Christmas decorations banned in common areas at FGCU

[one...two...tree 2,762]

When you drive through Florida Gulf Coast University this holiday season, you won’t see any twinkling lights on Christmas trees, tongues of flames leaping from elaborate menorahs or brightly colored Kwanzaa decorations. No cherubim, seraphim or Stars of David, either.

In a memo to faculty and staff, FGCU President Wilson Bradshaw mandated that all public areas on campus remain undecorated throughout the holidays. Students, staff and faculty are free to display seasonal items expressing their personal beliefs in their own private living and work areas, he added.

“The fact of the matter is that everyone is welcome to express their beliefs,” Bradshaw said. “We’re not banning those expressions, but we’re a public institution doing a public business and we have to be sensitive to that.”

Bradshaw said legal limitations played a part in his decision, and he plans to form a workgroup with students and faculty to determine an appropriate stance on public holiday displays.

“Please know there is no attempt to suppress expression of the holiday spirit,” Bradshaw wrote in his memo.

Bradshaw said the fact that FGCU allowed public displays of Halloween decorations this year is irrelevant.

“Halloween is not a religious holiday,” he said. “I put Halloween in the same basket as St. Patrick’s Day and Valentine’s Day.”

The FGCU Staff Advisory Council (SAC) made a request on Monday to suspend any such ban on holiday decorating, stating that staff members are unsure of how to proceed with traditional FGCU celebrations. Dozens of anonymous comments accompanied a memo to Bradshaw urging him to reconsider. The comments ranged from being upset that Christmas music would not be played at the clock tower to saying the ban will hurt staff morale, which is already low considering recent budget cuts and salary increase fees.

“Last time I check Universities were supposed to be places where ideas were freely discussed and tolerance was not misconstrued from the tyranny of the few on the many,” wrote one SAC commenter. “FGCU don’t be a Grinch! Merry Christmas!”

http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2008/nov/25...ned-common-are/

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I'm not religious but all this does is piss off the bible nuts. It achieves no real purpose. There is a Christmas tree up on town property near where I live and you know what, it freakin' looks nice. Tear that stuff down and all you achieve is an ugly landscape and a bunch of pissed off wingnuts. ####### is the point?

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Why does everyone hate Christmas?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

When Christmas Was Banned in Boston

Outlawing the celebration of Christmas sounds a little extreme, but it happened. The ban existed as law for only 22 years, but disapproval of Christmas celebration took many more years to change. In fact, it wasn't until the mid-1800s that celebrating Christmas became fashionable in the Boston region.

The Puritans who immigrated to Massachusetts to build a new life had several reason for disliking Christmas. First of all, it reminded them of the Church of England and the old-world customs, which they were trying to escape. Second, they didn't consider the holiday a truly religious day. December 25th wasn't selected as the birth date of Christ until several centuries after his death. Third, the holiday celebration usually included drinking, feasting, and playing games - all things which the Puritans frowned upon. One such tradition, "wassailing" occasionally turned violent. The older custom entailed people of a lower economic class visiting wealthier community members and begging, or demanding, food and drink in return for toasts to their hosts' health. If a host refused, there was the threat of retribution. Although rare, there were cases of wassailing in early New England. Fourth, the British had been applying pressure on the Puritans for a while to conform to English customs. The ban was probably as much a political choice as it was a religious one for many.

"For preventing disorders, arising in several places within this jurisdiction by reason of some still observing such festivals as were superstitiously kept in other communities, to the great dishonor of God and offense of others: it is therefore ordered by this court and the authority thereof that whosoever shall be found observing any such day as Christmas or the like, either by forbearing of labor, feasting, or any other way, upon any such account as aforesaid, every such person so offending shall pay for every such offence five shilling as a fine to the county."

From the records of the General Court,

Massachusetts Bay Colony

May 11, 1659

Records indicate the first Christmas the Puritans celebrated in the new world passed uneventfully. Some of the new settlers celebrated Christmas while others did not. But the events of the second Christmas were documented by the group's governor, William Bradford. Sickness had wiped out many of their group, and for the first time they were facing hostility by one of the Native American tribes in the area. Bradford recorded that on the morning of the 25th, he had called everyone out to work, but some men from the newly arrived ship "Fortune" told him it was against their conscience to work on Christmas. He responded he would spare them "until they were better informed." But when he returned at noon, he found them playing games in the street. His response, as noted in his writings was: "If they made the keeping of it matter of devotion, let them kepe their houses, but there should be no gameing or revelling in the streets."

