School district's 10-year-old policy on religious observance suddenly new(s)

Howard, I don't think this is quite accurate.......... I think the United States of America is made up of many diiferent people and many different religions, AND that is what makes us a great nation. To say we cannot say "Merry Christmas", is infringing on peoples rights, and many men have died to give me these rights. I believe in "God" and will continue to say "Merry Christmas", and I hope all the people that believe in Christmas will do the same. Merry Christmas .. Everyone!!!!

Do we really have to go through this crap every year?

Thinking about Christmas (strike that) - Winter Concerts for Choral, band, orchestra etc. It was always a highlight of the season when my kids were in school. Secular and non secular holiday music has always been a part of the winter concerts. Funny, but the Armed Forces bands still publish a Christmas album or two each year.

Merry Christmas, early.
Maybe this is the music they can play
Welcome Winter
http://www.jwpepper.com/10275181.item

In the Bleak Mid Winter
http://www.halleonard.com/viewaudio.do?itemId=35027811&fileName=http://…

Baby Its Cold Outside
http://www.halleonard.com/viewaudio.do?itemId=08742543&fileName=http://…

This is a direct cultural assault on one of the most basic American traditions, Christmas and we must draw a line in the sand to end that attack. The celebration of Christmas as a secular holiday in schools as we know it is neither discriminatory or demeaning to non-Christian students, it's a recognition of the charity, respect for others and belief, whether in God or in humanity that are central to being an American.

We must take a stand for the basic beliefs that are core to the American experience. We must stop this attempt to numb America from having pride in faith and traditions. We must put an end to this attack on American values.

Just watching channel 8, the anchor mentioned that Margret Puzio had just called in and informed the station that the memo they read on air was not meant for the public.
Really? Why was it not meant for the public. The school board all of a suddenly wants to enforce this regulation that was implemented in 2001. So why would a memo that states the regulation not be meant for the public? I'm confused, maybe Margret can tell us hear in Batavia why that memo was not meant for the public. She is a public servant so any memo she issues to a media outlet should be open to the public.

Great article, Howard! Thank you for being Fair and Balanced!

So am I to understand this correctly that religious symbols such as Christmas trees can be used as units of instruction but not as decorations in the schools? so students can make them, just not display their work in the halls? As long as other religions are being respected and acknowledged as well then why can't Christianity be? This country was founded on Christianity and it is to this day the religion that is practiced by the overwhelming majority of Americans. So...MERRY CHRISTMAS!!

Now I'm curious about this memo. Not that I'm a particularly religious person but the content of the memo has grabbed my attention now. The news reports by channel 8 seem to be designed to inflame or be sensational which I agree they are. I got inflamed by one of the comments made by the reporter. What I'm curious about is does the memo address all religions and religious holidays or does it focus on one or two?

Howard,

You hit the nail on the head. The "not meant for the public" statement did inflame me.
Do I think Mrs. Puzio made that comment? I can only go on what the reporter said because I don't know her well enough to say whether she did or not.

Dan, to me the worst part IS that Christmas IS NOT a secular holiday. No more than Hanukkah is a secular holiday. It was demeaning when a teacher told my son that it's ok to make a Santa Claus ornament for his parents, because everyone celebrates the secular Christmas.
I think it's ridiculous to see a decoration that says, Season's Greetings or Happy Holidays, when it's all red and green, with Christmas trees, and Santa, etc. They think that is being politically correct. I would rather them have a sign that says Merry Christmas, and at Hanukkah time, one that says Happy Hanukkah too.
Why is ok for a store cashier to say "merry Christmas" to everyone, when they know everyone is not Christian?
One of the factors that is overlooked is that, religiously, Christmas is a major holiday to Christians. Hanukkah, religiously, is a minor holiday.
I have no problem, celebrating Christmas with friends. I was brought up to know that it's like going to a friend's birthday. You sing Happy Birthday, but it's not your birthday. You give them a present, and you don't get one, because it's their birthday, not yours. And you celebrate WITH them.
I did not mind my kids celebrating Christmas at school with their friends, just don't tell them, or me, that Christmas is a secular holiday, and everyone celebrates it.
Although it's a little early...
to all my Christian friends - I hope you have a very MERRY CHRISTMAS.
And to my Jewish friends, Happy HANUKKAH.
And those of you that are neither Christian or Jewish, I will apologize for all of us that offend you.

Great story, Howard. When dealing with these issues, clarity and reason are absolutely necessary. Without them, we get reactions like Dan's overblown call for Kulturkampf.

I prefer not to point the finger at the school district, these policies are common throughout this country.
The majority does not rule, if one group bitches about a particuler issue, we immediately become politically correct and bow to their demands. If we don't, the ACLU will go crying to the Supreme Court.
I'm sick of Merry Xmas, and Happy Holidays, it is, as it should be, Merry Christmas, which is a very religious holiday to the majority of Americans.

Well said Frank ! the thing is, why is it that the ACLU doesn't step in and fight for the rights of us on this ? Our service men and women have fought for our rights, and one is freedom of religion but yet we are not allowed to express it. great way to teach our children .

With so many real problems, why do people focus on the blinking lights? Who really thinks God cares if you wear a Christmas tree pin or have a manger in your front yard?

It is obvious from this and past statments from Puzio ,that public speaking is not in her best interest. Now that Puzio realizes that there is an anchor women that is a parent in the school district , she should refraim from making any comment or memo to the staff or public . Thus reducing her job to nothing more than a puppet for the board . Puzio It is time to go .

