Then there's this story in the Detroit News from yesterday about a homeowners' association that is demending the removal of the nativity scene from a homeowner's yard because it "offends" one of the other homeowners.....

When I read the headline, I guessed it was just an issue of tacky lawn decorations and that they wanted the whole display removed, but then I read the rest of the article. The complainant was specifically peeved by the nativity element - not the overall tackiness of the display.

Go figure.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051129/LIFESTYLE04/511290380&SearchID=73228064679708

REVISION:

The complainant said, "...[n]ot offended, but I take issue about advertising personal beliefs and interests by putting them on display whatever the belief or interest may be."

Word choice was inaccurate.....

The War on Christmas is decentralized, not a top-down conspiracy.

I find it amazing at how successful the anti-Christmas movement (or the pro-Christmas movement?) has been at convincing people that there is some huge group of folks that get offended when they see a Christmas tree, Nativity scene, or are wished a "Merry Christmas". I even heard Laura Bush referring to the White House "Holiday Tree", as if there were another holiday in December that uses a tree in its celebration.

"The War on Christmas is decentralized, not a top-down conspiracy."

So, it's being waged by small cells without any identifable control base? Sounds like Terrorism on Christmas....

1) I suppose, then, that we need a War on Terrorism on Christmas?

2) Even the ACLU (with which I have a love/hate relationship) has said that it's fine for cities to have Christmas Trees as opposed to Holiday Trees or whatever else they might be called, which is in line with most court decisions I'm familiar with. The ACLU might not like it, but they deal with it.

"The War on Christmas is decentralized, not a top-down conspiracy."

Makes it awfully easy to point a figner at some unidentified persons without actually having any concrete evidence that couldnt also be explained by businesses or individuals willinging deciding to generalize their December plans.

Also since when are Homeowners Associations a measuring stick for anything, other than as an exercise in reading (and understanding) the contracts you sign?

How depressing that even a season packed with opportunities to come together in the humble celebration of great lives, events, and ideas, that we should instead look for partisan or cultural battles to fight. Our American civilization has caught a very severe cold.

"Also since when are Homeowners Associations a measuring stick for anything, other than as an exercise in reading (and understanding) the contracts you sign?"

The association contract wasn't the trigger point - it was another homeowner's objection to specific content (i.e., the nativity scene) rather than to all lawn ornamentation (which would have been a stronger argument).

The result is that these individuals' freedom of expression (by display) is being attacked for objection to content, which is a violation of the family's Constitutional rights. That it is occurring during the Christmas season is indicative of the status of a national climate in which such attacks are more likely to succeed - kind of like getting an opportunistic virus in an already-weakened system......

"The association contract wasn't the trigger point"

Maybe not, but it is the leverage for action on the complaint, which means all of the other issues are moot. The association either agrees with the persons complaint or they are bound by a lowest common denominator clause in the contract.

Either way you are back to not complaining about the very agreement the family signed. You aren't losing any freedoms when you willingly sign them away.

Since a contract may be waived or modified by action or inaction, the question about what was objected to and on what basis is not only relevant, it may be dispositive.

Where there is a waiver by past practice, as may have occurred in this case by virtue of the association's allowing all of the lawn ornaments to be there until someone complained, and then you have the selected demand that they remove only those items that are deemed "offensive", you're no longer talking about contractual rights - you're talking about intent to stifle the content of someone's expression of religious belief.

In the context of the discussion about whether there is or is not a "war on Christmas", this was offered as illustrative of the factual basis for such a suggestion.

Along these lines...this was the funniest thing I saw the whole day yesterday.

"Since a contract may be waived or modified by action or inaction, the question about what was objected to and on what basis is not only relevant, it may be dispositive."

Maybe if this issue is taken before a court, but at the moment it appears to be before the HOA which isn’t really bound by anything more than whatever form of Robert's they wish to use that day.

"In the context of the discussion about whether there is or is not a "war on Christmas", this was offered as illustrative of the factual basis for such a suggestion."

Which is fine, but any examples might wish to avoid HOA references since they are notoriously finicky about what is and what is not in violation of their rules.

I'll put that at the top of my "to-do" list for today - combing the Internet for examples that don't have any extras....

Gotta love FOX, Balta. Happy Holy Days, everyone!

I'm still waiting for the ACLU to notice Nueces County, Texas. There's a Farm Road 666, and the county seat is Corpus Christi (named for the Catholic feast by that name).

Oh, my earlier comment can be stated better: the "War on Christmas" is a cultural meme.

Interesting update on the Detroit News article - the so-called "homeowners association" bylaws that were cited as the basis for the objection to the homeowner's nativity scene? Weren't!

"The board of directors of Singh Development, the builder of Tollgate Woods, may have misinterpreted subdivision bylaws by telling the Samonas that they needed permission for the lawn display and threatening a fine of $25 to $100 for failing to comply."

Apparently, the first letter was an error and that provisions of the bylaws do not apply to holiday or religious displays.

:)