That second Christmas was the first time the celebration was forbidden in Massachusetts, but the ban didn't make it into the law books until several years later. As the settlement grew and more English settled in the area, tensions grew between the Puritans and British. The more pressure the English king exerted on the colonists, the more they resisted. In 1659, the ban became official. The General Court banned the celebration of Christmas and other such holidays at the same time it banned gambling and other lawless behavior, grouping all such behaviors together. The court placed a fine of five shillings on anyone caught feasting or celebrating the holiday in another manner.

"The generality of Christmas-keepers observe that festival after such a manner as is highly dishonourable to the name of Christ. How few are there comparatively that spend those holidays (as they are called) after an holy manner. But they are consumed in Compotations, in Interludes, in playing at Cards, in Revellings, in excess of Wine, in mad Mirth ..."

- Reverend Increase Mather, 1687

The ban was revoked in 1681 by an English-appointed governor Sir Edmund Andros, who also revoked a Puritan ban against festivities on Saturday night. But even after the ban was lifted, the majority of colonists still abstained from celebrations. Samuel Sewell, whose diary of life in Massachusetts Bay Colony was later published, made a habit of watching the holiday - specifically how it was observed each year. "Carts came to town and Shops open as is usual. Some, somehow, observe the day; but are vexed, I believe, that the Body of the People profane it, - and, blessed be God! no Authority yet to compell them to keep it," Sewell wrote in 1685.

http://masstraveljournal.com/features/bost...s-banned-boston

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I bet Christianity would be legal again if the Christians all decided they wanted to have public gay buttsecks.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

The Rolling Stones were banned in Boston back in the 70's too. Boston is too conservative, banning Christmas and the Stones. I don't know why we are considered a liberal state. The Republican's should love it here.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

Happy to announce our campus does not have Holiday ####### all over. This is a university, not a freaking mall.

[Darnell 8,480]

perhaps this was 'decided' from legal precedence, in prior court cases somewhere, and this person decided that the risk for sue-ing too large, check with the insurance company that carries their liability, and got some stern advice.

geez...

What a maroon !

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Happy to announce our campus does not have Holiday ####### all over. This is a university, not a freaking mall.

Christmas is a cultural and social thing, it doesn't just belong in malls.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Happy to announce our campus does not have Holiday ####### all over. This is a university, not a freaking mall.

Christmas is a cultural and social thing, it doesn't just belong in malls.

WWTPD?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

He'd kick your aѕs, ya damn hippie.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

He'd kick your aѕs, ya damn hippie.

...for excess of wine and mad mirth.

[Ban Hammer 14,665]

I'm not religious but all this does is piss off the bible nuts. It achieves no real purpose. There is a Christmas tree up on town property near where I live and you know what, it freakin' looks nice. Tear that stuff down and all you achieve is an ugly landscape and a bunch of pissed off wingnuts. ####### is the point?

get a chain saw and go after it. the aclu will defend you.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I'm not religious but all this does is piss off the bible nuts. It achieves no real purpose. There is a Christmas tree up on town property near where I live and you know what, it freakin' looks nice. Tear that stuff down and all you achieve is an ugly landscape and a bunch of pissed off wingnuts. ####### is the point?

get a chain saw and go after it. the aclu will defend you.

ACLU Defends Christian Students’ Anti-Islam Tshirts

Those people who think that the ACLU is a liberal organization that just uses the Constitution to promote its particular agenda might reconsider that opinion upon hearing about the recent activities of the ACLU of Florida. The organization is filing a lawsuit to support Christian students in the Alachua County School District who wore t-shirts with designs praising Christianity on the front of the shirts and the phrase “Islam Is Of The Devil” on the back.

When the students wore the shirts to school, there was no disruption of the ordinary school day. Yet, school officials banned students from wearing the shirts, even when new versions of the shirts were created that shortened the anti-Islam phrase to I.I.O.T.D.

The school district explained that shirts were banned because they were “offensive”. Yet, pro-religion messages on t-shirts have been allowed by the district. So, it seems that the schools allow only messages that praise religious beliefs, while banning messages that criticize religious beliefs – an unfairly skewed form of censorship.

http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archiv...-islam-tshirts/

[Chica Yeyé 41]

Happy to announce our campus does not have Holiday ####### all over. This is a university, not a freaking mall.

Christmas is a cultural and social thing, it doesn't just belong in malls.

Not for me it ain't.... we iz not participating in such faggotry