The seasonally litigious rest their fanatical devotion to the de-Christification of Christmas on the separation of church and state. America's founders were certainly opposed to the ''establishment'' of religion, whose meaning is clear enough to any Englishman: The new republic did not want President George Washington serving simultaneously as supreme governor of the Church of America, as the queen today is simultaneously head of the Church of England, or the bishop of Virginia sitting in the U.S. Senate, as today the archbishop of York sits in the House of Lords. Two centuries on, these possibilities are so remote to Americans that the ''separation'' of church and state has dwindled down to threats of legal action over red and green party napkins.That is not to say, however, that there are not whiny extremists. Penraker finds one.
Let me get this straight - you need to make sure you exclude Christian symbols in order to be "inclusive"? Wouldn't that properly be called being exclusive? I thought being inclusive was welcoming and having respect for all traditions. Why the suppression of one particular tradition?He takes the opportunity to make mock, as he should, of the Dictatorship of Virtue.
No one person can ever be made to feel uncomfortable. Is that the rule? How about if I am uncomfortable going to your fake, made up diversity training? Can I be excluded because the people teaching those things treat you as such an infant that you are bound to become uncomfortable?Must. Deal. Cards. But first, an observation. Might it be the case that a few jihadis have hijacked Sunni teachings for their own ends, despite the bad effects that has on all of Islam? Might a few Ba'athists have once hijacked all of Iraq for their own ends, despite the bad effects that had on Shia and Kurd?
And, dear reader, might it be the case that a few seculars -- whiny extremists, perhaps, but successful whiny extremists -- have hijacked the common culture for their own ends, despite the bad effects that have come in their train?