The Puritan ACLU

Political correctness is today's version of the upper middle class, elitist values that have been around forever. One hundred years ago society's elites were convinced that alcohol was a dangerous demon elixir and should be banned for the good of the masses. Today many of the same type of people believe that religion is divisive and should be kept from the public square. It seems there is and will always be an element of American society that thinks that it is their calling to lead the rest of us out of the darkness.

So it's funny and a bit ironic to learn how much modern elites have in common with the Puritans who were the "thought leaders" of their day. Today's ACLU is hell bent on ridding any sign of Christmas from public buildings, property and schools. Apparently, so were the Puritans. Two hundred years ago Puritans saw Christmas more as the secular celebration of the winter solstice than the religious holiday that we assume it is today. They, like the ACLU, wanted to rid it from the public consciousness.

So the next time you hear some public "intellectual" railing on about separation of church and state, think about his Puritan forbearer or her great-grandmother in the temperance movement. And then think about your life without an ecumenical Christmas or a good stiff drink. My bet is that in fifty years most Americans will be looking back on the ACLU much as we remember the Puritan church leaders or the old maids of the temperance movement.

6 comments:

Terry Cowgill

8:34 AM

Ah the irony of it all. Also, many of same people who were cheering on MLK when he was invoking God's name in the civil rights movement were highly critical of Jerry Falwell as a preacher who was hellbent on shoving his religion down our throats.

That having been said, after GWB I think we could use a little less God talk in our political discourse. It's getting a little sickening seeing all those presidential candidates falling all over themselves pledging their interminable fealties.

I not only want to know what informs their policies but what those policies are.

Jake

11:37 AM

grimblebee... with free speech (a right) comes responsibility (the requirement to be civil). On other blogs and here, you haven't shown the basic maturity to comment without attacking others, so you are automatically on "watch". Three inappropriate comments, and you are banned.

You many want to review the message I left on your blog recently. Of course I think that anyone who thinks McKinney for President is serious is an utter fool. But I had the basic manners leave a polite comment. You will need to do the same here, if you want to play.

As for this being the "public square", let me assure you that it is not. This a private club where like minded members assemble freely to do as they wish. And like any private club, we will choose our members. As noted above, one qualification for membership is adult level emotional maturity and the ability to debate without making ad hominum attacks.

And by the way... I very much appreciate you comparing me to Rush. He is a brilliant entertainer, the most popular in the country, I believe. For sending over that sweet kiss on the day after Christmas (and despite the rest of the comment), you still have no strikes against you.

Merry Christmas.

Jake

11:48 AM

terry... yes, I believe the religious thing has gotten out of hand. Many reasons for that, but I think it is mostly because the politicians (on both sides) have figured out that religious assemblies are easy to tap. That, and because there is an extremely unpopular minority (see grimblebee comment) who make it so easy to contrast themselves to.

Last night I was watching Ken Burns' The War. He played an FDR speech given in the hard year of 1944. It was essentially a public prayer. The left's champion of socialism gave a speech, that if given today, would have drawn huge amounts of criticism. On balance, it led me to believe that GWB is more open with religion than Clinton may have been, but well within the traditions of the country.

Jake

6:09 PM

OK, that's enough. Go away.

Terry Cowgill

6:24 PM

If you didn't care about being in "the club," you wouldn't spend time begging to be included in the debate.

Here's the difference between you and me: I disagree with 90% of what you say, but I don't feel it's "my patriotic duty" to rebut your screeds "for the good of humanity."

I don't think humanity suffers from your rants. I want more views put out there, while you think "it's a shame that views such as [Jake's] are being broadast." Who's the tolerant one here?

If it makes you feel better to think you have been banished simply because your views pose a threat to me or anyone else, then by all means you should continue to "labor under that illusion."

Another commenter (a right-winger, incidentally) who made similar ad hominem attacks, was also banned from my blog. There is no idealogical test, but rather a commitment to be civil, not co-opt the discussion and not belittle the intellect of those who disagree with you. You failed on all accounts.

Jake

9:31 PM

OK, Fred. As this particular blogging software doesn't have offer the capability to block IP addresses, I'm going to ask you politely not to comment on my blog. As with Terry, I don't consider your contributions to be in the spirit of the kind of dialog and debate that we value here. I'm sure there are thousands of places you can find that will make you feel comfortable. Please just do me a favor and not leave anymore comments. Thank you.