OK...time to chime in, here.

Highgreen said it well, but I'll try to put a finer point on it:

The Hannity's of the world and other radio/TV personalities like him are ENTERTAINERS! They do what they do to ENTERTAIN so they can make MONEY!

If they happen to make a person think while they are listening or watching...well...how can that be a bad thing?

I know this is what these jokers say everytime they make a mistake or are pinned down, but all liars are that way. We can do without fabrications and gollowing a straight line--even when it goes through mule manure. Too many of us are just gullible enough to believe the crap.

Will NOT resign from FOX as long as the big checks keep coming. They work for money, not principles, just as does Limbaugh. People like these dangerous ones will eventually destroy America if we don't do something.

Who elected you to be the judge of free speech and political opinion in America?

Read Bernard Goldbergs books: "Bias" and "Arrogance" and you will see who is really out to destroy America.

Liberals are upset because they set the agenda and controlled information for years. Now that one cable channel and a few radio stations do not tow the NY Times line it is doom and gloom.

Don't Katie Couric and Dan Rather work for money also?

What something do you propose doing? Limit their freedom of speech? Shout them down like the college students did to Ann Coulter?

I love tolerant liberals!

Coulter and Limbaugh manufacture attitudes to make money. If you ignore that because they take the "conservative" twist, then you can't be helped.

Does your comments on destroying America and needing to be dealt with extend as well to Alan Combs and the other liberal commenators?

Or, are only those on the right dangerous?

For your info, I am an independent. I do not agree with a lot said by those on the right. But I sure don't agree with a ton said on the left.

I do try hard to watch what they do--not what they say out of their big mouths. I'm surprised Limbaugh can still talk due to the thousands of illegal meth pills. If he had been black, he would now be in jail.

You didn't answer my question.

Just how many liberals have independent radio talk shows? It is stupid to do when they never have anything good to say about the average citizen--only those who have accumulated fortunes or power and plan to take it with them.

They are around. Not the big names, but they are around.

They are not as big as the conservative ones because, indeed, they complain and offer no answers, right or wrong.

I am not defending all the big names say. Not at all.

But to just point fingers at the conservative ones was what I was getting at. I believe extremes in both directions is deadly.

The reason there aren't any liberal talk radio hosts is because most liberals don't smoke Cuban cigars, eat at Ruth's Chris, and all of the stuff like Bose speakers, and much other things only the wealthy can afford because of their tax break. Financial advisors, banks, etc., don't make much money from liberals. These are the sponsors for the most part if you will notice. I really don't think most Conservatives realize just how devious making money has become! Sharing wealth with the poor is done less here than any other country. If the government doesn't help them, they don't get much help. I don't believe the crap that helping them only promotes more poor.

Get over it. There are many liberal talk radio hosts. Alan Combs is just one among many.

Sponsors back those who attract viewing audiences because more hear their commercials. They don't give a hoot about their politics.

As for sharing wealth less than any other country, you seriously need to study those health care systems and standards of living in other countries. Seriously.

I believe in helping those in real need. Welfare States are disasters.

But, I see where you are coming from here. Conservative talk radio does not promote your agenda, which makes them a threat.

And something needing done means censorship, as liberals and humanists are trying to do in every aspect of our lives.

Yep. I clearly see where you are coming from. I have nothing more to say.

Liberals want censorship? No way. If these guys want to be comedians on talk radio, then let them be comedians. Selfish ones at that. Goodbye.

Double post.

Indeed stated. And now totally misapplied.

It is a twofold statement that the enemies of Christianity fail to state in totality.

It says the government shall not declare any national religion, an issue that caused the flight of people from such as Catholicism and the Church of England, in Europe.

But it also says the government shall not impede the free exercise of religion either.

Again, the first acts of Congress were religious, but not denominational. People need to understand the distinction.

And they need to understand a number of States prior to the Constitution had indeed established State Religions.

This letter was a concern not about religion in the national level but an issue in forming the balance of State versus national power concerning a State issue.

The new definition of 'Wall of Separation' is recent in the history of our country. A part of the so-called 'Living Constitution' that evolves in meaning over time.

Humanism is a religion. Do not establish it as our National Religion.

I'm not trying to establish anything. Just offering a fact that deserved to be aired in light of your inaccurate assertion that the term was "invented." I'll gladly let people read Jefferson's own words and your take on them and draw their own conclusions....

No problem with that.

But, when interpreted with the wrong background on the issue many will come to the wrong conclusions.

It is invented as regards the way it is being used now. Do you hear the ones demanding a 'Wall' every references the complete statement? No!

A statement edited changes the meaning. As does moving it from a State to a Federal context.

So, let each judge. But judge from the facts, not the assumptions.

The first votes of Congress make it very clear barring Christianity from government was never intended.

