visibility Red & Green uniforms?
Seems they need a new "war strategy".
PS: In lieu of hand-grenades, the hyperbolic fake headlines are working swell! Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!
21 - SHARK
excerpt from the film
"Dr. Strangeboy: or -- How I Learned to Start Worrying and Love the Attention"
General John D. Bambi-ripper: Do you realize that in addition to banning Christmas, why, there are studies underway to teach evolution, make atheism mandatory in elementary schools, require pregnant Republican women to have forced abortions, and consider homosexuals as human beings with the full benefits of law!? And worse yet, They want to shove Kwanzaa down our fucking throats!
Group Capt. Clavos: Lord, John!
General John D. Bambi-ripper: Do you know when Kwanzaa first began?
Group Capt. Baronius: I... no, no. I don't, John.
General John D. Bambi-ripper: Nineteen hundred and sixty-six. 1966, Clavos! Hippies, freaks, summer of love, atheists, pagans, sex, drugs, rock and roll?! How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign idea is introduced into our precious belief systems without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works.
22 - TrueBlueBlog
I think you're a little off-base, Clavos. The ACLU isn't engaged in "Jihad" against Christianity; if American Muslims or Hindus or Jews were as intent on using public funds and facilities to promote their faiths as so many Christian sects appear to be these days, they'd rightfully challenge them in court as well.
23 - Dave Nalle
To comply with your point about our tax dollars, such displays should never be on federal property, but if the town government of Podunk, Florida wants to display Christmas scenes on the Town Hall front lawn, and the taxpayers of that town are in agreement with that idea, they should be able to do so.
Glad to see you agree about placement on federal property. Now what about property of organizations receiving federal funding like schools?
As for the town, that's up to them. IMO since they take taxes they should follow common sense and do the same as the federal government, but I think you're right that it's an administrative decision up to the town government or local laws.
Now, of course, almost all the states and many local jurisdictions have their own separation of church and state provisions in constitutions or other documents, many of them much more specific and clear than the federal equivalent.
Dave
24 - The Fifth Dentist
Bambenek--
As usual you have overreacted to an insignificant and harmless non-event complete with your standard invocation of an ACLU boogeyman. This "war on Christmas" is Fox News bullshit of the foulest magnitude.
And you wonder why it is that First Amendment establishment issues always involve Christianity? You seem to think it's because Christians are the victims of discrimination by activist judges. Rather it's that Christians, as the majority, are the only ones with the ability or inclination to make their faith the official state religion. If your religion were in the minority, you might feel differently about the value of the First Amendment and judicial branch.
And by the way, it makes perfect sense to excise Jesus from Christmas celebrations. "Christmas" as it is currently known has been around for at least 4000 years and was invented by the Mesopotamians. (The early Christians tried to illegalize the holiday.) Over the years, scores of fad religions (Romans, Persians, Christians) have co-opted the holiday and glommed their made-up god onto it (Saturn, Oden, Jesus).
As for your personal understanding of the First Amendment, once again I advise to actually read some caselaw rather than ignorantly spouting off about it.
25 - Nancy
5th D has a good point: christmas as such hasn't been a 'christian' holiday for some decades now, if not longer. Nowadays it's mainly a secular holiday used as an excuse by advertisers to urge consumers to exceed their previous years' glut of buying. It's an exercize in greed, not an exercise in religion. Even some Jews maintain christmas trees as "Hannukah bushes". I am reminded of my grandmother's little old home town in New England, in which the Town Christmas Tree was housed each year at a different place of worship - including the local synagogue, which took their turn with everybody else. I will admit there were no angels or nativity scenes admixed with it; just lots of lights, candy canes, and strings of glittery tinsel decorations. It was regarded as a sort of nonsectarian gesture to the generic holiday season, not a symbol of a specific religious celebration.