Jeremiah,

I am getting ready to leave for the holidays, but I'll be more than happy to share any document with you when I return!

This whole thing is just plain stupid, and in light of the holiday season that is just around the corner I would like to wish a "Merry Christmas" to the Batavia city school board and everyone within the Batavia city school district (and for that matter a "Merry Christmas" to everyone across this great nation that we live in!). And to keep with the holiday spirit "Happy Thanksgiving" (wait, am I allowed to say "Happy Thanksgiving"?) - Batavia city school board, you’re ruling please!

thank you Mr. Allen!

I hope you and everyone else has a Happy and Safe Thanksgiving holiday weekend!

Jay your response is very well put

Why are we talking about Christmas? We have not had Thanksgiving yet! I agree with Jay. Let's stop with this political correctness BS. MERRY CHRISTMAS everyone! Oh if you do not celebrate or believe in Christmas and the birth of Jesus too bad, you have the right to that but, STOP telling me that, I cannot show my beliefs and have my rights. Amazing that the U.S. Government recognizes Christmas as a Federal Holiday but, not Easter because, Easter is a religious holiday. Confused? Isn't Christmas the celebration of the birth of Jesus? Oh, that's right, the government double talks. Anyways Happy Thanksgiving everyone, hope you have a great day.

This latest issue with the Batavia School Board is disgusting. We are "one Nation, Under God....." whether they like it or not. Christmas is a legal holdiday. It is a religious holdiay-celebrating the birth of the son of God. All who celebrate deserve to be wished a "Merry Christmas." I brought my daughters up to respect all religions and cultures and to offer good wishes to anyone on their days of celebration. Another fine example of the downfall of public education. Another reason why my grand babies go to a private school in Batavia-----and yes they have a CHRISTMAS pagent every year. Merry Christmas to all and bah humbug to the board.

The people we should hear from are the teachers. They are the people addressed in the memo.
This is not a new issue, it comes up every year.
Most teachers know their students well enough to know who celebrates what special occasion.
I would think that a child would feel very special, indeed, when a teacher recognizes a day that is important to that particular child.

A teacher loses the opportunity to use these occasions to teach children about other cultures and traditions. Do teachers feel that this opportunity is stymied by the board?

How do the music teachers feel about this? This time of year is wonderful for highlighting the works of the classical composers as well as more contemporary works.
Students are challenged to stretch their talent as they attempt more difficult pieces.

Can a science teacher still use the story of the birth of Christ to encourage students to look deeper into astronomy and learn more aboutg how the ancients navigated by the stars? Can they still discuss the value of the gifts of the Magi and why those gift were precious at that time?

Can an English teacher still ask their students to read Dickens' Christmas Carol? There is so much to learn from Dickens' story when the story is truly disected.

How about a history teacher discussing the traditions brought to our shores by the influx of immigrants?

This is more than just denying the teacher's right of free expression, but denying our children the opportunity to expand their horizons.

We, as parents, can teach our children tolerance and understanding of different cultures, but the lesson is far more real when it is about the child sitting next to them.

To all the kids in BHS please stop by the next school board meeting and wish Superintendent Margaret Puzio a Merry Christmas. Then please tell her how proud you are to be an American. How your ancestors fought and died to give you and her the right to wish everyone a Merry Christmas. It looks like she has forgotten some of the history of this country. If that be the fact, maybe we ne a new Superintendent

The students can wish any and all as many Merry Christmases as they wish. Nobody is stopping the students. They can greet people with exclamations of "Praise Jesus!" They can love their saviour as much as they feel they need to and go to tell it on the mountain. The teachers can do the same - they just can't do it as part of an official school-sanctioned event. Pretty simple. No need for melodrama. You still can have your Christmas and your faith.<br><br>

As for what Bea wrote, I have no idea where you're getting the notion that there will be some sort of lost opportunity to use Christmas for educational purposes. The article above states that:<br><br>

<i>The policy states any school activity should neither advance nor inhibit religion, and that students should be afforded the opportunity to learn about cultural and religious traditions, respecting the beliefs of all students.

Music at a school or public event, for example, should teach musical concepts, to convey historical and cultural content or to create aesthetic experience in a setting that emphasizes artistic expression and educational value, not to promote or celebrate a religious faith.</i><br><br>

Further down, Howard quotes the memo as saying:<br><br>

<i>"Religious symbols, such as Christmas trees, angels, menorahs, etc., should only be used as part of a unit of instruction on various world religions, not as decoration in the classroom or school.</i><br><br>

That's pretty clear.

this is turning into a WAY bigger deal than it needs to be. if people think that this isn't the case in a majority of public schools, then they are mistaken. i'm sure ms. puzio is not outlawing christmas. she is following the same guidelines that every district follows. guidelines that say you can't just celebrate one holiday when the school population doesn't all celebrate that same holiday. i'm sure it is in their curriculum that different holidays are to be studied...including christmas. what does it hurt that students learn about different cultures and how they celebrate? it doesn't mean that they have to stop celebrating christmas. it doesn't mean that they can't say merry christmas. they can still enjoy the holidays and traditions that follow with their familiy and friends. just because they can't make a christmas tree decoration in class doesn't mean christmas is cancelled. it drives me nuts when media outlets like channel 8 sensationalize stories like this. for me...i love christmas. i love spending time with my family and loved ones. i love giving and receiving gifts. i'll continue to say merry christmas because that's what i grew up doing. and i'm pretty sure that i am not offending anyone who does not celebrate christmas by saying merry christmas. i am not "pushing" my believes on anyone. i'm just being nice and caring. because isn't that what the holidays are about?