'Free exercise thereof' does not mean no place within government. It just means you cannot dictate whose religion can speak and whose cannot. Including the religion of Secular Humanism.

Secular Humanists want theirs to be the only religion allowed.

Nice try, ptcguy. At least you know that impinged is a word. But my question remains unanswered. The fact that government institutions and public schools don’t do as much as you wish they would to drive home the Christmas-Christian connection does not deprive you of any right to celebrate the holiday however you see fit. It only deprives you of the pleasure of living in the type of society you’d prefer (which would then, sadly, deprive you of the pleasure of considering yourself an aggrieved victim.)

And what on earth do you mean by "rightful part?" There is no “right” to have the government support or reinforce your personal religious views via public institutions. Fact is, you’re not talking about rights, just your own ‘druthers. Big difference.

Couple other points:
We can soundbite founding fathers all day long. James Madison (an underrated giant among the founders) was president when the first chaplain was appointed. He opposed the idea. He said: “The Constitution of the United States forbids EVERYTHING LIKE (my caps) an establishment of a national religion.” There are plenty more where that came from.

Yes, the preamble and our currency, among other documents, refer to God. They do not refer to Christ. It is a conceit to think that any mention of a deity automatically endorses Christianity. It does not.

To forbid schoolkids from mentioning Christ would indeed be an infringement of their rights. Fortunately it’s not happening. Schools are full of voluntary clubs for Christian youth. (They are also full of coaches who give Christian team prayers and even some Christian teachers who proselytize, which they should not be doing.)

There is no rule against the 10 commandments on public buildings, nor against nativity scenes in public places. The relevant Supreme Court rulings say these symbols are okay as long as they are alongside representations of other religions (as is the case of the 10 commandments on the Supreme Court building in Washington) or part of a holiday display that also includes secular symbols such as candy canes and reindeer. You can question the logic but it is a myth that these things are “forbidden.” Some places choose not to fool with them anymore, in part, ironically, because of the trumped up fear of lawsuits spread by the Christmas Warriors on Fox News.

And by the way, did I read right that two Atlanta mega-churches will be closed on Christmas morning because they don't expect big crowds and want church workers to have the day off? Say it ain't so!!

Anyway, I'm done with this. Appreciate the comments. Good debate and hopefully everyone learned a little something. I did. Merry Christmas.

You were answered.

Trying to semantically phrase the question to make it seem as if no one pointing to an immediate personal loss here means they cannot loose in other ways is misleading.

It is okay for Secular Humanist to teach unproven evolution but not okay to teach facts they say it is impossible. That impacts the children and parents of PTC.

It is okay to revise and edit what history will be taught in the schools. They impacts the children and parents of PTC.

And speak all you want of equality, but that is denied when only Christian symbols are demanded to removed or not allowed in public settings.

Try to spin all you want, but those who follow the news, yes, beyond Fox, before you get onto that, know it is happening out there.

As far as Madison went, there are a good many more who were around and engaged. They did not agree with him on his interpretation of church and state issues.

OK. Spin away. Those who care will do honest research and find what I have said is true.

Wall of separation was an invented term neither stated or implied by the founders.

Like I said, nice try. Merry Christmas, ptcguy

Repeat that all you want. You were answered.

Merry Christmas to you as well.

answered, perhaps. refuted, no.

since i've already wished you merry christmas, i suppose all that's left is happy holidays. don't take it the wrong way.

and now i bid farewell and this time i mean it.

Still waiting....

First off, can you explain what impinged means? If you mean infringed, then I will make one case.

This so called "war" that you are referring to is not simply about Christmas, rather the first 6 letters; Christ. The Christian faith has been under a persistent attack by people with no alignment towards any god. We see this in the lawsuits and the effect it is having in public areas.

Display's of the 10 Commandments are being prohibited, prayer in school, The Pledge of Allegiance, and now the removal of the phrase "In God We Trust" from our currency.

This country was founded by Christian Forefather's seeking religous freedom. Today, we have a minority taking away the majorities rights. This is wrong. People come to this country seeking a better life, then want to change the country to fit their lifestyles. This too is wrong.

So the fight over the phrase Christmas Tree is seen as just another assault on the Christian belief's. At some point in time, the line must be drawn in the sand and the majority must fight for their freedom's too.

A return to majority rule is the only solution. We have stood by too long and allowed our freedoms to be trod upon by a minority of people.

Dana Kinser

Thank you for your thoughts Dana, and I hope you have a Merry Christmas.

Impinge is in the dictionary, with this definition: 1. to have an effect or impact. 2. to make steady inroads, ex: to impinge upon another's rights.

