Copyright Violation Is OK if You Are Just Removing "God"

Most Americans know the song "God Bless the USA" by Lee Greenwood. It was at the top of the charts for a long time, and is even used at official immigration naturalization ceremonies.

But it was deemed inappropriate at a Bellingham, MA elementary school. They wanted to use the song, but were afraid someone might be offended by the use of the word "God" in the title and lyrics. Note that there were no complaints about the song. School officials decided to change it to "We Love the USA" instead.

There are hundreds of posts on the blog you are now reading about the silliness of thinking that saying "God" in a public school is unconstitutional somehow. But apparently school officials were so afraid of possible suits by the ACLU or the Freedom from Religion Foundation that they did their own preemptive strike. And they were so worried that (apparently) they decided they could violate copyright law. Some aspects of copyright are confusing, but at the bottom of almost any published sheet music are words saying that no one can change or adapt the work without written permission of the publisher.

Composer Lee Greenwood said:
“Maybe the school should have asked the parents their thoughts before changing the lyrics to the song. They could have even asked the writer of the song, which I of course would have said you can’t change the lyrics at all or any part of the song. The most important word in the whole piece of music is the word God, which is also in the title God Bless The USA. We can’t take God out of the song, we can’t take God out of The Pledge of Allegiance, we can’t take God off of the American currency. Let us also remember, the phrase God Bless the USA has a very important meaning for those in the military and their families, as well as new citizens coming to our Country. The song is played at every naturalization ceremony behind The National Anthem. If the song is good enough to played and performed in its original setting under those circumstances, it surely should be good enough for our children.” (as found on FoxNews: http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/school-removes-god-from-lee-greenwood-song.html)

No court decision has said that you can't use the word "God" in a public school. And CERTAINLY the U.S. Constitution doesn't say that. Our Founders took no actions that would make one think such a thing. Please, people! Read the Constitution!

UPDATE (unconfirmed, but from a good source): The school has reversed itself and will use the song now. I did not hear if it will be the original version, with God, but I assume so.

Banning Heaven from Street Names - Is That In the Constitution?

People across the nation were inspired by some of the heroic deeds of the first responders, as well as other police and fire personnel and various volunteers after the attacks in New York City on Sept. 11, 2001. One Brooklyn firehouse lost seven firemen on that day, and they naturally want to honor them. The city named a nearby street for them: "Seven in Heaven Way."

You readers know what's coming next, right? An atheist group is complaining to the city about the sign, demanding it be changed. "Heaven" is a Christian concept, they say. Well, that's partly right. Heaven, or similar concepts using other words, are part of many religions. But Heaven is not part of atheism.

According to an article in New American:
Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission noted, "There are cities that have religious connotations in their names. Why not a street. Do they want us to rename Los Angeles, Corpus Christi, and St. Joseph?” Added Land,  "In a country where 85 percent of the people say they are Christian or claim to be Christian, should it be surprising that you name cities and streets with religious terminology?”

That makes sense to me. Our Constitution specifies (in the Bill of Rights) that Congress may not make a law establishing a religion, and the provision is being applied to our states as well after a Supreme Court decision. But clearly a street sign requires no state law to be passed; it is a decision that cities make for a variety of reasons, and such decision do not require statutes to back them up. Even if they did, there is a difference between recognizing religion and establishing a religion. We have "Armed Forces Day" each year, but every citizen is not required to be in the military, for example. And many, if not most, cities have a form of Martin Luther King on a street name (sometimes on several). But the residents of those cities are not all black.

Read more here:

Atheists Complain Over NYC Street Sign Honoring Fallen 9-11 Firemen

Major Network Seems Not to Like Phrase 'Under God'

Maybe it's time for a refresher on the Declaration of Independence. It contains a very important phrase, which points out that our rights are endowed by our Creator. That phrase was important as we sought independence from England and England's king. There are rights that are not the King's to give; they would not be the yet-to-be formed U.S. Government to give; they are rights given by God to human beings. Doesn't that seem like an important concept?