Christmas is my not favorite holiday. It stresses me out. The last time I loved Christmas was probably when I was 16 and got a gargantuan box of See's Candies (a West Coast favorite) and a double live Allman Brothers album. I did enjoy Christmas morning when my two grown sons were small. But all the shopping, the gift-wrapping, the mandatory families gatherings, at some point overwhelmed me.

And yet now I see the ads, the Martha Stewart Living dreams of cold, cozy Christmas get-togethers and feel a kind of melancholy for what is not my reality, but seems so cheery and effortless for all those beautiful people. The sublime story of Baby Jesus in the manger is helps me refocus on what is important though.

I agree with Rob, this issue has been blown out of proportion by media eager to create a sensational story and those harping on monolithic agendas. If one were to visit a school during the holiday season, one would witness kids involved in the holiday, hear holiday music performed in concerts and realize that the policies that have come under the microscope do not alter the holiday spirit that prevails under administrative directives designed to protect the rights of those not adhering to the holiday.

I did not know a Christmas Tree was a religious symbol especially since it was a German tradition. I never read in the Bible how the Christmas tree was decorated upon the birth of Jesus.

Rebecca, parents need to attend these meetings, "One Nation Under God" is a historical statement not a religious statement. Tell them to show you were this quote is located in any religious documents or books. You will find it in a lot of historical books. Also, do not let them tell you that other religions do not believe in our God. God is a generic name. God is spell differently in a lot of religions but, they all mean the same. The ACLU and Liberals in this country are just another leech of society.

John, your view of the world, world religion and language needs to be expanded. The yule/Christmas tree predates the existence of Germany. The notion of "one nation under god," likely resonates with any "government" aligned with one religion, Holy Roman Empire comes to mind, most of the Islamic world... The fact that God and Allah both double as god and God demonstrates little more than a mindset reflected in language. The three monotheistic world religions have a great deal in common. Wherein any of your points connects to the ACLU or Liberals is unclear.

Well C.M., The American Civil Liberty Union initiated the "One Nation Under God" be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance and some Liberal Democrats back it. This was due, to an Islamic student's mother being upset that, her child had to cite the Pledge of Allegiance while in school and it is not their god . "One Nation Under God" was phrased into our Pledge of Allegiance to reflect the Colonialist fleeing Britain due to religious persecution. It was the principle that no matter what god you worship, you could do so freely. As far as the word god goes, all I am saying that is "God" is the same no matter what language. However, all religions do not view the same deity as a god and some religions have multiple gods. Islamic and Christian beliefs are very similiar but, have some differences. Jewish and Christian also are similiar but different.

Oh so you do not miss understand me. I do not feel the Liberals are the only leech on society. As far as I am concern all political parties are to blame. My beliefs are, this country has become so absorbed in worrying about how immigrants feel when they enter this country that, they overlook our own rights in this country. Why do we have to be so "Politically Correct" all the time?

I'm shocked that the mainstream news would sensationalize a non-issue. It's so out of character.

Howard, hench why I stated, "One Nation Under God" was "phrased into our Pledge of Allegiance to reflect" the Colonialist fleeing Britain due to religious persecution.

John,
Can you cite a reference to
"The American Civil Liberty Union initiated the "One Nation Under God" be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance and some Liberal Democrats back it. This was due, to an Islamic student's mother being upset that, her child had to cite the Pledge of Allegiance while in school and it is not their god"

The Pledge of Allegiance of the United States is an expression of loyalty to the federal flag and the republic of the United States of America, originally composed by Christian Socialist Francis Bellamy in 1892 and formally adopted by Congress as the pledge in 1942. The Pledge has been modified four times since its composition, with the most recent change adding the words "under God" in 1954.
Both the DAR and the Knights of Columbus campaigned to add "under God" to the pledge.
Prior to February 1954, no attempt to get the Pledge officially amended succeeded. The final successful push came from George MacPherson Docherty. Some American presidents honored Lincoln's birthday by attending services at the church Lincoln attended, New York Avenue Presbyterian Church by sitting in Lincoln's pew on the Sunday nearest February 12. On February 7, 1954, with President Eisenhower sitting in Lincoln's pew, the church's pastor, George MacPherson Docherty, delivered a sermon based on the Gettysburg Address titled "A New Birth of Freedom." He argued that the nation's might lay not in arms but its spirit and higher purpose. He noted that the Pledge's sentiments could be those of any nation, that "there was something missing in the pledge, and that which was missing was the characteristic and definitive factor in the American way of life." He cited Lincoln's words "under God" as defining words that set the United States apart from other nations.

President Eisenhower had been baptized a Presbyterian very recently, just a year before. He responded enthusiastically to Docherty in a conversation following the service. Eisenhower acted on his suggestion the next day and on February 8, 1954, Rep. Charles Oakman (R-Mich.), introduced a bill to that effect. Congress passed the necessary legislation and Eisenhower signed the bill into law on Flag Day, June 14, 1954.[12]

The phrase "under God" was incorporated into the Pledge of Allegiance June 14, 1954, by a Joint Resolution of Congress amending §7 of the Flag Code enacted in 1942.[12]

When Docherty’s sermon was published in 1958,[13] President Eisenhower took the opportunity to write to Dr. Docherty with gratitude for the opportunity to once again read the sermon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance

There is a to long didn't read at the end.

