Burt Prelutsky wrote an essay about his feelings about Jews and Christmas. I strongly disagree with him and sent him an email, which I will share below.
Dear Mr. Prelutsky,
I read your article “Christmas in a Christian Nation: A Jewish Perspective” and found it to be very disappointing. It was flat, misguided and unreasonable.
I wrote about your article and another like it on my blog
A Lack of Common Sense- The Alleged War on Christmas
When A Fool Speaks
Maybe you’ll read what I wrote and agree, or maybe you will disagree with it. I hope that you change your mind, but will not be upset if you do not.
But I felt like I should respond to your opinion piece because I do not think that it is representative of all Jews, let alone a majority. And I certainly do not agree with most of the points you make.
” It is the ACLU, which is overwhelmingly Jewish in terms of membership and funding, that is leading the attack against Christianity in America. It is they who have conned far too many people into believing that the phrase â€œseparation of church and stateâ€ actually exists somewhere in the Constitution.”
I have a couple of problems with this statement. It is not supported by facts. I cannot say that your allegation about the faith of ACLU membership is accurate or that it is incorrect. But If I were to have an op-ed piece published I would want to be certain that it was factual and that my facts had been verified.
In regard to the second half about a separation of church and state there are issues there as well. To begin with the law of any land are subject to interpretation. All democratic governments operate under a principle that allows them to make laws that are necessary and proper.
In our own Constitution we have the “Elastic Clause” which says Congress has the right “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
The Framers inserted that into the Constitution because they knew that they could not foresee the future and all of the potential scenarios that could be raised.
If you want additional support for why your comment about the separation of church and state not being in the Constitution is immaterial we could discuss why the Constitution has amendments to it. But I really do not think that is necessary.
I won’t continue to belabor the points I already addressed, nor will I spend any more time picking apart your essay because I believe that two entries in my blog about the topic are sufficient.
I am however including this letter in my blog and invite you to respond there if you so choose. Thank you for your time, I appreciate it.