Obama bollocks fail.

[mongrel]

I won't say anything, let these three links say it for me.

http://community2.myfoxdfw.com/_Pres.../78592.html?b=

http://ikester.blogtownhall.com/2009...day_tree.thtml

The killer debunk...

http://www.nps.gov/whho/national_chr...ic_program.htm

[Jabberwock]

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/holiday-tree-hooey/

[mongrel]

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/holiday-tree-hooey/

Thank you for that.

Christmas bollocks seems to arrive earlier every year.

Where's the fail?

Did you not read all three links?

Clue- there is a National Christmas Tree music programme. Hardly feasible without a, erm, Christmas tree

[Stavroforos]

Did you not read all three links?

Clue- there is a National Christmas Tree music programme. Hardly feasible without a, erm, Christmas tree

No I just clicked the one from some random person wanting to enforce Christianity on the US. I guess if I had clicked all links, I would have come to the conclusion that it's a non-issue.

[Stavroforos]

Where's the fail?

[Syriana]

Unsubstantiated anti-Obama allegations are to right-wing partisan hacks as school shootings are to Jack Thompson.

[Ænema]

Unsubstantiated anti-Obama allegations are to right-wing partisan hacks as school shootings are to Jack Thompson.

Don't be so quick to say this is right-wing.

Many libertarians and center are attacking Obama too. And some left-wing attacks are aimed at obama.

[alhoon]

I clicked the tree links and all I got was that this has something to do with the Christmas tree and Obama naming it Holiday tree. Admittedly, I didn't spend much time to read them.

[mongrel]

I clicked the tree links and all I got was that this has something to do with the Christmas tree and Obama naming it Holiday tree. Admittedly, I didn't spend much time to read them.

Aha, that is how they get you to think their way.

[Simon Cashmere]

As a matter of law, putting to one side the rights and wrongs of it, the Federal government is not permitted to have a Christmas tree if it is a religious symbol (and I'm not sure that it is, come to think of it) OR if they do, they have to have a Kwanza tree, a Menora, a crescent, a pagan on a broomstick, etc. So it's either 'holiday themes', or every type of holiday. In theory, someone like the ACLU could injuct the whitehouse for breaching the freedom of religion provision of the constitution, but you'd be the most hated org in America. It's the same with city councils, they can have christmassy things, like snow and reindeer, and candy canes..but cannot have a Jesus nativity scene, unless they have all major religions along for the ride..so the Jewish candles, etc.

As for there being concerns about Obama and the Christmas decorations, the White House has been worried about that for a long time, throughout the Bush administration. It's a legal thing. If anyone really wanted an 'opinion' on the legalities of it, I might bother enough to dig up the caselaw.

So while Obama can get the blame for some things, he can't get the blame for this. There will be a Christmas tree, but, it should not have any religious symbols on it. A star isn't a religious symbol, a crucifix is.

[Viking Prince]

As a matter of law, putting to one side the rights and wrongs of it, the Federal government is not permitted to have a Christmas tree if it is a religious symbol (and I'm not sure that it is, come to think of it) OR if they do, they have to have a Kwanza tree, a Menora, a crescent, a pagan on a broomstick, etc. So it's either 'holiday themes', or every type of holiday. In theory, someone like the ACLU could injuct the whitehouse for breaching the freedom of religion provision of the constitution, but you'd be the most hated org in America. It's the same with city councils, they can have christmassy things, like snow and reindeer, and candy canes..but cannot have a Jesus nativity scene, unless they have all major religions along for the ride..so the Jewish candles, etc.

As for there being concerns about Obama and the Christmas decorations, the White House has been worried about that for a long time, throughout the Bush administration. It's a legal thing. If anyone really wanted an 'opinion' on the legalities of it, I might bother enough to dig up the caselaw.

So while Obama can get the blame for some things, he can't get the blame for this. There will be a Christmas tree, but, it should not have any religious symbols on it. A star isn't a religious symbol, a crucifix is.

Actually, it is perfectly OK to have the religious symbols on government property and as a part of government events. The establishment clause has to do with neitrality and not pohibition. It was so convenient of the original post to include the link that explains this (I have highlighted the important parts):

http://www.nps.gov/whho/national_christmas_tree_music_program.htm

Park visitors come from diverse backgrounds and nations, and include individuals, families, and groups, with ages ranging from the very young to senior citizens. Consistent with the Constitution's Establishment Clause and its mandate of government neutrality, which has allowed the placement of holiday secular and religious displays, the National Christmas Tree Music Program's holiday musical entertainment may include both holiday secular and religious music.

I am more than a bit confused as to the reason for this thread. If the first post member could return and explain, I am certain all of TWC will be grateful.

[Simon Cashmere]

which has allowed the placement of holiday secular and religious displays, the National Christmas Tree Music Program's holiday musical entertainment may include both holiday secular and religious music.

I'm sure the Federal government thinks they can do it, but they also thought they could detain a US citizen on national security grounds and opt out of the constitution. The situation is not that simple.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

The leading case, I think, although I've not looked for a while is County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989). That is a particularly complex decision, which seemed to say, I thought, that you could have a number of religious displays from different religions, to show pluralism - OR - you could just have holiday displays which were not religious in nature, but that you could not have religious displays from one religion.