I'd just like to point some things out. First off, the founding fathers were not Christians, they were deists and atheists.

From the Treaty of Tripoli: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen."

And now for some Thomas Jefferson quotes:

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

"I am for freedom of religion, & against all maneuvres to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another."

Now, using "In God We Trust" as an argument is preposterous. It didn't become the nation's motto until 1956 during the Red Scare. For a national motto, it sure alienates a lot of citizens. Is it proof that the nation was founded on Christian ideals? Absolutely not. Majority/mob rule does not make something right.

While I don't agree that saying a certain phrase should be banned, don't go crying discrimination about it when Christians have held a political majority since the beginning of this country and have had their way with almost everything. People should be free to say Merry Christmas if they so choose, but don't act like it's a God-given right that people should accept it because you're in the majority.

tl;dr: You can't stop students from Saying Merry Christmas, but you have no right to make them celebrate religious or other religions practices / holidays in PUBLIC school.

Francis Bellamy was born in Mt. Morris, New York and raised in Rome, New York. He graduated from the University of Rochester where he delivered the commencement address. He wrote the "Pledge of Allegiance" in 1892 for a Boston magazine called "The Youth’s Companion." The "Companion" was a widely read family journal aimed at youngsters with a circulation of about 500,000. The owners of the magazine were Daniel Ford and James Upham, members of the socialist movement called Nationalism. Their joint plan was to transform America by transforming America’s schools. Part of that vision was a flag and a pledge of allegiance in every classroom. They tapped their mentor- Baptist minister, Francis Bellamy, to write the pledge.

Bellamy was a cousin of Edward Bellamy, founder of the Nationalism movement and writer of "Looking Backward" a Utopian vision of Boston’s future. Francis was also a Nationalist and vice-president of the Society of Christian Socialists. The Baptist Church revoked his ministry in 1891 because of his socialist activities.

From 1888 to 1892 Ford and Upham set about completing their vision by selling flags to 26,000 schools. Their intent was to culminate the project by marking the 400th anniversary of Columbus Day in October 1892 with a nationwide school celebration that included their flags and their pledge. Congress, President Benjamin Harrison and the National Education Association endorsed their efforts. Their original pledge, penned by Bellamy read:

"I pledge allegiance to my flag and the Republic for which it stands—One nation indivisible—with liberty and justice for all."

The salute that went along with its recitation was a vertically raised right arm.

The National Flag Conference in Washington, D.C. adopted the pledge in 1923 making a slight alteration in the original wording: "my flag" became "the flag of the United States of America." It was felt that certain immigrant children might equate "my flag" to the flag of their former homeland.

Americanism was a common theme in the post World War I era. Both the American Legion and the Ku Klux Klan embraced Americanism's icons, the flag and pledge. During this period Klan political influence was potent. In Oregon the Klan backed successful legislation requiring Catholics to attend public schools. The Supreme Court overturned that law. Prior to U. S. involvement in World War II, groups in this country sympathetic to the National Socialist movement (Nazis) in Germany emphasized the pledge and flag in their activities.

Congress officially recognized the pledge in 1942. The following year the Supreme Court ruled that public school students could not be forced to recite it. Animosity toward Nazism grew when Hitler declared war on the United States in 1941. The raised right arm salute, identical to the Nazi salute, soon fell in disfavor. Only a few regional groups remained adherents to the original salute.

During the Cold War era the Knights of Columbus spearheaded a drive to add a note of religious conviction to the pledge. The rationale was that America needed to distance itself from Communism and atheism. They recommended adding the words, "under God," to the pledge. National paranoia over nuclear war prompted President Dwight David Eisenhower to promote the inclusion of the religious reference.

Congress approved the addition of "under God," in 1954. Prior to signing the law, President Eisenhower announced, "In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future…"

Attention to the pledge ebbed in the 1970's. Public schools that enforced the pledge were sued by students not wanting to recite it. Eventually many schools dropped the pledge from their routine rather than make allowances for students who would not participate. Interest in the pledge was re-awakened in the late 1980's by Republican Presidential candidate George H. Bush who incorporated flags and the pledge in his campaign. Flags in general became a recurrent theme for conservative politicians and the religious right.

On June 26, 2002, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, San Francisco, ruled that the pledge’s reference to God violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. Being forced to listen to others make the pledge creates an "unacceptable choice between participating and protesting," the appeals court said.

The suit was brought against Elk Grove Unified School district by an Atheist, Michael Newdow, on behalf of his daughter, a student at the school. The Becket Fund, a religious rights group was party to the case and the 2007 appeal. Named as amicus curiae: Defendants-Appellants, Patrick T. Gillen, Ann Arbor, Michigan, for the Thomas More Law Center, all 50 States; the Pacific Justice Institute; the American Legion; the National Legal Foundation; the Thomas More Law Center; the Foundation for Moral Law; Los Angeles County; Rex Curry; the Appignani Humanist Legal Center; the Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc.; American Atheists Inc.; the Madison-Jefferson Society; the Secular Coalition for America; the Atheists and Other Freethinkers, Humanist Association of Las Vegas and Southern Nevada, Agnostic and Atheist Student Association, Las Vegas Freethought Society; and the Humanist Community, Humanists of Houston, and the Humanist Association of the Greater Sacramento. The ACLU is not named nor any groups affiliated with the Democratic Party.

