Twitter Bans the Star of David

Twitter Bans the Star of David

Twitter is locking the accounts of users who display the Star of David in their profile image or header, deeming it “hateful imagery.”

The London-based nonprofit Campaign Against Antisemitism said several Twitter users have contacted them recently to report that their accounts had been locked because various images of the Star of David violated the social media platform’s “rules against posting hateful imagery,” the Jerusalem Post reported.

Twitter has been aggressively banning accounts of many types over the past four months. Twitter also banned thousands of accounts tied to QAnon, a group Twitter says falsely promotes that President Trump is fighting human trafficking.

In defending itself Twitter claims to be stopping hate speech.

“You may not use hateful images or symbols in your profile image or profile header. As a result, we have locked your account,” Twitter wrote to the users.

The Post reported the offending images “ranged from a white Star of David in a graffiti style, to a superimposition of the modern blue star on the flag of Israel spliced with the yellow star Jews were forced to wear by the Nazis, to a montage of yellow stars.”

The jump from mass banning pro-Trump individuals and groups to banning Jews is a big one, however. The very hate speech Twitter says they are trying to avoid is actually what they are guilty of.

Note that what Twitter is doing is perfectly legal. As a private entity the can set whatever rules they want on their platform. There are no first amendment rights on social media.

But it is a bad sign and a dangerous move. After all, Twitter is a platform that has consistently lost money. Dramatic and far reaching actions such as this will no doubt have consequences determined by the free market and investors.

Twitter users, naturally, are outraged:


Why is this applicable to Christmas?

You honestly don’t think this can’t happen to you?

Elf Trouble in Boston Schools

Elf Trouble in Boston Schools

Such a sad tale of woe. A Boston-area parent, Deborah Seri, logged a complaint with the Superintendent of schools in Milford, Massachusetts because her daughter was exposed to an Elf on the Shelf in her classroom.

“My daughter was the only one in the class who didn’t celebrate Christmas,” Seri said. “It made her feel awkward; it made her feel like she was the only one.”

So the school board responded by promising to take a look at district policy regarding Christmas decorations, symbols, and displays in public schools.

This comes only after having changed the policy just last summer. Among the new restrictions: Religious symbols or displays were not permitted in public spaces, in spaces visible from the outside of the school, or on teacher-generated materials, except those related to curriculum on religion or culture.

That Elf on the Shelf, you know, is such a world-wide religious symbol.

Now they are going at it again this summer. And nobody, it seems, is happy.

Gee, we wonder why.

Last Christmas, staff in the school district was paranoid about what they could and could not do during the holidays. Cafeteria workers at a high school circulated a petition in December to fight for holiday decorations in the cafeteria — annual decorations that were now prohibited. So many people complained, in fact, that the school board promised to take up the policy again this summer.

The district has come up with an even more restrictive policy proposal this time around.

Committee member Scott Harrison said during the May meeting that Milford is a town of religious diversity and that a policy like the one facing approval is not inclusive of minority religions, but rather exclusive of all religions.

“This seems to be a solution in search of a problem. I understand that there has been, at least to my knowledge, a complaint that has come through, and I get that and we want to be respectful,” he said. “This seems to have a lot of exclusionary language that goes along with it.”

The policy, Harrison said, is too open to interpretation about what constitutes a religious symbol or religious holiday.

In other words, all anyone has to do is claim that ANY symbol favors a certain religion — and all hell will break loose. Even though the Supreme Court has said time and time again that Santa, snowmen, Christmas trees and other such iconic elements of Christmas are, in fact, secular the new policy in Milford would make anything — the color RED — an offense.

People on both sides of the argument do agree — this policy would effectively ban Santa Claus.

And that would push Milford to the forefront of the War on Christmas in 2017.

Someone would take that to court.

And Milford would lose in court.

Watch how fast things change once the threat of lawsuits and money gets involved.

Then you’ll see real principled action.

It happens every time.