To be specific, those words from the Declaration of Independence are, "We hold these truths to self-evident, that all men are created equal, and they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights." Is there any reason to be ashamed of those words?  Aren't those same words indicative of people of all races having the same rights? We certainly aren't ashamed of that concept today.

And given that thought, it seems easy to accept the words "under God" that are in our Pledge of Allegiance. After all, that phrase was part of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. After a bold statement in our Declaration that our rights are given by our Creator, and the landmark Gettysburg Address saying we are a nation under God, having it in the Pledge seems consistent.

Yet, it seems that NBC is not at all comfortable with those words. In this weekend's broadcast of the U.S. Open Golf Championship, NBC played a moving "Americana" segment with the Pledge interwoven. But NBC decided to move the words "under God" out of the script. They are a non-governmental company (although there are serious ties these days between the Federal Government and the parent company of NBC), so they can do what they want. But if I ran the company and didn't care one way or the other about history, God, etc., I still might have guessed differently about which version might offend fewer members of the audience.

Read more here:
NBC Cuts 'Under God' From Pledge of Allegiance

Invite Me Anywhere, Just Not to Church

The First Amendment seems so clear to me. First, the wording is clear and concise. Second, there are ample examples of the interpretations of the men who wrote it to demonstrate what they thought about it. Surely one demand of the First Amendment is NOT to allow all manner of speech as long as it is not religious.

Pocono Mountain School District is being sued over a supposed First Amendment issue. Students are allowed to pass out to their classmates all sorts of invitations to events. Halloween parties are fine, birthday parties are fine, Valentine's dances are fine, even some paid events are fine. But a student was barred from handing out an invitation to a free Christmas party at a church.

Many, if not most, public schools have become overly nervous about any hint of religious speech or actions within school property. The blame the constraints of the First Amendment, which is not accurate but is widely believed. But surely some of these officials must see that when you allow students to share invitations to all events except religious ones, that is hostility to religion more than neutrality to religion. This is more obvious when you consider that the handing out was done during non-instructional time before classes.

This blog is peppered with examples of our Founders supporting religion in public life and in public schools. The few Founders who may have been resistant to such support would still have insisted on neutrality.

Our country went through some troubling times when people with colored skin were treated different. Sometimes Jews were treated differently; sometimes Irish were treated differently. Now it may be a time when religious people are treated differently.

Read the story below:

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=1309388

Hawaii Senate Feels Pressure and Discontinues Prayer

The senate of Hawaii had a practice of opening meetings with prayer. Apparently these prayers sometimes invokes Christian phrases, and now the senate has received notice from the American Civil Liberties Unions (ACLU) that they must stop of face a lawsuit. The ACLU bases such actions on the so-called "separation of church and state." The senate considered using a non-sectarian prayer instead, but finally voted to just discontinue prayer altogether.

To say that such a prayer is unconstitutional is an interesting concept, but is inherently misdirected. The very men who wrote the Constitution opened their first official meeting with a prayer, and the presiding chaplain read from a psalm. Did these men not understand the document they wrote? Were they hypocrites? Or is it possible that modern courts have essentially re-written the Constitution to fit their ideological views?

After the 1947 Supreme Court decision that started to erode the rights of religion, the veryACLU mentioned above said that the decision "gave new meaning to the Establishment Clause." That says it pretty well. Unfortunately, it is not the job of the court to give new meaning to laws. They are supposed to decide how to fairly apply the laws as they were written by the people charged with creating them.

Read the Hawaii story below:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/22/us/22brfs-AFTERCOMPLAI_BRF.html?_r=1

Graduation Ceremonies in Churches Need Protection?

You can find other posts on this blog about controversy over churches serving as the venue for high school graduations and some other functions. Often, one group or another will take the matter to court to try to block the use of the church. Sometimes it has worked and other times the school has succeeded with their planned use.

There are some very good reasons that schools have chosen to use churches in these stories. Generally the churches have offered ample seating capacity at a price lower then secular venues in the same areas. Often the churches have comforts not found in high school facilities, such as air conditioning, more comfortable seating with a better overall view, better parking, better sound systems, and large-screen monitors.