The San Francisco court determined, "Although students cannot be forced to participate in recitation of the pledge, the school district is nonetheless conveying a message of state endorsement of a religious belief when it requires public school teachers to recite, and lead the recitation of, the current form of the pledge."

The U. S. Supreme Court ruled on appeal that Newdow's claim was invalid as he did not have custody of his daughter.

On October 8, 2002, the House of Representatives passed a resolution to legitimize the religious endorsement in the Pledge of Allegiance. The Senate had passed a similar version some weeks before. President George W. Bush signed the Pledge bill into law in November of 2002.

In 2006, a Florida case before federal district court ruled that a 1942 state law requiring students to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The school district was ordered to pay $32,500 to a student who chose not to say the Pledge and was ridiculed and called "unpatriotic" by a teacher.

In 2009, a Maryland teacher berated and had school police remove a 13-year-old girl for refusing to recite the pledge. The student's mother, assisted by the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland, sought and received an apology from the teacher. Maryland state law and the school's student handbook prohibit forced recitation of the Pledge.

On March 11, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance in the case of Newdow v. Rio Linda Union School District. In a 2–1 decision, the appellate court ruled that the words were of a "ceremonial and patriotic nature" and did not constitute an establishment of religion. Judge Stephen Reinhardt dissented, writing that "the state-directed, teacher-led daily recitation in public schools of the amended 'under God' version of the Pledge of Allegiance... violates the Establishment Clause of the Constitution."

On November 12, 2010, in a unanimous decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston affirmed a New Hampshire lower court ruling, the Pledge's reference to God doesn't violate students' rights. A U. S. Supreme Court appeal was denied in 2011.

It's always muslims bitching about religion, but take a look at how intolerant muslims are to christianity in muslim dominant countries. We have catered to muslims far too long, if you don't like it here, get the hell out.
Stop letting the ACLU make policy.

Congress approved the addition of "under God," in 1954. Prior to signing the law, President Eisenhower announced, "In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future…"
Hmmm, this wouldn’t be pertaining to the colonialists who escape persecution in England for not following the Catholic beliefs and worship their own way?

You're right frank! If we let the Muslims have rights, they would ruin the constitution!

/sarcasm

cj, I call it like I see it. no sarcasm.
When one religion claims their rights are beig infringed upon, our gov't. takes the rights of another religion away. A really good example was the Law Pelosi pushed on to the FCC about equal air time.
Rather than allow low ratings, most networks would discontinue religious programming so the atheists wouldn't get equal time.

You and I learned a totally different history. It wasn't the Catholics persecuting the Puritans.
Puritans

When Elizabeth replaced Mary as queen, she re-established Protestantism as England's official religion. Some Protestants thought that the Anglican Church was still too much like the Roman Catholic Church . These people became known as Puritans. Some of the things Puritans complained about included: ministers wearing surplices (loose, white garments); people kneeling while taking Communion; ornaments, paintings and stained glass windows in churches; the playing of organ music during services and the celebrations of saints' days.

Puritans, deeply influenced by the writings of John Calvin, also disliked the power that the bishops had in the church. For example, many Puritans disapproved of bishops appointing church ministers. Instead, they suggested that ministers should be elected by the people who attended church services.

Elizabeth resisted these changes as she saw the Puritans as a threat to monarchical government. She feared that Puritans who complained about the wealth and power of bishops would eventually say the same thing about kings and queens. In time, the type of Protestant church established by Elizabeth in England became known as the Anglican church.

The Puritans were happy when in 1603 James Stuart, the king of Scotland, also became king of England. James was a Presbyterian and under his rule many of the reforms that Puritans favoured had been introduced in Scotland. However, it soon became clear that James intended to continue with Elizabeth's religious policies.

When James died in 1625 he was replaced by his son Charles I. The Puritans became very angry when Charles married Henrietta Maria, a Catholic princess. They also became worried when Catholic lords began to be given important posts in Charles' court. As a result of these policies large numbers of Puritans emigrated to North America.

In 1633 Charles appointed William Laud as Archbishop of Canterbury. Laud soon began to introduce changes. For example, he ordered that the wooden communion table should be replaced by a stone altar. This area was also separated from the congregation by wooden railings. He also insisted that ministers should display candles and ornaments.

The Puritans claimed that Laud was trying to make English churches look like those in Catholic countries. When Puritans complained about these reforms. Laud had them arrested. In 1637 John Bastwick, Henry Burton and William Prynne had their ears cut off for writing pamphlets attacking Laud's views.

During the Civil War religion was an important factor in deciding which side people supported. The king's persecution of Puritans meant that most members of this religious group supported Parliament, whereas most Anglicans and Catholics tended to favour the royalists.

Puritanism was strong among the troops of the New Model Army and after defeating the Royalist army they expected to be rewarded. Most members of Parliament were Presbyterians. These men were willing to share power with the king. Presbyterians also had strong feelings on religion. They disapproved of other Puritan groups such as the Anabaptists, Quakers and Congregationalists and wanted them suppressed.

The other major group were called the Independents. They tended to be followers of the religious groups that the Presbyterians wanted to suppress. The Independents argued for a policy of religious toleration. Some Independents also wanted to bring an end to the monarchy.

The Independents had a strong following in the parliamentary army. Afraid of their power, Presbyterian members of the House of Commons tried to disband the army. The soldiers were furious, especially as Parliament made no effort to pay them the wages that were due to them. The army decided to take action. The Presbyterians were expelled from Parliament.

