Press "Enter" to skip to content

Have These Retailers Been ‘Naughty Or Nice’ This Year? Liberal War On Christianity Continues As Pushback Bears Fruit Against Those Attacking Christians

Christmas is a sacred religious holiday celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ, and was declared a federal holiday in the United States on June 26, 1870. While I happen to agree with a statement I saw last year over on Steve Quayle’s website as an SQ note, “Merry Every Day is Christmas,” for those that have accepted Jesus into their hearts, the date it is celebrated worldwide is December 25th.

For years, in what has been dubbed the “war on Christmas,” retailers, schools authorities, states, and other entities have increasingly bowed down to anti-Christian attacks by moving away from Christmas references, changing their wording for events to “holiday,” censoring Christmas terminology such as telling employees to wish customers “Happy Holidays” rather than “Merry Christmas.” Others specifically banned Christmas decorations in a company memo, yet denied it after backlash hit them.

The examples over the past two decades are never-ending, but suffice it to say, this is not just a “war on Christmas,” but rather part of the general “war on Christianity” that we have been witnessing, in a number of ways.

WAR ON CHRISTIANITY CONTINUES

The reason I say this war on Christmas is just part of the larger war on Christians can be seen in how other Christian holidays are also under attack, such as Easter (which should be called Resurrection Day), where in 2013 schools literally removed mention of “Easter” making it policy to just use the word “eggs” during the “Easter Egg” hunt, nor are they allowed in one Alabama Elementary school to call the “bunny” an “Easter bunny.”

RelatedFla. school’s ban on Easter egg hunt invitations lifted

Another example: It was recently reported that the U.S. Supreme Court has recently agreed to hear a case to decide the constitutionality of a 40-foot “Peace Cross” war memorial in Bladensburg, Md, that has stood for over a decade. The case stemmed from a 2014 lawsuit and campaign by the American Humanist Association to eradicate this memorial honoring our World War I veterans, as reported by the Washington Examiner, and others. In 2017, The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit declared that maintaining the memorial was unconstitutional.

More from WE:

Nearly one thousand miles away, the American Humanist Foundation has brought a very similar suit against a World War II-era cross erected in Bayview Park in Pensacola City, Fla. Unfortunately for the Bayview Park Cross, the writing (or at least judicial precedent) was on the wall before that case even began. Earlier this month, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a three-judge panel that the 77-year-old cross must come down. Though they may have believed the Constitution actually didn’t require such a ruling, the judges explained that unless the nation’s highest court, which governs the interpretation of federal constitutional law, reversed either the panel’s decision or older Eleventh Circuit precedent, they were constrained to arrive at this outcome. “Accordingly,” the judges wrote, “our hands are tied.”

Erected years ago by a civic group to celebrate Easter, the Bayview Park Cross has since taken on a significance in the community that extends well beyond its religious origins. Despite being only one of 170 monuments strewn across parks in Pensacola, Fla, it is the only one offensive enough to inspire a lawsuit. The four individuals who initiated the lawsuit said they felt “offended,” “affronted,” and “excluded” by the cross. (One of the judges deciding this case quipped that it apparently didn’t stop the plaintiffs from going on “regular bike rides,” and that one plaintiff had used the cross in “some kind of satanic ritual”).

The Eleventh Circuit ruling is notable for the overt reluctance expressed by the judges deciding the case. Two judges wrote separately and comprehensively explained why the interpretations by which they were bound were in fact misinterpretations of the Founding Fathers’ intent as expressed 231 years ago. Existing Supreme Court precedent in this area of the law is, as one judge explained, “a hot mess.”

Now the Supreme Court will settle this issue once and for all.

CONTINUE @ ALL NEWS PIPELINE