That seems logical, and would be considered a good business decision in most circumstances. Perhaps if you are new to this blog, you are wondering what the objection could be. Almost without exception, the issue raised is a violation of the so-called "separation of church and state." As a reminder, the "separation" phrase comes from a letter of Thomas Jefferson. It is not a phrase contained in our legal founding documents, but rather was intended as a convenient metaphor to describe one aspect of the First Amendment. That amendment covers religion, and in fact the first two short clauses are called the Religion Clauses. The first of those two is called the Establishment Clause, and the second is called the Free Exercise clause. The whole First Amendment is:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Clearly the word "separation" is not found there. The context of this is a limitation on the actions of the Federal Government ("Congress"). Many believe the 14th Amendment places the same limitation on the state governments, in that it guarantees that the rights of a citizen under the constitution may not be abridged by any state.

In all of that, where do we justify not allowing a high school to hold a graduation ceremony inside a church facility? Does that establish a state law? Does is prohibit the free exercise of one's religion?

The Liberty Counsel has stepped in now to help various schools in Georgia that may have been threatened with legal action for planning to hold graduations in churches. Matt Staver, the founder of Liberty Counsel, said:


"Clearly, public schools can use religious venues -- churches and other venues -- just like anyone else [and can] make a common-sense decision based upon size, location and costs," he contends. "The First Amendment does not interfere with that decision."

Read more below:

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=1253638

Donations OK, but Not to Churches?

In Polk Country, Florida, the Sheriff's department is in the news. They are donating no-longer-needed basketball equipment to eight local churches. But the Atheists of  Florida are complaining because they say that government money is supporting churches.

The Sheriff's motive appears to have been directed at the best use of the equipment. They are particularly concerned with providing a place for teens to assemble productively - the "get them off the streets" in other words. This is a common goal of law enforcement and community groups. The equipment will be outside, rather than behind locked doors.

Suppose the department had donated the equipment to the parks department or to a non-religious community group. Would there have been a complaint then? I personally believe there would not have been the same reaction. Would it be OK if these tax-provided leftovers were donated to any group except a religious group? That seems like reverse discrimination to me. Once again the so-called "separation of church and state" was invoked by the group complaining. Is this action the same as a body of law establishing an official religion? That is what "separation of church and state" intended to address, if one stops to read the First Amendment of our Constitution.

Read more below:

http://www.polkcountydemocrat.com/articles/2011/01/08/news/local/doc4d279881bd109186895037.txt

Cross Declared Unconstitutional

The Mount Soledad Cross is back in the news again. The cross belongs to the American Legion and was erected 57 years ago as a war memorial. Part of the complaint in this case is that it exists on government land.

The First Amendment addresses religion and government, and prohibits the government from establishing a national religion to which citizens must adhere. Allowing the Legion to maintain this cross is hardly the same as establishing an official religion.

The complaint was brought by the ACLU on behalf of Jewish war veterans. And now the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has found the cross to be unconstitutional.

Certainly I sympathize with Jewish veterans who might feel "left out" when the see the cross. But a symbol erected by a private organization is not required to be all inclusive. And I can see that, if the Legion wishes a religious recognition, it would be difficult to do so without leaving out some group or other.

The Ninth Circuit decision in this case seems to ignore a U.S. Supreme Court decision in favor of a different cross in the Mojave National Preserve. And it also seems to dramatically expand the meaning of the First Amendment.

Read more below:

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=247701

And read this informative insight from the Heritage Foundation:

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/01/09/resisting-accommodation-the-aclu-and-mount-soledad/

Should Public School Choirs Sing Christmas Music at Christmas?

I have written before about various public school "holiday" concerts where the music directors were forced to not include any Christmas music. The justification is generally a misconception of the so-called "separation of church and state."  The below has a good discussion of this issue. It is written from the perspectives of school personnel who actually have to deal with the issue.

http://www.reporternews.com/news/2010/dec/13/religious-music-public-schools-hed-help-hed-help/

Now the Federal Reserve Bans Christmas

A bank in Perkins, Oklahoma, found out the hard way. They had some quotes appropriate for the Christmas season (assuming you think Christmas is somehow related to Christianity) within the bank and on their website. But the Federal Reserve said that is against its rules. Those sayings might be in conflict with their Regulation B, which can disallow things on this basis: "...the use of words, symbols, models and other forms of communication ... express, imply or suggest a discriminatory preference or policy of exclusion."