The Independents now passed a series of new laws. The monarchy, the House of Lords and the Anglican church were abolished. Lands owned by the royal family and the church were sold and the money was used to pay the parliamentary soldiers. The Independents also kept their promise regarding religious toleration. People were no longer fined for not attending their local church. However, everyone was still expected to attend some form of religious worship on Sundays.

Although the House of Commons continued to meet, it was the army that controlled England. In December 1653, the army decided that Oliver Cromwell should become England's new ruler. Some officers wanted him to become king but he refused and instead took the title Lord Protector of the Commonwealth. However, Cromwell had as much power as kings had in the past. When the House of Commons opposed his policies in 1655, he closed it down.

Cromwell now imposed military rule. England was divided into eleven districts. Each district was run by a Major General. The responsibilities of these Major-Generals included maintaining order, collecting taxes, granting poor relief and imposing Puritan morality. In some districts bear-baiting, cock-fighting, horse-racing and wrestling were banned. Betting and gambling were also forbidden. Large numbers of ale-houses were closed and fines were imposed on people caught swearing. In some districts, the Major-Generals even closed down theatres.

The Puritans lost control of government after the Restoration in 1660. However, the vast majority of members of House of Commons remained loyal Protestants. When Charles II suspended acts of Parliament that punished Roman Catholics, Parliament passed the Test Acts in 1673. This act required all government officials to swear an oath that they were Protestants.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/STUpuritans.htm

As a side note, the King or Queen of Great Britain may not be Catholic.

The King or Queen of Great Britain are most assuredly not Catholic since they are the head/heads of the Anglican Church.

With the onset of the season of good will toward all, Mr. Woodworth, Jr has managed to let his feelings be known about progressives; liberals; Catholics; etc. I always like a guy with an open mind. lol.

It's absolutely ridiculous that this is even an issue. Every year it gets worse.
Many people need to realize that America was actually founded as a Christian nation, whether they like it or not. However, in the spirit of Christianity, America has not excluded people of other religious beliefs from coming to live in this great Republic.
The unfortunate thing lately is the fact that "political correctness" is a major driving-force in the downfall of this nation, and it's continued acceptance is what will finally destroy us for good.

People that live here that are not Christians need to spend a bit of time wrapping their small minds around one basic principle: Our Constitution guarantees you the "Freedom OF Religion", but it does NOT guarantee you "Freedom FROM Religion". As a result, you have two choices:
1- You can accept it, pay attention to what you yourself want to do, and quit trying to ram your ideas down the throats of everyone else, and finally- Get over it, or
2- You can keep pushing your politically-correct agenda upon everyone else and watch as America collapses from within. God will NOT bless a nation that doesn't acknowledge Him, and that is the truth even if you don't believe in Him. The only proof you'll need is the inevitable collapse that WILL happen if you all stay this course, like it or not...

@John Stone: Everything you just said is absolutely incorrect. Except for who god blesses, that's completely a matter of opinion. Happy Thanksgiving.

Black Thursday evening is wonderful. It allows the one percent to prevent the heathens from having a few beers, stuffing their belly and falling asleep on the couch until morning. Instead Thanksgiving will have to start at 4 a.m. and everyone who drinks will be slammed by 9 a.m. and dinner will happen at 10 a.m. so they can pass out at noon, get up at 8 and go to work at ten. I wish I could say I've never shopped at a big box store but there are getting to be fewer and fewer choices. That's the true meaning of the marketing ploy invented by the 1%, called Christmas. Easter is for Chocolate Sales and Restaurants, peoples religious beliefs were just the facillitator that let them brainwash and scam the general public into over consumption, waste and a taste for greed. I should have invented Scientology, I guess I need to get to work and start making stuff up for my future believers. I'm a Georgist of the First Order of Richardson circa 2011 join me in my quest for eternal peace on earth and goodwill towards men.

@John, Explain the treaty of Tripoli signed in 1797, this is the opening line.

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Thanks Ms McManis, I have nothing against Catholics just to let you know especially since, I am marrying one. I have a very open mind but, when people tell me I have to accept things because, we do not want to hurt feelings. Great examples, I do not believe in gay marriages or soldiers able to be openly gay in the military. If, man was met to be with man then why have woman? I rather not serve in a fox hole with someone I know is gay. Gays claim they cannot help being gay that, it is an illness the way they are. They choose that life style rather then find help. It is a mental and physical breakdown. I am not saying gays are not people because, they are. I just do not believe I should be forced to accept their lifestyle. Heck, lets just accept murderers because, they are people who help with population control.

BTW, I am glad you are totally oblivious to failures of this government. I hold left and right wingers alike. I bet you are still a big supporter of Obama. What a joke he turn out to be, he has failed this country big time. Jimmy Carter is no longer the worst democrat in my life time.

So John if homosexuals chose to be homosexual when did you choose to be straight?

"I have a very open mind but......"
Whenever I hear that, the little hairs on the back of my neck start to tingle.
Happy Thanksgiving to you, John Woodworth, Jr. and to all who read or participate on this site.

Well John Jr as you arent gay that means you arent qualified to make any kind of judgement on what they should or should not be able to do. As far as gays in the miliatry and your preference not to serve with them. Obviously you have never served as gay or straight it doesnt have an effect on the skills or quality of a persons performance of their military duty and when your in a foxhole your arent thinking about a man or womans sexual preference you are depending on them being able bodied and capable soldier or sailor ready to fight the enemy or help protect and save a fellow wounded soldier.