On your other points,
The personal religious views of our key founders were quite mixed. Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin, for instance, admired Jesus as a philosopher but they were Deists, theologically. Some founders, like Patrick Henry who tried but thankfully failed to impose a tax to support Christian sects, were indeed devout. Others were anything but. Thomas Paine, a hero of many conservative thinkers, also wrote The Age of Reason, a devastating critique of the religion. In general, our founders were religious libertarians who did not want the new country's government distorted or consumed by any particular creed.

"Majority rule" is not and never was the basis of our political system. We live in a federal republic with a democratic tradition (that is straight from the CIA Fact Book), which is not the same thing as a majority rule democracy. As the old saying goes, love it or leave it.

As for religious symbols, if you can't get your fix at the tens of thousands of churches and mega-churches in America, or in your own home, I doubt a tree at city hall or the mall is going to help no matter what it's called.
And by the way while we don't have mandatory prayer to start the school day, like they do in some Middle Eastern countries, the dreaded ACLU has fought FOR the rights of voluntary student organizations to distribute religious materials.

Anyway, my question stands: In exactly what way has your right to celebrate a Christian Christmas been impinged -- or infringed if you prefer?

The question again to all you War on Christmas Warriors: Give me one specific example of how your right to observe the holiday in the way you deem appropriate has been impinged. Just one. Anyone got anything for me? Anyone? Hello, out there....

First, let me say that my answer to this challenge comes from a passage in the Bible. Yes, I realize that many people don't recognize the Bible as a source of authority, but I do and since I'm answering the question, I'll answer it my way! The prophet Hosea said these words in chapter 4:1, "There is no faithfulness, no love, no acknowledgement of God in the land. There is only cursing, lying and murder, stealing and adultery; they break all bounds, and bloodshed follows bloodshed. Because of this the land mourns, and all who live in it waste away; the beasts of the field and the birds of the air and the fish of the sea are dying." History has shown that when a nation turns it's back on the moral principles found in the Bible to a more "enlightened way of thinking," that is the beginning of the end of that civilization. Hosea even indicates that the environment suffers when this happens. When there is "no acknowledgement of God in the land," whether at Christmas or any other time of the year, all of the descriptors used in the verse begin to appear. Watch the evening news tonight. You'll hear about lots of cursing, lying, murder, stealing, adultery and bloodshed. So how are my rights impinged? The U.S. is going the way of all of the past great nations who threw out the moral compass and soon, maybe not tomorrow, but soon my religious freedom will disappear as well.

There is a difference between being politically correct and just being polite. I do go to Dogwood Church and am very familiar with the Real Life Center. They don't just minister to the poor if that's what you mean. They also minister to people who are in need in other ways. Ever since Hurrican Katrina they have had a group of different people go to different areas and help in several ways, not just material things. They have certified people in disaster aid. They havae helped rebuild houses and other buildings. They have ministered to people from an emotional stand point, and of course have sent truck loads of food, clothes and other supplies that are needed. They are not just about handing out food to the poor. They are also about helping their physical,emotional, and spirtual needs. They help those that have lost their jobs to find new ones. So I believe his comment of calling these people under resourced quite appropriate since they help in whatever way that people need. They are not just the typrical food bank. They help people with furniture needs and even cars. I know Kevin Haglund and politics is not his motivation. It's a caring heart for people that ALL their needs be met. For all the work that he put into making the Christmas program at the Fred Peachtree City would be blessed if he continued to organize it each year. Thanks for allowing my comments.

I agree that he could write volumns, but calling the Christmas Tree the Grand tree and the poor "under resourced people" is political correctness at it's best. See how brainwashed some folks are. It happens so slowly sometimes nobody notices. By the way, isn't that Steve Brown's church? Doesn't that speak volumns? Everytime I hear or see something on the news about PTC it is negative. Enough already. The new "inexperienced" elected officials have a chance to restore us to our former status before Brown Weed Rapson. After all Brown Weed Rapson were inexperienced when they were elected. Let the City Manager manage like the charter is written. No more meddling from part time elected officials.

The only required words I've heard about are the new demand that everyone use "Merry Christmas" every time you address anyone in any circumstance in a holiday (oops, sorry) setting. For many years I have said 'have a nice holiday' to people at work or at stores, not out of political correctness but out of the simple reality that I don't know what their personal beliefs are or whether they celebrate at all. Nor do I care. I do know they are about to have a holiday, and I hope it will be pleasant in whatever form they take it. So I tell them to have a nice holiday. Then I go home and admire my Christmas lights and Christmas tree.

We must all work at putting Christ back in Christmas. Today I am purposely buying Christmas cards that have a bible verse and say Merry Christmas. And no more Xmas. Even though X is supposed to mean Christ in the original Greek. Nobody gets it.

