In Texas, a teacher in Texas who decorated her door with a scene from "A Charlie Brown Christmas," including a scrawny tree and Linus, was forced to take it down lest students be offended or feel uncomfortable.
In Connecticut, teachers were instructed to change the wording of the classic poem "Twas the Night Before Christmas" to "Twas the Night Before a Holiday."
In Virginia, a high school principal debated about whether he could mention Santa or distribute candy canes given that they were symbols of Christmas.
In Massachusetts, a fourth-grade class was asked to list 25 things that reminded them of Christmas. When one young student asked if she could include "Jesus," her teacher replied that she could get fired if Christmas' namesake appeared on the list.
Things are not much better outside the schools.
In one West Virginia town, although the manger scene (one of 350 light exhibits in the town's annual Festival of Lights) included shepherds, camels and a guiding star, the main attractions -- Jesus, Mary and Joseph -- were nowhere to be found due to concerns about the separation of church and state.
In Chicago, organizers of a German Christkindlmarket were informed that the public Christmas festival was no place for the Christmas story. Officials were concerned that clips of the film "The Nativity Story," which were to be played at the festival, might cause offense.
In Delaware, a Girl Scout troop was prohibited from carrying signs reading "Merry Christmas" in their town's annual holiday parade.
While the First Amendment Establishment Clause prohibits the government from forcing religion on people or endorsing one particular religion over another, there is no legitimate legal reason why people should not be able to celebrate the season freely or wish each other a Merry Christmas or even mention the word Christmas.
The Rutherford Institute's "Twelve Rules of Christmas" guidelines are helpful in dealing with folks who subscribe to the misguided notion that the law requires anything Christmas in nature be banned from public places.
Yet here's the thing about this so-called War on Christmas that people don't seem to get: while Christmas may be the "trigger" for purging Christmas from public places, government forums and speech -- except when it profits Corporate America -- it is part and parcel of the greater trend in recent years to whittle away at free speech and trample the First Amendment underfoot.
Claiming to promote tolerance and diversity while seeking a homogeneous mindset, many workplaces, schools and public places have become intolerant of any but the most politically correct viewpoints.
Anything that might raise the specter of controversy is avoided at all costs.
We are witnessing the emergence of an unstated yet court-sanctioned right, one that makes no appearance in the Constitution and yet seems to trump the First Amendment at every turn: the right to not be offended.
In this way, emboldened by phrases such as "hate crimes," "bullying," "extremism" and "microaggressions," free speech has been confined to carefully constructed "free speech zones," criminalized when it skates too close to challenging the status quo, shamed when it butts up against politically correct ideals, and muzzled when it appears dangerous.
This is censorship, driven by a politically correct need to pander to those who are easily offended.
In Connecticut, teachers were instructed to change the wording of the classic poem "Twas the Night Before Christmas" to "Twas the Night Before a Holiday."
In Virginia, a high school principal debated about whether he could mention Santa or distribute candy canes given that they were symbols of Christmas.
In Massachusetts, a fourth-grade class was asked to list 25 things that reminded them of Christmas. When one young student asked if she could include "Jesus," her teacher replied that she could get fired if Christmas' namesake appeared on the list.
In one West Virginia town, although the manger scene (one of 350 light exhibits in the town's annual Festival of Lights) included shepherds, camels and a guiding star, the main attractions -- Jesus, Mary and Joseph -- were nowhere to be found due to concerns about the separation of church and state.
In Chicago, organizers of a German Christkindlmarket were informed that the public Christmas festival was no place for the Christmas story. Officials were concerned that clips of the film "The Nativity Story," which were to be played at the festival, might cause offense.
In Delaware, a Girl Scout troop was prohibited from carrying signs reading "Merry Christmas" in their town's annual holiday parade.
While the First Amendment Establishment Clause prohibits the government from forcing religion on people or endorsing one particular religion over another, there is no legitimate legal reason why people should not be able to celebrate the season freely or wish each other a Merry Christmas or even mention the word Christmas.
The Rutherford Institute's "Twelve Rules of Christmas" guidelines are helpful in dealing with folks who subscribe to the misguided notion that the law requires anything Christmas in nature be banned from public places.
Yet here's the thing about this so-called War on Christmas that people don't seem to get: while Christmas may be the "trigger" for purging Christmas from public places, government forums and speech -- except when it profits Corporate America -- it is part and parcel of the greater trend in recent years to whittle away at free speech and trample the First Amendment underfoot.
Claiming to promote tolerance and diversity while seeking a homogeneous mindset, many workplaces, schools and public places have become intolerant of any but the most politically correct viewpoints.
Anything that might raise the specter of controversy is avoided at all costs.
We are witnessing the emergence of an unstated yet court-sanctioned right, one that makes no appearance in the Constitution and yet seems to trump the First Amendment at every turn: the right to not be offended.
In this way, emboldened by phrases such as "hate crimes," "bullying," "extremism" and "microaggressions," free speech has been confined to carefully constructed "free speech zones," criminalized when it skates too close to challenging the status quo, shamed when it butts up against politically correct ideals, and muzzled when it appears dangerous.
This is censorship, driven by a politically correct need to pander to those who are easily offended.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