Open your eyes and stop exaggerating you dont have to accept a lifestyle to show it a modicum of civility and respect. I am straight and have many gay friends, I dont agree with their lifestyle and they know it but I can still interact and show them some respect and civility.

How the heck did this get to be a gay rights/gay marriage discussion? Can we have a discussion on social issues and not have it resort to gay rights (even though science indicates that homosexuality is not a disease and occurs in over 400 species and homophobia occurs in only one). Who's got the over/under that abortion will come up next? I'll start a pool.

You too Bea McManis, I wish your family and you a very Happy Thanksgiving. God Bless.

Well Kyle I am force to accept homosexual is okay. I do not believe in it and should not have to accept an immoral act. Beside being straight is how God meant us to be. Otherwise if a man stuck his tool into another man arse, then more than crap would be coming out. Like I stated, I know gay are people too and do contribute to society but, this doesn't meant I have to accept homosexuality. Another example of this being forced on society, people are losing their job or being persecuted because, they do not want to honor an immoral act such as gay marriage. Marriage is meant to be between a man and woman. Yes, I served this nation and have served four tours in Iraq and getting ready for my first in Afghanistan. So, you can have your freedoms and your securities. So, piss off on that note.

Heck, that is what's wrong with society. We given an inch to so much and let immoral acts take a mile. Look at mothers that let their daughters dress like tramps because, their daughters tell mommy what they want. Sex is so glorified that relationships are based on that rather then know someone at a personal level. Music, movies, reality television shows focus on sex. So, Kyle open your eyes to truth.

So John, I guess you assume tolerance is a one way street.

John,

Just a quick response to your line where you stated: "Our Constitution guarantees you the "Freedom OF Religion", but it does NOT guarantee you "Freedom FROM Religion".

Actually... you're wrong to some extent, especially in regards to a school (which if everyone will remember is where this started). The First Amendment does guarantee both freedom of speech and freedom of religion. But the establishment clause contained within the First Amendment guarantees that no religion, or lack thereof, will be promoted by the government over another. As a school is an entity of the government/public, students who are there are guaranteed to be protected "FROM" religion while within the school walls, especially since the law oftens refers to the concept of students being a "captive" audience.

The problem with the First Amendment is also what makes it great. Do people have the right to Freedom of Speech and Religion? Yes. But everyone has that right. Anyone arguing that Christmas should be a part of the school culture is also arguing that every other religion (including Muslim, Wicca, Satanism, etc.) should/could also play a role in our schools. It also means that non-religions (usually marked as atheist or agnostic) should play a part (I'm sure a teacher wishing a student "Merry fake-savior's birthday" would go over really well... but then again, we do have freedom of speech!).

I've never seen the idea that teachers (including myself) shouldn't wish students "merry Christmas" as an attack on Christianity/faith/religion so much as knowing that as a teacher I serve a varied population of students, and why would I want to possibly make one of them uncomfortable by saying it? And maybe nobody would be uncomfortable, but on the chance it bothered them I wouldn't do it. Now, of course, someone is going to want to jump all over that and say "what happens to our youth if we avoid all of the conversations that might bother them?". The truth is, we don't, and we can't avoid those conversations in all cases. But as a teacher I have control of this one. I can say a more generic "happy holidays" (or in my case what I normally say, which is "have a nice break") and my students still know what I mean. And guess what? I haven't waged war on Christmas, attacked family values, or dishonored our country in any way.

Well John Jr if you bothered to read all of the statement I posted, no one is forcing you to accept homosexuality, as I said you dont have to accept to treat those who practice it with a little respect and civility. I dont really like people from certain religions but that doesnt stop me from treating them with civility and some respect when I interact with them.

And since we want to base things on truth John Jr. I'd like to point out that NO ONE has been fired or persecuted for not recognizing gay marriage. Those people decided to make a stand and NOT do their job with regards to gay marriage. If I work at a gas station pumping gas and decide that I will not fill the tanks of the elderly because I feel the are a danger on the road. I would expect to be fired for not doing my job, which is what these people chose.

I do agree however that society as a whole has given way too much inches. But I am also aware that music, movies and do focus on immorality but they arent reality, any more than a movel is. And dont get me started on reality television which is very inappropriately named its as far from reality as it can get. Its a show for entertainment purposes and its content dictated as such.

(Sorry if I offended any elderly drivers it was only meant as metaphor)

Frank, you are confusing the "Fairness Doctrine" and "equal time." The Fairness Doctrine was in force from the beginning of television broadcasting in 1949 until 1987. It required broadcasters to present topical and provocative programming which covered diverse viewpoints. With the advent of cable programming, it was felt sufficient opportunity for varied viewpoints was accomplished. Equal time is wholly applicable to political opponents. The statute has been in existence since radio-days in the late 1920s. It applies to balanced campaign coverage, ad rates and censorship.

In 2005 Louise Slaughter cosponsored an effort to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. In 2008 Pelosi (also Tom Harkin, Bill Clinton, Debbie Stabenow and Jeff Bingaman) advocated similarly. It was vigorously opposed by conservatives. To date, no fairness statute has been passed into law.

Kyle, how many species would be extinct if any aboard Noahs Ark were gay?

Frank how is what might have happened during the Time of Noah relavent to anything we are discussing here. Its a very stupid question. But I will answer it....

There were no gay species aboard Noah's ark because if they were gay then they were sinners and part of the populace God was punishing by flooding the earth in the first place.