Indiana Town Cowers from Bullying ACLU

Indiana Town Cowers from Bullying ACLU

It is a familiar Christmas story in America: a community adopts a symbol of the season — a Nativity, a tree or something similar — then the city gets threatened. Fearing a costly public battle city officials quickly give in. This time it is Knightstown, Indiana and the symbol is a cross atop a city Christmas tree. The ALCU calls that “establishment of a state religion”.

According to several media reports Knightstown resident Joseph Tompkins argues that the Christian symbol on display in the Knightstown town square violates the First Amendment. The lawsuit is seeking for removal of the cross, monetary damages and declaration that the cross display violates the First Amendment.

Tompkins, and the ACLU, agree that the cross is offensive and “forcing” religion on those who don’t want it. What they want is money and to force EVERYONE in Knightstown to believe as Tompkins believes. In essence, if this case is won by the ACLU Knighstown will be forced to be atheist.

Nobody will see it that way, of course.

The community has responded as you would expect. Crosses are suddenly everywhere.

But this will end as it always ends. The cross comes down. There will be no court case. And yet another sad chapter in misreading the Constitution will be written.

The suit says Tompkins “is forced to come into direct and unwelcome contact” with the cross on top of the tree as he drives through town. This, the suit says, has caused him “irreparable harm,” which can only be remedied by taking the cross down and paying Tompkins monetary damages.

The only “irreparable harm” comes from an elected City council that won’t stand up for itself and for the people it represents. They should counter sue for damages caused by all the publicity and take it to the ACLU. Hit them where they live — in the pocketbook.

It’s the American way.

When Did Santa Become a Religious Figure?

When Did Santa Become a Religious Figure?

For the second time this year Santa has been booted from a public school for being “too religious”. This time a high school in Hillsboro, Oregon sent its staff a memo stating that Santa wouldn’t be allowed:

We will not be holding a door decorating contest this year. You may still decorate your door or office if you like, but we ask that you be respectful and sensitive to the diverse perspectives and beliefs of our community and refrain from using religious-themed decorations or images like Santa Claus.

When did Santa Claus become religious? Do people pray to Santa? Is he some kind of prophet? Is he a savior, a god or even a member of the clergy?

The Supreme Court ruled way back in the 1980s that Santa Claus is a secular figure. That means he’s NOT religious.

St. Nicholas is a religious figure — but he was just a priest. Not a prophet, a savior or a pope. But Santa Claus is none of those things.

Santa Claus lives at the North Pole. He flies in a sleigh pulled by reindeer. I can’t believe we need to cover this stuff.

But this Oregon high school is no different than the South Carolina PTA board that banned Santa earlier this year — for the same “religious” reasons.

How much more evidence will you require to see that the phony “war on Christmas” is really just a war on religion?

South Carolina PTA Boots Santa for Being Religious

South Carolina PTA Boots Santa for Being Religious

Here we go: another absurd, ill-informed and sadly wrong PTA has kicked Santa Claus from school pictures at a public school in South Carolina.

The reason? Because they want kids of all religious backgrounds to be included in the pictures. Santa is being replaced by a “winter wonderland” scene.

Santa is religious?

Show me where Santa is in the Bible, will you? Tell me where Santa has ever given a sermon, said a prayer or uttered a religious thought.

The Supreme Court LONG AGO declared Santa — and Rudolph and Frosty and other characters of Christmas — SECULAR.

Don’t mistaken this for mere political correctness. This is BLATANT religious discrimination. What the PTA in this school is doing is saying “If it can be remotely associated with Christianity, we’ll ban it.” That’s what this is.

It isn’t a War on Christmas. It is a War on Christians.

Get this right. Pictures of the kids are not taken with Jesus. Not a cross either. For years they have done it with SANTA CLAUS. Now they are saying Santa is “too religious”.

That’s an attack, folks.

According to the media reports there have only been mixed reactions to this news.

We don’t believe that for one second. People should be OUTRAGED.