The decision is fragmented however, and the different justices have different rationales. As no one will actually read the case, here is an article about it:

She first says this:

Recently, various incidents involving holiday decorations have shown that the public's -- and even government officials' -- understanding of the legal rules in this area is far from clear. That is disappointing, for the relevant Supreme Court cases were decided well over a decade ago

No kidding. And also:

In Allegheny County, the Court invalidated the placement of a large crèche scene by itself in the Grand Staircase of the Allegheny County Courthouse by the Catholic Church, including a plaque saying as much. The unmistakable message to all entering was that the government supported the particular religious message being supplied by the Church. Outside, though, the County had placed a menorah and a Christmas tree next to each other. That pairing did not send the same message. The inclusiveness of the display led the Court to uphold the holiday display, just as it had upheld in Lynch v. Donnelly the placement by the government of a holiday display including a "Seasons Greetings" banner, Santa House, Christmas tree, and crèche scene, which was a mix of secular and religious images.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20040101.html

Now Justice O'Connor I believe said that it was because there was a menorah over the side of the Courthouse which showed pluralism in respect to religion. If they have holiday things only (eg Santa, Reindeer), well and good. If they have a Christmas tree and only Christmas symbols, perhaps bad. I think that the White House normally has a menorah as well, so all good. O'Connor also thought that the Christmas tree itself is a secular symbol.

So Christmas tree on its own, is cool too. Probably.

It's complex stuff the Establishment clause.

[Viking Prince]

Park visitors come from diverse backgrounds and nations, and include individuals, families, and groups, with ages ranging from the very young to senior citizens. Consistent with the Constitution's Establishment Clause and its mandate of government neutrality, which has allowed the placement of holiday secular and religious displays, the National Christmas Tree Music Program's holiday musical entertainment may include both holiday secular and religious music.

I'm sure the Federal government thinks they can do it, but they also thought they could detain a US citizen on national security grounds and opt out of the constitution. The situation is not that simple.

That the US Government has erred on other issues is not really a part of this discussion nor a valid debating point.

The leading case, I think, although I've not looked for a while is County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989). That is a particularly complex decision, which seemed to say, I thought, that you could have a number of religious displays from different religions, to show pluralism - OR - you could just have holiday displays which were not religious in nature, but that you could not have religious displays from one religion.

The decision is fragmented however, and the different justices have different rationales. As no one will actually read the case, here is an article about it:

Perhaps you did not notice that I very cleverly highlighted 'and' with each instance. We are not discussing a single religious display. We are discussing a Park Service policy that does not exclude any traditional holiday item or song from the White House. Rather than disagreeing with my post, you are in agreement.

My point again is a question about the original post -- How is this policy a fail? I can see nothing wrong in the way the White House celebrates the December holidays (past or present). Specific point --- why is this post attacking the Obama administration on this? Where is the problem? Where is the change in policy?

[mongrel]

That the US Government has erred on other issues is not really a part of this discussion nor a valid debating point.



Perhaps you did not notice that I very cleverly highlighted 'and' with each instance. We are not discussing a single religious display. We are discussing a Park Service policy that does not exclude any traditional holiday item or song from the White House. Rather than disagreeing with my post, you are in agreement.

My point again is a question about the original post -- How is this policy a fail? I can see nothing wrong in the way the White House celebrates the December holidays (past or present). Specific point --- why is this post attacking the Obama administration on this? Where is the problem? Where is the change in policy?

I deliberately didn't comment on the links because I guessed (correctly) that when presented with identical facts a number of people would draw different conclusions, some of which would be way off mark.

My issue isn't with White House policy on Christmas trees, after all I can't see how a pagan tradition imported from Germany in the 18th or 19th century has an connection with the Christian faith.


Jabberwock was switched on, rep to him I say.

His post signposts the origins of the controversy, a fake e-mail proporting to say that the White House has decided a change of policy. Someone has gone to a lot of trouble to fake evidence in order for it to be picked up as a churnalised story for Fox news or similar. Not very often you see one fail at the first hurdle.

White House will not do Christmas

Thought you might be interested in this information from the White House. This isn’t a rumor; this is a fact.

We have a friend at church who is a very talented artist. For several years she, among many others, has painted ornaments to be hung on the various White House Christmas trees. The WH usually sends out an invitation to send an ornament and informs the artists of the theme for the year.

She got her letter from the WH recently. It said that they would not be called Christmas trees this year. They will be called Holiday trees. And, to please not send any ornaments painted with a religious theme.

Of course we know from my last link that the WH is still designating said vegetation as a Christmas Tree.


Question is why the need to lie? Surely if one is politically opposed to Obama there is plenty of factual material to work on.

[Ummon]

For a moment I thought he had changed name from Barack Hussein to Bollocks Fail. It was only an instant, though.

[Nevins]

Its a damn Christmas tree. What major holiday is celebrated in december that features evergreen trees? If the guy says that he is a Christian, he should call a spade a spade.

[Boer]

Its a damn Christmas tree. What major holiday is celebrated in december that features evergreen trees? If the guy says that he is a Christian, he should call a spade a spade.

Well, I don't know about the spade, but he has/is calling the Christmas tree a Christmas tree.

[lordoftheT]

Actually I think this Christmas ladder is pretty win to be honest.

[motiv-8]

I find it hilarious that people are questioning Obama's Christian identity because he's renaming a pagan device. I don't even bother with the damn things, I must be Satan.

[Exarch]

this is why i've always maintained that journalists that dont fact check and knowingly report mistruths in favour of a political view; well i say they should lose an eye.
perhaps they'll see more clearer with just the one then eh