CM, whatever the laws intention, or origins, it forces the communications industry to adapt by discontinuing programming as to avoid allowing equal airtime for programming, which quite frankly, sponsors do not support.
It shakes out to be a lose, lose, proposition.

Kyle, thanks for your judgemental answer, it is exactly what I was looking for.

Actually, Frank, if the Fairness Doctrine were in effect, corporate-owned media would be obligated to air news that conflicts with the editorial slant of owners and advertisers. ...Anyone remember Edward R. Murrow?

I've made this point before, addressing the lack of third-party and low-polling candidate presence in both debates and coverage and the options for public-funded campaigns. The airwaves may be public, but access to them is monopolized by private interest. That inconsistency represents a conflict of interest. While the media is regularly panned as liberal-biased, the reality is that the media is corporate-biased. The corporate-biased media, compounded by the corporate-bias in campaign financing, the corporate-bias in the candidate selection process and the corporate-bias in PACs and lobbying groups; the slice of pie left to We the People is a stingy collection of crumbs.

Kudos to the U. S. Supreme Court for assigning citizenship to corporations and construing money and free speech. ...Not!

Corporations are the proud owners of our dysfunctional republic. We blame the puppets and ignore the corporate string-pullers- "...pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

When you add to this scenario the corporate bailouts, the dearth of convictions for corporate malfeasance, corporate ownership of U. S. public and personal debt, BTAs, CRA, TARP, EESA, the average citizen would be better-off strapped in a chair, bare feet dangling in a nest of copperheads, holding an electric toaster, bucket of water overhead, a loaded pistol aimed at both temples, facing a TV playing Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul advocating that the lower tax brackets shoulder a larger share of tax burden. ...Think back two years, these same yahoos were advocating corporate owned public schools.

If they actually put this stuff on TV, it would likely be called, "The Twilight Zone."

What was judgemental about my answer Frank. It comes striaght from the Bible, Obviously God was the Judge and he carried out his punishment on the whole world with the exception of Noah and the animals on his ark. Do you really think God would have gathered the gay species to Noah to be saved? Now what would that say about God's viewpoint on the sin of homosexual relations? The only other logical conclusion is that they like the wicked people were left to persih in the floods. There really no judgement on my part on that rather just a logical conclusion that any Christian might reasonably come to.

Well Kyle if, read my post I do not agree with gay marriage and I think it better for them and us that they remain in a closet in the military. I do not feel that society should be forced to accept gay marriage. None of us live without some sin but, why should I or anyone else have to accept an immoral act such as homosexuality.

You are right as far as people making a stanch against this at their jobs but, why fire someone who doesn't want to allow an immoral act. You not filling a gas tank is not classifed as an immoral act it is just being a arse. I do not hate gays, as long as they do not bother me. I do hate that they want society to accept their lifestyle as normal. Now if, someone was harassing, assaulting or just mean spirited then find fire them but, not for standing up to their moral beliefs. I have a gay cousin but, never has my cousin told me to accept their lifestyle. I still love my cousin because, family is family.

Reality TV is not always reality, it is drama and people worst coming out. So, you are right as far as calling it "reality tv." It is entertainment because, slowly these things have been glorified as normal.

I treated muslims while oversea with respect, even though it was people from their country that killed my friends. I do not like it when they try to preach Islam on me either. I do not accept that and I do not see anyone trying to force me to accept it. As matter of fact, one did try and I failed to listen to him. He insulted my religion, my country and my family. Funny thing is I did not kick his arse but, I did speak his god's name and him and spitted on the ground and slammed my boot on it and grinded it into the ground. Was I wrong or right for doing that? I do know that it had more of an effect on him than, slamming him into the ground.

Kyle, if you like to read buy or signed out this book. It is just interesting reading. The book is called "Black Banner" by Ali Soufan.

BTW, sorry to all for pulling this way off the subject matter of the article.

Bea McManis, I hope you had a very Happy Thanksgiving. My sister did it this year so, my Mum's stuffing was not on the table. It was still good to be with the family.

I hope everyone had a Great Thanksgiving.

BTW, sorry to all for pulling this way off the subject matter of the article.

Bea McManis, I hope you had a very Happy Thanksgiving. My sister did it this year so, my Mum's stuffing was not on the table. It was still good to be with the family.

I hope everyone had a Great Thanksgiving.

Kyle, sorry, My post should have been directed to Dan, my scroll lock is malfunctioning causing pages to jump all over the place. Time to buy a new mouse.
JW.Jr, I too do not have a pro or con stance on gays as long as they leave me alone. They will be judged by God, not me.
But when it comes to muslims, I can't agree with any religion that calls me an infidel because I don't believe or follow their theology. My opinion is that Islam is a terrorist organization, and should not be allowed any benefits of freedom of religion as outlined in the bill of rights.
This opinion will most definately get me labeled as a bigot,so be it.

Frank, I do not see you as being a bigot. You have validations on why you feel that way. Heck there is a lot of Constitional Rights given to people who should not fall under. Terrorist down in Gitmo, illegal aliens, etc... Read my last entry under the Christian Nation poll.

This is getting stupid. December 25 is a school holiday celebrating the birth of Christ. If they are going to be politically correct, are they going to give kids islamic holidays off? as well as other ethnic holidays? Another thing is why are we getting school board information so late. The Batavia City School board lists its agenda and results of school board meetings on the school district web site, but it takes awhile to get the most recent school board meeting notes. In todays technology, we should get this information during the same week. I feel its the responsibility of the school board to get this information out as soon as possible. Am I correct? It is our right.