Is the bank allowed to close on Christmas if they would otherwise be open on that day of the week? Would not that be a "policy of exclusion"? For that matter, if Christmas day fell on a Wednesday this year would the Fed's offices be open?

I have talked in the past about the "war on Christmas" and received comments that there is no such thing. Read the last several posts on this blog and see what you think. Perhaps this particular incident is not a war on Christmas, but one has to wonder whether the Fed would have cracked down similarly if the bank used phrases that recognized a Muslim holiday during the appropriate dates.

Read more here:

Feds Force Okla. Bank To Remove Crosses, Bible Verse

Lowe's Renames Christmas Trees to Family Trees - and Back Again

Here is one more example of entities that are afraid to names items accurately. Lowe's, the home improvement store, always sold "Christmas trees" in their stores. But they thought that a bad idea and renamed the products "Family Trees" a few years ago. But the uproar among their customers was so great that they renamed the items "Christmas Trees" again.

Lowe's is a private company and may do whatever they please in such matters. But all the lawsuits against government entities for recognizing one of our nation's oldest holidays may have made Lowe's nervous. Fortunately, they listened to their customers.

Check out the story at Snopes:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/christmas/familytree.asp

Twas the Night Before a Holiday

The city of Mount Pleasant, Michigan, is located in what many would consider the "Bible Belt." But that does not make it immune to controversy around Christmas time. Their annual "Dickens Christmas Festival" has been renamed this year to the "Dickens Holiday Festival."

It seems that the town plans on promoting this in many places, including the public schools. But in an effort to be "inclusive" the schools have banned the word Christmas. According to an Alliance Defense Fund press release, "The Mount Pleasant School District enacted a policy that purportedly bans the use of the words 'Christmas,' 'Santa,' and 'nativity.'  ADF attorneys explained in the letter that such a policy is unconstitutional as applied to the private speech of students, teachers, and members of the community."

Being the simple-minded person that I am, it seems natural to assume that this festival is named in memory of Charles Dickens' story "A Christmas Carol," which one may see on television in a few different productions this time of year. Would the school ban that story as well? Would it ban a book of collected Dickens' writings if the book included the Christmas Carol?

Is it uncomfortable for school officials and teachers to acknowledge that Christmas is part of the history of our country, and that there are a great many traditions that exist because of Christmas? Or is it better to just hide that fact so those of others faiths are not offended? Do we wish to present the U.S. traditions of Christmas as a huge mistake, and a shame of our history, treating Christmas in the same light as slavery? We perhaps have to recognize that Christmas exists (existed?), but we don't have to be proud of it.

Read more at the link below:

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/Home/ADFContent?cid=4320

U.S. HUD Prohibits Christmas in Housing

Our U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is a government agency. And we all know that the First Amendment of the Constitution prohibits the federal government from establishing an official national religion.

So how do we get from those facts to HUD saying that an 85-year-old grandmother may not put an angel on top of the living center's "Christmas" tree because it is too religious? Would that act establish an official national religion? Then there is the rule that residents may use the common room for a party during the Christmas season but they may not call it a Christmas party. Since the party was not necessarily the only event held in that room, and since no person would be required to attend, why not call it a Christmas party?

Read more below:

http://www.nowpublic.com/culture/hud-says-no-angels-christmas-trees-other-religious-symbols

Christmas Village Renamed to Holiday Village

In Philadelphia, a private organization has had a "German Christmas Village" display for the last few years. It is a walk-in display, with booths and vendors inside. If you look at the link below you can see a press photo of the sign above the entrance. The word "Christmas" is being removed. It will be replaced with the word "Holiday" instead.

This is not a Constitutional issue, nor is it a political issue. At least, in this case, no one has sued as far as I know. But instead I sense it is an issue of political correctness. While the city of Philadelphia is listed as a partner in this display, which is actually run by a commercial company, the motivation to change the name does not come from the city.