I take it you wouldn't mind getting a card quoting the Koran? Would a picture of Budda upset you? I don't know what a billion East Indians may send on their card---a cow, I suppose.

Buddhists, Islamics, Hindi, Judaism and such do not celebrate Christams.

They recognize it as a Christian holiday.

You will find a wide selection of such cards at all those godless stores where they tell you to have a happy holiday. By now they will even be half price.

Why are these right wing nuts so afraid they are wrong about their beliefs? If they weren't, they would mind their own business and their private religion and not continue to make me bolster your confiidence. There are several billion other people in the world who don't even know what a Christmas tree is, and have no desire to make you one of them. Then leave them alone, you aren't qualified to interfere. As to lack of resources as a name for people, humans are now known in industry as CAPITAL ASSETS.

Listen to yourself.

Let me get this straight. No mention of God or such to please you is right. Mentioning God, who is a daily part of our lives, is wrong.

You can practice what you believe everywhere but we can only do so behind closed door.

The rights of the Secular Humanists are superior to the rights of all religions.

We don't live in the rest of the world. We live in the US.

Where has this road been traveled before and what was the result? Communist China, Soviet Union and all the other secular humanists governments.

In the EU religion is now a crime. You must be secular.

Yep. We can see where this path leads to.

The State Religion of Secular Humanism.

True.

But Christmas still means 'Christ's Mass' in fact.

So, while there is a secular celebration of it that disregards this fact why is there such an virulent effort to take away the actual meaning of the very word itself?

Let those who celebrate it secularly do so. Let those who celebrate its given meaning do so. Neither should deny the other their rights here.

Hence, Christmas programs can have both songs of Christ's birth and Rudolph. It has been a Christmas tree for many centuries.

Are we going to attack Easter next because it literally means the celebration of Ishtar(Asherah) or the actual literal word from the New Testament means Passover?

Dang, here you are teaching us about "Asherah" and the like and all I thought you knew anything about was storm water!

Just kidding, PTCGuy! Merry Christmas buddy.

Dan Tennant

Merry Christmas to you as well.

I love to learn.

Dan it is good to see some humor and to know from whom it comes.
I have been trying to figure out why we have so many anonymous contributors to this site.
Straight from Webster’s:
Anonymous
• having no known name or identity or known source;
• not known or lacking marked individuality;

I think the second bullet may sum it up.
Merry Christmas to all anonymous' and yes to you too Dan.

Regards,
Cass Poolman

The reason so many of us assume a "pen name" is because we were so viciously attacked over the years by Brown and some of his "henchmen." I was not interested in having my lineage, mother, friends, job, etc. publicly assaulted by mayor Bozo and his clowns. So the only way I would put in my "two cents" was under an assumed name. I like it that way. It keeps the "mystery."
Besides, since you don't know me what difference does it make? Most chat rooms and blogs are done by "pen name." Read the content, don't stereotype the author.

Lowering yourself to the level you accuse others of being makes you no better than them.

Chat rooms and Forums are not the same thing. Forums are suppose to actually have purpose and useful content.

That type of a post would find you the door on moderated forums.

Here, we are actually suppose to be grown up reputable citizens that do not need it.

Get over it, guy!

Whatever! Apparently you haven't been called some very nasty names in the "Free Speech" section. I have. I didn't appreciate it. My friends didn't appreciate it. My family didn't appreciate it. I have also been called a few names in this blog. Difference is, if my friends don't know it's me then it isn't as personal. You deal with it your way, I'll deal with it mine. By the way, exactly what type of "name" is PTC Guy?

As I explained elsewhere User Names is the norm of Internet Forums.

Many have learned making your real name and location known invites all kinds of email, mail, telephone and so on attacks by nut cases and those who lack principles.

There are a few on here that appear to use real names, but do not.

On a Forum the issue is the message, not the messenger, except when the messenger is the issue themselves.

So if the points are valid it does not matter what name is attached to it.

Not cowardice, but practicality.

And in the Admin panel and elsewhere, depending on the scripting, if someone gets way out of line they can ban them by username, email address and IP Number.

Plus, with that IP Number if there was a real need, they could track down all the info on a person.

But woe to the Administrator that abuses that ability.

But, with that said, Merry Christmas to you and yours!

Oh, that's GREAT news! Everybody knows WHO I am, was a nut case I am, and now they're going to steal by identity.

OK, my real name is Bernice Spankanowicz,

Dan Tennant

Spank your whatsis?

You know, PTCGuy, for someone with stormwater on the brain, you're a pretty funny dude!

Dan Tennant

Well, a time to be nothing but serious and the rest of life.

But, thanks.

I agree my more serious side what was seen most of the time here.

But, with that over, I love a good laugh and a smile.

Nope, Stormwater is not on my mind all the time. Often a good burger, pizza or calzone intrudes.