I've been elsewhere than HabitZone for a couple of days, myself.

When Rev. Al and Rev. Jesse are given as hard a time for polticking from the pulpit as Falwell is, I will have some confidence in the sincerity of the left.

That clears up why you began that post by invoking their names. Unfortunately, I can't speak to your point because I don't know how hard a time those two, and others like them, have been given by right-leaning commentators. I personally find the political stand of Falwell (and others like him) abhorrent, but that's just me. I'm not at all fond of the Rev. Sharpton, and think Jesse is way past his prime... but that's just me.

Free speech includes the right of clergy to make political statements from their respective pulpits - I probably don't need to remind you that much of the agitation for American Independence, the abolition of slavery, and other burning social issues before and since, was first spoken during sermons. Free speech also includes the right of others to criticize activist clergy.

When we once again admit that this is Christmas time, and not a 'winter holiday', I will begin to believe in the freedom of religion that is assured in the Constitution.

It's not exclusively Christmas time, Ed. It never was. Before a certain radical religious reformer was born in Judaea, this time of year - the Winter Solstice - was already a festival time. The Maccabees intentionally selected it for the celebration of Hanukkah to counteract the attractive pagan rites that already had hundreds of years of precedence. There's a persistent rumor (I haven't been able to verify, yet) that the Feast of the Nativity was placed at the same time for the same reason, since there's no clue in Gospel as to the time of year of that event. (cf. the widespread practice in the Roman Empire of Mithraism, a Persian religion which also marked the birth of their deity at the Winter Solstice).

If you think about it, you may find (as I have) that the contemporary tendency toward "winter holiday" appears mostly in the public schools, and has been a gradual -- one might say evolutionary -- reaction to charges of discrimination and suspicions of "establishment", as both the types of religious minorities and the numbers of their adherents have increased. Mary Anne has already addressed the issue in this thread: faced with such charges, and the inevitable backlash some parents have about their children being exposed to "false" religions, school districts have taken the route of caution. In other words, it is easier (and less expensive) to remove any religious symbolism than it is is to include all. I personally would be an inclusionist -- I think it's vital for people to learn about cultures other than their own -- but I've seen the difficulties that arise.

As to religious expression by elected office holders, I again point out the historical fact that nearly every President has made religious expressions.
As they are allowed to do by the Constitution.

Very true. And (to my knowledge) no one objects. There are ways that can be done without seeming to "establish" a particular religion. Ending a speech with "God Bless America" is not the same thing as ending one with "In Jesus' name, amen," or insisting (as some office-holders have) that "America is a Christian country".

Most Americans are religious, and they are not required to stop being religious when they are elected.
Nor are they required to be censored by a board to assure that their speech offers nothing that anyone would perceive as being 'religious' in content.

Also true - neither are they immune from criticism.

They are simply not permitted to create a state funded church.

They are also not permitted to speak from their office to the effect that their personal beliefs are correct and others' are not - nor are they permitted to countervene civil law with impunity, even if civil law countervenes their personal beliefs.

Nor should the state in anyway be permitted to censor the free excercise of religion inthe pubic square. Which is done daily in this country.

Daily? What free exercise of religion is being suppressed?

That some judge thinks they ahve the right to censor our free expression in the public square is an historical anaomally that should be ended asap.

"Historical anomaly" is an interesting choice of phrase. I don't want to make false inferences, so let me know if I'm wrong, but what I think you mean is "it didn't use to be this way". That's cultural evolution.

If (I'm guessing) you're talking about the "Ten Commandments in the courthouse" case(s) - a government building is not the same thing as a public square.

That the state is permitted to be biased against people on the basis of what they want to study in school is outrageous.
[ . . . ]
BTW, VA benefits have been paying for people to study theology for as long as those benfits have existed.
And that is perfectly constitutional as well.

I happen to agree with you about state scholarships for theology majors - and I didn't know that about GI college benefits. That'll be a useful precedent if there's any court action.

The imposition of secular censorship on this country should end.

There's a time and place for everything. Religious expression and instruction belong in a religious setting. When it occurs in a government setting, it risks the appearance of "establishment", especially to those citizens who do not adhere to that particular religion. The people have the right to a redress of grievances, and the courts have the power to determine what does and does not constitute "establishment". They've done so.

As I said above, it's unfortunate that certain governmental institutions (the public schools) have interpreted the court decisions by excluding rather than including . . . but it's understandable. Handed a can of worms, would you then reach for the can opener?

I cut this out of order to save it for last:

That a tiny group of extremists wish to censor the free expression of people is not historically unusual, but is rather sad.