What is wrong with naming it a German Christmas Village? Loudspeakers at the venue will be playing Nat King Cole's "Christmas Song." There will be nativity scenes and more secular Christmas object for sale inside. The Germans in America throughout our history have observed Christmas. According to the Library of Congress, "The Germanic custom of having a specially decorated tree at Christmas time was introduced to America by Pennsylvania Dutch in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Later in the century, the Pennsylvania Dutch version of St. Nicholas, Sinterklaas, evolved into America's Santa Claus, popularized by a German immigrant and influential political cartoonist, Thomas Nast. The Easter bunny and Easter eggs were also brought to this country by German immigrants." (The drawing by Nast is shown to the left.)

The image shown to the right of this paragraph is available from the Library of Congress' shop as a print. It is described: "The Christmas coach 1795 / J.L.G. Ferris. View of coach on High (Market) Street at Second, Philadelphia, on Christmas Eve, with woman getting off, in front of the old courthouse."

The first calls for national public days of fasting and prayer came from our Continental Congress in Philadelphia. That congress opened its sessions with prayer, and signed many official documents with "In the year of our Lord..."

Read more below:
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20101130_Let_s_call_it_the_German__Holiday__Village.html

ACLU-Tennessee: Schools Better Ditch Christmas or Else

The ACLU is staging a preemptive strike in Tennessee by sending letters to all the public schools. They warn the school administrators to make sure that Christmas is not singled out specifically during the "Winter holiday season." With such letters, the reader is certain to understand that if the ACLU senses too much recognition of Christmas, then a lawsuit might very well follow. And what school can afford that?

The Liberty Counsel  sent their own letter to schools to demonstrate how the ACLU has it wrong. They report that court decisions have found that Christmas music, for example, may be performed as long as there are other types of music on the concert.

The ACLU seems willing to overlook how many of the Founders, including "Mr. separation of church and state" himself Thomas Jefferson, believed in the use of the Holy Bible in public schools. Jefferson attended church services at the U.S. Capitol and even ordered the U.S. Marine Band to perform.

Read more at the link below:

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=1259314

Tulsa Strips "Christ" from Event Name

Tulsa, Oklahoma, used to have an annual Christmas Parade of Lights (a tradition that dates back about 70 years). The parade is still there, but the name has been changed to "Holiday Parade of Lights" instead. Senator Jim Inhofe, who used to be mayor of Tulsa and who rode is horse in the parade, has refused to participate this year because of the name change.


Once again we have a parade that was originally intended to celebrate Christmas along with most of the local population, but now it has become a political issue. Why change the name? To be more inclusive? To not offend anyone who is of a different religion or of no religion? I'm sure someone had a reason along those lines. But I'm also reasonably sure that the much-misunderstood metaphor "separation of church and state" played a role. I don't suspect a direct connection such as a lawsuit this year. I believe it likely it has more to do with various lawsuits and court decisions in the past. In some cases those decisions have seemed to indicate that "Christmas" is not a proper word to associate with civic events.




Imagine how surprised our Founders would be to discover such an attitude in current-day America. They were not in any way ashamed of proclaiming religious days, such as national days of fasting and prayer. Our nation has an official holiday for Christmas, and all federal and state offices are closed that day. Don't look for mail that day. Don't even expect to do much shopping. Why then do we seem afraid to call a parade that originated as a Christmas celebration a "Christmas [anything]" parade?

Read more below:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20101130_11_0_WASHIN967856

Video here:
http://youtu.be/d5G2ElKc9UQ

Fort Worth Bank Kicks Out Christmas Tree

In Southlake, Texas, a Chase Bank branch was given a Christmas tree by a local businessman as a favor to the bank's manager. But the corporate office sent an email that said the tree had to go. The stated reason was they wanted to be inclusive and not risk offending some customers.

While the theme of this blog is usually related to misguided actions made because of confusion about the purpose of the Constitution's First Amendment. That is not the case here. The tree was not removed because the company said they were afraid of breaking the law. It was a corporate decision based on a view of customer relations. It dealt with an item displayed on property they control. It was their right to do this. But I think it is too bad that a company thinks this way, and that some of the public thinks this way.

The President is going to light a National Christmas Tree this year, and there are many other Christmas trees on display in public places, private and governmental. Are people afraid that such a tree indicates the bank is preaching? Or that the bank only welcomes Christian customers? Does the bank intend to stay open on Christmas day in order to be inclusive?

I strongly suspect that this kind of attitude comes about because of all the lawsuits that have been publicized about various types of Christmas recognition and other religious symbols or statements in public places. You will find many such actions reported elsewhere on this blog.

But at least the bank (apparently) does not prohibit employees from wishing "Merry Christmas" to customers.

Read more below:

http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/12/02/2676274/jpmorgan-chase-orders-southlake.html

Chicago Nativity Scene Is Back This Year

A topic you may see in the news every year around this time has to do with a tradition of public displays during the Christmas season (sorry - the "holiday" season). The USA does not have an official religion, and such a thing would be prohibited by the Constitution. However, the Constitution does not require that government avoid any recognition of religion. Many of our Founders have stated that our country was founded on Christian principles and courts, presidents, and other public figures have affirmed this even through recent times.

Yet there are groups and individual who would stop any recognition of religion tradition. Many towns across America have displayed nativity scenes around Christmas time. Any many of them have been sued to prevent those displays, citing the so-called "separation of church and state."

I'll grant them the point that a nativity scene might be somewhat more overt than a Christmas tree, but they both are rooted in the same holiday and tradition. This year, as with years in our past, the President will light our National Christmas Tree during a public ceremony. How then, do we assume that a town having a nativity display is less appropriate? Or could it be that groups who sue about such things are not quite ready to take on the President and Congress just yet? (Not to say that's not coming.)

This year, in Chicago, there WILL be a nativity scene, as there has been in past years. Will someone sue? Perhaps. But in the mean time it will be there to remind passersby of the "reason for the season." Read the story at the link below:

http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/4378015568.html

National prayer event OK'd by judge, Constitution

Colorado Governor Bill Ritter had issued a proclamation that said their annual prayer observances are constitutional. This action was part of a suit by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, who claimed that the action was a violation of the so-called "separation of church and state." (Never mind that the very men who wrote the U.S. Constitution also were responsible for several declarations of days of prayer.)

The governor actions were defended by the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), and Denver judge R. Michael Mullins decided the governor's decision was compatible with the state's religious freedom clause.

Kevin Theriot, the ADF attorney, said:

"The fact that the government acknowledges our religious heritage and the fact that we are predominantly a religious people does not create a constitutional crisis," ... "And the folks at Freedom From Religion Foundation and other anti-religion organizations aren't okay with that. They keep trying to rewrite history, and they're going to courts asking judges to agree with them."

Read more at the link below:

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=1219974

Freedom of Speech/Religion Upheld in Montana

In a 2008 high school graduation ceremony in Butte, Montana, one of the valedictorians planned to mention her faith in her address. However, the school's principal stepped to forbid the words Renee Griffith planned, which included a statement that she "didn’t let fear keep me from sharing Christ and his joy with those around me" and that she would speak about "being someone who lived with a purpose from God with a passionate love for him."

The principal suggested specific alternative, non-religious wording. Renee did not accept that, and therefore she was not permitted to give her speech. She sued, but lost in the district court. However just a few days ago the Montana Supreme Court overturned that ruling, saying she had the right to speak of her faith.

So here we had a principal that let students give their thoughts, as long as the thoughts were not about religion. And this had to go to the state supreme court to restore her rights.

I believe it is very mistaken for a school official to think that the First Amendment requires this kind of "separation of church and state" (that phrase is not actually in the First Amendment). The amendment prohibits a law from being made respecting an establishment of religion. Schools do not make law, and a student speaking her own words at a ceremony would not constitute the establishment of a religion.

Read more below:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/valedictorian-had-right-to-mention-god-and-christ-in-address-montana-suprem/